Obama Behind "Russia Collusion" Hoax

[gil]

These were bipartisan committees..

according to who?

Me.

No seriously, I think all of these select committees have members from both parties, and the majority party gets to select the Chair and has more members. Just the same as for standing committees. I can't find the membership of the senate committee that issued the report, but here are the current members (i.e., Republicans and Democrats). https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/abo ... e-members/

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

These were bipartisan committees..

according to who?

Me.

No seriously, I think all of these select committees have members from both parties, and the majority party gets to select the Chair and has more members. Just the same as for standing committees. I can't find the membership of the senate committee that issued the report, but here are the current members (i.e., Republicans and Democrats). https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/abo ... e-members/

And do you believe that these 'select committees' were given all the documents by the Biden DOJ, Biden White House, Biden FBI, Etc...?

[gil]

These were bipartisan committees..

according to who?

Me.

No seriously, I think all of these select committees have members from both parties, and the majority party gets to select the Chair and has more members. Just the same as for standing committees. I can't find the membership of the senate committee that issued the report, but here are the current members (i.e., Republicans and Democrats). https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/abo ... e-members/

And do you believe that these 'select committees' were given all the documents by the Biden DOJ, Biden White House, Biden FBI, Etc...?

Since this senate select committee published its report in 2020, those agencies were not taking orders from Biden.

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

You truly have no memory of President Trump fighting with those agencies then?

Let me rephrase.....
The DNC run DOJ
The DNC run FBI
Etc....

[gil]

You truly have no memory of President Trump fighting with those agencies then?

Let me rephrase.....
The DNC run DOJ
The DNC run FBI
Etc....

Bill Barr was the Attorney General. If you think that is "the DNC run DOJ", I think we better stick to discussing something else.

[ddraig]

So, gil, you are still not capable of looking at the new . Both committees were fed what the FBI and CIA wanted them to see. And Durham reported what he found, which was nothing on Trump. That's all the FBI and CIA fed him.

TDS is a terrible thing to suffer, gil. And now the country, no matter which way this turns out, The Dems, Obama, and Hillary, have instigated a true Constitutional crisis worse than Watergate.

ddraig, I don't know why you say I'm not capable of looking at new stuff. But I'd like to know, what is the basis for your statement about the committees being "fed"? These were bipartisan committees, with each senator and representative having a staff including people who do research. Wouldn't people from *at least one party* want to get to the truth? Wouldn't they resist being played?

The Durham report was not about Trump, it was about the origins of the FBI probe. Isn't that true? And is Gabbard presenting any information that was not in Durham's report?

The information they were "given" came from the DOJ with both FBI and CIA supplying the info. Both organizations are/were compromised. And those "bipartisan" committees were installed with hand picked "Republicans with axes to grind while other, more moderate Republicans, were kicked out of the committees. And what of the "evidence" that Adam Schiff had that was going to be shown to us? Easy enough to prove that Trump was guilty of "Russian Collusion," but no one had any evidence! So, no evidence and prejudiced jury.

[gil]

So, gil, you are still not capable of looking at the new . Both committees were fed what the FBI and CIA wanted them to see. And Durham reported what he found, which was nothing on Trump. That's all the FBI and CIA fed him.

TDS is a terrible thing to suffer, gil. And now the country, no matter which way this turns out, The Dems, Obama, and Hillary, have instigated a true Constitutional crisis worse than Watergate.

ddraig, I don't know why you say I'm not capable of looking at new stuff. But I'd like to know, what is the basis for your statement about the committees being "fed"? These were bipartisan committees, with each senator and representative having a staff including people who do research. Wouldn't people from *at least one party* want to get to the truth? Wouldn't they resist being played?

The Durham report was not about Trump, it was about the origins of the FBI probe. Isn't that true? And is Gabbard presenting any information that was not in Durham's report?

The information they were "given" came from the DOJ with both FBI and CIA supplying the info. Both organizations are/were compromised. And those "bipartisan" committees were installed with hand picked "Republicans with axes to grind while other, more moderate Republicans, were kicked out of the committees. And what of the "evidence" that Adam Schiff had that was going to be shown to us? Easy enough to prove that Trump was guilty of "Russian Collusion," but no one had any evidence! So, no evidence and prejudiced jury.

What committee are you referring to? The House January 6 committee? I thought that was pretty bad in a number of ways.

I'm referring to the Senate Select Committee where each party's leadership selects the members, and the majority party (in this case, Republicans) selects the chair. Schiff (I'm not a fan, although that doesn't matter for this conversation) was not a senator at the time, much less a member.

Let's not lose the plot. Gabbard said that Obama had been behind the Russia interferes with elections investigations, right? Does she have something that Durham didn't come up with? (as special counsel, Durham was charged by AG Bill Barr to investigate the origins of the Russia investigation.) Does Gabbard have something that the Republicans on the the Senate and House committees, plus all the staff for all this members, didn't comneup with? I'm genuinely interested in seeing what it is.

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

You truly have no memory of President Trump fighting with those agencies then?

Let me rephrase.....
The DNC run DOJ
The DNC run FBI
Etc....

Bill Barr was the Attorney General. If you think that is "the DNC run DOJ", I think we better stick to discussing something else.

Not necessarily Barr, but the people that have been proven to be working against President Trump.... and even you have to admit that there has been quite a few. Don't you remember the leaks within the Whitehouse from the previous staff (when Trump was getting his staff assembled)?

Please don't have a short memory, because we all knew it happened.

Obama's FBI was spying on the Trump campaign is a proven fact. So, why is it so hard to believe that others within the FBI were working against President Trump?

Then there was the Hunter Biden laptop....all the signatures on the letter that Jo Biden was flaunting around saying that all these intelligents people say it is Russian dissinformation.

Please don't have a short memory, because we all knew it happened.

[gil]

You truly have no memory of President Trump fighting with those agencies then?

Let me rephrase.....
The DNC run DOJ
The DNC run FBI
Etc....

Bill Barr was the Attorney General. If you think that is "the DNC run DOJ", I think we better stick to discussing something else.

Not necessarily Barr, but the people that have been proven to be working against President Trump.... and even you have to admit that there has been quite a few. Don't you remember the leaks within the Whitehouse from the previous staff (when Trump was getting his staff assembled)?

Please don't have a short memory, because we all knew it happened.

Obama's FBI was spying on the Trump campaign is a proven fact. So, why is it so hard to believe that others within the FBI were working against President Trump?

Then there was the Hunter Biden laptop....all the signatures on the letter that Jo Biden was flaunting around saying that all these intelligents people say it is Russian dissinformation.

Please don't have a short memory, because we all knew it happened.

I'm sure I remember much of what you do, although I'm sure we would both say that we have different interpretations of things.

Certainly there were high level people inside Trumps administration who pushed back against him: people like Kelly and Bolton and Rex Tillerson. Were they leakers? I don't know.

My memory is that is wasn't "spying for spying sake", it was because they were looking at contacts that people like Flynn and Manafort had with foreign governments that might be hostile to American interests. If so, I think that is perfectly legitimate.

And I think it's a HUGE leap of logic to go from that legitimate activity to thinking that Obama and his people manufactured everything about Russia.

So at this point, I pretty much accept the conclusions of the January 2017 ICA, the 2018 House Select Committee report, and the 2020 Senate Select Committee report: Russia interfered. I accept what Mueller concluded: Russia interfered. If Gabbard produces something contrary to this, something that nullifies all of those assessments, I will change my mind.

[ddraig]

ddraig, I don't know why you say I'm not capable of looking at new stuff. But I'd like to know, what is the basis for your statement about the committees being "fed"? These were bipartisan committees, with each senator and representative having a staff including people who do research. Wouldn't people from *at least one party* want to get to the truth? Wouldn't they resist being played?

The Durham report was not about Trump, it was about the origins of the FBI probe. Isn't that true? And is Gabbard presenting any information that was not in Durham's report?

The information they were "given" came from the DOJ with both FBI and CIA supplying the info. Both organizations are/were compromised. And those "bipartisan" committees were installed with hand picked "Republicans with axes to grind while other, more moderate Republicans, were kicked out of the committees. And what of the "evidence" that Adam Schiff had that was going to be shown to us? Easy enough to prove that Trump was guilty of "Russian Collusion," but no one had any evidence! So, no evidence and prejudiced jury.

What committee are you referring to? The House January 6 committee? I thought that was pretty bad in a number of ways.

I'm referring to the Senate Select Committee where each party's leadership selects the members, and the majority party (in this case, Republicans) selects the chair. Schiff (I'm not a fan, although that doesn't matter for this conversation) was not a senator at the time, much less a member.

Let's not lose the plot. Gabbard said that Obama had been behind the Russia interferes with elections investigations, right? Does she have something that Durham didn't come up with? (as special counsel, Durham was charged by AG Bill Barr to investigate the origins of the Russia investigation.) Does Gabbard have something that the Republicans on the the Senate and House committees, plus all the staff for all this members, didn't comneup with? I'm genuinely interested in seeing what it is.

Ah, bait and switch! The typical method of denying what you i=originally posted. You were the one to bring up the House and Senate Committees. And now you throw in a third? And just how "bipartisan" were these hearings when the Dems refused the credentials of a number of Republicans on that committee? Oh, and have you seen Adam Schiff's "evidence" of Trump's malfeasance yet? Last I heard, Trump gave Pelosi the means to call in the National Guard. But she never did!