TrumPutinGate

[DC_Vol]

Been through this debate 100 times. I doubt 101 will make a difference. It's like the 30 year olds in Iran who have grown up with 30 years of anti-USA propaganda. They feel completely justified in their hatred and believe it to be based on indisputable facts, and for the most part it was, but they were only shown a constant and exaggerated view of the negative.

Awful candidate. She so bad that she was beat with around $5k of negative meme ad spend. LOL

That’s terrible!!!!

 

[evillawyer]

Continue to believe these guys will largely be vindicated in their reporting. Suggests that the fight may be over the use of the word "directed."

 

[volinbham]

Continue to believe these guys will largely be vindicated in their reporting. Suggests that the fight may be over the use of the word "directed."

 

[volinbham]

The majority of people despised the election of Trump. There is no denying that fact.

Unless you are proposing a change in the definition of the word "despised" then everyone should deny your assertion - it is not a fact at all.

 

[volinbham]

Just look at how many nuts in here believe Clinton is tainted because of the Uranium 1 conspiracy. There are so many firmly held opinions based on propaganda that no one will ever know how much a role the misinformation ultimately played in the individuals final vote. All that can be known with certainty is that it was enough to move some votes away from one candidate and to the other.

Actually you cannot know that with certainty. You have a strange definition of certainty and facts.

Here's another puzzler for you. You keep claiming "misinformation" was the shifter. If Russian actions actually did sway some votes then it was more likely to be real information (Podesta/DNC email content) that moved the needle. While the hacking is wrong, the revealed information (real information; not misinformation) was likely more impactful than any ad campaign.

Keep in mind the election hinged on DEMOCRATS switching over to Trump. Analyses of the "misinformation campaign" show that 1) it was a tiny fraction of overall election messaging, 2) it was most frequently attended to and shared by REPUBLICANS rather than DEMOCRATS.

So if as you assert voters were swayed, said voters were ones that voted DEMOCRAT previously and they were hardly reached at all by the misinformation campaign. They more likely saw news coverage of the leaked emails (not misinformation) and the Comey email investigation (not misinformation).[/QUOTE]

 

[AirVol]

Just look at how many nuts in here believe Clinton is tainted because of the Uranium 1 conspiracy. There are so many firmly held opinions based on propaganda that no one will ever know how much a role the misinformation ultimately played in the individuals final vote. All that can be known with certainty is that it was enough to move some votes away from one candidate and to the other.

It’s not a conspiracy, get your head out of your ass.

 

[luthervol]

Unless you are proposing a change in the definition of the word "despised" then everyone should deny your assertion - it is not a fact at all.

I'll stand by the fact as stated.

 

[Obsessed]

I'll stand by the fact as stated.

Luther,
Never stop being you my friend. Never stop.

 

[0nelilreb]

Continue to believe these guys will largely be vindicated in their reporting. Suggests that the fight may be over the use of the word "directed."

If your client is speaking “ code words “ to you hoping you’ll understand and you have to “ explain it” to people hoping they will understand ... you “ might “ have a problem .

 

[luthervol]

Actually you cannot know that with certainty. You have a strange definition of certainty and facts.

Here's another puzzler for you. You keep claiming "misinformation" was the shifter. If Russian actions actually did sway some votes then it was more likely to be real information (Podesta/DNC email content) that moved the needle. While the hacking is wrong, the revealed information (real information; not misinformation) was likely more impactful than any ad campaign.

Keep in mind the election hinged on DEMOCRATS switching over to Trump. Analyses of the "misinformation campaign" show that 1) it was a tiny fraction of overall election messaging, 2) it was most frequently attended to and shared by REPUBLICANS rather than DEMOCRATS.

So if as you assert voters were swayed, said voters were ones that voted DEMOCRAT previously and they were hardly reached at all by the misinformation campaign. They more likely saw news coverage of the leaked emails (not misinformation) and the Comey email investigation (not misinformation).

