House oversight committee: Flynn might have broken the law

I have no idea and neither do and it is pure suposition for you to state as such and we don't know the extent of Russian involvement and remember all they did here was send a phishing email which Podesta stupidly fell for and sent them his paaword whomever them is. What is the difference between and active and inactive measure?

There were reports they tried to get into the Trump emails and failed this is nothing new.
Butbthe fact remains there is ko evidence of collusion or coordination.

And there is certainly no evidence they hacked the election and changed any votes.

 

There is evidence that something happened but it is not conclusive to date. Deserves further investigation.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...hines-in-trump-states.504123/#post-1067435221

 

At the time I posted it, that was the "news." Since then, things changed. Have you discovered Gorka's security clearance for his security job yet?

 

The irony is palpable..........

 

Fake News. Who was the source?

 

I know that the CIA, the FBI, several foreign government intelligence agencies, and through Congressional testimony, that the Russians attempted to interfere in the election through an army of trolls, bots, disinformation, propaganda spread through social media, and hacking of several campaigns and the DNC email server.

If you define inactive measures, perhaps I can tell you the difference between them. Here's the definition of "active measures:"

There IS evidence of collusion. Wikileaks timed the release of information perceived to be negative to Clinton to distract and counteract the media's release of information perceived to be negative to Trump. They did not do the same in reverse. Re-read the definition of "active measures" to see that they are made to deliberately manipulate the media, and thus the minds of the voters. After reading that, if you continue to believe it didn't change votes, that's on you.

 

Read through the thread, it was also reported on FAUX News.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/30/politics/gorka-leaving-white-house/index.html

The same people that correctly identified Steve Bannon being removed from the National Security Council, KT McFarland leaving as Deputy National Security Advisor, and Michael Flynn as NSA. So, if they missed on this one, or on the timing of this one, so be it.

There's still the problem of a National SECURITY Aide not having a SECURITY clearance. If Trump wants to use Gorka as a mouthpiece, so be it. I don't see how a SECURITY aide can do that job without a SECURITY clearance though, do you?

 

The reason it changed votes is because the truth hurts and the substance released by WikiLeaks was enough to convince millions of people that Hillary Clinton is a corrupt, lying politician.its not because the timing, collusion, or brainwashing like the left and you, apparently, would have us believe. What the left fail to admit is that if WikiLeaks had released Clintons hair care product preferences, or her morning meal routine, what she thinks of dogs, whâ movies she likes..., this would have had ZERO effect. But what was released was NOT harmless information, and it was NOT false, either. It was the truth, and the truth hurts and affects more than any baseless tabloid garbage about 'Russian collusion'. The FACTS are what changed American's minds about Clinton, not your Russian sleeper agent brainwashing implication

 

CNN? Are you serious?


No matter, what makes facts, facts is how closely they correspond with reality, so your fake news tidbit, what's important is that is false, not so much who mislead you.

 

You are devolving to trolling, AKA Grok?

 

How did the Ruskies get Hillary to campaign in NV and IOWA while she was losing PA, WI and MI? Did she realize when she failed to visit WI a single time in the General Election, that she lost this primary to Bernie?

And speaking of Bernie, had he been her Veep rather than Giggles from VA, she would be President. How did the Ruskies trick her into not picking Bernie for Veep?

 

First, the facts of Russia's attempt to influence the election are not my facts. They are simply facts. You seem to deny the facts at hand. Perhaps you have confused things?

If millions of people were influenced to vote against Clinton, that is not what the election results showed. Trump won by approximately 80,000 votes in three states, while Clinton got 3 million more votes overall. If Russian influence changed votes, it only needed to change a few in critical, targeted states. Imagine that? That's exactly what happened!

Clinton emails were not hacked. DNC emails were hacked. Have you conflated the two? They are not the same. If you have conflated the two, then perhaps the Russian active measures worked on you?

What Russian active measures did was coordinate the release of propaganda and disinformation to hurt Clinton and to help Trump. What the FBI is investigating is to see if Trump campaign operatives colluded with Russia in their efforts to hurt the Clinton campaign and to help the Trump campaign. The investigation is ongoing. More information will come out as thing progress.

 

If a decision is in the works, and that is reported, it's not fake news. It's what is happening at the time. If later, the decision is changed, that doesn't make the previous reporting fake, it simply means the situation changed. This is not hard. Surely you see the difference.

If you want to claim some kind of "victory" because Gorka hasn't been removed from his position at this time, by all means, gloat to your heart's content. That doesn't mean the reporting at the time was wrong. There's lots of links out there that substantiate that significant consideration was given to removing Gorka from his present position… and it still may happen.

Don Diego, we used to be able to have rational discussions. I hope those days return.

 

Who says it was? Who was the primary source for the claim that Gorka was leaving?

 

You put so many words in my mouth I think I speak a different language now. You ignored the logic of my argument, which exists separate of the origins or motives of the hacks, and speak to the effects of the hack as if they were linear to the source, which is rather like looking at the populace as if we were functions in an algebra equation.Your refusal to see that the truth is much more simple than your HOPE that russia somehow won the election, your ignorance of variable election laws, like the 'dead' votes in California which do NOT factor into your 800000 TRUMP VOTES, these things tell me you are VERY selective in what you read and what you choose to accept.

 

I've already posted what you are asking- people inside the White House to reputable news sources. Those are the same people that correctly sourced information on Flynn, McFarland, and Bannon being removed from NSC duties earlier. The White House leaks constantly. Sometimes they do it to get information out and sometimes use leaks as propaganda. Just as Clint Watts testified before Congress:

There is no doubt that Trump views the media as an opponent, even while he craves their attention.

