4 ms·

Yeah, this article hasn't aged well. It looks like a CIA briefing of a friendly journalist in advance of the Tulsi Gabbard releasing the evidence that the CIA c

Yeah, this article hasn't aged well. It looks like a CIA briefing of a friendly journalist in advance of the Tulsi Gabbard releasing the evidence that the CIA colluded with Obama to lie about Trump/Russia collusion: https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/press-releases-2025/4086-pr-15-25 https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/press-...

LatteLazy 1y ago
The press release seems to conflat cyber attacks (of which there were none) with election influence (I think interference would be another phrase for the same thing?). But those are different no? "Russia tried to get people to vote for candidate X" can be true even when "Russia tried to stop people voting by breaking machines" isn't.
- gadders 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - Applejinx 1y ago
    Nonsense, he literally did that on TV and his current scrambling is to obscure that he is, not an Epstein client, but a collaborator.
    - gadders 1y ago
      If the Epstein files damage Trump, why didn't the Democrats release them?
      - Aloisius 1y ago
        I'm confused, why would they? Administrations, as a rule, don't release recent criminal evidence to the public, let alone to harm a Presidential candidate and past President. Hell, for the Justice Department, it's official policy never to comment on an ongoing investigation or do anything that may be viewed as influencing an election (a rule that Comey broke). Never mind that the evidence would be distrusted and attacked for being politically motivated, but it would also invite retribution every time the party in the White House changed. It would create intense political divisiveness making it impossible to get support of a majority of the population - severely limiting what one can accomplish as President. Trump doesn't seem to care about that at all, but he's not normal.
        gadders 1y ago
        Serious question - have you been in a coma for the last 8 years or so?
        Aloisius 1y ago
        Can you give an example of a President publicly releasing criminal evidence against a rival candidate in order to influence a Presidential election? The closest I can think of is perhaps the Mueller report, but that happened under Trump and was ordered by Obama after the election specifically to avoid influencing it. Trump is the only modern President I can think of that has even publicly accused an election rival of a crime from the White House, but again, his disregard for norms of the office and laws such as the Hatch Act is abnormal.
        gadders 1y ago
        They never released the "evidence" before the election because everyone expected Hillary to win. It was done post-election to undermine his presidency. I think trying to prosecute Trump to keep him off the ballot was a worse disregard of norms.
      - Applejinx 1y ago
        Democrats are also in them, most likely Clinton. Trump, however, is not simply a client, so the whole thing is such an apocalyptic mess that NOBODY wants to deal with it. And so, nobody ever did. Also, it would be dangerous to pry into.
  - naabb 1y ago
    So you believe a known liar but it's impossible for you to believe that trump has ties to russia? the guy who has invested in russian real estate? the guy who went to russia many many times before he even became president? it's hard for you to believe that the guy who did all those things and asked Russia on live TV for dig up dirt on Hillary is colluding with russia? The cult is strong it seems.
    - nobunaga 1y ago
      Its strongly retarded
    - gadders 1y ago
      Who is the known liar? And honestly if you think a one line joke in an interview is "Russian Collusion" you have your own cult issues to deal with.
    - marcusverus 1y ago
      Believing that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is cult thinking. Believing that bullshitters who do business in Russia are presumptive Russian agents, on the other hand, is Very Serious Thinking. > [he] asked Russia on live TV for dig up dirt on Hillary... Sure, it could have been a stupid, self-defeating joke from the guy whose career is littered with stupid, self-defeating jokes. But it could also have been... a Russian agent phoning home on live television?
mpalmer 1y ago
This is an extremely credulous take. Even reading the press release it's obvious Gabbard (a massive defender of Putin's Russia) is conflating two entirely different things, namely hacking election infrastructure vs the massive political influence/misinformation campaigns. You might also recall a Senate Republican-led effort that determined that Russia did attempt to influence us elections in favor of Trump, unless you are avoiding facts that don't confirm your priors.
- gadders 1y ago
  >>You might also recall a Senate Republican-led effort that determined that Russia did attempt to influence us elections in favor of Trump, unless you are avoiding facts that don't confirm your priors. At Trump's request though? That was the lie from Obama.
  - Aloisius 1y ago
    Source? Obama didn't actually talk about Russian election interference until after the 2016 election due to a fear it would appear partisan. In interviews afterward, he avoided suggesting Trump or his campaign coordinated with Russia at all. I can't find anything about Obama accusing Trump of asking Russia to interfere. It would be so out of character that it is hard to believe.
  - lazide 1y ago
    Trump literally asked Russia to do it on national TV. I watched it. The problem was that Obama didn’t do anything about it, include calling it out at the time.
    - gadders 1y ago
      You think that one-liner on TV was the whole of the Russia/Trump collusion scandal?
      - lazide 1y ago
        Anyone claiming ‘that never happened’ while missing the obvious direct statement from Trump himself is a delusional idiot, not counting everything else going on. The rest of the evidence makes it even more damning.

LatteLazy 1y ago

The press release seems to conflat cyber attacks (of which there were none) with election influence (I think interference would be another phrase for the same thing?). But those are different no? "Russia tried to get people to vote for candidate X" can be true even when "Russia tried to stop people voting by breaking machines" isn't.

gadders 1y ago
[flagged]
- Applejinx 1y ago
  Nonsense, he literally did that on TV and his current scrambling is to obscure that he is, not an Epstein client, but a collaborator.
  - gadders 1y ago
    If the Epstein files damage Trump, why didn't the Democrats release them?
    - Aloisius 1y ago
      I'm confused, why would they? Administrations, as a rule, don't release recent criminal evidence to the public, let alone to harm a Presidential candidate and past President. Hell, for the Justice Department, it's official policy never to comment on an ongoing investigation or do anything that may be viewed as influencing an election (a rule that Comey broke). Never mind that the evidence would be distrusted and attacked for being politically motivated, but it would also invite retribution every time the party in the White House changed. It would create intense political divisiveness making it impossible to get support of a majority of the population - severely limiting what one can accomplish as President. Trump doesn't seem to care about that at all, but he's not normal.
      - gadders 1y ago
        Serious question - have you been in a coma for the last 8 years or so?
        Aloisius 1y ago
        Can you give an example of a President publicly releasing criminal evidence against a rival candidate in order to influence a Presidential election? The closest I can think of is perhaps the Mueller report, but that happened under Trump and was ordered by Obama after the election specifically to avoid influencing it. Trump is the only modern President I can think of that has even publicly accused an election rival of a crime from the White House, but again, his disregard for norms of the office and laws such as the Hatch Act is abnormal.
        gadders 1y ago
        They never released the "evidence" before the election because everyone expected Hillary to win. It was done post-election to undermine his presidency. I think trying to prosecute Trump to keep him off the ballot was a worse disregard of norms.
    - Applejinx 1y ago
      Democrats are also in them, most likely Clinton. Trump, however, is not simply a client, so the whole thing is such an apocalyptic mess that NOBODY wants to deal with it. And so, nobody ever did. Also, it would be dangerous to pry into.
- naabb 1y ago
  So you believe a known liar but it's impossible for you to believe that trump has ties to russia? the guy who has invested in russian real estate? the guy who went to russia many many times before he even became president? it's hard for you to believe that the guy who did all those things and asked Russia on live TV for dig up dirt on Hillary is colluding with russia? The cult is strong it seems.
  - nobunaga 1y ago
    Its strongly retarded
  - gadders 1y ago
    Who is the known liar? And honestly if you think a one line joke in an interview is "Russian Collusion" you have your own cult issues to deal with.
  - marcusverus 1y ago
    Believing that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is cult thinking. Believing that bullshitters who do business in Russia are presumptive Russian agents, on the other hand, is Very Serious Thinking. > [he] asked Russia on live TV for dig up dirt on Hillary... Sure, it could have been a stupid, self-defeating joke from the guy whose career is littered with stupid, self-defeating jokes. But it could also have been... a Russian agent phoning home on live television?

mpalmer 1y ago

This is an extremely credulous take. Even reading the press release it's obvious Gabbard (a massive defender of Putin's Russia) is conflating two entirely different things, namely hacking election infrastructure vs the massive political influence/misinformation campaigns. You might also recall a Senate Republican-led effort that determined that Russia did attempt to influence us elections in favor of Trump, unless you are avoiding facts that don't confirm your priors.

gadders 1y ago
>>You might also recall a Senate Republican-led effort that determined that Russia did attempt to influence us elections in favor of Trump, unless you are avoiding facts that don't confirm your priors. At Trump's request though? That was the lie from Obama.
- Aloisius 1y ago
  Source? Obama didn't actually talk about Russian election interference until after the 2016 election due to a fear it would appear partisan. In interviews afterward, he avoided suggesting Trump or his campaign coordinated with Russia at all. I can't find anything about Obama accusing Trump of asking Russia to interfere. It would be so out of character that it is hard to believe.
- lazide 1y ago
  Trump literally asked Russia to do it on national TV. I watched it. The problem was that Obama didn’t do anything about it, include calling it out at the time.
  - gadders 1y ago
    You think that one-liner on TV was the whole of the Russia/Trump collusion scandal?
    - lazide 1y ago
      Anyone claiming ‘that never happened’ while missing the obvious direct statement from Trump himself is a delusional idiot, not counting everything else going on. The rest of the evidence makes it even more damning.