Russiagate is where:
- Emailgate - Hillary Clinton broke the law by keeping classified emails on her servers, then deleting the evidence and lying about it.
- James Comey broke the law by botching her "investigation" and then letting her off.
- The Clinton Campaigns emails were allegedly hacked, so the Clinton Campaign blamed the hack on Russians colluding with Trump
- They paid the Russians for disinformation (fake evidence) called the Steele Dossier which alleged all sort of ties to the Russians -- but this was immediately and thoroughly debunked.
- The Deep State (CIA, FBI, etc), colluded with the Obama campaign to Frame Russia and Trump campaign, spied on the Trump campaign and shared it with Obama or the Press
- the FBI, Intelligence agencies, Adam Schiff (House Intel Committee) knew all along that (a) there was no Russian Collusion (b) there was illegal spying on the Trump campaign -- but they lied to the leftist Press about all of this so that they could undermine the election and the President.
- When Trump legally fired Comey for incompetence, Comey illegally leaked classified notes, in order to Press for the need for a special council to investigate Russia (despite knowing that the whole premise was false) to distract from the FBI's illegal spying on Trump -- in order to start the Mueller investigation
- The Mueller investigation was to find any evidence of Russian Collusion, despite the FBI knowing that Trump campaign had not colluded with Russia and there had never been any evidence to that. So Mueller started investigating and railroading Trump allies/associates based on Fake Charges, illegally obtained evidence (through illegal spying), or investigating them for things they did years before the campaign having nothing to do with Russa -- in order to distract from the FBI and DNC's dirty tricks.
The whole thing was a fraud perpetuated on the American people, by the FBI, DNC, Hillary and Obama campaigns, and their allies in the media, all to try #resist and #undermine a duly elected President. They hoped the Gish Gallop of disinformation on the front page -- with later back page retractions and apologies, would flim-flam their audience (low-information voters), into thinking there was cumulative circumstantial evidence. But the only hard evidence of malfeasance and crimes was against the Democrats and their media behaving badly.
|2019.03.22 Mueller Report|
The Mueller Report is out. I don't care if you like/dislike President Trump, I care whether people will defend the truth or perpetuate a lie. Soon we will be able to read the full report, but the summary is a smackdown: (a) there was no hint at collusion by Trump or his team, in fact they rebuffed attempts by the Russians. (b) without collusion there couldn't have been obstruction, but even if there had been, Trump wasn't close to obstruction (c) the media narrative has been a fraud (d) the media wasted 2,284 minutes, and 533,074 articles (245 million responses) to coverage of the fake narrative. The media doesn't admit their mistake and apologize to Trump and the public are not journalists following the facts, but polemics mad that someone shined the light of truth on their deception. And right on cue, a bunch of FakeNews, Democrat politicians, and Hollywood sheep try to spin this as it, "stops short of exonerating on obstruction", or shifting the narrative to Mueller's competence, Trump's guilt on something else, or anything other than their 2-year fraud. But all the outlets that championed it as the end of Trump, or shown for frauds. Expecially when they won't just apologize. more...
Russiagate : 7 items
Mueller Report - The Mueller Report is out. I don't care if you like/dislike President Trump, I care whether people will defend the truth or perpetuate a lie. Soon we will be able to read the full report, but the summary is a smackdown: (a) there was no hint at collusion by Trump or his team, in fact they rebuffed attempts by the Russians. (b) without collusion there couldn't have been obstruction, but even if there had been, Trump wasn't close to obstruction (c) the media narrative has been a fraud (d) the media wasted 2,284 minutes, and 533,074 articles (245 million responses) to coverage of the fake narrative. The media doesn't admit their mistake and apologize to Trump and the public are not journalists following the facts, but polemics mad that someone shined the light of truth on their deception. And right on cue, a bunch of FakeNews, Democrat politicians, and Hollywood sheep try to spin this as it, "stops short of exonerating on obstruction", or shifting the narrative to Mueller's competence, Trump's guilt on something else, or anything other than their 2-year fraud. But all the outlets that championed it as the end of Trump, or shown for frauds. Expecially when they won't just apologize.
Bruce Ohr - Bruce Ohr worked for the DOJ, and his wife (Nellie Ohr) was a Clinton advocate when Fusion GPS hired her as an independent contractor and Russia specialist, to conduct "research and analysis" of Donald Trump. So both Bruce and Nellie were working with Steele on the Dossier that the FBI/DOJ used to illegally get wiretaps to spy on the Trump campaign (they got a FISA warrant by misleading the court on the credibility of Steele and the information in the report).
