Study debunks Democrat conspiracy theory about Russians stealing the election

[Taichiliberal]

Ambiguity? The article specifically lays out that there is zero impact detected from the activities of such trolls. That's the opposite of ambiguous, genius.



Smear people as lying for telling the truth. You've learned from your fellow Democrat witch hunters well.

Nadler dismisses GOP witness requests



Obama retaliated against and silenced witnesses. That's why whistle blower protections were necessary. That's nothing like Trump having a basic universal right to confront his accuser...an accuser with zero protection under that law.

Try again.



Sure, if by "has NOTHING to do with" it, you mean it is the centerpiece of the case.

Step 1: Biden does incredibly, obviously corrupt things.

Step 2: Trump wants Biden's corruption investigated, as required by law.

Step 3: Democrats feign outrage over a total non-controversy and demand an explanation.

Step 4: Republicans ask to put Biden on the stand to show why they wanted an investigation.

Step 5: Democrats insist the centerpiece of the Republicans' reason for wanting an investigation "has NOTHING to do with" their show trial.

View attachment 13262



You never asked for proof. You just made a false assumption and then falsely accused others of lying for telling the truth. Seeing a pattern here?

View attachment 13263

Example: Fiona Hill...the partisan left-wing Brookings activist who lied under oath about Ukraine's PROVEN, WELL-DOCUMENTED collusion with Democrats in 2016...was also caught lying about what she was fighting for the entire time she was involved in Ukraine so she could falsely demonize Trump. Here's the proof in her own words, by her own admission.



1) You should take a grade school course on how to use apostrophes correctly.

2) Obama's officials refuse to comply with subpoenas at every turn, even to the point of using Bleachbit and hammers to destroy evidence under subpoena: Perfectly fine, nothing to see here. Trump goes to court to fight a debunked witch hunt the legitimate way: That's obstruction! Because muh feelings are more important than the facts!



Mueller was Hillary's bitch. The moment someone comes along who isn't openly and unmistakably rigging everything for one side, THAT'S when you cry foul, smearing objectivity as bias, despite all the evidence showing the opposite.

1. Get a dictionary and expand your vocabulary, chuckles. Then take a refresher course in reading comprehension. From your source: Even though we find no evidence that Russian trolls polarized the political attitudes and behaviors of partisan Twitter users in late 2017, these null effects should not diminish concern about foreign influence campaigns on social media because our analysis was limited to 1 population at a single point in time. We were unable to systematically determine whether IRA trolls influenced public attitudes or behavior during the 2016 presidential election, which is widely regarded as a critical juncture for misinformation campaigns. It is also possible that the Russian government’s campaign has evolved to become more impactful since the late-2017 period upon which we focused.

2. Schiff and the Biden's wasn't sending Giuliani to usurp the professional diplomatic and foreign intelligence folk by dealing with the very known corrupt people Zelensky was elected to get rid of; nor did they hold up much needed weapons; nor did they sanctioned the sand bagging of anyone who disagreed with these tactics, nor did they respond to Zelensky's mentioning of the weapon systems by asking for "... a favor, though." This stall/diversion tactic wasn't going to fly. TFB for the Orange Oaf's sycophants.

3. You're right about Obama....that's one of the reasons why Dem AND GOP voted for the protection law. You don't just throw it out the window when it suits you, as the vindictive tweeting Orange Oaf would like to do. And Trump was invited to have legal representation in the proceedings....he declined. TFB for him, his crony's and his suck ups.

4. You're attempt at mocking with your silly little listing is just a regurgitation of the Orange Oaf's talking points.....been there, done that, factually proved it to be garbage that you think you can disprove by ignoring what you don't like and pushing your opinion as fact. You fail as usual.

5. Please copy and paste the EXACT paragraph from the article you link that proves in no uncertain terms what you state here. If you can't, that makes you a liar yet again.

6. Every time you Trump chumps get nailed, you blather "Obama did it too!" Well, just for giggles, copy and paste the valid documentation to prove so. Meanwhile, GTFU and deal with the FACT that Trump's cronies are defying a subpoena that normally warrants arrest....Barr is Trump's bitch, so that ain't happening.

7. If Mueller was as you say, then he would have concluded differently. Remember chuckles, Mueller said there was insufficient evidence to show Trump had first hand knowledge of the Russian hacks and attempts...BUT he did say that there was enough evidence of Trump's obstruction and conduct to warrant investigation by Congress...and here we are.

If you're going to troll, chuckles, try thinking beyond Fox News and right wing media flacks in print. That means actually reading and understanding what you read, and not trying to pass off your supposition and conjecture as fact. Oh, and saying "I know you are, but what am I" won't cut it either. Carry on.

 

[artichoke]

1. Get a dictionary and expand your vocabulary, chuckles. Then take a refresher course in reading comprehension. From your source: Even though we find no evidence that Russian trolls polarized the political attitudes and behaviors of partisan Twitter users in late 2017, these null effects should not diminish concern about foreign influence campaigns on social media because our analysis was limited to 1 population at a single point in time. We were unable to systematically determine whether IRA trolls influenced public attitudes or behavior during the 2016 presidential election, which is widely regarded as a critical juncture for misinformation campaigns. It is also possible that the Russian government’s campaign has evolved to become more impactful since the late-2017 period upon which we focused.

All of this was known and readily acknowledged from the beginning...and has zero impact on the point being made here. For instance, no one is ARGUING that tolls having zero impact diminishes the legitimacy of being concerned about ongoing attempts to impose foreign influence on our elections (and being that all the actual, documented cases of this are from Democrats doing it, I am particularly still concerned about it). And no one is ARGUING that them proving in 2017 that Russian trolls have zero impact must mean that there was also exactly zero impact in 2016...just that it shows how unlikely it is that Russians ended up changing results for Bernie or Trump in any meaningful ways. And no one is ARGUING that Russia couldn't have gotten better than this total failure to impact anything at all over time.

You are responding to points no one has made and idiotically beating your chest in celebration, like you've accomplished something other than demonstrating your literacy issues once more.

Your post also fails to relate in any way to your diversionary "counterpoint" about ambiguity (the thing we were talking about?) where the study was actually unmistakably clear and specific..the opposite of ambiguous...speaking of working on vocabularies and struggling with reading comprehension.

View attachment 13367

2. Schiff and the Biden's wasn't sending Giuliani...nor did they sanctioned...

Nice English. Have you graduated grade school? Speaking of reading comprehension.

2. Schiff and the Biden's wasn't sending Giuliani to usurp the professional diplomatic and foreign intelligence folk by dealing with the very known corrupt people Zelensky was elected to get rid of; nor did they hold up much needed weapons; nor did they sanctioned the sand bagging of anyone who disagreed with these tactics, nor did they respond to Zelensky's mentioning of the weapon systems by asking for "... a favor, though." This stall/diversion tactic wasn't going to fly. TFB for the Orange Oaf's sycophants.

