The Russia Hoax - Not
PVW said:
But if Russia really did hack the DNC, which you say is possible, then isn't "Russiagate" true? And if it is true, then how is hiring Sussman and Crowdstrike "Russiagate" at all? What would have been the correct response to the hacking that you would have approved of?
Almost all of Russiagate has been found to be false. One piece, the DNC hack, has a remote possibility of being true. Sworn testimony from the group that handled the hack states they can't be sure they did it and there are plausible alternative theories and experts who question the source of the email hack as Russian.
Given that small level of possibility, there should not have been a Russiagate scandal, never mind clogging the airways for 3+ years and calling people who questioning this scam as conspiracy theorists.
The real conspiracy theorists are the people who fell for this nonsense.
nan said:
Almost all of Russiagate has been found to be false. One piece, the DNC hack, has a remote possibility of being true. Sworn testimony from the group that handled the hack states they can't be sure they did it and there are plausible alternative theories and experts who question the source of the email hack as Russian.
Given that small level of possibility, there should not have been a Russiagate scandal, never mind clogging the airways for 3+ years and calling people who questioning this scam as conspiracy theorists.
The real conspiracy theorists are the people who fell for this nonsense.
"Russia hacked the DNC" is the central claim. If that's true, then what, exactly, is Russiagate? And if you admit this can be true, then how can you turn around and call it a scandal? It seems that either it's true and there's no "Russiagate" or it's not true and there is a Russiagate -- what's the third option, the one you say is possible, where it's both true AND it's "Russiagate"?
PVW said:
"Russia hacked the DNC" is the central claim. If that's true, then what, exactly, is Russiagate? And if you admit this can be true, then how can you turn around and call it a scandal? It seems that either it's true and there's no "Russiagate" or it's not true and there is a Russiagate -- what's the third option, the one you say is possible, where it's both true AND it's "Russiagate"?
”Russiagate” is the “Schrödinger's cat” of political topics.
nohero said:
PVW said:
"Russia hacked the DNC" is the central claim. If that's true, then what, exactly, is Russiagate? And if you admit this can be true, then how can you turn around and call it a scandal? It seems that either it's true and there's no "Russiagate" or it's not true and there is a Russiagate -- what's the third option, the one you say is possible, where it's both true AND it's "Russiagate"?
”Russiagate” is the “Schrödinger's cat” of political topics.
very good
nan said:
PVW said:
But if Russia really did hack the DNC, which you say is possible, then isn't "Russiagate" true? And if it is true, then how is hiring Sussman and Crowdstrike "Russiagate" at all? What would have been the correct response to the hacking that you would have approved of?
Almost all of Russiagate has been found to be false. One piece, the DNC hack, has a remote possibility of being true. Sworn testimony from the group that handled the hack states they can't be sure they did it and there are plausible alternative theories and experts who question the source of the email hack as Russian.
Given that small level of possibility, there should not have been a Russiagate scandal, never mind clogging the airways for 3+ years and calling people who questioning this scam as conspiracy theorists.
The real conspiracy theorists are the people who fell for this nonsense.
So you completely discount all of the findings of Muller and the Senate Intelligence Committee?
PVW said:
"Russia hacked the DNC" is the central claim. If that's true, then what, exactly, is Russiagate? And if you admit this can be true, then how can you turn around and call it a scandal? It seems that either it's true and there's no "Russiagate" or it's not true and there is a Russiagate -- what's the third option, the one you say is possible, where it's both true AND it's "Russiagate"?
Russiagate is the myth that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump and also that Trump and Putin had some kind of secret relationship ("collluded"). Even if the DNC hack were proved to be true (highly unlikely), it would not have justified the monster that Russigate became. As a sandalone it does not have the power generated by being listed along side the Steele Dossier and other allegations. Russiagate was a cottage industry with books,documentaries and nightly headlines. Rachel Maddow became a sensation with her nightly bombshells. I just searched for the term "Russiagate" on MOL and it returned with 61 pages, which is just a fraction of the posts on the topic but not using the term. For Democrats it was considered a solid fact and I lost respect from old friends because I said there was no evidence. Even now, most people think it's true. They can't wrap their heads around the fact that it's the people who believed Russiagate who were the real conspiracy theorists.
