Now that this appears unlikely should we expect apologies from the WashPost and NYTimes for their lies? Will the dem sychophants continue to repeat the lies of their leaders?
We were promised evidence of Trumps collusion the the Russians
- Thread starter dave
- Start date
Dems trying to figure out how to let down the base since they have promised so much regarding the collusion but will deliver so little.
FROM MSNBC POLITICS shows to town hall meetings across the country, the overarching issue for the Democratic Party’s base since Trump’s victory has been Russia, often suffocating attention for other issues. This fixation has persisted even though it has no chance to sink the Trump presidency unless it is proven that high levels of the Trump campaign actively colluded with the Kremlin to manipulate the outcome of the U.S. election — a claim for which absolutely no evidence has thus far been presented.
The principal problem for Democrats is that so many media figures and online charlatans are personally benefiting from feeding the base increasingly unhinged, fact-free conspiracies — just as right-wing media polemicists did after both Bill Clinton and Obama were elected — that there are now millions of partisan soldiers absolutely convinced of a Trump/Russia conspiracy for which, at least as of now, there is no evidence. And they are all waiting for the day, which they regard as inevitable and imminent, when this theory will be proven and Trump will be removed.
Key Democratic officials are clearly worried about the expectations that have been purposely stoked and are now trying to tamp them down. Many of them have tried to signal that the beliefs the base has been led to adopt have no basis in reason or evidence.
The latest official to throw cold water on the MSNBC-led circus is President Obama’s former acting CIA chief Michael Morell. What makes him particularly notable in this context is that Morell was one of Clinton’s most vocal CIA surrogates. In August, he not only endorsed Clinton in the pages of the New York Times but also became the first high official to explicitly accuse Trump of disloyalty, claiming, “In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.”
But on Wednesday night, Morell appeared at an intelligence community forum to “cast doubt” on “allegations that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.” “On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire at all,” he said, adding, “There’s no little campfire, there’s no little candle, there’s no spark. And there’s a lot of people looking for it.”
Obama’s former CIA chief also cast serious doubt on the credibility of the infamous, explosive “dossier” originally published by BuzzFeed, saying that its author, Christopher Steele, paid intermediaries to talk to the sources for it. The dossier, he said, “doesn’t take you anywhere, I don’t think.”
Morell’s comments echo the categorical remarks by Obama’s top national security official, James Clapper, who told Meet the Press last week that during the time he was Obama’s DNI, he saw no evidence to support claims of a Trump/Russia conspiracy. “We had no evidence of such collusion,” Clapper stated unequivocally. Unlike Morell, who left his official CIA position in 2013 but remains very integrated into the intelligence community, Clapper was Obama’s DNI until just seven weeks ago, leaving on January 20.
Perhaps most revealing of all are the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee — charged with investigating these matters — who recently told BuzzFeed how petrified they are of what the Democratic base will do if they do not find evidence of collusion, as they now suspect will likely be the case. “There’s a tangible frustration over what one official called ‘wildly inflated’ expectations surrounding the panel’s fledgling investigation,” BuzzFeed’s Ali Watkins wrote.
Moreover, “several committee sources grudgingly say, it feels as though the investigation will be seen as a sham if the Senate doesn’t find a silver bullet connecting Trump and Russian intelligence operatives.” One member told Watkins: “I don’t think the conclusions are going to meet people’s expectations.”
What makes all of this most significant is that officials like Clapper and Morell are trained disinformation agents; Clapper in particular has proven he will lie to advance his interests. Yet even with all the incentive to do so, they are refusing to claim there is evidence of such collusion; in fact, they are expressly urging people to stop thinking it exists. As even the law recognizes, statements that otherwise lack credibility become more believable when they are ones made “against interest.”
Media figures have similarly begun trying to tamp down expectations. Ben Smith, the editor-in-chief of BuzzFeed, which published the Steele dossier, published an article yesterday warning that the Democratic base’s expectation of a smoking gun “is so strong that Twitter and cable news are full of the theories of what my colleague Charlie Warzel calls the Blue Detectives — the left’s new version of Glenn Beck, digital blackboards full of lines and arrows.” Smith added: “It is also a simple fact that while news of Russian actions on Trump’s behalf is clear, hard details of coordination between his aides and Putin’s haven’t emerged.” And Smith’s core warning is this:
Trump’s critics last year were horrified at the rise of “fake news” and the specter of a politics shaped by alternative facts, predominantly on the right. They need to be careful now not to succumb to the same delusional temptations as their political adversaries, and not to sink into a filter bubble which, after all, draws its strength not from conservative or progressive politics but from human nature.
And those of us covering the story and the stew of real information, fantasy, and — now — forgery around it need to continue to report and think clearly about what we know and what we don’t, and to resist the sugar high that comes with telling people exactly what they want to hear.
For so long, Democrats demonized and smeared anyone trying to inject basic reason, rationality, and skepticism into this Trump/Russia discourse by labeling them all Kremlin agents and Putin lovers. Just this week, the Center for American Progress released a report using the language of treason to announce the existence of a “Fifth Column” in the U.S. that serves Russia (similar to Andrew Sullivan’s notorious 2001 decree that anyone opposing the war on terror composed an anti-American “Fifth Column”), while John McCain listened to Rand Paul express doubts about the wisdom of NATO further expanding to include Montenegro and then promptly announced: “Paul is working for Vladimir Putin.”
But with serious doubts — and fears — now emerging about what the Democratic base has been led to believe by self-interested carnival barkers and partisan hacks, there is a sudden, concerted effort to rein in the excesses of this story. With so many people now doing this, it will be increasingly difficult to smear them all as traitors and Russian loyalists, but it may be far too little, too late, given the pitched hysteria that has been deliberately cultivated around these issues for months. Many Democrats have reached the classic stage of deranged conspiracists where evidence that disproves the theory is viewed as further proof of its existence, and those pointing to it are instantly deemed suspect.
Really good article.Dems trying to figure out how to let down the base since they have promised so much regarding the collusion but will deliver so little.
FROM MSNBC POLITICS shows to town hall meetings across the country, the overarching issue for the Democratic Party’s base since Trump’s victory has been Russia, often suffocating attention for other issues. This fixation has persisted even though it has no chance to sink the Trump presidency unless it is proven that high levels of the Trump campaign actively colluded with the Kremlin to manipulate the outcome of the U.S. election — a claim for which absolutely no evidence has thus far been presented.
The principal problem for Democrats is that so many media figures and online charlatans are personally benefiting from feeding the base increasingly unhinged, fact-free conspiracies — just as right-wing media polemicists did after both Bill Clinton and Obama were elected — that there are now millions of partisan soldiers absolutely convinced of a Trump/Russia conspiracy for which, at least as of now, there is no evidence. And they are all waiting for the day, which they regard as inevitable and imminent, when this theory will be proven and Trump will be removed.
Key Democratic officials are clearly worried about the expectations that have been purposely stoked and are now trying to tamp them down. Many of them have tried to signal that the beliefs the base has been led to adopt have no basis in reason or evidence.
The latest official to throw cold water on the MSNBC-led circus is President Obama’s former acting CIA chief Michael Morell. What makes him particularly notable in this context is that Morell was one of Clinton’s most vocal CIA surrogates. In August, he not only endorsed Clinton in the pages of the New York Times but also became the first high official to explicitly accuse Trump of disloyalty, claiming, “In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.”
But on Wednesday night, Morell appeared at an intelligence community forum to “cast doubt” on “allegations that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.” “On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire at all,” he said, adding, “There’s no little campfire, there’s no little candle, there’s no spark. And there’s a lot of people looking for it.”
Obama’s former CIA chief also cast serious doubt on the credibility of the infamous, explosive “dossier” originally published by BuzzFeed, saying that its author, Christopher Steele, paid intermediaries to talk to the sources for it. The dossier, he said, “doesn’t take you anywhere, I don’t think.”
Morell’s comments echo the categorical remarks by Obama’s top national security official, James Clapper, who told Meet the Press last week that during the time he was Obama’s DNI, he saw no evidence to support claims of a Trump/Russia conspiracy. “We had no evidence of such collusion,” Clapper stated unequivocally. Unlike Morell, who left his official CIA position in 2013 but remains very integrated into the intelligence community, Clapper was Obama’s DNI until just seven weeks ago, leaving on January 20.
Perhaps most revealing of all are the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee — charged with investigating these matters — who recently told BuzzFeed how petrified they are of what the Democratic base will do if they do not find evidence of collusion, as they now suspect will likely be the case. “There’s a tangible frustration over what one official called ‘wildly inflated’ expectations surrounding the panel’s fledgling investigation,” BuzzFeed’s Ali Watkins wrote.
Moreover, “several committee sources grudgingly say, it feels as though the investigation will be seen as a sham if the Senate doesn’t find a silver bullet connecting Trump and Russian intelligence operatives.” One member told Watkins: “I don’t think the conclusions are going to meet people’s expectations.”
What makes all of this most significant is that officials like Clapper and Morell are trained disinformation agents; Clapper in particular has proven he will lie to advance his interests. Yet even with all the incentive to do so, they are refusing to claim there is evidence of such collusion; in fact, they are expressly urging people to stop thinking it exists. As even the law recognizes, statements that otherwise lack credibility become more believable when they are ones made “against interest.”
Media figures have similarly begun trying to tamp down expectations. Ben Smith, the editor-in-chief of BuzzFeed, which published the Steele dossier, published an article yesterday warning that the Democratic base’s expectation of a smoking gun “is so strong that Twitter and cable news are full of the theories of what my colleague Charlie Warzel calls the Blue Detectives — the left’s new version of Glenn Beck, digital blackboards full of lines and arrows.” Smith added: “It is also a simple fact that while news of Russian actions on Trump’s behalf is clear, hard details of coordination between his aides and Putin’s haven’t emerged.” And Smith’s core warning is this:
Trump’s critics last year were horrified at the rise of “fake news” and the specter of a politics shaped by alternative facts, predominantly on the right. They need to be careful now not to succumb to the same delusional temptations as their political adversaries, and not to sink into a filter bubble which, after all, draws its strength not from conservative or progressive politics but from human nature.
And those of us covering the story and the stew of real information, fantasy, and — now — forgery around it need to continue to report and think clearly about what we know and what we don’t, and to resist the sugar high that comes with telling people exactly what they want to hear.
For so long, Democrats demonized and smeared anyone trying to inject basic reason, rationality, and skepticism into this Trump/Russia discourse by labeling them all Kremlin agents and Putin lovers. Just this week, the Center for American Progress released a report using the language of treason to announce the existence of a “Fifth Column” in the U.S. that serves Russia (similar to Andrew Sullivan’s notorious 2001 decree that anyone opposing the war on terror composed an anti-American “Fifth Column”), while John McCain listened to Rand Paul express doubts about the wisdom of NATO further expanding to include Montenegro and then promptly announced: “Paul is working for Vladimir Putin.”
But with serious doubts — and fears — now emerging about what the Democratic base has been led to believe by self-interested carnival barkers and partisan hacks, there is a sudden, concerted effort to rein in the excesses of this story. With so many people now doing this, it will be increasingly difficult to smear them all as traitors and Russian loyalists, but it may be far too little, too late, given the pitched hysteria that has been deliberately cultivated around these issues for months. Many Democrats have reached the classic stage of deranged conspiracists where evidence that disproves the theory is viewed as further proof of its existence, and those pointing to it are instantly deemed suspect.
They have sold this Russian collusion as a way to discredit and to bring down Trump. Looks like it is going down in flames. But what is interesting to me is the media coverage. You read and hear all the time about the "wire taps" but very, very little about the fact there was no collusion. If somehow, someway, there was surveillance of Trump Tower, even if it was only intended to pick up those under FISA warrants (e.g. Russians) and then it is proved that the transcripts of those calls were illegally leaked to the media, the Trump actually has a bit of an out regarding the "wire tapping" of the Tower. He was still wrong to blame Obama for ordering the surveillance, but he would not be wrong to blame Obama for opening up raw intelligence to 15 other agencies two weeks before he leaves office to make leaking much, much easier and more difficult to find.
Dem politicians have been promising impeachment for quite some time. The base is angry. They want, even will demand impeachment. When that doesn't happen, the base will be pissed. Trump is simply driving them insane.
Maybe someone could demand a deadline. Perhaps we could beseech the King of the free world, Judge Kamehameha, to call off the siege.
I don't remember anyone promising evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians. I do remember all of the intelligence agencies agreeing that Russia interfered with the election and an investigation is ongoing.
I also remember Democrats and Republicans alike asking Trump to provide any evidence whatsoever of Obama ordering Trump Tower to be wiretapped and that deadline has already came and went and we have absolutely nothing from the liar on chief.
Where did I say "promising?" I said the base has been told over and over again that Trump was in with the Russians. The base is all riled up. The media has piled on. Now, it appears that was all wrong. No collusion. The base will be ticked. Many Dems have openly talked about impeachment. The base will not be happy.
And again, it it is proven that Flynn was picked up during surveillance of the Russian Ambassador and it was leaked and that Obama aided that with his order two weeks before leaving office, it gives Trump some wiggle room.
And it is not even close. BTW, threads are threads. Anyone can respond. Just another example of someone's intelligence or lack thereof.
If Comey testifies there was no evidence of Trump's collusion with Russians, will the media drop the narrative that they somehow "interfered" with the election?
No.
If Comey says there was illegal release of recorded conversations as well as surveillance of Trump campaign operations, but no actual "wiretaps", will the media keep insisting Trump lied?
Yes.
No matter what happens or is revealed as Truth, they (Media) will find a way to spin it negatively for Trump, and excuse themselves for making up the false stories they've reported about him.
Bank on it.
Based on today's interviews, we seem to know this thus far:
1. Russia did not collude with the Trump campaign. Lib heads exploding.
2. Surveillance of the Trump Tower did occur likely through a legal FISA warrant of the Russian Ambassador.
3. The Flynn conversation with the Russian Ambassador was transcribed and then leaked (illegal) to the media.
4. Obama, 14 days before leaving office, signed an order making this raw intelligence available to 15 other intel agencies making it far easier for information to leak and much more difficult to trace any leak.
5. Just supposition on my part, but the media will continue to focus on Trump/Russia and Trump not apologizing to Obama rather than the illegal leak and the transparent order by Obama to make that and other leaks much more likely.
1. There is an ongoing investigation that will probably take months.
2. That hasn't been proven. Trump was challenged to provide proof and hasn't for two weeks.
3. Flat out lie. If it were leaked, the whole world would know of the specifics of the conversation.
4. That is not why Obama signed the order. The intelligence agencies have been criticized for years about not sharing enough intel with each other.
5. Again, nothing has been proven in regard to illegal leaks. The first order of business should be to investigate Russia's involvement in our election. Everything else that is discovered in the process should be dealt with as well.
1. I said based on interviews today, it appears no collusion occurred. That is a FACT. I didn't even cite Democrat Clapper and fellow democrat and assistant intelligence head, Michael Morrell, said that there is no evidence of any collusion.
2. Flynn's conversation was leaked. Flynn was in the Trump Tower. At least that one phone call into the Trump Tower was surveilled.
3. Flat our lie? LOL. Read it and weep (link below). Remember Flynn's conversation was supposed to be destroyed based on FISA rules.
4. Why did Obama wait until just 14 days before leaving office? No coincidence. He required that RAW intelligence be shared with 14 other agencies. RAW intelligence. No analysis. No context. RAW unedited transcripts. Very, very easy to leak this information and hard to trace.
5. No one should have even known about Flynn's conversation. The conversation was leaked as reported in the Wash Post.
This article in the Atlantic even provides details regarding Flynn's conversation resulting from the leak.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/516594/
Last edited:
Has he? When career intelligence and investigative officials are coming out stating no collision can be found, yet, the left continues on with the charade, Dave is the one who has lost objectivity? Okey dokey.
What if he reports there were no wiretaps at Trump Tower, Russia did meddle in the election with the goal of helping Trump, and that he can't rule out collusion at this point. Is this the media's fault again?
What is meddling or collusion in an election.......stating a preference for a particular candidate?
I'd imagine it is more than that. And meddling and collusion are MUCH different.
Both, I hope. We are the top of the food chain, no? IDGAF about the USA meddling in other elections. I sure as shit care about others meddling in ours.
And then in a couple months you will say the same thing. There is a reason that Dem leaders are warning their folks not to expect anything here. Bottom line is that you are wrong and everyone will be shocked to find that you are wrong again.
Tell us again how Obama tapped Trump Tower.....or Obama got the British to help him spy on Trump.
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
Poor little fella, everything is crumbling for your hero.
You mean what countries were favoring Hillary and were back channeling millions of bucks thru the Clinton Foundation attempting to influence the election? We will find out that Trump did nothing illegal. My track record speaks for itself while yours has zero credibility.
Are allegations illegal?Tell us again how Obama tapped Trump Tower.....or Obama got the British to help him spy on Trump.
Poor little fella, everything is crumbling for your hero.
So.......he just does it more than other politicians. I suggest you chill and just try to make it to 2020......I hate to see what Trump is doing to you.
Naivety (or naïvety or naïveté) is the state of being naïve, that is to say, having or showing a lack of experience, understanding or sophistication, often in a context where one neglects pragmatism in favor of moral idealism.So we don't need a trustworthy president?
Trustworthiness has nothing to do with legality.So we don't need a trustworthy president?
You claimed it was illegal. Prove it.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
WVSPORTS.COM WVU's TBT squad Best Virginia announces roster and dates for first game- Latest: toker (cincyeer)
-
-
-
-
