Slashdot Mirror

The problem is that they probably want Trump to pardon Assange to claim obstruction...

There's more background here, but I don't really trust the same DoJ that wrote about wanting to lock in Trump in a formal, chargeable way after being caught illegally spying on his campaign and working with a large group of foreign spies to do so...

> Well, US interference in the Russian election got the Russians Boris Yeltsin instead of Vladimir Zhirinovsky which is going from catastrophic to merely terrible. Russian interference in the US election got the Americans a completely senile, corrupt businessman, money launderer, tax cheat, bank fraudster, slum lord, pussy grabber and serial liar (basically Trump is American Yeltsin) instead of a controversial but generally competent female politician.

So your real problem with the so-called interference is who won? I see, it's telling that you don't believe it's bad or something, you just hate the results, and it only completely undermines your attempt to take a moral high ground here. But, honestly, I guess that does explain why you're not bothered by Mueller working with Joseph Mifsud (Maltese Professor, FBI/CIA asset), Alexander Downer (Australian Diplomat), Stephan Halper (U.K. Academic and FBI/CIA asset), or Charles Tawil (Israeli CIA asset) and Oleg Deripaksa, despite there seeming to be a criminal referral over some of that.

> I'm not quite sure who got the shorter end of the stick here but since Zhirinovsky would not have hesitated to start WWIII but Trump merely might start WWIII I think the we all probably benefitted more from American interference in Russa's elections than vice versa.

It's weird that you think that Russia is going to start WWIII with someone you think they cheated to install as leader, no? Just how dumb do you think we are to let you have things both ways? It was Hillary mumbling about war with Russia, not Trump, anyhow. You guys just tried to spin it around after it started hurting your poll numbers by claiming that he was going to nuke someone, but you'd have to be a complete moron to fall for that by now, given that instead he's helping create peace in NK. But I see how you folks don't give a crap about the people there who have been suffering for decades, so yeah... I'm not really surprised that you fall for that ridiculous propaganda. Then again, your username appears to be German, and that whole country has a way of falling for socialist propaganda over and over again....

No, more muck & yellow journalism is not what we need.

We need the kind of journalism that gives verifiable sources and actual information, even when it's against their political interests to do so. Not more blowhard opinions that don't bother to cite sources and spend most of the article blowing smoke, rather than talking about what's actually known and how we know it.

In other words, something more like this.

Checked that link out of morbid curiousity. It's the same info in every other news report, but with added tinfoil hat stuff about how this guys social media accounts weren't "wiped by the FBI", and complaining that the bombs weren't explosive enough. And a comment section full of dumbasses saying it's all a setup, it's a conspiracy, the guy is getting paid by Soros.

So, uh.. no. That site is pretty much crap, and is full of idiots. And you want "something more like this", LOL.

No, more muck & yellow journalism is not what we need.

We need the kind of journalism that gives verifiable sources and actual information, even when it's against their political interests to do so. Not more blowhard opinions that don't bother to cite sources and spend most of the article blowing smoke, rather than talking about what's actually known and how we know it.

In other words, something more like this.

> Got it, an explicitly and overtly partisan blogger is "concerned" that the report was "rigged" for political purposes and decided to write an article which just ends by asking a bunch of questions. I guess we're going to ignore the mountains of evidence collected by Facebook and Twitter which show the actual activities of multiple Russian IP addresses. I guess we'll also ignore the Russian nationals arrested or indicted for their activities regarding this, especially the one trying to infiltrate the NRA. I'll look forward to later in your post when you address my question of whether or not Russia tried to interefere with our elections at all.

You say that he's partisan, but don't argue that he's wrong. There's actually quite a bit of investigation into that lady and it's not all what you make it seem. A few random ad spends on memes is all you've got? Show me on the doll where the meme hurt you. Also it is addressed--in that case Mueller tried to run from when he found out he'd actually have to prove it in court. Sorry, I explicitly said that I don't have a problem with people putting their thoughts out there on the web, even if they want to say things about our elections.

> Is that what I did? I "trumpeted" that? I thought I was focusing on the fact that Trump sided with Putin against the intelligence community and his own appointed DNI. I thought that was my focus, not the number of agencies. I'm glad you're here to tell me what my focus was though.

You're doing it *again* now, by painting it as all these people vs. Trump instead of political hack vs. Trump. Still haven't gotten into *any* of the meat of the report (again). Yes, that's another challenge.

