BOOM!!! Mark Meadows FLIPS! Testifies Against Trump to Grand Jury!!!

[Nationalist]

3 minutes ago, Hodad said:

No, no one is in legal jeopardy for asking for a recount. Read the indictments--or a news article--so you know what the legal issues are. 

I've read several articles about it. But if they can't prove Trump doesn't believe the election was stolen, the whole premise begins to fall apart.

Edited October 25, 2023 by Nationalist

[Hodad]

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

That's a lie. No one has ever proven they were hacked, Crowstrike's CEO testified to as much under oath.

Assange said the emails were leaked, and Wiki has never been proven wrong in that regard. 

Wikileaks just released the leaked files, period. It's what they do. No one needed Russia's help to "put files on the internet", dummy. Your grandma can do that.

Cite?

1 Not illegal. 

2. It was a joke, stupid.

3. Liar.

They are similar to facts, they are rife with lies, distortion is far too delicate of a word to describe them. Those things only 'happened' in your dreams. 

You have confused your twisted imagination for reality.

Directly from Crowdstrike

BLOG

 

• Featured
• Recent
• Videos
• Categories
• Start Free Trial

 

CrowdStrike’s work with the Democratic National Committee: Setting the record straight

June 5, 2020

 Editorial Team From The Front Lines

June 5, 2020 UPDATE

Blog update following the release of the testimony by Shawn Henry, CSO and President of CrowdStrike Services, before the House Intelligence Committee that was recently declassified.

What was CrowdStrike’s role in investigating the hack of the DNC?

CrowdStrike was contacted on April 30, 2016 to respond to a suspected breach. We began our work with the DNC on May 1, 2016, collecting intelligence and analyzing the breach. After conducting this analysis and identifying the adversaries on the network, on June 10, 2016 we initiated a coordinated remediation event to ensure the intruders were removed and could not regain access. That remediation process lasted approximately 2-3 days and was completed on June 13, 2016.

Why did the DNC contact CrowdStrike?

The DNC contacted CrowdStrike to respond to a suspected cyber attack impacting its network. The DNC was first alerted to the hack by the FBI in September 2015. According to testimony by DNC IT contractor Yared Tamene Wolde-Yohannes, the FBI attributed the breach to the Russian Government in September 2015 (page 7).

Why did the DNC hire CrowdStrike instead of just working with the FBI to investigate the hack?

The FBI doesn’t perform incident response or network remediation services when organizations need to get back to business after a breach.

CrowdStrike is a leader in protecting customers around the world from cyber threats. It is common for organizations to hire third-party industry experts, like CrowdStrike, to investigate and remediate cyber attacks when they suspect a breach even if they are collaborating with law enforcement. As John Carlin, former Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division at The Department of Justice, testified before the House Intelligence Committee (cited from page 21 of his testimony):

“A lot of — outside of any political organization, companies, most corporations, they often would use these third party contractors, who they hired through their own counsel, and maximize the control from the point of view of the victim.”

Did CrowdStrike have proof that Russia hacked the DNC? 

Yes, and this is also supported by the U.S. Intelligence community and independent Congressional reports.

Following a comprehensive investigation that CrowdStrike detailed publicly, the company concluded in May 2016 that two separate Russian intelligence-affiliated adversaries breached the DNC network.

To reference, CrowdStrike’s account of their DNC investigation, published on June 14, 2016, “CrowdStrike Services Inc., our Incident Response group, was called by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the formal governing body for the US Democratic Party, to respond to a suspected breach. We deployed our IR team and technology and immediately identified two sophisticated adversaries on the network – 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.”

This conclusion has most recently been supported by the Senate Intelligence Committee in April 2020 issuing a report [intelligence.senate.gov] validating the previous conclusions of the Intelligence community, published on January 6, 2017,  that Russia was behind the DNC data breach.

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.”

Furthermore, in his testimony in front of the House Intelligence Committee, Shawn Henry stated the following with regards to CrowdStrike’s degree of confidence that the intrusion activity can be attributed to Russia, cited from page 24:

1. HENRY: We said that we had a high degree of confidence it was the Russian Government.  And our analysts that looked at it and that had looked at these types of attacks before, many different types of attacks similar to this in different environments, certain tools that were used, certain methods by which they were moving in the environment,and looking at the types of data that was being targeted, that it was consistent with a nation-state adversary and associated with Russian intelligence.

