Patterico's Pontifications

2/2/2021

“Are You Out of Your [Expletive Deleted]ing Mind?”

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:29 am



Amusing story in Axios this morning about the wildest election fraud meeting at the White House:

The Powell team needed to regroup. They shifted to a new grievance to turn the conversation away from their embarrassing errors. Powell insisted that they hadn’t “lost” the 60-odd court cases, since the cases were mostly dismissed for lack of standing and they had never had the chance to present their evidence.

Every judge is corrupt, she claimed. We can’t rely on them. The White House lawyers couldn’t believe what they were hearing. “That’s your argument?” a stunned Herschmann said. “Even the judges we appointed? Are you out of your fucking mind?”

Also, if you haven’t read it yet, spend some time with the recent long New York Times history of Trump’s attempts to steal the election. I didn’t agree with some parts, but it’s comprehensive and makes some news; namely, that Trump’s own lawyers drafted that ridiculous Paxton lawsuit and shopped it around until they could find someone desperate enough to bring it.

Once it was brought, of course, most of these same sheep signed onto it. Baaaaaa!

95 Responses to ““Are You Out of Your [Expletive Deleted]ing Mind?””

  1. It would’ve been awesome to witness that meeting. That, and the one where he talked about nuking hurricanes.

    Paul Montagu (77c694)

  2. Paul,

    Now that he is out of office, a tape of one of those calls might be fun. In real time, I think I would have left the meeting terrified, angry, and full of self-loathing for working with/for a man like that.

    Appalled (1a17de)

  3. Question: If Trump bases his defense on his fraud claims, and tries to use those to justify the Capitol siege, does that mean those who vote to acquit are signing on to the insurrection?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  4. The Powell team needed to regroup.

    Yes, I’m assuming this was one of those fancy rhetorical questions.

    since the cases were mostly dismissed for lack of standing and they had never had the chance to present their evidence

    This really shouldn’t be a controversial statement, at least for those dismissed. It’s not often a judge says “well, no standing but let’s have both sides present evidence that we’ll review anyway, then I’ll pretend to issue a finding, and we can all go to lunch”.

    It’s fair to look at a case and say it can’t go forward but it’s dishonest to call that more than it is.

    Every judge is corrupt, she claimed.

    There’s the crazy.

    frosty (f27e97)

  5. It’s like you combined Dr. Strangelove with the brain trust from Three’s Company attempting to pull off another whacky caper.

    john (cd2753)

  6. Are there any examples of anyone in these things asking about the good of the country?

    Time123 (80b471)

  7. “Powell insisted that they hadn’t “lost” the 60-odd court cases, since the cases were mostly dismissed for lack of standing and they had never had the chance to present their evidence.”

    A lot were dismissed on standing, but not all of them.

    For example, this case in Pennsylvania:

    The Trump campaign dropped a major part of its lawsuit regarding its allegation that observers were not allowed to watch vote counts in Pennsylvania, The Washington Post reported Sunday.

    Or this case in Wisconsin:

    Judge Ludwig, however, held a daylong hearing on Thursday and still found that Mr. Trump’s claims were lacking. He dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning Mr. Trump cannot refile it in the same court.

    These weren’t the only ones, just the first couple I found. Trump and his supporters are lying when they claim they didn’t get their day in court.

    Davethulhu (6ba00b)

  8. Time123 (80b471) — 2/2/2021 @ 9:59 am

    Are there any examples of anyone in these things asking about the good of the country?

    You mean people who’re saying we shouldn’t swing back and forth between the Russians stole the election in 2016 and Trump tried to steal the election in 2020? You know, people saying let’s look at options that give people more trust in the system and don’t allow either side to whine and moan?

    It doesn’t look like there are many. Both sides are full to the brim with people who’ll claim it was rigged when they lost and fine when they won.

    frosty (f27e97)

  9. Time123 (80b471) — 2/2/2021 @ 9:59 am

    Are there any examples of anyone in these things asking about the good of the country?

    You mean people who’re saying we shouldn’t swing back and forth between the Russians stole the election in 2016 and Trump tried to steal the election in 2020? You know, people saying let’s look at options that give people more trust in the system and don’t allow either side to whine and moan?

    It doesn’t look like there are many. Both sides are full to the brim with people who’ll claim it was rigged when they lost and fine when they won.

    frosty (f27e97) — 2/2/2021 @ 10:41 am

    In another thread you said my response was ‘flippant’. 😀

    Time123 (36651d)

  10. Trump should have pardoned Flynn, Stone, Manafort, and Bannon sooner, so they could be free to collude with Putin to steal this election too, like they stole the last one, instead of relying on half-assed attempts to sabotage mail-in ballots which in the end only suppressed his voters’ turnout (and the Georgia Senators’, let’s not forget them).

    nk (1d9030)

  11. You know, people saying let’s look at options that give people more trust in the system and don’t allow either side to whine and moan?

    Help me out, can you point out where there was whining and moaning and accusations of the election being stolen in this?

    Time123 (80b471)

  12. Government waste 101: making America ‘grate’ again.

    They’ve learned nothing from 1/6/21.

    Vaccine, checks, open up the damn country and get life moving again– and press on.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  13. Powell, Lin Wood, and Rudy were a Dream Team. For me at least. I love a good trainwreck and boy did they deliver

    steveg (43b7a5)

  14. Time123 (80b471) — 2/2/2021 @ 11:27 am

    So, no one, including HRC said after 2016 that it was stolen and illegitimate? You found one link here she conceded and your view is there was no whining and moaning after 2016?

    I’m honestly not sure what to make of some of these flat out statements you make that disagree with:

    Pelosi tweeted: “Our election was hijacked. There is no question. Congress has a duty to #ProtectOurDemocracy & #FollowTheFacts.”

    or the relatively frequent comments here that disagree with

    Mueller’s investigation ultimately found no evidence of collusion and a 2018 report from the Senate Intelligence Committee that there was no evidence that Russia changed vote tallies in the 2016 election.

    frosty (f27e97)

  15. Also, if you haven’t read it yet, spend some time with the recent long New York Times history of Trump’s attempts to steal the election. I didn’t agree with some parts,

    The New York Times story really only mentions a few items, really highlights, and only touches on hhem.

    The headline says 77 days, which is the entire period between the day after Election Day until the inauguration, but it really was only 63 days, because Trump abandoned his efforts the day after (or even the day of) the attempted sack of the Capitol.

    Of course, people kept on peddling thhis notion that it was not over and people kept believing it till later.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/27/opinion/trump-supporters-conspiracy-theories.html

    Then there’s the rubbish about the election. This month, just days before Joe Biden’s inauguration, a childhood friend told me confidently that Trump would swoop in to serve a second term. When I told him he was wrong, he was astonished that I could be so poorly informed, and he helpfully advised, “Don’t pay attention to those liars in the mainstream media.”

    Sammy Finkelman (5b302e)

  16. but it’s comprehensive and makes some news; namely, that Trump’s own lawyers drafted that ridiculous Paxton lawsuit and shopped it around until they could find someone desperate enough to bring it.

