Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 91

Thread: Senate GOP blocks three election security bills

  1. #61
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    15,973
    Amen (Given)
    1956
    Amen (Received)
    1607
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    Nope, so why are the Democrats so against voter registration ID laws?
    They're not, all voters have to register, but they are against corrupt republican legislators illegally throwing people of the registration rolls, moving polling places without notification, forcing college students to return to their home states in order to vote, throwing out ballots because the signature looks slightly different than the one on the register etc etc. That's how republicans win, and we know you're okay with that. We'd most likely have a democrat governor in Georgia right now if not for the current Governors election shananigans.

  2. #62
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    15,973
    Amen (Given)
    1956
    Amen (Received)
    1607
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post


    What are you talking about? First of all, there was nothing illegal about the phone call. This can be verified simply by reading the transcript. Even Vindman in his testimony to the House refused to be pinned down on declaring the phone call improper, saying that he only believed it to be improper (in other words, he was doing nothing more than expressing his opinion rather than declaring an objective fact).
    Yes, it was illegal, it was bribery/extortion by way of soliciting foreign help in smearing a political opponent which is itself an abuse of power.
    Furthermore, Vindman didn't blow the whistle; rather, he improperly leaked privileged details of the phone call (along with his own embellishments) to CIA stooge Eric Ciarmella who was the one who eventually wrote the whistle blower complaint in coordination with Shifty Schiff.
    Doesn't matter, as I've already explained to you, Vindman, according to the military whistleblower law, is protected by it whether he was the one who actually reported the crime to the IG or not. As for Ciarmella, whether he is the one who blew the whistle is an educated guess, there is no confirmation as to the actual identity of the whistleblower. But, who the actual whistleblower is, is irrelevant anyway.

    Btw, don't just make stuff up, MM. You have no knowledge that Schiff had anything to do with the writing of the complaint.

    And this after the IG changed the rules to allow unverified hearsay as a whistle blower complaint.
    It's always unverified hearsay until it's investigated.
    Seriously, man, find some better sources, because your grasp of the facts is tenuous at best.
    Seriously man, try using your own brain once in a while rather than spouting conservative talkingpointsfordummies.

  3. #63
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    20,062
    Amen (Given)
    6105
    Amen (Received)
    7476
    Quote Originally Posted by JimLamebrain View Post
    Yes, it was illegal, it was bribery/extortion by way of soliciting foreign help in smearing a political opponent which is itself an abuse of power.

    Doesn't matter, as I've already explained to you, Vindman, according to the military whistleblower law, is protected by it whether he was the one who actually reported the crime to the IG or not. As for Ciarmella, whether he is the one who blew the whistle is an educated guess, there is no confirmation as to the actual identity of the whistleblower. But, who the actual whistleblower is, is irrelevant anyway.

    Btw, don't just make stuff up, MM. You have no knowledge that Schiff had anything to do with the writing of the complaint.


    It's always unverified hearsay until it's investigated.

    Seriously man, try using your own brain once in a while rather than spouting conservative talkingpointsfordummies.
    If you're going to try and insult someone, at least try to be original.

    It wasn't illegal. Again, read the transcript. Nothing illegal in it, and not even Vindman the Traitor could bring himself to say that it was actually improper.

    Yes, we know for a fact that Schiff had contact with Ciaramella. He admitted it, remember?

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sch...-whistleblower

    A firsthand account is not hearsay, you dope, which was the standard for whistle blowers until the form was changed to allow secondhand rumors.

    Face it, Jimmy, you're ignorant, and whatever sources you trust are misinforming you, possibly intentionally.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  4. #64
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    15,973
    Amen (Given)
    1956
    Amen (Received)
    1607
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    If you're going to try and insult someone, at least try to be original.

    It wasn't illegal. Again, read the transcript. Nothing illegal in it, and not even Vindman the Traitor could bring himself to say that it was actually improper.
    Duh, yes it was illegal and the corroborating evidence was proof of it's illegality. He, by use of the withholding of military aid, violating the Impoundment act, failing to inform Congress, was extorting a foreign government to smear a political opponent. Even many of the republican jurist in the Senate finally had to admit to that.
    Yes, we know for a fact that Schiff had contact with Ciaramella. He admitted it, remember?

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sch...-whistleblower
    No he didn't admit to that, he admitted that the whistleblower met with his staff. You're false assertion was that Schiff coordinated with the whistleblower in the writing of the complaint.
    A firsthand account is not hearsay, you dope, which was the standard for whistle blowers until the form was changed to allow secondhand rumors.
    Doesn't matter, MM. What you call hearsay turned out to be fact. As M. Mulvaney would say, get over it.
    Face it, Jimmy, you're ignorant, and whatever sources you trust are misinforming you, possibly intentionally.
    You've got Breitbart on the brain, MM. You should get treatment for that, but I'm afraid in your case it's probably malignant.

  5. #65
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,985
    Amen (Given)
    2592
    Amen (Received)
    1888
    Quote Originally Posted by seanD View Post
    Because the election process we have now is fine. There are no Russian boogiemen influencing US voters on a mass scale;
    Not so. The Mueller Report found that the Russian government "interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion" and "violated U.S. criminal law". The report relayed two methods by which Russia attempted to influence the election. And the Intelligence agencies have been warning of similar interference regarding the upcoming presidential election. Although, it's obviously in the interests of Trump and his supporters to allow this to occur - if not in the interests of the country nor the free world.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  6. #66
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,711
    Amen (Given)
    275
    Amen (Received)
    1094
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    Not so. The Mueller Report found that the Russian government "interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion" and "violated U.S. criminal law". The report relayed two methods by which Russia attempted to influence the election. And the Intelligence agencies have been warning of similar interference regarding the upcoming presidential election. Although, it's obviously in the interests of Trump and his supporters to allow this to occur - if not in the interests of the country nor the free world.
    There is no evidence any votes were influenced by Russia. Zero. And the "attempts" described are laughable. However, if I were a liberal progressive, I'd legitimately be concerned about DNC corruption and election meddling in their own primaries, from indications both in 2016 with Bernie Sanders to the current, especially with what recently went down in Iowa. If not corruption and tampering -- which is difficult not to assume -- just gross negligence.
    "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