[West]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

Hmm… well those thousands and thousands of pages were released, but Trump’s hand-picked “Lock Her Up” attorneys general failed to indict any Democrat for so much as a parking ticket.  

She should've been locked up for HOSTING A PRIVATE UNSECURED SERVER WHERE SHE WAS HAVING DEALINGS WITH MILITARY ETC AS SECRETARY OF STATE

8 minutes ago, Hodad said:

You have confused your twisted imagination for reality.

Directly from Crowdstrike

BLOG

 

• Featured
• Recent
• Videos
• Categories
• Start Free Trial

 

 

CrowdStrike’s work with the Democratic National Committee: Setting the record straight

June 5, 2020

 Editorial Team From The Front Lines

June 5, 2020 UPDATE

Blog update following the release of the testimony by Shawn Henry, CSO and President of CrowdStrike Services, before the House Intelligence Committee that was recently declassified.

What was CrowdStrike’s role in investigating the hack of the DNC?

CrowdStrike was contacted on April 30, 2016 to respond to a suspected breach. We began our work with the DNC on May 1, 2016, collecting intelligence and analyzing the breach. After conducting this analysis and identifying the adversaries on the network, on June 10, 2016 we initiated a coordinated remediation event to ensure the intruders were removed and could not regain access. That remediation process lasted approximately 2-3 days and was completed on June 13, 2016.

Why did the DNC contact CrowdStrike?

The DNC contacted CrowdStrike to respond to a suspected cyber attack impacting its network. The DNC was first alerted to the hack by the FBI in September 2015. According to testimony by DNC IT contractor Yared Tamene Wolde-Yohannes, the FBI attributed the breach to the Russian Government in September 2015 (page 7).

Why did the DNC hire CrowdStrike instead of just working with the FBI to investigate the hack?

The FBI doesn’t perform incident response or network remediation services when organizations need to get back to business after a breach.

CrowdStrike is a leader in protecting customers around the world from cyber threats. It is common for organizations to hire third-party industry experts, like CrowdStrike, to investigate and remediate cyber attacks when they suspect a breach even if they are collaborating with law enforcement. As John Carlin, former Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division at The Department of Justice, testified before the House Intelligence Committee (cited from page 21 of his testimony):

“A lot of — outside of any political organization, companies, most corporations, they often would use these third party contractors, who they hired through their own counsel, and maximize the control from the point of view of the victim.”

Did CrowdStrike have proof that Russia hacked the DNC? 

Yes, and this is also supported by the U.S. Intelligence community and independent Congressional reports.

Following a comprehensive investigation that CrowdStrike detailed publicly, the company concluded in May 2016 that two separate Russian intelligence-affiliated adversaries breached the DNC network.

To reference, CrowdStrike’s account of their DNC investigation, published on June 14, 2016, “CrowdStrike Services Inc., our Incident Response group, was called by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the formal governing body for the US Democratic Party, to respond to a suspected breach. We deployed our IR team and technology and immediately identified two sophisticated adversaries on the network – 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.”

This conclusion has most recently been supported by the Senate Intelligence Committee in April 2020 issuing a report [intelligence.senate.gov] validating the previous conclusions of the Intelligence community, published on January 6, 2017,  that Russia was behind the DNC data breach.

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.”

Furthermore, in his testimony in front of the House Intelligence Committee, Shawn Henry stated the following with regards to CrowdStrike’s degree of confidence that the intrusion activity can be attributed to Russia, cited from page 24:

1. HENRY: We said that we had a high degree of confidence it was the Russian Government.  And our analysts that looked at it and that had looked at these types of attacks before, many different types of attacks similar to this in different environments, certain tools that were used, certain methods by which they were moving in the environment,and looking at the types of data that was being targeted, that it was consistent with a nation-state adversary and associated with Russian intelligence.

OK. 

ALL THE MORE REASON NOT TO HAVE A PRIVATE SERVER NEXT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S TOILET

[Hodad]

17 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

I've read several articles about it. But if they can't prove Trump doesn't believe the election was stolen, the whole premise begins to fall apart.