 

Whether or not the hacking exposed true information and/or influenced the election is irrelevant. Nixon won the 1972 election by one of the largest margins in history and was a popular and competent President with a large majority backing him in Congress. The Watergate break ins and the information gotten from the, if there even was any, had next to no effect on the election at all. Despite all this, when it was found out that Nixon had himself known of his associates attempts to to influence the election illegally and done nothing about it he had to resign, because his losing the Presidency had he been impeached was nearly certain. Trump lost the popular vote and is possibly already the most hated President in American history. He has a majority in Congress but they are seeing him increasingly as a threat to their own seats. What Trump is accused of is very much more extensive than the Watergate break ins and even involves foreign actors, making the crime tantamount to Treason. Very few Congressmen are going to hesitate about kicking him out if actual wrongdoing on his part becomes evident and even if they do so much the better, they will be swept away by a Tsunami of popular revulsion in either 2018 or 2020, depending on how much becomes known how soon.

 

As far as I can see, the worst thing he did was retweet some fake news. Oooooooh what a crime. Yet more melodrama. The liberal soap opera continues its attempt to win an Oscar for best fiction.

 

I'll apologize if you think I put words in your mouth, as that wasn't my intention. At the same time, you declare what I "HOPE" when you don't have a clue what I hope. You call me ignorant of election laws, but mention "dead" votes in California. Pot accuses kettle?

I reject your logic, because it isn't based in fact. Your post indicates that you believe there was vote corruption in California, without one shred of evidence. We're not going to agree on this subject. I see no reason to continue. Have a nice day.

 

I agree with much of your post. The only real point of disagreement is that you hold Congressmen as being less partisan and more likely to act, than I believe they will. When Rand Paul made the comment, "I just don't think it's useful to be doing investigation after investigation, particularly of your own party," it concerned me hat partisanship would interfere with getting to the bottom of what actually happened.

 

So much the better. The American people will have their say on whether we are as partisan as he is soon enough. Paul is one of those fanatics who believes everyone is on his side, even while there are protestors filling the streets and intimidating the majority of Republican Congress-people into not even doing town meetings any more

 

Okay, apologies, I got my pls and q's mixed up. I will return to my earlier points regarding the 'DNC' hack. Its really quite humorous that you refuse to label it 'Hillary' hack, given that she was the target, however indirectly. Do you really think the information released has less to do with its affect on the populace than the source of the hack? Do you have such disdain for the populace's intellect that you think they voted for trump because he was colluding with the Russians? What I'm trying to get across is that the substance of the hack implicated Hillary in behaviors that swayed popular opinion even more than the behaviors of Donald Trump, grab them by the ***** trump. Your arrogance is such that you look down on the people and say they were bamboozled by Russians regardless of the authenticity of the hack, regardless of how much we learned that was true and that was WRONG with Clinton. Don't act like nobody released anything bad about trump- for an entire year of primaries the REPUBLICANS were findingeveryþing they could to try to derail him. You refuse to accept that the substance of the hack was valuable information and valid for making a decision, and instead attempt to disregard it by saying the source was a nefarious foreign entity with questionable motives.

 

I see. According to The Daily Beast, "People" told them that Gorka was being forced out, the CNN and the rest of the "reputable" fake news outlets picked it up, and now the fact that he is not being forced out means that the situation changed? How would the situation be different now, if The Daily Beast simply made the claim up, or the "people" they claimed as sources were lying?

See if you can step back from this inside the beltway mess an grasp this point: The evidence that the initial claim was true, is zero.
The evidence that the initial claim was false is very strong, and in fact, can only be avoided by erecting an auxiliary hypothesis, for which, again, the have zero evidence for, other than a strong desire not to admit that your first claim was false. And it wasn't even your claim! You were simply passing along what you heard. I don't understand your commitment to someone else's apparently false claim.

I'm sick of this inside the belt-way circle jerk. It's time to relocate vast portions of the Federal government to various rural communities through out the US so these clowns wake up to the fact we haven't reinstated the Monarchy with untitled nobility where they can play their silly games of court intrigue.

"Progressives" claim they want to spread some wealth around: So spread the government around.

We have hundreds of thousands of federal employees, backed by record-high government spending, forming a regional economy that anyone could envy; the four richest counties in the United States neighbor the nation's capital. And they have become a corrupt insular mess. It's time for Congress to decentralize the federal government, with a particular eye on helping the working-class economies that have suffered the most over the last decade while the belt-way and those in commute distance have become wealthier, while the majority of the nation has not.

We have a lot more employees in the federal government than we ever imagined as a country, and we are in a position where a good number of these jobs don't necessarily need to be in Washington, D.C.

A Cabinet secretary and headquarters may need to remain at Washington, D.C., but the backroom operations, agencies within the department could be located throughout Middle America.

Government needs to be closer to the people it regulates. Housing federal agencies in a city with one of the highest median incomes in the United States is not only expensive, but keeps federal bureaucrats in an economic and political bubble that offers a distorted view of the realities facing this country.

About 300,000 federal employees live in the D.C. metropolitan region, even modest changes could have a major impact on depressed areas.

It's time to take these jobs, say a 1,000 at at a time, and move them Youngstown or Gary, Indiana, or Milwaukee. Put them downtown, and you stimulate other investment in those areas, a huge boon for these communities.

Our big bureaucratic government needs to be closer to the people, remembering that THEY pay their salary, and if they are not serving them, they are not needed. Employ they people 30 communities across the country, or even 300.

 

You're right in saying there is no real evidence of wrongdoing on Trump's part so far, this is what is being investigated.

Even without evidence of such, however, the public's knowledge of Trump already is such that I think few people doubt he was in this up to his eyeballs. You Trumpistas think that everybody is as fanatically devoted to your God-Emperor as you are, we are going to find out just how warranted that belief is in 2018 and 2020 under any circumstance