FAQ

Frequently asked (or misanswered) questions about Russiagate (Trump Russia Collusion). Frequently asked (or misanswered) questions about Russiagate (Trump Russia Collusion). ℹ️ Info

Russiagate/FAQ

Russiagate/FAQ • [17 items]

Q: What is this Russia thing about?

A: It's not about Russia. It's that Hillary lost the election. Democrats had a sob-fit, the Clinton campaign had a documented plan to keep the administration and public off balance and #resist by any means possible. Clintons went with their favored tactic of smear campaign, and their allies and rubes went along with her treasonous plan to undermine the elected President.

A: It's not about Russia : The DNC hasn't cared about Russia since 1917. A: Hillary lost the election -- and the Clinton's did what they always did; and followed a documented plan to keep the administration and public off balance and #resist by any means possible, using their favored tactic of smear campaign (like they had done before with Obama and birtherism). They paid Fusion GPS to plant false narratives (Steele Dossier: which claimed Trump the germaphobe would get into water-sports with Russian hookers while being taped), they leaked this to their allies in the FBI and Press. The Obama administration and FBI cronies suppressed the investigation into Russian hacking while it was going on (so they couldn't disprove it), then used Hillary's falsified evidence to: get illegal warrants to spy on the Trump campaign then illegally unmasked Americans then illegally leaked this fake information to their allies in the Press who irresponsibly ran with it (and never did Journalism of verifying or trying to figure out agendas). Whenever they got caught lying, the dems/media shift the narratives. So we know that The DNC had actually: (a) colluded with the Russians (b) subverted the election (c) obstructed justice/investigation, after Obama had used government agencies to attack his political opponents. The DNC will do anything to undermine this President, our nation, and his agenda: including helping Russian interests (who wanted to undermine confidence in our elections), or trying to get us in a conflict with worlds largest Nuclear Power. (We now have the worlds second largest arsenal after Obama reduced ours). Would dems do any of that if they really cared about Russia?

Q: Did Russia hack our election?

A: No. Russian might have interfered in our election... in retaliation for us interfering in theirs first but there's zero evidence they altered the outcome, or meddled with the tally in any way -- and that's what "hacking" means. To hack our election implies that Russia got into our voting machines, digitally manipulated our media, and effected the outcome.

A: No. Russian might have interfered in our election... in retaliation for us interfering in theirs first, but there's zero evidence they altered the outcome, or meddled with the tally in any way -- and that's what "hacking" means. To hack our election implies that Russia got into our voting machines, digitally manipulated our media, or swung the public (or delegates) voting through manipulation. Nobody has been able to show that Russia tampered with a voter machine, changed a vote, or made a vote illegally. There's not even any evidence that through various PR or hacking efforts, they were able to change a single voters mind, let alone an electoral vote (Trump won by 77 of those), and they certainly didn't to swing the election. We know the Chinese hacked the Election Commission in 2013 (amongst others) and are a bigger threat, and that Obama ignored both Russian and Chinese hacking attempts in general, for 8 years. But that isn't hacking our election. This isn't just pedantic, this is foundational in understanding who is telling the truth and who is not. "Hacking the election" is just a smokescreen invented by the Hillary campaign (after they lost) to provide cover for losing the most winnable election in history. When asked about hacking the election, Vladimir Putin replied, "The Democrats didn't just lose the presidential election, but the House and the Senate for the last 6 years. Did I do that as well?" Which sort of sums it up. When Putin is more honest than our Democrats, media and intelligence agencies, then there's a problem.

Q: Did Russia "influence" our elections?

A: There's no evidence that the Russians were successful at influencing anyone. We know from exit polls, that people who voted against Hillary, or for Trump, didn’t have the leaks as any of primary motive: they had decided long before, and over other issues.