> You said you have "repeatedly challenged" me to discuss the factual basis of the DNI's report. I am challenging you to paste the multiple times that you have challenged me to do that. Since you're all about challenging. Link to the comments in question, and paste the specific part you're referring to where you challenge me to provide a factual basis for the DNI's report.

I'll just quote up thread: https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12806349&cid=57533677

You mean 17 organizations. But that was the ODNI director, a political appointee, speaking for everyone and the report sorta handwaived about it being consistent with Russia's goals, without presenting any factual basis for said assessment or even making any sort of argument. Finally, I wonder what special expertise ODNI member organizations like the Coast Guard bring to that assessment. Maybe that's why you dropped one of the member organizations?

Sorry, I actually read the ODNI report and it didn't say anything remotely interesting, nor did it elaborate any sort of factual basis for those opinions. It's telling that the only thing most people remember about it is the number of organizations involved--assuming they even remember that part correctly, of course...

(emphasis added) Guess that didn't register as a challenge with you though.

> What does that have to do with anything? It wasn't "bogus," first of all, there were legitimate concerns about Page's contacts with Russians

Carter Page was an FBI employee who had previously been involved in an FBI operation against Russia. The FISA warrant says both that he is a Russian agent and that he's a target for recruitment. Interestingly, he's also yet to be charged with anything after all this time and all we know, but they got a warrant to spy on anyone within two hops of him.

> So, I am challenging you to show why an investigation into Carter Page has anything to do with Trump's involvement with Russia. One option might be that Jason Miller and Donald Trump were lying about their relationshi

Regarding the ODNI report, I'll just leave this here as it covers most of the bases. More amazing are the points you did not argue over: you do not point to the report or any arguments or evidence from it. It's hard to do that for a document with a bunch of unsupported conclusory statements, though.

> But you've got a real knack for finding the meat of a story, which obviously is how many agencies contributed to the report written by Coats which was then ignored and dismissed by Trump against the counsel of virtually everyone around him. Yeah, the story there is the number of agencies.

That was *your* argument. You are the one who trumpeted the number of agencies as proving something, I said it was BS and challenged you to point to items of substance from the ODNI report. You failed to do so and then created this smokescreen as if I was the one claiming this statistic was meaningful. If you admit that it's BS and don't want it attacked, then maybe it shouldn't be the only damned factoid about the report that you cite. Maybe you should actually discuss the *factual basis* of said report as I've repeatedly challenged you to do so.

You do not because you cannot. Heck, you didn't even bother to link to the ODNI report because apparently it's not even important, despite you being the one to put it into evidence. Then again, that would get us back to discussing the factual basis underlying the report and you'd run into trouble right at the start of the document when we see this -

Thus, while the conclusions in the report are all reflected in the classified assessment, the declassified report does not and cannot include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence and sources and methods.

I used to joke that my classified evidence can beat up your classified evidence, but I don't really have to any more. Half of this stuff on the origins of the Russia nonsense came about via this bogus FISA warrant against Carter Page.

Also, one of the leaked emails from waaaay back when floated the idea of attacking Trump on Russia, so we knew it was planned as far back as the campaign. You can claim that Wikileaks is Russian if you want, but you would have to prove them *wrong* on this email to counter the argument. I alsso hope you don't want to play the game that some have of pretending the emails were manipulated, because they're not and I've long ago posted on Slashdot a copy of the DKIM keys that provide cryptographic non-repudiation.

> OK. Well, just because I'm curious, I've got a question for you: has Russia been actively attacking and trying to undermine US and European democratic processes, yes or no?

All countries are interfering with all other countries, more or less, I'm more interested in the specifics of actual wrongdoing. For example, Obama had Steele & Halper, both foreign spies, running a lot of interference.

I don't generally consider uncovering corruption or making political arguments to be 'wrongdoing' though, at least in the moral sense, nor do I consider anonymous or pseudonymous speech on the internet to be that either, as if each country had some right to regulate whether or not the rest of the world could even talk about them online. There are definitely process crimes that it can run afoul of--which is why the Podesta group was

Regarding the ODNI report, I'll just leave this here as it covers most of the bases. More amazing are the points you did not argue over: you do not point to the report or any arguments or evidence from it. It's hard to do that for a document with a bunch of unsupported conclusory statements, though.

> But you've got a real knack for finding the meat of a story, which obviously is how many agencies contributed to the report written by Coats which was then ignored and dismissed by Trump against the counsel of virtually everyone around him. Yeah, the story there is the number of agencies.

That was *your* argument. You are the one who trumpeted the number of agencies as proving something, I said it was BS and challenged you to point to items of substance from the ODNI report. You failed to do so and then created this smokescreen as if I was the one claiming this statistic was meaningful. If you admit that it's BS and don't want it attacked, then maybe it shouldn't be the only damned factoid about the report that you cite. Maybe you should actually discuss the *factual basis* of said report as I've repeatedly challenged you to do so.

You do not because you cannot. Heck, you didn't even bother to link to the ODNI report because apparently it's not even important, despite you being the one to put it into evidence. Then again, that would get us back to discussing the factual basis underlying the report and you'd run into trouble right at the start of the document when we see this -

Thus, while the conclusions in the report are all reflected in the classified assessment, the declassified report does not and cannot include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence and sources and methods.

I used to joke that my classified evidence can beat up your classified evidence, but I don't really have to any more. Half of this stuff on the origins of the Russia nonsense came about via this bogus FISA warrant against Carter Page.

Also, one of the leaked emails from waaaay back when floated the idea of attacking Trump on Russia, so we knew it was planned as far back as the campaign. You can claim that Wikileaks is Russian if you want, but you would have to prove them *wrong* on this email to counter the argument. I alsso hope you don't want to play the game that some have of pretending the emails were manipulated, because they're not and I've long ago posted on Slashdot a copy of the DKIM keys that provide cryptographic non-repudiation.

> OK. Well, just because I'm curious, I've got a question for you: has Russia been actively attacking and trying to undermine US and European democratic processes, yes or no?

All countries are interfering with all other countries, more or less, I'm more interested in the specifics of actual wrongdoing. For example, Obama had Steele & Halper, both foreign spies, running a lot of interference.

I don't generally consider uncovering corruption or making political arguments to be 'wrongdoing' though, at least in the moral sense, nor do I consider anonymous or pseudonymous speech on the internet to be that either, as if each country had some right to regulate whether or not the rest of the world could even talk about them online. There are definitely process crimes that it can run afoul of--which is why the Podesta group was

Regarding the ODNI report, I'll just leave this here as it covers most of the bases. More amazing are the points you did not argue over: you do not point to the report or any arguments or evidence from it. It's hard to do that for a document with a bunch of unsupported conclusory statements, though.

> But you've got a real knack for finding the meat of a story, which obviously is how many agencies contributed to the report written by Coats which was then ignored and dismissed by Trump against the counsel of virtually everyone around him. Yeah, the story there is the number of agencies.

That was *your* argument. You are the one who trumpeted the number of agencies as proving something, I said it was BS and challenged you to point to items of substance from the ODNI report. You failed to do so and then created this smokescreen as if I was the one claiming this statistic was meaningful. If you admit that it's BS and don't want it attacked, then maybe it shouldn't be the only damned factoid about the report that you cite. Maybe you should actually discuss the *factual basis* of said report as I've repeatedly challenged you to do so.

You do not because you cannot. Heck, you didn't even bother to link to the ODNI report because apparently it's not even important, despite you being the one to put it into evidence. Then again, that would get us back to discussing the factual basis underlying the report and you'd run into trouble right at the start of the document when we see this -

Thus, while the conclusions in the report are all reflected in the classified assessment, the declassified report does not and cannot include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence and sources and methods.

I used to joke that my classified evidence can beat up your classified evidence, but I don't really have to any more. Half of this stuff on the origins of the Russia nonsense came about via this bogus FISA warrant against Carter Page.

Also, one of the leaked emails from waaaay back when floated the idea of attacking Trump on Russia, so we knew it was planned as far back as the campaign. You can claim that Wikileaks is Russian if you want, but you would have to prove them *wrong* on this email to counter the argument. I alsso hope you don't want to play the game that some have of pretending the emails were manipulated, because they're not and I've long ago posted on Slashdot a copy of the DKIM keys that provide cryptographic non-repudiation.

> OK. Well, just because I'm curious, I've got a question for you: has Russia been actively attacking and trying to undermine US and European democratic processes, yes or no?

All countries are interfering with all other countries, more or less, I'm more interested in the specifics of actual wrongdoing. For example, Obama had Steele & Halper, both foreign spies, running a lot of interference.

I don't generally consider uncovering corruption or making political arguments to be 'wrongdoing' though, at least in the moral sense, nor do I consider anonymous or pseudonymous speech on the internet to be that either, as if each country had some right to regulate whether or not the rest of the world could even talk about them online. There are definitely process crimes that it can run afoul of--which is why the Podesta group was

> Well...Wikileaks is not exactly an equal opportunity leaker.

