Ja, men sånn jeg husker det ble den pushet som “Trump har ikke gjort noen ting galt”. Og det var ikke det jeg leste i den, bare at de ikke var sikre på at han kunne straffes. Så da leser jeg den igjen senere, så kan vi få fram det som faktisk sto. 
1 Like
Selvsagt var store deler av informasjonen fake. Hvis det virkelig var en “collusion” mellom Trump og Russland hadde han blitt stilt for landsforræderi allerede, noe som da aldri skjedde.
1 Like
Kan Biden straffes for sin korrupsjon i Ukraina?
Mer skjeletter i skapet hans enn hos Trump.
Rart media dysser ned søppelet som har blitt gravet frem 
3 Likes
The headline read “Investigating Donald Trump, FBI Sees No Clear Link to Russia.” The top of the piece dealt with the FBI’s doubts about the Alfa Bank allegation, and waited until the tenth paragraph to disclose the broader inquiry. It also noted the FBI believed the hacking operation “was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump.”
Hvis du leter etter noe å lese Martins så kan du jo være den første til å trykke på den meget gode linken jeg la ved over her. Som går gjennom alt sammen. Den er ny fra i går. Bedre det enn å lese noe fra 5 år siden som aldri endte med noe som helst 
Ok, så da har vi en delt gjeng? Kan ikke deale med alle, så forholder meg til at Muller rapporten er til å stole på mtp. innhold. Så får jeg lese den før jeg drar videre konklusjoner.
1 Like
Selvfølgelig. Trump motsatte seg Putin i Syria, ville stoppe Nord Stream 2, og fortalte tyskerne om å ikke gjøre seg avhengige av russisk petroleum.
“President Trump threatened Tuesday to cancel his scheduled meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin at a global summit later this week because of Russia’s maritime clash with Ukraine, saying, “I don’t like that aggression.” - November 28, 2018
Men neida… han er jo en russisk agent kjøpt av Putin.
Massesuggesjonen og konformiteten som mediene dirigerer på den lojale saueflokken er skummel.
9 Likes
Her er introduksjonen til Mueller rapporten som er kort og lett å lese. Forhåpentligvis kan det oppklare noe av forvirringen her:
Sammendrag
INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME I
This report is submitted to the Attorney General pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 600.8(c), which
states that, “[a]t the conclusion of the Special Counsel’s work, he . . . shall provide the Attorney
General a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions [the Special
Counsel] reached.”
The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and
systematic fashion. Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016. In
June, the Democratic National Committee and its cyber response team publicly announced that
Russian hackers had compromised its computer network. Releases of hacked materials—hacks
that public reporting soon attributed to the Russian government—began that same month.
Additional releases followed in July through the organization WikiLeaks, with further releases in
October and November.
In late July 2016, soon after WikiLeaks’s first release of stolen documents, a foreign
government contacted the FBI about a May 2016 encounter with Trump Campaign foreign policy
advisor George Papadopoulos. Papadopoulos had suggested to a representative of that foreign
government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that
it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. That information prompted the FBI on July
31, 2016, to open an investigation into whether individuals associated with the Trump Campaign
were coordinating with the Russian government in its interference activities.
That fall, two federal agencies jointly announced that the Russian government “directed
recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including US political
organizations,” and, “[t]hese thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election
process.” After the election, in late December 2016, the United States imposed sanctions on Russia
for having interfered in the election. By early 2017, several congressional committees were
examining Russia’s interference in the election.
Within the Executive Branch, these investigatory efforts ultimately led to the May 2017
appointment of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III. The order appointing the Special Counsel
authorized him to investigate “the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016
presidential election,” including any links or coordination between the Russian government and
individuals associated with the Trump Campaign.
As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel’s investigation established that
Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a
Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J.
Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence
service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers
working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also
identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although
the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump
presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit
electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not
establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian
government in its election interference activities.
Below we describe the evidentiary considerations underpinning statements about the
results of our investigation and the Special Counsel’s charging decisions, and we then provide an
overview of the two volumes of our report.
The report describes actions and events that the Special Counsel’s Office found to be
supported by the evidence collected in our investigation. In some instances, the report points out
the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event. In other
instances, when substantial, credible evidence enabled the Office to reach a conclusion with
confidence, the report states that the investigation established that certain actions or events
occurred. A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there
was no evidence of those facts.
In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted
a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing,
the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” was used in communications with the Acting
Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has
frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific
offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal
criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability
was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the
factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign “coordinat[ed]”—a term that appears
in the appointment order—with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion,
“coordination” does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood
coordination to require an agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the
Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking
actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
The report on our investigation consists of two volumes:
Volume I describes the factual results of the Special Counsel’s investigation of Russia’s
interference in the 2016 presidential election and its interactions with the Trump Campaign.