Russians have tried to "influence" our elections for 70 years, often at the request of Democrats. Russians have always supported opposition groups from the Vietnam War, to Martin Luther King, to environmentalist movements like anti-Fracking, anti-Dakota Pipeline, or anti-humanity (the Sierra Club). All during the Obama administration and up to early 2016 (before the primary), they did some insignificant ad buys/trolling (a few thousand posts among billions, and $5K of $20B), there's a probability that they "hacked" a Hillary operatives email, and a lesser possibility that they were behind leaking those truths to Wikileaks. But that means the Russians did what the media should have done (called investigative journalism), and investigated and released evidence that the media, DNC, and Hillary campaign had conspired to sabotage Bernie Sanders, and corrupt/rig the election. Instead the media was behind collaborating to get Hillary elected. If the media had done their job, the Russians would have had no impact. If Russians had an impact, it proves the media wasn't doing their job in informing us. When the leaks came to light, the Media/Democrats first lied about it (and implied that these emails were faked), then changed the subject to "Russian Hacks" or "Trump colluded with Russia".

Q: Why did Russia interfere?

A: All countries try to influence (interfere) in other countries elections. We interfered first. There is no room for the moral high ground or outrage. This is nothing new, nor was there evidence that they were extraordinary in means or success. Allies and enemies alike, spy, hack, and even try to influence elections.

America interfered with 81 countries election in the last few decades, and Obama administration interfered with elections in Russia, Ukraine, Israel (Netanyahu), the U.K. (Brexit), and Germany (remember hacking Merkel's phone)? Russia was just doing back to us, what we'd done to them first. And any agency that omits that isn't trying to inform their base. That isn't whataboutism, that is about 70 years of historical precedent.> So while more has been leaked to the public -- everything known has been known since mid-2106. Before the election, Obama said Trump should stop his whining and there was nothing to see here. This only became an issue after the election, because it was politically advantageous for the Democrats to make a scene. If Hillary had won, is there anyone who believes Obama would have had this tantrum or the Democrats would be calling for investigations? If you believe that, then you're a rube. Democrats would love Trump to start a conflict or worsen relations with the world's biggest Nuclear power, just to gain votes - but the DNC's interests are not America's interests. So knowing all that, what should we do? We already slapped sanctions, Obama threw out 30 Russian diplomats (only after Obama was a lame-duck, and in order to try to sabotage relations for the next administration). Trump responded harsher to Russia than Obama has. Now we improve or infosec (information security) and move on or we escalate towards war. Pick one. We should certainly slap Russia if we find them doing something new. But tantrums over things 2 years old, where the worst they did is tell the truth about Democrats, is just stupid.

Q: What should we do about the Russian interference?

A: Remember, the evidence that Russian's "hacked" Podesta's email and the DNC is pretty strong. The evidence that they were the source behind Wikileaks is much weaker. But why after sitting on this info for 9 months (or 8 years) should we do anything right as Obama exits? This is a problem for the incoming administration, not the lame duck.

The Obama administration and government hasn’t bothered to define what an "official cyber attack" even is (let alone whether this actually qualifies), but they were sure the Russians had done it. And thus we could commit acts of pre-war like throwing out diplomats, and the media wasn't calling him on it? Here's a few hacks and events that got no response from Obama: April 2009 - Hacked the U.S. electrical grid April 2009 - Hacked Pentagon's Joint Strike Fighter project March 2012 - NASA was hacked (as they were in 2011) - had control of NASA computers February 2013 - DOE (Dept of Energy) was hacked - 14,000 employee records stolen December 2013 - China Hacked Federal Election Commission March 2014: Russian invaded and annexed Crimea March 2014: Russian destabilized and invaded other parts of Ukraine (Russia violated multiple treaties, Obama breaks our promise to defend Ukraine) September 2014 - Hacked U.S. Postal Service - 800,000 employee records September 2014 - China Hacked National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration September 2014: Draws Red line in Syria over WMD’s (chemical weapons), then walks away when it’s violated October 2014 - White House Website was hacked November 2014: State Department was hacked April 2015: Dept. of Defense was hacked May 2015: IRS was hacked - getting 300,000 tax returns June 2015: Office of Personnel Management After 8 years of doing nothing about serious hacks or real threats to national security (by Chinese, Russians, North Korean and Iranians -- in order of frequency and importance), suddenly Obama does his most aggressive foreign policy move (throwing out 30 Russian diplomats), just weeks before he left office, because of the possibility that they might have hacked the DNC and leaked the truth to the public. None of those others were worthy of official response from the Obama administration. But scant evidence that the Russians may have helped get the truth out about criminal and immoral acts done by the Hillary campaign: and that put the Obama admin on a war footing. If that doesn't sound suspicious or political to you, then you may be a Democrat.