Fast and Furious - Gunrwalking scandal with a side of perjury and obstruction. This was where BATF under Eric Holder was selling guns to Mexican drug cartels, failing to track them, and some Americans (including Brian Terry) were shot with said guns. The likely reason for doing this, was to encourage the narrative the administration had invented that Mexico's gun problems were because of the U.S., and the solution was more fascism (gun control in the U.S.). In truth it showed the corruption of the Obama Administration, as well as the incompetence in failing to track them. Republicans wanted an investigation, but "the most transparent administration ever" obstructed justice and gave Holder "executive privilege" to prevent the transparency he'd promised. They also lied and said this was a follow on to a much smaller 2007 effort during the Bush administration (called Wide Receiver): which had been done without President or Cabinet involvement, and had been shut down with the recommendation to never try anything this stupid again (which the Obama administration had ignored).
Memes-Russia - Russia, Russian Collusion, and Russiagate memes.
Michael Cohen -
Michael Cohen was a bit of a "fixer" for many famous people, but since Trump was a client, Robert Mueller did some investigation on highly questionable grounds, and was able to find enough evidence to hand it off to the NYC District Attorney to try to get Cohen to either sing (tell facts) or compose (invent them) on Trump, for a reduced sentence on things completely unrelated to Trump, Russia, Collusion, or election rigging. It turns out it worked, he was a dirtbag, and did many illegal or unethical things, and was more than happy to lie (we know of many). We just don't know if he is telling the truth or lying about Trump.
Obamagate - Obamagate is the correct name for Russiagate -- it was the greatest scandal and abuse of power in American History. It was where Obama operatives conspired to use a Fake Dossier as an excuse to spy on a duly elected President and his campaign/administration, and frame various members, in order to undermine the interests of the American people.
Trump: Russian Puppet -
What we know:
- Despite almost 2 years of investigating, there's no evidence of Trump's direct contact with the Russians. Certainly the business ties were tenuous, and efforts to have direct meetings were rebuffed for Candidate Trump.
- We have hard evidence of Hillary having direct contact with the Russians over Uranium One, which resulted in millions getting funned to the Clinton Foundation
- We hard evidence of Obama having direct contact with the Russians.
But the best we have on Trump is some weak contacts to some of the people in his campaign, who were often fired early, or whose meeting offers were rejected. Unlike deals closed by Hillary and Obama. And if he's a Russian asset, don't we think we'd see some evidence of it? The evidence we have is of the Hillary campaign conspiring to invent the excuse for why she lost, was because, "Russia", and her lapdogs in the media went where she pointed. That's far more plausible and far more evidence than of Trump being a Russian operative.
- 1 FAQ
- 1.1 Q: What is this Russia thing about?
- 1.2 Q: Did Russia hack our election?
- 1.3 Q: Did Russia "influence" our elections?
- 1.4 Q: Why did Russia interfere?
- 1.5 Q: What should we do about the Russian interference?
- 1.6 Q: What about the Podesta email hacks?
- 1.7 Q: What about Russian trolls, and Social Media?
- 1.8 Q: Is Collusion a crime?
- 1.9 Q: Did Trump or his campaign collude with Russia?
- 1.10 Q: Did Hillary, the DNC, or Obama collude with Russia?
- 1.11 Q: Did the Russians want Donald Trump to win?
- 1.12 Q: Who was the leadership during the Russiagate stuff?
- 1.13 Q: Is Trump compromised by Russians?
- 1.14 Q: Was Trump wiretapped?
- 1.15 Q: What did IG DOJ FBI Report show?
- 1.16 Q: What about Helsinki?
- 1.17 Q: Shouldn't we trust the Intelligence Agencies?
- 2 More
A: Hillary lost the election. Democrats had a sob-fit, the Clinton campaign had a documented plan to keep the administration and public off balance and #resist by any means possible. Clintons went with their favored tactic of smear campaign (like they had done before with Obama and birtherism), and they paid Fusion GPS to plant false narratives (Steele Dossier: which claimed Trump the germaphobe would get into water-sports with Russian hookers while being taped), they leaked this to their allies in the FBI and Press. The Obama administration and FBI cronies suppressed the investigation into Russian hacking while it was going on, then used Hillary's falsified evidence to get illegal warrants to spy on the Trump campaign, then illegally unmasked Americans, and then illegally leaked this fake information to their allies in the Press, who ran with it. Then they both lied about it, and got caught. The dems/media shift the narratives every time one part is disproven. They were doing this to distract from the truth that the DNC had actually: (a) colluded with the Russians (b) subverted the election (c) obstructed justice/investigation, after Obama had used government agencies to attack his political opponents. The DNC will do anything to undermine this President, our nation, and his agenda: including helping Russian interests (who wanted to undermine confidence in our elections), or trying to get us in a conflict with worlds largest Nuclear Power. (We now have the worlds second largest arsenal after Obama reduced ours). Would dems do any of that if they really cared about Russia?