This incoherent drivel refutes no part of what anyone has said.

For example:

-Foreign policy is set by who? The president. The president changing foreign policy isn't the president usurping those sworn to serve under him...who instead decide to resist him. That's THEM usurping foreign policy, dumb-ass.

-Obama gave them blankets. Trump gave them lethal weapons. Trump briefly delaying aid to vet a new Ukrainian president as required by law isn't Trump denying anyone lethal weapons, genius. That's Trump following the law while UPGRADING their aid.

-Asking for something in exchange for foreign aid (which it isn't even clear is what happened here) is the PURPOSE of foreign aid, you freaking moron. All foreign policy IS Quid Pro Quo. And there's nothing even remotely controversial about asking for an investigation into already proven Democrat corruption in exchange for foreign aid (how about Democrats just stop breaking the law?). If there were, Biden would have been removed for threatening to pull aid to protect his bribery arrangement with Burisma. That's an entirely new standard invented out of thin air by Democrats for purely partisan purposes.

Try again, dishonest (and semi-literate) demagogue.

3. You're right about Obama....that's one of the reasons why Dem AND GOP voted for the protection law. You don't just throw it out the window when it suits you, as the vindictive tweeting Orange Oaf would like to do.

Obama destroying people's lives and careers is nothing like Trump having a basic universal right to confront his accuser (and all the other basic universal due process rights being violated by this debunked hoax)...an accuser with zero protection under the Whistleblower Protection Act. And you arbitrarily assigning nefarious motives to Trump in no way makes those his actual motives.

Next lie, please.

And Trump was invited to have legal representation in the proceedings....he declined. TFB for him, his crony's and his suck ups.

His lawyer WAS there, endlessly misinformed dumb-ass. He was the guy handing Democrats their asses at every turn. What's it like being wrong with literally every assertion you make?

4. You're attempt at mocking with your silly little listing is just a regurgitation of the Orange Oaf's talking points

Translation: Trump makes factual statements about, for instance (from point #1 in said list), Biden doing corrupt things, and if anyone else states those same facts to correct my lies, then that person must be "regurgitating Trump's talking points."

Nice logic.

How about don't lie if you don't want the same facts to keep being brought up to set the record straight?

5. Please copy and paste the EXACT paragraph from the article you link that proves in no uncertain terms what you state here. If you can't, that makes you a liar yet again.

Here is this outspoken anti-Trump partisan (see also her partisan column smearing Trump over the Crimea) clearly and emphatically advocating AGAINST helping Ukraine before vilifying and scandal-mongering against Trump as posing some kind of unforgivable existential threat to Ukraine for rightly delaying aid:

"Increasing the Ukrainian army’s fighting capacity, the thinking goes, would allow it to kill more rebels and Russian soldiers, generating a backlash in Russia and ultimately forcing the Russian president to the negotiating table. We strongly disagree. The evidence points in a different direction. If we follow the recommendations of this report, the Ukrainians won’t be the only ones caught in an escalating military conflict with Russia."

This is in addition to her blatantly false depiction of the well-documented and proven Democrat collusion with Ukraine (see the next post for proof), which she even later admitted did in fact happen (saying Ukrainian officials 'bet on the wrong horse thinking Hillary 'was going to win,' and 'said some pretty disparaging and pretty hurtful things' to trash his candidacy while 'trying to curry favor' with Hillary by colluding to implicate Paul Manafort), as a "fiction" and a conspiracy theory.

6. Every time you Trump chumps...

"Chumps," say the same people who just got humiliated for the umpteenth time on YEARS of bullshit talking points, this time by the IG report.

6. Every time you Trump chumps get nailed, you blather "Obama did it too!"

Wrong. Every time you LIE about Trump doing what only Democrats do...we point out that Democrats ACTUALLY did it, and that you defended the ACTUAL instance it being done. Trump going to court to fight back isn't obstruction. Democrats just not complying with subpoenas...THAT'S ACTUAL obstruction. Freaking moron. Again, the only people who actually use the "whataboutism" fallacy are the people constantly falsely accusing others of it...YOU.

Try again, dishonest demagogue.

Well, just for giggles, copy and paste the valid documentation to prove so.

9 Times The Obama Administration Fought Subpoenas or Blocked Officials from Testifying Before Congress

View attachment 13364

Eric Holder was even held in contempt of Congress for his relentless defiance of subpoenas. THAT'S ACTUAL obstruction, misinformation-peddling halfwit. Again, you being unable to comprehend what actual obstruction is isn't other people using the Democrats' beloved "whataboutism" fallacy for correcting your uninformed stupidity.

7. If Mueller was as you say, then he would have concluded differently.

Because no one who's Hillary's bitch would falsely exonerate Hillary while framing her opponent.

View attachment 13365

Remember chuckles, Mueller said there was insufficient evidence to show Trump had first hand knowledge of the Russian hacks and attempts...BUT he did say that there was enough evidence of Trump's obstruction and conduct to warrant investigation by Congress...and here we are.

And this undoes all the proof of his corruption, law-breaking, abuses of power, and bias how?

If you're going to troll, chuckles, try thinking beyond Fox News and right wing media flacks in print.

Their reporting has been overwhelmingly vindicated by the IG report. Your sources have been exposed as biased trash. Why would I change to LESS credible sources?

That means actually reading and understanding what you read,

Says the guy sputtering semi-literate sentence fragments, incoherent drivel, failing to comprehend plain English at every turn, and having to have everything spelled out with crayons.

and not trying to pass off your supposition and conjecture as fact.

Again, this is what only Democrats are actually doing...the entire impeachment show trial was nothing but third and fourth party conjecture and hearsay dressed up as fact.

View attachment 13366

 

[artichoke]

Did Ukraine try to interfere in the 2016 election on Clinton's behalf?

"A Democratic operative working with the Democratic National Committee did reach out to the Ukrainian government in an attempt to get damaging information about the Trump campaign. That operative's name is Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American former Clinton White House aide who was tasked with ethnic outreach on behalf of the Democratic Party."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/did-ukr...2016-election/

From Daily Beast:

Ukrainian Officials Meddled in 2016 Election by Leaking Secret Manafort Ledger, Court Says

"Two Ukrainian officials meddled in the 2016 U.S. presidential election by leaking a secret ledger showing $12.7 million in payments between Ukraine’s ousted pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych and Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, a Ukrainian court said Wednesday"
https://www.thedailybeast.com/ukrain...ger-court-says

From the Hill:

As Russia collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges.

