Russia Was Not a Democratic Hoax

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 

Here’s what you should suppose:  Suppose you read Mueller’s report as it relates to collusion and conspiring again, and this time, read it for comprehension.  It is….what it is.  

 

 

Again, the insults. I read fine. 

 

Mueller found they worked together, they both wanted the same thing, a Trump win, but that the laws really were not broke to the point of were a sitting president could be charged. 

 

I don't care if Trump working with Putin is not technaically a crime, it's beyond wrong for an American politician to accept help from that murderous dictator. You obviously care more about winning than winning fairly or in. away that serves the national interest 

 

https://time.com/5610317/mueller-report-myths-breakdown/.

 

"While Mueller was unable to establish a conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians involved in this activity, he made it clear that “[a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.” In fact, Mueller also wrote that the “investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”' 

 

 

[Tommy Callahan]

 

 

 

According to Frantz Fanon, cognitive dissonance occurs when “people hold a core belief that is very strong [and] when they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted [so] they will rationalize, ignore or even deny anything that doesn’t fit with that core belief” 

 

All day every day

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

36 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Wow, you are already resorting to gaslighting? Must be losing, lol. 

 

I'll take the high road from here on out because I have the facts on my side 

I don't know all the hip new phrases you internet kids use.  I was mocking you for mentioning Mueller in support of your claims, then explaining why what he actually said in his report wasn't true. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tiberius]

5 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I don't know all the hip new phrases you internet kids use.  I was mocking you for mentioning Mueller in support of your claims, then explaining why what he actually said in his report wasn't true. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fine, I'll just respond with, the Mueller report wasn't needed to convince me of what my eyes and ears already told me. Russia very much wanted Trump to win, and that Trump wanted Russia's help. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

32 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Again, the insults. I read fine. 

 

Mueller found they worked together, they both wanted the same thing, a Trump win, but that the laws really were not broke to the point of were a sitting president could be charged. 

 

I don't care if Trump working with Putin is not technaically a crime, it's beyond wrong for an American politician to accept help from that murderous dictator. You obviously care more about winning than winning fairly or in. away that serves the national interest 

 

https://time.com/5610317/mueller-report-myths-breakdown/.

 

"While Mueller was unable to establish a conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians involved in this activity, he made it clear that “[a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.” In fact, Mueller also wrote that the “investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”' 

Again, Tibs, this is what was published in the report, perhaps after the word salad Old Man Mueller and his team cooked up to get you all hot and bothered about the fact that he was unable to hang illegal action on Trump.  What he did say, though was pretty interesting indeed.  

 

The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

Fine, I'll just respond with, the Mueller report wasn't needed to convince me of what my eyes and ears already told me. Russia very much wanted Trump to win, and that Trump wanted Russia's help. 

But your eyes and ears didn't tell you anything, the democrats leaders you trusted without question  (and select media members) told you where to look, what to hear, and how to think.  You're thinking you came to some grand conclusion on your own, and that's really the problem.  

 

I assumed initially that the dems had something on Trump.  I truly could not believe a political party would use another Joseph McCarthy Red Scare to try and influence an election.  I didn't believe people could be duped again, and certainly not in such large numbers.   When Trump declared he and his team were spied upon, I thought he was making it up and found it outrageous.   I was wrong. 

 

Eventually it became crystal clear it was a bogus investigation established under bogus circumstances, and in spite of the full weight of the government crashing down upon everyone on Team Trump, we would end up here:

 

The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”

 

The problem in the end isn't your eyes and ears, it's your capacity to see past your own innate bias and willingness to be mislead. 

 

Anyway, time to move on. 

[Tiberius]

3 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

But your eyes and ears didn't tell you anything, the democrats leaders you trusted without question  (and select media members) told you where to look, what to hear, and how to think.  You're thinking you came to some grand conclusion on your own, and that's really the problem.  

 

Oh, ya sure. 

 

It's more true to say you are repeating Trump's lies and I'm not. That's what is really going on. 

[ChiGoose]

5 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Eventually it became crystal clear it was a bogus investigation established under bogus circumstances, and in spite of the full weight of the government crashing down upon everyone on Team Trump, we would end up here:

 

The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”. 

It’s important to note that the first paragraph here is completely bogus and false while the second paragraph underscores how the law did not anticipate a presidential campaign and foreign nation working together for the same goal without an overt agreement.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

Oh, ya sure. 

 

It's more true to say you are repeating Trump's lies and I'm not. That's what is really going on. 

Oh crap, did you just gaslight me?  
 

(I’m not angry if you did, I just don’t know what it means). 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

It’s important to note that the first paragraph here is completely bogus and false while the second paragraph underscores how the law did not anticipate a presidential campaign and foreign nation working together for the same goal without an overt agreement.

Ah, the “laws are hard” and “Dems went soft” cat weighs in.  
 

If you’re speaking of the Clinton campaign and the foreign national, I agree with you. It’s apparently perfectly legal to work in unison with factions hostile to our republic, media sources, members of the IC and the outgoing admin to spread false and defamatory information about the opposition.    I assume that sort of thing is quite common among traditional politicians, and members of the d and r party forged an uneasy alliance to look the other way.  In fact, it’s probably similar to the situationally not so serious law about classified documents. 
 

If you’re speaking about Trump, the law while stained, tarnished and damaged along the way, worked itself out.   These sir, are the facts that matter. 

[Doc]

49 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Ah, the “laws are hard” and “Dems went soft” cat weighs in.  
 

