Donald Trump Jr.'s Russia email scandal shakes the Presidency, v6: Mueller Probing Trump Business

[Cake4Breakfast]

Got to remember that money laundering for Russians is a big deal, Trump's business dealings are well within the realm

Yeah, they need to get the money out of Russia, which is why the sanctions are such a punch in the gut to the people in power there.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

Settle down there, skippy. No need to wear yourself out.
You don't need to prove anything to me.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Settle down there, skippy. No need to wear yourself out.
You don't need to prove anything to me.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

And to you.
Enjoy.

 

[Limbo Pete]

And to you.
Enjoy.

 

[Last Samurai]

I have a feeling we're gonna be seeing a lot of this gif

 

[Hans Gruber]

Like I said when Comey was tossed out...Trump should have gotten rid of Mueller at the same time. He has a conflict of interest (butt buddies with Comey) and has been hiring Hillary donors for the investigation. (Muelle4 should have recused himself and when he didn't Trump should have canned him)

These deep state losers are going to gather everything they can on Trump and leak it (tax returns, personal info, etc) and are going to use the rest as opposition research for 2020.

Trump made a dumb move by not biting the bullet and firing this scumbag when he got rid of Comey. Now if he does the leeches in the media will have more headlines and "scandal" to spin for another soild week.

This is the biggest and most harped on fake scandal in US history but it is still damaging at the moment because the delusionals believe anything and people that dont pay attention see headlines here and there and it shapes opinions.

 

[Fawlty]

Like I said when Comey was tossed out...Trump should have gotten rid of Mueller at the same time. He has a conflict of interest (butt buddies with Comey) and has been hiring Hillary donors for the investigation.

These deep state losers are going to gather everything they can on Trump and leak it (tax returns, personal info, etc) and are going to use the rest as opposition research for 2020.

Trump made a dumb move by not biting the bullet and firing this scumbag when he got rid of Comey. Now if he does the leeches in the media will have more headlines and "scandal" to spin for another soild week

Nah, that sounds like a typical shallow state move.

 

[Sycho Sid]

Like I said when Comey was tossed out...Trump should have gotten rid of Mueller at the same time. He has a conflict of interest (butt buddies with Comey) and has been hiring Hillary donors for the investigation.

These deep state losers are going to gather everything they can on Trump and leak it (tax returns, personal info, etc) and are going to use the rest as opposition research for 2020.

Trump made a dumb move by not biting the bullet and firing this scumbag when he got rid of Comey. Now if he does the leeches in the media will have more headlines and "scandal" to spin for another soild week

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

the obvious answer is trump is as guilty as sin and is in full tilt damage control mode. This fact might have elluded you but his son outright confessed to collusion.

So he's guilty of something that isn't a crime? You seem worked up about something.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Yeah, they need to get the money out of Russia, which is why the sanctions are such a punch in the gut to the people in power there.

So you've switched from campaign finance laws to money laundering? Any evidence of this new development?

 

[M3t4tr0n]

Trumps browsing history:

what is collusion

how do you commit collusion

does collusion put you in jail

what is a pardon

how to build a wall cheap

can the president pardon himself

 

[hillelslovak87]

Not as long as it took to clear up the chlamydia and gonorrhea that I got from your mom.

Quicker than it took me to take one look at you when you were born and split though.

 

[Madmick]

These deep state losers are going to gather everything they can on Trump and leak it (tax returns, personal info, etc) and are going to use the rest as opposition research for 2020.

Even if this proves to be true, which certainly doesn't appear to be likely, can you take a moment to gain critical distance, and appreciate the irony?

The Russians deliberately drip-drip-dripped manufactured headlines out of the Podesta/DNC Dumps via the "Guccifer 2.0" and Wikileaks fronts, and generated other viral forms of propaganda with their Russian bot-mills. They drew out their leaks for maximum political impact against Clinton.

Not only did the Russians put their mills to use spinning out and creating false narratives with the overwhelming amount of information leaked, creating "hoaxes" like the #Pizzagate debacle as genuine headlines that many Americans (including a hefty portion of Sherdog #Trumpets) believed was legitimate, but Assange even went to the trouble of announcing an intent to make more announcements a mere month before the election.

Timeline here.
2016 Presidential Campaign Hacking Fast Facts
Context here.
How Much Did Wikileaks Hurt Hillary Clinton?

