dajo9 said:

---

kelly09 said:

---

bearister said:

---

kelly09 said:

---

..BTW, can you present any proof that McCarthy wrote any articles demonstrating that the Obama admin. had a "Sharia Agenda" and was working with liberals?

---

If asked to present such "proof" at trial I suppose I would mark his book Exhibit A and then call Mr. McCarthy to the stand to authenticate it.



BTW, among his peers in the intelligence community, Christopher Steele was respected and viewed as credible. Other than among his base, tRump, his Crime Family members, and most of his associates have never been respected or viewed as credible by anyone.

" John Sipher, a former CIA official who spent 28 years at the agency including stints in Russia did not work specifically with Steele, but said that within the intelligence community, Steele was a "credible guy."

"He knows his stuff," said Sipher, who retired from the CIA in 2014 and now works at a Washington-based technology firm. "That was widely known."

Sipher credited much of the uproar over Steele's dossier to the fact that "no one truly knows his sources." LA Times, January 15, 2017


*One can only imagine that Putin has reviewed the dossier, was able to easily figure out the sources, and now they can all properly be referred to in the past tense.

---

My apology Bearister. Didn't know the book existed. I did read Ball of Collusion. I found it credible.
McCarthy is a conservative but not a RWNJ. In fact, I look forward to his book(s) on the Obama administration's favoring of Jihadist programs. There must be some reason why the 'Big O' favored The Muslim Brotherhood and why he needed to apologize fo rUS actions after 9-11. He told us the worst thing ever done was keeping Jihadists in GITMO. Yeah, I think I want to read that book.

---

Lies

---

NO, they're not.

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

---

CNN is fake news.

Fox News host Tucker Carlson: Putin does not hate America like liberals do


https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/dec/03/tucker-carlson-putin-nbc-chuck-todd-msnbc?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

If Obama or Hillary had pushed this swill, Republicans' hair would be aflame with leg irons and executions at dawn to follow.

https://intelligence.house.gov/report/

Quote:
"[T]he impeachment inquiry has found that President Trump, personally and acting through agents within and outside of the U.S. government, solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to benefit his reelection."

Live analysis of the 300-page document by CNN.

Projector in Chief in London moments ago: "I think he's a maniac. I think Adam Schiff is a deranged human being. I think he grew with a complex for lots of reasons that are obvious. I think he's a very sick man. And he lies."

" In a prelude to articles of impeachment, House Democrats conclude in a 300-page report that President Trump abused the power of his office to pressure Ukraine to announce investigations beneficial to his re-election campaign.

Topline conclusions, per Alayna Treene:

Democrats say Trump "sought to undermine the integrity of the U.S. presidential election process, and endangered U.S. national security."
They argue that Trump's "closest subordinates and advisers," including acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry and others, had direct knowledge of the "scheme."
Democrats say Trump "ordered and implemented a campaign to conceal his conduct from the public" and obstruct the congressional impeachment inquiry, including blocking those subordinates and advisers from testifying." Axios

I hardly slept the night you wept
Our secret's safe and still well kept
Where even Richard Nixon has got soul.
Even Richard Nixon has got
Soul.
Neil Young, Campaigner

dajo9 said:

---

Lies

---

Glasshouse, kettle etc...

"Nobody said anything about Tulsi being a Russian agent but you. Not Hillary"

FWIW I vehemently disagree with the neocon ideology of that book above, but you have displayed a pattern of lying, this one above being the latest manifestation. It reminds me of that other clumsy attempt yours when you've claimed that Maxine Waters actually meant to say "Korea" instead of "Crimea".

This is bad enough in and of itself, but it's even worse with you because you use these clumsy lies to smear other people.

Adam Schiff on Donald Trump, Impeachment, and What's Next | The New Yorker


https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-trumps-washington/i-do-hate-what-he-is-doing-adam-schiff-on-trump-impeachment-and-whats-next

"Was there a quid pro quo?" Sondland said. "The answer is yes." Nonetheless, Republicans then went on television and claimed that Sondland had said no such thing, simply ignoring that portion of his testimony. In our interview, Schiff said that this episode had stuck with him as he wrote the report. "This attack on truth has always seemed to me the most corrosive to our democracy, the idea that there's no such thing as fact anymore," he said."

Cal88 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Lies

---

Glasshouse, kettle etc...

"Nobody said anything about Tulsi being a Russian agent but you. Not Hillary"

FWIW I vehemently disagree with the neocon ideology of that book above, but you have displayed a pattern of lying, this one above being the latest manifestation. It reminds me of that other clumsy attempt yours when you've claimed that Maxine Waters actually meant to say "Korea" instead of "Crimea".

