Debunking Russiagate

tsuke

New member
image004-36.jpg

https://tsukesthoughts.wordpress.com/2017/07/24/debunking-russiagate/

Debunking Russiagate

I have made articles debunking the liberal position on dodd-frank, obamacare, and other issues but have always avoided an article for Russiagate. The entire thing just seemed so ridiculous that it would have been a waste of time debunking it. Yet here we are. The hilarious thing about this is the Democrats don't really care one way or another if Russia interfered with the election or not. The emails that wikileaks provided have been proved to be true. The entire thing is being used to generate headlines and derail the Trump administration. The main concern for Team Trump is that the country at large cares more about what he accomplishes than what Russia did or did not do. It is only the elite Republicans who care about Russiagate and the more they focus on it the less get done.

Emails

If we are going to debunk something let us start from the beginning. Whenever Democrats bring up Russia they always point to Trump calling on Russia on live TV to find the missing emails of Hillary. As everyone knows when your colluding with a foreign power it is always better to do it on live tv. The funny thing about this is that Clinton's emails were never hacked. She deleted them all before handing it to the FBI. All we know about this emails come from what the FBI have been able to recover. It is one thing to hack information that is already there. It is quite another to reconstitute things that have already been deleted.

The second set of emails comes from John Podesta. If you were to go by technicalities you can say he was hacked. In reality Podesta gave up his password willingly to a phishing scam. Let me repeat that again. Podesta gave up his password willingly. You do not need the KGB to run a phishing scam. I think I get 10 or so false notices from credit cards asking for my personal details every week. Any teenager can do this.

Lastly we have the DNC server. If there was any hacking done it is here. Unfortunately we will never know as the DNC refused to turn over their servers to the FBI. All the information we have comes from Crowdstrike which is on retainer for the DNC.

This is the lynchpin of the entire Russiagate narrative and we are not even sure it happened.

Financial Ties

Democrats are also insinuating that Trump is beholden to Russia because he owes them vast sums of money. To prove this they are using his relationship to Deutsche Bank and there have been reports that the bank has turned over information to the Mueller investigation. Please note we are not talking about a fly by night operation here exclusively created to give Trump Russian funds. We are talking about Deutsche Bank. One of the largest banks in the world, based in Germany I might add which liberals seem to love all of a sudden. If it was a treason to do business with Deutsche then you would have to jail Gates, Buffet, and all of your other faux liberal heroes.

The truth is like many Americans Trump overextended himself in the financial crisis. Unlike other major players he did not get a bail out. He took his bankruptcies and the hit to your credit that comes with it. Like many Americans he had to find a bank willing to do business with him to continue his company and repair his credit. Some people found secured cards to repair their credit, Trump found Deutsche Bank willing to do business with him. Like many Americans Trump was able to recover thru hard work.

Secret Meetings

The next point in their ridiculous narrative is Trump and maybe his team has been having secret meetings with Vladmir Putin supposedly to get instructions. Democrats may not be aware of these but email and other forms of communications exist. If Trump really needed to get instructions from Putin he could get it without meeting face to face. Second these meetings are absolutely normal.

Remember when Obama met the Russian President and told him to pass a message on to Vladimir? Something like tell Vladimir to wait till after the election? If that statement had not been caught by the hot mic would it have been recorded anywhere? Was any of the advisers or translators with Obama at the time have been close enough to hear it? Were you fine with that?

Meeting with foreign leaders in passing in parties organized by third parties, back channels, and off the record meetings are all part of diplomacy. In fact they are part of any high level discussions in business or in politics. Presidents have done this before Trump and will do so after *Trump. The left is only freaking out about it now as it is the easiest way to destabilize the Trump administration.

Non-Disclosure

The last thing Democrats will say is that if this was normal why would the Trump team hide it? What we need to remember is that these meetings are so mundane that no one thought to mention them. Take the most recent meeting with Putin for instance. Trump meets with Putin in a party set up by Merkel and all of a sudden the news was reporting that Trump was having all sorts of clandestine meetings with Putin.

Transition teams and even the campaign meet with 1000's of people. Some of them will be important meetings but most of them will be forgettable. The truth can easily be uncovered. What are the things Trump has done since being elected? Do they help or hurt Russia?

Offering to sell missile defenses to Poland. Competing with Russia in Eastern Europe by supplying natural gas. Increasing the production of oil and gas which lowers the price world wide. Convincing NATO to increase its military spending closer to the 2% that they promised. Everything that Trump has done so far has been incredibly harmful towards Russia.
 
You don't think Russia should have released internal RNC emails?

if they did have them then why not. Note that I specifically make the point that the only one who has investigated this server is crowdstrike which is DNC funded and that the information Trump called for , hillarys emails, are nowhere to be seen.