How did Hillary Clinton blow a 7-percentage-point lead over Donald Trump in the final month of the campaign? Much of the post-election analysis has revolved around FBI Director James Comey’s letter to Congress on Oct. 28. Less attention was spent on the role that Wikileaks played. Until, that is, news broke that the CIA thought Russia actively tried to help Trump win; figures connected to the Russian government allegedly hacked Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails, which then found their way to Wikileaks. So what effect did Wikileaks have on the election?

The drip, drip, drip of the hacked emails — published weekly during October — makes it all but impossible to measure their effect precisely. So much else happened during the final weeks of the campaign — the “Access Hollywood” tape, the Comey letter, the debates, etc. But we can say two things: (i) Americans were interested in the Wikileaks releases, and (ii) the timeline of Clinton’s fall in the polls roughly matches the emails’ publishing schedule.

First, Americans were clearly paying attention to the Wikileaks releases, despite all the other craziness in those final weeks. We can see this using Google Trends, a useful tool in this instance because it gives us a rough sense for what people, rather than the press, were focusing on.



Wikileaks was almost exclusively an October story. Over 72 percent of people who searched for Wikileaks from June onward did so during October or the first week of November. Interest really got going with Julian Assange’s press conference on Oct. 4 announcing that there would be more information coming from Wikileaks about the election. From there, it was a steady barrage. In contrast, only about 40 percent of searches involving Clinton and Trump in general from June onward came in October or the first week of November. Just over 50 percent of searches for Comey specifically happened during this period.

In fact, searches for Wikileaks from the beginning of October through Election Day were about double the searches for the FBI. When Comey’s letter to Congress was released, search for the FBI spiked above Wikileaks, but then fell quickly. In the final week of the campaign, Wikileaks beat the FBI every day. It’s also the case that all the related searches associated with Wikileaks were about Podesta’s emails, while many of the related searches with the FBI had to do with FBI cases unrelated to Clinton.

Now, Clinton’s drop in the polls doesn’t line up perfectly with the surge in Wikileaks interest. When Wikileaks had its highest search day in early October, Clinton’s poll numbers were rising. They continued to go up for another two weeks, even as Wikileaks was releasing emails. That is, there isn’t one pivotal “aha!” point which shows that Wikileaks caused Clinton’s numbers to drop. That said, the race was tightening before Comey ever sent his letter to Congress in late October. Clinton’s lead over Trump peaked at 7 percentage points on Oct. 17, according to the FiveThirtyEight polls-only forecast. By the time Comey released his letter, it was down to 5.7 percentage points. It’s also possible that Clinton’s numbers would have risen even further in early October had it not been for Wikileaks. Trump had to fight off both bad debate performances and the release of the “Access Hollywood” tape.

There just isn’t a clean-cut story in the data. For instance, you might have expected a decline in the percentage of Americans who trusted Clinton after Wikileaks began its releases. As Politico’s Ken Vogel pointed out in mid-October, both Trump campaign officials and even progressives said the Wikileaks emails revealed that Clinton would be “compromised” if she became president. But the percentage of Americans who found Clinton to be honest or trustworthy stayed at around 30 percent in polling throughout October and into November.

The evidence that Wikileaks had an impact, therefore, is circumstantial. Trump, for instance, won among voters who decided who to vote for in October 51 percent to 37 percent, according to national exit polls. That’s Trump’s best time period. He carried voters who decided in the final week, when you might expect Comey’s letter to have had the largest impact, 45 percent to 42 percent. (Although, Trump’s margin among those who decided in the final week was wider in the exit polls in some crucial swing states.) And while Clinton’s lead was dropping in the FiveThirtyEight polls-only forecast before the Comey letter was released, the drop accelerated slightly afterward.

Of course, one thing didn’t sink Clinton. The evidence suggests Wikileaks is among the factors that might have contributed to her loss, but we really can’t say much more than that.

Spare me the howls of denial that Wikileaks was a partisan foreign player, here. Trump's own appointment to the Director of the CIA, Mike Pompeo, made this precise claim:
Director Pompeo Delivers Remarks at CSIS

Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Central Intelligence Agency Director Mike Pompeo at the Center for Strategic and International Studies
April 13, 2017


Good afternoon, it is a great pleasure to be here at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, home to some of the sharpest minds that Washington has to offer. I am honored to deliver my first public remarks as CIA Director at such a distinguished institution.