    It also names someone who would not go along – the Attorney General of Louisiana, Jeffrey M. Landry, who was the head of the Republican Attorneys General Association, and a member of Lawyers for Trump.

    And it also tells you that Trump called Chris Carr, the Republican Attorney General of Georgia, , and personally demanded that he not interfere with the lawsuit.

    Trump also rounded up, directly or indirectly. the House members who signed on to a amicus curie brief.

    Sammy Finkelman (5b302e)

  17. ‘1…That, and the one where he talked about nuking hurricanes.’

    Ever the GOP mind set: Project A-119.

    ‘Eis-en-how-er, man of the hour.’

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  18. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 2/2/2021 @ 9:19 am

    Question: If Trump bases his defense on his fraud claims, and tries to use those to justify the Capitol siege, does that mean those who vote to acquit are signing on to the insurrection?

    Trump would say he did nothing wrong in making fraud an issue, but also that he did not do anything to encourage the sacking of the Capitol.

    Trump is accused of creating a powder keg based on a Big Lie that he won a landslide victory in the 2020 election. (that’s not in the text of the impeachment resolution)

    https://judiciary.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=3515

    …Trump’s responsibility for the vicious January 6 insurrection is unmistakable. It is impossible to imagine the events of January 6 occurring without President Trump creating a powder keg, striking a match, and then seeking personal advantage from the ensuing havoc.

    The impeachment managers, ignoring all the evidence of advance planning (with, so far, no evidence of Trump’s involvement in that) said that President “Trump summoned, assembled and incited a violent mob that attacked the Capitol”

    Sammy Finkelman (5b302e)

  19. Time123 (80b471) — 2/2/2021 @ 11:27 am

    So, no one, including HRC said after 2016 that it was stolen and illegitimate? You found one link here she conceded and your view is there was no whining and moaning after 2016?

    I’m honestly not sure what to make of some of these flat out statements you make that disagree with:

    Pelosi tweeted: “Our election was hijacked. There is no question. Congress has a duty to #ProtectOurDemocracy & #FollowTheFacts.”

    or the relatively frequent comments here that disagree with

    Mueller’s investigation ultimately found no evidence of collusion and a 2018 report from the Senate Intelligence Committee that there was no evidence that Russia changed vote tallies in the 2016 election.

    frosty (f27e97) — 2/2/2021 @ 12:36 pm

    It’s clear that HRC conceded the loss and recognized that DJT had won. The dems followed her in that. Trump hasn’t done similarly and much of the GOP is following him in his lie that the election was determined by fraud.

    It’s also clear (see part 1 of the report) that Russia did criminally interfere in our election. The senate report on the matter agreed with that assessment and added that Russia did so to benefit Trump and harm Clinton.

    The IG report on the origin of the investigation into collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government found that the investigation was properly predicated. They did not find evidence that it was politically motivated.

    What I disagree with is your apparent assertion that the 2 situations are equivalent. I say apparent because your initial comment was sarcastic and didn’t make it entirely clear what you think.

    Time123 (80b471)

  20. “Both sides are full to the brim with people who’ll claim it was rigged when they lost and fine when they won.”

    But was it really close for Gore? Did HRC launch 60 court cases without any evidence…with the hope of having the court order a delay of the transition to try and find evidence? People complaining about close elections is one thing….people trying to get secretary of state’s to agree to candidates “finding more votes” is another. Sometimes the “whataboutism” just gets tedious. What Trump did was unprecedented…and led to people dying at the Capitol. Not everyone does that or tries to rationalize it. Why do you love this man so much?

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  21. Sammy Finkelman (5b302e) — 2/2/2021 @ 1:00 pm

    The give away is

    It is impossible to imagine

    Don’t you see Sammy, if you can imagine anything else you are imagining the impossible? Honestly, there’s got to be something wrong with anyone who can imagine something that is impossible to imagine.

    frosty (f27e97)

  22. Well, of course, Trump’s claims were one of the factors that created the attempted sack of the Capitol.it.

    But something being necessary doesn’t make it sufficient.

    Sammy Finkelman (5b302e)

  23. The left media is giving marjorie taylor green and her support of trump the same massive free publicity that right wing media gives AOC. We see how well that turned out! All publicity is good publicity. Ask hailie deegan about that.

    asset (f3b873)

  24. Time123 (80b471) — 2/2/2021 @ 1:04 pm

    It’s clear that HRC conceded the loss and recognized that DJT had won.

    You do realize that she then said something different? And Pelosi and others did as well?

    that Russia did criminally interfere in our election

    You do understand that they also found that the “interference” had no effect and they found no evidence of collusion?

    I understand you think these things are different in degree or that one is morally acceptable and the other isn’t. That’s a different question. If we’re disagreeing on the basic facts we’re not going to get far.

    frosty (f27e97)

  25. Both these major parties have ‘rigged the system’ – from national down to local- for decades. The majority of the electorate are indies– and that number is growing.

    “…he didn’t create this situation of fear, he merely exploited it, and rather successfully. Cassius was right: the fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves. Good night, and good luck.” – Edward R. Murrow ‘See It Now’ CBS News, – 3/9/54

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  26. Frosty,

    I realize I am not as well versed as you in these matters but I was unaware of the proof that Russia’s interference in the 2016 election had no effect at all on a very close result. Could you explain that more?

    As for Hillary Clinton you must also remind me of her months long campaign after Election Day 2016 to have the result overturned. I’d forgotten about it.

    Victor (4959fb)

  27. asset (f3b873) — 2/2/2021 @ 2:08 pm

    The left media is giving marjorie taylor green and her support of trump the same massive free publicity that right wing media gives AOC.

    This used to work. It used to be enough to point the finger and do your best Sutherland/Body Snatchers impression. It’s starting to work a little differently.

    frosty (f27e97)

  28. In 2019, Marjorie Taylor Greene told protesters to “flood the Capitol,” feel free to use violence
    In a video posted to social media months before announcing her congressional candidacy, Georgia Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene called on supporters to “flood the Capitol Building” in a protest against “tyrannical” leaders, telling them that Democratic lawmakers “should fear us” and that “we should feel like we will” use violence “if we have to.”

    “All of us together, when we rise up, we can end all of this. We can end it,” Greene said in the 90-minute rant, which was posted in February 2019 and unearthed on Sunday by Twitter user @zedster. “We can do it peacefully. We can. I hope we don’t have to do it the other way. I hope not. But we should feel like we will if we have to. Because we are the American people.”
    ……..
    In the video, Greene invoked a sprawling battle that pit “Americans” against an “out-of-control, tyrannical, insane” federal government, declaring that the latter’s leaders should be “cowering in fear.”

    “They are nothing, and they should fear us. … They should be cowering in fear,” she said. “And you know what, if you show up in big numbers on Feb. 23, oh I promise you, I promise you, they’ll be struck with fear on the inside.” The enemy, she said, was not limited to Democratic leaders — “communist traitors and Islamist lovers” — but extended to a larger apparatus that the future congresswoman described as “all these different agencies and the courts, and all these different offices.”