This is bad enough in and of itself, but it's even worse with you because you use these clumsy lies to smear other people.

---

She called Jill Stein a Russian asset

Here is the quote before Hillary starts talking about Jill Stein:
David Plouffe - asks a question about Trump, ending with ". . . that seems to be, to the extent I can identify a strategy, their key strategy right now"

Hillary Clinton: "I think it's going to be the same as 2016: 'Don't vote for the other guy. You don't like me? Don't vote for the other guy because the other guy is going to do X, Y and Z. They are also going to do third-party again, and I'm not making any predictions but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She is a favorite of the Russians - they have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far. ,"

Then Hillary starts talking about Jill Stein

Notice every "they" in the above quote is about Trump / Republicans until the last "they" after Hillary mentioned the "Russians". That is how the English language works.

Here is the podcast, go to the 35 minute mark
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/hillary-clinton/id1479487160?i=1000453830324

I'll say it's a little ambiguous whether or not Hillary is including Gabbard along with Jill Stein as a Russian asset. I kinda wish she wouldn't go there. But then again, Hillary Clinton is not running for office and currently holds no position in government, so whatever.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/22/20924999/hillary-clinton-tulsi-gabbard-fight-explained

Gabbard's response is way out of proportion and does much more to hurt the Democrats' chances IMO.

sycasey said:

---

I'll say it's a little ambiguous whether or not Hillary is including Gabbard along with Jill Stein as a Russian asset. I kinda wish she wouldn't go there. But then again, Hillary Clinton is not running for office and currently holds no position in government, so whatever.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/22/20924999/hillary-clinton-tulsi-gabbard-fight-explained

Gabbard's response is way out of proportion and does much more to hurt the Democrats' chances IMO.

---

Ok, I can accept that their may be some ambiguity. So then you ask the source, Hillary Clinton. And an aide for Hillary Clinton clarified the ambiguity.

After that point, any suggestion that Hillary called Gabbard a Russian agent is a lie.

dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I'll say it's a little ambiguous whether or not Hillary is including Gabbard along with Jill Stein as a Russian asset. I kinda wish she wouldn't go there. But then again, Hillary Clinton is not running for office and currently holds no position in government, so whatever.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/22/20924999/hillary-clinton-tulsi-gabbard-fight-explained

Gabbard's response is way out of proportion and does much more to hurt the Democrats' chances IMO.

---

Ok, I can accept that their may be some ambiguity. So then you ask the source, Hillary Clinton. And an aide for Hillary Clinton clarified the ambiguity.

After that point, any suggestion that Hillary called Gabbard a Russian agent is a lie.

---

Right now some skeptics are reading your response and thinking "This is just Hillary caving in to critics. Everyone knows what she meant and it was that Tulsi is a Russian agent (or whatever)". And I would say under ordinary circumstances that would be a credible viewpoint. But right now it seems like Hillary DGAF and if she meant to say that Tulsi was a Russia agent, and not just someone Russia wants to prop up, I think she would come right out and say it. She hasn't exactly been mincing words lately.

sycasey said:

---

I'll say it's a little ambiguous whether or not Hillary is including Gabbard along with Jill Stein as a Russian asset. I kinda wish she wouldn't go there. But then again, Hillary Clinton is not running for office and currently holds no position in government, so whatever.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/22/20924999/hillary-clinton-tulsi-gabbard-fight-explained

Gabbard's response is way out of proportion and does much more to hurt the Democrats' chances IMO.

---

Quote:

---

Unfortunately, the answer to that question is "yes" in ways that reveal some troubling tendencies among American liberals and leftists today.

---

Seems like a guy who writes on both sides of the aisle, but I get suspicious when I see the term leftists used.

dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I'll say it's a little ambiguous whether or not Hillary is including Gabbard along with Jill Stein as a Russian asset. I kinda wish she wouldn't go there. But then again, Hillary Clinton is not running for office and currently holds no position in government, so whatever.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/22/20924999/hillary-clinton-tulsi-gabbard-fight-explained

Gabbard's response is way out of proportion and does much more to hurt the Democrats' chances IMO.

---

Ok, I can accept that their may be some ambiguity. So then you ask the source, Hillary Clinton. And an aide for Hillary Clinton clarified the ambiguity.

After that point, any suggestion that Hillary called Gabbard a Russian agent is a lie.

---

Any suggestion that Hillary backtracked is not a lie however.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I'll say it's a little ambiguous whether or not Hillary is including Gabbard along with Jill Stein as a Russian asset. I kinda wish she wouldn't go there. But then again, Hillary Clinton is not running for office and currently holds no position in government, so whatever.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/22/20924999/hillary-clinton-tulsi-gabbard-fight-explained

Gabbard's response is way out of proportion and does much more to hurt the Democrats' chances IMO.