Let me start today by telling you a story.

He was a bright, well-educated young man. He was described as industrious, intelligent, and likeable, if inclined toward impulsiveness and impatience.

At some point, he became disillusioned with intelligence work and angry at his government. He left government and decided to devote himself to what he regarded as public advocacy—exposing the intelligence officers and operations he had sworn to keep secret.

He appealed to Agency employees to send him “leads, tips, suggestions.” He wrote in a widely circulated bulletin: “We are particularly anxious to receive, anonymously if you desire, copies of US diplomatic lists and US Embassy staff.”

That man was Philip Agee, one of the founding members of the magazine Counterspy, which in its first issue in 1973 called for the exposure of CIA undercover operatives overseas. In its September 1974 issue, Counterspy publicly identified Richard Welch as the CIA Chief of Station in Athens. Later, Richard’s home address and phone number were outed in the press in Greece.

In December 1975, Richard and his wife were returning home from a Christmas party in Athens. When he got out of his car to open the gate in front of his house, Richard Welch was assassinated by a Greek terrorist cell. At the time of his death, Richard was the highest-ranking CIA officer killed in the line of duty.

Richard led a rich and honorable life, one that is celebrated with a star on the Agency’s Memorial Wall. He is buried at Arlington National Cemetery and remains dearly remembered by his family and colleagues.

Meanwhile, Agee propped up his dwindling celebrity with an occasional stunt, including a Playboy interview. He eventually settled down as the privileged guest of an authoritarian regime—one that would have put him in front of a firing squad without a second thought had he betrayed their secrets as he betrayed ours.

Today, there are still plenty of Philip Agees in the world, and the harm they inflict on U.S. institutions and personnel is just as serious today as it was back then.

They don’t all come from the Intelligence Community, share the same background, or use precisely the same tactics as Agee, but they are certainly his soulmates.

Like him, they choose to see themselves in a romantic light—as heroes above the law, saviors of our free and open society. They cling to this fiction, even though their disclosures often inflict irreparable harm on both individuals and democratic governments, pleasing despots along the way.

The one thing they don’t share with Agee is the need for a publisher. All they require now is a smart phone and internet access. In today’s digital environment, they can disseminate stolen US secrets instantly around the globe to terrorists, dictators, hackers and anyone else seeking to do us harm.

* * * *

Our nation’s first line of defense against complicated and fast-moving threats like these is the US Intelligence Community. I feel deeply privileged—and still a bit amazed—that as CIA Director, I get to be a part of this great group of men and women. I’m the son of a machinist from Orange County, California. I had never been east of the Mississippi until college, spending most of my summers working on the family farm in Winfield, Kansas.

To be entrusted with leading the greatest intelligence organization in the world is something that I still can’t wrap my head around. And just as I did at West Point, I feel that I stand on the shoulders of giants, atop a long tradition of courage, ingenuity, and dedication.

After I was nominated for this post by President Trump, I talked with nearly every living former CIA Director. They spoke of the need to call things as you see them, and of the apolitical nature of the job. Above all, they spoke of their admiration and respect for our workforce. From what I’ve seen so far, they were spot on in their assessment.

* * * *

I am today surrounded by talented and committed patriots. These are men and women who signed up for a life of discretion and impact—for a career in service to their country.

These officers have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. They have signed secrecy agreements. They quietly go about their work and try not to get too worked up over the headlines, including the fanciful notion that they spy on their fellow citizens via microwave ovens. But they are not at liberty to stand up to these false narratives and explain our mission to the American people.

Fortunately, I am. In my first meeting with CIA’s workforce, I promised that I would serve them and the American people—both at home and abroad—with the same passion and vigor that I displayed as a tank platoon leader in the Army, a business owner in Kansas, and a Congressman representing my constituents back home.

That is the reason I chose to speak here today.

As a policy, we at CIA do not comment on the accuracy of purported intelligence documents posted online. In keeping with that policy, I will not specifically comment on the authenticity or provenance of recent disclosures.

But the false narratives that increasingly define our public discourse cannot be ignored. There are fictions out there that demean and distort the work and achievements of CIA and of the broader Intelligence Community. And in the absence of a vocal rebuttal, these voices—ones that proclaim treason to be public advocacy—gain a gravity they do not deserve.