Right before the election, Dems were concerned that Trump was going to make a scene and use "Russian hacking" to try to delegitimize the inevitable Hillary win, so they demanded that Trump and Hillary sign an agreement to NOT question the outcome/legitimacy of the election. After Hillary lost, and Obama admitted the election wasn’t manipulated, they broke their promise. Then they proceeded to invent a series of excuses why Hillary lost: (a) racism (b) sexism (c) Comey (d) they broke a promise to accept the election results and demanded recounts: which went more for Trump (e) popular versus electoral votes (f) tried to intimidate the Electoral College (to break their oaths and switch votes or delay their vote). Only it didn’t work, and more Hillary electors refused to vote for her than Trump ones. (g) dozens of faked assaults/vandalism (h) then the story that the Russians hackers had hacked the election and that’s why the electoral college should vote for someone other than Trump (i) when the evidence contradicted that it became Trump Colluded with the Russians and he should be impeached (and we needed a special prosecutor) -- and they picked an Obama crony to keep that alive as long as possible (j) or that Trump was compromised (by re-using the fake Dossier they Hillary/DNC paid to have created), and so on. All while inventing reasons why anything they did was justified because: Trump was Hitler, he was mentally unfit (they demanded psych evals), he was going to create concentration camps, or storm troopers and mass round-ups with deportations, he'd persecute Gays, eliminate birth control and abortion, start a Nuclear War, Trump voters were all deplorable Nazi's (punch a Nazi in the face), and a dozen other high-drama but low-evidence things, none of which has come close to being true.
So the Russian Collusion/Hacked our Election and other lies, all spawned from their plan to have a dishonest Gish-Gallop over Hillary losing, to prove Democrats are the biggest cry-bullies the nation has ever seen.
A: No. Russian might have interfered in our election... in retaliation for us interfering in theirs first, but there's zero evidence they altered the outcome, or meddled with the tally in any way -- and that's what "hacking" means. To hack our election implies that Russia got into our voting machines, digitally manipulated our media, or swung the public (or delegates) voting through manipulation. Nobody has been able to show that Russia tampered with a voter machine, changed a vote, or made a vote illegally. There's not even any evidence that through various PR or hacking efforts, they were able to change a single voters mind, let alone an electoral vote (Trump won by 77 of those), and they certainly didn't to swing the election. We know the Chinese hacked the Election Commission in 2013 (amongst others) and are a bigger threat, and that Obama ignored both Russian and Chinese hacking attempts in general, for 8 years. But that isn't hacking our election.
This isn't just pedantic, this is foundational in understanding who is telling the truth and who is not. "Hacking the election" is just a smokescreen invented by the Hillary campaign (after they lost) to provide cover for losing the most winnable election in history. When asked about hacking the election, Vladimir Putin replied, "The Democrats didn't just lose the presidential election, but the House and the Senate for the last 6 years. Did I do that as well?" Which sort of sums it up. When Putin is more honest than our Democrats, media and intelligence agencies, then there's a problem.
If the Russians really wanted Trump to win, and they really wanted to harm the Obama or Clinton campaign, they could have done us a far bigger service (and more damage to the administration) by just releasing any of the following: (a) Obama’s college transcripts (b) the 30,000 missing Clinton emails (c) information about the Clinton Foundation and the missing money (d) Obama or Hillary’s medical records that were never released (e) transcripts of Hillary’s speeches to Wall Street backers. So the argument that they were trying to hack our election means the Russians either weren’t very good at it, or weren’t trying very hard. Which may be why most Americans (right after the election) believed Trump would have won, without the hacking. And that's polling those gullible enough to believe there was hacking. If you filtered for rational (non-DNC) Americans, or with what we know today, it would likely come out more in favor of Trump.
A: There's no evidence that the Russians were successful at influencing anyone. We know from polls (including exist polls), that people who voted against Hillary, or for Trump, didn’t have the leaks as any of primary motive: they had decided long before, and over other issues. They wanted a change from Obamanomics, weak foreign policy and identity politics. So even if the Russians tried, there was no discernible effect in polling.