"After nearly three years and millions of tax dollars, the Trump-Russia collusion probe is about to be resolved. Emerging in its place is newly unearthed evidence suggesting another foreign effort to influence the 2016 election — this time, in favor of the Democrats. Ukraine’s top prosecutor divulged in an interview aired Wednesday on Hill.TV that he has opened an investigation into whether his country’s law enforcement apparatus intentionally leaked financial records during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign about then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort in an effort to sway the election in favor of Hillary Clinton."
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign...linton-emerges

From Politico:

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire

"Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found."
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...ackfire-233446

From Washington Examiner:

Washington Post admits Ukraine interfered in 2016 election but attempts to minimize its effect

"Farhi’s piece acknowledged that Vogel’s reporting on Ukraine 'extensively detailed Ukrainian efforts to undermine Trump in 2016, such as publicly questioning his fitness for office, disseminating documents implicating Paul Manafort, his campaign chairman at the time, in corruption and helping a Clinton ally research damaging information about him.'"
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...ize-its-effect

From The Nation (which is ultra-liberal):

"'Ukrainians certainly had every reason to expose Manafort’s corruption, and the man’s subsequent trial showed there was an enormous amount to expose,' wrote Golinkin. 'But Ukraine’s efforts also happened to coincide with—and have an immediate impact on—an American campaign. And yet, despite this information's being available in English, and published by established Western media, we’ve had almost no debate about its implications.'"
https://www.thenation.com/article/uk...lections-2016/

 

[Taichiliberal]

All of this was known and readily acknowledged from the beginning...and has zero impact on the point being made here. For instance, no one is ARGUING that tolls having zero impact diminishes the legitimacy of being concerned about ongoing attempts to impose foreign influence on our elections (and being that all the actual, documented cases of this are from Democrats doing it, I am particularly still concerned about it). And no one is ARGUING that them proving in 2017 that Russian trolls have zero impact must mean that there was also exactly zero impact in 2016...just that it shows how unlikely it is that Russians ended up changing results for Bernie or Trump in any meaningful ways. And no one is ARGUING that Russia couldn't have gotten better than this total failure to impact anything at all over time.

You are responding to points no one has made and idiotically beating your chest in celebration, like you've accomplished something other than demonstrating your literacy issues once more.

Your post also fails to relate in any way to your diversionary "counterpoint" about ambiguity (the thing we were talking about?) where the study was actually unmistakably clear and specific..the opposite of ambiguous...speaking of working on vocabularies and struggling with reading comprehension.

View attachment 13367





Nice English. Have you graduated grade school? Speaking of reading comprehension.



This incoherent drivel refutes no part of what anyone has said.

For example:

-Foreign policy is set by who? The president. The president changing foreign policy isn't the president usurping those sworn to serve under him...who instead decide to resist him. That's THEM usurping foreign policy, dumb-ass.

-Obama gave them blankets. Trump gave them lethal weapons. Trump briefly delaying aid to vet a new Ukrainian president as required by law isn't Trump denying anyone lethal weapons, genius. That's Trump following the law while UPGRADING their aid.

-Asking for something in exchange for foreign aid (which it isn't even clear is what happened here) is the PURPOSE of foreign aid, you freaking moron. All foreign policy IS Quid Pro Quo. And there's nothing even remotely controversial about asking for an investigation into already proven Democrat corruption in exchange for foreign aid (how about Democrats just stop breaking the law?). If there were, Biden would have been removed for threatening to pull aid to protect his bribery arrangement with Burisma. That's an entirely new standard invented out of thin air by Democrats for purely partisan purposes.

Try again, dishonest (and semi-literate) demagogue.





Obama destroying people's lives and careers is nothing like Trump having a basic universal right to confront his accuser (and all the other basic universal due process rights being violated by this debunked hoax)...an accuser with zero protection under the Whistleblower Protection Act. And you arbitrarily assigning nefarious motives to Trump in no way makes those his actual motives.

Next lie, please.



His lawyer WAS there, endlessly misinformed dumb-ass. He was the guy handing Democrats their asses at every turn. What's it like being wrong with literally every assertion you make?



Translation: Trump makes factual statements about, for instance (from point #1 in said list), Biden doing corrupt things, and if anyone else states those same facts to correct my lies, then that person must be "regurgitating Trump's talking points."

Nice logic.

How about don't lie if you don't want the same facts to keep being brought up to set the record straight?



Here is this outspoken anti-Trump partisan (see also her partisan column smearing Trump over the Crimea) clearly and emphatically advocating AGAINST helping Ukraine before vilifying and scandal-mongering against Trump as posing some kind of unforgivable existential threat to Ukraine for rightly delaying aid:

"Increasing the Ukrainian army’s fighting capacity, the thinking goes, would allow it to kill more rebels and Russian soldiers, generating a backlash in Russia and ultimately forcing the Russian president to the negotiating table. We strongly disagree. The evidence points in a different direction. If we follow the recommendations of this report, the Ukrainians won’t be the only ones caught in an escalating military conflict with Russia."

This is in addition to her blatantly false depiction of the well-documented and proven Democrat collusion with Ukraine (see the next post for proof), which she even later admitted did in fact happen (saying Ukrainian officials 'bet on the wrong horse thinking Hillary 'was going to win,' and 'said some pretty disparaging and pretty hurtful things' to trash his candidacy while 'trying to curry favor' with Hillary by colluding to implicate Paul Manafort), as a "fiction" and a conspiracy theory.



"Chumps," say the same people who just got humiliated for the umpteenth time on YEARS of bullshit talking points, this time by the IG report.



Wrong. Every time you LIE about Trump doing what only Democrats do...we point out that Democrats ACTUALLY did it, and that you defended the ACTUAL instance it being done. Trump going to court to fight back isn't obstruction. Democrats just not complying with subpoenas...THAT'S ACTUAL obstruction. Freaking moron. Again, the only people who actually use the "whataboutism" fallacy are the people constantly falsely accusing others of it...YOU.

Try again, dishonest demagogue.



9 Times The Obama Administration Fought Subpoenas or Blocked Officials from Testifying Before Congress

View attachment 13364

Eric Holder was even held in contempt of Congress for his relentless defiance of subpoenas. THAT'S ACTUAL obstruction, misinformation-peddling halfwit. Again, you being unable to comprehend what actual obstruction is isn't other people using the Democrats' beloved "whataboutism" fallacy for correcting your uninformed stupidity.





Because no one who's Hillary's bitch would falsely exonerate Hillary while framing her opponent.

View attachment 13365





And this undoes all the proof of his corruption, law-breaking, abuses of power, and bias how?



Their reporting has been overwhelmingly vindicated by the IG report. Your sources have been exposed as biased trash. Why would I change to LESS credible sources?



Says the guy sputtering semi-literate sentence fragments, incoherent drivel, failing to comprehend plain English at every turn, and having to have everything spelled out with crayons.



Again, this is what only Democrats are actually doing...the entire impeachment show trial was nothing but third and fourth party conjecture and hearsay dressed up as fact.

