@Metal-Brain saidI do not know anything about it, and would never care to learn. It is history. Don't be a sonhouse, all he writes about is yesterday.
No. Not everybody agrees.
Not that it matters if they did. The CIA did it to them so who could blame them if they tried? But I'll give you a chance to tell me how Russia interfered in our election. How did they interfere?
Respectfully, I ain't gonna write about Russia interference, it is over, irrelevance. I am interested in crooks in the White House who should answer for their conspiracies. That's all. I am interested in the findings of the grand jury.
Would you be interested in following along with the grand jury investigation? Would you like to know if those 5 people conspired, as we republican citizens and maybe some democrats think they did?
To answer your question, there is info at wikipedia about what Russia tried to do or did do. I dont care, so wrong guy to ask.
@AverageJoe1 saidGabbard made it relevant again. A distraction from the Epstein scandal? Probably, but it is hard to argue with the facts (unless you are suzianne, then facts are lies) which you should know. You have been on this forum long enough to have seen my posts.
I do not know anything about it, and would never care to learn. It is history. Don't be a sonhouse, all he writes about is yesterday.
Respectfully, I ain't gonna write about Russia interference, it is over, irrelevance. I am interested in crooks in the White House who should answer for their conspiracies. That's all. I am interested in the findings of the grand j ...[text shortened]... here is info at wikipedia about what Russia tried to do or did do. I dont care, so wrong guy to ask.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/tulsi-gabbard-not-surprised-establishment-media-silent-russia-hoax-bombshells
The DNC election meddled. And even though it was not Russia the leaker (Seth Rich) or hacker (if you have a leap in faith) exposed election meddling which is a great service to anyone who likes democracy. So the democrat's position is that exposing election meddling (in the DNC) is election meddling. Because that is what the leaker or hacker did.
Will you state for the record that the leaker or hacker did the American people a good service for exposing our internal election meddling in the DNC? After all, election meddling is bad no matter who does it, right?
Or are you just another partisan creature who would defend it if the RNC did it because that is your party and you will defend that just like the democrats are defending the right of the DNC to rig the democrat primaries? The court ruled they are allowed because they are privately owned corporations. And the democrats are fine with that? Why? For partisan reasons? That is what it seems like.
The RNC can do it too if they want. The courts have upheld it for any privately owned corporation. Would you defend it if the RNC rigged it against a certain candidate? They do not have to follow their own rules either. The courts will not make an exception for a privately owned corporation that holds important elections to determine who becomes the most powerful person on the planet (if they are not being blackmailed with them doing under aged children) so maybe privately owned corporations should not be running primary elections. What do you think?
@Metal-Brain saidWhat a brain twister. Like, i dont know who Seth rich, OI just do not study this stuff in the way that you do, not that it is not important, I am just viewing the landscape today, seeing that Gabbard is finally going after a conspiracy that I DO know about. I have not mentioned corporate influences, and cannnot imagine digging in to who said what or did what to whom. Big boys can work it out. I want everyone RNC or DEM to sikmply do whatever they want to do as long as they are legal. If it is legal for dems to show that repubs did something wrong (that i would just hate to hear about as a Republican) I would WANT that to happen, as a crusader of transparency. So all that you say above?? I have no partisan point of view at all. Zero. I am for god and country, the best success we can have. Today I think repubs are on the right track. I think Dems were not. If you prove me wrong, I will switch parties.
Gabbard made it relevant again. A distraction from the Epstein scandal? Probably, but it is hard to argue with the facts (unless you are suzianne, then facts are lies) which you should know. You have been on this forum long enough to have seen my posts.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/tulsi-gabbard-not-surprised-establishment-media-silent-russia-hoax-bombshells
...[text shortened]... n) so maybe privately owned corporations should not be running primary elections. What do you think?
I can't discuss the weeds of all that you just wrote, and frankly it is not interesting. Seeing Brennan and Clinton get an ass kicking, now THAT is good forum fodder...not the inside of corps.
@AverageJoe1 saidWe've been over this, ad nauseum.