Russians have tried to "influence" our elections for 70 years, often at the request of Democrats. Russians have always supported opposition groups from the Vietnam War, to Martin Luther King, to environmentalist movements like anti-Fracking, anti-Dakota Pipeline, or anti-humanity (the Sierra Club). All during the Obama administration and up to early 2016 (before the primary), they did some insignificant ad buys/trolling (a few thousand posts among billions, and $5K of $20B), there's a probability that they "hacked" a Hillary operatives email, and a lesser possibility that they were behind leaking those truths to Wikileaks. But that means the Russians did what the media should have done (called investigative journalism), and investigated and released evidence that the media, DNC, and Hillary campaign had conspired to sabotage Bernie Sanders, and corrupt/rig the election. Instead the media was behind collaborating to get Hillary elected. If the media had done their job, the Russians would have had no impact. If Russians had an impact, it proves the media wasn't doing their job in informing us. When the leaks came to light, the Media/Democrats first lied about it (and implied that these emails were faked), then changed the subject to "Russian Hacks" or "Trump colluded with Russia".
A: All countries try to influence (interfere) in other countries elections. We interfered first. There is no room for the moral high ground or outrage. This is nothing new, nor was there evidence that they were extraordinary in means or success. Allies and enemies alike, spy, hack, and even try to influence elections. America interfered with 81 countries election in the last few decades, and Obama administration interfered with elections in Russia, Ukraine, Israel (Netanyahu), the U.K. (Brexit), and Germany (remember hacking Merkel's phone)? Russia was just doing back to us, what we'd done to them first. And any agency that omits that isn't trying to inform their base. That isn't whataboutism, that is about 70 years of historical precedent.
So while more has been leaked to the public -- everything known has been known since mid-2106. Before the election, Obama said Trump should stop his whining and there was nothing to see here. This only became an issue after the election, because it was politically advantageous for the Democrats to make a scene. If Hillary had won, is there anyone who believes Obama would have had this tantrum or the Democrats would be calling for investigations? If you believe that, then you're a rube. Democrats would love Trump to start a conflict or worsen relations with the world's biggest Nuclear power, just to gain votes - but the DNC's interests are not America's interests.
So knowing all that, what should we do? We already slapped sanctions, Obama threw out 30 Russian diplomats (only after Obama was a lame-duck, and in order to try to sabotage relations for the next administration). Trump responded harsher to Russia than Obama has. Now we improve or infosec (information security) and move on or we escalate towards war. Pick one. We should certainly slap Russia if we find them doing something new. But tantrums over things 2 years old, where the worst they did is tell the truth about Democrats, is just stupid.
After not defining what an official cyber-attack is, and ignoring dozens of more serious cyber-attacks by China, Russia and other players, AND after discounting the severity of the Russian threat for 80 years (whenever Republicans brought it up), and after ceding Crimea and parts of Ukraine to Russia in what was unprovoked aggression, NOW the Democrats want to start a World War, over the possibility that Russians might have been behind leaking the truth about DNC and Media collaboration to rig our election (against Bernie Sanders). While anyone with a clue about cyber-security and national policy knows we should respond by hardening our defenses, or retaliating in kind. Only the informed know that we already hacked the Russians first, on many occasions. So this wasn't an unprovoked "Pearl Harbor", this was at worst a "fuck you back", after we had violated Russian and the world's cyber-security systems first. (Many things from Edward Snowden, Angela Merkel's cell phone hacks, and many others proved it). And they know the Obama administration ignored warnings about threats to American cyber-security for 8 years. But all the Democrats really care about is that by exposing the truth about Democrats, it may have contributed to their election loss. And they would rather burn the world down than concede that HIllary's loss had anything to do with Obama, Hillary or the DNC's many flaws.
The Russian hacker thing seems to be a great system for separating the rational (skeptical) from the Democrats and uninformed.
- The Fiction: Trump colluded with the Russians to hack the election, which enabled the Trump win. This is a high crime, and unprecedented corruption of our Democracy, if not an outright act of war. And it completely delegitimizes his win, and is grounds for impeachment.
- The Facts: There's no evidence the Russians hacked our election, there is evidence Hillary and the DNC/Media did. There's some evidence that Russians were behind DNC (Podesta) email hacks, less that they were behind the leak to Wikileaks, or that they'd want Trump to win over Hillary. But the whistle-blowing was a great service (getting the truth about DNC/Media corruption out to the American people). There's no evidence that Trump was collaborating (collusion) with the Russians, plenty that Hillary/DNC had, but collaborating is not a crime (despite hand-waiving), or much of the DNC would be in prison.