If you’re speaking of the Clinton campaign and the foreign national, I agree with you. It’s apparently perfectly legal to work in unison with factions hostile to our republic, media sources, members of the IC and the outgoing admin to spread false and defamatory information about the opposition.    I assume that sort of thing is quite common among traditional politicians, and members of the d and r party forged an uneasy alliance to look the other way.  In fact, it’s probably similar to the situationally not so serious law about classified documents. 
 

If you’re speaking about Trump, the law while stained, tarnished and damaged along the way, worked itself out.   These sir, are the facts that matter. 

Using a disgraced British spy who was being fed lies by Russian spies to overturn an election is AOK in their book.  Anyone with any modicum of intelligence knew the instant the "pee tape" was mentioned it was all bull####.

[Joe Ferguson forever]

10 hours ago, Tiberius said:

don't care if Trump working with Putin is not technaically a crime

Mueller left this open to debate.  Nobody ran with the ball which is unsurprising given how many times the R lackeys appeased his criminal behavior...

[Tiberius]

12 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Oh crap, did you just gaslight me?  
 

(I’m not angry if you did, I just don’t know what it means). 

Nope, just pointing out you are the one believing a liar. 

 

Gaslighting is trying to get someone to believe they are stupid, insane, mislead or ignorant instead of making a serious argument 

11 hours ago, Doc said:

Using a disgraced British spy who was being fed lies by Russian spies to overturn an election is AOK in their book.  Anyone with any modicum of intelligence knew the instant the "pee tape" was mentioned it was all bull####.

But the British spy thing only came to light after the investigation was started and had no role in starting the investigation at all. 

 

Trump still had a business relationship with Putin during the campaign

 

Trump's team met with the Russians to get help in the election

 

Manafort being hired had nothing to do with any dossier 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

47 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Nope, just pointing out you are the one believing a liar. 

 

Gaslighting is trying to get someone to believe they are stupid, insane, mislead or ignorant instead of making a serious argument 

But the British spy thing only came to light after the investigation was started and had no role in starting the investigation at all. 
 

I don’t think you’re stupid, I don’t think you’re insane, I think you’re naive and easy to influence.   I think you’re like the kid in the Pink Floyd song told he can’t have his pudding if he doesn’t eat the meat first.  I think you’re like, damn, that makes sense.  
 

“The British spy thing….”, I have to admit I have no idea what you’re saying here.  You’re saying it’s acceptable to work with foreign nationals to mislead the public and spread election misinformation so long as….what, an investigation was already underway when the malfeasance was discovered?  What on earth…. 

47 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

 

Trump still had a business relationship with Putin during the campaign

 

Trump's team met with the Russians to get help in the election

 

Manafort being hired had nothing to do with any dossier 

I can’t keep posting Mueller’s words.  You’re making up a narrative that doesn’t exist to suit your bias.  

[Tiberius]

12 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I don’t think you’re stupid, I don’t think you’re insane, I think you’re naive and easy to influence.   I think you’re like the kid in the Pink Floyd song told he can’t have his pudding if he doesn’t eat the meat first.  I think you’re like, damn, that makes sense.   

Ok, more gaslighting. 

 

I'll just confront that with facts. You believe the pathological liar, cheat, sexual abuser Trump. 

 

That's who you are standing up for. 

15 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 e.  
 

“The British spy thing….”, I have to admit I have no idea what you’re saying here.  You’re saying it’s acceptable to work with foreign nationals to mislead the public and spread election misinformation so long as….what, an investigation was already underway when the malfeasance was discovered?  What on earth…. 

I can’t keep posting Mueller’s words.  You’re making up a narrative that doesn’t exist to suit your bias.  

If a person, any person, has some evidence bearing on a case, you use it. 

 

Yes, you actually can keep posting Meuller, no one is stopping you, but you 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

A distillation of the debate here.  "Nobody buys"?

https://www.foxnews.com/media/gov-sununu-clashes-jen-psaki-claims-collusion-between-trump-russia-nonsense

Edited June 6, 2023 by redtail hawk

[aristocrat]

33 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Ok, more gaslighting. 

 

I'll just confront that with facts. You believe the pathological liar, cheat, sexual abuser Trump. 

 

That's who you are standing up for. 

If a person, any person, has some evidence bearing on a case, you use it. 

 

Yes, you actually can keep posting Meuller, no one is stopping you, but you 

 

How many times had biden lied, cheated with his bribes he's taken, and sexually abused that girl in the 90s and all the little kids?  

[B-Man]

On 6/4/2023 at 11:55 AM, B-Man said:

 

Russia Was  Not  a Democratic Hoax

 

 

The Incredible Undoing of One of the Russian Collusion Hoax's Biggest Proponents

 

 

 

 

BREAKING: House Votes to Censure Adam Schiff.

 

The House of Representatives voted to censure Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) late Wednesday for his role in the probe of the Trump-Russia hoax.

https://pjmedia.com/columns/paula-bolyard/2023/06/21/breaking-houses-censures-adam-schiff-over-role-in-bogus-trump-russia-probe-n1705273

 

 

 

[Tiberius]

Trump was Putin's boy, no doubt about that. Meetings with Russians, trying to help Putin get back in G-8, wanting to tear apart NATO

 

Traitor 

[Doc]

Just now, Tiberius said:

Trump was Putin's boy, no doubt about that. Meetings with Russians, trying to help Putin get back in G-8, wanting to tear apart NATO

 

Traitor 

 

Still on that, eh?