Prove it? They're NOT a hacking group, they only print leaks they can verify. The people who are complaining about this already have their own channels to leak stuff anyhow and are just griping that someone else gets the chance to leak on them. This is just a way to deflect from the fact that they've told us a lot of truth that you're not comfortable with and rather than address that--which you cannot because it was all true--you have to paint them as biased.

> The value is in creating chaos. In the Clinton case, in order to believe there was substantive criminal activity, one must believe that the whole of the FBI and intelligence community were in cahoots with Clinton.

So you don't think Holder, Obama and co. were on her side? We have a lot of texts from Strzok & co. indicating a media leak strategy meant to support Clinton. They worked with British spies to launder dirt gathered from a Russian oligarch, among other sources, through Fusion GPS. There is plenty of documentation of this and sources from their own communications, which you can find referenced here and here among other articles.

> It's not like other true leaks like Snowden or the Pentagon Papers. Those were acts of conscience which led to at least some change.

This only shows that you care more about whether the leaks support your side than whether they're true or reveal corruption. Also, is the NSA not still spying on us all? I'm not sure what change we've seen, as the entire prior paragraph shows exactly how they can spy on you and launder the intelligence through the media.

> Even in the McCarthy era the real nuance in his actions was not apparent until years later. If you don't get it now- give it ten years.

Well yeah, it's true that we didn't really catch the Marxist influence in our education system or they way the Communist agitators promoted chaos like the Vietnam war, but you can't use the past to prove anything like that because it's not even the same Russia--all the people are different. It'd be like me using someone you disagree with from your own country to paint you as being someone you're not. The Bush, Obama and Trump administrations are all quite different, so how you can claim that Russia of 60 years ago is the same is beyond me. I think there are clear differences between Stalin and Gorbachev for example, so you have to make your case in the here and now, not by appealing to the ghost of McCarthy to point out how Russia of the past used liberals to undermine America.

This goes double when the entire dossier that is central to the modern McCarthyism is nothing but rumors laundered via Fusion GPS through Oleg, a Russian oligarch.

> Well...Wikileaks is not exactly an equal opportunity leaker.

Prove it? They're NOT a hacking group, they only print leaks they can verify. The people who are complaining about this already have their own channels to leak stuff anyhow and are just griping that someone else gets the chance to leak on them. This is just a way to deflect from the fact that they've told us a lot of truth that you're not comfortable with and rather than address that--which you cannot because it was all true--you have to paint them as biased.

> The value is in creating chaos. In the Clinton case, in order to believe there was substantive criminal activity, one must believe that the whole of the FBI and intelligence community were in cahoots with Clinton.

So you don't think Holder, Obama and co. were on her side? We have a lot of texts from Strzok & co. indicating a media leak strategy meant to support Clinton. They worked with British spies to launder dirt gathered from a Russian oligarch, among other sources, through Fusion GPS. There is plenty of documentation of this and sources from their own communications, which you can find referenced here and here among other articles.

> It's not like other true leaks like Snowden or the Pentagon Papers. Those were acts of conscience which led to at least some change.

This only shows that you care more about whether the leaks support your side than whether they're true or reveal corruption. Also, is the NSA not still spying on us all? I'm not sure what change we've seen, as the entire prior paragraph shows exactly how they can spy on you and launder the intelligence through the media.

> Even in the McCarthy era the real nuance in his actions was not apparent until years later. If you don't get it now- give it ten years.

Well yeah, it's true that we didn't really catch the Marxist influence in our education system or they way the Communist agitators promoted chaos like the Vietnam war, but you can't use the past to prove anything like that because it's not even the same Russia--all the people are different. It'd be like me using someone you disagree with from your own country to paint you as being someone you're not. The Bush, Obama and Trump administrations are all quite different, so how you can claim that Russia of 60 years ago is the same is beyond me. I think there are clear differences between Stalin and Gorbachev for example, so you have to make your case in the here and now, not by appealing to the ghost of McCarthy to point out how Russia of the past used liberals to undermine America.

This goes double when the entire dossier that is central to the modern McCarthyism is nothing but rumors laundered via Fusion GPS through Oleg, a Russian oligarch.

> It may not be illegal, but happily taking Russian hacking intel is a horrid black eye for any politician, and deservedly so.

So happily taking the Steele dossier, written while he was working for Russian oligarch Oleg, is also a horrid black eye, right?

International Energy Agency: while top exporters Qatar and Australia will remain formidable competitors, the U.S. could be the largest LNG exporter by 2025 if new projects achieve their final investment decision over the next two years.