A: There's nothing there. While FakeNews (CNN, etc) will sensationalize this to no end, there's no there, there. Here's some basics:
- there was no huge spend, the amount contributed was infentesimal and had no impact on the election
- Sensationalizing how many people "saw" an ad or a post means nothing. How many things might you have scrolled by and never paid attention to, or only linked to in order to mock?
- there's no big Russian troll army -- the Wikileaks stuff showed the Democrats have a larger army of paid trolls, not to mention unpaid ones, being SJW's and attacking anyone with which they disagree
- Just because someone is Russian, doesn't mean they're operatives of Putin, any more than George Soros and Koch Brothers represent Donald Trump
A: No. - Remember the basics: even if Russia hacked the DNC, released these emails, paid to support Trump, with the intent of manipulating our election, AND Donald Trump colluded and cheered them on, that still means the Trump Administration did nothing illegal. It might be an unsavory/unethical dirty-trick (like Hillary paying for the fake dossier, leaking it to the Press, and the FBI/Obama administration using it to spy on the Trump campaign), but that's not criminal, and thus is not supposed to be impeachable. There are a few little traps in there like non-disclosure, lying about it, or campaign finance laws... and Congress/Senate can invent excuses to impeach, whether he broke the law or not, but if collusion was a crime, then Jimmy Carter, Bill, Hillary, Barack, Ted Kennedy, and a few others would already be in jail. There no rational standard where Trump is more guilty than the Democrats, and the Press, Democrats and Public have been fine with what the Democrats did. If you haven't heard that in the Press, then that shows how dishonest your sources are.
A: Despite 4 investigations, and multiple Democrats claiming things like Collusion/Obstruction, we have no good evidence that anyone can point to. There's virtually no evidence of Russian collusion, and never has been. While CNN watchers won't know better, the people that were often only briefly involved in the Trump campaign (Manafort, Papadopoulos, Flynn), were sometimes snared in the fishing expedition -- but for things unrelated to Russian Collusion, and things they did during the Obama administration (not the colluding with Russia, or obstructing the investigation into it).
The best they have is that after the first Wikileaks details got out, Trump (the bombast) joked that if it was the Russians had done it, maybe they could fine the 30,000 emails that Hillary had illegally deleted. That's not what the Russians went after or was released in the 2nd Wikileaks exposure, and it turned out that the FBI was acting as the enforcement arm of the DNC, breaking the law/policy by exonerating Hillary, and Anthony Wiener's computer had many more than just 30,000 illegal emails on it, some were top secret, and that some deleted weren't just about Yoga or Wedding planning (and they never released): that's a crime.
Lastly, something you never hear on CNN or NYT, is that even if there was collusion, collusion not a crime, or Hillary and Obama would be in prison (not to mention Carter, Kennedy and other Democrats). So this is all a distraction -- and the fact that the media doesn't point that out, kind of proves that they're not interested in informing the public.
A: We have irrefutable evidence of that: Jimmy Carter asked the Russians to interfere in Reagan's election. Ted Kennedy twice reached out to Russia for the same thing. Bill Clinton did a quid-pro-quo deal with the Russians to help his re-election. Barack Obama in an infamous hot-mic incident was colluding with the Russians. The Hillary campaign paid the Russians for a fake Steele "Pee-Pee" dossier and invented this mess to undermine Trump. That dossier gave the Obama administration and their cronies in the FBI an excuse to get illegal FISA wiretaps on Trump's guy (Carter Page), by perjuring themselves to a Judge -- and that allowed them to listen in on Trump's campaign, then illegally unmask and leak that, all to undermine the elected President! Which helps who? The Russians, since undermining confidence in the election was what the Russians were trying to do all along. Oh, and the DNC, FBI and the media got caught colluding to fix the election and get Hillary in the Whitehouse (and undermine our Bernie Sanders and our Democracy), as proven by the Wikileaks documents and later confessions. That's not even touching the "reset button" fiasco, or giving away our Uranium for payoffs in speaking fees. But nothing at all to show Trump Campaign was doing any election-rigging collusion with the Russians. And again, if "Collusion" was a crime (and not "Foreign Policy"), all of them would have been imprisoned.