Q: What about the Podesta email hacks?

A: Despite CNN and other FakeNews sites repeating that the Russian hacked the election, that they collaborated with Trump, that they manipulated the election, they've yet to show any evidence. Besides this not making sense, there's more evidence against this than for it.

The Russian hacker thing seems to be a great system for separating the rational and skeptical, from the rest. Despite CNN and other FakeNews sites repeating that the Russian hacked the election, that they collaborated with Trump, that they manipulated the election, they've yet to show any evidence. Besides this not making sense, there's more evidence against this than for it. The Dems just created this narrative as an excuse to distract away from their actions in rigging the primary, and fumbling the election. Maybe the Russians were behind Podesta's email hacks, if you trust the politicized intelligence departments, but that's something that deserves a grain of salt -- and there's no evidence it changed any votes, let alone the outcome -- so it's a nothing-burger.

Q: What about Russian trolls, and Social Media?

A: There's nothing there. While FakeNews (CNN, etc) will sensationalize this to no end, there's no there, there. There was no huge spend, there was no change in votes, there was no Russian troll army. There was a few hundred thousand in ads, in a election that spent many billions on ads. If they were that persuasive with that much less effort/money, they deserve it.

Here's the basics: there was no huge spend, the amount contributed was infentesimal and had no impact on the election (numbers like $50K over multiple years, most supporting Bernie, BLM, etc, in an election where ≈$1B was spent). Sensationalizing how many people "saw" an ad or a post means nothing. How many things might you have scrolled by and never paid attention to, or only linked to in order to mock? there's no big Russian troll army -- the Wikileaks stuff showed the Democrats have a larger army of paid trolls, not to mention unpaid ones, being SJW's and attacking anyone with which they disagree Just because someone is Russian, doesn't mean they're operatives of Putin, any more than George Soros and Koch Brothers represent Donald Trump.

Q: Is Collusion a crime?

A: No. And even if they did, Donald Trump colluded, that's still not illegal. It might be an unsavory/unethical dirty-trick (like Hillary paying for the fake dossier, leaking it to the Press, and the FBI/Obama administration using it to spy on the Trump campaign), but that's not criminal, and thus is not supposed to be impeachable. Thus impeachment is a scam.

Remember the basics: even if Russia hacked the DNC, released these emails, paid to support Trump, with the intent of manipulating our election, AND Donald Trump colluded and cheered them on, that still means the Trump Administration did nothing illegal. It might be an unsavory/unethical dirty-trick (like Hillary paying for the fake dossier, leaking it to the Press, and the FBI/Obama administration using it to spy on the Trump campaign), but unlike them, collusion is not criminal, and thus is not supposed to be impeachable. If collusion was a crime, then Jimmy Carter, Bill, Hillary, Barack, Ted Kennedy, and a few others would already be in jail -- because we have harder evidence that they colluded with foreign governments. There no rational standard where Trump is more guilty than the Democrats, and the Press, Democrats and Public have been fine with what the Democrats did. If you haven't heard that in the Press, then that shows how dishonest your sources are.

Q: Did the Russians want Donald Trump to win?

A: there's no evidence of that. - no one (least of all "intelligence sources") ever provided a good motive for why Russia would want Trump over Hillary. Hillary had a history of being more bribable and blackmail-able, so if they wanted a puppet or someone they could compromise, they had their Manchurian candidate in her.