What a brain twister. Like, i dont know who Seth rich, OI just do not study this stuff in the way that you do, not that it is not important, I am just viewing the landscape today, seeing that Gabbard is finally going after a conspiracy that I DO know about. I have not mentioned corporate influences, and cannnot imagine digging in to who said what or did what to whom. ...[text shortened]... ing Brennan and Clinton get an ass kicking, now THAT is good forum fodder...not the inside of corps.
Just like when Trump finally stopped talking about the Washington Redskins, he knew he was wrong. Same here. Stop embarrassing yourselves.
@AverageJoe1 saidDo you know anything?
I do not know anything about it, and would never care to learn. It is history. Don't be a sonhouse, all he writes about is yesterday.
Respectfully, I ain't gonna write about Russia interference, it is over, irrelevance. I am interested in crooks in the White House who should answer for their conspiracies. That's all. I am interested in the findings of the grand j ...[text shortened]... here is info at wikipedia about what Russia tried to do or did do. I dont care, so wrong guy to ask.
Apparently not.
@Suzianne saidCan you explain how exposing election meddling in the DNC is election meddling? So Debbie Wasserman Schultz was forced to resign from the DNC in disgrace for election meddling. Wasn't that a good thing?
Do you know anything?
Apparently not.
Shouldn't you be thanking wikileaks and the source of the leak?
https://truthout.org/articles/debbie-wasserman-schultz-resigns-in-disgrace-only-to-be-elevated-by-clinton-to-key-campaign-role/
And why did Hillary Clinton reward DWS for election meddling and get away with it? Because you were too busy entertaining Russia conspiracy theories to care.
@Metal-Brain saidYou have never learned what is, and what isn't, "election meddling".
Can you explain how exposing election meddling in the DNC is election meddling? So Debbie Wasserman Schultz was forced to resign from the DNC in disgrace for election meddling. Wasn't that a good thing?
Shouldn't you be thanking wikileaks and the source of the leak?
https://truthout.org/articles/debbie-wasserman-schultz-resigns-in-disgrace-only-to-be-elevated-by-cli ...[text shortened]... ing and get away with it? Because you were too busy entertaining Russia conspiracy theories to care.
It would be best if you shut up about stuff you know nothing about.
2 edits
@Metal-Brain saidWasserman Schultz resigned because in the stolen emails she made disparaging remarks about Bernie and his campaign manager and these were made public before the convention when the DNC was trying to unite the party.https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/wasserman-schultz-wont-preside-over-dnc-convention-226088
Can you explain how exposing election meddling in the DNC is election meddling? So Debbie Wasserman Schultz was forced to resign from the DNC in disgrace for election meddling. Wasn't that a good thing?
Shouldn't you be thanking wikileaks and the source of the leak?
https://truthout.org/articles/debbie-wasserman-schultz-resigns-in-disgrace-only-to-be-elevated-by-cli ...[text shortened]... ing and get away with it? Because you were too busy entertaining Russia conspiracy theories to care.
This has nothing to do with anything illegal and it doesn't even rate as "election meddling" whatever that means to you but no one else.
This shows the purpose of the release of the stolen emails at that time; to sow discord in the Democratic Party and help Trump win. That by a foreign power is illegal election interference.
@no1marauder saidShe conspired to election meddle in the primary and it doesn't have to be illegal to be wrong which is why she resigned in disgrace from the DNC. The Trump tower meeting was not illegal either, but you had a problem with it.
Wasserman Schultz resigned because in the stolen emails she made disparaging remarks about Bernie and his campaign manager and these were made public before the convention when the DNC was trying to unite the party.https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/wasserman-schultz-wont-preside-over-dnc-convention-226088
This has nothing to do with anything illegal and it doesn't ...[text shortened]... n the Democratic Party and help Trump win. That by a foreign power is illegal election interference.
Defending legal election meddling only makes you look like a hypocrite because legal or not you are still defending election meddling. You could say something wise like privately owned corporations should not be able to run elections, but you don't care if democrats election meddle. You don't even care if foreign countries election meddle here. You only care if it is Russia.
You have been told countless times there is no evidence Russia interfered in the 2016 election. Crowdstrike admitted they had no evidence. Circumstantial evidence is not evidence. Innocent people go to prison because of circumstantial evidence. There is circumstantial evidence Seth Rich used a thumb drive to leak it to Assange.
