You missed mentioning the Atlantic Council, Ukraine, and Hunter Biden. And from the Atlantic Council we connect to Google and CrowdStrike, the OCCRP and Open Society/George Soros. And lest we fail to acknowledge that the Atlantic Society has its "Digital Forensic Research Lab" where they "help" Facebook restrict content that is "offensiv…
You missed mentioning the Atlantic Council, Ukraine, and Hunter Biden. And from the Atlantic Council we connect to Google and CrowdStrike, the OCCRP and Open Society/George Soros. And lest we fail to acknowledge that the Atlantic Society has its "Digital Forensic Research Lab" where they "help" Facebook restrict content that is "offensive" or "misinformation." And don't forget that Mark Zuckerberg created the "Center for Tech and Civic Life" with $300million of his own money to send Democrat operatives to "help administer" local elections in heavy-Democrat districts in swing states.
I just found the connections between these five people (Misko, Ciaramella, Hill, Steele and Danchenko) to be particularly interesting, because they've been very publicly key players in trying to take down candidate, then president Trump.
I mean, look at it this way. In January of 2017, the FBI discovered who the Dossier's primary sub-source was.
Investigation 101: "okay, let's look through our files and see if we already have anything on this guy."
Does anyone really think no one at the FBI did that?
Mueller kept Danchenko's name out of his report, because all the report was for was to rubber stamp (inasmuch as possible) Crossfire Hurricane.
The CIA email that was doctored to support the final FISA warrant re-up against Carter Page was received by the FBI in AUGUST of 2016, before they applied for the first warrant. If IG Horowitz hadn't made that detail public, does anyone really believe Mueller's report would have included it? Or would they have "missed it"? I mean, it was just one word, after all. And a tiny word at that.
I'm so disgusted by this, it's not even funny. That there are still otherwise sensible people out there who believe Putin wanted Trump to win is astounding to me.
I know, right?! The polls fooled even Putin in 2016. He, OF COURSE, would rather have had Clinton as POTUS, but he didn't want her to be able to claim a "mandate," so he tried to help DJT, who was supposed to be a buffoon.
No. I believe Putin thought (and I believe he was right in this) that Russia would be able to take advantage of a Clinton administration much more than a Trump administration, but the first one was "inevitable" according to everyone. Since his primary interest in ANY Presidential election is conflict and confusion among Americans, Putin's primary concern is creating an outcome that is so close that neither side could claim a mandate, a mandate being more powerful (less able to mess with) on the world stage. He just could not allow Clinton to win in a landslide, so he helped the hapless buffoon, to weaken the next POTUS, Hillary Clinton.
Putin would have ran rings around her hapless administration. Instead, he had to bide his time, and wait for the hapless Biden.
May I edit out my "OF COURSE," to make my statement less of a "threat" to your opposing opinion? (I shouldn't have put it in there in the first place, since I could be wrong.)
You missed mentioning the Atlantic Council, Ukraine, and Hunter Biden. And from the Atlantic Council we connect to Google and CrowdStrike, the OCCRP and Open Society/George Soros. And lest we fail to acknowledge that the Atlantic Society has its "Digital Forensic Research Lab" where they "help" Facebook restrict content that is "offensive" or "misinformation." And don't forget that Mark Zuckerberg created the "Center for Tech and Civic Life" with $300million of his own money to send Democrat operatives to "help administer" local elections in heavy-Democrat districts in swing states.
Believe me, I know. It's all connected.
I just found the connections between these five people (Misko, Ciaramella, Hill, Steele and Danchenko) to be particularly interesting, because they've been very publicly key players in trying to take down candidate, then president Trump.
I mean, look at it this way. In January of 2017, the FBI discovered who the Dossier's primary sub-source was.
Investigation 101: "okay, let's look through our files and see if we already have anything on this guy."
Does anyone really think no one at the FBI did that?
Mueller kept Danchenko's name out of his report, because all the report was for was to rubber stamp (inasmuch as possible) Crossfire Hurricane.
The CIA email that was doctored to support the final FISA warrant re-up against Carter Page was received by the FBI in AUGUST of 2016, before they applied for the first warrant. If IG Horowitz hadn't made that detail public, does anyone really believe Mueller's report would have included it? Or would they have "missed it"? I mean, it was just one word, after all. And a tiny word at that.
I'm so disgusted by this, it's not even funny. That there are still otherwise sensible people out there who believe Putin wanted Trump to win is astounding to me.
I know how you feel.
I know, right?! The polls fooled even Putin in 2016. He, OF COURSE, would rather have had Clinton as POTUS, but he didn't want her to be able to claim a "mandate," so he tried to help DJT, who was supposed to be a buffoon.
You're kidding re Clinton, I presume?
No. I believe Putin thought (and I believe he was right in this) that Russia would be able to take advantage of a Clinton administration much more than a Trump administration, but the first one was "inevitable" according to everyone. Since his primary interest in ANY Presidential election is conflict and confusion among Americans, Putin's primary concern is creating an outcome that is so close that neither side could claim a mandate, a mandate being more powerful (less able to mess with) on the world stage. He just could not allow Clinton to win in a landslide, so he helped the hapless buffoon, to weaken the next POTUS, Hillary Clinton.
Putin would have ran rings around her hapless administration. Instead, he had to bide his time, and wait for the hapless Biden.
May I edit out my "OF COURSE," to make my statement less of a "threat" to your opposing opinion? (I shouldn't have put it in there in the first place, since I could be wrong.)