    Greene also emphasized the importance of getting inside the Capitol Building: “If we have a sea of people, if we shut down the streets, if we shut down everything. If we flood the Capitol Building. Go inside. These are public buildings. We own them. We own these buildings. Do you understand that? We own the buildings and we pay all the people that work in the buildings.”
    ……..
    A Greene spokesperson did not reply to Salon’s request for comment.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  29. GOP Sen. Tommy Tuberville says he doesn’t know anything about Marjorie Taylor Greene because bad weather has prevented him from reading the news
    ……
    “I haven’t even looked at what all she’s done,” he told the CNN producer Ted Barrett. “I’d have to hold back a statement on that. Travel in this weather it’s been a little rough looking at any news or whatever.”

    ……..The newly sworn-in senator, who was previously a career college football coach, recently denied attending a meeting at the Trump International Hotel in Washington with members of then-President Donald Trump’s inner circle to discuss how to overturn the 2020 election results on January 5, the day before the Capitol insurrection. But photos posted on social media appear to show him at the hotel that day.
    …….
    Tuberville’s aides didn’t immediately respond to Insider’s request for comment.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  30. New Democratic Ad Campaign Ties G.O.P. to QAnon
    …….
    The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee on Tuesday began a $500,000 advertising campaign on television and online tying eight House Republicans, including Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the minority leader, to Ms. Greene and QAnon, an effort to force them to make a public affirmation about Ms. Greene.

    “Congressman Don Bacon,” an ominous-sounding voice intones in the ad targeting the Nebraska Republican, “he stood with Q, not you.”

    The strategy is similar to the one Republicans employed against Democrats last summer during the protests over racial injustice, when they sought to paint all Democrats as pushing to defund the police, including President Biden, who repeatedly said he did not favor it.
    …….
    …….[T]he Democratic ads feature Ms. Greene and Representative Lauren Boebert of Colorado, who has also expressed support for QAnon, as much as the candidates they are attacking.

    “QAnon, a conspiracy theory born online, took over the Republican Party,” the ad’s narrator says, while images of Ms. Greene and Ms. Boebert flash on the screen. “Sent followers to Congress and, with Donald Trump, incited a mob that attacked the Capitol and murdered a cop.”
    …….
    The new Democratic ads do not distinguish between Republicans who voted to overturn the Electoral College results and those who did not…….
    ……

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  31. 29.GOP Sen. Tommy Tuberville says he doesn’t know anything about Marjorie Taylor Greene because bad weather has prevented him from reading the news

    Dog ate his homework and that Post-It note w/all his passwords on it, too. 😉

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  32. Victor (4959fb) — 2/2/2021 @ 2:17 pm

    I realize I am not as well versed as you in these matters but I was unaware of the proof that Russia’s interference in the 2016 election had no effect at all on a very close result. Could you explain that more?

    You mean my earlier comment:

    Mueller’s investigation ultimately found no evidence of collusion and a 2018 report from the Senate Intelligence Committee that there was no evidence that Russia changed vote tallies in the 2016 election.

    As far as an effect; now that would be an extraordinary claim, I’m willing to just call it a claim, that would require evidence. But there is no evidence that the “interference” had an effect. There is a belief by a lot of people who hold strong in the faith. But there is no evidence. If you’re going to open the door to the feeling that it had to have an effect are you willing to open the same door on the suppression of the Hunter Biden investigation prior to the election? There are polls that suggest a significant number of people didn’t know the details and would have voted differently if they did?

    As for Hillary Clinton you must also remind me of her months long campaign after Election Day 2016 to have the result overturned. I’d forgotten about it.

    Yes, this is the game. That she, and other D’s, didn’t do exactly the same thing Trump did so there’s nothing to discuss. I very clearly said whether you think one was more acceptable than the other was a different question. Presumably, you at least agree that she, and others in D leadership, claimed the election was stolen based on a number of unproven theories?

    frosty (f27e97)

  33. Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 2/2/2021 @ 2:25 pm

    So, I went to the article and did a search for “feel free to use violence” and it only hit on the headline. I thought surely the article wouldn’t lie and Rip Murdock would never post a dishonest article. So, I searched for “use violence”. And sure enough, I found something like it:

    “should fear us” and that “we should feel like we will” use violence “if we have to.”

    Now, that’s an odd use of quotation marks. Does that mean she actually said that?

    I searched some more but I didn’t find the comment from the headline. Then I noticed the headline didn’t have quotes either even though it says “told protesters to”. Would I be correct in thinking that she didn’t actually tell anyone to “feel free to use violence”?

    Do you wonder why a growing number of people don’t believe the news and won’t “listen to reason”?

    frosty (f27e97)

  34. frosty-

    In response to your question to me about my FBI shooting post earlier today:

    You posted it in the R civil war thread. Do you think this was John Weaver and he didn’t want to go down without a fight?


    I posted it there because there was no FBI shooting thread available, and that is where the commenters were this morning.

    In a macabre coincidence, this is the second shootout involving the FBI in Florida leaving multiple agents dead. In 1986 two FBI agents were killed and five wounded in a gun battle against two robbery suspects (who also ended up dead).

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  35. frosty @33-

    You can see her video here.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  36. Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 2/2/2021 @ 2:59 pm

    I’m familiar with the 1986 shootout. Other than the body count I’d be reluctant to compare the two without more details. So far the news reports have been sketchy and I don’t see any reason why 5 agents were shot.

    frosty (f27e97)

  37. Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 2/2/2021 @ 3:02 pm

    I watched a part of it. At least to the part I think they are paraphrasing. But they aren’t paraphrasing it in the headline correctly. The headline says one thing and it’s clear that she is saying something else. The article itself does a better job of paraphrasing her comment but that just calls attention to the lie in the headline.

    I know you think I’m defending her. That’s how this usually goes. But I don’t care about Greene. My point is that what she says is already easy to criticize. Why twist it when anyone can read the article or watch the video and realize she didn’t really say “feel free to use violence”. That happens once and a person wonders what other lies they’ve been told. And they ask themselves why someone felt the need to distort it.

    frosty (f27e97)

  38. “This used to work. It used to be enough to point the finger and do your best Sutherland/Body Snatchers impression. It’s starting to work a little differently.”

    Hey if you want to tie yourself to someone who

    1) is a Sandy Hook/Parkland truther
    2) believes Jewish space lasers were used to start wildfires
    3) believes that the Democratic leadership is a cabal of pedophile cannibals

    go right ahead.

    Davethulhu (6ba00b)

  39. I watched a part of it. At least to the part I think they are paraphrasing. But they aren’t paraphrasing it in the headline correctly. The headline says one thing and it’s clear that she is saying something else. The article itself does a better job of paraphrasing her comment but that just calls attention to the lie in the headline.

    I know you think I’m defending her.