It is time to call these voices out. The men and women of CIA deserve a real defense. And the American people deserve a clear explanation of what their Central Intelligence Agency does on their behalf.

* * * *

First and foremost, we are an intelligence organization that engages in foreign espionage. We steal secrets from foreign adversaries, hostile entities, and terrorist organizations. We analyze this intelligence so that our government can better understand the adversaries we face in a challenging and dangerous world.

And we make no apologies for doing so. It’s hard stuff and we go at it hard.

Because when it comes to overseas threats, CIA is aggressive in our pursuit of the information we need to help safeguard our country. We utilize the whole toolkit at our disposal, fully employing the authorities and capabilities that Congress, the courts, and the Executive Branch have deemed lawful and appropriate, and consistent with our American ideals.

We do these things because it’s our job. It’s what we signed up to do. And if we didn’t, we’d have a tough time justifying our budget to the American taxpayer.

One of the few heartening things to come out of the disclosures debate is the realization that much of America does understand the important role we play. As the CEO of a security research firm recently noted, CIA appears to be doing “exactly what we pay them to do—exploit specific targets with limited attacks to support our national interests.”

Our mission is simple in concept yet difficult in practice. We work to provide the best information possible to the President and his administration so that they can advance our national interests and protect our country.

It is a mission that CIA has carried out for years, quietly and effectively. Our accomplishments generally remain classified, but a few special ones are known to the world.

For example, CIA has been a crucial player in the global campaign against nuclear proliferation. We’ve helped unravel the nuclear smuggling network used by A.Q. Khan, assisted in exposing a covert nuclear facility in Syria, and gathered intelligence—with the help of our liaison partners—that persuaded Libya to abandon its nuclear program.

CIA has also been at the cutting edge of incredible technological innovation throughout our history. We led efforts to develop the U-2 aircraft and orbiting satellites—endeavors that allowed us to surveil activities in rival states that were otherwise closed to us.

We’ve pushed back the boundaries of the possible in ways that have benefitted both the security and welfare of the American public. For example, when we needed long-lasting power sources for certain operational missions, in the 1960s our scientists helped to develop the lithium-ion battery—technology that ultimately has powered pacemakers and cell phones alike. More recently, CIA investment in a technology venture in 2003 led to the development of what we know today as Google Earth.

My first few months on the job have only reaffirmed for me that this innovative spirit is very much alive and well at CIA.

* * * *

So I’d now like to make clear what CIA doesn’t do. We are a foreign intelligence agency. We focus on collecting information about foreign governments, foreign terrorist organizations, and the like—not Americans. A number of specific rules keep us centered on that mission and protect the privacy of our fellow Americans. To take just one important example, CIA is legally prohibited from spying on people through electronic surveillance in the United States. We’re not tapping anyone’s phone in Wichita.

I know there will always be skeptics. We need to build trust with them. But I also know firsthand, from what I saw as a member of a Congressional oversight committee and from what I see now as Director, that CIA takes its legal restrictions and responsibilities with the utmost seriousness. We have stringent regulations, an engaged and robust Office of the General Counsel, and an empowered and independent Office of Inspector General to make sure of that.

Moreover, regardless of what you see on the silver screen, we do not pursue covert action on a whim without approval or accountability. There is a comprehensive process that starts with the President and consists of many levels of legal and policy review and reexamination. Let me assure you: When it comes to covert action, there is oversight and accountability every step of the way.

I inherited an Agency that has a real appreciation for the law and for the Constitution. Despite fictional depictions meant to sell books or box-office tickets, we are not an untethered or rogue agency. So yes, while we have some truly awesome capabilities at our disposal, our officers do not operate in areas or against targets that are rightfully and legally off-limits to us.

At our core, we are an organization committed to uncovering the truth and getting it right. We devote ourselves to perfecting our tradecraft. We work hard to maintain truly global coverage, operating in austere, far-flung areas that demand both expeditionary capabilities and spirit. We spend hours upon hours collecting information, and poring over reports and data. We experiment and innovate so we can dominate our adversaries in both the physical and cyber realms.

And sure—we also admit to making mistakes. In fact, because CIA is accountable to the free and open society we help defend, the times in which we have failed to live up to the high standards our fellow citizens expect of us have been catalogued over the years, even by our own government. These mistakes are public, to an extent that I doubt any other nation could ever match. But it is always our intention—and duty—to get it right.