Basics: No one (least of all "intelligence sources") ever provided a good motive for why Russia would want Trump over Hillary. Hillary had a history of being more bribable and blackmail-able, so if they wanted a puppet or someone they could compromise, they had their Manchurian candidate in her. Their $5,000 ad spends showed that Russia did what they've always done, which is support far left ideologues, like supported Bernie Sanders, SJW, Black Lives Matters. They played up issues like crime, mass shootings, lack of gun control, and that America is corrupt, even echoing the Hillary campaign (after the election) on how the election was tainted. How does repeating DNC and media talking points, support Donald Trump? If it does, doesn't that make Sanders/BLM traitors? The Russians undermine confidence in America to make Russia look less bad in contrast, and distract Americans on domestic problems, to keep them away from foreign interventions. That's all. That's not about one candidate or another, that's about general distraction. The DNC does the same thing as the Russians, to try to convince the public that they need more Democrats and Government to fix things. So Russia and the DNC have always been aligned. (Russians refer to these Democrat supporters as "useful idiots"). This goes back to hippies, the Vietnam war movement, environmentalism, FDR, the Red Scare, and before. This time was no different. Also remember that DNC/Hillary campaign got caught paying for far more trolls, astro-turfers, and even paid thugs to violently assault Trump supporters at his rally's. The Democrats went much further than the Russians. So if we should arrest anyone that did that, we should start with the DNC/Hillary campaign.

Q: Did Trump or his campaign collude with Russia?

Despite 4 investigations, and multiple Democrats claiming things like Collusion/Obstruction, we have no good evidence that anyone can point to. There's virtually no evidence of Russian collusion, and never has been. At least for Trump. The Hillary Campaign, FBI, and DNC? Oh, they colluded. But the left and their media doesn't care about that.

Nope: Despite 4 investigations, and multiple Democrats claiming things like Collusion/Obstruction, we have no good evidence that anyone can point to. There's virtually no evidence of Russian collusion, and never has been. While CNN watchers won't know better, the people that were often only briefly involved in the Trump campaign (Manafort, Papadopoulos, Flynn), were sometimes snared in the fishing expedition -- but for things unrelated to Russian Collusion, and things they did during the Obama administration (not the colluding with Russia, or obstructing the investigation into it). The best they have is that after the first Wikileaks details got out, Trump (the bombast) joked that if it was the Russians had done it, maybe they could fine the 30,000 emails that Hillary had illegally deleted. That's not what the Russians went after or was released in the 2nd Wikileaks exposure, and it turned out that the FBI was acting as the enforcement arm of the DNC, breaking the law/policy by exonerating Hillary, and Anthony Wiener's computer had many more than just 30,000 illegal emails on it, some were top secret, and that some deleted weren't just about Yoga or Wedding planning (and they never released): that's a crime. Lastly, something you never hear on CNN or NYT, is that even if there was collusion, collusion not a crime, or Hillary and Obama would be in prison (not to mention Carter, Kennedy and other Democrats). So this is all a distraction -- and the fact that the media doesn't point that out, kind of proves that they're not interested in informing the public.

Q: Did Hillary, the DNC, or Obama collude with Russia

Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy (twice), Bill Clinton, all asked for Russian collusion and interference in our elections. Barack Obama, in an infamous hot-mic incident, was colluding with the Russians. Hillary campaign paid the Russians for a fake Steele "Pee-Pee" dossier. So there was Russian collusion... by Democrats.

The Democrats have repeatedly colluded with other countries to try to influence/subvert our elections. Jimmy Carter asked the Russians to interfere in Reagan's election. Ted Kennedy twice reached out to Russia for the same thing. Bill Clinton did a quid-pro-quo deal with the Russians to help his re-election. Barack Obama in an infamous hot-mic incident was colluding with the Russians. The Hillary campaign paid the Russians for a fake Steele "Pee-Pee" dossier and invented this mess to undermine Trump. That dossier gave the Obama administration and their cronies in the FBI an excuse to get illegal FISA wiretaps on Trump's guy (Carter Page), by perjuring themselves to a Judge -- and that allowed them to listen in on Trump's campaign, then illegally unmask and leak that, all to undermine the elected President! Which helps who? The Russians, since undermining confidence in the election was what the Russians were trying to do all along. Oh, and the DNC, FBI and the media got caught colluding to fix the election and get Hillary in the Whitehouse (and undermine our Bernie Sanders and our Democracy), as proven by the Wikileaks documents and later confessions. That's not even touching the "reset button" fiasco, or giving away our Uranium for payoffs in speaking fees. But nothing at all to show Trump Campaign was doing any election-rigging collusion with the Russians. And again, if "Collusion" was a crime (and not "Foreign Policy"), all of them would have been imprisoned. Read: DNC-Russian_Collusion for all the juicy details.