Russiagate is dead, but the dangerous fallout continues to affect us. The US is still trying to extradite Julian Assange to the US where he will probably die in prison for the crime of telling the truth about war (not Russiagate, but Russiagate is why many don't support him). Russiagate has caused many Americans to have a negative view of Russia and to easily believe the obvious lies about the start of the Ukraine war. Having many in the population hate Russia makes it easy for the NATO/Atalantic Council influenced media to manipulate people's thinking on this war and to approve of sending huge amounts of money there and to increase the military budget while we have so much need at home.
The whole Russia investigation for me focused on his business dealings more then anything else and his failure to release his tax documents.
He claimed the talk of Trump Moscow was done way before it was actually done. Here's a good rundown on Trump in Russia:
Then there was Eric claiming that a good chunk of their money is coming from Russia.
Then there was Russian oligarch Rybolovlev who paid T**** $95 million for a property that was probably worth half that.
And yet nan and company brush all of these coincidences aside and tells us we hate Russia. Whereas we don't want our grifter in chief compromised by his business dealings.
Nan is responsible for genocidegate and nazigate on here.
And for the 61 pages of Russiagate comments - 16 pages were from nan's comments alone! Talk about obsession!
jamie said:
The whole Russia investigation for me focused on his business dealings more then anything else and his failure to release his tax documents.
He claimed the talk of Trump Moscow was done way before it was actually done. Here's a good rundown on Trump in Russia:
Then there was Eric claiming that a good chunk of their money is coming from Russia.
Then there was Russian oligarch Rybolovlev who paid T**** $95 million for a property that was probably worth half that.
And yet nan and company brush all of these coincidences aside and tells us we hate Russia. Whereas we don't want our grifter in chief compromised by his business dealings.
Nan is responsible for genocidegate and nazigate on here.
And for the 61 pages of Russiagate comments - 16 pages were from nan's comments alone! Talk about obsession!
It's an illness.
jamie said:
The whole Russia investigation for me focused on his business dealings more then anything else and his failure to release his tax documents.
He claimed the talk of Trump Moscow was done way before it was actually done. Here's a good rundown on Trump in Russia:
Then there was Eric claiming that a good chunk of their money is coming from Russia.
Then there was Russian oligarch Rybolovlev who paid T**** $95 million for a property that was probably worth half that.
And yet nan and company brush all of these coincidences aside and tells us we hate Russia. Whereas we don't want our grifter in chief compromised by his business dealings.
Nan is responsible for genocidegate and nazigate on here.
And for the 61 pages of Russiagate comments - 16 pages were from nan's comments alone! Talk about obsession!
Maybe if you had read those 16 pages you would be more informed today.
I remember being told that known liar Robert Muller was going to be the great savior and get Trump. So where is the evidence to prove all those allegations you list? Those are very old stories. Eric Trump made that comment in 2008. What happened with the investigation? The walls never closed in? By now we should be past the beginning of the end.
Here is what Wikipedia (not a good source but usually anti-Trump) said about the Rybolovlev purchase:
In 2008, Ekaterina Rybolovleva's trust bought the 18-bedroom Maison de L'Amitie in Palm Beach, Florida, from the American businessman Donald Trump.[126][130] Amidst concerns during his campaign about rubbing shoulders with Russian officials, Trump has claimed that the sale of Maison de L'Amitié, which he purchased for $40 million in 2004 and sold to Rybolovlev for $95 million, is the only dealing he has done with a Russian.
Rybolovlev does not seem to spend much time in Russia and seems to live in Monaco now so I'm not sure how close he is to Putin.
drummerboy said:
So you completely discount all of the findings of Muller and the Senate Intelligence Committee?
What did they find? From what I could tell - nada.
jamie said:
The whole Russia investigation for me focused on his business dealings more then anything else and his failure to release his tax documents.
He claimed the talk of Trump Moscow was done way before it was actually done. Here's a good rundown on Trump in Russia:
Then there was Eric claiming that a good chunk of their money is coming from Russia.
Then there was Russian oligarch Rybolovlev who paid T**** $95 million for a property that was probably worth half that.
And yet nan and company brush all of these coincidences aside and tells us we hate Russia. Whereas we don't want our grifter in chief compromised by his business dealings.
Nan is responsible for genocidegate and nazigate on here.
And for the 61 pages of Russiagate comments - 16 pages were from nan's comments alone! Talk about obsession!