* * * *

And that is one of the many reasons why we at CIA find the celebration of entities like WikiLeaks to be both perplexing and deeply troubling. Because while we do our best to quietly collect information on those who pose very real threats to our country, individuals such as Julian Assange and Edward Snowden seek to use that information to make a name for themselves. As long as they make a splash, they care nothing about the lives they put at risk or the damage they cause to national security.


WikiLeaks walks like a hostile intelligence service and talks like a hostile intelligence service. It has encouraged its followers to find jobs at CIA in order to obtain intelligence. It directed Chelsea Manning in her theft of specific secret information. And it overwhelmingly focuses on the United States, while seeking support from anti-democratic countries and organizations.


It is time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is – a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia. In January of this year, our Intelligence Community determined that Russian military intelligence—the GRU—had used WikiLeaks to release data of US victims that the GRU had obtained through cyber operations against the Democratic National Committee. And the report also found that Russia’s primary propaganda outlet, RT, has actively collaborated with WikiLeaks.


Now, for those of you who read the editorial page of the Washington Post—and I have a feeling that many of you in this room do—yesterday you would have seen a piece of sophistry penned by Mr. Assange. You would have read a convoluted mass of words wherein Assange compared himself to Thomas Jefferson, Dwight Eisenhower, and the Pulitzer Prize-winning work of legitimate news organizations such as the New York Times and the Washington Post. One can only imagine the absurd comparisons that the original draft contained.


Assange claims to harbor an overwhelming admiration for both America and the idea of America. But I assure you that this man knows nothing of America and our ideals. He knows nothing of our third President, whose clarion call for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness continue to inspire us and the world. And he knows nothing of our 34th President, a hero from my very own Kansas, who helped to liberate Europe from fascists and guided America through the early years of the Cold War.


No, I am quite confident that had Assange been around in the 1930s and 40s and 50s, he would have found himself on the wrong side of history.


We know this because Assange and his ilk make common cause with dictators today. Yes, they try unsuccessfully to cloak themselves and their actions in the language of liberty and privacy; in reality, however, they champion nothing but their own celebrity. Their currency is clickbait; their moral compass, nonexistent. Their mission: personal self-aggrandizement through the destruction of Western values.


They do not care about the causes and people they claim to represent. If they did, they would focus instead on the autocratic regimes in this world that actually suppress free speech and dissent. Instead, they choose to exploit the legitimate secrets of democratic governments—which has, so far, proven to be a much safer approach than provoking a tyrant.


Clearly, these individuals are not especially burdened by conscience. We know this, for example, because Assange has been more than cavalier in disclosing the personal information of scores of innocent citizens around the globe. We know this because the damage they have done to the security and safety of the free world is tangible. And the examples are numerous.

When Snowden absconded to the comfortable clutches of Russian intelligence, his treachery directly harmed a wide range of US intelligence and military operations. Despite what he claims, he is no whistleblower. True whistleblowers use the well-established and discreet processes in place to voice grievances; they do not put American lives at risk.

In fact, a colleague of ours at NSA recently explained that more than a thousand foreign targets—people, groups, organizations—more than a thousand of them changed or tried to change how they communicated as a result of the Snowden disclosures. That number is staggering.

And the bottom line is that it became harder for us in the Intelligence Community to keep Americans safe. It became harder to monitor the communications of terrorist organizations that are bent on bringing bloodshed to our shores. Snowden’s disclosures helped these groups find ways to hide themselves in the crowded digital forest.

Even in those cases where we were able to regain our ability to collect, the damage was already done. We work in a business with budgetary and time constraints. The effort to earn back access that we previously possessed meant that we had less time to look for new threats.

As for Assange, his actions have attracted a devoted following among some of our most determined enemies. Following a recent WikiLeaks disclosure, an al Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula member posted a comment online thanking WikiLeaks for providing a means to fight America in a way that AQAP had not previously envisioned.

AQAP represents one of the most serious terrorist threats to our country and the world. It is a group that is devoted not only to bringing down civilian passenger planes, but our way of life as well. That Assange is the darling of terrorists is nothing short of reprehensible.


