Democrats claim, based on 2017 democrat lies, that Gabbard is lying about Brennan being commissioned to produce a fake Russian assessment.

[mark francis]

Leftist democrats and their leftist cheerleaders in the news media continue their assaults on the truth and the American people. Recently declassified government documents proved the democrats fabricated and promoted the fake Russian collusion hoax, and all the statements made in prior years to the contrary do nothing to refute the irrefutable recently declassified evidence.

 

[Phoenix68]

Recently declassified government documents proved the democrats fabricated and promoted the fake Russian collusion hoax, and all the statements made in prior years to the contrary do nothing to refute the irrefutable recently declassified evidence.

.

.
How odd that your irrefutable recently declassified evidence always manages to disappear, every time you most-desperately need it!
.​

 

[mark francis]

.
View attachment 23080
.
How odd that your irrefutable recently declassified evidence always manages to disappear, every time you most-desperately need it!
.​

The evidence Bondi and Patel have will not be disappearing.

 

[Gabriel_Bell]

There is no doubt that the Russians conspired to assist Shitshizpants to win in 2016. And who the eff cares about the 2016 election, anyway? Gabbard was chosen because she is good at lying to support Trump.

 

[mark francis]

There is no doubt that the Russians conspired to assist Shitshizpants to win in 2016. And who the eff cares about the 2016 election, anyway? Gabbard was chosen because she is good at lying to support Trump.

There is no doubt in the minds of some that democrats lied about the Russian collusion that faithful democrat rubes have no doubt actually occurred. If fact checkers claiming the Russian collusion conspiracy was not a hoax and present their checked facts, must we accept their word without question? Absolutely not.

Here is one 'fact checking' source that pretends to disprove clear evidence of democrat collusion in fabricating and promoting the Russian collusion lie. Let's do a little fact-checking of our own.

PolitiFact | Fact-checking three of Tulsi Gabbard’s attacks on Obama about Russian election interference

​

Fact-checking three of Tulsi Gabbard’s attacks on Obama about Russian election interference

By Ella MooreJuly 24, 2025
By Amy ShermanJuly 24, 2025

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said she uncovered evidence that directly points to former President Barack Obama "leading the manufacturing of this intelligence assessment" about Russia’s involvement in the 2016 U.S. election.

Gabbard based her July 23 statements on documents she declassified in July, including government emails and reports by intelligence officials during the final months of Obama’s presidency and a House committee report written by Republicans in 2017 and updated in 2020. Gabbard called for a criminal investigation, and the Justice Department announced a new "strike force" to evaluate the information.

The gist of Gabbard’s argument is that Obama knew the intelligence community had concluded that Russia could not and did not alter votes, but he wanted an assessment that said Russia did interfere.

But Gabbard oversimplifies the situation with Russian election interference in 2016. "Interference" is a broad word. It was not merely a question about whether Russia would alter votes and the election’s outcome — which did not happen.

Russian interference in 2016 included hacking the Democratic National Committee and the campaign of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee who lost to Donald Trump, and spreading propaganda. That interference was designed to sow discord and election distrust.

The fact checkers are entirely wrong in this debunked claim, yet they shamelessly present it as fact in their attempt to refute or debunk what gabbard reported. Mueller found no evidence that Russia hacked into the DNC emails and the head of CrowdStrike reported under oath that the emails were not exfiltrated by hacking. "Fact" #1 one presented by these fact-checkers turns out to be a lie.
More to come ...

​

 

[Gabriel_Bell]

Obama was a GREAT PRESIDENT. Shitshizpants is a corrupt, cheating rapey con man that belongs in prison.

 

[mark francis]

There is no doubt in the minds of some that democrats lied about the Russian collusion that faithful democrat rubes have no doubt actually occurred. If fact checkers claiming the Russian collusion conspiracy was not a hoax and present their checked facts, must we accept their word without question? Absolutely not.

Here is one 'fact checking' source that pretends to disprove clear evidence of democrat collusion in fabricating and promoting the Russian collusion lie. Let's do a little fact-checking of our own.

PolitiFact | Fact-checking three of Tulsi Gabbard’s attacks on Obama about Russian election interference

Interference by Russia was not a conclusion only on the political left. Multiple in-depth reviews reached the same conclusion, including a 2020 bipartisan Senate committee chaired by then Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who is now secretary of state.

Conclusions drawn by biased or unbiased parties are not proof, they are debatable conclusions. The so-called fact-checkers offer no proof, just opinions and findings that themselves offer no proof. How can Senate committees find evidence that Russia hacked into the DNC email system if the investigators said that did not happen? Anyone claiming the sworn testimony of government witnesses is wrong because some senator did not believe the witness is not proof the senator or the committee or anyone else is right.

Here, we fact-check three of Gabbard’s statements.


Before the 2016 election, "The intelligence community had one assessment, that Russia did not have the intent or capability to try to impact the outcome of the U.S. election." Fox News, July 22

This is misleading. Intelligence officials’ predictions before the election were not cut and dried. The emails show some back and forth among intelligence officials in different agencies in the months preceding Election Day.

While the emails show they thought it unlikely Russia could subvert election results, they expressed broad concern about interference.

On Aug. 31, 2016, an official wrote that a team was working with the Central Intelligence Agency on a President’s Daily Brief submission — an intelligence report prepared for the president and top officials — on the threat.

