Current Events > In 2016, Obama Chose Politics Favoring Hillary Clinton, Over National Secuirty

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.redstate.com/jaycaruso/2017/06/24/barack-obama-chose-politics-favoring-hillary-clinton-over-national-security/

Is anyone actually surprised?
---

The most interesting thing about this article is that they're actually admitting that they do believe Russia interfered in the election.
---

Hoth, where'd you go bud?
---

A_Good_Boy posted...

Hoth, where'd you go bud?

We know Russia interfered. And we also know these liberal conspiracy theories that Trump colluded with them have no evidence, even after 6 months of non-stop investigations.
---

The Admiral posted...

And we also know these liberal conspiracy theories that Trump colluded with them have no evidence, even after 6 months of non-stop investigations.

You know there has been no evidence found, because...

???
---

Kim Kusanagi posted...

The Admiral posted...

And we also know these liberal conspiracy theories that Trump colluded with them have no evidence, even after 6 months of non-stop investigations.

You know there has been no evidence found, because...

???

Because no one can produce any evidence.

Can someone explain it in simpler terms so that Kim can understand?
---

Obama deported way more people than Trump so far, something I'm sure you love
---

The Admiral posted...

Because no one can produce any evidence.

And evidence during an investigation is surely going to be exposed to the mainstream audiences for everyone to see, right.

Can someone explain it in simpler terms so that Addy can understand?
---

The Admiral posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

Hoth, where'd you go bud?

We know Russia interfered. And we also know these liberal conspiracy theories that Trump colluded with them have no evidence, even after 6 months of non-stop investigations.

"Liberal" witch hunts don't get bipartisan support from the Senate. Evidence also won't be presented before an investigation concludes.
---

Speaking of Russia, the mainstream media has been noticeably toning the Russian coverage down---big time.

Some of you might want to take that as a little hint.
---

Capn Circus posted...

Speaking of Russia, the mainstream media has been noticeably toning the Russian coverage down---big time.

They've been covering a hurricane and Charlottesville/Arpaio and its fallout. I certainly wouldn't read into that as "They think the Russia story is dead".
---

hockeybub89 posted...

The Admiral posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

Hoth, where'd you go bud?

We know Russia interfered. And we also know these liberal conspiracy theories that Trump colluded with them have no evidence, even after 6 months of non-stop investigations.

"Liberal" witch hunts don't get bipartisan support from the Senate. Evidence also won't be presented before an investigation concludes.

Careful, hockeybub. Addy might get nuclear and start trying to melt down taking you with him.
---

The Admiral posted...

Kim Kusanagi posted...

The Admiral posted...

And we also know these liberal conspiracy theories that Trump colluded with them have no evidence, even after 6 months of non-stop investigations.

You know there has been no evidence found, because...

???

Because no one can produce any evidence.

Can someone explain it in simpler terms so that Kim can understand?

How does one align themselves so perfectly with a party? Seriously, post after post it seems you've assimilated brilliantly

Obama hangs out with Jerry Seinfeld and does other super cool things.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM-Q_zpuJGU

Obama haters are just mad jelly at his swag and popularity.
---

And Addy was all-in for the millionth Hillary investigation. I wonder when he demanded that evidence should be available for public scrutiny.
---

Anteaterking posted...

Capn Circus posted...

Speaking of Russia, the mainstream media has been noticeably toning the Russian coverage down---big time.

They've been covering a hurricane and Charlottesville/Arpaio and its fallout. I certainly wouldn't read into that as "They think the Russia story is dead".

Trump Shills don't understand how reporting works. They also seem to lack the ability to understand how object permanence works. They are basically like toddlers in that regard.
---

The Admiral posted...

after 6 months of non-stop investigations

this implies the investigations have released their findings which they have not

i will reserve judgment for when Mueller makes a public statement about the results

you would too if you were unbiased.

admit your bias.
---

Anteaterking posted...

They've been covering a hurricane and Charlottesville/Arpaio and its fallout. I certainly wouldn't read into that as "They think the Russia story is dead".

On top of that, coverage of the Russia investigation never stopped. It may not be getting "prime time coverage" or whatever, but we're still getting numerous reports on it.
---

Darkman124 posted...