Have no doubt that the disclosures in recent years caused harm—great harm—to our nation’s security, and they will continue to do so over the long term. They threaten the trust we’ve developed with our foreign partners when trust is a crucial currency among allies. They risk damaging morale for the good officers of the Intelligence Community who take the high road every day. And I can’t stress enough how these disclosures have severely hindered our ability to keep all Americans safe.


No, Julian Assange and his kind are not the slightest bit interested in improving civil liberties or enhancing personal freedom. They have pretended that America’s First Amendment freedoms shield them from justice. They may have believed that, but they are wrong.


Assange is a narcissist who has created nothing of value. He relies on the dirty work of others to make himself famous. He is a fraud—a coward hiding behind a screen.


And in Kansas, we know something about false Wizards.


But I’m not the only one who knows what Assange really is. Even those who often benefit from Assange’s leaks have called him out for his overblown statements. The Intercept, which in the past has gleefully reported on unauthorized disclosures, accused WikiLeaks in late March of “stretching the facts” in its comments about CIA. In the same article, the Intercept added that the documents were “not worth the concern WikiLeaks generated by its public comments.”

* * * *

So we face a crucial question: What can we do about this? What can and should CIA, the United States, and our allies do about the unprecedented challenge posed by these hostile non-state intelligence agencies?

While there is no quick fix—no foolproof cure—there are steps that we can take to undercut the danger. First, it is high time we called out those who grant a platform to these leakers and so-called transparency activists. We know the danger that Assange and his not-so-merry band of brothers pose to democracies around the world. Ignorance or misplaced idealism is no longer an acceptable excuse for lionizing these demons.

Second, there are steps that we have to take at home—in fact, this is a process we’ve already started. We’ve got to strengthen our own systems; we’ve got to improve internal mechanisms that help us in our counterintelligence mission. All of us in the Intelligence Community had a wake-up call after Snowden’s treachery. Unfortunately, the threat has not abated.

I can’t go into great detail, but the steps we take can’t be static. Our approach to security has to be constantly evolving. We need to be as clever and innovative as the enemies we face. They won’t relent, and neither will we.

We can never truly eliminate the threat but we can mitigate and manage it. This relies on agility and on dynamic “defense in depth.” It depends on a fundamental change in how we address digital problems, understanding that best practices have to evolve in real time. It is a long-term project but the strides we have taken—particularly the rapid and tireless response of our Directorate of Digital Innovation—give us grounds for optimism.

Third, we have to recognize that we can no longer allow Assange and his colleagues the latitude to use free speech values against us. To give them the space to crush us with misappropriated secrets is a perversion of what our great Constitution stands for. It ends now.

And finally—and perhaps most importantly—we need to deepen the trust between the Intelligence Community and the citizens we strive to protect.

At CIA, I can assure you that we are committed to earning that trust every day. We know we can never take it for granted. We must continue to be as open as possible with the American people so that our society can reach informed judgments on striking the proper balance between individual privacy and national security.

As CIA Director, it is my sworn duty to uphold the Constitution and defend national security. And as somebody who practiced law, built businesses, and ran for public office to represent my neighbors and fellow citizens, I fully understand why nobody should have to blindly place their trust in government.

Granted, the intelligence arena can never be as transparent as other parts of government. Secrecy is essential to us because we have hardworking officers and foreign agents in harm’s way, doing dangerous work on behalf of our country.

But even if we can’t share everything with the people, we can share it with the President they elected and with the overseers they sent to Congress. Having served on the committee myself, I am a CIA Director who fully understands the imperative of oversight. Doing right by the American people is as important to me as carrying out our Agency’s mission. And I will hold our officers to the same standard.

But remember, these officers grew up loving this country and the ideals it represents. They are Americans just like you, devoted to their jobs, trying to do their best.

The men and women I work with at Langley are patriots, and I am honored to lead them. They have my trust. They have my faith. And as long as I’m lucky enough to have the best job in the world, I promise you that CIA will be tireless in our mission to keep our country safe and, yes, to get it right.

Thank you all very much.

You didn't mind it when it was done to Clinton. "What was so bad about what the Russians did? Russia dindunuffin!! Stop being a sheep! Watch the real news, don't listen to Trump's own intelligence subordinates!"

Now you would find this tactic outrageous, political, and substantively hollow. Telling.

