RUSSIAN COLLUSION-RELATED CRIME UNCOVERED! (Bad News for CNN Sycophants)

[Hodad]

10 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

1) Collusion absolutely never happened, the FBI never found any evidence that it did. 
2) There is no evidence that anything was hacked. 2a) Crowdstrike’s CEO testified to that under oath, and 2b) Julian Assange said that his source was from a leak. In all of Assange’s hundreds/thousands of leaked docs, he has never been caught lying about a source. 
That might mean nothing to you, just because you don’t want to acknowledge it, but just keep in mind that the FBI committed crimes and lied several times over the course of this investigation, and people are still quoting the FBI. Assange has far more credibility on this issue than they do. 
3) Polling data. Not strategy. And so what? Manafort manages campaigns for a living. Maybe he was bragging, or pimping his services.

How “secret” can polling data really be anyways? It’s just polling data, and theoretically we get to see polls as well.

Are the Demonrats admitting that there’s some real polling data out there that we’re not allowed to see?

Do you really think that the Russians were smart enough to take a little bit of polling data and spend $200,000 on Facebook ads to decide a US federal election? Do you know how stupid that makes the Dems look?

The Demmies have access to all of that data too - they get it faster than Manafort could ever get it to Kimlik - and they spend hundreds of millions of dollars. Plus they lie, cheat and commit crimes. 

Could the Russians also overthrow the US democracy with one unarmed riot at the capitol? ?

 

The fact is that we are 100% certain that the FBI committed several crimes and lied hundreds of times during the Russian collusion investigation. 
 

There is no proof that the data was hacked. Zero. It’s nothing more than a guess/lie and a whole lot of propaganda. 

Anyhow, the only point of bringing up this post was to show how long it took for leftists to finally admit that the FBI actually committed crimes.

 

1. Of course it did. 900 pages of Senate report documenting the many secret meetings and relationships and information exchanges with the very people waging an interference campaign against American citizens say that you're full of crap.

2. Yes there is. It's definitive. Read the report, or just keep lying. They know exactly who did it. They know exactly who ordered it.

3. Yes, strategy. I quoted the report. I linked to the report. If you choose to remain ignorant, that's on you.

 

You're another wild conspiracy theory theorist who will make up gobs of sketchy "evidence" when it feels convenient, but will completely shut out actual evidence when it's presented in black and white 

Edited November 15, 2023 by Hodad

[robosmith]

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

LOL - i'm sure you wish that were true

I have tonnes of evidence.  And your opinion use useless without proof 

So post your evidence. I won't hold my breath cause you have NONE.

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

 

ROFLMAO - now i'm a nazi    LOL - well i guess that's the end of whatever credibility you might have had left  

You guess wrong.

[CdnFox]

10 hours ago, robosmith said:

So post your evidence. I won't hold my breath cause you have NONE.

 

Already done and not just by me .  But  i get it - you lefties do love your sealioning don't you

Quote

You guess wrong.

Ahhhh i was kidding    It wasn't a guess.

[WestCanMan]

12 hours ago, Hodad said:

1. Of course it did. 900 pages of Senate report documenting the many secret meetings and relationships and information exchanges with the very people waging an interference campaign against American citizens say that you're full of crap.

Robert Mueller said there was zero evidence of collusion. What you have is 900 pages, at the cost of about $34K each, which details one secret meeting which was an FBI sting, a bunch of normal meetings, and nothing illegal.

Quote

2. Yes there is. It's definitive. Read the report, or just keep lying. They know exactly who did it. They know exactly who ordered it.

The only person who investigated the server was the CEO of crowdstrike, and he testified that he could not determine that the server was hacked.

Your constant declaration that "the server was hacked" is a lie. You do not know that, and no one else does either: https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/13/hidden_over_2_years_dem_cyber-firms_sworn_testimony_it_had_no_proof_of_russian_hack_of_dnc_123596.html#!

• Henry personally led the remediation and forensics analysis of the DNC server after being warned of a breach in late April 2016; his work was paid for by the DNC, which refused to turn over its server to the FBI. Asked for the date when alleged Russian hackers stole data from the DNC server, Henry testified that CrowdStrike did not in fact know if such a theft occurred at all: "We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated [moved electronically] from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated," Henry said.

  Henry reiterated his claim on multiple occasions: 

• "There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left."
• "There’s not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. There's circumstantial evidence but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated."

They absolutely don't know "who hacked it", because they don't even know it was hacked - you lied again.

They for sure don't have any evidence of anyone asking someone to hack it. That was your 3rd lie in that one small paragraph. 

Quote

You're another wild conspiracy theory theorist who will make up gobs of sketchy "evidence" when it feels convenient, but will completely shut out actual evidence when it's presented in black and white 

You're a wild little stooge that will never admit to the constant stream of FBI lies and crimes even though they pleaded guilty and a judge said that they did all that. 

It's a pretty sweet deal when you can just offer yourself the chance for one person to plead guilty to a lesser crime and then not sentence yourself to any jailtime, which is what members of the DOJ did there. FYI the FBI is part of the DOJ. They policed themselves in this instance. How groovy is that?

You accused me of making things up and every single thing that I said was backed up by 1) Clinesmith's admission in court, 2) Judge Collyer's statement, an dshe knows better than anyone els eon earth in this instance 3) testimony under oath from the CEO of Crowdstrike, who happens to be the only person on earth who's qualified to comment on whether or not the server was hacekd.

