Pages

Monday, May 15, 2017

How the left has "altered" the facts on the email hacking...

I have read more and more articles from liberals who simply find it impossible to understand why exactly there is still support for the President. The one conclusion that they all seem to come to is their belief that Trump supporters must be influenced by untrue propaganda tossed around by the deceptive right wing media. Talk about transposing your own problems onto others?

From a purely objective viewpoint, it's actually impossible to draw any other conclusion than it's the left that is using deceptive means to alter the facts, and make them more in line with their own wild-eyed allegations derived from the total meltdown associated with acute D.T.S.  What appears to be happening here is that the facts are being drowned out by rhetoric... to the point where many on the left have forgotten the facts.

So let's review:

Election hacking: There actually was no hacking of the election. Any and all attempts to show that voting machines, counts, or anything actually associated with the election itself have been dispelled. No evidence exists of any "election hacking". There were failed attempts to hack the email servers of the RNC and the Trump. There were successful attempts to hack the email servers of the DNC, and Clinton campaign. None of these servers are government property, and they technically are not election related. So the correct term to use in this situation, would be "campaign hacking"... not "election election". A very important distinction. But of course, it sounds more malicious and criminal to suggest that it was the "election" and not the "campaigns" that got hacked. It's also 100% dishonest.

Russian hacking: The left seems to have forgotten that it was the consensus opinion of the intelligence community that Russian hackers were behind the breaches. This was not a unanimous opinion, nor was it ever declared by anyone within the intelligence community as a provable fact. While this may not matter much in the politics of things or as it pertains to counterintelligence, it would matter "very much" from an actual criminal sense. You first must find evidence that proves (beyond all reasonable doubt) that the Russians were behind the hacking, before you could charge anyone with any crimes. They have never offered that they have such evidence.

Collusion: If you cannot prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that it was the Russians that did the hacking, the how could you charge anyone with conspiring with them? Furthermore, even as the consensus is that it was Russians behind the hacking, there has never been any indication from anyone within the intelligence community that they have any specifics as to the actual identities of the individuals responsible. There are nearly 150 million Russians. Should we assume that all 150 million are in on it? Since we literally do not know the specific people who actually did the hacking of the campaigns, how can you prove anyone colluded with them? The truth is that you can't. So the left dishonestly promotes any contact between anyone associated with Trump with anyone associated with Russia as collusion (such as a GOP Senator meeting with a Russian Ambassador), even though it wouldn't come within light years of being considered collusion from any legal standpoint.

Election interference: Moving past the whole "Russian" thing, the second bit of semantic dishonestly is the using the word "interference". Using this term suggests that someone tried to prevent the election from taking place, tried to prevent people from voting,  tried to prevent the votes from being properly counted, or tried to prevent the results from being implemented. Unless you believe that Hillary Clinton had some legal right to be President, and her legally deemed victory was "interfered with"... the correct semantic word to use would be that the hackers were looking to "influence" the election. It might actually be better to suggest that the hacker's intent was to embarrass the Democrats and Clinton. This would be no different than any number of things brought up during the election that were designed to "influence" voters by embarrassing the candidates, including the release of some older Donald Trump tax returns showing large amounts of asset depreciation, or the "Hollywood access" tapes. Again, there is a huge distinction between "interference" and "influence". From a semantic standpoint, a very powerful distinction.

Bottom line:  From what we know for sure.... some computer hackers (who we believe to be Russian) hacked into the DNC and Clinton campaign websites and released unflattering emails with the likely intent to embarrass the Democrats and Hillary Clinton and possibly influence the election.

We quite literally have no more provable information.

But instead of sticking with the facts, the left dishonestly tells us that the "election was hacked". They dishonestly act as if Russian involvement is "proven". They dishonestly demand that this constitutes broad election "interference". Then they suggest that any contact between anyone associated with Trump and anyone Russian is somehow proof of "collusion". Based on those dishonest narratives... they demand that we start a fourth investigation into their own fantasy of collusion created entirely by altering the facts to fit their unconvincing narrative.

And they claim Donald Trump is the one who is crazy. Ahem.

45 comments:

rrb said...

We quite literally have no more provable information.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

true, but what we do know is that this whole story was and is a mountain of bullshit concocted by hillary's campaign clowns to explain away her "devastating "BOOM" loss by a landslide."*

the left has always relied upon lies, deceptions and slight of hand when it comes to politics. and when they don't get their way, here comes the pouting, tantrums, and hyperbole.

there is literally nothing new under the sun when it comes to these assholes and how they conduct themselves.

rrb said...