A: there's no evidence of that. - no one (least of all "intelligence sources") ever provided a good motive for why Russia would want Trump over Hillary. Hillary had a history of being more bribable and blackmail-able, so if they wanted a puppet or someone they could compromise, they had their Manchurian candidate in her. Their $5,000 ad spends showed that Russia did what they've always done, which is support far left ideologues, like supported Bernie Sanders, SJW, Black Lives Matters. They played up issues like crime, mass shootings, lack of gun control, and that America is corrupt, even echoing the Hillary campaign (after the election) on how the election was tainted. How does repeating DNC and media talking points, support Donald Trump? The Russians undermine confidence in America to make Russia look less bad in contrast, and distract Americans on domestic problems, to keep them away from foreign interventions. The DNC does it, to try to convince them they need more Democrats and Government to fix things. So Russia and the DNC have always been aligned. (Russians refer to these Democrat supporters as "useful idiots"). This goes back to hippies, the Vietnam war movement, environmentalism, FDR, the Red Scare, and before. This time was no different.
Also remember that DNC/Hillary campaign got caught paying for far more trolls, astro-turfers, and even paid thugs to violently assault Trump supporters at his rally's. The Democrats went much further than the Russians. So if we should arrest anyone that did that, we should start with the DNC/Hillary campaign.
A: The Obama administration.
- President Barack Obama had done nothing for 6 years of Russian hacking, and had emboldened Russians with his repeated inactions to their bad behavior. Then during the election, told the CIA/FBI to stand down on investigating the hacks, then only reacted to the "Russian Menace" after Hillary lost the election.
- John Brennan (Obama Appointee) was head of the CIA - caught lying many times, and now is talking about "Treason" for Trump having a meeting with Putin, proving he's either flamingly ignorant of the law and what that means, or he's a partisan Obama/DNC lackey, willing to say anything for fame/attention. Both mar his career.
- James Clapper (Obama Appointee) was National Intelligence Director - caught lying many times, is now a CNN shill, attacking the current administration for having fired him. Disgruntled employee?
- First Mueller (Obama Appointee), then James Comey (Obama Appointee) were heads of the FBI -- both have been caught lying. Comey is now a CNN shill that attacks the current administration for having fired him. Disgruntled employee? Mueller was Comey's best buddy and is waiting for his opportunity to cash in as a CNN shill that attacks any conservative.
- Andrew McCabe (Comey Appointee), caught lying multiple times about what happened during the Russia investigation, eventually fired for incompetence and political hackery.
- Paul Manafort - being tried for things unrelated to the Trump campaign -- things he did during the Obama administration, while working for Hillary's Campaign Head's brother (Tony Podesta). Both men did the exact same thing, only Tony Podesta was given immunity by the Obama DOJ, and Paul Manafort is having the book thrown at him.
- Peter Strzok, Lisa Page - couple of unfaithful spousal-cheaters, who got caught lying and texting each other absurdly biased things about how they needed to stop Trump, and get Hillary in office. They were put on Mueller's team to investigate Trump, after Peter had successfully helped sabotage the Hillary email server investigation, and rewrite the press release to make her crimes look less criminal to the gullible.
And these guys and the media blame Trump. FakeNews organizations like CNN love to put Clapper, Brennan, Comey on their talk shows, and never offer the context of them getting caught lying or mention the timing, or how they came to power (and thus who are most likely loyal to). Which is called a lie of omission -- the context of these men and their agenda is key to understanding why they're making the claims they are.
A: Only the irrational can believe that. Anyone that says that is either a partisan, uninformed or a TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome Sufferer). Despite almost 2 years of investigating, there's no evidence of Trump's direct contact with the Russians. We have hard evidence of both Obama and Hillary having direct contact with the Russians (and getting payoffs). And when you look at policies, Trump is crushing the feckless Obama/Hillary administration in actions that hurt Russia. If Donald Trump was compromised, don't you think the Russians would have some leverage and use it?
Think about how stupid the "Trump=Russian Puppet" argument is, Russians wanted Trump to win, so he could be stronger on domestic policy, tighten our border security, he'd increase our economy and use that to get more global influence on international fair trade. Russia's economy is 40% dependent on oil, so they'd want an American President who would up our oil and coal production to undercut them. They wanted him to strengthen NATO's defense and resolve, put missile defense in Poland, increase our military spending (and Nuclear program) and create a Space Force? Or eliminate ISIS, let the world know he wouldn't tolerate chemical weapons, kill Russians that got in his way in Syria. Then give weapons to Ukraine, and shame Germany for their dependence on Russian Natural Gas (and push a trade-deal where they would get more NG from the U.S. and less from Russia). It's dumb to think that the Russians wanted Trump to win, but even Alex Jones isn't bat shit crazy enough to float the regular CNN/MSNBC conspiracies that Russians are controlling Trump, and he's giving them what he wants.
The three things (Russia, Trump and Wiretapping) are intricately tied together, in ways that reflect poorly on the mainstream media, and those who believe that media. Remember this sequence:
- Trump: I was "wire tapped"
- NYT/CNN/WaPo: Haha. That idiot @realDonaldTrump thinks he was wiretapped.