The only entity with a clean 100% reliable track record in this whole issue is wikileaks and they say it is a leak not a hack.
 
you don't have to "debunk" a nothing burger, shouldn't there be something there to "debunk"
I've asked these liberal Einsteins on the forum here like 100 times to just give me a theory, I'll take a theory for Christs sake.
and

(((crickets)))
 
So ultimately your attempting to tell us that Russia in now way, manner, or form played any role in the 2016 election

Yes or no?
 
you don't have to "debunk" a nothing burger, shouldn't there be something there to "debunk"
I've asked these liberal Einsteins on the forum here like 100 times to just give me a theory, I'll take a theory for Christs sake.
and

(((crickets)))

Theory? Ah, US intelligence services concluded that Russian orchestrated an espionage effort to influence the last US election, not a theory, fact, and now two Congressional Committees and a Special Council are investigating that fact

Not a "nothing burger," just the facts
 
Theory? Ah, US intelligence services concluded that Russian orchestrated an espionage effort to influence the last US election, not a theory, fact, and now two Congressional Committees and a Special Council are investigating that fact

Not a "nothing burger," just the facts

don't act stupid,
I believe by "Russiagate" it is concluded by now to mean Trump / Russia collusion.

So for the 101st time Let's hear your theory? (((crickets)))

ANYBODY? HELLO IN THERE... ANYBODY? THEORY ? (((crickets)))
 
don't act stupid,
I believe by "Russiagate" it is concluded by now to mean Trump / Russia collusion.

So for the 101st time Let's hear your theory? (((crickets)))

ANYBODY? HELLO IN THERE... ANYBODY? THEORY ? (((crickets)))

Then what you believe is wrong, two Congressional Committees and a Special Council are investigating the fact that Russia played a role in the election, and those investigations, plus probably the Special Council, are examining the circumstantial evidence that the Trump campaign may have been involved, willingly or not, and they have enough documentation to pursue inquiries along those lines

If your looking for someone to narrate a cloak and dagger "theory" you are going to be waiting a long time, there ain't one, it's all fact
 
Then what you believe is wrong, two Congressional Committees and a Special Council are investigating the fact that Russia played a role in the election, and those investigations, plus probably the Special Council, are examining the circumstantial evidence that the Trump campaign may have been involved, willingly or not, and they have enough documentation to pursue inquiries along those lines

If your looking for someone to narrate a cloak and dagger "theory" you are going to be waiting a long time, there ain't one, it's all fact

but why when the intelligence agencies were denied access to the server? How did they pinpoint russian hacking?
 
yes if im going by track record wikileaks has a cleaner one that NYT, our government, Wapo, etc.

"David Leigh and Luke Harding’s history of WikiLeaks describes how journalists took Assange to Moro’s, a classy Spanish restaurant in central London. A reporter worried that Assange would risk killing Afghans who had co-operated with American forces if he put US secrets online without taking the basic precaution of removing their names. “Well, they’re informants,” Assange replied. “So, if they get killed, they’ve got it coming to them. They deserve it.”* (See below.) A silence fell on the table as the reporters realise

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/439766/wait-we-all-trust-julian-assange-now-julian-assange

Yeah, he's a real trustworthy guy
 
"David Leigh and Luke Harding’s history of WikiLeaks describes how journalists took Assange to Moro’s, a classy Spanish restaurant in central London. A reporter worried that Assange would risk killing Afghans who had co-operated with American forces if he put US secrets online without taking the basic precaution of removing their names. “Well, they’re informants,” Assange replied. “So, if they get killed, they’ve got it coming to them. They deserve it.”* (See below.) A silence fell on the table as the reporters realise

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/439766/wait-we-all-trust-julian-assange-now-julian-assange

Yeah, he's a real trustworthy guy

Assange can be a heartless bastard and also maintain high standards for his 'product'.
 
"David Leigh and Luke Harding’s history of WikiLeaks describes how journalists took Assange to Moro’s, a classy Spanish restaurant in central London. A reporter worried that Assange would risk killing Afghans who had co-operated with American forces if he put US secrets online without taking the basic precaution of removing their names. “Well, they’re informants,” Assange replied. “So, if they get killed, they’ve got it coming to them. They deserve it.”* (See below.) A silence fell on the table as the reporters realise

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/439766/wait-we-all-trust-julian-assange-now-julian-assange

Yeah, he's a real trustworthy guy

all im going with is number of retractions. Wikileaks has a 100% clean slate. Wapo, Cnn, Nyt, all had to retract stuff just this year.
 
all im going with is number of retractions. Wikileaks has a 100% clean slate. Wapo, Cnn, Nyt, all had to retract stuff just this year.

So that means Assange personally is always telling the truth? I think you'd have a hard time proving that one
 
Then what you believe is wrong, two Congressional Committees and a Special Council are investigating the fact that Russia played a role in the election, and those investigations, plus probably the Special Council, are examining the circumstantial evidence that the Trump campaign may have been involved, willingly or not, and they have enough documentation to pursue inquiries along those lines

If your looking for someone to narrate a cloak and dagger "theory" you are going to be waiting a long time, there ain't one, it's all fact

And the facts are thin.
 
Thin is debatable, regardless, they are there, and that is why we have KremlinGate, kinda like there ain't such a thing as slightly pregnant
 
So that means Assange personally is always telling the truth? I think you'd have a hard time proving that one

did i say that? I said that wikileaks has never had to retract anything therefore I give them more credibility than the other news organizations.

If they say this is a leak and say NYT says this is a hack then I would tend to believe wikileaks first.

also moving goal posts etc etc.

Organizations protect their reputations for a reason and wikileaks has done a better job at it.
 
Back
Top