"devastating "BOOM" loss by a landslide."*


h/t: the alky.

rrb said...



from the "liberals have no self-awareness" files -

http://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2017/05/14/ironic-conservative-moms-take-cecile-richards-apart-for-her-i-love-you-mom-mothersday-tweet/

now, you would think that the ONE day of the entire fucking year that cecile richards would lay low and keep her fucking mouth shut would be MOTHER'S day.

james said...

The Truth About the Tapes

Playbook: “President Trump’s quip that he might be taping conversations in the White House — and Sean Spicer’s follow up that he had nothing more to say about it — could have a real impact for his agenda in Washington. Democrats are already whispering about trying to slow legislation unless the president hands over tapes, or certifies he doesn’t have them. Democrats can force procedural votes on this topic, which could prove to be tough for Republicans. Who would vote against legislation to get to the bottom of whether the president is surreptitiously taping conversations? Democrats are looking for a quick and easy message. Many think this is it.”

james said...

How Trump Gets His Fake News
politicalwire.com

LOL

rrb said...

Democrats are looking for a quick and easy message.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

democrats suck at governing and have no familiarity with the truth, therefore they are ALWAYS looking for a quick and easy message.

tell me something i DON'T know.

ironically, the voters sent the democrats a "quick and easy message" on election day. and that is how we got trump, AND a GOP majority in both houses of congress.

so chuckles thinks he can slow things down, eh?

good luck with that.

james said...

Who would vote against legislation to get to the bottom of whether the president is surreptitiously taping conversations?

rrb said...



In terms of whether or not there should be a special counsel to head up an investigation, an inquiry by the Judiciary Committee or if we should simply leave it in the hands of the FBI, that’s a valid question for debate. If we take off our partisan hats for a bit we can probably find at least some merit in all of those ideas. But there’s one point where I would hope no rational person could disagree: the FBI needs to have a Director in place. You may not be wild about the choice and some Senators may even want to shoot down the first nominee and ask for another selection. But the process needs to move forward under the regular rules of order.

If the Senate Minority Leader wants to take a stand and hold that position vacant unless he gets something else which is only tangentially related first, he’s going beyond simple obstruction. He’s holding the system hostage and it’s being done for partisan political purposes. But should we really be surprised? Schumer staked out this territory early on. He’s been attacking nearly all of President Trump’s agenda since the inauguration, with the only exceptions being when he thought he could get Trump to sign on to something the rest of the Republicans would hate. (Such as health care.) When Trump gave a widely applauded speech at the end of February laying out a dizzying array of proposals which crossed party lines, Schumer couldn’t think of a single thing he would agree with.

The Democrats are now 100% the Party of No. This would almost be amusing if it weren’t for the “about face” the media has done in suddenly determining that obstructionism is patriotic and in the nation’s best interest.

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/05/15/obstruction-just-way-life-now-chuck-schumer/

rrb said...

Who would vote against legislation to get to the bottom of whether the president is surreptitiously taping conversations?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

learn the process, numbskull. no one is proposing "legislation" regarding the alleged taping.

what they're begging for is another merry fitzmas.

james said...

NYT: G.O.P. Senators, Pulling Away From Trump, Have ‘a Lot Less Fear of Him’

james said...

Having trouble reading?

Democrats can force procedural votes on this topic, which could prove to be tough for Republicans. Who would vote against legislation to get to the bottom of whether the president is surreptitiously taping conversations?

rrb said...



A Tennessee woman, apparently discontent with her congressman’s remarks at a town hall held at the University of Tennessee-Martin, did what any normal, curious and courteous constituent would do to have her followup concerns addressed — she chased his car down, forced him off the road and started screaming and banging on their windows.

[...]

Is Wright demented? Or just an average Democrat in the Trump era?



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/13/republicans-its-getting-dangerous-out-there/


want more trump? this is how you get more trump.


james said...

880 Billion Medicaid cut?

rrb said...

Having trouble reading?

Democrats can force procedural votes on this topic

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

procedural votes are housekeeping votes, james. hardly significant. yes, one asshat from team chuckles can vote to postpone an item, but remember, team chuckles is in the MINORITY. so a procedural vote only goes so far.

it's a low level temper tantrum. or a pimple on a gnat's ass. nothing more, nothing less.

if that's what chuckles has chosen to hang his hat on, the GOP has nothing to worry about.

caliphate4vr said...

Good cut the parasites loose

C.H. Truth said...

James...

Reality check. Nobody in the GOP would have "difficulties" voting against any legislation that creates an investigation.