 

[Hans Gruber]

Even if this proves to be true, which certainly doesn't appear to be likely, can you take a moment to gain critical distance, and appreciate the irony?

The Russians deliberately drip-drip-dripped manufactured headlines out of the Podesta/DNC Dumps via the "Guccifer 2.0" and Wikileaks fronts, and generated other viral forms of propaganda with their Russian bot-mills. They drew out their leaks for maximum political impact against Clinton.

Not only did the Russians put their mills to use spinning out and creating false narratives with the overwhelming amount of information leaked, creating "hoaxes" like the #Pizzagate debacle as genuine headlines that many Americans (including a hefty portion of Sherdog #Trumpets) believed was legitimate, but Assange even went to the trouble of announcing an intent to make more announcements a mere month before the election.

Timeline here.
2016 Presidential Campaign Hacking Fast Facts
Context here.
How Much Did Wikileaks Hurt Hillary Clinton?

Spare me the howls of denial that Wikileaks was a partisan foreign player, here. Trump's own appointment to the Director of the CIA, Mike Pompeo, made this precise claim:
Director Pompeo Delivers Remarks at CSIS

You didn't mind it when it was done to Clinton. "What was so bad about what the Russians did? Russia dindunuffin!! Stop being a sheep! Watch the real news, don't listen to Trump's own intelligence subordinates!"

Now you would find this tactic outrageous, political, and substantively hollow. Telling.

Once again Sadmick you are putting words into people's mouths.

Trump doesn't want leaks, Hillary didn't want leaks. No politician does.

I was saying that Trump should have canned Mueller months ago in order to help avoid leaks and opposition research gathering for 2020. The Hillary donors that work for Mueller keep leaking to the press. Trump could have put a stop to this.

Also Pizzagate was not a theory floated by Wikileaks or even Russia. Nice try but just like in 2016 you keep losing time and time again

 

[Madmick]

Once again Sadmick you are putting words into people's mouths.

Trump doesn't want leaks, Hillary didn't want leaks. No politician does.

I was saying that Trump should have canned Mueller months ago in order to help avoid leaks and opposition research gathering for 2020. The Hillary donors that work for Mueller keep leaking to the press. Trump could have put a stop to this.

Also Pizzagate was not a theory floated by Wikileaks or even Russia. Nice try but just like in 2016 you keep losing time and time again

FBI’s Russia Probe Expands to Include ‘PizzaGate’ Threats
Yeah, I know, "fake news". Spare me. @Ruprecht posted about the very first appearance of the term sometime in the past year, IIRC, and how it trended out from a suspicious core of posts. He actually had to issue an infraction to you in order to get you to stop spreading the conspiracy here on Sherdog-- did he not?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pizzagate

Pizzagate is the (admittedly rather silly) name of an actual conspiracy theory which claims that Hillary Clinton is secretly involved in a pedophile ring centered around Alex Jones' overactive imagination a pizza restaurant in Washington, D.C..[1] This outlandish theory spawned from a highly peculiar pattern-analytical reading of the Wikileaks-leaked hacked emails belonging to John Podesta, then-manager of the Hillary campaign...

...because the highly suspect code phrase "cheese pizza" figured among said correspondence.[2][3] The fact that the mention of cheese pizza was much more interesting to some people than the actual emails of any possible importance whatsoever says something about the conspiracy crowd.[Note 1]

The conspiracy theory was initially promoted and popularised on the notorious Poe-nest 4chan and on Reddit, spread quickly over various fake news websites as well as via social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, and culminated in an armed man — arguably acting on the suggestion of one Alex Jones[4] — entering the lion's den pizza parlor in question, rifle in hand, to "self-investigate" the claims in early December 2016.

Origin and spread

The foundations of Pizzagate were laid by 4chan trolls scouring Clinton-related emails released by Wikileaks looking for dirt.[Note 2]

They found a series of emails which mentioned Comet Ping Pong[Note 3] having seen occasional use as a venue for DNC fundraising events.[5] Its owner, James Alefantis, was for some reason named the 49th most powerful person in Washington DC by GQ magazine out of DC's top 50 most powerful people.[6][Note 4]

Because life is random, the phrase cheese pizza happened to be an in-joke refering to child pornography on 4chan.[Note 5] Thus, users started to fabricate a conspiracy theory around the mention of this generic food item in the Podesta emails, soon shitposting speculating up a storm. Based on this diligent research, they quickly concluded that John Podesta, Clinton, and others were all part of a clandestine pedophile ring operating out of the innocent-looking Comet Ping Pong.[7]

