Russia, Russia, Russia

[Bus Driver]

Really? They conspired with state election officials to submit false election results?

I think not. This is just another fucking lie.

I'd love to see what they "changed".

I think Dog should've stuck with "challenged". As far as I know, it is not illegal to challenge the results of an election. If it is, lock up Kari Lake (and seize her profits from the ongoing challenge).

Changing the results is different. The slates of false electors, the phone calls to "find" votes, etc. are examples of that. I am wondering about the details of Democrats doing it.

 

[Olsonist]

@Dog 2.0, why do you lie?

 

[Dog 2.0]

Really? They conspired with state election officials to submit false election results?

I think not. This is just another fucking lie.

That might be a lie if I said it. But I didn't.

 

[Bus Driver]

@Dog 2.0 - What did they change?

 

[Dog 2.0]

I'd love to see what they "changed".

I think Dog should've stuck with "challenged". As far as I know, it is not illegal to challenge the results of an election. If it is, lock up Kari Lake (and seize her profits from the ongoing challenge).

Changing the results is different. The slates of false electors, the phone calls to "find" votes, etc. are examples of that. I am wondering about the details of Democrats doing it.

Quite right, challenging the results of an election is only problematic when Republicans do it.

 

[Dog 2.0]

@Dog 2.0 - What did they change?

Nothing, they failed.

 

[Steam Flyer]

Quite right, challenging the results of an election is only problematic when Republicans do it.

Incorrect.

Again. It's almost like you are deliberately not telling the truth.

 

[Mike G]

There will never be a point where this person you're arguing with (it's on ignore) will say, "hey, you know what, you're right about 'x' topic."
It will just never happen.
It's good practice maybe for when you have your yearly dinner with your MAGA uncle, so you know what boneheaded arguments he may make.
But this guy laughs at you every time he hits 'reply.'

 

[Bus Driver]

Nothing, they failed.

I am sure you can detail how they "conspired to defraud the nation by changing the results of the election”.

I am unaware of these attempts to thwart the will of the people. Do tell.

Actual factual specifics would be nice.

 

[Dog 2.0]

I am sure you can detail how they "conspired to defraud the nation by changing the results of the election”.

I am unaware of these attempts to thwart the will of the people. Do tell.

Actual factual specifics would be nice.

I should have used purple. Provision for challenging the results of an election is integral to the system and making use of it, even by Republicans, is not treason.

 

[P_Wop]

I think he's muddled about the phrase "conspired to defraud"

Conspiracy is still conspiracy, regardless of whether what you conspired to do succeeds or not.

 

[Raz'r]

Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald are oddly silent about this.

Projection, it's all he's (Trump) got.

 

[Bus Driver]

I should have used purple. Provision for challenging the results of an election is integral to the system and making use of it, even by Republicans, is not treason.

Changing your position, are you? Back to "challenging", now?

Here is what you said. Are you sticking with this allegation?
If so, what do you have in the way of evidence?

Good catch, allow me to rephrase it.

In 2017, Reps. Jamie Raskin, Pramila Jayapal, Barbara Lee, Sheila Jackson Lee, Raúl Grijalva, Maxine Waters, and Jim McGovern, all “conspired to defraud the nation by changing the results of the election”.

 

[Ishmael]

There will never be a point where this person you're arguing with (it's on ignore) will say, "hey, you know what, you're right about 'x' topic."
It will just never happen.
It's good practice maybe for when you have your yearly dinner with your MAGA uncle, so you know what boneheaded arguments he may make.
But this guy laughs at you every time he hits 'reply.'

Save your breath, it's hopeless.

 

[Dog 2.0]

“conspired to defraud the nation by changing the results of the election

Changing your position, are you? Back to "challenging", now?

Here is what you said. Are you sticking with this allegation?
If so, what do you have in the way of evidence?

Is it not the intent of challenging the result to change it?

 

[Bus Driver]

“conspired to defraud the nation by changing the results of the election

Is it not the intent of challenging the result to change it?

In what way(s) did these Democrats "conspire" to "defraud"?

Those are serious allegations, and you should not be leveling them without evidence.

 

[phillysailor]

The president bears responsibility for the Jan 6 attack on Congress by mob rioters.

The mob was fed lies. They were provoked by the president and other powerful people.

 

[badlatitude]

UNrolled thread:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1618309363084718080.html

In April 2016, I broke the story of Trump and Putin, using Russian open sources. Afterwards, I heard vague intimations that something was awry in the FBI in New York, specifically counter-intelligence and cyber. We now have a suggestion as to why. 0/20

The person who led the relevant section, Charles McGonigal, has just been charged with taking money from the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. Follow this thread to see just how this connects to the victory of Trump, the Russian war in Ukraine, and U.S. national security. 1/20

The reason I was thinking about Trump & Putin in 2016 was a pattern. Russia had sought to control Ukraine, using social media, money, & a pliable head of state. Russia backed Trump the way that it had backed Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, in the hopes of soft control 2/20