No, that's incorrect. Regardless of what Trump believed it's still illegal to strongarm and threaten local officials to change outcomes, it's still illegal to forge documents, it's still illegal to create " fake electors" etc. None of those actions hinge on belief. Belief that a crime has been committed is not a free pass to commit crime.

But it's likely a moot point. More and more of his inner circle are confessing that they--and he--never believed it. That it was simply a vile, cynical attack on democracy.

Aside from that, if Trump actually believed, without evidence, while everyone around him told him there was no fraud, we can add one more reason to the long list of reasons he's unfit to be president.

 

[Hodad]

4 minutes ago, West said:

She should've been locked up for HOSTING A PRIVATE UNSECURED SERVER WHERE SHE WAS HAVING DEALINGS WITH MILITARY ETC AS SECRETARY OF STATE

OK. 

ALL THE MORE REASON NOT TO HAVE A PRIVATE SERVER NEXT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S TOILET

Jeebus, dude. Just read. This has nothing t to do with Clinton's server. The conversation is about the DNC hack. Just Putin helping his buddy again.

[West]

17 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Jeebus, dude. Just read. This has nothing t to do with Clinton's server. The conversation is about the DNC hack. Just Putin helping his buddy again.

Putin tried to hack the Republicans but they had a better password than "Russia123"

22 minutes ago, Hodad said:

that they--and he--never believed it

Once again you are totally out to lunch. Who has claimed such a thing? 

[Hodad]

6 minutes ago, West said:

Putin tried to hack the Republicans but they had a better password than "Russia123"

Once again you are totally out to lunch. Who has claimed such a thing? 

Hutchinson is on record with what Meadows told her. 

"The president's just raging about the decision and how it's wrong and why didn't we make more calls and just his typical anger, outburst at this decision," she said in testimony the committee presented on Thursday. "He had said something to the effect of, 'I don't want people to know we lost, Mark. This is embarrassing. Figure it out. We need to figure it out. I don't want people to know that we lost.'"

What do you suppose someone as high-ranking as Meadows said to bargain immunity, hm?

Or Powell or Chesebro? Nearly everyone in Trump's orbit has acknowledged that they told Trump that the election had not been stolen. We will see more of these conversations come out. Most of them, including Meadows, have already acknowledged that they themselves didn't believe it. Is Trump there only person dumb enough? Or did he lie and exploit the rubes for his own gain, as is his wont?

[West]

12 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Powell

Powell claimed she had definitive evidence that the voting machines and the algorithms were rigged. This is on record. 

I have no clue who Cheesbro is so can't comment. But it seems like Powell was fairly convinced the machines were rigged

Edited October 26, 2023 by West

[Hodad]

40 minutes ago, West said:

Powell claimed she had definitive evidence that the voting machines and the algorithms were rigged. This is on record. 

I have no clue who Cheesbro is so can't comment. But it seems like Powell was fairly convinced the machines were rigged

She sure did say that. She also said that you're an unreasonable person for falling for her lies. That you still believe them proves her right 

(Atlanta) - Kraken lawyer Sidney Powell admitted in a filing in federal court that “no reasonable person would conclude that [her] statements were truly statements of fact.” Powell made the filing in response to a defamation suit from Dominion Voting Systems in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

“In the face of legal action, Sidney Powell admitted that her effort to make millions lying to the American people had no facts to begin with,” said Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. “While the loss of the Senate due to her lies will have ramifications for years, I most sympathize with those who believed her in the first place and who she now considers not reasonable enough to realize she should not have been taken seriously.”

 

And, of course, she's now pled guilty to criminal charges in exchange for testimony. Oh, and the other civil suit is still in process. She did raise millions of dollars from you rubes for her "non-profit." I hope the voting equipment companies get that too. 

[West]

37 minutes ago, Hodad said:

She also said that you're an unreasonable person for falling for her lies.

Where?

[Hodad]

21 minutes ago, West said:

Where?

You better find an adult to read that post to you.

 

Honestly, why are you even playing this game. If she had evidence, she would have presented it. Instead, she disgraced, humiliated, almost certain to be disbarred and soon to be bankrupt from defamation suits. Why are you even bothering trying to pretend that her entire scam didn't fall apart. WTF is the point of this charade?

Edited October 26, 2023 by Hodad

[West]

47 minutes ago, Hodad said:

If she had evidence, she would have presented it.

You fail to understand what I'm saying to you. 