    I don’t think you are defending her, but I think your beef is with Business Insider’s editing.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  40. I’m familiar with the 1986 shootout. Other than the body count I’d be reluctant to compare the two without more details.

    And the fact both occurred in Florida. That’s what brought it to my mind. Something went badly wrong.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  41. RIP Hal Holbrook (95).

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  42. Time123 (80b471) — 2/2/2021 @ 1:04 pm

    It’s clear that HRC conceded the loss and recognized that DJT had won.

    You do realize that she then said something different? And Pelosi and others did as well?

    When it mattered, when it was time to peacefully transition to the administration that won the election, she admitted that she lost and the Dems gave up power.

    that Russia did criminally interfere in our election

    You do understand that they also found that the “interference” had no effect and they found no evidence of collusion?

    I understand you think these things are different in degree or that one is morally acceptable and the other isn’t. That’s a different question. If we’re disagreeing on the basic facts we’re not going to get far.

    frosty (f27e97) — 2/2/2021 @ 2:09 pm

    1. Why did you put interference in quotes? Do you not thinking hacking the DNC computer and releasing the information in a targeted way is interference?
    2. The impact of their actions is debatable. Hard to say if it helped a lot or a little. How are you supporting your claim that it had no impact?
    3. It’s correct that they didn’t find evidence sufficient to charge president Trump. I haven’t said otherwise.

    Time123 (36651d)

  43. I think Hillary wasn’t that different from the Clinton administration, and they did a pretty crummy job transitioning power to Bush, starting a lot of the trends that led us to where we are. But the democrats fairly famously gave Trump a pretty good transition of power. Trump praised it. Same happened Bush to Obama.

    Complaints about it, to defend what Trump just did, are simply dishonest. Hillary was bitter from the election outcome, of course, losing despite winning the popular vote, losing despite running against a guy who does something insane pretty much every day. It’s never going to stop stinging. But Trump got his transition of power quite peacefully. Efforts to stop Trump’s EC were fringe silliness, instead of Ted Cruz screaming ‘WE WILL NOT GO QUIETLY’ and Rudy calling for combat and nooses and dead people and all that.

    It’s also like defending Trump’s effort to steal the election by pointing out complaints Trump’s campaign worked with Russia. Give me a break.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  44. Mueller’s investigation ultimately found no evidence of collusion…

    False, frosty. The Mueller report found evidence of Trump people and Putin people conspiring to help Trump win, but it was insufficient to bring indictments.
    It is true that Putin’s hackers didn’t penetrate state electoral systems.
    We can’t say whether Putin’s hacking/propaganda efforts made the difference in the 2016 because there were multiple other factors at play.
    Hillary conceded the next day, thus allowing a smooth transfer of power from Obama to Trump. There was no “interference” on her part, just a lot of whining and butthurt.

    Paul Montagu (77c694)

  45. Looks like the media is whining that Team Biden is asking for the “hardball” questions ahead of time. What did the media expect? You play the part of the useful stooge, you get treated like one. Maybe this will spur the media to do some real reporting on the Biden Administration, but I doubt it. There is a wacko Republican out there that needs coverage, or, at minimum, a patriotic hedge fund that needs defending.

    Hoi Polloi (139bf6)

  46. R.I.P. Hal Holbrook

    The Twain shall meet.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  47. @38. Gingrich in drag; read’em and weep:

    A Very Long List of Dumb and Awful Things Newt Gingrich Has Said and Done

    https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/11/very-long-list-dumb-and-awful-things-newt-gingrich-has-said-and-done/

    Hosea 8:7 – “For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.”

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  48. Time123 (36651d) — 2/2/2021 @ 3:51 pm

    Do you not thinking hacking the DNC computer and releasing the information in a targeted way is interference?

    It’s not really a matter of what I think. It’s not something that can be proven. I’m ok with the idea that it could have but then we’d have to allow other examples of similar interference that I’m not sure you’d agree are similar.

    But no, I’ve got no evidence that it had any impact. So, I don’t agree with your “a lot or a little”.

    The funny thing about the DNC hack is no one has claimed the information is false. So, if the DNC hack did impact the election it’s only because it gave voters an accurate reflection of who they were dealing with, i.e. the complaint is the voter had more information.

    frosty (f27e97)

  49. But no, I’ve got no evidence that it had any impact. So, I don’t agree with your “a lot or a little”.

    The race came down to about 90,000 votes in three states – states Hillary ignored. Hillary lost the election herself. All the talk about Russia is just ego and hubris on the part of the Democratic Establishment. Couldn’t fathom the loss so they had to find a boogeyman…

    Hoi Polloi (139bf6)

  50. The race came down to about 90,000 votes in three states – states Hillary ignored. Hillary lost the election herself. All the talk about Russia is just ego and hubris on the part of the Democratic Establishment. Couldn’t fathom the loss so they had to find a boogeyman…

    Hoi Polloi (139bf6) — 2/2/2021 @ 5:59 pm

    I don’t understand this argument at all. Russia’s big leak was a couple hours after Trump’s ‘grab them by the p—-‘ recording came out. Obviously they helped him a lot.

    There were a lot of factors. Hillary really was a terrible candidate, and Trump’s campaign worked hand in hand with Putin to interfere with the election, and Comey seemed to help Trump by doing the thing Trump always asks people to do (announce a weak investigation of his opponent for some headlines).

    If you learned Obama begged Iran to hack Trump’s lawyer you wouldn’t say it was ‘hubris’ to care about that.

    And as bad as Hillary was, Trump was millions short of her as far as actual vote go. Trump has never, will never, win a popularity contest, even against losers like Hillary and Biden. America just doesn’t like Trump. Never did. He had to work with our enemy, giving them intel on their political operation. Russia has every American city on a map with a plan to kill everyone you care about, and Trump worked with them, gave them things that worked, and then coddled Putin for years, even after that insane hack last year.

    It’s not ‘ego and hubris’ to have a problem with that. It’s common sense.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  51. I don’t understand this argument at all. Russia’s big leak was a couple hours after Trump’s ‘grab them by the p—-‘ recording came out. Obviously they helped him a lot.

    Are you suggesting the media didn’t talk about the recording enough because of the leak? Honestly?

    If you learned Obama begged Iran to hack Trump’s lawyer you wouldn’t say it was ‘hubris’ to care about that.

    Are you suggesting that Russia only hacked Hillary’s campaign because Trump asked them to during a campaign stop? Really?

    Russia has every American city on a map with a plan to kill everyone you care about, and Trump worked with them, gave them things that worked, and then coddled Putin for years, even after that insane hack last year.

    You sound like a child of the Cold War, like me. Guess what – we do the same to the Russian cities. In fact, can you tell me the only country to use nuclear weapons? Twice, in fact?

    In case you haven’t figured it out – Russia plays both sides. Just like China, Iran, and all the other countries that conduct espionage and interfere with our way of life.

    But the only thing that lost the election for Hillary was Hillary. Plain and simple.

    Hoi Polloi (139bf6)

  52. Dustin (4237e0) — 2/2/2021 @ 6:13 pm

    Russia’s big leak was a couple hours after Trump’s ‘grab them by the p—-‘ recording came out.

    The first DNC leak was July 22, 2016 and the second on November 6, 2016. The Access Hollywood tape was released on October 7, 2016. Contrary to your comment the tape release was considered an October surprise. It was timed to help HRC.

    You know there’s a thing called Google and you can search these things?

    Obama begged Iran to hack Trump’s lawyer

    Do you think Trump asked Russia to hack the DNC? Just wondering for no reason really but do you know the timelines for the Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear attacks or the DNC leaks?

    frosty (f27e97)

  53. Dustin (4237e0) — 2/2/2021 @ 6:13 pm

    He had to work with our enemy, giving them intel on their political operation. … and Trump worked with them, gave them things that worked, and then coddled Putin for years

    He gave them intel to get elected? How does that work exactly? What intel would he have before getting elected? What are you talking about?

    frosty (f27e97)

  54. I feel that this should be my last comment on a Trump thread.

    Trump is gone and I wish forgotten,
    I’ve had enough of Donnie Rotten.

    Let’s see how long my resolution lasts. “I can resist everything except temptation.” (Mae West)

    And where’s Radegunda?

    nk (1d9030)

  55. You’re not worth a response, Frosty.

    Are you suggesting that Russia only hacked Hillary’s campaign because Trump asked them to during a campaign stop? Really?

    You had to add the incredulousness because obviously russia did this for Trump’s campaign, specifically. Yes, trump asked them to do it. Yes, Trump’s son met with them and shared intel. Yes, there’s some claims Russia was working Trump for a long time. Yes, Trump payed them back many times, such as when he betrayed the Kurds or forgave them for the huge hack all of 2020.

    For a second time, I’m not sure what your argument is. You admit Russia helped Trump, you admit Trump asked them to. Apparently if there was another reason for the help that justifies your conclusion? I have no idea what you’re trying to say.

    Come up with a coherent argument, that if I swapped in Obama for Trump, and Russia for Iran, you’d be cool with. If Obama begged Iran to hack Nikky Haley, and Iran then approached Valerie Jarret with an offer to really do it, then Iran did it at the perfect time, would you say ‘you really think the only reason Iran did that was Obama? Really??? OMG’

    The fun in being a nevertrumper is I would get to be consistent in this nutso political world.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  56. Dustin (4237e0) — 2/2/2021 @ 7:22 pm

    You’re not worth a response, Frosty.

    If only you’d keep your promises.

    The fun in being a nevertrumper is I would get to be consistent in this nutso political world.

    How can you be consistent if you’re making stuff up and can’t keep dates straight? It’d be so much more consistent to just admit you made a mistake.

    frosty (f27e97)

  57. In case you haven’t figured it out – Russia plays both sides. Just like China, Iran, and all the other countries that conduct espionage and interfere with our way of life.

    I certainly agree with that, Hoi Polloi. But Trump is special. He’s a freakshow who can be manipulated, and has been by many. Ted Cruz gets it, as do his prostitutes, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Vlad Putin.

    Would Russia have happily made a deal with Hillary? Of course. If they could have compromised her the way they obviously compromised Trump, they would do it today… no presidency even needed.

    But Trump is special. No other president has ever betrayed us like Trump. I doubt many had the kind of dirt or vulnerability to blackmail Trump had. Remember, even Rudy threatened Trump. Stormy basically blackmailed him. His first wife rescinded a sworn affidavit… for obvious financial reasons. And Trump’s been so good to Putin. while the Russians were actually angry with Obama’s inflexibility, Trump’s foreign policy often made no sense unless you assumed he was actually taking orders from Russia. It’s insane. It’s something I never would have bought if this were a movie. It happened.

    This is why character matters. It’s pretty hard to use that as an argument for biden or hillary, even though they can’t be as bad as Trump. Trump shouldn’t be possible, and wouldn’t be, if the democrats ran their affairs properly. But that alone doesn’t somehow get Trump off the hook. Why would it?

    Dustin (4237e0)

  58. Dustin (4237e0) — 2/2/2021 @ 7:34 pm

    Would Russia have happily made a deal with Hillary? Of course.

    The Chinese are pretty possessive and they’ve had their hooks into the Clintons since the 90’s. I’m not sure even HRC could have survived a switch and why would she. The Chinese have been good to them.

    frosty (f27e97)

  59. Do you think Trump asked Russia to hack the DNC? Just wondering for no reason really but do you know the timelines for the Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear attacks or the DNC leaks?

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (1367c0)

  60. Thing I love about that link, Col Klink, Trump also asks China to help him with the election.

    Trump has tried to get China’s help several times and though he was loudly tweeting ‘China Virus’ I’m not sure what he did about the debt China has to the world over 2020. Trump even offered to conceal those concentration camps for China. And he praised the Tienanmen Square Massacre. If actions speak louder than words, Trump was full of it on China.

    How could someone be compromised by both Russia and China? That’s a naive question, since the very first act of compromise opens the politician up to blackmail from any intel agency in the world that has that information.

    And don’t get me started about North Korea, far more legitimized, also more dangerous. Iran’s more dangerous too. Trump’s foreign policy did not help the USA in any way I’m aware of. He didn’t close Gitmo or get us out of any wars. Biden’s taking the fight to ISIS because Trump never dealt with that either.

    Obviously most of this isn’t blackmail manchurian candidate stuff, but Trump just didn’t impress with his performance.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  61. And in the meantime, people with real power are pushing cultist indoctrination on our young. Thankfully some are stepping up to battle it and track the evil being done in the name of Critical Race Theory.

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/02/legal-insurrection-launches-critical-race-training-in-higher-education-website/#more-342079

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  62. @61 I wonder if they have perhaps thought that it is possible that their audience might not end up being who they thought it should be? And if they might not end up serving as a recommendation list rather than a warning list.

    Nic (896fdf)

  63. Russian release of hacked emails was reasonably well timed to take the pressure off of Trump in the pussy tape release. There was nothing particularly incriminatory in the material released, but they were “EMAILZ” and the public had been long habituated by Republicans till then to think EMAILZ were all signs of some kind of Hillary corruption.

    I saw that survey about Hunter Biden! It’s a good thing Hunter Biden wasn’t running for president. But in any case the information was available that something illicit was going on with Hunter, it just wasn’t turned into a full scale campaign of crap like conservative media wanted it to be. Boo hoo. Perhaps they learned something from 2016.

    And Hillary complaining that the election had been interfered with, after an election that the Russians interfered with, and complaining that Comey had shanked her, after Comey shanked her, seems pretty normal to me. And none of it has anything more to compare with Trump’s behavior in concerting an effort to overturn an election by illegitimate methods (pressuring secretaries of state, whipping up a crowd) than a cherry has with a cherry pie.

    Victor (4959fb)

  64. Time123 (36651d) — 2/2/2021 @ 3:51 pm

    Do you not thinking hacking the DNC computer and releasing the information in a targeted way is interference?