View attachment 13366

1. the quote is the CONCLUSION by the authors, chuckles. In effect, though they make a declaration they then couch it with a way out should FACTS come out that prove them wrong, like this: https://time.com/4600177/election-hack-russia-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/

2. As Ms. Hill testified, if Trump was rearranging foreign policy, why didn't he inform all the senior, seasoned APPOINTED officials of this? Why send his PERSONAL, NON-VETTED and inexperienced lawyer into the mix...a lawyer who goes directly to the very corrupt locals that Zelensky was elected to get rid of? And then after trying to slander one of those officials who balked at these dubious actions, Trump fires her. EYE WITNESS testimony that these actions were not so much to secure a corruption free gov't, but to use a foreign nation to throw shade on a political rival (who at the time was beating him in the polls) with public declarations. What's pathetic is how you continually squawk "But Obama...!" with half truths and disproved accusations, yet it's all good when the Orange Oaf goes beyond anything you accuse Obama of. You're such the hypocrite, Army.

3. Here's an excerpt you left out. Mind you, the proposal at the time was mostly non-lethal with exception of the anti-tank weapons … others wanted more.

We also must consider the effect that arming Ukraine would have on our European allies. The report has created an uproar in Berlin and other European capitals, stoking concern that the Obama administration will take steps others are not ready for. If Putin concludes that transatlantic unity can be shattered, with the United States facing the possibility of going it alone in Ukraine, why would he change course? While one may not agree with her apprehension, it's hardly the clap trap of your supposition and conjecture.

4. You do EXACTLY as I said, as the chronology of the posts shows. Your denial and revisionist baloney is futile. Oh, and your orange faced leader avoids court like the plague...as history shows his cons don't measure up to scrutiny.

5. One lynch pin pulled: the Obama administration won the case by default when the NBPP didn’t show up in court to defend themselves, but the DOJ decided to dismiss the charges. I won't waste time on the others, as they do NOT pertain to the actions of the President directly screwing gov't officials for personal political gain. And for the record, awaiting for SCOTUS to rule is NOT an excuse...as the Trumper's push everything towards the SCOTUS. Holder? Not directed by Obama to do what he did. If you can prove otherwise, then do so. Right wing slant on your source is a joke, chuckles.

6. You make an accusation that logic and history won't back, but you don't have the cojones to concede a point...so you just double down on shotgun accusations. Pathetic.

7. You don't even have a damn clue as to what the IG report says regarding Mueller or the Congressional testimonies. GTFU!

8. First it's all hearsay, then falsely accuse the eye witnesses of lying. Well chuckles, the GOP toadies had their shot to prove just that....THEY COULDN'T DO IT. But do go on squawking like a dumb little Trump parrot. By the wasted length of your responses, it's about all you're good for.

 

[artichoke]

1. the quote is the CONCLUSION by the authors, chuckles. In effect, though they make a declaration they then couch it with a way out should FACTS come out that prove them wrong, like this: https://time.com/4600177/election-hack-russia-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/

Again, you are trying to refute a point that no one has made. No one ARGUED that this quote wasn't from the conclusion...just that it is the opposite of what you portrayed it as (it is clear and distinct, as opposed to 'ambiguous' as you falsely labeled it) and that everything in it was already known, acknowledged, and has zero impact on this debate. Try to keep up, halfwit.



And now you've changed the subject yet again to arbitrarily assigning the National Academy of the Sciences a nefarious "escape route" motive for the standard practice of clarifying the limits of the study...a feature that literally every study contains. Additionally, you posting irrelevant articles about Russians hacking systems in no way indicates that Russian trolls impacted voter opinions...you know, the thing we're talking about? It literally doesn't even make sense on its face that the National Academy of Sciences would be worried about articles that have nothing to do with their claims coming out and disproving them. Your logic is straight-up idiotic. Your irrelevant article also doesn't show that Russia changed vote totals...the difference between accessing systems (a superficial task that any hacker can do) and changing vote totals undetected is like the difference between climbing a speed bump and climbing Mt. Everest.

Every argument you make completely falls apart under even a moment of serious scrutiny.

Perhaps instead of trying to find ways to play the victim with "stolen election" conspiracy theories while having every election rigged in your favor (the ACORN party controlling 99% of the news media, Hollywood, academia...Obama's weaponized IRS rigging Election 2012 for Democrats, Obama's hijacked FBI rigging Election 2016 for Democrats, Democrats facilitating illegal immigrant voting at every turn, Democrats protecting voter fraud by preventing voter ID laws, etc.), you should focus on why you can't stay on topic for five seconds. You literally survive by endlessly changing the subject so no one can notice how badly each individual point gets obliterated.

2. As Ms. Hill testified, if Trump was rearranging foreign policy, why didn't he inform all the senior, seasoned APPOINTED officials of this?

There's no requirement that he do that. He is the president. He doesn't answer to them. They answer to him. Take a high school civics course, dumb-ass. And perhaps he doesn't trust them because they constantly turn out to be staging hoaxes and rigging elections against him...exactly the kind of elitist establishment abuses of power that got him elected in the first place.

Why send his PERSONAL, NON-VETTED and inexperienced lawyer into the mix

The most famous mayor on Earth who became famous for single-handedly taking down the New York City mafia as a ruthless prosecutor is suddenly "un-vetted" and an "inexperienced lawyer?"

And presidents send their closest advisors to things that are a high priority. That's obvious. Next absurd conspiracy theory, please.

View attachment 13386

...a lawyer who goes directly to the very corrupt locals that Zelensky was elected to get rid of? And then after trying to slander one of those officials who balked at these dubious actions, Trump fires her.

Pointing out biased agendas and abuses of power isn't slander. It's called setting the record straight. And firing biased, corrupt scumbags who are breaking the rules and unilaterally undermining and derailing your agenda is just common sense.

EYE WITNESS testimony...

The most notoriously unreliable KIND of evidence...made even LESS credible now that the left has used biased partisan hacks who weren't actually there when things happened, who didn't actually witness anything, and who have only third and fourth-hand conjecture, speculation, and guesswork.

What's pathetic is how you continually squawk "But Obama...!"

Wrong again. Pointing out that your debunked accusations against Trump are the very same things Democrats supported when Obama ACTUALLY did them is NOT using the left's beloved "whataboutism" fallacy. That's what DEMOCRATS do. Again, try to keep up, dishonest hypocrite. Maybe don't contradict yourself by suddenly inventing entirely new standards out of thin air for only your opponents if you don't want people to point out how drastically the standard has changed?

View attachment 13387

3. Here's an excerpt you left out. Mind you, the proposal at the time was mostly non-lethal with exception of the anti-tank weapons … others wanted more.

We also must consider the effect that arming Ukraine would have on our European allies. The report has created an uproar in Berlin and other European capitals, stoking concern that the Obama administration will take steps others are not ready for. If Putin concludes that transatlantic unity can be shattered, with the United States facing the possibility of going it alone in Ukraine, why would he change course? While one may not agree with her apprehension, it's hardly the clap trap of your supposition and conjecture.

Of course I left it out. It's irrelevant.

Pointing out that she opposed intervention before smearing Trump for briefly delaying a vastly improved shipment of actual weaponry...DOES NOT REQUIRE all this extra blather you added. You are literally too stupid to follow even the most straightforward logic.