---

Ok, I can accept that their may be some ambiguity. So then you ask the source, Hillary Clinton. And an aide for Hillary Clinton clarified the ambiguity.

After that point, any suggestion that Hillary called Gabbard a Russian agent is a lie.

---

Right now some skeptics are reading your response and thinking "This is just Hillary caving in to critics. Everyone knows what she meant and it was that Tulsi is a Russian agent (or whatever)". And I would say under ordinary circumstances that would be a credible viewpoint. But right now it seems like Hillary DGAF and if she meant to say that Tulsi was a Russia agent, and not just someone Russia wants to prop up, I think she would come right out and say it. She hasn't exactly been mincing words lately.

---

She's bitter about no longer being relevant. Tough times when everything you ever "earned" was given to you.

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I'll say it's a little ambiguous whether or not Hillary is including Gabbard along with Jill Stein as a Russian asset. I kinda wish she wouldn't go there. But then again, Hillary Clinton is not running for office and currently holds no position in government, so whatever.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/22/20924999/hillary-clinton-tulsi-gabbard-fight-explained

Gabbard's response is way out of proportion and does much more to hurt the Democrats' chances IMO.

---

Quote:

---

Unfortunately, the answer to that question is "yes" in ways that reveal some troubling tendencies among American liberals and leftists today.

---

Seems like a guy who writes on both sides of the aisle, but I get suspicious when I see the term leftists used.

---

I'm not agreeing with all of the commentary, but did want to post that for the full context of the quote.

No, Hillary didn't backtrack she clarified a comment that could be viewed as ambiguous.

Compare that to Mulvaney who said basically, yes it was a quid pro quo, it happens all the time and get over it. That statement was clear and unambiguous.

Then he released a statement and said there was no quid pro quo. That's a backtrack.

"You know, basically, [the Russians] were like, hey, let's do everything we can to elect Donald Trump," Hillary explained to Stern. "Those are words. And they also said Bernie Sanders, but, you know, that's for another day."

So, she's at it again. So what does this mean? Is Sanders a Russian asset too? Or more on purpose ambiguity?. She's like a busted hooker complaining that strange aliens took away her virginity and forced her into a life of sin

Anarchistbear said:

---

"You know, basically, [the Russians] were like, hey, let's do everything we can to elect Donald Trump," Hillary explained to Stern. "Those are words. And they also said Bernie Sanders, but, you know, that's for another day."

So, she's at it again. So what does this mean? Is Sanders a Russian asset too? Or more on purpose ambiguity?. She's like a busted hooker complaining that strange aliens took away her virginity and forced her into a life of sin

---

No wonder we are getting clowned by Putin. So many Americans are clueless about what is going.

If Russian media pushes pro Sanders media (as they did in 2016) or pushes pro Gabbard media (as they are doing now) that doesn't make them a Russian asset or agent. It makes them preferred by Putin, or at the least considered better than the alternative by Putin. It gives them a lift because they get a social media boost from team Putin.

In 2016 Putin pushed Trump and Sanders. Sanders largely to hurt Hillary on the left and help Trump's chances. This isn't controversial. It's what U.S. intelligence and the Mueller Report have found.

In 2019 Putin is boosting Trump again. Among the Democrats Putin is boosting Gabbard. This is quantifiable from Russian media and has been quantified.

So what?I In 2012 Putin pushed Obama. This is quantifiable from Russian media

Anarchistbear said:

---

So what?I In 2012 Putin pushed Obama. This is quantifiable from Russian media

---

So what? Well, I guess if I were an anarchist that's how I would feel too.

dajo9 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

So what?I In 2012 Putin pushed Obama. This is quantifiable from Russian media

---

So what? Well, I guess if I were an anarchist that's how I would feel too.

---

Well, instead you're a paranoid McCarthyite who believes Russians have inordinate power to control US elections. I suppose it's understandable that Clinton losing to a game show host begs a conspiracy theory but her defeat is all pretty obvious. Russia is the new excuse for all the party's failings.

As I said Putin preferred Obama and publicly interfered to state same.

VLADIVOSTOK, Russia President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia sauntered into American presidential politics on Thursday, praising President Obama as "a very honest man" and chastising the Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, for describing Russia as "without question our No. 1 geopolitical foe."

Mr. Putin was asked about the presidential race during an interview with the state-controlled television network RT. The interview was recorded earlier this week but broadcast on Thursday to coincide with Mr. Putin's arrival in Vladivostok for the annual Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit conference, which is being held in Russia for the first time.

Mr. Putin said he believed that if Mr. Obama is re-elected in November, a compromise could be reached on the contentious issue of American plans for a missile defense system in Europe, which Russia has strongly opposed.