..Six months later...
- NYT/CNN/WaPo: Trump was wiretapped.
We know that: Paul Manafort and Carter Page were both illegally wiretapped: those wiretaps were illegally gotten based on the Obama Administration cronies lying to the FISA Courts by claiming the FBI/CIA had vetted the material, and not revealing that it was all based on the Hillary paid-for Dossier. Those warrants were then used to spy on the Trump Campaign, and the information they gathered was then used to charge Paul Manafort with crimes unrelated to Russia Collusion/Obstruction, and also used to illegally unmask American Citizens, and illegally leak that information to the public'. Right before this happened, Obama had changed the rules for seeing this top secret information (unmasking) information, which made it easier to leak these secrets and harder to track who did it. Top candidates with access were Obama appointees John Brennan, Susan Rice, or Samantha Power. We do not know how much criminal sharing was going on (back and forth), but we do know Obama lied in saying that he wasn't following the investigation, and some clandestine communication was happening (from private texts from Peter Strzok and Lisa Page). We also know that Bill Clinton got caught lying about an "impromptu" clandestine tarmac meeting (that was later shown to be pre-planned) with the Obama's DOJ (Attorney General Loretta Lynch), where they said they just "talked about grandkids" during the hight of Hillary's email investigation. Uh huh. CNN or the NYT have either avoided as much of that context as possible, or actively attacked anyone that questioned the motives or actions of these impeccable sources.
IG report has many startling revelations:
- there was rampant anti-Trump bias at the FBI by at least 5 different people that should be investigated for that bias (not counting Comey). Hillary was guilty of multiple crimes, leaked national secrets, her servers had been compromised and secret documents stolen, and her investigation was corrupted: the FBI under Comey's leadership went completely off book to protect her and her cronies from prosecution (and gave out immunity to obstruct justice). The FBI had hid evidence from Congressional investigators (newly discovered Strzok texts that had been redacted).
- Obama lied to the public about Hillary's emails in that he was aware of her private server all along, and he lied to the public in that he was kept aware of her investigation (while he claimed he wasn't because of Obstruction of Justice) -- so Obama did, what the Dems accuse Trump of doing.
- Comey was an obvious partisan Hillary supporter, he and his staff had doctored his statements on multiple occasions to protect her from justice, he was so clueless that he didn't know that Anthony Weiner was Huma Abadin's spouse, and the only reason he revisited the Weiner emails and they admitted trying to stall the clock (until after the election, if ever) -- was that they panicked when the NY AG asked about the laptop -- so the reopening was trying to protect Hillary's legacy and not sabotage her election. Since there was a rampant incompetence and insubordination by Comey (he deliberately concealed his plans for the July Press conference to exonerate Hillary, based on overwhelming evidence against her)
- Trump was right, his detractors wrong with regards to Comey's firing: it was justified, thus not Obstruction of Justice. And while overstated, he was also right (his detractors wrong) with regards to whether the "Deep State" was working against him and for Hillary.
- The biased media (CNN, MSNBC, NYT and others) tried to spin the report by focusing on Horowitz’s measured response of saying while they didn't find the smoking gun of anyone admitting in writing that they were doing partisan things for partisan reasons, the media flipped "we couldn't prove it", into the delusion that, "it was free from bias", by ignoring all the examples of that bias, and glossing over everything damning in the report. Other than the complete corruption of our most powerful police agency and DOJ, to manipulate the public during an election year, there's nothing to see here at all.
A: This proves media bias, more than Trump bias. Look, every President meets with the Russia. Virtually all Politicians say nice things about powerful leaders, and try to butter them up, and get some things from them, so they can play great statesman. Trump is no different than all of his predecessors in this regard, if anything, he sucked up LESS. Part of it is truth, part of it is that in order to persuade the other side, they have to make them feel at ease. Remember basic history:
- Bill Clinton met Putin, and when Putin suggested Russia joining NATO, Bill said he had, "no objection." And after first meeting Putin said, "I think he is fully capable of building a prosperous, strong Russia, while preserving freedom and pluralism and the rule of law.”
- When Bush first met Putin, he was asked if he trusted Putin, and he said "Yes". When pressed, "Why?", Bush replied that he "looked into his eyes, and said he saw his soul". Later, after the invasion of Georgia, Bush called him "cold blooded".
