Quoted from joebxr

https://www.washingtonpost.com.....m_term=.7050da01c224

Quoted Text

Just for the moment, let's just unpack one part of that — Trump's charge that “the head of the DNC” gave his opponent “the questions to the debate.” It's a misdirection that worked on the campaign trail, because a kernel of it was true. In the spring of 2016, Donna Brazile, then a former interim Democratic National Committee chair and permanent committee member, was a CNN contributor privy to some of the network's prep for its Democratic primary debates. Twice, according to emails stolen from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and released by WikiLeaks, Brazile tipped off Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri about what was coming.

Quoted from CICERO

This is a well written piece of propaganda.  SO FACTUAL REPORTING THAT IS SUBSTANTIATED BY TWEETS AND ACTUAL QUOTES
THAT ARE ON THE RECORD IS PROPAGANDA???? REALLY???
Trump never suggested that Brazile gave the debate question for the Clinton/Trump debate. AS IS CLEARLY STATED WITHIN THE ARTICLE!
Just that it was given it to Clinton in advance.  The rigging was of the Democrat primary debate not the general election debates.  The DNC never denied that they rigged their own primary for Clinton's advantage.  

Joey...What was the point of your link to this article?  To prove the information revealed by these leaks/hacks exposed the DNC rigging their party primary?

Quoted Text

Trump keeps misleading his voters on the Donna Brazile debate scandal

By David Weigel
December 16   

Friday morning's iteration of our ongoing national drama, “the president-elect tweets something outrageous,” was one for the books. For the past few days, President-elect Donald Trump — who has not given a news conference since urging Russians to hack Hillary Clinton's private email server — has insisted that stories about the hack are politically motivated. Friday, he moved on and suggested that however the hack was done, it performed a public service:

Just for the moment, let's just unpack one part of that — Trump's charge that “the head of the DNC” gave his opponent “the questions to the debate.” It's a misdirection that worked on the campaign trail, because a kernel of it was true. In the spring of 2016, Donna Brazile, then a former interim Democratic National Committee chair and permanent committee member, was a CNN contributor privy to some of the network's prep for its Democratic primary debates. Twice, according to emails stolen from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and released by WikiLeaks, Brazile tipped off Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri about what was coming.





[Hacked emails suggest Trump was right after all: Clinton got previews of some debate questions]  

“One of the questions directed to HRC tomorrow is from a woman with a rash,” Brazile wrote on March 5. On March 12, she wrote (hilariously, considering that these would be hacked and revealed to the world) “from time to time I get the questions in advance,” and shared a very specific-looking question about the death penalty that might be asked at a candidate forum.

As The Fix's Aaron Blake wrote in the fall, neither of Brazile's leaks offered the verbatim questions that Clinton would get. But her leaks, justifiably, were scandalous. She had used her role with CNN to pipe questions back to her friends at the Democratic front-runner's campaign, while a competitive primary against Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was underway. She revealed none of this on the air. CNN, again justifiably, fired her.

Yet in talking about this clear-cut scandal, Trump has frequently left the impression that Brazile's leaks hurt him. He's also described Brazile as the “DNC chair" -- a job she did not hold until five months after the emails to Palmieri. (Ironically, she became DNC chair after stolen DNC emails sunk the already-embattled Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.).) In the final days of the campaign, as Brazile's CNN career ended, Trump would tell his audiences of yet more malfeasance in Clintonworld.

Trump demands to know why Clinton didn't report getting debate questions
      
At a rally in Grand Rapids, Mich., Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump accused Democratic rival Hillary Clinton of getting debate questions ahead of time from then-CNN contributor and DNC official Donna Brazile and demanded to know why Clinton didn't report it.  (The Washington Post)

“I want to know, was she given the questions to my debate?” he asked at a rally in North Carolina. “But she was given the questions to a debate by Donna Brazile.”

There was no suggestion that Brazile had access to the Republican primary debates or the general election debates. But on Twitter, whenever he referred to the Brazile scandal, Trump left that murky. Brazile, he would say, leaked questions from “a debate” or “the debate.” Someone dipping in, without reading the details, would be left thinking that Brazile had rigged the Clinton-Trump debates — debates that Clinton was seen to have won.

Trump's use of the Brazile story was misleading and masterful. The people who read the story's details and were most likely to be angry were supporters of Sanders, who Trump wanted to abandon Clinton (either by voting for him or staying home). The people unfamiliar with the stories heard only, amid the general election debate season, that “the DNC chair leaked debate questions.”

Of course, the bigger takeaway here is that Trump may have hoped this line would direct attention away from the latest Russia hack details and back onto campaign season battles — in which case, the tweet is off-base on multiple levels.