You have about 20 false conclusions in your post.
The election didn't hinge on democrats voting republican anymore than it hinged on republicans voting democrat. As with every election, the results hinged on the middle 20% with no firm party loyalty.
The misinformation was targeted and varied.
Many votes were changed because of the Comey mistake. (enough to turn the election)
Many votes were changed because of the leaked e-mails. (enough to turn the election)
Many votes were changed due to targeted Russian misinformation. (enough to turn the election)

The convergence of all 3 of these (plus more) was necessary in order for Trump to win the election.
Absent any one of the 3 - Trump loses.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

I see this as progress for you. Now that you have accepted that public opinion can be swayed are you willing to say that it's possible that the Russian hacking and releasing of DNC emails coupled with the massive social media campaign might have had an impact on the election?

So it's the Russians fault for releasing the emails that was written by the DNC?


It's that cars fault in front of me for stopping which is why I hit them in the azz.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

Gingrich: McCabe-Rosenstein Plot 'One of the Great Scandals in American History' | Breitbart

 

[carlos86]

 

[RockyTop85]

It is buzzfeed but seems fairly easy to verify:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/robert-mueller-appointment-valid-dc-circuit-ruling

This one was one of those silver bullet theories that went along with the FISA stuff, right?

Looks like strike one for the grifters.

 

[volinbham]

I'll stand by the fact as stated.

We'll just add the word "fact" to the list of words Luther doesn't know the definition to.

 

[volinbham]

You have about 20 false conclusions in your post.
The election didn't hinge on democrats voting republican anymore than it hinged on republicans voting democrat. As with every election, the results hinged on the middle 20% with no firm party loyalty.
The misinformation was targeted and varied.
Many votes were changed because of the Comey mistake. (enough to turn the election)
Many votes were changed because of the leaked e-mails. (enough to turn the election)
Many votes were changed due to targeted Russian misinformation. (enough to turn the election)

The convergence of all 3 of these (plus more) was necessary in order for Trump to win the election.
Absent any one of the 3 - Trump loses.

It did indeed hinge on Democrats voting for Trump.

The rest is pure speculation with no supporting facts (proper use of this word) as is typical for your claims.

 

[NorthDallas40]

It is buzzfeed but seems fairly easy to verify:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/robert-mueller-appointment-valid-dc-circuit-ruling

This one was one of those silver bullet theories that went along with the FISA stuff, right?

Looks like strike one for the grifters.

Not so fast my friend!

In an opinion written by Judge Judith Rogers, the court concluded that Mueller was an "inferior officer," which meant he could be legally appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein; Rosenstein appointed Mueller to run the Russia investigation in May 2017. Miller had argued that Mueller was a "principal officer" who had to be confirmed by the US Senate.

The ruling was written on the basis of a principal vs inferior officer. Mueller is inferior and serves at the leisure of the Executive branch officer that appointed him. It is completely quiet on the basis of that appointment. And... let’s go ahead and open that can of worms on the statement “serves at the pleasure of the Executive Branch official that appointed him”...

"In either event, Special Counsel Mueller effectively serves at the pleasure of an Executive Branch officer who was appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate," Rogers wrote.

 

[evillawyer]

It is buzzfeed but seems fairly easy to verify:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/robert-mueller-appointment-valid-dc-circuit-ruling

This one was one of those silver bullet theories that went along with the FISA stuff, right?

Looks like strike one for the grifters.

Just do a search on here for "Calabresi," who originally authored the article that argued Mueller's appointment was unconstitutional. Man, these guys on here were so lathered up thinking they had Mueller dead to rights. One of their many faceplants in their attempts to impugn Mueller.

 

[luthervol]

It did indeed hinge on Democrats voting for Trump.

The rest is pure speculation with no supporting facts (proper use of this word) as is typical for your claims.

Did not.
Did too.
Did not.
Did too.
Now that we have our next 4 posts out of the way. As many traditional repubs. turned away from Trump as did dems. from Clinton. (Look no further than college educated white women)
Every election hinges on the middle 20%.

 

[Franklin Pierce]

 

[RockyTop85]

Not so fast my friend!