Q: What did IG DOJ FBI Report show

The 2016 IG/DOJ report has many startling revelations about rampant partisan bias, lawbreaking (criminality) around Trump/Russiagate fraud. This wasn't just Comey, but 5 others, including Obama criminally lying about events.

So the IG Report showed that: the FBI and DOJ were biased in handling the Hillary case Comey and much of the FBI was in the bag for Hillary. (Aka: the Deep State operatives) The Russians could only dream of having the kind of influence on an election that the FBI, Democrats and the Media have to undermine Democrats and persuade the public through dishonest propaganda. We know is that if the public had known the truths in the IG report about how corrupt and biased the FBI/Comey/Hillary/Obama had been during all this, or if they Hillary was being prosecuted during the election as was required by law, then it would have changed many votes away from Hillary and in favor of Trump. Read: FBI/IG DOJ FBI Report for all the juicy details.

Q: Is Trump compromised by Russians?

A: Only the irrational can believe that. Despite almost 2 years of investigating, there's no evidence of Trump's direct contact with the Russians. We have hard evidence of both Obama and Hillary having direct contact with the Russians (and getting payoffs). And Trump is far harsher on Russia (as proven by his term) than Hillary/Obama ever was.

A: Only the irrational/misinformed can believe that. Despite almost 2 years of investigating, there's no evidence of Trump's direct contact with the Russians. We have hard evidence of both Obama and Hillary having direct contact with the Russians (and getting payoffs). And when you look at policies, Trump is crushing the feckless Obama/Hillary administration in actions that hurt Russia. If Donald Trump was compromised, don't you think the Russians would have some leverage and use it? Think about how stupid the "Trump=Russian Puppet" argument is, Russians wanted Trump to win, so: he could be stronger on domestic policy tighten our border security he'd increase our economy and use that to get more global influence on international fair trade. Russia's economy is 40% dependent on oil, so they'd want an American President who would up our oil and coal production to undercut them. They wanted him to strengthen NATO's defense and resolve put missile defense in Poland increase our military spending (and Nuclear program) to create a Space Force To eliminate ISIS let the world know he wouldn't tolerate chemical weapons (Syria/Asad) kill Russians that got in his way in Syria give weapons to Ukraine shame Germany for their dependence on Russian Natural Gas (and push a trade-deal where they would get more NG from the U.S. and less from Russia) It's dumb to think that the Russians wanted Trump to win, but even Alex Jones isn't bat shit crazy enough to float the regular CNN/MSNBC conspiracies that Russians are controlling Trump, and he's giving them what he wants.

Q: Shouldn't we trust the Intelligence Agencies?

NO! Being rationally skeptical is called critical thinking. So as Reagan said, "trust but verify". If the evidence supports the case, and they're being open? Sure. If they're not being open, and the story doesn't add up, then "of course not". The CIA's (and FBI's) job is to often to lie. You don't think they'll lie to you for an agenda?