There should be a volume limit on everyone...140 characters may be a little severe, but...
nan said:
drummerboy said:
So you completely discount all of the findings of Muller and the Senate Intelligence Committee?
What did they find? From what I could tell - nada.
Well yeah - if you're looking for the great COLLUSION between Trump and Putin strawman , yeah, I guess nada is accurate. If you're looking for what the investigators were actually looking into, you might find something.
I posted this earlier in the thread
https://www.persuasion.community/p/the-real-hoax?s=r
And rather than respond to the evidence presented, you simply wrote off the whole thing because the author works for Brookings.
Why don't you try reading it while pretending that the author is Aaron Mate. You might learn something.
nan said:
Russiagate is the myth that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump and also that Trump and Putin had some kind of secret relationship ("collluded"). Even if the DNC hack were proved to be true (highly unlikely), it would not have justified the monster that Russigate became. As a sandalone it does not have the power generated by being listed along side the Steele Dossier and other allegations. Russiagate was a cottage industry with books,documentaries and nightly headlines. Rachel Maddow became a sensation with her nightly bombshells.
Ah, well there's a difference. "Russiagate" to me was two stories:
1. Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election
2. The question of the degree to which the Trump team was collaborating with this interference
What Maddow was talking about on her show, what books and films were published, etc isn't an interest of mine -- much of our media environment is noise and I think being a critical consumer means trying to tune that noise out as much as possible.
So clearly the question of whether or not Russia interfered is material to point 1. Regardless of what effect it had on the election, the direct attempt to manipulate a US presidential by a foreign government is a big deal.
As for the second point, the question of whether or not Russia interfered is less important than the fact that Trump clearly believed they did, welcomed the interference, and directly asked for further interference. For many people, myself among them, the scariest aspect of Trump was authoritarian tendencies -- his calls to lock up his political opponents, to "open up the libel laws," etc. So seeing him take alleged Russian interference as a positive was alarming not just on its own, but for what it suggested we could expect for his presidency. And indeed, as the violent chaotic ending of his term proved, we were right to fear his disregard for foundational democratic values and embrace of authoritarianism.
If "Russiagate" for you was more about the media environment than these two questions, then we've largely been talking past each other.
drummerboy said:
Well yeah - if you're looking for the great COLLUSION between Trump and Putin strawman , yeah, I guess nada is accurate. If you're looking for what the investigators were actually looking into, you might find something.
I posted this earlier in the thread
https://www.persuasion.community/p/the-real-hoax?s=r
And rather than respond to the evidence presented, you simply wrote off the whole thing because the author works for Brookings.
Why don't you try reading it while pretending that the author is Aaron Mate. You might learn something.
Well the Clintons have a lot of influence at Brookings so I am skeptical. I thought I already read that piece and was critical. I will read again and respond. There is no way I can pretend Aaron Mate wrote a piece from Brookings. Just perish the thought. But I will do my due diligence (after dinner and after I draw a skeleton of a lion and watch another boring video on perspective and talk to my boyfriend--it might not be until tomorrow). Hopefully Dennis won't get Jamie to limit me to 144 characters. I seem to be in the doghouse with those two. Ok, off to cook Polish sausage and make salad.
drummerboy said:
Well yeah - if you're looking for the great COLLUSION between Trump and Putin strawman , yeah, I guess nada is accurate. If you're looking for what the investigators were actually looking into, you might find something.
I posted this earlier in the thread
https://www.persuasion.community/p/the-real-hoax?s=r
And rather than respond to the evidence presented, you simply wrote off the whole thing because the author works for Brookings.
Why don't you try reading it while pretending that the author is Aaron Mate. You might learn something.
Ok, here it is. It was getting too long and I'm falling asleep so I stopped. It's a rough draft but I don't have time to polish it--think of it as notes or thoughts. We can discuss tomorrow or now but I will be typing while asleep which I have done before.
=========================
Ok, here is my book report on this guy, Jonathan Rauch (I kept writing his name as Roach) and his piece: “The Real Hoax.”
First, as I said, the Brookings Insittute is super pro-Hillary. That’s where they got the guy who wrote the Steele dossier with his drunk buddies. He is now under indictment and the trial is sometime in the Fall. Mark your MOL calendars now for what is sure to be an amazing thread.
Anyway, I see that back in 2016 Jonathon Rauch wrote an opinion piece for the New York Time, called “Why Clinton Needs to be Two-Faced.” So right from the get-go we know we are on Hillary R. Clinton Support Team.
But, I will go on. The piece is called:
The Real Hoax
The subheading says:
There is ample evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. Here’s how he convinced people otherwise.
So, right from the start the guy is wants you to think that Trump colluded with Russia, but he tricked people into thinking he didn't. Let’s see if I get fooled. So let’s see if Rauch proves his thesis. On to the first paragraph.
Paragraph 1 - quote from George Orwell and attack on DJT’s character. Typical Dem stuff.
Paragraph 2 - Mentions the current “election fraud topic” which, as I found out on MOL, is a hot button issue for liberal Democrats. I’ve moved on to the war in Ukraine and our impending economic collapse. But, he knows his NYT’s audience and they are going to be with him on this one - I’m surprised he did not mention 01/06/21.
THEN, Rauch announces that Trump has won the Russia narrative! Really, Jonathan? You mean the one your friend Hillary cooked up with her lawyer? No, Jonathan works from the premise that there actually is a Russian narrative with real Russians. Of course. This is the Brookings Institute. The last sentence of the paragraph says one of the few truths in this piece, but it presents it with irony. Speaking of Trump and his supporters, Rouch says, “They have convinced millions of people, including many in non-MAGA circles, that Trump and his campaign did not collude with the Russians in the 2016 presidential campaign; that in fact, if anyone colluded, it was Christopher Steele, the Hillary Clinton campaign, and the FBI—against Trump.
Well, count me in as one of those millions and give me their addresses and phone numbers because I need some new friends. These described people are not as easy to find as Rauch seems to think.
Going on to Paragraph 3: He sets up the negative to prove the positive (or some literary device like that). He confesses everything he has to because it’s public (are you listening Dennis?): Hillary paid for the Steele Dossier to be written and distributed. Rouch phrases it as “People in Hillary’s orbit commissioned . .” like it was a pet portrait instead of a fake treason charge.
NOTE: Carter Page indictment: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/FISA%20Warrant%20Application%20for%20Carter%20Page.pdf
Paragraph 4: Here he says it’s all OK to have a fake Steele dossier because the FBI (the people who were complicit in paragraphs 1-3) found lots of old stuff in the attic about Trump and it’s not political, well maybe a little tiny bit but you won’t notice. . No details are provided here as to what kind of material they are referring to. Very vague.
Paragraph 5: Rouch asks “Was the dossier dodgy?” and admits it was. What he does not admit was that it was a total fake written by some drunk Americanized Russian guy at the Brookings Institute – where he works! Makes me wonder if he already knew–probably. He probably helped write it! But, here he gets hyper-righteous–it was improperly distributed and he was against that (yeah, sure).
Paragraph 6: Here he makes out Clinton and Steele to be noble people for reporting their fake manuscript to the FBI for investigation against Trump. He says that a “foreign hostile power was interfering in our election.” Yeah, no. This guy makes me feel more confident in my view that the Russians did NOT hack the DNC. I now think the Brookings Institute guys did it while still drunk after writing the Steele Dossier. Oh, and he admonishes the Trump campaign for not turning themselves in, based on what, I’m not sure.
Paragraph 7: He mentions the guy who is indicted for writing the Steele dossier and evidently he no longer works at Brookings so maybe Rauch was not one of the drunk friends who helped. Score one for Rauch. They say the indictment is for crimes against the FBI so I will have to read that and get up to speed. Like the Sussman trial, it may be a different charge than one would expect.
Paragraph 8: If you had any doubt this guy is on Team Clinton, this paragraph would confirm that immediately. He makes the outlandish statement that the fallout from the Steele dossier only benefits Trump. Left out is the truth that they were created to benefit Hillary. But, how do they benefit Trump? Good question. Rouch informs us that they allowed Trump to use the media attention on his alleged peeing on prostitutes to hide the really real bad stuff he did. I guess Rauch wants us to believe Clinton did Trump a favor by getting that dossier produced. Knowing her, she probably thinks he owes her a thank you.
Paragraph 9: Rouch announces that Trump and the Russians colluded – for reals! He gets his info from the Muller Report and Senate Intelligence Report and “many news outlets.” He does not say which “news outlets” but I’m guessing they are the same ones that told us the walls were closing in for three years, without basis.
