When The Russian Hoax Is Exposed, Should The Democrats Be Held Accountable?

You mean, they're trying the Repubs method?

 

Started by Ronnie Reagan. You don't get much good info, do you.
And Bush II threw gas on the fire with his housing policy.
And Gingrich and boys got rid of Glass-Stegal.
Not that any of that matters to you. Honest people can see it wasn't 1 party and it was decades in the making.

 

I demonstrated why I'm right.

 

Is this the same guy who defended Trump through all the cases he lost? Great judgement Donnie.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-trump-lawsuits/

 

What you demonstrated was a nonsensical interpretation of the joint statement, you're claiming that when the Intelligence Director says "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations" what he actually means is just DHS and not the Intelligence Community. This is exactly why no fact checking source agrees with your notion.

 

Good question.

 

Probable cause for an investigation, and evidence for being formally charged are not one in the same. In the case of our current troubles with Russia, there is no evidence to charge anyone of collusion, but there is evidence that Russia meddled with our elections, and that they were in contact with campaign officials during that time, which is probable cause for us to investigate Russia's contacts. You're declaring that there is no evidence of collusion before any of the investigations are even complete, but the whole purpose of an investigation is to gather evidence and uncover the truth.

Back in the 1990s there was no evidence of Robert Hanssen colluding with Russia, but we did have probable cause to investigate. After several intelligence officials were investigated, we found out that Hanssen had been colluding with Russia from the late 70s, into and through the 80s, and clear up to the point that he was formally charged in the 1990s. That's just one example, I can also make the cliche comparison and point out that there was no evidence that president Nixon was behind the Watergate office complex break in until after an investigation was held. In fact there was no evidence against the president's staff until the following year.

As for the 4th Amendment, no one's private property should be searched until a warrant is brought to a court, and the court authorizes that probable cause exists based upon direct information. Conducting an investigation does not mean undermining the 4th Amendment. Where the 4th Amendment does not apply is when there is a "legitimate expectation of privacy" so for example if you are a making a formal contact with an official of a foreign government, it is customary for the federal government to record these contracts under the jurisdiction of "legitimate expectation of privacy". That is, a formal contact with a foreign official is not considered to be private.

However, if the investigation is to involve any searches or seizures of private contacts, then yes they absolutely are required to first get a warrant, for each and every instance they search an individual's private contacts.

 

Thank you for tacitly admitting that you were just regurgitating extremist alt right disinformation,

 

Assumes extremist alt right disinformation NOT in evidence.

The Republican/Libertarian DEREGULATIONS were the PRIMARY cause of the 2008 economic collapse.

 

Why would your beloved "god-ambassador's" Deputy AG have appointed a Special Counsel if there was nothing criminal to investigate?

 

Assumes extremist alt right disinformation NOT in evidence.

The GOP BEnghazi debacle never proved any wrong doing by the Obama administration whatsoever therefore it was a complete and utter waste of taxpayer funds.

 

Regurgitating extremist alt right disinformation does not alter reality.

The IRS never targeted anyone since it was doing the same thing to PAC's for both sides. The Benghazi witch hunts were just a complete and utter waste of taxpayer money to pursue a partisan agenda. The email server was not illegal and there was no crime involved.

 

Except that you did nothing of the sort!

 

I'm looking at this textually. In other words, the documents clearly indicate which agencies contributed. When the document says, ""The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident .." Does that mean that the NRO contributed, or concurred on the report? No. However that seems to be your position.

If you have "fact checking" sources that say all 17 agencies were involved in documents that only list 2 or 3 agencies, I'm open to view your sources but so far you've only alluded to fact checking, you've not actually linked any.

 

I think it's safe to say that you wouldn't have any way of knowing.

 

Careful...you get called names around here when you start asking for things like sources...and proof.

 

It does list 2 agencies, and one of those agencies is the USIC, which again is a collection of 17 agencies. The second statement again refers to the first statement as being a conclusion of the Intelligence Community. You're basically trying to claim that it is not from the Intelligence Community, even though it says right there in the joint statement that it is the conclusion of the Intelligence Community.

It's no coincidence that the fact checkers have come to the same conclusion as what I have already explained to you

 

One of those agencies is the USIC? Are you sure you read that correctly? I'm pretty sure I think I know what you are saying but on the Joint Message with two agencies listed, the "USIC" isn't one of them.

 

Our ruling

Clinton said, "We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election."

We don’t know how many separate investigations into the attacks they were. But the Director of National Intelligence, which speaks for the country’s 17 federal intelligence agencies, released a joint statement saying the intelligence community at large is confident that Russia is behind recent hacks into political organizations’ emails. The statement sourced the attacks to the highest levels of the Russian government and said they are designed to interfere with the current election.