    It’s not really a matter of what I think. It’s not something that can be proven. I’m ok with the idea that it could have but then we’d have to allow other examples of similar interference that I’m not sure you’d agree are similar.

    But no, I’ve got no evidence that it had any impact. So, I don’t agree with your “a lot or a little”.

    The funny thing about the DNC hack is no one has claimed the information is false. So, if the DNC hack did impact the election it’s only because it gave voters an accurate reflection of who they were dealing with, i.e. the complaint is the voter had more information.

    frosty (f27e97) — 2/2/2021 @ 5:49 pm

    I think you’ve misunderstood my point. Russia did interfere in our election. They hacked the DNC server. Hacking the DNC server was a crime. Investigating that crime, who did it and how it was done, was a legitimate law enforcement and counter espionage activity.

    Equating a thing that did happen, the criminal hacking of the DNC, with a thing that did not happen, voter fraud in the presidential election, is baseless.

    Time123 (d1bf33)

  65. And in the meantime, people with real power are pushing cultist indoctrination on our young. Thankfully some are stepping up to battle it and track the evil being done in the name of Critical Race Theory.

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/02/legal-insurrection-launches-critical-race-training-in-higher-education-website/#more-342079

    NJRob (eb56c3) — 2/2/2021 @ 10:25 pm

    I see a lot of anger at Critical Rave Theory and I’m not really sure what it is, let alone why it’s bad. Previous times I’ve asked the responses have passionate but not really informative.

    Wikipedia doesn’t make the intensity of feeling any more clear

    Critical race theory (CRT)[1] is a framework[2] in jurisprudence[3] that examines society and culture as they relate to categorizations of race, law, and power in the United States of America.[4][page needed][5] It began as a movement in American law schools in the mid- to late 1980s as a reworking of critical legal theory on race issues.[6] As the word “critical” suggests, both theoretical frameworks are rooted in critical theory, a social philosophy which argues that social problems are influenced and created more by societal structures and cultural assumptions than by individual and psychological factors.[7]

    It is loosely unified by two common themes:

    First, that white supremacy exists and exhibits power maintained over time, and, in particular, that the law plays a role in this process.[8]
    Second, that transforming the relationship between law and racial power, as well as achieving racial emancipation and anti-subordination more broadly, are possible.[9]
    Critics, including Richard Posner and Alex Kozinski, take issue with the theory’s foundation in postmodernism and its reliance on moral relativism, social constructionism, and other tenets they argue are contrary to individual freedom and classical liberalism.

    Time123 (52fb0e)

  66. Colonel Klink (Ret) (1367c0) — 2/2/2021 @ 9:23 pm

    Do you know the difference between the DNC email hack and the HRC state department emails? You know this link is about the state dept emails and not the DNC hack? I’m assuming you do and you’re conflating the two on purpose.

    The DNC hack had already occurred by this time and had been ongoing for a long time.

    frosty (f27e97)

  67. Victor (4959fb) — 2/3/2021 @ 1:51 am

    Russian release of hacked emails was reasonably well timed to take the pressure off of Trump in the pussy tape release.

    How are they reasonably well time to take the pressure off? The first batch was released prior to the tapes release. The second release was a month after the tape came out. You’re asserting that something released a month later was “reasonably time to take the pressure off”?

    frosty (f27e97)

  68. Colonel Klink (Ret) (1367c0) — 2/2/2021 @ 9:23 pm

    Do you know the difference between the DNC email hack and the HRC state department emails? You know this link is about the state dept emails and not the DNC hack? I’m assuming you do and you’re conflating the two on purpose.

    The DNC hack had already occurred by this time and had been ongoing for a long time.

    frosty (f27e97) — 2/3/2021 @ 6:06 am

    You’re either confused or being disingenuous.

    After Wikileaks started releases batches of emails and it was suspected that Russia was behind the hack Trump publicly asked that they or china share HRC’s state department emails if they were were able. After this public request Russia did increase their activities.

    Many people view this as evidence they were working together. The Mueller investigation didn’t find enough additional evidence to support an indictment on them working together, but this is part of what formed the suspicion that Trump’s campaign was involved.

    Time123 (d1bf33)

  69. Victor (4959fb) — 2/3/2021 @ 1:51 am

    Russian release of hacked emails was reasonably well timed to take the pressure off of Trump in the pussy tape release.

    How are they reasonably well time to take the pressure off? The first batch was released prior to the tapes release. The second release was a month after the tape came out. You’re asserting that something released a month later was “reasonably time to take the pressure off”?

    frosty (f27e97) — 2/3/2021 @ 6:12 am

    Wapo released the Access hollywood tape on 10/17/2016 at 4PM

    Wikileaks released the Podesta emails on 10/7/2016 at 4:30PM, we now know they’d had those emails for about 6 months.

    We don’t have evidence about why the timing lines up. Assange isn’t talking and neither is Roger Stone. But the timing does line up.

    Time123 (52fb0e)

  70. Time123 (d1bf33) — 2/3/2021 @ 5:16 am

    I think you’ve misunderstood my point. Russia did interfere in our election. They hacked the DNC server. Hacking the DNC server was a crime. Investigating that crime, who did it and how it was done, was a legitimate law enforcement and counter espionage activity.

    It’s a mistake to conflate the crime with interference. The crime and any influencing of the election that resulted are two distinct things.

    You believe the crime influenced the election, presumably by releasing information that caused people to change their vote and there’s no proof of that. There’s also no proof the fact that there was a crime influenced the election.

    Equating a thing that did happen, the criminal hacking of the DNC, with a thing that did not happen, voter fraud in the presidential election, is baseless.

    No, equating “influenced the election” with “voter fraud” is what I’m doing, although I’m not sure sure I’m doing exactly that. That’s just the closest fit to your description. Equating the crime with influence is what your doing. Equating the crime with voter fraud is something neither of us are doing.

    frosty (f27e97)

  71. Time123 (d1bf33) — 2/3/2021 @ 5:16 am

    I think you’ve misunderstood my point. Russia did interfere in our election. They hacked the DNC server. Hacking the DNC server was a crime. Investigating that crime, who did it and how it was done, was a legitimate law enforcement and counter espionage activity.

    It’s a mistake to conflate the crime with interference. The crime and any influencing of the election that resulted are two distinct things.

    You believe the crime influenced the election, presumably by releasing information that caused people to change their vote and there’s no proof of that. There’s also no proof the fact that there was a crime influenced the election.

    Equating a thing that did happen, the criminal hacking of the DNC, with a thing that did not happen, voter fraud in the presidential election, is baseless.

    No, equating “influenced the election” with “voter fraud” is what I’m doing, although I’m not sure sure I’m doing exactly that. That’s just the closest fit to your description. Equating the crime with influence is what your doing. Equating the crime with voter fraud is something neither of us are doing.

    frosty (f27e97) — 2/3/2021 @ 6:25 am

    I don’t care if the crime influenced the election or not. It’s probably not possible to quantify definitively, for sure it’s not possible to do so in way that will convince partisans. Investigating the crime, aka the Russia investigation, was legitimate regardless of if it was a factor.