"The thrust of the analysis is that there is no indication of a Russian threat to directly manipulate the actual vote count through cyber means," the official wrote. "However, as seen in recent media reporting, any cyber activity directed against the election infrastructure is likely to have an effect on public confidence — even if the cyber operation is unsuccessful or not intended to impact the election," such as a threat from a voter registration database.

A Sept. 2, 2016, email from the FBI said a sentence in a document regarding Russia’s intent should be "softened." The email said the unedited sentence "would indicate that we have definitive information that Russia does intend to disrupt our elections and we are uncomfortable making that assessment at this point."

The email suggested changing the wording so that it didn’t "mislead the reader to believe that the (intelligence community) currently has information indicating Russia has a known intent to influence the elections."

Gabbard highlights some of those sections in her summary memo.

Gabbard highlighted the fact that some US intelligence officials thought Russia was incapable of interference yet as time progressed, we see a mixture of opinions that do not prove Russia interfered but that include some opinions that Russia might could interfere. That in no way proves Russia interfered in the 2016 election.

But there were more damning intelligence official statements about the potential for election interference.

For example, the Sept. 2 FBI email said, "In an extremely close race, it is certainly possible that a very targeted cyber attack aimed at manipulating votes could lead to a change to the legitimate results and affect the outcome of the election," such as in a swing county in a swing state.

"Although this is unlikely, it certainly remains a possibility and one that can’t be discounted — due to the high impact — even with the disjointed nature of US election technology," the FBI wrote.

A Sept. 14 report to Obama said foreign adversaries, most notably Russia, "can conduct cyber operations against election infrastructure to undermine the credibility of the process and weaken the perceived legitimacy of the winning candidate."

Documents show some disagreement about the confidence in some conclusions. For example, the FBI and CIA had high confidence that Russia sought to discredit the U.S. election process and harm Clinton’s reputation in support of Trump. The NSA expressed moderate confidence in these conclusions.

What "damning intelligence statements" and by whom? This is not a fact check, this is more opinion based speculations, assumptions, conclusions and other mishmash by an assortment of officials who not only are not completely certain Russian interference took place but are still unsure that Russian interference was even possible. More ...

 

[mark francis]

There is no doubt in the minds of some that democrats lied about the Russian collusion that faithful democrat rubes have no doubt actually occurred. If fact checkers claiming the Russian collusion conspiracy was not a hoax and present their checked facts, must we accept their word without question? Absolutely not.

Here is one 'fact checking' source that pretends to disprove clear evidence of democrat collusion in fabricating and promoting the Russian collusion lie. Let's do a little fact-checking of our own.

PolitiFact | Fact-checking three of Tulsi Gabbard’s attacks on Obama about Russian election interference

​

Fact-checking three of Tulsi Gabbard’s attacks on Obama about Russian election interference

The assessment that Obama requested "completely contradicted those assessments that had come previously." Fox News, July 22

That’s inaccurate. The post-election assessment did not completely contradict earlier assessments.

Obama may have disagreed with some of the assorted assessments, but he certainly did not debunk anyone's assessment on either side.

On Dec. 8, 2016, intelligence community officials discussed the President’s Daily Brief, saying Russians did not influence election results via cyberattacks. Officials planned to issue the classified brief to Obama the next day but did not.

Around the same time, Obama asked for a comprehensive analysis about Russian meddling back to 2008, including how Moscow sought to influence the 2016 election and what it hoped to achieve, and an assessment of possible future risks.

That assessment, produced in early January 2017, said Russia "probably was in a position to tamper with some voter registration databases" but "the types of systems we observed Russian actors targeting or compromising are not involved in vote tallying."

The dishonest fact checkers completely skipped over the Sept 2016 assessment that stated there was no indication that Russia wanted Trump to win. That omission not only debunks the fact checkers' claims but exposes the fact checkers to be guilty of either ignorance or dishonesty.

It also said Moscow’s influence campaign blended covert operations such as cyber activity with overt efforts by government agencies, state media and social media trolls.

"Moscow would have seen its election influence campaign as at least a qualified success regardless of the outcome of the election because of its perceived ability to impact public discussion in the United States," it said.

Intelligence officials during the Obama administration "all knew that the Steele dossier was discredited at this point." Fox News, July 18, 2025

The dossier was compiled during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele and contained numerous explosive but unverified claims about the Trump campaign and Russia.

Intelligence officials used the dossier, to some extent, to persuade a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court to authorize surveillance of Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. But it was the actions of another Trump campaign adviser — George Papadopoulos — that actually started special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into whether the Trump campaign committed wrongdoing.

The two-year Mueller report presented a sweeping narrative of Russia’s 2016 election interference and reaffirmed the intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia favored Trump over Clinton. However, Mueller found the Kremlin’s acts on Trump’s behalf and numerous contacts between the campaign and Russia didn't rise to the level of criminal conspiracy or coordination.

The Dec 2016 and Jan 2017 'intelligence reports' on Russian collusion were deliberate democrat lies, and these fact checkers fail to prove otherwise.

​

​

 

[mark francis]

Obama was a GREAT PRESIDENT. Shitshizpants is a corrupt, cheating rapey con man that belongs in prison.

I know. There are still Obama supporters who have the highest praise and admiration for him for their own biased reasons.