Matt Taibbi lays out why Liberals are destroying Free Speech

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your irrefutable evidence has been refuted:

Gabbard’s Misleading ‘Coup’ Claim

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard claims to have uncovered “overwhelming evidence” that former President Barack Obama and others in his administration manipulated intelligence to “lay the groundwork for what was essentially a years-long coup against President Trump.” But the foundation for her case is misleading.

Gabbard’s claim relies heavily on an alleged contradiction between a Jan. 6, 2017, intelligence assessment that Russian President Vladimir Putin had ordered an “influence campaign” in an attempt to help elect Donald Trump and earlier intelligence assessments that concluded Russia did not successfully use cyberattacks on election infrastructure in the 2016 election. But those two assessments are not in contradiction.

“No one ever claimed Russia altered votes, but everyone claims that Russia tried to interfere on Trump’s behalf,” Democratic Sen. Mark Warner, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a video message posted on X on July 21. That interference was “well documented” and “well vetted” not only by the Intelligence Community but also by a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee and as part of then special counsel Robert S. Mueller’s report, he said.

a Jan. 6, 2017, intelligence assessment that Russian President Vladimir Putin had ordered an “influence campaign” in an attempt to help elect Donald Trump

Which Russian meme on Facebook got you to vote for Trump?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What a cynical, low life response.

Apparently you think the government should never do anything in an effort to prevent death.

Stupid and childish.

How many trillions should we waste to reduce temperatures in 2100 by 0.1 degrees?

 

[BlindBoo]

Fact: global temperatures are rising. Theory: it is caused by man.

You can't tell me how much it would have warmed, absent our added CO2?

It doesn't matter if the theory is true or not, the fact remains.

How must should we waste...err...invest in stupid green energy because temperatures are rising?

Even before Benedict Donald's War, renewables had actually become the cheaper option for electricity generation.

4 Facts That Prove Renewable Energy Is Cheaper

Find out how fossil fuels are draining your wallet and renewables are now the cheapest, smartest choice.

350.org

Renewables overtake coal as world's biggest source of electricity

Developing countries lead the historic clean energy charge but the US and EU rely more on fossil fuels than before, a think tank study shows.

www.bbc.com

 

[Marener]

How many trillions should we waste to reduce temperatures in 2100 by 0.1 degrees?

Dishonest framing.

 

[alang1216]

Fact: global temperatures are rising. Theory: it is caused by man.

You can't tell me how much it would have warmed, absent our added CO2?

Doesn't matter now does it?

It doesn't matter if the theory is true or not, the fact remains.

How must should we waste...err...invest in stupid green energy because temperatures are rising?

Fact: the earth contains a finite amount of hydrocarbons so it seems likely we'll have to find alternate energy sources at some point in the future. When that happens, do we want to find the Chinese have cornered the market on solar cells, EVs, and wind power? Oh wait, that is already the case.

 

[alang1216]

a Jan. 6, 2017, intelligence assessment that Russian President Vladimir Putin had ordered an “influence campaign” in an attempt to help elect Donald Trump

Which Russian meme on Facebook got you to vote for Trump?

Are you saying Russian disinformation had no effect on any US voters? How about the hacking of the DNC emails?

 

[BlindBoo]

How many trillions should we waste to reduce temperatures in 2100 by 0.1 degrees?

Even if we were to reach a carbon neutral state across the globe, according to the AGW theory, we would still need to pull a great deal of CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it. But you never know. A warmer, wetter world might just continue the boon for mankind that the Holocene has given us. War, famine, overpopulation, are all more of a threat than a warmer world, imo.

 

[markef]

Gain of Function research in China was stopped. Trump re-started it.

No, you seem unaware of all the facts.

 

[markef]

Wow, that is quite the global conspiracy you've uncovered.

Which was a conspiracy, majority scientific support for centuries-long global cooling trends or the subsequent majority scientific support for centuries-long global warming trends?

 

[markef]

Should? I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Fact: global temperatures are rising. Theory: it is caused by man. It doesn't matter if the theory is true or not, the fact remains.

Man did not break the weather, and it is certain no human quack could fix the weather even it somehow got broken no matter how much cash the global warming tribal rain dancer collected from rubes and corrupted government programs.

 

[markef]

Wow, you found a global conspiracy. Nice work.

Ignorant pundits commonly call things they do not understand, did not know about, or cannot refute "conspiracy theories."

 

[Marener]

Ignorant pundits commonly call things they do not understand, did not know about, or cannot refute "conspiracy theories."

You morons don’t have any idea what you’re talking about.

 

[markef]

An here I thought evolution has never been refuted. Please enlighten me.

Maybe we could start with the Piltdown Man, a hoax published in secondary school textbooks for 50 years before the scientific community finally admitted the fake 'missing link' was a fraud perpetuated by some of the most respected evolutionists in England.

 

[pknopp]

No, you seem unaware of all the facts.

US government lifts ban on risky pathogen research

The National Institutes of Health will again fund research that makes viruses more dangerous.

www.nature.com

 

[markef]

False. Scientists never warmed to the idea of global cooling.

Scientists were propagating the global cooling scam years before anyone ever started propagating the global warming scam. Are you claiming no scientist propagated either scam before the early 1980s?

