Something that never ended can't be "resurrected".
Quote: ...what about the so-called War on Terror, as declared by US President George W Bush in 2001? Is it still going on? ...for all the talk of America First now .... there is a wide perception that this is winding down [but] we've actually seen a continued expansion of US counter-terrorism operations.
That's a view largely endorsed by the man appointed by President Donald Trump as the US State Department's coordinator for counter-terrorism, Ambassador Nathan Sales. I asked him whether this war -- as originally conceived by the Bush administration -- is over?
"No, the fight is very much ongoing, we're winning the fight but we're continuing to fight against a determined enemy or I should say a determined group of enemies". [end quote]
I gave no endorsement. I pointed out that you are wrong. EVERY president since gwb began the "war on terror" has continued it. Including Dotard. Twice the electorate refused to show up in sufficient numbers to make Bernie Sanders the nominee (the only candidate who was committed to changing our stupid foreign policy). Idiots like Jimmy Dore and Krystal Ball blame the DNC, but the DNC wants voters to show up in the primaries. They aren't for suppressing votes and driving down turnout like the "GOP".
That's why Dotard says bounties on our soldiers is OK? Putin told him he'd nuke us if it wasn't? I say bullshit. Much more likely Dotard says it's OK because he wants Putin to continue helping him steal the 2020 election.
"Likely" as in that is exactly what is happening. btw, I think Putin is very happy with the pain his puppet has inflicted upon the United States. Even if his puppet is replaced in November, Biden is going to have a hell of a time dealing with the damage Dotard has done. Mission accomplished. And nobody wants war, let alone nuclear war. Except you.
What they did "by the book" was investigate the Russians who were in contact with the Dotard campaign. According to you, a foreign power trying to interfere with our presidential elections should be ignored. Our intelligence agencies CORRECTLY disagreed.
Did the IG Report cover the CIA? Did it cover NSA or any other members of the IC other than FBI/DOJ? Did it interview any CIA or NSA personnel? Then how can it possibly know with any certitude that the Campaign was not spied upon? And as for the FBI not spying, the false predicates for the FBI investigation have already been exposed as false. They knew all along before the end of the transition that Trump's campaign had NO unofficial contacts with the Russian Government and that all official contacts had been reported. Peter Strzok confirmed it. That means, there was no basis for the OCONUS lures or FISA warrants obtained against Carter Page, Mike Flynn or George Popadopolous rendering the entire FBI operation a known and illegitimate campaign spying operation. Sounds like the FBI needs a new IG.
Why did we even HAVE one IG report? Muller investigated Russian collusion. The republicans investigated what happened at Benghazi over and over -- desperate to find SOMETHING to crucify Hillary Clinton with. She has yet to be indicted. Now you're trying to discredit the work of our intelligence agencies and Muller by "investigating" until you get a report you like. As with Benghazi, you aren't going to get the results you want. Because there was no "witch hunt".
And "We have not seen evidence of any individuals in contact with Russians (both Governmental and non-Governmental)" is complete bullshit. The tRump tower meeting (which Dotard himself acknowledges happened) was a non-Governmental Russian contact. The cigar bar meeting between Manafort and Konstantin Kilimnik was another contact.
According to Michael Cohen (who fully cooperated) "he had already conferred with Trump about contacting the Russian government before reaching out to gauge Russia's interest".
You can't use one sentence to dismiss over 100 contacts (as reported by Time Magazine). Not when there is documentation and/or witnesses backing them up. Especially when we have ex-Dotard campaign people admitting they happened.
Every Government IG only covers a single agency. You are familiar with the concept of separation of powers, aren't you? The Congressional Reports are written by the staffs of Congressional Committees. And reports that split along party lines are worthless, as all dissenting opinion contrary to those of the dominant party's members gets placed in a Minority Report.
And "We have not seen evidence of any individuals in contact with Russians (both Governmental and non-Governmental)" is complete bullshit. That was Strzrok's conclusion, head of the Crossfire Hurricane/Russia investigation, and he was no friend of Trump.
And private Russians are not the Russian government.
"Private Russians" acting on behalf of the Russian government. Tasked by the Russian government. As explicitly stated in the email Don Junior received (and later publicly released) states. The Russians he met with showed up because the Russian government was supporting Dotard's candidacy. The meeting is agreed BY ALL to have occurred. AKA there **IS** evidence of Russian national non-Governmental contact. "Evidence" confirmed to be FACT.
And Strzok MUST be a friend of Dotard if he stands by that supposed "conclusion". It's friends of Dotard who believe they can rewrite reality when it comes to Dotard's collusion with Russia.
The Russians he met with showed up because the Russian government was supporting Dotard's candidacy. The meeting is agreed BY ALL to have occurred.
But all the collusion and passing on of campaign aiding information from those Russians to the Campaign... where is it? Where's the dirt that they passed on? Show me forensically, the evidence. There was NONE. AND still, no proof of a governmental affiliation.
You just admitted to a contact. They met. A meeting is a contact.