That being said, what makes you think that McConnell or Ryan would actually call for a vote...

The Democrats cannot actually call a vote for anything. They are... ahem... the "minority Party".

cowardly king obama said...


Let's see, we have Obama caught on open mike colluding with Russians, Hillary with a reset button and approving huge Uranium sales let alone meeting with them, a foundation rolling in Russian money and a campaign manager who's brother got at least 35 million from Russians.

Yet without any evidence Trump did the same the dimms want a special prosecutor.

ROFLMFAO !!!

Loretta Russo said...

"President Trump delivers remarks at the National Peace Officers' Memorial Service"

Finally, a President who supports law enforcement.

Refreshing.

rrb said...

The Democrats cannot actually call a vote for anything. They are... ahem... the "minority Party".
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


exactly. when it comes to the left, it's tough sometimes to separate what's real from what's ridiculous wishful thinking.

look at roger for example. we have no evidence of an actual crime being committed, but he's insisting upon an investigation that "could take up to a year," to go through "all of the people and the data."

limbaugh nailed it today -

the "crime" is that trump beat the pantsuit.

by a landslide no less.

LOL.

james said...

Midterm Alarm Bells Going Off for Republicans

First Read: “Trump’s 39% job rating is a screaming alarm bell for the Republican Party when you think about the midterms, which are still more than 500 days away. To put Trump’s 39% into perspective, George W. Bush didn’t reach that level in the NBC/WSJ poll until October 2005, so after the Social Security debacle, after the Iraq war turned south, and after Hurricane Katrina. And the GOP lost the House and Senate the following year. And Barack Obama NEVER reached 39% in our poll — his lowest approval rating was 40% in September 2014, right before Democrats lost the Senate (after losing the House in 2010).”

james said...

Trump has been underwater in the RCP polling averages from the beginning.

Ch used to post the RCP average graph on Obama right up until Obama started getting above water. :-)

Loretta Russo said...

Spam by the pedo.

james said...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

Not once was he above water. Scroll down to see the graph.

Loretta Russo said...

Big fucking deal pedo.

Loretta Russo said...

"Someone might inform the media that they’re not in Kansas anymore; they’re in Queens -- and they’re dealing with a salesman who could talk a squirrel off a nut truck."

Greg Gutfeld

LMAO.

C.H. Truth said...

James - the President's approval will matter much less than direction of the country and consumer confidence numbers. If people are happy with the state of the country. If they are not worried about their jobs, and there is reasonable growth... then there is going to be very little chance of the Democrats taking over either chamber.

Keep in mind, that he won the Presidency with favorables that were ten points worse than it is today... and the Republicans only lost six house seats and two Senate seats (both in blue states).

No matter how you cut it, he's better off today than when he was a candidate.

KD, said...

Jane, you do know that most of the US Adults don't give a wiff about Trump Poll numbers.


They do care that they are employed and more are Employed now then at any moment under the King of Color Obimbo.

KD, France going Right said...

France President Marcon just named a Right Winger to be the Countries PM.

Cool.

KD, Don't go wobbly Chuck your RED LINE IS DRAWN said...

Rat, I pray to GOD that Sen Cuckold Schumer vigorously opposes President Trumps Pick to head the FBI.


rrb said...




Dozens of field workers have filed a class action lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee, claiming the party that is pushing employers to pay a $15 minimum wage and more in overtime failed to pay overtime and minimum wages to its own employees.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/dnc-workers-sue-party-receiving-sub-minimum-wages-no-overtime/

KD, Hillary will never be President, she has a new Ponzi Scheme said...

It is always the same with the left, always cheating and lying to those that vote/work for them.


At least in the last election many wised up and voted For Trump.

Roger Amick said...


Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador
Trump revealed highly classified intel in Oval Office meeting with Russians
Embed Share
Play Video1:42
During the May 10 meeting at the White House with Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak, Trump began describing details about an Islamic State terror threat related to the use of laptop computers on aircraft, according to current and former U.S. officials. (Photo: Russian Foreign Ministry Photo/The Washington Post)
By Greg Miller and Greg Jaffe May 15 at 7:45 PM

President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials, who said Trump’s disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.

The information the president relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.

The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said Trump’s decision to do so endangers cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State. After Trump’s meeting, senior White House officials took steps to contain the damage, placing calls to the CIA and the National Security Agency.