The basis for this nonsensical case is that Donald Trump presumably knew that he had lost the election and I would assume the claim is he fraudulently fundraised off of it. 

There's no evidence that these people knew they were lying. Jenna Ellis even said something to the effect "if I knew then what I knew now". She presumably believed at the time there was funny business and is being hung on a low level conviction I would assume to make this farce of "justice" go away.

In the real world, none of this nonsense should be tying up the court system. Any reasonable person has questions about the conduct prior to the election, changing up voting laws, etc which is really what Giulianis case was about. 

This whole thing that they concocted fake electorate is nonsense too. This idea of dual slate electors has been used at least two other times in American history. The election itself had many questions due to the nature of which they changed laws and whether or not proper process was followed and this at least needed a day in court, NOT threats of jail time for bringing it forward. 

There certainly should not be this all out weaponization of the justice system as we are seeing now. Should not be criminalizing the practice of law. This is the bullshit they do in Venezuela but of course you being a lefty communist you support it

 

Edited October 26, 2023 by West

[Hodad]

58 minutes ago, West said:

You fail to understand what I'm saying to you. 

The basis for this nonsensical case is that Donald Trump presumably knew that he had lost the election and I would assume the claim is he fraudulently fundraised off of it. 

There's no evidence that these people knew they were lying. Jenna Ellis even said something to the effect "if I knew then what I knew now". She presumably believed at the time there was funny business and is being hung on a low level conviction. 

In the real world, none of this nonsense should be tying up the court system. Any reasonable person has questions about the conduct prior to the election, changing up voting laws, etc which is really what Giulianis case was about. 

This whole thing that they concocted fake electorate is nonsense too. This idea of dual slate electors has been used at least two other times in American history. The election itself had many questions due to the nature of which they changed laws and whether or not proper process was followed

There certainly should not be this all out weaponization of the justice system as we are seeing now. Should not be criminalizing the practice of law. This is the bullshit they do in Venezuela but of course you being a lefty communist you support it

 

WTF are you talking about. These people have admitted that they were lying. Meadows didn't believe it. Chesebro didn't believe it. Powell didn't believe it and defended herself in court by saying you were unreasonable to have believed her. GiuilianI admitted in court that he made false statements about the Georgia election workers. 

There's no mystery here. They didn't need it to be true. They just needed to convince people like you. 

And the case is about doing illegal shit to try to overturn the results. 

 

Edited October 26, 2023 by Hodad

[Nationalist]

10 hours ago, Hodad said:

No, that's incorrect. Regardless of what Trump believed it's still illegal to strongarm and threaten local officials to change outcomes, it's still illegal to forge documents, it's still illegal to create " fake electors" etc. None of those actions hinge on belief. Belief that a crime has been committed is not a free pass to commit crime.

But it's likely a moot point. More and more of his inner circle are confessing that they--and he--never believed it. That it was simply a vile, cynical attack on democracy.

Aside from that, if Trump actually believed, without evidence, while everyone around him told him there was no fraud, we can add one more reason to the long list of reasons he's unfit to be president.

 

I don't think we will ever know. Trump may be POTUS by the time this is over.

[WestCanMan]

9 hours ago, Hodad said:

WTF are you talking about. These people have admitted that they were lying. Meadows didn't believe it. Chesebro didn't believe it. Powell didn't believe it and defended herself in court by saying you were unreasonable to have believed her. GiuilianI admitted in court that he made false statements about the Georgia election workers. 

There's no mystery here. They didn't need it to be true. They just needed to convince people like you. 

And the case is about doing illegal shit to try to overturn the results. 

They to wrap your head around this, stupid: just because Mark Meadows said that their evidence wasn't accepted doesn't mean that Trump had to believe the Dems didn't cheat. Period.

FYI there are still posters on this forum who bewieve in Wussian collusion and even the FBI admits that there is zero evidence of it. They lied and committed crimes for 3 years to get Trump, they even arrested people for non-collusion-related offences and offered them reduced sentences for false testimony. Still the FBI came up with nothing, still Beave bewieves, and we're 3 years past the end of that smear campaign. You think Trump had to be convinced after two months? You think that you, little hodad, are in a position to say what Trump believed and what he didn't?

You're an id10t. No one on earth can say what Trump knew or believed at that time, period. 