Yes gas isn't as bad as coal, but it's no wind or solar.
I wonder who exports the most wind and solar...?
Anyone building hydro or nukes in other countries...?

Well, the fact is that Google only trusts big names in news, like CNN and Fox, never mind how ridiculous they may be. Those are overwhelmingly anti-Trump, such that my top results on Google news were such "news" as Trump pushing the wrong buttons on his speakerphone. This goes in with other such "news" as him feeding fish with Shinzo Abe, getting two scoops of ice cream, etc. all of which Google thinks it's vital that I know about for some reason, because I guess people really care about that kind of triviality?

Meanwhile, they don't give a crap about independent blogs like TCT, no matter how deeply it has investigated the Russian collusion with Oleg Deripaska, and despite it being a great source for original documents on, e.g., the FISA warrant for Carter Page.

So yeah, there's no conspiracy. Google simply promotes the fluffy mainstream news that's very popular and not very informative.

> They already Obama was "spying" on them because he was investigating the Russian meddling.

Carter Page was a US spy who had previously been a part of spy operations on behalf of the US government, having helped them eavesdrop on the Russians in the past. They obtained a counter-intelligence (NOT a criminal) FISA warrant to spy on anyone within two hops of him--including much of Trump's campaign. The declassified FISA warrant claims both that Carter Page already is a Russian spy and that he's being targeted for recruitment, which is absurd.

This is all publicly documented but you haven't heard the media report on this because half of them were complicit in this. Like when Steele gave a story to Yahoo and they then claimed in the FISA warrant that this proved their case, never mind they knew that the same source was the source of both allegations, so they didn't have two sources attesting to it, just one, and they were using a sockpuppet to agree with themselves.

There's also evidence that the FBI lied in and about their 302 reports, but all you've probably heard is that Strzok got fired for "anti-Trump text messages" right? Or maybe you cherry picked some items from the conclusion and ignored the substance of the IG's report, never mind how those conclusions were added by dems to be quotable, knowing that most people wouldn't read that huge report, or the fact that they actually make no sense given the conduct described in the IG's report?

Now I wait for some racist idiot to falsely claim that I'm Russian or whatever because they have no idea how to deal with the above facts. All the original documents and more are available at TCT but I'm sure many of you will just ignore the documents because you don't like them.

You're putting words in my mouth. I just said it was 'funny'. You hallucinated everything else on your own and then started arguing with your own hallucination.

You've done nothing to refute the point that the feds don't give a damn about actually investigating this, because you're once again running down the tangent that 3rd parties were paid by the DNC. You point out that the DNC paid $60k for a 3rd party investigation, but hell, the FBI can spend $90k on a damned table, so you're once again are undercutting yourself by giving us more evidence that they never really cared about this investigation for some reason. Which is weird, given how important the Russia thing is supposed to be.

Finally, once more, you did not, because you could not, respond to any of the other points I made. I'm not surprised, but yes, I will keep pointing it out.

> Did they ever release any actual evidence the Russians hacked the DNC?

They released the CrowdStrike report which said they think it was a Russian APT based on various signatures, such as an old copy of Ukranian malware called P.A.S. and a bunch of tor exit nodes, which they presented but failed to identify. They later retracted some of their claims. The DNC did not at any time turn over the affected servers to the FBI or anyone else, as one might expect for such a serious crime as was alleged.

Then the ODNI released the "17 agencies" report that doesn't present any technical info at all, just a few conclusions.

Somewhere in here we have that story about the "mystery server" where they think a Trump server (actually a 3rd party marketing site) is talking to a Russian bank. It turns out to be DNS traffic due to spam, but it's funny to look at now given the #Spygate allegations.

Then there were reports from Trend Micro including this one. There's a lot there about phishing and such, but not a whole lot about how to identify who this is other than "we think this is Russia."

Of course, then comes the Vault 7 leaks showing the CIA (likely among many others) has lots of tools to falsely attribute stuff to other parties. A person was later blamed for that leak, but they instead find that he's a pedophile which is... interesting. One may or may not be aware of a short-lived attempt by the "Todd & Claire" site to frame Julian Assange of that which melted under public scrutiny. There were also the infamous Guccifer 2.0 "Russian fingerprints" which seemed interesting, as he only dropped random Trump opposition research docs.

You still don't get it, do you?