NO! Being rationally skeptical is called critical thinking. So as Reagan said, "trust but verify". If the evidence supports the case, and they're being open? Sure. If they're not being open, and the story doesn't add up, then "of course not". The FBI is normally about telling the truth, but the CIA's job is to lie. And both the top of the FBI and CIA, in this case, have been caught lying, politicking (against this administration), the top leadership has been fired and are being investigated. Thus the media and democrats that have been telling us since Vietnam to never trust the CIA, are suddenly saying we should trust unnamed agency sources without evidence (and without question)? That doesn't sound political to you? These are the folks that: didn’t see 9/11 coming that empowered the "Bush lied" falsehood with “WMD’s were a slam dunk” who was wrong on ISIS/Caliphate and said it was, "unfathomable to think ISIS could establish a caliphate in the Middle East”, and Obama confirmed later that, "ISIS was not on my intelligence radar screens” while pulling us out of Iraq (and enabling them to get a toehold) the same CIA director that helped in draft the ill-fated Benghazi talking points (that the attack was a “spontaneous — not a premeditated” protest) the same ones that caught texting about insurance policies against Trump, and had multiple people fired for abuse of power, corruption, fraud and lies? Remember the text about "We’ll stop [Trump]"? That was hidden from Congressional investigators by the FBI, after multiple requests for information. Then the texts were lost, and unrecoverable. Only after a stink and later investigations did it come out, proving the FBI was lying to congress. So not trusting the FBI after they lied to congress and the public about this stuff, isn't just prudent, it's proven to be wise. Also remember that there was a ton of evidence contradicting the Russian narrative, but that wasn't getting as much attention. Like UK intelligence asset that said he carried the leaks from a disgruntled Bernie supporter to Assange. (Shhhh). And finally the narrative is switching to Comey was at fault. Not for protecting Hillary from Crimes, or allowing the DOJ to illegally share information during an investigation, in tarmac meetings about "grandkids". Remember, that the intelligence agencies contradicted themselves early on (NSA disagreed with CIA), it was only after the Obama Appointees cracked the whip, that they stopped. So if you always or never trust the agencies, then you're a loon (rube or conspiracy kook). Follow the evidence and behavior. The evidence around this whole thing has been so tainted by the Obama administrations abuses of power, and using cronies to do their bidding, that you'd be fool (or a Democrat) to blindly trust them on this.

Q: Was Trump wiretapped?

Yes. The three things (Russia, Trump and Wiretapping) are intricately tied together, in ways that reflect poorly on the mainstream media, and those who believe that media. NYT/CNN/WaPo called Trump a fool for thinking he was wiretapped. 6 months or a year later, they all admit that he was wiretapped, but with a bunch of wiggle words and excuses.

The three things (Russia, Trump and Wiretapping) are intricately tied together, in ways that reflect poorly on the mainstream media, and those who believe that media. Remember this sequence: Trump: I was "wire tapped" NYT/CNN/WaPo: Haha. That idiot @realDonaldTrump thinks he was wiretapped. ..Six months later... NYT/CNN/WaPo: Trump was wiretapped. We know that: Paul Manafort and Carter Page were both illegally wiretapped those wiretaps were illegally gotten based on the Obama Administration cronies lying to the FISA Courts by claiming the FBI/CIA had vetted the material, and not revealing that it was all based on the Hillary paid-for Dossier Those warrants were then used to spy on the Trump Campaign, and the information they gathered was then used to charge Paul Manafort with crimes unrelated to Russia Collusion/Obstruction and also used to illegally unmask American Citizens, and illegally leak that information to the public'. Right before this happened, Obama had changed the rules for seeing this top secret information (unmasking) information, which made it easier to leak these secrets and harder to track who did it. Top candidates with access were Obama appointees John Brennan, Susan Rice, or Samantha Power We do not know how much criminal sharing was going on (back and forth), but we do know Obama lied in saying that he wasn't following the investigation, and some clandestine communication was happening (from private texts from Peter Strzok and Lisa Page) We also know that Bill Clinton got caught lying about an "impromptu" clandestine tarmac meeting (that was later shown to be pre-planned) with the Obama's DOJ (Attorney General Loretta Lynch), where they said they just "talked about grandkids" during the hight of Hillary's email investigation. Uh huh. CNN or the NYT have either avoided as much of that context as possible, or actively attacked anyone that questioned the motives or actions of these impeccable sources.

Q: What about Helsinki?

A: This proves media bias, more than Trump bias. Look, every President meets with the Russia. Virtually all Politicians say nice things about powerful leaders, and try to butter them up, and get some things from them, so they can play great statesman. But when Trump does less than Hillary, Obama, Bill Clinton, they scream.