You need forensics to prove WikiLeaks released hacked DNC data? It was in the news! Was Julian Assange framed? By who? The media? Did Seth Rich download the DNC data and pass it on to Rachel Maddow?
Collusion (definition): Law. a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally... [end definition]
AN UNDERSTANDING. Dotard proved he was in on the understanding when he said "Russia, if you're listening". And there is also the fact that Roger Stone was coordinating with Assange (filling in Dotard as to when WikiLeaks dumps were coming and how the campaign could capitalize on them). But Stone refused to talk. Why Dotard commuted his sentence (to reward Stone for his silence and to complete the cover up).
A presidential candidate saying "Russia if your listening" on national TV isn't the same as someone writing it on a blog read by almost nobody. You're the wacko for thinking that is a valid comparison. btw, Russia heard Dotard's request and acted on it. And you haven't discredited anything I've written.
btw - Why would Russian hackers, who were trying to get Trump elected, wait for instructions from Trump to hack her opponents campaign @ DNC and begin looking for e-mails? Did they not know that Hillary was a Democrat before Trump's so-called "instructions"? Why didn't they attempt to hack Hillary's "impregnable" and "not-so-top-secret" home-brew server?
Two different servers -- HRC's home servers and DNC servers. Perhaps the Russian hackers "waited for instructions" because they were busy with the data from the DNC servers and hadn't gotten around to hacking HRC's servers yet. You'd have to ask them.
FYI (as I've already pointed out) the DNC doesn't own Crowdstrike. They're a private company. One hired by both Democrats and Republicans. And trusted by the FBI, obviously (that would be the FBI otherwise known as "Trump country").
32 comments:
Something that never ended can't be "resurrected".
Quote: ...what about the so-called War on Terror, as declared by US President George W Bush in 2001? Is it still going on? ...for all the talk of America First now .... there is a wide perception that this is winding down [but] we've actually seen a continued expansion of US counter-terrorism operations.
That's a view largely endorsed by the man appointed by President Donald Trump as the US State Department's coordinator for counter-terrorism, Ambassador Nathan Sales. I asked him whether this war -- as originally conceived by the Bush administration -- is over?
"No, the fight is very much ongoing, we're winning the fight but we're continuing to fight against a determined enemy or I should say a determined group of enemies". [end quote]
He'll be happy to know that he has your endorsement on foreign policy.
I gave no endorsement. I pointed out that you are wrong. EVERY president since gwb began the "war on terror" has continued it. Including Dotard. Twice the electorate refused to show up in sufficient numbers to make Bernie Sanders the nominee (the only candidate who was committed to changing our stupid foreign policy). Idiots like Jimmy Dore and Krystal Ball blame the DNC, but the DNC wants voters to show up in the primaries. They aren't for suppressing votes and driving down turnout like the "GOP".
Doubling down on "yes" to the Biden WoT. Good to know.
Sure. Better than the Dotard WoT. Biden won't stab allies in the back or do nothing about bounties on US soldier's lives.
Goodie, WWIII w/Russian nukes... looking forward to it.
That's why Dotard says bounties on our soldiers is OK? Putin told him he'd nuke us if it wasn't? I say bullshit. Much more likely Dotard says it's OK because he wants Putin to continue helping him steal the 2020 election.
"Likely" as in that is exactly what is happening. btw, I think Putin is very happy with the pain his puppet has inflicted upon the United States. Even if his puppet is replaced in November, Biden is going to have a hell of a time dealing with the damage Dotard has done. Mission accomplished. And nobody wants war, let alone nuclear war. Except you.
Biden elected... kaBOOOOOOOM!
Dotard will start a nuclear war during the time he is a lame duck?
No, Putin won't allow his puppet to be replaced. It's not Trump leaving that you have to worry about. :)
...it's Dotard staying. Yes, I am very worried about that. But also the leaving.
Sabotage like Obama and Biden did to his incoming administration? Oh, the horror....
No. You refer to your delusions again. Not anything that actually happened.
They didn't spy on Trump "By the book"? Then what did they do, "by the book"?
DOJ inspector general draft report says FBI didn't spy on Trump campaign.
What they did "by the book" was investigate the Russians who were in contact with the Dotard campaign. According to you, a foreign power trying to interfere with our presidential elections should be ignored. Our intelligence agencies CORRECTLY disagreed.
Did the IG Report cover the CIA? Did it cover NSA or any other members of the IC other than FBI/DOJ? Did it interview any CIA or NSA personnel? Then how can it possibly know with any certitude that the Campaign was not spied upon? And as for the FBI not spying, the false predicates for the FBI investigation have already been exposed as false. They knew all along before the end of the transition that Trump's campaign had NO unofficial contacts with the Russian Government and that all official contacts had been reported. Peter Strzok confirmed it. That means, there was no basis for the OCONUS lures or FISA warrants obtained against Carter Page, Mike Flynn or George Popadopolous rendering the entire FBI operation a known and illegitimate campaign spying operation. Sounds like the FBI needs a new IG.
