That 2019 impeachment

[WEATHER53]

You say lots of shit without ever backing it up.

He has fulfilled his obligation and now it’s your responsibility (gasp) to provide evidence to refute

 

[Robert W]

Why would I believe a report that said Russia wanted Hillary to win when Russia spent so much time trying to hurt her campaign?

Innuendo Marener. It had innuendo. No Bonafide statements by Russia were there.

 

[Delldude]

Now when are you going to show us the "original" assessment and proof that Obama wanted the conclusions to be changed?

Why do you keep moving the goal posts?

Did you see the original or find out what he didn't like about it?

Already been published here previously.

When are you going to provide a link to your ' massaged facts' claim?

 

[Marener]

Innuendo Marener. It had innuendo. No Bonafide statements by Russia were there.

You're expecting Russia to admit that they were interfering in our election?

I thought only Trump was that dumb.

Trump sides with Russia against FBI at Helsinki summit

The US president contradicts intelligence agencies over claims of interference in the US election.

www.bbc.com

 

[Robert W]

Why do you keep moving the goal posts?

Already been published here previously.

When are you going to provide a link to your ' massaged facts' claim?

Can he be paid by the DNC?

 

[Marener]

Why do you keep moving the goal posts?

I haven't.

Already been published here previously.

Prove it.

When are you going to provide a link to your ' massaged facts' claim?

Posted it 20 minutes ago.

Post in thread 'That 2019 impeachment'

Today at 12:38 PM

Link to these massaged facts?

From Russian Interference to Revisionist Innuendo: What the Gabbard Files Actually Say

Tulsi Gabbard’s latest “revelations” are being spun as proof of a deep state conspiracy. The documents themselves tell a much duller story.

www.lawfaremedia.org

The claim that the facts in the ICA assessment were "known to be false" is bullshit.

Now when are you going to show us the "original" assessment and proof that Obama wanted the conclusions to be changed?

• Marener

 

[Robert W]

You're expecting Russia to admit that they were interfering in our election?

I thought only Trump was that dumb.

Trump sides with Russia against FBI at Helsinki summit

The US president contradicts intelligence agencies over claims of interference in the US election.

www.bbc.com

Democrats made the claim. Why don't you want them to prove that Russia wanted Trump? Remember the so-called pee tapes? Remember the so-called Steele Dossier? Who paid for that dossier?

 

[Lockback]

Democrats made the claim. Why don't you want them to prove that Russia wanted Trump? Remember the so-called pee tapes? Remember the so-called Steele Dossier? Who paid for that dossier?

Lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie.
It's all they have. They're completely mad.

 

[Marener]

Democrats made the claim. Why don't you want them to prove that Russia wanted Trump? Remember the so-called pee tapes? Remember the so-called Steele Dossier? Who paid for that dossier?

They did prove it. Here's a copy of the extensive Senate Intelligence Report.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/senate-intelligence-committee-russian-interference/8cf58e574d235164/full.pdf

You are poorly informed.

 

[Delldude]

Now when are you going to show us the "original" assessment and proof that Obama wanted the conclusions to be changed?

I replied to your 'either or' question.

Which did I reply to?

 

[Delldude]

They did prove it. Here's a copy of the extensive Senate Intelligence Report.

Sweet.....the DNI declassified documents are counter to the Senate report.

 

[Marener]

Sweet.....the DNI declassified documents are counter to the Senate report.

They don't, unless you believe the narrative coming from the DNI who massaged the facts.

 

[Marener]

I replied to your 'either or' question.

Which did I reply to?

Is this supposed to make sense?

I'm still waiting for you to link to the "original" report you claimed has been released. I want to compare it with the report that was made public.

 

[Delldude]

I'm still waiting for you to link to the "original" report you claimed has been released.

Crawford on the Release of the HPSCI Majority Staff Report Providing the Unprecedented & Overdue Truth on the Russia Collusion Hoax - House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

Crawford on the Release of the HPSCI Majority Staff Report Providing the Unprecedented & Overdue Truth on the Russia Collusion...

intelligence.house.gov

Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections | Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

www.intelligence.senate.gov

 

[Marener]

Crawford on the Release of the HPSCI Majority Staff Report Providing the Unprecedented & Overdue Truth on the Russia Collusion Hoax - House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

Crawford on the Release of the HPSCI Majority Staff Report Providing the Unprecedented & Overdue Truth on the Russia Collusion...

intelligence.house.gov

There is no "original report" located in that link.

It is funny how all your links go back to biased sources, yet you are so insistent that "biased" sources be disregarded in other circumstances. Pretty hypocritical.

 

[Delldude]

There is no "original report" located in that link.

You better look again.

 

[Marener]

You better look again.

I'd read this before. I know it's not in there.

Where do you see it? You might be hallucinating.

 

[Delldude]

I'd read this before. I know it's not in there.

Where do you see it? You might be hallucinating.

Try my edit.

 

[Marener]

Try my edit.

That new link is to the final published document that you guys thought was "fabricated".

To review, you claim that the IC produced an "original" report of Russia interference in the election that Obama didn't like. You claim that Obama told the IC to change the conclusions from that report to the one that was eventually published.

You claim that the "original" report was published by the DNI.

None of that is true. You're the victim of facts being massaged by biased Trump supporters.

Before he left office, Obama ordered the IC produce an assessment that detailed what Russia did and why with the best possible information they had available. Gabbard is lying to you.

 

[struth]

I agreed the 2019 impeachment was bogus but using Dershowitz to make the argument?

Makes one once again ask how it is the country has become this bad.

What's wrong with allowing one of the most respected Con Law experts in the United States make the argument?