  7. #67
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,985
    Amen (Given)
    2592
    Amen (Received)
    1888
    Quote Originally Posted by seanD View Post
    There is no evidence any votes were influenced by Russia. Zero.
    Well we can never know whether or not any votes were influenced by Russia. It’s probable that they were given that Russia made a considerable effort to meddle in the election. And the evidence is that Russia continues to do so. Russia would not be engaged in such activity if it did not believe it was effective.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  8. #68
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,711
    Amen (Given)
    275
    Amen (Received)
    1094
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    Well we can never know whether or not any votes were influenced by Russia. It’s probable that they were given that Russia made a considerable effort to meddle in the election. And the evidence is that Russia continues to do so. Russia would not be engaged in such activity if it did not believe it was effective.
    Or it could just be trolling foreign actors doing it to screw with us, knowing how hyper paranoid we'll get (observing how paranoid we got after 911) and how divisive and politically disruptive it would be, just like it is today. Or it could be the intelligence communities exaggerating it because they need a new national boogieman to justify their sickening overblown budgets (Bush era Jihadi terrorism fearmongering kind of went out of style when we discovered we were actually funding and supporting these groups in Libya and Syria). Or it could be a combo of both
    "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

  9. #69
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,985
    Amen (Given)
    2592
    Amen (Received)
    1888
    Quote Originally Posted by seanD View Post
    Or it could just be trolling foreign actors doing it to screw with us, knowing how hyper paranoid we'll get (observing how paranoid we got after 911) and how divisive and politically disruptive it would be, just like it is today. Or it could be the intelligence communities exaggerating it because they need a new national boogieman to justify their sickening overblown budgets (Bush era Jihadi terrorism fearmongering kind of went out of style when we discovered we were actually funding and supporting these groups in Libya and Syria). Or it could be a combo of both
    Or, most likely, Mueller's Report finding that the Russian government "interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion" favoring Trump against Hillary had an unknown degree of influence on the 2016 election results. But sufficient to encourage Russia to do it again in the forthcoming 2020 presidential election as is detected by US Intel. Agencies.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  10. #70
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    20,062
    Amen (Given)
    6105
    Amen (Received)
    7476
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassmoron View Post
    Or, most likely, Mueller's Report finding that the Russian government "interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion" favoring Trump against Hillary had an unknown degree of influence on the 2016 election results. But sufficient to encourage Russia to do it again in the forthcoming 2020 presidential election as is detected by US Intel. Agencies.
    In fact, the Mueller report's case for Russian attempts to influence the election is shockingly weak and contradictory.

    But a close examination of the report shows that none of those headline assertions are supported by the report’s evidence or other publicly available sources. They are further undercut by investigative shortcomings and the conflicts of interest of key players involved:

    * The report uses qualified and vague language to describe key events, indicating that Mueller and his investigators do not actually know for certain whether Russian intelligence officers stole Democratic Party emails, or how those emails were transferred to WikiLeaks.
    * The report's timeline of events appears to defy logic. According to its narrative, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced the publication of Democratic Party emails not only before he received the documents but before he even communicated with the source that provided them.
    * There is strong reason to doubt Mueller’s suggestion that an alleged Russian cutout called Guccifer 2.0 supplied the stolen emails to Assange.
    * Mueller’s decision not to interview Assange – a central figure who claims Russia was not behind the hack – suggests an unwillingness to explore avenues of evidence on fundamental questions.
    * U.S. intelligence officials cannot make definitive conclusions about the hacking of the Democratic National Committee computer servers because they did not analyze those servers themselves. Instead, they relied on the forensics of CrowdStrike, a private contractor for the DNC that was not a neutral party, much as “Russian dossier” compiler Christopher Steele, also a DNC contractor, was not a neutral party. This puts two Democrat-hired contractors squarely behind underlying allegations in the affair – a key circumstance that Mueller ignores.
    * Further, the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party's legal counsel to submit redacted records, meaning CrowdStrike and not the government decided what could be revealed or not regarding evidence of hacking.
    * Mueller’s report conspicuously does not allege that the Russian government carried out the social media campaign. Instead it blames, as Mueller said in his closing remarks, "a private Russian entity" known as the Internet Research Agency (IRA).
    * Mueller also falls far short of proving that the Russian social campaign was sophisticated, or even more than minimally related to the 2016 election. As with the collusion and Russian hacking allegations, Democratic officials had a central and overlooked hand in generating the alarm about Russian social media activity.
    * John Brennan, then director of the CIA, played a seminal and overlooked role in all facets of what became Mueller’s investigation: the suspicions that triggered the initial collusion probe; the allegations of Russian interference; and the intelligence assessment that purported to validate the interference allegations that Brennan himself helped generate. Yet Brennan has since revealed himself to be, like CrowdStrike and Steele, hardly a neutral party -- in fact a partisan with a deep animus toward Trump.

    None of this means that the Mueller report's core finding of "sweeping and systematic" Russian government election interference is necessarily false. But his report does not present sufficient evidence to substantiate it.

    https://www.realclearinvestigations....ng_claims.html

    Which is to say that if you were asked to prove Russian interference, and your evidence was the Mueller report, then you would have an uphill battle on very steep slope. 2-years and $30 million dollars for Mueller to basically shrug his shoulders and say, "We really don't know."
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •