4 ms·

Money is a factor, but not the only factor. Trump also had a gigantic Russian propaganda campaign on his side. And the Russians are good at that kind of operati

Money is a factor, but not the only factor. Trump also had a gigantic Russian propaganda campaign on his side. And the Russians are good at that kind of operation. So Trump also had Russian money on his side, just not in the form of cash.

gjsman-1000 1y ago
[flagged]
- pesus 1y ago
  You should probably take a look at the actual evidence instead.
  - gjsman-1000 1y ago
    The actual evidence is that Obama's own director of national intelligence never saw anything convincing according to sworn testimony in 2017. Period. Edit: Also, what report? The Durham Report, in 2023, was anything but a proof. Wikipedia: "On May 15, 2023, Durham's final 306-page unclassified report was publicly released. Durham said there was inadequate predication to open a full investigation and that only an assessment or preliminary investigation should have been launched. The report concluded the FBI had shown confirmation bias and a 'lack of analytical rigor' toward the information they received, especially information the FBI received from politically affiliated persons and entities. The report extensively discusses 'Clinton Plan intelligence' stolen from Russian intelligence that alleged the Clinton campaign was involved in a plot against Trump, though Durham acknowledged it might be fabricated. Durham recommended that the FBI create 'a position for an FBI agent or lawyer to provide oversight of politically sensitive investigations.'" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durham_special_counsel_investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durham_special_counsel_investi... Even the Associated Press admits: "The findings aren’t flattering for the FBI, with Durham asserting that it rushed into the investigation without an adequate basis and routinely ignored or rationalized evidence that undercut its premise." https://apnews.com/article/durham-report-fbi-trump-clinton-2016-campaign-f3039e651eeb35a09091c363419e6766 https://apnews.com/article/durham-report-fbi-trump-clinton-2... Edit 2: Nonsense, Durham is arguing that while Trump's claims of a "deep state" plot are false, the initial investigation absolutely was badly handled with the FBI committing egregious errors of judgement, regardless of any provable political motivation. Edit 3: Durham, a "trump lackey"? Who was in charge while he was writing this report? Keep in mind he was submitting this report to his boss, Merrick Garland for the Biden DOJ. You can't be serious.
    - pesus 1y ago
      No, the actual evidence would be the investigation and report that says the opposite of what you're claiming. A baseless "this random person said it didn't happen!" claim isn't evidence. Edit: what exactly do you think you just linked in your edit? That's an investigation by a Trump lackey into the origins of the investigations of Russian interference. You just provided proof that the initial investigation was not politically motivated and is credible. You're welcome to analyze the actual reports and evidence instead of clinging to the word of someone appointed by a convicted felon and fraudster in an attempt to prove they didn't cheat.
- myrmidon 1y ago
  For the record: I don't think there was significantly more "election meddling" by the Russians in favor of Trump than what you would typically see, even though he is the preferrable candidate to them by quite a bit. But James Clapper is literally the worst person to quote in your favor, that man is literally on record for lying to congress under oat.
- zimpenfish 1y ago
  December 2017, James Clapper: "[Putin] knows how to handle an asset, and that’s what he’s doing with Trump." February 2019, James Clapper who said he agreed “completely” with Mr. McCabe that Mr. Trump could be a Russian asset.
- andrewl 1y ago
  The Russians can work to swing an election with having to collude with the Trump campaign. They can just to their propaganda without saying anything to anybody.
- tzs 1y ago
  Not a single one of your quotes disagrees with the assertions in the comment to which you were responding. It did not assert that the Trump campaign was working with Russia. It asserted that Russia was using its propaganda apparatus to support Trump.

gjsman-1000 1y ago

[flagged]

pesus 1y ago
You should probably take a look at the actual evidence instead.
- gjsman-1000 1y ago
  The actual evidence is that Obama's own director of national intelligence never saw anything convincing according to sworn testimony in 2017. Period. Edit: Also, what report? The Durham Report, in 2023, was anything but a proof. Wikipedia: "On May 15, 2023, Durham's final 306-page unclassified report was publicly released. Durham said there was inadequate predication to open a full investigation and that only an assessment or preliminary investigation should have been launched. The report concluded the FBI had shown confirmation bias and a 'lack of analytical rigor' toward the information they received, especially information the FBI received from politically affiliated persons and entities. The report extensively discusses 'Clinton Plan intelligence' stolen from Russian intelligence that alleged the Clinton campaign was involved in a plot against Trump, though Durham acknowledged it might be fabricated. Durham recommended that the FBI create 'a position for an FBI agent or lawyer to provide oversight of politically sensitive investigations.'" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durham_special_counsel_investigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durham_special_counsel_investi... Even the Associated Press admits: "The findings aren’t flattering for the FBI, with Durham asserting that it rushed into the investigation without an adequate basis and routinely ignored or rationalized evidence that undercut its premise." https://apnews.com/article/durham-report-fbi-trump-clinton-2016-campaign-f3039e651eeb35a09091c363419e6766 https://apnews.com/article/durham-report-fbi-trump-clinton-2... Edit 2: Nonsense, Durham is arguing that while Trump's claims of a "deep state" plot are false, the initial investigation absolutely was badly handled with the FBI committing egregious errors of judgement, regardless of any provable political motivation. Edit 3: Durham, a "trump lackey"? Who was in charge while he was writing this report? Keep in mind he was submitting this report to his boss, Merrick Garland for the Biden DOJ. You can't be serious.
  - pesus 1y ago
    No, the actual evidence would be the investigation and report that says the opposite of what you're claiming. A baseless "this random person said it didn't happen!" claim isn't evidence. Edit: what exactly do you think you just linked in your edit? That's an investigation by a Trump lackey into the origins of the investigations of Russian interference. You just provided proof that the initial investigation was not politically motivated and is credible. You're welcome to analyze the actual reports and evidence instead of clinging to the word of someone appointed by a convicted felon and fraudster in an attempt to prove they didn't cheat.
myrmidon 1y ago
For the record: I don't think there was significantly more "election meddling" by the Russians in favor of Trump than what you would typically see, even though he is the preferrable candidate to them by quite a bit. But James Clapper is literally the worst person to quote in your favor, that man is literally on record for lying to congress under oat.
zimpenfish 1y ago
December 2017, James Clapper: "[Putin] knows how to handle an asset, and that’s what he’s doing with Trump." February 2019, James Clapper who said he agreed “completely” with Mr. McCabe that Mr. Trump could be a Russian asset.
andrewl 1y ago
The Russians can work to swing an election with having to collude with the Trump campaign. They can just to their propaganda without saying anything to anybody.
tzs 1y ago
Not a single one of your quotes disagrees with the assertions in the comment to which you were responding. It did not assert that the Trump campaign was working with Russia. It asserted that Russia was using its propaganda apparatus to support Trump.