Quoted from CICERO

Joey, after you take a deep breath...Take a look WAPO article below and find the 3 words highlighted in RED.  The writer of this article added that phrase.  If you notice, there are NO QUOTES around those words attributing them to Donald Trump.(if you think I removed the quotes when I posted this, check the original article yourself)  The fact is, if people were "dipping" into this article, one might think that Trump had actually said "the head of the DNC gave my opponent the questions to the debate".  The fact is, Trump never said the words "gave my opponent".  He said Hillary, or Crooked Hillary, or Hillary Clinton.

Joey, it actually sounds like you are "dipping", because you clearly didn't notice the author of this article added his own words to slant the story(Fake News) to mislead the readers by adding language that Trump never used.  Talk about misleading.  

It was clear from the beginning when the Brazile email was released that Brazile was colluding with CNN and the Clinton Campaign to rig the Democrat Primary in favor for Hillary Clinton and against Bernie Sanders.

You should stop "dipping" into "fake news" articles to mislead people into believing Trump said something he did not say.  This writer is attempting to cover up the fact that WikiLeaks exposed that the DNC was rigging their party elections, and redirect it toward the current "blame the Russians" narrative that is going on. This writer is trying to salvage the DNC's reputation after the leaked emails exposed that their primaries were nothing more than a sham.

Quoted from joebxr

Hey DIPPER...you can't read!!! I have no idea what you are foaming at the mouth about!
Your said "Trump never suggested that Brazile gave the debate question for the Clinton/Trump debate."
and I agreed by saying  "AS IS CLEARLY STATED WITHIN THE ARTICLE!"
The article is VERY CLEAR that it was the HRC/BS debates AND NOT the HRC/TRUMP debates.
WAKE UP!!!!!!

Quoted from CICERO

Then why did you post a link to an article whose premise is that Trump's tweet was "misleading"?

Quoted from joebxr

I didn't pick title of article, I only posted the info, which was pertinent to Bumblers posting!

Why did you post a Time magazine cover and claim it showed US Gov intervention in Russian
elections, when it had nothing to do with US Gov anything...it was only about a couple of
image consultants hired by Russian Gov?  And why did you defend it as US Gov intervention
when I showed you it wasn't?

Quoted Text

Spinning Hillary: a history of America and Russia's mutual meddling

Donald Trump once again shocked Americans when he appeared to call on Russia to hack and release Hillary Clinton’s emails from the personal server she used while she was secretary of state.

His comments came as allegations swirled that Russian authorities had hacked the Democratic National Committee’s emails in an attempt to sabotage Clinton.

Donald Trump to Russia: hack and publish Hillary Clinton's 'missing' emails
Political pundits and Democratic leaders were quick to express outrage that the GOP candidate would even jokingly invite a foreign government, let alone Russia, to interfere. But surely if WikiLeaks has taught us anything over the years, it’s that foreign meddling is a global business – one the US does very well in.

This isn’t even the first time the US and Russia have interfered in each other’s presidential campaigns. In a little-known quirk of post-cold war history, the 1996 re-election campaign of Putin’s mentor, Boris Yeltsin, was secretly managed by three American political consultants who on more than one occasion allegedly received direct assistance from Bill Clinton’s White House.

Dresner was a close associate of Dick Morris, a top political advisor in the Clinton White House who in 1996 was in the midst of managing Clinton’s own re-election campaign.

Shumate, Gorton, Dresner, and Steven Moore (who came on later as a PR specialist) gave an exclusive interview to Time magazine in 1996 about their adventures working as political consultants in Russia. They also detailed the extent of their collaboration with the Clinton White House.

They said they dealt mostly with Morris, and were sure to speak in codes, referring to Clinton as the Governor of California and Yeltsin as the Governor of Texas]

Quoted Text

Dick Morris: Bill Clinton Advised Russian President Boris Yeltsin in 1996
http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsm.....;oref=www.google.com

Quoted from joebxr

BWAHAHAHAH....
allegedly
al·leg·ed·ly
/əˈlejədlē/
adverb: allegedly
used to convey that something is claimed to be the case or have taken place, although there is no proof.


From your link on spinning.....
"While mostly a comedy of errors about the differences between Russian and American political culture
(Yeltsin’s Russian advisors don’t understand why the Americans think the candidate should kiss babies and smile for the cameras), ..."
WOW, now there's some major US interference!!!!
Here's your Clinton connection:
"At one point, after weeks of trying to convince Yeltsin’s handlers that he needs to personally appear in his campaign ads,
the film shows Dresner calling Morris to ask if Clinton will make “a long distance call to lend a gentle guiding hand to Boris
as he takes his first steps toward democracy”." "Sources close to Yeltsin have denied the involvement of American political consultants in the 1996 election.
“It’s bullshit,” Sergei Filatov, Yeltsin’s former head of staff, said in 2003. “I never saw them. They weren’t needed at all. But as they had been paid we decided to let them sit quietly in the President Hotel and not interfere.”"

Quoted Text

Dick Morris - "When I worked for Clinton, Clinton called me and said, 'I want to get Yeltsin elected as president of Russia against Gennady Zyuganov, who was the communist who was running against him. Putin was Zyuganov's major backer.