OK, I will go through this guys’s seven bullet list — drumroll please.
#1: This is described as direct contact with the Russians but it’s actually direct contact with a failed music producer and a Russian lawyer who is in the US trying to get the Maginsky act overturned. I know a lot about her because of my Bill Browder thread (read that–he’s still around!). She really, really wanted to inform Congress about Bill Browder being a fake but they would not listen. The Guardian does have an amazing picture of Trump Jr. looking very stupid. Anyway, there was a lot made of this but it’s caca.
#2: This is totally hot air–Trump made a Trump-like joke about asking the Russians to get Hillary’s emails (he was probably thinking of the ones on her secret server) and then Oh MY Gosh, the DNC got hacked by. . .wait for it. . .Russians. He must have known! This one is just beyond ridiculous.
#3 - In a stunning denial of correlation does not prove causation, Rauch says Trump had interactions with more than 100 Russians (and he was not working in IT!). There is a link to explain where this comes from and the headline says a judge found NO collusion, but evidently Rauch thinks otherwise.
#4 - This is the Manafor/Kilimnet show and it gets Manafort in big trouble (despite the fact that he was working for the Ukranians) but has nothing to do with Trump. (now I’m falling asleep and I forget the details but if we go over this one it will lead nowhere.
#5 - This one is not true. When you hear anything about Roger Stone having anything to do with Wikileaks you should replace the thought with understanding that Roger Stone was an idiot who wanted attention. He did not have a relationship with Julian Assange. If you press me for details I will be forced to show you Randy Credico videos and you will not like that, so let’s just move on to #6.
#6 - This one may be true (I’m too tired to look at the link), but the outcome of this one had Michael Cohen talking to a secretary at some Russian government office who told him to call someone else. It’s also a dead end but I can dig up the Aaron Mate references if you are in the mood. Aaron Mate always found this one quite amusing.
#7 - The FINAL ONE (yay!!!!! I’m so sick of this): This one makes no sense. Trump did not have contact with the Russians about wikileaks. He had nothing to report. Of course he was happy to hear the emails were released! He wanted to win. Who would not be happy to hear that damaging emails about your opponent were released.
OK, so glad that’s done–and how much collusion did we find? Zippo. Yup, none.
Ok, there is more to this article but it’s very long and I’m going to stop here. Rauch comes up with some analogy that sounds like it was written by PVW.
I think the summary of nan's report is that she doesn't like the Brooking institute or Hillary. She could have just said that.
The rest reads just like her favorite "experts" - so she must be happy with that review!
Oh and she hates Browder also. LOL
I'm astounded she has time to waste replying to a piece from the "persuasion community". Just bizarre.
I have to say browsing over the Mueller Report and seeing the amount of lies the Trump team had in covering up interactions with Russians proved more than enough of a cause for pursuing a report. Why did they have to lie so much? It makes it sound like you're guilty and were trying to cover something up. No collusion perhaps - but enough there - there, to warrant an investigation.
sbenois said:
.
I hope you didn't stay up too late to come up with that.
sbenois
.
============================
Drummerboy asked me to read and respond to that article. Maybe if you actually read what was written here instead of just trolling you would know that.
jamie said:
I think the summary of nan's report is that she doesn't like the Brooking institute or Hillary. She could have just said that.
The rest reads just like her favorite "experts" - so she must be happy with that review!
Oh and she hates Browder also. LOL
I'm astounded she has time to waste replying to a piece from the "persuasion community". Just bizarre.
I have to say browsing over the Mueller Report and seeing the amount of lies the Trump team had in covering up interactions with Russians proved more than enough of a cause for pursuing a report. Why did they have to lie so much? It makes it sound like you're guilty and were trying to cover something up. No collusion perhaps - but enough there - there, to warrant an investigation.
As you said yourself, I have 16 pages of MOL posts related to Russiagate. I know something about the topic. There was no collusion between Trump and Russia and Hillary was responsible for generating it to hurt Trump and to cover for her loss. All the insults in the world will not change that.
Hilarious how you all thought Muller was going to save the day and now you are like "Oh, I'm skimming through the Muller Report and maybe he missed something here -- we need another report! He must be guilty!"
Trump sucked but what the Democrats did was unconscionable. . Instead of going after Trump for the horrible stuff he actually did, like sending arms to Ukraine, or dumping the nuclear deal with the Russians they focused on this nonsense. Now we are facing WWIII (which deluded Russiaphonbe Democrats cheer for).