- Obama/Hillary wanted to restore relations after that, and created a mock "Reset Button", and in their normal fashion, fucked it up, and it was mistranslated and actually said, "Overcharged". And the Obama admin gave Russia all sorts of concessions like not putting in anti-missile system in Poland, without getting anything in return. Then Trump attacked Mitt Romney, for saying Russia was our biggest threat, and said Romney was "stuck in a Cold War mind warp". Then Obama got caught on hot-mic admitting to Russian President Medvedev that he'd have flexibility to do more for Russia after Obama's last election. Russia invaded Urkaine soon after that.
If you aren't reminded of this, every time they're talking about Trump and Putin, that's because the media is intentionally trying to miseducate you, and convert Trump into something nefarious, for the most benign of behaviors. He did nothing unusually fawning or apologetic, and has been harder on Russia than Obama Admin ever was.
NO! Being rationally skeptical is called critical thinking. So as Reagan said, "trust but verify". If the evidence supports the case, and they're being open? Sure. If they're not being open, and the story doesn't add up, then "of course not". The FBI is normally about telling the truth, but the CIA's job is to lie. And both the top of the FBI and CIA, in this case, have been caught lying, politicking (against this administration), the top leadership has been fired and are being investigated. Thus the media and democrats that have been telling us since Vietnam to never trust the CIA, are suddenly saying we should trust unnamed agency sources without evidence (and without question)? That doesn't sound political to you?
There were other little fake stories and lies involved to keep the public off-balance and distrusting our elected President. Remember:
- Trump tried to work with the Russians on Syrian Terrorists? And the Press went wild that he might have revealed sources (only he didn't, and if he had, he has that right). While they ignored the 5 Times Obama Admin leaked security secrets. 
The summary and timeline of the Russian Hacker invention seems to be the following:
- 2009.03.06 - Obama admin (via Hillary Clinton) gives Russia a mis-translated “reset button” because relations had chilled since Russia had invaded Georgia.
- 2011 - Putin blames Clinton for fomenting mass protests in Russia after disputed 2011 parliamentary elections that challenged his rule
- 2015 Summer - a spear-phishing campaign (the least sophisticate hack known to man) sends a fake email to over 1,000 government agents gets the smartest man in the DNC (Leon Podesta) to give up his password, in a social hack worthy of a 14 year old or Nigerian Prince.
- 2016.06.14 - WaPo publishes an article claiming that two agencies (who may be tied to the Russians), had attacked the DNC for over a year. It was scoffed at by security researchers.
- 2016 Sept - Julian Assange and his allies explained that these were leaks not hacks: a person inside the DNC gave them the emails.
- 2016.12.11 - Assange/allies go further and explain that the Obama administration has brutally persecuted whistleblowers and hackers through extradition, but in this case, while the CIA claims to know who tried to subvert an election, it’s not worth the effort to try to extradite them for prosecution in the U.S. to set an example?
- 2016.12.15 - Julian Assange went on to Sean Hannity to emphatically repeat it was not the Russians, and Hillary and the Obama administration is making this crap up.
- 2016.12.16 - NSA Whistleblower agrees with Assange that it was an inside leak (and not the Russians)
- 2016.12.16 - The Hillary/Obama campaign starts speaking about how the election wasn't her fault
- 2016.11.03 - Foreign Ministry spokeswoman (Maria Zakharova) of Russia says, "the “public bickering with Russia” before the US election is probably a “smokescreen” to draw the voters’ attention away from serious domestic issues”
- 2016.11.25 - Obama Admin Officially Told the NY that the elections "Were Free and Fair" — and went on "The Federal government did not observe any increased level of malicious cyber activity aimed at disrupting our electoral process on election day. As we have noted before, we remained confident in the overall integrity of electoral infrastructure, a confidence that was borne out on election day. As a result, we believe our elections were free and fair from a cybersecurity perspective."
- 2016.12.29 - The Obama administration gets the NCCIC (DHS & FBI) to release a political document on "Grizzley Steppe” — codename for some investigation which admits the hack was caused by a 2015 phishing campaign with no hard evidence of ties to the “Russians” and contains no useful content or details (or anything looking like evidence of the Russians as the source of the hacks, let alone of the wikileads info).
- 2016.12.29 - The Obama administration retaliates against the Russians by throwing out 35 diplomats
- 2017.01.04 - WaPo invents that the Russians were also responsible for a PowerGrid attack — and the story is soon debunked as FakeNews
- 2017.01.05 - Ali Watkins of Buzzfeed exposes that neither the FBI nor DHS (nor any other government agency) had bothered to investigate the DNC servers which were compromised by Grizzley Stepp. Also, they had done no investigation of their own on the topic, but had relied on a private firm (CrowdStrike) hired by the DNC.