[Hodad]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

They to wrap your head around this, stupid: just because Mark Meadows said that their evidence wasn't accepted doesn't mean that Trump had to believe the Dems didn't cheat. Period.

FYI there are still posters on this forum who bewieve in Wussian collusion and even the FBI admits that there is zero evidence of it. They lied and committed crimes for 3 years to get Trump, they even arrested people for non-collusion-related offences and offered them reduced sentences for false testimony. Still the FBI came up with nothing, still Beave bewieves, and we're 3 years past the end of that smear campaign. You think Trump had to be convinced after two months? You think that you, little hodad, are in a position to say what Trump believed and what he didn't?

You're an id10t. No one on earth can say what Trump knew or believed at that time, period. 

Mark Meadows didn't say that their evidence wasn't accepted. He said there was no evidence.

"The sources said Meadows informed Smith's team that he repeatedly told Trump in the weeks after the 2020 presidential election that the allegations of significant voting fraud coming to them were baseless, a striking break from Trump's prolific rhetoric regarding the election.

According to the sources, Meadows also told the federal investigators Trump was being "dishonest" with the public when he first claimed to have won the election only hours after polls closed on Nov. 3, 2020, before final results were in.

...

According to Meadows' book, the election was "stolen" and "rigged" with help from "allies in the liberal media," who ignored "actual evidence of fraud, right there in plain sight for anyone to access and analyze."

But, as described to ABC News, Meadows privately told Smith's investigators that -- to this day -- he has yet to see any evidence of fraud that would have kept now-president Joe Biden from the White House, and he told them he agrees with a government assessment at the time that the 2020 presidential election was the most secure election in U.S. history."

 

And, as always, you are lying about Russian Collusion. The FBI does not hold the position that there was no evidence. In fact, the collusion is VERY well documented. You just wave your hands about the fact that Trump's campaign was feeding intelligence and strategy to Russian operatives during the election cycle, while those same operatives coordinated Russia's interference in the US election. Those are facts. Just because in your fanboy lust you've assigned some version of papal infallibility to all Trump actions doesn't make the evidence disappear. Just because you approve of the GRU hack and leak against American politicians doesn't mean it didn't happen. And the FBI documented it thoroughly. Try reading (roughly) pages 50-90 of the Senate Intelligence Committee report. 

[WestCanMan]

50 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Mark Meadows didn't say that their evidence wasn't accepted. He said there was no evidence.

"The sources said Meadows informed Smith's team that he repeatedly told Trump in the weeks after the 2020 presidential election that the allegations of significant voting fraud coming to them were baseless, a striking break from Trump's prolific rhetoric regarding the election.

 

Gawd you're stupid.

Do you believe everything Mark Meadows says?

If he walks up to you tomorrow and swears that there was election fraud will you suddenly "know" that it's true? 

If he walks up to you tomorrow and swears that there was no Russian collusion will you suddenly "know" that it's true? 

Of course not. 

What Mark Meadows "tells you" and what you "know to be true" will forever be two separate things. 

Do you f'ing understand that? I feel like I'm talking to a child with autism. 

[Rebound]

18 hours ago, Nationalist said:

I've read several articles about it. But if they can't prove Trump doesn't believe the election was stolen, the whole premise begins to fall apart.

What Trump believed does not matter.  You’re allowed to believe that only Christians go to heaven, or that only Muslims go to heaven. You’re allowed to believe anything you want to believe. Plenty of people here believe the election was stolen, and they aren’t being charged with crimes over what they believe. 
 

But you’re not allowed to break the law.  Trump was allowed to believe the election was stolen and use ALL lawful means at his disposal to prove it. And he did that, and he filed 60 lawsuits, requested recounts, and all that.  He has not been charged with any of that. 
 

He was not allowed to conspire with people across the nation to create slates of fake electors, along with falsified electoral certificates, and to represent that they were lawful Presidential electors.  That is not legal to do, and it doesn’t matter whether you believed the election was stolen or not. 

[Hodad]

3 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Gawd you're stupid.

Do you believe everything Mark Meadows says?

If he walks up to you tomorrow and swears that there was election fraud will you suddenly "know" that it's true? 

If he walks up to you tomorrow and swears that there was no Russian collusion will you suddenly "know" that it's true? 

Of course not. 