The conspira-trollery eventually flooded Reddit. On /r/The_Donald/, a redditor by the name of "DumbScribblyUnctious" collected all the dubious conspiracy theories into one giant screed entitled Comet Ping Pong — Pizzagate Summary.[8]

For the simple reason that speculation this daft inherently borders on actual absurdist comedy, the popularity of the Pizzagate manufactroversy increased exponentially, with theories about the supposed conspiracy quickly growing ridiculously complex and lengthy.[7]

Professional insanity dispenser Alex Jones fanned the flames by adding his own conspiratorial twist, posting an actual InfoWars bulletin called Pizzagate Is Real: Something Is Going On, But What?[9] in which he told viewers "You have to go investigate it for yourself",[4] neglecting to factor in that his viewers might actually be impressionable enough to take his suggestions to heart.

Social media frenzy
As Pizzagate blew up on the internet, the hashtag #pizzagate began trending on Twitter.[10] Comet Ping Pong suddenly gained a massive amount of followers on Instagram — along with numerous death threats.[Note 6]

The conspiracy theory was actively spread on Twitter by a number of Trump supporters, a mob apparently still consumed by Trump's (later completely abandoned) "crooked Hillary" narrative, desperate for any scraps of controversy that could realize their wet dream — to "lock her up".[7][Note 7]

Meanwhile, in Turkey
Turkish media outlets loyal to sultan president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan responsibly decided to publish articles promoting the Pizzagate conspiracy theory.[11]

Aside from the goal of generally stirring anti-American sentiment in Turkey, the stories were likely meant to deflect from a sexual abuse scandal implicating a charitable foundation with ties to Erdoğan's ruling party, and to distract from crackdowns on dissent after the attempted coup of July 2016.

While gullible dupes like yourself parroted and participated in the spread of this CT I suspect that Putin simply used 4chan (and posters like yourself, perhaps) as a fertile field of dunces to spread their propaganda. I'd say there's enough evidence with regard to study of these techniques published out there, and how the Russians pulled the whole thing off, to match what you could produce to substantiate your claim that it's "Hillary's donors" who keep leaking to the press.

Once again, you can't tolerate the idea that anyone who disagrees with you could participate in a government constructed specifically to sustain dissent. You wouldn't accept anyone but an appointment like Eric Trump himself conducting the FBI investigation into his father, his family, and Russia. Your entire worldview is anathema to our core American political ideology as our founding fathers designed it.

 

[Prokofievian]

Like I said when Comey was tossed out...Trump should have gotten rid of Mueller at the same time. He has a conflict of interest (butt buddies with Comey) and has been hiring Hillary donors for the investigation. (Muelle4 should have recused himself and when he didn't Trump should have canned him)

These deep state losers are going to gather everything they can on Trump and leak it (tax returns, personal info, etc) and are going to use the rest as opposition research for 2020.

Trump made a dumb move by not biting the bullet and firing this scumbag when he got rid of Comey. Now if he does the leeches in the media will have more headlines and "scandal" to spin for another soild week.

This is the biggest and most harped on fake scandal in US history but it is still damaging at the moment because the delusionals believe anything and people that dont pay attention see headlines here and there and it shapes opinions.

It's your position that Trump should have fired the special counsel that was appointed by Trump's own Deputy Attorney General - the same Deputy Attorney General who recommended that Trump fire Comey - before he even hired him?

Comey was fired on May 9th. Mueller was appointed on May 17th.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Not as long as it took to clear up the chlamydia and gonorrhea that I got from your mom.

Quicker than it took me to take one look at you when you were born and split though.

War Room political discourse, ladies and gentlemen.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Yeah, they need to get the money out of Russia, which is why the sanctions are such a punch in the gut to the people in power there.

The most difficult of the sanctions is apparently the Magnitsky act, which affects just 44 men in Russia.

All this, in exchange for changing something that affects just 44 dudes.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Trumps browsing history:

what is collusion

how do you commit collusion

does collusion put you in jail

what is a pardon

how to build a wall cheap

can the president pardon himself

You know he's done exactly this.
I'll bet that's not far off the mark.