4. your orange faced leader avoids court like the plague...as history shows his cons don't measure up to scrutiny.

Really? Because ABC News says you are lying. Supreme Court to hear all 3 Trump subpoena challenges linked to personal finances

View attachment 13388

5. One lynch pin pulled: the Obama administration won the case by default when the NBPP didn’t show up in court to defend themselves, but the DOJ decided to dismiss the charges.

View attachment 13389

This is incoherent blather. Someone pulled a lynch pin? Obama's DOJ dismissing charges against him is supposed to prove something? What? Please, take an 8th grade English class so we can all make heads or tails of what you're lying about THIS time.

7. You don't even have a damn clue as to what the IG report says regarding Mueller or the Congressional testimonies. GTFU!

Says the person being humiliated by it at every turn.

8. First it's all hearsay, then falsely accuse the eye witnesses of lying. Well chuckles, the GOP toadies had their shot to prove just that....THEY COULDN'T DO IT.

The two things aren't mutually exclusive, genius.

They were caught repeatedly lying AND all their evidence was them guessing about meanings of other people telling other people things. You can present only garbage evidence AND get caught lying. What a fucking moron.

View attachment 13390

 

[Earl]

Remember Rosenstein: No Vote Counts or Election Results Were Changed

 

[artichoke]

Remember Rosenstein: No Vote Counts or Election Results Were Changed

And it's Earl with the last-minute assist.

Rosenstein: "There's no allegation in this indictment that any American citizen committed a crime. There's no allegation that the conspiracy changed the vote counted or affected any election result."



So we now have the National Academy of the Sciences AND the corrupt establishment hack who launched the Mueller probe (as retaliation for Comey being fired)...BOTH ON THE RECORD ADMITTING that there was zero impact.

Again, conservatives operate on facts and evidence. Democrats operate on conspiracy theories and emotional hysteria.

View attachment 13392

What say you, dishonest demagogue conspiracy theorists of the left?

What's your next excuse?

 

[jimmymccready]

a nevertrumper is a foreverAmerican

 

[artichoke]

a nevertrumper is a foreverAmerican

Yes, the flag-burning, Constitution-shredding, Anthem-kneeling, election-stealing, Pledge-banning, enemy-aiding, monument-destroying, ally-betraying "never-Trump" left is doing it out of...patriotism. Yeah, that's it.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Again, you are trying to refute a point that no one has made. No one ARGUED that this quote wasn't from the conclusion...just that it is the opposite of what you portrayed it as (it is clear and distinct, as opposed to 'ambiguous' as you falsely labeled it) and that everything in it was already known, acknowledged, and has zero impact on this debate. Try to keep up, halfwit.



And now you've changed the subject yet again to arbitrarily assigning the National Academy of the Sciences a nefarious "escape route" motive for the standard practice of clarifying the limits of the study...a feature that literally every study contains. Additionally, you posting irrelevant articles about Russians hacking systems in no way indicates that Russian trolls impacted voter opinions...you know, the thing we're talking about? It literally doesn't even make sense on its face that the National Academy of Sciences would be worried about articles that have nothing to do with their claims coming out and disproving them. Your logic is straight-up idiotic. Your irrelevant article also doesn't show that Russia changed vote totals...the difference between accessing systems (a superficial task that any hacker can do) and changing vote totals undetected is like the difference between climbing a speed bump and climbing Mt. Everest.

Every argument you make completely falls apart under even a moment of serious scrutiny.

Perhaps instead of trying to find ways to play the victim with "stolen election" conspiracy theories while having every election rigged in your favor (the ACORN party controlling 99% of the news media, Hollywood, academia...Obama's weaponized IRS rigging Election 2012 for Democrats, Obama's hijacked FBI rigging Election 2016 for Democrats, Democrats facilitating illegal immigrant voting at every turn, Democrats protecting voter fraud by preventing voter ID laws, etc.), you should focus on why you can't stay on topic for five seconds. You literally survive by endlessly changing the subject so no one can notice how badly each individual point gets obliterated.





There's no requirement that he do that. He is the president. He doesn't answer to them. They answer to him. Take a high school civics course, dumb-ass. And perhaps he doesn't trust them because they constantly turn out to be staging hoaxes and rigging elections against him...exactly the kind of elitist establishment abuses of power that got him elected in the first place.



The most famous mayor on Earth who became famous for single-handedly taking down the New York City mafia as a ruthless prosecutor is suddenly "un-vetted" and an "inexperienced lawyer?"

And presidents send their closest advisors to things that are a high priority. That's obvious. Next absurd conspiracy theory, please.

View attachment 13386



Pointing out biased agendas and abuses of power isn't slander. It's called setting the record straight. And firing biased, corrupt scumbags who are breaking the rules and unilaterally undermining and derailing your agenda is just common sense.





The most notoriously unreliable KIND of evidence...made even LESS credible now that the left has used biased partisan hacks who weren't actually there when things happened, who didn't actually witness anything, and who have only third and fourth-hand conjecture, speculation, and guesswork.



Wrong again. Pointing out that your debunked accusations against Trump are the very same things Democrats supported when Obama ACTUALLY did them is NOT using the left's beloved "whataboutism" fallacy. That's what DEMOCRATS do. Again, try to keep up, dishonest hypocrite. Maybe don't contradict yourself by suddenly inventing entirely new standards out of thin air for only your opponents if you don't want people to point out how drastically the standard has changed?

View attachment 13387



Of course I left it out. It's irrelevant.

Pointing out that she opposed intervention before smearing Trump for briefly delaying a vastly improved shipment of actual weaponry...DOES NOT REQUIRE all this extra blather you added. You are literally too stupid to follow even the most straightforward logic.





Really? Because ABC News says you are lying. Supreme Court to hear all 3 Trump subpoena challenges linked to personal finances

View attachment 13388



View attachment 13389

This is incoherent blather. Someone pulled a lynch pin? Obama's DOJ dismissing charges against him is supposed to prove something? What? Please, take an 8th grade English class so we can all make heads or tails of what you're lying about THIS time.





Says the person being humiliated by it at every turn.



The two things aren't mutually exclusive, genius.

They were caught repeatedly lying AND all their evidence was them guessing about meanings of other people telling other people things. You can present only garbage evidence AND get caught lying. What a fucking moron.

View attachment 13390

1. Sorry chuckles, but all I do is use the conclusion of your source...their words, not mine. I change nothing...you seem to be projecting on that point as the chronology of the posts shows....especially how you right here vomit up some more bilge without substantiation beyond your supposition and conjecture.

2. GMAFB! Only a complete incompetent (or conniving crook) would subvert the efforts of his appointed officials by sending a non-vetted person into the mix with an alternative agenda! Any businessman, military leader or gov't leader with an 8th of a brain will tell you that. Hell, Trump could shoot a child on the steps of St. Patrick's Cathedral and clods like you would find some excuse or justification.