And now they are focusing on January 6th instead of demanding that Biden do something for ordinary people so the Dems don't lose by a landslide in the next big election. Just clueless.
drummerboy said:
Yeah, actually nan deserves a lot of credit for putting in the work.
but she could have finished that other painting she’s working on…
What do you think they should do about Jan 6? Nothing? Mate seems to think it's a big joke.
I dare you to find one post on MOL where someone thought Muller would save the day.
But, back to Crowdstrike.
I asked this before and got no answer, but it's kind of an important point.
How could Binney determine that the transfer rate was too fast for the DNC network without knowing what the transfer rate was for the DNC network?
Seems like kind of a big hole in the theory.
Jaytee said:
drummerboy said:
Yeah, actually nan deserves a lot of credit for putting in the work.
but she could have finished that other painting she’s working on…
Maybe she did. Some of us are fast typers.
Maybe there wasn’t any direct collusion between Russia and trump tower, Putin figured trumpenstein would be a useful idiot to wreak havoc on the American democratic institutions, just like he’s found in Hungary and Chechnya and Germany with the ex chancellor.
I’m still going with the money trail. I’m sure trumpenstein got money from someone in Russia, after he couldn’t get money to borrow in the USA or Europe. It’s all about trumpenstein and his own greed. He just loves to use other people’s money. The man is the greatest cult leader, biggest pyramid scheme guru, and greatest conman in America. But just like Putin…. His entire life is about to crumble.
drummerboy said:
What do you think they should do about Jan 6? Nothing? Mate seems to think it's a big joke.
I dare you to find one post on MOL where someone thought Muller would save the day.
But, back to Crowdstrike.
I asked this before and got no answer, but it's kind of an important point.
How could Binney determine that the transfer rate was too fast for the DNC network without knowing what the transfer rate was for the DNC network?
Seems like kind of a big hole in the theory.
You know what history will remember from January 6th? The naked guy with the horns.
And yes, they should prosecute it. . . but it should not be the big focus--another Russiagate. We have real problems now that need to be dealt with.
Binney determined the fastest rate possible for all networks at that time.
My assessment of 2016 is that:
1. Russia was most certainly meddling in U.S. domestic politics - more of a stirring of the pot, I think that anything with a specific goal in mind. They must have been delighted beyond all measure at how things turned out, much as I might be if I caught a record fish on one of many lines I cast in a day of fishing.
2. Did Trump collude with the Russians? Who knows. I certainly think there was intent and willingness probably without competence and focus. Meanwhile, for Russia, just the appearance or suspicion of collusion was sufficient.
3. Was the FBI correct in looking into Trump's dealings with Russia? Absolutely. I think we might want to know if a POTUS candidate has had any improper relationships with a foreign power.
4. The funny thing is that if Trump had nominated a competent AG (e.g. Christie, although it makes me shudder to think about it), there wouldn't have been a Mueller investigation.
5. I found the Mueller investigation to be sort of sad. The man seemed to be well past his prime and I don't even know that he really wanted to do it. Still, a curious juxtaposition of a man who, like him or not, served his country well and a completely self-serving man who has spent his life lying, cheating and pushing the limits of legality. I think this piece sums up my feelings about the Mueller investigation. https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2019/07/25/mueller-testimony-nancy-gertner
nan said:
You know what history will remember from January 6th? The naked guy with the horns.
Only if we push back on the propaganda that there's "nothing to see here" and "nobody cares", like this -
Are Sunday Night Football or the Thanksgiving Day Parade on all networks and two of three cable news channels?
— Paul Surovell (@paulsurovell) June 11, 2022
My response to the senile fool who tweeted at the NYTimes is, does it really matter? Would those people have watched the hearing if it were only on station? Just because there are options doesn't mean fewer would have watched. This isn't the 70s, a time when NYC had only about a half dozen stations to watch.
For Sale
Garage Sales
-
HUGE Rummage sale to benefit the Bloomfield High School Robotics Team Sale Date: Apr 27, 2024
More info
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
But if Russia really did hack the DNC, which you say is possible, then isn't "Russiagate" true? And if it is true, then how is hiring Sussman and Crowdstrike "Russiagate" at all? What would have been the correct response to the hacking that you would have approved of?