Comey, Brennan, and the Hoax

[Caveira]

13 hours ago, 1032004 said:

Why didn’t they look into this during Trump 1?  Pretty sure all charges except treason are now past the statute of limitations.

In other words, there will be no charges.  This is just a distraction from Epstein.

I am more curious about this question.  Trump is doing something about it.  Early Trump or late Trump meh.  He’s doing something. 
 

why did the biden admin do 0?   And now why are Ds so hostile on a topic they didn’t care one bit about during their reign?

[Offthemat]

9 minutes ago, Caveira said:

why did the biden admin do 0?

Biden was the first, outside of Hiliary’s campaign, to claim collusion. 

[1032004]

1 hour ago, Caveira said:

I am more curious about this question.  Trump is doing something about it.  Early Trump or late Trump meh.  He’s doing something. 
 

why did the biden admin do 0?   And now why are Ds so hostile on a topic they didn’t care one bit about during their reign?

Trump isn’t doing anything.  Tulsi is because Trump called her stupid and she wants to get back on his good side and help distract from Epstein.

Biden didn’t do anything since there was likely no crime.  You may recall that a Republican-led Senate committee which included the current Secretary of State, did in fact find that Russia interfered in the 2016 election -  https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/senate-panel-finds-russia-interfered-in-the-2016-us-election

[Offthemat]

3 hours ago, 1032004 said:

Trump isn’t doing anything.

Trump most certainly was involved in declassifying documents and blessing, if not directing, the agencies cooperation in the inquiry.  
 

Nobody has ever said that Russia didn’t attempt to mess with the election.  What the documents show is that Obama rejected the IC assessment that said their objective was not to help any particular candidate for one that claimed they were trying to help Trump. 

[1032004]

7 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Trump most certainly was involved in declassifying documents and blessing, if not directing, the agencies cooperation in the inquiry.  
 

Nobody has ever said that Russia didn’t attempt to mess with the election.  What the documents show is that Obama rejected the IC assessment that said their objective was not to help any particular candidate for one that claimed they were trying to help Trump. 

Where exactly do the documents show that?

[Offthemat]

1 hour ago, 1032004 said:

Where exactly do the documents show that?

https://www.odni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/DIG/DIG-Russia-Hoax-Memo-and-Timeline_revisited.pdf

[Undefeated]

Russia’s always trying to mess things up wherever it can, but I think America should probably be more worried about China and the Zionists than Russia.

That said, America really needs to figure out what to do about Russia, but China’s playing a whole different game - sneaky, everywhere, and way scarier than Russia. You can’t just push China aside like Russia. The only way to beat China is if those self-obsessed American presidents stop with the empty talk and hero poses on camera and actually take them down economically.

And that’s a really tough job

[1032004]

6 hours ago, Offthemat said:

https://www.odni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/DIG/DIG-Russia-Hoax-Memo-and-Timeline_revisited.pdf

The earlier documents were specifically about Russia hacking vote totals.  The later ones were simply about them “influencing the election.”

Sorry, you got duped.

[Offthemat]

4 hours ago, 1032004 said:

Sorry, you got duped.

Sorry, but you’re dupid if you think I’ll fall for your misdirection, the second one you’ve attempted in this thread.  The IA that the IC was tasked with producing by Obama was one which would say their purpose was to help Trump.  There were only handpicked members of four of the eighteen intelligence groups involved, and senior analysts disagreed with the final assessment.  Brennan, Clapper, and Comey directly involving themselves in producing the assessment, insisting on using junk for intelligence, mislabeling what it represented, is going to be their downfall.  
 

If you’d read the reports and releases you could make more informed posts, and maybe argue less about points that were never raised.  

[1032004]

8 hours ago, Offthemat said:

Sorry, but you’re dupid if you think I’ll fall for your misdirection, the second one you’ve attempted in this thread.  The IA that the IC was tasked with producing by Obama was one which would say their purpose was to help Trump.  There were only handpicked members of four of the eighteen intelligence groups involved, and senior analysts disagreed with the final assessment.  Brennan, Clapper, and Comey directly involving themselves in producing the assessment, insisting on using junk for intelligence, mislabeling what it represented, is going to be their downfall.  
 

If you’d read the reports and releases you could make more informed posts, and maybe argue less about points that were never raised.  

Well you cut out the part of my post that addressed the report.  Do you disagree with the statement that “The earlier documents were specifically about Russia hacking vote totals.  The later ones were simply about them “influencing the election”?

[Offthemat]

I agree that the earlier assessments were accurate and approved by all the IC agencies and the last one wasn’t.  The last one was fiction.  The plot was by Obama and Comey, Brennan, and Clapper were the editors.  They couldn’t even get their own senior analysts to sign off on it.  Yet they put it out and even though there was no evidence of Putin’s preference for Trump, they used it to promote the idea that not only was there a preference, but there had been collusion.  And today, after Muler, Durham, the IG, and Tulsi’s releases, there is no doubt about what happened.  The only question is who will be held to account and what that will entail. 

[1032004]

8 hours ago, Offthemat said:

I agree that the earlier assessments were accurate and approved by all the IC agencies and the last one wasn’t.  The last one was fiction.  The plot was by Obama and Comey, Brennan, and Clapper were the editors.  They couldn’t even get their own senior analysts to sign off on it.  Yet they put it out and even though there was no evidence of Putin’s preference for Trump, they used it to promote the idea that not only was there a preference, but there had been collusion.  And today, after Muler, Durham, the IG, and Tulsi’s releases, there is no doubt about what happened.  The only question is who will be held to account and what that will entail. 