    Time123 (d1bf33)

  72. Time123 (d1bf33) — 2/3/2021 @ 6:13 am

    The only element you can claim I’m being disingenuous about is

    After this public request Russia did increase their activities.

    except I haven’t said they didn’t. I’ve made very specific and correct statements in response to vague and incorrect statements. What does it even mean that they increased their activities? Do you have any idea what their normal rate is? Or are you just listening to “the intelligence community” say vague things like this?

    You have

    formed the suspicion that Trump’s campaign was involved.

    and that is all.

    Time123 (52fb0e) — 2/3/2021 @ 6:20 am

    And now you’re switching to the Podesta emails which aren’t the DNC hack. From what’s released to the public we know that hack happened before Trump’s comments so his comments didn’t increase that activity.

    At best Trumps request is an ask to release and not an ask to hack. We know the hacks had been ongoing for sometime. I took the comment as a joke. You’re free to consider that disingenuous.

    It’s not disingenuous to point out the holes in the Russiagate theory and put it in the same category as q. It’s all “look at the timing” and “of course” and “it’s obvious”. How long did Mueller spend trying to connect those dots?

    frosty (f27e97)

  73. Wanted to add, There are a couple of cases I’m aware of of voter fraud. There’s a man in PA who sent in his mother ballot and a man in FL who is accused of setting up a false residence in GA in order to vote in the run off. Neither action has an impact on the outcome, but I think it’s important to investigate and if warranted prosecute both men for casting illegitimate ballots. I don’t think being unable to prove the actions determined the outcome means they shouldn’t be investigated/prosecuted.

    Time123 (52fb0e)

  74. Time123 (d1bf33) — 2/3/2021 @ 6:13 am

    The only element you can claim I’m being disingenuous about is

    After this public request Russia did increase their activities.

    except I haven’t said they didn’t. I’ve made very specific and correct statements in response to vague and incorrect statements. What does it even mean that they increased their activities? Do you have any idea what their normal rate is? Or are you just listening to “the intelligence community” say vague things like this?

    This is covered in part 1 of the Mueller report.

    Time123 (52fb0e)

  75. At best Trumps request is an ask to release and not an ask to hack. We know the hacks had been ongoing for sometime. I took the comment as a joke. You’re free to consider that disingenuous.

    I didn’t get that you were joking. Sorry about that.

    Time123 (52fb0e)

  76. Frosty, I’m going to bow out of re-hashing the Russia investigation. We’ve gone way of my original statement that Russia did criminally interfere in our election and that investigating that was legitimate. It doesn’t sound like you disagree with that.

    Time123 (52fb0e)

  77. #73

    You need to add another case to the mix. The Georgia Secretary of State is investigating attorney Lin Wood for voting illegally in Georgia. It appears he may have shifted his residence to South Carolina prior to election day.

    https://www.wsbtv.com/news/politics/exclusive-attorney-lin-wood-under-investigation-over-whether-he-voted-illegally-november-officials-say/FIMPMEJHFFFBBA66O5P5QEY25E/

    Is there malice involved in this? Um, why am I having difficulties caring?

    Appalled (1a17de)

  78. Time123 (d1bf33) — 2/3/2021 @ 6:33 am

    Investigating the crime, aka the Russia investigation, was legitimate regardless of if it was a factor.

    I never said investigating the DNC hack, or any of the hacks, was illegitimate. I said then, and I’ve always said, investigating the hack was something I wanted.

    frosty (f27e97)

  79. Just as Trump’s rally damaged Cruz in his 2018 Senate re-election, Trump’s rallies hurt (or maybe even doomed) the Georgia Senators’ 2020 re-election chances. Why does the GOP cling so desperately to someone like that?

    DRJ (aede82)

  80. #79

    Because, without Trump, elective officials don’t even get to the primaries.

    Appalled (1a17de)

  81. The Georgia Secretary of State is investigating attorney Lin Wood for voting illegally in Georgia. It appears he may have shifted his residence to South Carolina prior to election day.

    Every Accusation is a Confession, Volume 72,844.

    Dave (1bb933)

  82. 79. DRJ (aede82) — 2/3/2021 @ 7:50 am

    Just as Trump’s rally damaged Cruz in his 2018 Senate re-election, Trump’s rallies hurt (or maybe even doomed) the Georgia Senators’ 2020 re-election chances. Why does the GOP cling so desperately to someone like that?

    Because of fears that of he came out against them, he’d hurt them even more, and because there’s no good polling on this question, or they haven’t paid attention to it

    Heads you lose, tails the Democrat wins.

    Sammy Finkelman (5b302e)

  83. “I haven’t even looked at what all she’s done,” [Tuberville] told the CNN producer Ted Barrett. “I’d have to hold back a statement on that. Travel in this weather it’s been a little rough looking at any news or whatever.”

    This is the guy who thinks the three branches of government are Offense, Defense and Special Teams…

    Dave (1bb933)

  84. frosty (f27e97) — 2/3/2021 @ 6:48 am

    What does it even mean that they increased their activities?

    After Trump made a public request for Russia to find Hillary’s deleted emails (which everyone believed were no longer accessible via the Internet) there was a further attempt to hack into clintonemail.com, or some other location associated with Hillary Clinton, which Mueller linked to the press conference where Trump said that. At least that’s what I understood.

    At best Trumps request is an ask to release and not an ask to hack.

    No, it was a request to hack, although if you wanted to be realistic, what with all the claims by people in government that clintonemail was not secure and must have been hacked, you’d assume that if it was meant seriously it was really a request for Russia to release material already hacked.

    Everyone “knew” the emails no longer existed, although many or all of them did turn out later to be on Anthony Weiner’s laptopn and were carefully not searched through by human hands by the FBI when a subpeona was issued to examine its contents because of him sexting a teenager in North Carolina.)

    Sammy Finkelman (5b302e)

  85. Appalled (1a17de) — 2/3/2021 @ 7:55 am

    Because, without Trump, elective officials don’t even get to [sic: should be through] the primaries.

    That doesn’t explain why Trump was able to intimidate both Senators in the Georgia runoff into agreeing with anything he said, and endorsing whatever he told them to.

    It’s fear that Trump could hurt their candidacies if they didn’t go along.

    The rally they held with him was scheduled in a very Republican area, in hopes that it wouldn’t damage them too much.

    Sammy Finkelman (5b302e)

  86. Sammy Finkelman (5b302e) — 2/3/2021 @ 8:39 am

    No, it was a request to hack, although if you wanted to be realistic, what with all the claims by people in government that clintonemail was not secure and must have been hacked, you’d assume that if it was meant seriously it was really a request for Russia to release material already hacked.

    Let’s just say I’m being realistic. The DNC info was leaked prior to his statement. It was public knowledge that the Russians, and any number of other people, were already hacking everything they could.