What Mark Meadows "tells you" and what you "know to be true" will forever be two separate things. 

Do you f'ing understand that? I feel like I'm talking to a child with autism. 

No, dimwit. But when he realizes he's caught and makes a deal to testify against his own interests and those of his boss (your Jesus) then he becomes credible. And his testimony will now align with the facts in evidence. 

The fact that a grifter suckered you with all this election fraud nonsense must hurt your overinflated ego. But don't be too hard on yourself. He suckered millions of other rubes too. 

There is already testimony--and more to come--that Trump knew full well that there was no evidence of fraud. His inner circle told him over and over that was the case. But, like you, he has a vastly overinflated ego and may have been capable of the same degree of self delusion. But it doesn't really matter what he believed. As mentioned earlier, earnest belief that a crime has been committed is NOT a free pass to commit your own crimes.

[robosmith]

19 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Which fruit are you robo-bot?

Definitely NOT a ^TROLL like gnat-man. ?

Thanks for demonstrating your intellectual bankruptcy AGAIN.

[robosmith]

19 hours ago, Nationalist said:

I've read several articles about it. But if they can't prove Trump doesn't believe the election was stolen, the whole premise begins to fall apart.

Numerous Trump lawyers and Meadows are going to testify that he was told it wasn't stolen. Even Powell who was hired for her nut-case propaganda.

[robosmith]

18 hours ago, West said:

She should've been locked up for HOSTING A PRIVATE UNSECURED SERVER WHERE SHE WAS HAVING DEALINGS WITH MILITARY ETC AS SECRETARY OF STATE

OK. 

ALL THE MORE REASON NOT TO HAVE A PRIVATE SERVER NEXT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S TOILET

The subject was DNC SERVER, not Hillary's email server in their BASEMENT. Duh

You must be erroneously thinking of Trump and his classified document storage. LMAO

16 hours ago, West said:

Powell claimed she had definitive evidence that the voting machines and the algorithms were rigged. This is on record. 

I have no clue who Cheesbro is so can't comment. But it seems like Powell was fairly convinced the machines were rigged

She's going to testify SHE LIED A LOT. Duh

[robosmith]

8 hours ago, Nationalist said:

I don't think we will ever know. Trump may be POTUS by the time this is over.

You sound hopeful that you'll be getting a pardon. LMAO

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

Mark Meadows didn't say that their evidence wasn't accepted. He said there was no evidence.

"The sources said Meadows informed Smith's team that he repeatedly told Trump in the weeks after the 2020 presidential election that the allegations of significant voting fraud coming to them were baseless, a striking break from Trump's prolific rhetoric regarding the election.

According to the sources, Meadows also told the federal investigators Trump was being "dishonest" with the public when he first claimed to have won the election only hours after polls closed on Nov. 3, 2020, before final results were in.

...

According to Meadows' book, the election was "stolen" and "rigged" with help from "allies in the liberal media," who ignored "actual evidence of fraud, right there in plain sight for anyone to access and analyze."

But, as described to ABC News, Meadows privately told Smith's investigators that -- to this day -- he has yet to see any evidence of fraud that would have kept now-president Joe Biden from the White House, and he told them he agrees with a government assessment at the time that the 2020 presidential election was the most secure election in U.S. history."

 

And, as always, you are lying about Russian Collusion. The FBI does not hold the position that there was no evidence. In fact, the collusion is VERY well documented. You just wave your hands about the fact that Trump's campaign was feeding intelligence and strategy to Russian operatives during the election cycle, while those same operatives coordinated Russia's interference in the US election. Those are facts. Just because in your fanboy lust you've assigned some version of papal infallibility to all Trump actions doesn't make the evidence disappear. Just because you approve of the GRU hack and leak against American politicians doesn't mean it didn't happen. And the FBI documented it thoroughly. Try reading (roughly) pages 50-90 of the Senate Intelligence Committee report. 

It is unfortunate that no matter how many times ^this evidence is posted, it will be completely ignored by the MAGA CULT which posts here. ?

[West]

11 minutes ago, robosmith said:

The subject was DNC SERVER, not Hillary's email server in their BASEMENT. Duh

You must be erroneously thinking of Trump and his classified document storage. LMAO

She's going to testify SHE LIED A LOT. Duh

You have made several predictions that have yet to come to fruition. Duh