Where exactly is there an allegation that Trump colluded with Russia?  I don’t see that in the link you provided.

[scourge165]

On 7/9/2025 at 8:04 AM, 1032004 said:

Looks like the right got their marching orders to distract from the Epstein mess

Also... it wasn't a Hoax. Trump admitted it, his Chief of Staff admitted it. The entire intelligence apparatus said it happened.

Russia interfered. They did it again in 2020 and 2024.

 

Yet...if you were ACTUALLY going to prosecute someone, it's odd that the FBI would be investigating both the Republican Candidate AND the Democratic Candidate the Last week before the election but only publicly announce one of the two investigation which... is not what they do. 

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/trump-acknowledges-russia-role-in-us-election-hacking-aide-idUSKBN14S0O9/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Quote

Yes, the Trump administration did acknowledge that Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. In January 2017, President-elect Donald Trump's incoming chief of staff, Reince Priebus, stated that Trump accepted the U.S. intelligence community's conclusion that Russia engaged in cyberattacks during the election.

The U.S. intelligence community, including the FBI, CIA, and NSA, concluded that Russia conducted a widespread campaign to influence the election in favor of Donald Trump. This assessment was supported by the Mueller report, which found that Russian interference occurred "in sweeping and systematic fashion" and "violated U.S. criminal law"

[Offthemat]

2 hours ago, 1032004 said:

Where exactly is there an allegation that Trump colluded with Russia?  I don’t see that in the link you provided.

They made the collusion claims publicly.  

[Paul158]

1 hour ago, Offthemat said:

They made the collusion claims publicly.  

They made them (the claims) over and over and over again. From all of the liberal politicians to all of the liberal media outlets. That is one thing the liberals are exceptionally good at slandering their political opponents. They get their marching orders, and they all repeat word for word what they are told to say. Kinda reminds me of the Stepford Wives.

[Caveira]

24 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

They made them (the claims) over and over and over again. From all of the liberal politicians to all of the liberal media outlets. That is one thing the liberals are exceptionally good at slandering their political opponents. They get their marching orders, and they all repeat word for word what they are told to say. Kinda reminds me of the Stepford Wives.

One of these. ?

 

Edited August 9 by Caveira

[Offthemat]

9 minutes ago, Caveira said:

One of these. ?

 

Yes.  That technique was used extensively by all of the usual suspects, and even Jimmy Carter publicly claimed that Trump was an illegitimate president.

[Offthemat]

Schifty

“A career intelligence officer who worked for Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee for more than a decade repeatedly warned the FBI beginning in 2017 that then-Rep. Adam Schiff had approved leaking classified information to smear then-President Donald Trump over the now-debunked Russiagate scandal, according to bombshell FBI memos that Director Kash Patel has turned over to Congress…

 

In his most recent interview with the bureau in 2023, the whistleblower, whose name is redacted, told agents from the FBI's St. Louis office that he personally attended a meeting at which Schiff authorized leaking classified information.“

 

https://justthenews.com/government/congress/exclusive-democrat-whistleblower-told-fbi-schiff-approved-leaking-classified

[Offthemat]

 

[Offthemat]

Miranda Devine: Bumbling Obama aides actually admit Russiagate was a smear campaign against Trump

https://nypost.com/2025/08/13/opinion/obama-aides-admit-russiagate-was-a-smear-campaign-against-trump/

 

[Offthemat]

It got buried.

 

Months after probing Clinton server scandal, Comey's FBI had its own private email issue, memos say

The recently declassified memos show investigators found former Director Comey’s chief of staff used a private email account in furtherance of an "unauthorized disclosure" to news media.

The memos are the latest evidence that FBI agents on the front lines had serious concerns about illegal leaks and abuses of classified information allegedly involving major figures in Washington like Comey, now Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Clinton. The efforts at investigating were repeatedly thwarted.

 

https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/fbi-had-its-own-private-email-problem-while-investigating-clinton

Edited yesterday at 03:59 PM by Offthemat

[Tripnsweep]

46 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

It got buried.

 

Months after probing Clinton server scandal, Comey's FBI had its own private email issue, memos say

The recently declassified memos show investigators found former Director Comey’s chief of staff used a private email account in furtherance of an "unauthorized disclosure" to news media.

The memos are the latest evidence that FBI agents on the front lines had serious concerns about illegal leaks and abuses of classified information allegedly involving major figures in Washington like Comey, now Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Clinton. The efforts at investigating were repeatedly thwarted.

 

https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/fbi-had-its-own-private-email-problem-while-investigating-clinton

That's your news source?

[Offthemat]

12 minutes ago, Tripnsweep said:

That's your news source?

A major one, yes.  Even though they frequently break news, they rarely report anything without showing the receipts, the documentation that substantiates the story.  A highly credible source.  Your hyena emoji only reveals your bias and ignorance.  There’s another poster here who favors using it, too.

[Tripnsweep]

10 hours ago, Offthemat said:

A major one, yes.  Even though they frequently break news, they rarely report anything without showing the receipts, the documentation that substantiates the story.  A highly credible source.  Your hyena emoji only reveals your bias and ignorance.  There’s another poster here who favors using it, too.

You might as well be reading the Weekly World News in that case. 

[Offthemat]

1 hour ago, Tripnsweep said:

You might as well be reading the Weekly World News in that case. 

Your idiocy is manifest.