    Everyone “knew” the emails no longer existed, although many or all of them did turn out later to be on Anthony Weiner’s laptopn and were carefully not searched through by human hands by the FBI when a subpeona was issued to examine its contents because of him sexting a teenager in North Carolina.)

    Everyone didn’t know they no longer existed for exactly the reason you give. It’s entirely possible for other copies to exist and it was known that hackers sat on backups of hacked info. The DNC hack covered a considerable period.

    frosty (f27e97)

  87. Dustin, intelligence operations usually take years to plan and execute. To think the Russian intelligence services leapt into action when Trump asked them to is daft, at best. I would surmise the Russian intelligence services have, for year, undertaken intelligence operations against US presidential nominees for years. That Trump invited them was just an opening to wreak havoc on our electoral process.

    Hoi Polloi (139bf6)

  88. Dustin, intelligence operations usually take years to plan and execute. To think the Russian intelligence services leapt into action when Trump asked them to is daft, at best. I would surmise the Russian intelligence services have, for year, undertaken intelligence operations against US presidential nominees for years. That Trump invited them was just an opening to wreak havoc on our electoral process.

    Hoi Polloi (139bf6) — 2/3/2021 @ 9:11 am

    You’re guessing when they has been investigated.

    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-asked-russia-to-find-clintons-emails-on-or-around-the-same-day-russians-targeted-her-accounts

    Russian officials began to target email addresses associated with Hillary Clinton’s personal and campaign offices “on or around” the same day Donald Trump called on Russia to find emails that were missing from her personal server, according to a new indictment from Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

    “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press,” Trump said in a July 27, 2016 news conference.

    On or around that day, according to the indictment, which was announced Friday, Russian actors sent phishing emails to accounts at a domain used by Clinton’s personal office. They also targeted 76 email addresses on the domain used by the Clinton campaign, though the exact timing of both of those efforts is unclear.

    Time123 (d1bf33)

  89. 86. frosty (f27e97) — 2/3/2021 @ 9:11 am

    Let’s just say I’m being realistic. The DNC info was leaked prior to his statement. It was public knowledge that the Russians, and any number of other people, were already hacking everything they could.

    Yes, but more important Hillary had said she had deleted all the emails she had not printed out and delivered to the State Department so that would mean at least that they were offline.

    She had claimed that all emails to or from state.gov addreses and to a few other places, like the White House were, by definition, the only “work-related” emails she had written. The printed out emails did not include any attachments, and were not searchable, (that’s why she delivered them in that form, of course, plus losing all the metadata) but by 2015, it was possible to scan them fairly easily, if some money and time was spent and it was.

    She said for good measure, she also saved any email that mentioned Libya or Benghazi (that’s how come an email to Chelsea on Sept 11, 2012, in which she described it as a terrorist attack, was included.)

    The emails sent to the White House had been designed to hide from people at the White House the fact that she did not have a state.gov address. At that time, an officeholder could use a private email to send a message from provided a copy was also sent to a state.gov account. So she cc’s them to a dummy state.gov address. (and used somewhat unclear words in explaining that at her press conference
    in March, 2015)

    In a fake shoe of openness she requested that all the emails she did send to the State Department be made public. That started a review of them to see if any of them contained classified information, which would otherwise not have happened. (her email system had substituted for the Sate Department’s unclassified system, but of course it’s subjective. Everybody who ever used it probably sent some classified information that way, although not copied files.

    SF:

    Everyone “knew” the emails no longer existed, although many or all of them did turn out later to be on Anthony Weiner’s laptop and were carefully not searched through by human hands by the FBI when a subpoena was issued to examine its contents because of him sexting a teenager in North Carolina.)

    Frosty

    Everyone didn’t know they no longer existed for exactly the reason you give. It’s entirely possible for other copies to exist and it was known that hackers sat on backups of hacked info. The DNC hack covered a considerable period.

    Everyone would have assumed, that, although Hillary maybe kept some of the emails she deleted, they wouldn’t be available through the Internet, so it would be impossible for Russia to “find” them if they didn’t have them already.

    Hillary’s emails were never at the DNC, and it never contained top secret Clinton information.

    Sammy Finkelman (5b302e)

  90. Hoi Polloi (139bf6) — 2/3/2021 @ 9:11 am

    To think the Russian intelligence services leapt into action when Trump asked them to is daft, at best.

    It could be that there were so many people involved, that when Trump mentioned “finding” Hillary’s 33,000 deleted emails, an effort was made to look again or try again in some place where they had given up hope. I mean, if you were a hacker, wouldn’t you? Maybe Trump knew something they would have thought.

    That’s all it could be.

    Sammy Finkelman (5b302e)

  91. ‘[GOP Senator Tommy Tuberville] This is the guy who thinks the three branches of government are Offense, Defense and Special Teams…’

    Reaganoptics: of the party which scrimmages from The Gipper’s Playbook.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  92. When someone you disagree with stands on character or principle, the best strategy was to wait.
    They’ll *bleep* up. Of course you will too, and the person who wins won’t win on righteousness, but instead on a better construction of argument and/or popularity TBD venue. Kind of like Prom Queen. That is how the moral high ground is won these days. The current response to someone else winning seems to be: Yay! You made Prom Queen!!!! Are you still *bleeping* your remedial math teacher?, and they are often right

    steveg (43b7a5)

  93. Sammy Finkelman (5b302e) — 2/3/2021 @ 10:21 am

    Everyone would have assumed, that, although Hillary maybe kept some of the emails she deleted, they wouldn’t be available through the Internet, so it would be impossible for Russia to “find” them if they didn’t have them already.

    Yes, this is why it wasn’t a request to hack. It was already public knowledge that someone had the DNC info and it made sense that other things could have been hacked. I believe at that point we knew the security on the HRC server was crap. When I first heard the comment I assumed this was the joke, i.e. someone’s already hacked it so just release it already. But that isn’t enough for the collusion narrative. The true believers are convinced they saw Trump ask for the hack on TV and Putin delivered.

    Hillary’s emails were never at the DNC, and it never contained top secret Clinton information.

    I know this and you know this but there are a number of people who intentionally conflate the different hacks, timelines, and evidence so that evidence for one gets used as evidence for something different and the timing gets jumbled. I’m convinced that some people believe Trumps comments were referring to the DNC hack or the Podesta hack or they believe they’ve seen direct evidence that Russia used Wikileaks to release HRC emails.

    frosty (f27e97)

  94. Stephen Hayes from The Dispatch is reporting that Trump was calling House Republicans telling them to sack Cheney. Maybe his influence is waning.

    Dana (fd537d)

  95. Let’s be clear: Russia and Trump colluded. Trump wanted the help. Trump paid them back in obvious ways that hurt America. This is the truth. We all know it. Quibbling over some invented version of collusion, then pointing that that specific thing didn’t happen, well I don’t care if that’s the case. Russia and Trump still colluded.

    Other politicians do bad stuff, maybe highly similar stuff. An important point, not a good defense.

    Dustin (4237e0)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2250 secs.