We rate Clinton’s statement True.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...y-clinton-blames-russia-putin-wikileaks-rele/


and for the record, it is the very first sentence of the statement that refers to the statement as being a conclusion of the Intelligence Community, which was repeated again in the December statement

 

You *really* need to read some actual history. The CRA under Carter started the housing bubble. Bill Clinton and Janet Reno fueled it up with their threats to file civil rights violations against banks that didn't give out sub-prime loans to people who couldn't afford them. Clinton then prevailed upon Franklin Raines at Fannie to remove *all* qualification requirements for sub-prime loans. Banks and lending institutions had to follow suit if they were to remain competitive and not go out of business.

When those loans began to go bad they undercut the price growth of existing housing and it all ballooned into a housing bubble collapse. When all those mortgages went bad and become toxic this had a huge negative impact on the large banks that had bought up all those mortgages assuming they were good investments.

The actual truth is that the fact that all these large banks had purchased all these toxic mortgages actually saved our financial system! There were a few large banks that could be saved through government loans, which by the way were all paid back with interest.

If this had not happened all those toxic mortgages would have remained in small local and regional banks. We would have seen literally thousands of small bank failures requiring the FDIC to freeze the assets in the banks while they would be audited to determine who was to receive what. Meaning literally millions of individuals and small businesses would have gone bankrupt while the FDIC was doing the all the audits. As it was over 1500 small banks had to take government loans to remain afloat and most have never paid those loans back.

It *was* one party - the Marxist Democrats trying to equalize outcomes for everyone. All Bush did was to lower down payment levels but it was still the sub-prime loans that failed, not the down payments.

Do you want to know the *really* sad thing? Obama had Fannie start up the HomeReady program in 2011 where mortgage requirements were taken down to 3% and could be totally financed. In addition, the actual lender doesn't have to meet any income requirement, they can list the income of friends and family instead!

Another housing bubble in the making and NO ONE is talking about it!

You are parroting the talking point lies being propagated the Marxist Democrats. Do some independent research on the subject!

 

The Collusion witch hunts are just a complete and utter waste of taxpayer money to pursue a partisan agenda. Talking to Russian officials is not illegal and there was no crime involved.

 

This is exactly my point:

"The 17 separate agencies did not independently declare Russia the perpetrator behind the hacks. Trump spokesman Steven Cheung said that this cuts against Clinton’s point, saying, "It is unlikely that all 16 of the agencies had looked independently at the Russian connection, which is what Clinton seemed to indicate." (Cheung said 16 agencies because he omitted the Office of the Director of National Intelligence from his count.)"

 

Probable cause *still* requires some form of evidence. The police can't even search you without some kind of evidence that leads them to be able to tie you to a crime of some kind.

You can investigate Russia's actions without involving *ANY* American. Contacting an American is evidence of NOTHING without some evidence of action taken by that American. And not one shred of evidence has been presented in over a year showing that anyone in Trump's campaign, let alone Trump himself, performed *any* illegal action on behalf of Russia.

Formal contacts with foreign government individuals are *certainly* considered to be private and in many cases CLASSIFIED. Meaning *NO* one outside of a very privileged few should have any idea of what was discussed. And those discussions simply can *NOT* be considered de facto evidence of wrong doing. And not a single shred of evidence has been presented that *any* discussions of the Trump campaign, the Trump transition team, or Trump himself have constituted some kind of wrong doing.

Every single allegation to date consists of nothing but the fact that contacts occurred. The Marxist Democrats and the media are playing these contacts up as being de facto illegal and need to be investigated.

In the case of Watergate AN ACTUAL CRIME WAS BEING INVESTIGATED. The trail of physical evidence and witness statements associated with the crime, including those who actually did the break in, were followed all the way up to Nixon.

Today we have *NO* crime being investigated, only an allegation of a crime. No judge will sign any kind of warrant based solely on an allegation. *Some* kind of physical evidence has to be given in the affadavit requesting the warrant.

This entire case is being tried in the lamestreammedia with not one shred of evidence being brought forth after more than a year of investigations.

BTW, Hanssen was found out through the FBI *buying* his identity from a former KGB agent. There was no investigation that found him. He was then caught actually doing a drop to the KGB. In other words there was PHYSICAL EVIDENCE in his case. The exact opposite of what is happening with Trump.

Trump is right. This is a witch hunt being fueled by the Marxist Democrats and the lamestreammedia. It *is* totally reminiscent of secret police activities in the old Soviet Union where mere allegations were all the secret police needed!

 

No one is saying they did independently declare such a thing. However, the joint statement makes itself perfectly clear when it says the Intelligence Community is confident that Russia meddled with our elections. You're basically trying to separate the Intelligence Community from the statement, even though the description is given in the very first sentence of the statement itself

 

Actually you've been saying exactly that for the past few days. My complaint was the use of the "17 Intelligence agencies" wording, which has been false. You've been defending it for days and now... after I point out that previous statement from your own link, you're pretending that you never argued it was "17 Intelligence agencies."

As i said originally: #fakenews