Trump & Yanukovych were similar figures: interested in money, & in power to make or shield money. And therefore vulnerable partners for Putin. They also shared a political advisor: Paul Manafort. He worked for Yanukovych from 2005-2015, taking over Trump's campaign in 2016. 3/20

You might remember Manafort's ties to Russia from 2016. He (and Jared Kushner, and Donald Trump, Jr.) met with Russians in June 2016 in Trump Tower as part of, as the broker of the meeting called it, "the Russian government's support for Trump" (#RoadToUnfreedom, p. 237). 4/20

Manafort had to resign as Trump's campaign manager in August 2016 when news broke that he had received $12.7 million in cash from Yanukovych. But these details are just minor elements of Manafort's dependence on Russia. (#RoadToUnfreedom, p. 235). 5/20

Manafort worked for Deripaska, the same Russian oligarch to whom McGonigal is linked, between 2006 and 2009. Manafort's assignment was to soften up the U.S for Russian influence. He promised "a model that can greatly benefit the Putin government." (#RoadToUnfreedom, p. 234). 6/20

While Manafort worked for Trump in 2016, though, Manafort's dependence on Russia was deeper. He owed Deripaska money, not a position one would want to be in. Manafort offered Deripaska "private briefings" on the campaign. He was hoping "to get whole." (#RoadToUnfreedom, 234) 7/20

Reconsider how the FBI treated the Trump-Putin connection in 2016. Trump and other Republicans screamed that the FBI had overreached. In retrospect, it seems the exact opposite took place. The issue of Russian influence was framed in a way convenient for Russia and Trump. 8/20

The FBI investigation, Crossfire Hurricane, focused on the narrow issue of personal connections between the Trump campaign and Russians. It missed Russia's cyber attacks and the social media campaign, which, according to Kathleen Hall Jamieson, won the election for Trump. 9/20

Once the issue of Russian soft control was framed narrowly as personal contact, Obama missed the big picture, and Trump had an easy defense. Trump knew that Russia was working for him, but the standard of guilt was placed so high that he could defend himself. 10/20

It is entirely inconceivable that McGonigal was unaware of Russia's 2016 cyber influence campaign on behalf of Trump. Even I was aware of it, and I had no expertise. It became one of the subjects of my book #RoadtoUnfreedom. 11/20

The FBI did investigate cyber later, and came to some correct conclusions. But this was after the election, and missed the Russian influence operations entirely. That was an obvious counterintelligence issue. Why did the FBI take so long, and miss the point? 12/20

I had no personal connection to this, but will just repeat what informed people said at the time: this sort of thing was supposed to go through the FBI counter-intelligence section in New York, where tips went to die. That is where McGonigal was in charge. 13/20

The cyber element is what McGonigal should have been making everyone aware of in 2016. In 2016, McGonigal was chief of the FBI's Cyber-Counterintelligence Coordination Section. That October, he was put in charge of the Counterintelligence Division of the FBI's NY office. 14/20

We need to understand why the FBI failed in 2016 to address the essence of an ongoing Russian influence operation. The character of that operation suggests that it would have been the responsibility of an FBI section whose head is now accused of taking Russian money. 15/20

Right after the McGonigal story broke, Kevin McCarthy ejected Adam Schiff from the House intelligence committee. Schiff is expert on Russian influence operations. It exhibits carelessness about national security to exclude him. It is downright suspicious to exclude him now. 16/20

Back in June 2016, Kevin McCarthy expressed his suspicion that Donald Trump was under Putin's influence. He and other Republican members concluded that the risk of an embarrassment to their party was more important than American security. #RoadToUnfreedom, p. 255. 17/20

The Russian influence operation to get Trump elected was real. It serves no one to pretend otherwise. We are still learning about it. Denying that it happened makes the United States vulnerable to ongoing Russian operations. 18/20

I remember a certain frivolity from 2016. Trump was a curiosity. Russia was irrelevant. Nothing to take seriously. Then Trump was elected, blocked weapon sales to Ukraine, and tried to stage a coup. Now Ukrainians are dying every day in the defining conflict of our time. 19/20

The McGonigal question goes even beyond these issues. He had authority in the most sensitive possible investigations within U.S. intelligence. Sorting this out will require a concern for the United States that goes beyond party loyalty. 20/20

 

[billy backstay]

There will never be a point where this person you're arguing with (it's on ignore) will say, "hey, you know what, you're right about 'x' topic."
It will just never happen.
It's good practice maybe for when you have your yearly dinner with your MAGA uncle, so you know what boneheaded arguments he may make.
But this guy laughs at you every time he hits 'reply.'

Moreso the RWNJ's get a hit of dopamine in their brains everytime someone here responds to their nutjob bullshit. If one stops recognizing them, they will cease to spew shit, but many cannot help themselves and support their neverending shit-spewing.....

 

[Mike G]

Barr Pressed Durham to Find Flaws in the Russia Investigation. It Didn’t Go Well.​

Barr Pressed Durham to Find Flaws in the Russia Investigation. It Didn’t Go Well.

The review by John Durham at one point veered into a criminal investigation related to Donald Trump himself, even as it failed to find wrongdoing in the origins of the Russia inquiry.

www.nytimes.com