3. America's mayor fucked up on 9-11 (didn't give the folks the communications they wanted or set the emergency center off island as told), which saved his ass from investigation at the time (bag man for the governor, covering for bad cops). And since he had ZERO experience in foreign diplomacy/intelligence or working with the UN, it was a cluster fuck to send him in....unless Trump knew his agenda wasn't going to sit well with the professionals in the know...and it turns out he was right.

4. So now the very corrupt officials that Zelensky was elected to get rid of are stand up guys? GMAFB! You can't BS your way pass the sleaziness of the Trump and his crony here, as eye witnesses tell.

5. Your ignorance is astounding.....by your "logic" the jails across the nation would open it's doors. Get educated on how you corroborate eye witness testimony with documented facts. GEEZ!

4. only irrelevant to clods like you...as you leave out what I write to suit your silliness.

5. Idiot! That's exactly what I said...he runs to the SCOTUS when the fed courts throw his crap out. But you bitch when anyone else goes to SCOTUS.

6. They dismissed the case, meaning it had no merit...meaning your sweeping statement is incorrect in it's generalization
7. your last two responses are just babbling from insipid stubbornness and willful ignorance.

 

[artichoke]

1. Sorry chuckles, but all I do is use the conclusion of your source...their words, not mine.

No one SAID you changed their words, Captain Literacy. Again, you respond to points no one has made.

Are you literally unable to read?

2. GMAFB! Only a complete incompetent (or conniving crook) would subvert the efforts of his appointed officials...

Those efforts are directed by THE PRESIDENT, genius. It's not Trump undermining THEIR efforts. They take all direction from TRUMP and serve at HIS pleasure. THEY are subverting HIM. Just like the last time you peddled this fallacy, the solution here is for you to take an 8th grade civics class and catch up to the thinking adults.

by sending a non-vetted person into the mix with an alternative agenda!

Again with repeating this lie that the guy who took out the mob as a lawyer is a "non-vetted" attorney. The facts clearly prove this to be a lie.

3. America's mayor fucked up on 9-11 (didn't give the folks the communications they wanted or set the emergency center off island as told), which saved his ass from investigation at the time (bag man for the governor, covering for bad cops).

1) More off-topic slander. Gee, why would you be changing the subject again? Can't handle people seeing your existing points getting shredded?

2) Since you brought it up, Democrats surrendered to al Qaida in Somalia putting bin Laden on the map, Democrats failed to respond to constant al Qaida attacks for eight years straight leading up to 9/11, Democrats refused to take out bin Laden when they had the chance, Democrats imposed ludicrous rules preventing the CIA, FBI and other agencies from sharing information about terrorist threats, Democrats forced through lawless immigration insanity, Democrats kept the CAPPS program (that identified the terrorists at the airport that morning) from triggering a quarantine and search of all suspected terrorists. There are almost too many ways to keep track of in which Democrats caused 9/11. But sure, by all means...go on with your "make up whatever we feel like" nonsense about communications.

And since he had ZERO experience in foreign diplomacy/intelligence or working with the UN, it was a cluster fuck to send him in....unless Trump knew his agenda wasn't going to sit well with the professionals in the know...and it turns out he was right.

His agenda NEVER sits well with the establishment. That's the whole point. When the swamp fills your administration with deranged treasonous "resistance" activists, you send in America-first leaders who can work around them to advance the country's interests despite Democrats' best efforts. Don't obstruct and sabotage everything Trump does and then cry that he works around you. Your antics leave him no choice.

4. So now the very corrupt officials that Zelensky was elected to get rid of are stand up guys?

No one said anything like that. Again, learn how to read.

5. Your ignorance is astounding.....by your "logic" the jails across the nation would open it's doors. Get educated on how you corroborate eye witness testimony with documented facts. GEEZ!

1) The guy who can't form an 8th grade sentence in English is lecturing ANYONE else about ignorance and education?

-Jails across the nation would open THEIR doors, dumb-ass.

-You meant to say "its," not "it's," dumb-ass.

-The number that comes after 5 is not 4, dumb-ass.

View attachment 13432

2) Any first-year trial lawyer will tell you the first fact you learn in law school is that nothing more unreliable than eyewitness testimony. People forget, misidentify assailants, have agendas. This is nothing new or even remotely controversial. It's common knowledge...except for the hilarious semi-literate calling others "ignorant" for being more educated than him.

4. only irrelevant to clods like you...as you leave out what I write to suit your silliness.

Um...no. Pointing out that she opposed intervention before smearing Trump for briefly delaying a vastly improved shipment of actual weaponry...DOES NOT REQUIRE all the extra blather you added. That DOES make it irrelevant, genius.

5. Idiot! That's exactly what I said...he runs to the SCOTUS when the fed courts throw his crap out. But you bitch when anyone else goes to SCOTUS.

We get it. You can't read. But in the English language, when you say Trump "avoids court like the plague," that's the OPPOSITE of saying Trump runs to the SCOTUS." And when someone responds to you saying Trump "avoids court like the plague" by showing you examples of him going to court over and over again...that's you being proven wrong, dumb-ass. And when you can't comprehend that either, that's YOU being an idiot, not the people you relentlessly fail to comprehend.

6. They dismissed the case, meaning it had no merit...meaning your sweeping statement is incorrect in it's generalization

Which statement? What case? I get that you're semi-literate, but try to respond to points that people have actually MADE, preferably by quoting people so they can tell which point you're responding to...if that doesn't take too much brain power for you to muster.

7. your last two responses are just babbling from insipid stubbornness and willful ignorance.

Except to those who can comprehend that an eyewitness can offer bullshit hearsay evidence WHILE ALSO lying. You're the only one acting like that's somehow impossible.

Try again.

 

[Nordberg]

This was an extremely close election. Trump won by 70 K in 3 high electoral states accumulated. They used voter suppression and every dirty trick possible. It is easy and correct to surmise that Russia moved the vote by that narrow percentage. Trump certainly has decided he owed them bigly and has been paying them off since the election.

 

[artichoke]

This was an extremely close election. Trump won by 70 K in 3 high electoral states accumulated. They used voter suppression and every dirty trick possible. It is easy and correct to surmise that Russia moved the vote by that narrow percentage. Trump certainly has decided he owed them bigly and has been paying them off since the election.

"Voter suppression" meaning stopping Democrat voter fraud (cheating).

Democrats have illegal immigrants voting (cheating), the FBI and DOJ inventing conspiracy theories to sabotage their opponents (cheating), the IRS rigging incredibly close elections like Election 2012 (cheating), the FBI dragging out their DNC-funded witch-hunts for 15 months after they're debunked to ensure a Democrat majority for impeachment (cheating), 95% of the news media, academia, and Hollywood promoting their lies...

...and now someone other than Democrats is "cheating" even though Mueller found zero collusion (even while extorting, terrorizing, and falsely persecuting everyone close to Trump for fake confessions) and the the National Academy of the Sciences says Facebook trolls have zero impact.