Section I describes the scope of the investigation. Sections II and III describe the principal ways
Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. Section IV describes links between the Russian
government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign. Section V sets forth the Special
Counsel’s charging decisions.
Volume II addresses the President’s actions towards the FBI’s investigation into Russia’s
interference in the 2016 presidential election and related matters, and his actions towards the
Special Counsel’s investigation. Volume II separately states its framework and the considerations
that guided that investigation.
Så om vi stoler på Muller rapporten hadde jeg rett ang.:
Og dette var feil av h3nk1, gitt at mullers rapport er korrekt.
Dette er ett hundre prosent tøv - en påstand og løgn som har blitt gjentatt så mange ganger at folk tror det faktisk er sant. Det eneste man har klart å dokumentere etter uendelig antall FBI-agenter og ressurser er noen tusen USD i Facebook-ads med Bernie Sanders i baris memes (med hensikt å generere klikkinntekter, IKKE påvirke valget i seg selv).
Muller rapporten side 12, sammendrag av volum 1:
Samt i at det var mange punkter med kontakt mellom Russland og Trumps kampanje. S13-15+16 Oppsummering av volum 1(delvis):
Her er hele rapporten for de som er interessert i litt historie i stedet for å bare lese overskrifter og propaganda om den: Full Mueller Report - DocumentCloud
3 Likes
FBI sier noe annet. Se over.
Forresten leser verdens smarteste person også Project Veritas
Disse påstandende / fremstillingene er plukket fullstendig fra hverandre.
“Purchase of political advertisements”
Noen dollar på halvnaken Bernie memes.
Men du verden, imponerende språkføring i en årelang fadese av en “etterforskning”.
3 Likes
Får ikke lest musks tweets uten twitterkonto dessverre:
Dette innlegget ble rapportert og er midlertidig skjult.
Rart hvor defensive dere blir av at muller rapporten sier mer enn bare “No collusion”, at Project Veritas fremstiller saker uærlig og russland bruker sosiale medier til å påvirke velgere og å spre missinformation. Nesten så dere er påvirket til å tro mye rart av missinformation etter lang tid i sosiale medier hvor incentivet til de dere leser fra er følelser ikke fakta, altså reactions og engagement, ikke om noe er riktig. 
7 Likes
1 Like
Ja, det er riktig. Mueller-rapporten sier noe mer enn bare det. Den sier også hvordan FBI fremla absolutt ingen bevis på deres påstander om at DNC-serverne og Podesta-emailene ble hacket av GRU-agenter. Faktisk, så etterforsket ikke FBI noe som helst angående serverne. En statlig etterforskning ble det merkelig nok aldri noe av. Istedenfor leide de inn CrowdStrike, et privat firma som har vært kontraktør for demokratene i lang tid.
Og det morsomste av alt er at CrowdStrike-grunnleggeren Alperovitch er en “Senior Fellow” hos the Atlantic Council.
Etterforskningen var ikke nonpartisan og konkrete bevis ble det aldri noe av.
4 Likes
Hvilke konspirasjonsteorier har ikke vist seg å være sanne de siste 3 årene?
Når mediene selv er største pådriver for misinformation så skyver de alle oppegående ut i sosiale medier mot deres vilje.
Hva heter den som presenterte om misinformation under World economic forum? Jo Brian Stelter. Den værste av alle… 
Sparket fra CNN! Værre går det vel ikke an å ha på CV’en.
4 Likes
Ahhhhhhhhhhh jeg blir gaaaaal. Kan vi ikke bare splitte opp disse store selskapene og bli ferdig med det? Jeg orker ikke lenger å høre på Støre, Senterpartiet og en haug av andre sosialistiske nissepolitikere skylde på de store stygge kapitalistene både for høye priser OG dårlig utvalg.
Er det et problem at bonde-eide Nortura (som eier Gilde og Prior blant annet) skrur opp prisene? Eller er det kun et problem når Rema 1000 skrur opp prisene?
Er denne regjeringens økte subsidier (til en allerede oversubsidiert næring) et problem? Eller er det kun et problem at Rema 1000 skrur opp prisene?
Sagt med andre ord: Skal Rema 1000 drive veldedighet, mens bøndene mesker seg? Hvorfor er det ingen som arresterer dem på dette?
7 Likes
Herregud så hårsåre dere som flagger disse postene er! Helt latterlig!
Hint: Elon Musk skrev på Japansk.
Humor ok… var mye humor i de andre postene dere flagget i helga også. Bare sier det.
Enda et hint, hvis man bruker emoji så er det humorfare på ferde
Tror de fleste er mett på den taktløse mannen der.
Skremmer de rike til Sveits og de fattige til Sverige 
4 Likes
Må stemmes ut ved valget! 
2 Likes