Did you ever look in a mirror to see just how hard you got played? We didn't spy on Trump! became we spied on Trump to protect him! The election can't be hacked became Russia hacked the election. It's funny how Comey briefed Trump on the dossier, which provably puts people in the wrong countries and asks such important questions as whether prostitutes peed on Obama's bed, just to give CNN a hook to report it and the OIG showed us the emails that prove it, not that you've even read those reports. Heck, I wonder if you know what an OIG is? Hurr durr, that's a blog! Sure, it gives you the actual Congressional records or legal rulings as sources and analyzes the law in great detail, but it's not real media unless it cites anonymous sources familiar with someone's thinking! How dare anyone else try to analyze the law but CNN!

This "idiot" president played you all like a fiddle and you still won't admit it no matter how many times we watch the CNN & WaPo headlines spin around in circles. It's not rigged, you're just losing.

Our criminal justice system has become so broken going after non-violent offenders, that actual threats, which should be treated as a crime, just get ignored.

I have been working my way through the various primary sources here and not been able to refute it yet.

https://theconservativetreehou...

In 2016 senior leadership within the Obama FBI and Department of Justice, with direct and provable ties straight to the White House, planned and conducted a targeted political operation against a presidential candidate by weaponizing the intelligence community against Donald Trump.

Using sketchy, intentionally misleading and false information provided to a U.S. District Court Judge, the Obama FBI and DOJ colluded to present an application for wiretaps and surveillance authority to the FISA court; subsequently, they used a FISA warrant as part of an exhaustive counterintelligence operation against their political opposition.

This is no longer some pie-in-the-sky conspiracy. There is massive evidence, including statements from the co-conspirators, that highlights this exact operation in detail. Thank God for our alternative media which is shining the blinding light of the sun on this blight on our Republic. If things were like Obama wanted in TFA, we would not have alternative media to report these inconvenient truths. Distorting people's understanding of complex issues my ass. Misinformation my ass.

Here is Jim Jordan laying out the basics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Notice that the DOJ Inspector General's office is prepping Congress and the public ahead of important witness testimony. Analysis here: https://theconservativetreehou...

One month from today, they intend to release 1.2 million documents. Think of it as a late Christmas present for America.

We don't know *who* specifically paid Fusion GPS, what Fusion GPS were paid for, nor what Steele's directives were after he was hired.

Absolutely we did. An attorney for Clinton hired them.

You are wrong again, on multiple counts.

• An attorney made a statement indicating he did, but there is no confirmation as to the truth of that statement, unless you happen to have a copy of the check or bank transaction, or Fusion GPS confirms this transaction.
• Said attorney works for an agency hired by the DNC, not Clinton

I know, you desperately want there to be proof of Russian interference. You simply can't fathom that your preferred candidate didn't win.

I'm pretty sure there is proof of Russian collusion, since there are already 2 folks charged and have pled guilty. More will follow. That's not in question. You are correct that my preferred candidate didn't win. To continue to show how wrong you are on the whole, however, my preferred candidate wasn't on the ballot I voted on. Here's an absolutely shocking fact for you - the world isn't black and white, Trump or Hillary, I despise both of them, except one is a Hitler wannabe and the other merely objectionable. I'd vote against compromising my morals and ethics any day. That you could swallow that pill shows a lot about your lack of character.

I understand this. But the more I hear about Russia the more I'm sure it's a nothingburger. It's gone from Russia hacking our elections all the way down to "somebody related to the campaign talked to a Russian citizen."

You need to expand your horizons beyond Fox's fake news although, admittedly, their fake news broadcasting has dwindled in recent months in favor of all out propaganda masquerading as indignant opinions instead. Interesting in itself and worthy of a separate discussion on why Fox feels the need to amp up the vitriol considering *their* party controls both houses and the presidency. Maybe all is not well as the bandaids covering the hypocrisy comes peeling off?

This is levels of "election interference" way below Obama's constant meddling in other nation's elections. Remember when he tried to alter the result of Brexit?

Did he? I'm sure you can provide some real facts to back that up. Him stating his opinion that leaving the EU would be a bad idea or something similar isn't meddling, any more than Trump saying he admires manly man Putin's bare chest.

Reminder: It's wrong for Republicans to even talk to foreigners but it's ok for democrats to hold campaign fundraisers in foreign countries.

It's wrong for private citizens to attempt to engage in diplomacy and international government relations. This is what Flynn got rightly indicted for. Papadopolous was indicted for lying under oath to the FBI IIRC. Those appear to be altogether different activities, much like Trump's claim that middle class taxes will go down while rewriting the tax code to have the middle class pay for a 1T tax cut for the rich.