[Hodad]

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Robert Mueller said there was zero evidence of collusion. What you have is 900 pages, at the cost of about $34K each, which details one secret meeting which was an FBI sting, a bunch of normal meetings, and nothing illegal.

The only person who investigated the server was the CEO of crowdstrike, and he testified that he could not determine that the server was hacked.

Your constant declaration that "the server was hacked" is a lie. You do not know that, and no one else does either: https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/13/hidden_over_2_years_dem_cyber-firms_sworn_testimony_it_had_no_proof_of_russian_hack_of_dnc_123596.html#!

• Henry personally led the remediation and forensics analysis of the DNC server after being warned of a breach in late April 2016; his work was paid for by the DNC, which refused to turn over its server to the FBI. Asked for the date when alleged Russian hackers stole data from the DNC server, Henry testified that CrowdStrike did not in fact know if such a theft occurred at all: "We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated [moved electronically] from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated," Henry said.

  Henry reiterated his claim on multiple occasions: 

• "There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left."
• "There’s not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. There's circumstantial evidence but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated."

They absolutely don't know "who hacked it", because they don't even know it was hacked - you lied again.

They for sure don't have any evidence of anyone asking someone to hack it. That was your 3rd lie in that one small paragraph. 

You're a wild little stooge that will never admit to the constant stream of FBI lies and crimes even though they pleaded guilty and a judge said that they did all that. 

It's a pretty sweet deal when you can just offer yourself the chance for one person to plead guilty to a lesser crime and then not sentence yourself to any jailtime, which is what members of the DOJ did there. FYI the FBI is part of the DOJ. They policed themselves in this instance. How groovy is that?

You accused me of making things up and every single thing that I said was backed up by 1) Clinesmith's admission in court, 2) Judge Collyer's statement, an dshe knows better than anyone els eon earth in this instance 3) testimony under oath from the CEO of Crowdstrike, who happens to be the only person on earth who's qualified to comment on whether or not the server was hacekd.

You are lying, top to bottom, as usual. Just like, diarrhea of dishonesty. It's comical. And disgusting. 

1. Mueller DID NOT say there was no evidence of collusion. He pushed back on Barr's characterization. 

2. Crowdstrike published an entire article to set the record straight, so people like you and your garbage media would stop misrepresenting their findings and the testimony. They do know it was hacked.

3. They do know exactly who did it. COZY BEAR and FANCY BEAR…. At DNC, COZY BEAR intrusion has been identified going back to summer of 2015, while FANCY BEAR separately breached the network in April 2016.”

4. They do know who ordered it: Trump's idol, Vladimir Putin. 

The Senate report states on page 48:

“The Committee found that specific intelligence as well as open source assessments support the assessment that President Putin approved and directed aspects of this influence campaign.”

 

You're wrong about every single point. And on every single point, you've been corrected multiple times. You're either too thick to take in new information or too dishonest to talk about facts that make the Trump campaign look even more guilty. 

Because guess what, the guy Manafort was having all those clandestine meetings and communications with--Kilimnik, was almost certainly involved in both the influence campaign and the hack and leak.

Just ignore it all and shout "no collusion" over and over again. It's "worked" so well to make these facts disappear.

Edited November 15, 2023 by Hodad

[robosmith]

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Already done and not just by me .  But  i get it - you lefties do love your sealioning don't you

No, you just love your LYING. IF you posted the evidence you COULD POINT TO IT. But you CANNOT.

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Ahhhh i was kidding    It wasn't a guess.

So it was a LIE by CdnLIAR.

[robosmith]

12 minutes ago, Hodad said:

You are lying, top to bottom, as usual. Just like, diarrhea of dishonesty. It's comical. And disgusting. 

1. Mueller DID NOT say there was no evidence of collusion. He pushed back on Barr's characterization. 

2. Crowdstrike published an entire article to set the record straight, so people like you and your garbage media would stop misrepresenting their findings and the testimony. They do know it was hacked.

3. They do know exactly who did it. COZY BEAR and FANCY BEAR…. At DNC, COZY BEAR intrusion has been identified going back to summer of 2015, while FANCY BEAR separately breached the network in April 2016.”

4. They do know who ordered it: Trump's idol, Vladimir Putin. 

The Senate report states on page 48:

“The Committee found that specific intelligence as well as open source assessments support the assessment that President Putin approved and directed aspects of this influence campaign.”

 

You're wrong about every single point. And on every single point, you've been corrected multiple times. You're either too thick to take in new information or too dishonest to talk about facts that make the Trump campaign look even more guilty. 

Because guess what, the guy Manafort was having all those clandestine meetings and communications with--Kilimnik, was almost certainly involved in both the influence campaign and the hack and leak.

Just ignore it all and shout "no collusion" over and over again. It's "worked" so well to make these facts disappear.

Just like the "FAKE NEWS" mantra is used to discredit the reporting of truth about Trump. 

They just keep demonstrating just how gullible the MAGA CULT is.

One would think that WCM would come to his senses after his logical fallacy and evidence attempting to show that Wapo's 30K Trump lies were true, was SHOWN FALSE, but he's N-tupled down so many times I have to believe he's wiped it from his memory.

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

No, you just love your LYING. IF you posted the evidence you COULD POINT TO IT. But you CANNOT.

 

Easy to do so but pointless - just like now a short time later you'll just demand i post it again and again.

Thanks for proving you can't read

Quote

So it was a LIE by CdnLIAR.

Is that your alternate account? It fits you perfect.