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/report-insider-stole-dnc-data-five-days-seth-rich-murder-no-russian-hacker/
Assange said it was not Russia and he had no incentive to lie. The CIA's UMBRAGE proves that the CIA has been false flag hacking for a long time. It is impossible to prove the trail is not false.
https://www.cnet.com/news/privacy/olympic-games-hackers-left-false-flags-to-frame-other-nations/
You have what is called a leap in faith that your government did not lie to you.
They used this false narrative to get you to hate Russia enough to support our proxy war against Russia using Ukraine. It worked too. You support arming Ukraine to fight Russia.
@Suzianne saidConspiring to rig the primary election against Sanders is not election meddling? That is why DWS was forced to resign in disgrace. The DNC did not even deny election meddling in court. Their defense was that it was legal to election meddle.
You have never learned what is, and what isn't, "election meddling".
It would be best if you shut up about stuff you know nothing about.
1 edit
@Metal-Brain saidThere's too much stupidity and lies in this post to waste further time on; you've been spewing this BS for about 9 years now. I've been told them by you for years true, but they remain rather transparent and ignorant lies.
She conspired to election meddle in the primary and it doesn't have to be illegal to be wrong which is why she resigned in disgrace from the DNC. The Trump tower meeting was not illegal either, but you had a problem with it.
Defending legal election meddling only makes you look like a hypocrite because legal or not you are still defending election meddling. You could ...[text shortened]... r proxy war against Russia using Ukraine. It worked too. You support arming Ukraine to fight Russia.
@no1marauder saidLost the desire to debate huh?
There's too much stupidity and lies in this post to waste further time on; you've been spewing this BS for about 9 years now. I've been told them by you for years true, but they remain rather transparent and ignorant lies.
Is it because innocent people go to prison because of circumstantial evidence?
@Metal-Brain saidInnocent people can go to prison because of direct evidence as well:
Lost the desire to debate huh?
Is it because innocent people go to prison because of circumstantial evidence?
"This doesn’t mean that all direct evidence is true – the jurors must still decide whether the eyewitness is 1) mistaken or 2) lying, and even video evidence can be misleading when taken out of context."
"Circumstantial evidence is admissible in a criminal trial, and a defendant can be convicted based solely on circumstantial evidence. "
https://www.kentcollinslaw.com/blog/direct-evidence-vs-circumstantial-evidence/
Both are legal evidence - something you are too stupid and/or stubborn to grasp.
And it's impossible to "debate" you; you just rattle off the same lies and absurd and baseless conspiracy theories that have been debunked many times here already.
@Metal-Brain saidThe Mueller Report has the exact dates and names of the files the GRU sent to Wikileaks containing the stolen emails released before the Democratic Convention to sow discord between the Clinton and Sanders factions:
She conspired to election meddle in the primary and it doesn't have to be illegal to be wrong which is why she resigned in disgrace from the DNC. The Trump tower meeting was not illegal either, but you had a problem with it.
Defending legal election meddling only makes you look like a hypocrite because legal or not you are still defending election meddling. You could ...[text shortened]... r proxy war against Russia using Ukraine. It worked too. You support arming Ukraine to fight Russia.
" On July 14, 2016, GRU officers used a Guccifer 2.0 email account to send WikiLeaks an email bearing the subject “big archive” and the message “a new attempt.”163 The email contained an encrypted attachment with the name “wk dnc link1.txt.gpg.”164 Using the Guccifer 2.0 Twitter account, GRU officers sent WikiLeaks an encrypted file and instructions on how to open it.165 On
July 18, 2016, WikiLeaks confirmed in a direct message to the Guccifer 2.0 account that it had “the 1Gb or so archive” and would make a release of the stolen documents “this week.”166 On July 22, 2016, WikiLeaks released over 20,000 emails and other documents stolen from the DNC
computer networks.167 The Democratic National Convention began three days later.
https://www.justice.gov/d9/report.pdf
Volume I, p. 46
Remember when the 2000 election was actually stolen from al gore by the supreme Court and everybody said " wow that's messed up but we need to move on because whining doesn't solve problems"?
Remember that? The trump sycophants are STILL whining about Russia helping them win an election 10 freaking years ago.
Yeesh. Get over it. You won.