"It became public that Clinton would meet with me every week. We would review the polling that was being done for Yeltsin that was being done by a colleague of mine, who was sending it to me every week. We, Clinton and I, would go through it and Bill would pick up the hotline and talk to Yeltsin and tell him what commercials to run, where to campaign, what positions to take. He basically became Yeltsin's political consultant
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax.....016/09/08/id/747327/

Quoted from CICERO

So was Bill Clinton involved or not involved in helping to influence the outcome of the 1996 Russian Presidential election?  Was Dick Morris lying or is Sergei Filatov lying?  

Quoted from joebxr

And none of it comes remotely close to the INFLUENCE this thread
intended to discuss and has been presented regarding today's situations.

Quoted from CICERO

Huh?  This is about Russia allegedly influencing American electoral politics is it not?  NOT WITH PHONE CALLS IF THERE WERE ANY! THEY ALLEGEDLY HACKED INTO OUR SYSTEM INTENT ON AFFECTING INFLUENCE!
A U.S. president(Bill Clinton) consulting with a Russian presidential candidate(Boris Yeltsin) is not considered a foreign nation meddling in a foreign election?  If you found out that Vlad Putin was in direct contact with the Trump campaign and providing consultation on a weekly basis, you wouldn't consider that "influencing" the election?  NOT IF HE IS SAYING, HEY, DO MORE COMMERCIALS, SMILE MORE, KISS SOME BABIES!!

Man...You need to take off those red, white, and blue colored glasses. MAN YOU NEED TO PUT SOME GLASSES ON IF YOU ARE SERIOUSLY SAYING THE COMPARISON IS EQUAL, EQUAL!  NOT EVEN CLOSE!

BTW...This whole "Russians hacked us" story is being used to distract people from the real story, which is the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton's rigged their party primary and colluded the corrupt MSM outlets. The Democratic Party and the Media institutions have been severely if not permanently damaged, and the "blame the Russians" is all they have to try to salvage their reputations.  I don't think it's going to work.

Quoted from joebxr

Huh?  This is about Russia allegedly influencing American electoral politics is it not?  NOT WITH PHONE CALLS IF THERE WERE ANY! THEY ALLEGEDLY HACKED INTO OUR SYSTEM INTENT ON AFFECTING INFLUENCE!They didn't hack into "our" system, these emails released by WikiLeaks exposed conversations between a political party(DNC) and mainstream media outlets.  None of the emails released were off of government systems, they were from Podesta's private email account.

A U.S. president(Bill Clinton) consulting with a Russian presidential candidate(Boris Yeltsin) is not considered a foreign nation meddling in a foreign election?  If you found out that Vlad Putin was in direct contact with the Trump campaign and providing consultation on a weekly basis, you wouldn't consider that "influencing" the election?  NOT IF HE IS SAYING, HEY, DO MORE COMMERCIALS, SMILE MORE, KISS SOME BABIES!! You're ok with Putin and other foreign leaders directly consulting with a U.S. Presidential Candidate? Ok...Odd...But Ok...

Man...You need to take off those red, white, and blue colored glasses.    MAN YOU NEED TO PUT SOME GLASSES ON IF YOU ARE SERIOUSLY SAYING THE COMPARISON IS EQUAL, EQUAL!  NOT EVEN CLOSE! You are right, not even close.  The Americans admitted to meddling in Russian elections, and even splashed it on the cover of Time Magazine.  Russia denies responsibility for the exposed Podesta emails, and WikiLeaks confirms they didn't originate from a Russian hack.  Actually a former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan has claimed to have met the leaker and said it's someone from inside the DNC. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/

Quoted from joebxr

https://www.washingtonpost.com.....m_term=.7050da01c224

Quoted Text

Washington Post: Readers Deserve Full Disclosure in Coverage of CIA

The Washington Post should be honest with readers about a big conflict of interest: The newspaper's new owner Jeff Bezos is the founder and CEO of Amazon -- which recently landed a $600 million contract with the CIA.

The Post often does reporting on CIA activities. The coverage should include full disclosure that the owner of the Washington Post is also the main owner of Amazon -- and Amazon is now gaining huge profits directly from the CIA.

RootsAction co-founder Norman Solomon delivering the first batch of petitions -- signed by 30,000 people -- at the Washington Post headquarters in January 2014:

Tell the Washington Post that readers of its articles on the CIA have a right to know that the Post’s owner is in business with the CIA.

A basic principle of journalism is to acknowledge when the owner of a media outlet has a major financial relationship with the subject of coverage. We strongly urge the Washington Post to be fully candid with its readers about the fact that the newspaper’s new owner, Jeff Bezos, is the founder and CEO of Amazon which recently landed a $600 million contract with the CIA. The Washington Post’s coverage of the CIA should include full disclosure that the sole owner of the Post is also the main owner of Amazon -- and Amazon is now gaining huge profits directly from the CIA.