[Political chaos in Washington is a return on investment in Moscow]

“This is code-word information,” said a U.S. official familiar with the matter, using terminology that refers to one of the highest classification levels used by American spy agencies. Trump “revealed more information to the Russian ambassador than we have shared with our own allies.”
Team Trump’s ties to Russian interests View Graphic

The revelation comes as the president faces rising legal and political pressure on multiple Russia-related fronts. Last week, he fired FBI Director James B. Comey in the midst of a bureau investigation into possible links between the Trump campaign and Moscow. Trump’s subsequent admission that his decision was driven by “this Russia thing” was seen by critics as attempted obstruction of justice.

One day after dismissing Comey, Trump welcomed Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak — a key figure in earlier Russia controversies — into the Oval Office. It was during that meeting, officials said, that Trump went off script and began describing details of an Islamic State terrorist threat related to the use of laptop computers on aircraft.

Roger Amick said...

If you were not drowning in his bathwater, you would see how the President operates.

He goes on his impulsive and leaves his staff hanging out on the edge. Plus, the story that came out this evening was from a anonymous source inside White House.

Multiple sources report that staff is closing the door and swearing and wondering what the fuck he's doing this time.

Commonsense said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Commonsense said...

White House denies.

National Security advisor told the Washington Post that no information was discussed that was not already publicly known.

Pretty much another smear.

Roger Amick said...

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) issued a rare rebuke of President Donald Trump’s administration Monday evening, telling reporters the White House must find a way to reverse its “downward spiral.”

Corker, a Trump ally who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, made the criticism following reports that the president revealed “highly classified” information during a meeting with Russian officials last week.

“The White House has got to do something soon to bring itself under control and in order. It’s got to happen,” Corker said on Capitol Hill.

“Obviously, they’re in a downward spiral right now, and they’ve got to figure out a way to come to grips [with] all that’s happening,” he added.

Roger Amick said...

If you look at what he said, he does not deny the main point in the Washington Post story.

" President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials, who said Trump’s disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.

What he shared with the Russians was a source of intelligence we shared with our allies.

If you spent five minutes searching for YouTube videos where candidate hit on Hillary Clinton saying that she could no be trusted with American secrets. If I win the election, I will never release secret data to the Russians.

We are seeing many stories from many sources, that the intelligence services have been unwilling to reveal highly sensitive issues. Reporters also, yes, quoting anonymous sources that the White House staff, Bannon and the rest of the consultants were behind a closed door and shouting angry comments because the President leaves them hanging and changing the claims, that they end up looking foolish.

Roger Amick said...

Almost 80% of Americans want an independent investigation on the Russians alleged involvement in the election.

78%

https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-denies-trump-gave-classified-information-to-russian-officials-1494890345

By Carol E. Lee and
Shane Harris
Updated May 16, 2017 12:08 a.m. ET
2367 COMMENTS

WASHINGTON—President Donald Trump shared sensitive intelligence obtained from a close U.S. ally with Russia’s foreign minister and ambassador in a meeting last week, according to U.S. officials, potentially jeopardizing critical intelligence-sharing agreements in the fight against Islamic State.

Mr. Trump met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak in the Oval Office the day after firing Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey.

During the meeting with the Russian officials, Mr. Trump mentioned details about Islamic State in a way that revealed enough information for the Russians to potentially compromise the source, according to the officials, who said the intelligence came from the U.S. ally.

The intelligence services released this because they think he's dangerous. In the campaign they didn't think he's responsible and attacked them. The White House changed his reasons for firing Comey. The VP made it look good, but there are stories that demonstrate he was not happy.

Roger Amick said...

It's no secret that I don't like Trump. But this is really out of control. He didn't have any experience in intelligence services and government. He was used to being the boss, and he has found out the hard way, that the President is in many ways, the least powerful branch of the government. His ignorance is dangerous. You were all upset that Obama didn't have any experience. But as a senator he had a lot more governmental experience than Trump. Plus he wasn't inexperienced at some level intelligence experience and the biggest thing on his side, is that he was not afraid to bring in experts who could tell him he was wrong on things. Trump does not have anyone with experience.

Indy Voter said...

Trump has some people with experience. Most of his senior, official, national security team are people who would be acceptable to another occupant of the office.

Indy Voter said...

The problem is Trump himself, not his senior national security staff.

rrb said...




oh look...

an alky-lanche of news we've already read.

never saw that coming.

LOL.

james said...

Intelligence sources are refusing to comment.

james said...

Ch, why don't you start displaying the RCP presidential approval/disapproval graph? Yu were very happy to display Obama's -- until it started improving.

Hypocrite.

james said...


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html