A: This proves media bias, more than Trump bias. Look, every President meets with the Russia. Virtually all Politicians say nice things about powerful leaders, and try to butter them up, and get some things from them, so they can play great statesman. Trump is no different than all of his predecessors in this regard, if anything, he sucked up LESS. Part of it is truth, part of it is that in order to persuade the other side, they have to make them feel at ease. Remember basic history: Bill Clinton met Putin, and when Putin suggested Russia joining NATO, Bill said he had, "no objection." And after first meeting Putin said, "I think he is fully capable of building a prosperous, strong Russia, while preserving freedom and pluralism and the rule of law.” When Bush first met Putin, he was asked if he trusted Putin, and he said "Yes". When pressed, "Why?", Bush replied that he "looked into his eyes, and said he saw his soul". Later, after the invasion of Georgia, Bush called him "cold blooded". Obama/Hillary wanted to restore relations after that, and created a mock "Reset Button", and in their normal fashion, fucked it up, and it was mistranslated and actually said, "Overcharged". And the Obama admin gave Russia all sorts of concessions like not putting in anti-missile system in Poland, without getting anything in return. Then Trump attacked Mitt Romney, for saying Russia was our biggest threat, and said Romney was "stuck in a Cold War mind warp". Then Obama got caught on hot-mic admitting to Russian President Medvedev that he'd have flexibility to do more for Russia after Obama's last election. Russia invaded Urkaine soon after that. If you aren't reminded of this, every time they're talking about Trump and Putin, that's because the media is intentionally trying to miseducate you, and convert Trump into something nefarious, for the most benign of behaviors. He did nothing unusually fawning or apologetic, and has been harder on Russia than Obama Admin ever was.

Q: Who was the leadership during the Russiagate stuff?

A: The Obama administration.

A: The Obama administration. President Barack Obama had done nothing for 6 years of Russian hacking, and had emboldened Russians with his repeated inactions to their bad behavior. Then during the election, told the CIA/FBI to stand down on investigating the hacks, then only reacted to the "Russian Menace" after Hillary lost the election. John Brennan (Obama Appointee) was head of the CIA - caught lying many times, and now is talking about "Treason" for Trump having a meeting with Putin, proving he's either flamingly ignorant of the law and what that means, or he's a partisan Obama/DNC lackey, willing to say anything for fame/attention. Both mar his career. James Clapper (Obama Appointee) was National Intelligence Director - caught lying many times, is now a CNN shill, attacking the current administration for having fired him. Disgruntled employee? First Mueller (Obama Appointee), then James Comey (Obama Appointee) were heads of the FBI -- both have been caught lying. Comey is now a CNN shill that attacks the current administration for having fired him. Disgruntled employee? Mueller was Comey's best buddy and is waiting for his opportunity to cash in as a CNN shill that attacks any conservative. Andrew McCabe (Comey Appointee), caught lying multiple times about what happened during the Russia investigation, eventually fired for incompetence and political hackery. Paul Manafort - being tried for things unrelated to the Trump campaign -- things he did during the Obama administration, while working for Hillary's Campaign Head's brother (Tony Podesta). Both men did the exact same thing, only Tony Podesta was given immunity by the Obama DOJ, and Paul Manafort is having the book thrown at him. Peter Strzok, Lisa Page - couple of unfaithful spousal-cheaters, who got caught lying and texting each other absurdly biased things about how they needed to stop Trump, and get Hillary in office. They were put on Mueller's team to investigate Trump, after Peter had successfully helped sabotage the Hillary email server investigation, and rewrite the press release to make her crimes look less criminal to the gullible. And these guys and the media blame Trump. FakeNews organizations like CNN love to put Clapper, Brennan, Comey on their talk shows, and never offer the context of them getting caught lying or mention the timing, or how they came to power (and thus who are most likely loyal to). Which is called a lie of omission -- the context of these men and their agenda is key to understanding why they're making the claims they are.

---

🔗 More

Russiagate The FBI used Hillary's lie about Russian Collusion, to illegally tap, distract and harass Trump, with media complicity.

FAQs Frequently Asked Questions.

Tags: Russiagate  FAQs