We don't know *who* specifically paid Fusion GPS, what Fusion GPS were paid for, nor what Steele's directives were after he was hired.

Absolutely we did. An attorney for Clinton hired them.

I know, you desperately want there to be proof of Russian interference. You simply can't fathom that your preferred candidate didn't win. I understand this. But the more I hear about Russia the more I'm sure it's a nothingburger. It's gone from Russia hacking our elections all the way down to "somebody related to the campaign talked to a Russian citizen." This is levels of "election interference" way below Obama's constant meddling in other nation's elections. Remember when he tried to alter the result of Brexit?

Reminder: It's wrong for Republicans to even talk to foreigners but it's ok for democrats to hold campaign fundraisers in foreign countries.

The major media outlets went all into the tank for Hillary. The New York Times abandoned even a pretense of objectivity to editorialize against Trump on their front page. Wikileaks proved that CNN and the Washington Post (among others) actively colluded with the Clinton campaign against Trump.

And you know who this hurt most of all? Democrats. Because the MSM was so in the tank for Hillary, the Clinton campaign couldn't get the information it needed to make tactical choices on what money and effort to spend where. Wouldn't it have been more valuable for them to hear "Hey, Hillary may have a problem with previously Democratic blue collar voters in the rust belt" than "Campaign Inevitable is going to crush all puny obstacles between her and the White House! You go girl!"?

Instead they tried to drag the most corrupt candidate ever to run for President of the United States over the finish line, and now they wonder why no one trusts them anymore.

Nice hit piece bro, but check this out. Internet outages across the US coincided with the time of the press release.

So i guess i have to change the question... are you a fucking nazi, fucking stupid, or just a fucking liar.

All three, pal, all three. Deplorable me...

That wasn't Conservative Treehouse's claim, and you know it. The exact headline was...

"Confirmed – Philando Castile Was an Armed Robbery Suspect – False Media Narrative Now Driving Cop Killings"

source

They claimed he was a "suspect", which was NOT true. You can't argue with the facts, I'm sorry. There's a HUGE difference between BEING a suspect, and matching the DESCRIPTION of a suspect. They are not interchangeable concepts. One is an escalation of the other. "Suspect" is a term that implies established evidence against a person in question has been definitively gathered. It has a very strict legal meaning, which involve things like Miranda rights, and you are NOT a suspect in a crime for merely being detained. This was obviously not the case for the shooting victim, and that's what Snopes was pointing out. He was never a suspect. Conservative Treehouse didn't know the difference, and got called out for it. Now, you're defending that same dumb mistake.

It doesn't matter how Conservative Treehouse qualified their headline in the actual story, the headline was a still a blatant lie. Snopes, in no way whatsoever, misstated Conservative Treehouse's words. They blatantly said that he was an "Armed Robbery Suspect" in plain fucking english. You don't get to pick and choose, after the fact, which facts are supposed to matter, and which ones don't when you speak.

So, yes, it's entirely appropriate to call you out for claiming Snopes made a "strawman" argument. They did not. Everything they said is factually accurate, unlike the Conservative Treehouse article. Quit defending stupidity.

They said it was mostly false, and then (2nd and 3rd paragraphs) explained why:

WHAT'S TRUE: Police who pulled over and killed Philando Castile reported they thought he might have resembled a suspect in an armed robbery case.

WHAT'S FALSE: Philando Castile was not "wanted" on an armed robbery charge or a "suspect" in such a case at the time he was killed.

It's right at the top, in bold, extremely prominent, in green and red text. The claim they are debunking is from Conservative Treehouse, and is headlined: "Confirmed â" Philando Castile Was an Armed Robbery Suspect â" False Media Narrative Now Driving Cop Killingsâ¦"

Their claim is correct, he was not a suspect, he resembled a description given of a suspect. However, this headline seems to have little to do with the outrage. If anything heightened it, it was probably the Medical Examiner's office declaring the killing to be a homicide.

A trap? You mean like ignoring their own lawyer's advice over what is and is not legal?

Interestingly enough, I can't help but notice that this is from the WaPo, which is the same one that held this fundraiser the lawyers told them not to hold...

Source: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emai...

Explanation: https://theconservativetreehou...

One of the most prominent Leave campaigners claimed that staying in the EU risked women being raped by Muslims yesterday. The fear-mongering over immigration from that side is intense, far worse from than the mostly justifiable warnings about economic ruin if we leave.

Well that's actually true. It's been going on in many EU countries, and the extent of it is often suppressed. The response from German officials is that women in Germany should "cover up" when they go out, or make sure they have a male escort.