Nice logic.

Deluded much?

 

[Guno צְבִי]

Imagine that. A tiny handful of Russians posting on Facebook didn't alter the opinions of 139 million voters. As if any rational, intelligent human being would ever need this explained to them. The New York Times promoted this idiotic partisan conspiracy theory as legitimate news. Facts obviously don't matter to such unhinged left-wing propaganda mills, but perhaps someone should clue them in to this study.

"A study of online activity in 2017 published this week by the National Academy of the Sciences suggests that the premise of [the 'Russian's stole the election' conspiracy] theory is fundamentally flawed...We find no evidence that interacting with these [troll] accounts substantially impacted political attitudes and behaviors,” the study’s authors assert. The study also found that those who interacted most with trolls appear to be those who have already strongly formed political opinions — in other words, those whose political opinions are the least likely to be influenced by a troll campaign."

Study: Russian Trolls Don’t Actually Influence Americans In Any Meaningful Way

View attachment 12957

Good work comrade Arminius , Vlad is proud of you!

 

[artichoke]

Good work comrade Arminius , Vlad is proud of you!

Another crybully forgot their Midol. Lashing out with debunked conspiracy theories will get you nowhere Snowflake.

 

[Nordberg]

Funny how Aminius believes completely in any study that buttresses his preconceptions and Trumpian beliefs. Yeah, forget all the others. Just buy into this one.

 

[artichoke]

Funny how Aminius believes completely in any study that buttresses his preconceptions and Trumpian beliefs. Yeah, forget all the others. Just buy into this one.

Well that would be your cue to BRING UP those studies you think refute the National Academy of the Sciences (unless you're just worried about getting humiliated even further) rather than pouting and crying like a petty child.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Again, you are trying to refute a point that no one has made. No one ARGUED that this quote wasn't from the conclusion...just that it is the opposite of what you portrayed it as (it is clear and distinct, as opposed to 'ambiguous' as you falsely labeled it) and that everything in it was already known, acknowledged, and has zero impact on this debate. Try to keep up, halfwit.



And now you've changed the subject yet again to arbitrarily assigning the National Academy of the Sciences a nefarious "escape route" motive for the standard practice of clarifying the limits of the study...a feature that literally every study contains. Additionally, you posting irrelevant articles about Russians hacking systems in no way indicates that Russian trolls impacted voter opinions...you know, the thing we're talking about? It literally doesn't even make sense on its face that the National Academy of Sciences would be worried about articles that have nothing to do with their claims coming out and disproving them. Your logic is straight-up idiotic. Your irrelevant article also doesn't show that Russia changed vote totals...the difference between accessing systems (a superficial task that any hacker can do) and changing vote totals undetected is like the difference between climbing a speed bump and climbing Mt. Everest.

Every argument you make completely falls apart under even a moment of serious scrutiny.

Perhaps instead of trying to find ways to play the victim with "stolen election" conspiracy theories while having every election rigged in your favor (the ACORN party controlling 99% of the news media, Hollywood, academia...Obama's weaponized IRS rigging Election 2012 for Democrats, Obama's hijacked FBI rigging Election 2016 for Democrats, Democrats facilitating illegal immigrant voting at every turn, Democrats protecting voter fraud by preventing voter ID laws, etc.), you should focus on why you can't stay on topic for five seconds. You literally survive by endlessly changing the subject so no one can notice how badly each individual point gets obliterated.





There's no requirement that he do that. He is the president. He doesn't answer to them. They answer to him. Take a high school civics course, dumb-ass. And perhaps he doesn't trust them because they constantly turn out to be staging hoaxes and rigging elections against him...exactly the kind of elitist establishment abuses of power that got him elected in the first place.



The most famous mayor on Earth who became famous for single-handedly taking down the New York City mafia as a ruthless prosecutor is suddenly "un-vetted" and an "inexperienced lawyer?"

And presidents send their closest advisors to things that are a high priority. That's obvious. Next absurd conspiracy theory, please.

View attachment 13386



Pointing out biased agendas and abuses of power isn't slander. It's called setting the record straight. And firing biased, corrupt scumbags who are breaking the rules and unilaterally undermining and derailing your agenda is just common sense.





The most notoriously unreliable KIND of evidence...made even LESS credible now that the left has used biased partisan hacks who weren't actually there when things happened, who didn't actually witness anything, and who have only third and fourth-hand conjecture, speculation, and guesswork.



Wrong again. Pointing out that your debunked accusations against Trump are the very same things Democrats supported when Obama ACTUALLY did them is NOT using the left's beloved "whataboutism" fallacy. That's what DEMOCRATS do. Again, try to keep up, dishonest hypocrite. Maybe don't contradict yourself by suddenly inventing entirely new standards out of thin air for only your opponents if you don't want people to point out how drastically the standard has changed?

View attachment 13387



Of course I left it out. It's irrelevant.

Pointing out that she opposed intervention before smearing Trump for briefly delaying a vastly improved shipment of actual weaponry...DOES NOT REQUIRE all this extra blather you added. You are literally too stupid to follow even the most straightforward logic.





Really? Because ABC News says you are lying. Supreme Court to hear all 3 Trump subpoena challenges linked to personal finances

View attachment 13388



View attachment 13389

This is incoherent blather. Someone pulled a lynch pin? Obama's DOJ dismissing charges against him is supposed to prove something? What? Please, take an 8th grade English class so we can all make heads or tails of what you're lying about THIS time.





Says the person being humiliated by it at every turn.



The two things aren't mutually exclusive, genius.

They were caught repeatedly lying AND all their evidence was them guessing about meanings of other people telling other people things. You can present only garbage evidence AND get caught lying. What a fucking moron.

View attachment 13390

1. Once more for the mentally challenged, from Army's source; … our analysis was limited to 1 population at a single point in time. We were unable to systematically determine whether IRA trolls influenced public attitudes or behavior during the 2016 presidential election, which is widely regarded as a critical juncture for misinformation campaigns. It is also possible that the Russian government’s campaign has evolved to become more impactful since the late-2017 period upon which we focused.
This means that the very intent of the article Army presented is WORTHLESS in trying to be a definitive statement/validation that Army wants for his assertions. But as Army has demonstrated, reality and ALL the facts are irrelevant to his personal opinions and beliefs. Once confronted, Army stupidly lies about what has transpired despite the contrary shown in the chronology of the posts. I've changed no subject, as the reader can see despite Army throwing the kitchen sink of long disproved right wing clap trap about Obama in hopes of hiding his folly.

2. the sheer stupidity displayed in Army's explanation is astounding. Trump is the self vaunted king of the "art of the deal", yet what boss in his right mind undercuts his seasoned negotiators with his personal flunky working an angle without informing them of the change AND with the very people previously known to be corrupt? The corrupt folk the new leader of intended negotiations was elected to get rid of? How does that look to the allies? Only the mentally deficient or insipidly stubborn or intellectually clueless would accept such actions as normal and reasonable. Army doesn't get it....Trump is NOT a king who dismisses rules, regulations and time honored protocol with a wave of his hand and suffer no consequences.