The ruling was written on the basis of a principal vs inferior officer. Mueller is inferior and serves at the leisure of the Executive branch officer that appointed him. It is completely quiet on the basis of that appointment. And... let’s go ahead and open that can of worms on the statement “serves at the pleasure of the Executive Branch official that appointed him”...

Yeah, and? This is exactly what every rational person already knew.

That’s why Matthew Whittaker’s appointment was such a big deal. It’s why William Barr got asked at his confirmation about what he was going to do with the Mueller investigation. Mueller has always answered to Rosenstein/Barr/Whittaker. That’s why Democrats and Jeff Flake tried to browbeat McConnel into voting to protect the Special Counsel.

The idea that he was some rogue agent who answered to nobody, because his very existence was an abnormality that violated legal norms, was a complete fabrication that came from God knows who in the hive of right wing grifters who, I can only assume, are somehow monetizing their own staggering capacity for dishonesty.

 

[lawgator1]

Here's another puzzler for you. You keep claiming "misinformation" was the shifter. If Russian actions actually did sway some votes then it was more likely to be real information (Podesta/DNC email content) that moved the needle. While the hacking is wrong, the revealed information (real information; not misinformation) was likely more impactful than any ad campaign.

Yet another just made up theory by Trump supporters to excuse Russian interference and to minimize any effect it had to favor Trump.

First, as with the other claim (no votes were changed as a result) there is just no way to prove or disprove it. All we can do is see the strong evidence of their effort to do so. Really, the evidence of that is overwhelming and undeniable. And so of course Trump still denies it.

Second, even if not a single vote were changed, if in fact Trump or his team engaged in either any sort of quid pro quo arrangement to get the help, or acted to cover up the fact of such help, then those are crimes. The former in fact would be out and out treason.

And that is so even if not a single vote were changed.

 

[volfanjustin]

Yet another just made up theory by Trump supporters to excuse Russian interference and to minimize any effect it had to favor Trump.

First, as with the other claim (no votes were changed as a result) there is just no way to prove or disprove it. All we can do is see the strong evidence of their effort to do so. Really, the evidence of that is overwhelming and undeniable. And so of course Trump still denies it.

Second, even if not a single vote were changed, if in fact Trump or his team engaged in either any sort of quid pro quo arrangement to get the help, or acted to cover up the fact of such help, then those are crimes. The former in fact would be out and out treason.

And that is so even if not a single vote were changed.

Just repeating what your boy Comey said

 

[NorthDallas40]

Yeah, and? This is exactly what every rational person already knew.

That’s why Matthew Whittaker’s appointment was such a big deal. It’s why William Barr got asked at his confirmation about what he was going to do with the Mueller investigation. Mueller has always answered to Rosenstein/Barr/Whittaker. That’s why Democrats and Jeff Flake tried to browbeat McConnel into voting to protect the Special Counsel.

The idea that he was some rogue agent who answered to nobody, because his very existence was an abnormality that violated legal norms, was a complete fabrication that came from God knows who in the hive of right wing grifters who, I can only assume, are somehow monetizing their own staggering capacity for dishonesty.

My whole point is the BASIS of Mueller’s appointment. The ruling just said Rosenstein hired him and he, or his replacement, can fire him. As we’ve discussed before the basis of that appointment is what I harp on. And this ruling didn’t address that. It just reinforces he answers to the Executive Branch appointing official.

Basically Mueller isn’t responsible for the validity of his appointment the appointing official is. And I agree with that. Now let’s get back to THAT original basis. It was the result of a flawed process as far as I’m concerned.

Oh on the comment that he answered to nobody so I’m pretty sure I haven’t made that statement. It gets back to WHO he answered to. If Sessions has to recuse then Rosenstein damn sure should have also.

 

[volinbham]

Did not.
Did too.
Did not.
Did too.
Now that we have our next 4 posts out of the way. As many traditional repubs. turned away from Trump as did dems. from Clinton. (Look no further than college educated white women)
Every election hinges on the middle 20%.

Traditional republicans turning away from Trump means even MORE Democrats had to come over to Team Trump.