The Admiral posted...

after 6 months of non-stop investigations

this implies the investigations have released their findings which they have not

i will reserve judgment for when Mueller makes a public statement about the results

This is a fair position, but we both know the FBI leaks like a sieve. If there was anything juicy, the NYT or WashPo would have heard about it weeks ago.
---

The Admiral posted...

but we both know the FBI leaks like a sieve

Good thing the FBI isn't Mueller.
---

The Admiral posted...

we both know the FBI leaks like a sieve

do we?

i don't think we do.

considering that leaking details of a criminal investigation would absolutely ruin jury pools, i am highly skeptical of this claim.

i think you have chosen to believe this in order to justify a conclusion you started with.
---

Darkman124 posted...

The Admiral posted...

we both know the FBI leaks like a sieve

do we?

i don't think we do.

considering that leaking details of a criminal investigation would absolutely ruin jury pools, i am highly skeptical of this claim.

i think you have chosen to believe this in order to justify a conclusion you started with.

My conclusion is that every news organization who was humiliated by being wrong about Trump has poured tens of millions of dollars into finding any dirt related to Russia, and they've all found nothing.

My position is thus that no evidence up to this point is no evidence up to this point, and that's completely rational. If this changes when the special counsel report is released, I'll change my position. But making any assertions to the contrary without this evidence is a conspiracy theory.
---

The FBI =/= Trump's White House
---

The Admiral posted...

My conclusion is that every news organization who was humiliated by being wrong about Trump has poured tens of millions of dollars into finding any dirt related to Russia, and they've all found nothing.

That is an assumption, not a conclusion.

The Admiral posted...

My position is thus that no evidence up to this point is no evidence up to this point, and that's completely rational.

that is a rational position and is based on the information released to the public.

suggesting that the evidence released to the public is 100% of all evidence is not a rational position and is based on nothing.

holding such a position requires you to invent assumptions like 'the media has found everything that Mueller has found', which are also based on nothing.
---

The Admiral posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

Hoth, where'd you go bud?

We know Russia interfered. And we also know these liberal conspiracy theories that Trump colluded with them have no evidence, even after 6 months of non-stop investigations.

You never tire of shitposting, do you?

The Admiral posted...

My conclusion is that every news organization who was humiliated by being wrong about Trump has poured tens of millions of dollars into finding any dirt related to Russia, and they've all found nothing.

...wow. Just... wow.
---

Darkman124 posted...

suggesting that the evidence released to the public is 100% of all evidence is not a rational position and is based on nothing.

This is literally the justification for every conspiracy theory. This is like saying "we don't have 100% of the evidence that Big Foot might exist."

The evidence available is the evidence available. Could there be additional evidence that leads up to a different conclusion than what every piece has thus far (which is no connection)? Sure. But it's not rational to assume that this is the case until it happens, especially when a lot of resources have been put into this already and come up with nothing.

We're at the point where your biases are clearly showing.
---

The Admiral posted...

My conclusion is that every news organization who was humiliated by being wrong about Trump has poured tens of millions of dollars into finding any dirt related to Russia, and they've all found nothing.

You don't even think that they've found suspicious doors which the special counsel would be able to open, even if the media themselves can not?
---

The Admiral posted...

This is literally the justification for every conspiracy theory. This is like saying "we don't have 100% of the evidence that Big Foot might exist."

The evidence available is the evidence available. Could there be additional evidence that leads up to a different conclusion than what every piece has thus far (which is no connection)? Sure. But it's not rational to assume that this is the case until it happens, especially when a lot of resources have been put into this already and come up with nothing.

We're at the point where your biases are clearly showing.

negative ghost rider, you're putting words in my mouth here. i'm not endorsing the 'trump colluded with russia' theory. because it's unproven.

i know why you're trying to: you've endorsed the 'trump could not have possibly colluded with russia' theory. which is as yet unproven. normally, it shouldn't have to be. but the present situation is not 'normally'.

normally, claims that require falsification and have not yet been tested should indeed be concluded to the negative. not when a legal investigation has been launched, however. the fact that there's an ongoing investigation into this subject tells me that it is not rational to conclude either from the available evidence.

that is what differentiates this from hyperbole such as bigfoot (which you included to attempt to throw an ad hominem, a sign you're desperate)- there is no legal investigation into the existence of bigfoot.

i await its conclusion and will trust that the investigation was effective and honest.

until then, the answer that makes the most sense is "we don't know yet."
---

The Admiral posted...

This is literally the justification for every conspiracy theory. This is like saying "we don't have 100% of the evidence that Big Foot might exist."

Uh, no, because we know there is an active investigation gathering evidence on Trump, and this is a first.

There have been dozens of amateur investigations on Bigfoot that have turned up nothing. They're not comparable in the least.

Plus Bigfoot is just logically implausible, like most conspiracies. If it doesn't pass the smell test you shouldn't consider it.
---