Why did we even HAVE one IG report? Muller investigated Russian collusion. The republicans investigated what happened at Benghazi over and over -- desperate to find SOMETHING to crucify Hillary Clinton with. She has yet to be indicted. Now you're trying to discredit the work of our intelligence agencies and Muller by "investigating" until you get a report you like. As with Benghazi, you aren't going to get the results you want. Because there was no "witch hunt".
And "We have not seen evidence of any individuals in contact with Russians (both Governmental and non-Governmental)" is complete bullshit. The tRump tower meeting (which Dotard himself acknowledges happened) was a non-Governmental Russian contact. The cigar bar meeting between Manafort and Konstantin Kilimnik was another contact.
According to Michael Cohen (who fully cooperated) "he had already conferred with Trump about contacting the Russian government before reaching out to gauge Russia's interest".
You can't use one sentence to dismiss over 100 contacts (as reported by Time Magazine). Not when there is documentation and/or witnesses backing them up. Especially when we have ex-Dotard campaign people admitting they happened.
Every Government IG only covers a single agency. You are familiar with the concept of separation of powers, aren't you? The Congressional Reports are written by the staffs of Congressional Committees. And reports that split along party lines are worthless, as all dissenting opinion contrary to those of the dominant party's members gets placed in a Minority Report.
And "We have not seen evidence of any individuals in contact with Russians (both Governmental and non-Governmental)" is complete bullshit. That was Strzrok's conclusion, head of the Crossfire Hurricane/Russia investigation, and he was no friend of Trump.
And private Russians are not the Russian government.
"Private Russians" acting on behalf of the Russian government. Tasked by the Russian government. As explicitly stated in the email Don Junior received (and later publicly released) states. The Russians he met with showed up because the Russian government was supporting Dotard's candidacy. The meeting is agreed BY ALL to have occurred. AKA there **IS** evidence of Russian national non-Governmental contact. "Evidence" confirmed to be FACT.
And Strzok MUST be a friend of Dotard if he stands by that supposed "conclusion". It's friends of Dotard who believe they can rewrite reality when it comes to Dotard's collusion with Russia.
The Russians he met with showed up because the Russian government was supporting Dotard's candidacy. The meeting is agreed BY ALL to have occurred.
But all the collusion and passing on of campaign aiding information from those Russians to the Campaign... where is it? Where's the dirt that they passed on? Show me forensically, the evidence. There was NONE. AND still, no proof of a governmental affiliation.
You just admitted to a contact. They met. A meeting is a contact.
You need forensics to prove WikiLeaks released hacked DNC data? It was in the news! Was Julian Assange framed? By who? The media? Did Seth Rich download the DNC data and pass it on to Rachel Maddow?
Collusion (definition): Law. a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally... [end definition]
AN UNDERSTANDING. Dotard proved he was in on the understanding when he said "Russia, if you're listening". And there is also the fact that Roger Stone was coordinating with Assange (filling in Dotard as to when WikiLeaks dumps were coming and how the campaign could capitalize on them). But Stone refused to talk. Why Dotard commuted his sentence (to reward Stone for his silence and to complete the cover up).
Who was the Russian government representative in the meeting? Don Jr.? lol!
The source of the Wikileaks hack has been forensically established as "Russian" and is in the news? Where's the report?
btw - Russia, if you're listening, Dervish Sanders is a whacko.
I'm now colluding with Russia in discrediting everything you write.
A presidential candidate saying "Russia if your listening" on national TV isn't the same as someone writing it on a blog read by almost nobody. You're the wacko for thinking that is a valid comparison. btw, Russia heard Dotard's request and acted on it. And you haven't discredited anything I've written.
They acted upon it? Where's your proof? lol!
ps- You discredit yourself.
The same day Trump asked Russia to find Hillary Clinton's missing emails, Russians tried to hack Clinton-affiliated emails.
ps- YOU discredit YOURself.
Also, "Trump's public request for Russian help in finding Hillary Clinton's emails was a violation of US law".
Claims the wholly owned DNC subsidiary 'CrowdStrike'. Buy a clue.
btw - Why would Russian hackers, who were trying to get Trump elected, wait for instructions from Trump to hack her opponents campaign @ DNC and begin looking for e-mails? Did they not know that Hillary was a Democrat before Trump's so-called "instructions"? Why didn't they attempt to hack Hillary's "impregnable" and "not-so-top-secret" home-brew server?
Two different servers -- HRC's home servers and DNC servers. Perhaps the Russian hackers "waited for instructions" because they were busy with the data from the DNC servers and hadn't gotten around to hacking HRC's servers yet. You'd have to ask them.
FYI (as I've already pointed out) the DNC doesn't own Crowdstrike. They're a private company. One hired by both Democrats and Republicans. And trusted by the FBI, obviously (that would be the FBI otherwise known as "Trump country").
What made the Russians believe that Hillary's missing e-mails were on a DNC server? Seems a strange place to look.
Post a Comment