The EU is now proposing quotas of middle eastern immigrants that all member countries must accept. So it might be fear-mongering, but it's based on facts and a predictable future outcome.

Since I have so many asking for some evidence of this sort of thing:

http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/des...

https://theconservativetreehou...

http://www.washingtonsblog.com...

http://redstatewatcher.com/art...

Generally the first thing I hear is an attack on source - all of them if possible. That's just someone who's established a position and has made up their mind no matter what. Usually I try to get both left and right wing sources when I'm trying to give evidence to a point. It's a little harder to do it this time since, with the exception of possibly some websites that support Bernie and want to defend him against the framing he's gotten of astroturfers marching against Trump in his name there's not going to be many left-wing outlets exposing their bread and butter.

I'm not a Trump supporter BTW, I've been voting Libertarian for quite a while and I intend to again. I was even a delegate to the state convention, and the only reason I'm not going to the national convention is economic - I need to work and not spend money on trips to Florida. Perhaps next time.

I made no claim about "the cop's story." Those words, which you even put in quotes, exist nowhere in my post, not does anything remotely implying it.

The "just helped him rob a convenience store" is both unproven (the convenience store owner himself has said he didn't call in a robbery) and utterly irrelevant to the interaction between Brown and the officer. The only reason to bring it up is to make it sound like Brown deserved to be shot.

Witnesses said it looked like Brown got hit before he turned around. This is consistent with both the autopsy results and the audio: six wounds, when only four or five shots were after the pause, and the position of the arm wounds indicating he was either hit facing away with arms by his sides (running) or facing toward the officer with arms raised up high. Obviously at least one must have happened before he turned, and some of the rest after when he had his arms raised. And nobody charges at an officer with their arms high up in the air, unless you think they're a literal gorilla.

The claims about Brown attacking the officer inside his car and about Brown charging the officer afterward came from "Josie," someone who claimed to hear the story from the officer's girlfriend. The only "witness claims" that Brown attacked the officer came vague and second-hand from a tweet by Christine Byers that she later retracted. This is Josie's original account of Brown "charging" (remember, her account set up the original narrative for the "cop's side"):

"Well, then Michael takes off and gets to be about 35 feet away. And Darren’s first protocol is to pursue. So he stands up and yells, ‘Freeze!’ Michael and his friend turn around. And Michael taunts him And then all the sudden he just started bum-rushing him. He just started coming at him full speed,” she told the station. ... “So [Wilson] really thinks [Brown] was on something, because he just kept coming. It was unbelievable. And so he finally ended up, the final shot was in the forehead, and then he fell about two to three feet in front of the officer,” she said.

The audio of the shots totally destroys her narrative. The officer shoots a bunch... then pauses three seconds... then shoots a bunch more. The officer just decided to pause shooting for three seconds during the "bum-rushing"?

Testimony from witnesses including Dorian Johnson: The only difference of note I can see in Dorian Johnson's claims are that he thought Brown was hit once by the shot that went off in the officer's car. His claims are consistent with the audio recording of the shots. Tiffany Mitchell's story is also consistent. Piaget Crenshaw: Consistent except about the exact number of shots fired (missing a couple). Emmanuel Freeman: Not a lot of detail here. Testimony via tweet sucks. Anonymous dude: Also consistent except for the exact number of shots fired (overstated by one or two).

  Your mystery witness: Doesn't make any claim of Brown fighting the officer in the SUV - just pushing away like others have claimed. He claims Brown turned around and started back toward the officer, but he doesn't at all say whether Brown was returning to the officer aggressively or surrendering. Again, the autopsy results indicate a surrendering posture (arms up in the air)

It's also worth noting that your favorite witness agrees that the officer began shooting at Brown even while Brown was at a good distance from him and running away. No matter how you slice it, the witnesses agree the officer was in the wrong.

Makin' that drank, dawg!"

Damn! That's just how I troll!

And I'm not your search engine. Martin was a _former_ football player. He played up to age 14, then stopped.
Still, since we could just go back and forth forever making claims without references and demanding that the other look it up, here's a reference for you: Deconstructing HuffPo's Insufferable Propaganda Reporting on Trayvon Martin. The relevant section from that article:

Yeah, they love to keep talking about this football player Trayvon, except there’s one issue. He hasn’t played for years. I’m surprised they didn’t mention his weekly choir practice, or kitten rescue efforts.

The boy was a swift athlete, according to a friend, and played a range of positions up to about age 14.