Anarchistbear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

So what?I In 2012 Putin pushed Obama. This is quantifiable from Russian media

---

So what? Well, I guess if I were an anarchist that's how I would feel too.

---

Well, instead you're a paranoid McCarthyite who believes Russians have inordinate power to control US elections. I suppose it's understandable that Clinton losing to a game show host begs a conspiracy theory but her defeat is all pretty obvious. Russia is the new excuse for all the party's failings.

As I said Putin preferred Obama and publicly interfered to state same.

VLADIVOSTOK, Russia President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia sauntered into American presidential politics on Thursday, praising President Obama as "a very honest man" and chastising the Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, for describing Russia as "without question our No. 1 geopolitical foe."

Mr. Putin was asked about the presidential race during an interview with the state-controlled television network RT. The interview was recorded earlier this week but broadcast on Thursday to coincide with Mr. Putin's arrival in Vladivostok for the annual Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit conference, which is being held in Russia for the first time.

Mr. Putin said he believed that if Mr. Obama is re-elected in November, a compromise could be reached on the contentious issue of American plans for a missile defense system in Europe, which Russia has strongly opposed.

---

Did you really just compare a couple of quotes from 2012 to the documented 2016 cyber espionage campaign that has resulted in the indictments of 26 Russians?

How embarrassing for you.

It's your point. Gabbard and Sanders are somehow suspect because Russia is somehow "preferring" them behind the scenes but this is just McCarthyite bull**** used to smear and discredit people by inference. Yet they should be no more suspect than Obama who Putin preferred. The whole thing is just a paranoid fantasy the Democrats have invented to distract and instill fear- it obviously works for the conspiracy minded like you.

Anarchistbear said:

---

It's your point. Gabbard and Sanders are somehow suspect because Russia is somehow "preferring" them behind the scenes but this is just McCarthyite bull**** used to smear and discredit people by inference. Yet they should be no more suspect than Obama who Putin preferred. The whole thing is just a paranoid fantasy the Democrats have invented to distract and instill fear- it obviously works for the conspiracy minded like you.

---

I never said Sanders was suspect.

Look, I'm sorry you can't differentiate between the scale of Russia's fairly regular comments in 2012 and the covert actions they've taken recently. Just because you can't figure it out, I'm not going to stop talking about it. If you need a safe space you won't get it from me.

Did Russia Hack Voting Machines in 2016 Election?


https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a55481/russia-hack-voting-machines/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/amp55481/russia-hack-voting-machines/

dajo9 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

It's your point. Gabbard and Sanders are somehow suspect because Russia is somehow "preferring" them behind the scenes but this is just McCarthyite bull**** used to smear and discredit people by inference. Yet they should be no more suspect than Obama who Putin preferred. The whole thing is just a paranoid fantasy the Democrats have invented to distract and instill fear- it obviously works for the conspiracy minded like you.

---

I never said Sanders was suspect.

Look, I'm sorry you can't differentiate between the scale of Russia's fairly regular comments in 2012 and the covert actions they've taken recently. Just because you can't figure it out, I'm not going to stop talking about it. If you need a safe space you won't get it from me.

---

Maybe you don't think Sanders is suspect but when Clinton tantalizingly drops Sanders in the same sentence as Russia it is obvious what she is doing- trying to cast a shadow over him. It's shameless. And Gabbard is a Major in the US Army so if she is a Russian agent somebody should do something..but these are just more smears.

Safe space? What's with that? You can talk all you want; nobody is denying you that, least of all, me. . I suspect your views are far more popular here than mine but I'd bet the opposite is true in the country. For three years we've heard nothing but how this puny impotent country is somehow pulling the strings on the entire electorate because they stole Podesta's emails and ran some clickbait ads on Facebook. It's been a total disaster for your party and the country and unfortunately this will all that will be discussed in 2020. The country is teetering on disaster from inequality, racism, hatred, suicide, drug abuse and lack of health care and the Democrats are obsessed with Russia and phone calls to the Ukraine. Good luck with that.

Russia's actions are consistent in serving their own interests-so have been the USA's from time immemorial.

Anarchistbear said:

---

I suspect your views are far more popular here than mine but I'd bet the opposite is true in the country.

---

https://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2017/04/26/poll-most-americans-say-russia-tried-to-meddle-in-election

https://morningconsult.com/2019/08/21/61-of-voters-say-they-believe-russia-will-try-to-interfere-in-2020-election/

Wrong questions.

Anarchistbear said:

---

Wrong questions.

---

What are you looking for exactly?

sycasey said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Wrong questions.

---

What are you looking for exactly?

---

The silent anarchy majority