 

[markef]

Your irrefutable evidence has been refuted:

Gabbard’s Misleading ‘Coup’ Claim

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard claims to have uncovered “overwhelming evidence” that former President Barack Obama and others in his administration manipulated intelligence to “lay the groundwork for what was essentially a years-long coup against President Trump.” But the foundation for her case is misleading.

Gabbard’s claim relies heavily on an alleged contradiction between a Jan. 6, 2017, intelligence assessment that Russian President Vladimir Putin had ordered an “influence campaign” in an attempt to help elect Donald Trump and earlier intelligence assessments that concluded Russia did not successfully use cyberattacks on election infrastructure in the 2016 election. But those two assessments are not in contradiction.

“No one ever claimed Russia altered votes, but everyone claims that Russia tried to interfere on Trump’s behalf,” Democratic Sen. Mark Warner, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a video message posted on X on July 21. That interference was “well documented” and “well vetted” not only by the Intelligence Community but also by a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee and as part of then special counsel Robert S. Mueller’s report, he said.

I believe the facts outlined in this report have not been refuted whereas Brennan's 2017 ICA report has been refuted.

How Obama Admin Turned ‘Unverifiable’ Report Into Russiagate Dynamite​

By Paul Sperry, RealClearInvestigations
August 12, 2025
AP
The Obama intelligence community’s claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin authorized dirty tricks to try and help Donald Trump win the 2016 election was based on "one scant, unclear and unverifiable fragment of a sentence from one of the substandard [intelligence] reports," according to a just-declassified report that had been locked away in a CIA vault.

Nevertheless, former CIA Director John Brennan ordered agency analysts to use the claim in the Intelligence Community Assessment issued during the Obama administration’s final days – even though the ICA itself noted that how the information on Putin's plans was obtained was “not explicitly clear.”


A 46-page report by the House of Representatives released Wednesday found that the source of the claim about Putin – reportedly a Russian defector living in Northern Virginia described as “anti-Trump” – merely speculated to Brennan about something he had been told by somebody else: namely, that Putin was "counting on" Trump winning.

ICA participants interpreted the informant's phrase "counting on" several different ways, the report said. Many NSA and CIA officials viewed "counting on" as meaning the same thing as "expected," which is much different than the language – Putin "preferred" Trump – Brennan's five handpicked drafters used in the ICA.

The congressional review determined that "the ICA did not cite any [classified] report where Putin directly indicated helping Trump win was the objective." (Emphasis added.)

No Corroborating Intelligence​

The report then drops a bombshell: "The ICA judgment on Putin's thoughts about helping candidate Trump does not stand if [Brennan's] single interpretation of the fragment [from the tip that Putin was 'counting on' Trump winning] is wrong, because there is no other intelligence corroborating it."

The 2019 report, which investigated the spycraft that went into the highly classified and restricted version of the ICA, found that the Obama intelligence community’s assessment of Russia’s intentions changed sharply after Trump’s surprising victory.

On the eve of the 2016 election, Brennan sent a "Fusion Cell" memo to Obama summarizing all the most secret, compartmented intel gathered on Trump and Russia. According to the House report declassified and released by DNI Tulsi Gabbard on Wednesday, that memo " made no mention of Putin 'aspiring' for a Trump victory." Although the Russian defector had shared his thoughts about Putin with Brennan in July, the CIA director’s Nov. 6 memo concluded, "Putin expected [Clinton] to win."

But then in early December, after Obama ordered a new assessment, Brennan dusted off the informant's second-hand hearsay, which had been shelved as unreliable. The CIA director, who had previously worked for Obama in the White House, suddenly insisted it underpin the new conclusion about Putin's motives.

 

[markef]

They check facts.

Why should we trust any fact checking group not staffed by reputable God Bless American patriots?

 

[Rawley]

Now you are just rambling......

Trump funded the research. Gave Fauci the main stage. Supported nearly everything Fauci said.

Yup. Huge mistake. Huge.

 

[markef]

Cow farts are not going to result in Miami being underwater.

It is wildly audacious for people to profess they can stop the earth from changing if you give them money.

It is a grift for money and power.

The earth has been around a while, and it has changed ALOT.

The top of Mount Everest has fossilized marine creatures.

When Pangea broke apart like 200 million years ago, the Indian plate began moving northwards towards Asia.

Eventually, it collided with the Eurasian plate, forcing the land including part of the seabed of the ancient Tethys Ocean upwards.

The collision created the Himalayas about 50 million years ago and the Tibetan Plateau, lifting ocean fossils 26,000 feet above sea level.

GRETA THUNBERG is not going to stop the earth from changing.

People are using CC to get money and power.

If we gave $200 trillion to CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIVISTS, they could not stop the earth from changing,

CO2 emissions are not making the seas rise, Miami and Manhattan were not underwater by 2013.

Obama commissioned the EPA to fund leftist researchers to study cow farts. I kid you not. Democrats blow money like they do opportunities to tell the truth.

 

[markef]

Except most scientists believe we ARE changing the earth, just not in a way we'd like.

If scientists do not believe God, then their opinions and assumptions are completely unreliable.