3. Someone explain to Army that Giuliani's prosecution and mayoral experience does not automatically equate as an expert in foreign affairs. He was NOT the official representative of our government, which is made up of 3 branches. President does not mean "king".

4. Army's babbling rewrites recent history. He tries to justify Giuliani's utilization of KN0WN (locally and internationally) corrupt individuals to fulfill Trump's agenda...which resulted in the slander campaign against a veteran foreign diplomat respected by all....just because she balked at Giuliani/Trump trying to force a newly elected president to publicly push a bogus investigation into the Biden's. Hell, he's STILL there now trying to do so....yet his buddies are under arrest. But hey, Army doesn't care....he'll just parrot unproven lies about the eye witness testimonies that the GOP in the House hearings couldn't shake.

5. Hey Army, did you know that the first thing cops do when a crime is committed is to seek out eye witnesses? If found, then it's up to the detectives to substantiate their stories with evidence? Then the lawyers determine the credibility of the eye witness testimony by balancing evidence and witness accounts (also corroborating accounts from related persons in the case)? That's how it's done, chuckles. And as I said before, the GOP had it's shot and COULD NOT prove that the eye witnesses accounts to Giuliani's Trump approved actions were false. All they could say was, "you didn't talk directly to the President, did you?" which WAS NOT what they were called to testify on...only the ACTIONS of the President's boy. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ce7aea-0010-11ea-9777-5cd51c6fec6f_story.html

6. Nothing was logically or factually debunked in the eye witness account testimonies from the House hearings....right wing buffoons just put cognitive reasoning on hold and deny everything. And no, Obama was not sending personal lawyers to usurp the work of seasoned official foreign diplomats, and then blocking Congressional investigation into such, or trying to force a struggling nation's leader to publicly throw shade on his political opponent in an upcoming election. Obama whupped ass TWICE....popular and electoral, so he didn't need to stoop to stuff that Trump was trying to pull.


7. It's only irrelevant to right wing wonks like yourself, Army. Trump's strength is in folk like you who go deaf, dumb and blind at any information that casts doubt on your mantras. And again, this DOES NOT CHANGE ONE IOTA AS TO WHAT THE TESTIMONY WAS FOCUSED ON.....Trump withholding military aide and public support meeting in exchange for an announced investigation into the Biden's.

8. Think, you fool, think.....he's trying to AVOID HAVING HIS RECORDS PUT BEFORE A COURT...RECORDS THAT CAN BE LEGALLY SUBPEONAED. Trump's personal business history is riff with him being taken to court and his seeking outside settlement. Do your homework and stop bleating like a sheep. (with apologies to sheep).

9. And there you have it, dear readers … in Army's convoluted world, dismissal of charges is meaningless.....you are guilty even if the case against you could not be proven. The GOP tried for 8 years to nail Obama on some legal technicality...they failed. Trump is not so lucky (or innocent of the charges).

10. I'm still waiting for Army to produce the paragraphs form the IG report or Muller's report or the House hearing testimonies that backs his claims. I suspect he's just full of it, and will scour the net for such will blowing smoke and chuckling false bravado. Laugh, clown, laugh.

11. More moronic babbling from Army. The GOP claimed hearsay wasn't proof, as there was no eye witness. Then they deny the eye witness testimony, although they could NOT disprove them. I defy Army to show the readers the exact passages were the eye witness testimonies were "caught lying". I'll wait.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Did Ukraine try to interfere in the 2016 election on Clinton's behalf?

"A Democratic operative working with the Democratic National Committee did reach out to the Ukrainian government in an attempt to get damaging information about the Trump campaign. That operative's name is Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American former Clinton White House aide who was tasked with ethnic outreach on behalf of the Democratic Party."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/did-ukr...2016-election/

From Daily Beast:

Ukrainian Officials Meddled in 2016 Election by Leaking Secret Manafort Ledger, Court Says

"Two Ukrainian officials meddled in the 2016 U.S. presidential election by leaking a secret ledger showing $12.7 million in payments between Ukraine’s ousted pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych and Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, a Ukrainian court said Wednesday"
https://www.thedailybeast.com/ukrain...ger-court-says

From the Hill:

As Russia collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges.

"After nearly three years and millions of tax dollars, the Trump-Russia collusion probe is about to be resolved. Emerging in its place is newly unearthed evidence suggesting another foreign effort to influence the 2016 election — this time, in favor of the Democrats. Ukraine’s top prosecutor divulged in an interview aired Wednesday on Hill.TV that he has opened an investigation into whether his country’s law enforcement apparatus intentionally leaked financial records during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign about then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort in an effort to sway the election in favor of Hillary Clinton."
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign...linton-emerges

From Politico:

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire

"Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found."
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...ackfire-233446

From Washington Examiner:

Washington Post admits Ukraine interfered in 2016 election but attempts to minimize its effect

"Farhi’s piece acknowledged that Vogel’s reporting on Ukraine 'extensively detailed Ukrainian efforts to undermine Trump in 2016, such as publicly questioning his fitness for office, disseminating documents implicating Paul Manafort, his campaign chairman at the time, in corruption and helping a Clinton ally research damaging information about him.'"
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...ize-its-effect

From The Nation (which is ultra-liberal):

"'Ukrainians certainly had every reason to expose Manafort’s corruption, and the man’s subsequent trial showed there was an enormous amount to expose,' wrote Golinkin. 'But Ukraine’s efforts also happened to coincide with—and have an immediate impact on—an American campaign. And yet, despite this information's being available in English, and published by established Western media, we’ve had almost no debate about its implications.'"
https://www.thenation.com/article/uk...lections-2016/

Reality check:

https://www.wral.com/fact-check-no-...lary-clinton-as-gop-senator-claimed/18812185/

 

[Taichiliberal]

"Voter suppression" meaning stopping Democrat voter fraud (cheating).

Democrats have illegal immigrants voting (cheating), the FBI and DOJ inventing conspiracy theories to sabotage their opponents (cheating), the IRS rigging incredibly close elections like Election 2012 (cheating), the FBI dragging out their DNC-funded witch-hunts for 15 months after they're debunked to ensure a Democrat majority for impeachment (cheating), 95% of the news media, academia, and Hollywood promoting their lies...

...and now someone other than Democrats is "cheating" even though Mueller found zero collusion (even while extorting, terrorizing, and falsely persecuting everyone close to Trump for fake confessions) and the the National Academy of the Sciences says Facebook trolls have zero impact.

Nice logic.

Deluded much?

Reality check:

https://www.npr.org/2018/10/23/6597...orts-are-targeting-minorities-journalist-says

https://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/trumps-bogus-voter-fraud-claims/