Hillary Was In On Russiagate

Uncategorized 1 Minute

Source: The American Conservative.

We might have “known” it was true all along, but now we have court case testimony that shows Russiagate was nothing but a Hillary-run dirty trick.

I don’t have any great hopes that the Durham prosecutions will lead to draining the swamp, but at least we can begin to speak factually about one of the most outrageous hoaxes in U.S. political history. Now we have both the subject and the verb for the sentences to be written: Hillary did it.

Published by John Todd Roberts

Published

42 thoughts on “Hillary Was In On Russiagate”

    1. Sorry, I don’t think so.

      The claims that you people have been pushing are horseshit. The source you are relying on (“American Conservative”) is not an honest source. The Trump campaign colluding with Russia happened. It has been demonstrated beyond any doubt by Mueller and others. It was not a “hoax” no matter how many times your loser of a Dear Leader says it was.

      The obviously dishonest spin in this nonsensical conspiracy piece is that Comey was working to get Hillary out of trouble when the fact is he personally sank her campaign – not once, but twice. That should tell you how much credit to give anything this source has to offer.

      And none of you gullible nitwits have a credible explanation as to why – if the deep state was out to sabotage Trump – did they keep the many things they already knew about his contacts with Russia a secret until after the election. The Steele dossier which could have been a real October surprise for Clinton did not become public knowledge until January 2017. The election was over. Duh!

      Like most of the nonsense you people are so eager to believe the claim that “Russiagate was nothing but a Hillary-run dirty trick.” does not stand up to even a tiny bit of critical thinking or even common sense. Your Dear Leader thinks you are fools and given his genius for playing them, he may be right.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. Blah, blah, blah.

        Why don’t you refute the testimony given at trial, which is the basis of TAC’s story?

        I know why: Your head is so full of fantasy there’s no room for new information.

        Like

        Reply

        2. RE: “What has been proven wrong?”

          I can’t speak for Dr. Tabor, but I can answer your question.

          TAC’s reporting shows that Hillary was not an innocent victim of Russiagate. She was, in fact a perpetrator.

          Like

          Reply

          1. Laughable nonsense.

            I have never said the Hillary Clinton was an “innocent victim.” I have said that she was right all along. Trump is entangled with Putin bigly. And he is.

            Perpetrator? What “crime” did she commit?
            What evidence was presented at this trial that refutes the Mueller Report?

            Liked by 1 person

          2. RE: “What ‘crime’ did she commit?”

            As mentioned in the article, she may be guilty of defamation, since the Alfa Bank and wifi stories she promulgated were known falsehoods.

            BTW, the Mueller Report found no evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia.

            Like

          3. “May have been guilty of defamation?”

            “Defamation” is not a crime. It is actionable in civil court and in fact the Russian oligarchs whose names came up in the Steele dossier sued for exactly that. However, they must not have a case that could withstand the evidence because they have now dropped those suits.

            https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/20/russian-oligarchs-dropped-lawsuit-fusion-gps-00018788

            The Mueller Report documented numerous instances of contact and cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russian agents. That’s “collusion.”

            Liked by 1 person

          4. RE: “‘Defamation’ is not a crime.”

            Wikipedia: “In addition to tort law, many jurisdictions treat defamation as a criminal offense and provide for penalties as such.”

            RE: “The Mueller Report documented numerous instances of contact and cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russian agents. That’s ‘collusion.'”

            None, apparently, illegal or impeachable, and none that caused an actionable injury to anyone.

            Like

        1. “WOW.”

          Is that all you got? If you would get over the giddiness of the idea that poor little Donald was the victim of that witch Hillary (“Lock her up!”) and actually read the evidence, you would have to conclude that you have been served another nothingburger by the lying liars of right-wing media.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

    2. Are you kidding?

      When he’s proven wrong, his posts just get longer and more insulting.

      He’ll never admit that the Clintons, Obamas, and Bidens are liars and crooks no matter how much proof is in front of him.

      Like

      Reply

      1. “Clintons, Obamas, and Bidens are liars and crooks”

        You think these insults directed at me are a substitute for evidence of your slanders. You are dead wrong.

        There is no proof that the Clintons, Obamas and Bidens are liars and crooks in front of me or anywhere else. If you really think there is, then you are a gullible nitwit.

        What is this big revelation this time? That the political campaign discussed the fruits of some opposition research that it had paid for? Work that was originally contracted for by Republicans. Unlike the Trump campaign HRC did not get dirt ILLEGALLY from Russian hackers. They got it the old-fashioned way – they paid for it.

        Again, as you have many times before, you people are drooling over yet another nothingburger.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

          1. See?
            What?

            This story has been repeated for years. Breathless excitement in Trumpmerica generated by phony right-wing media stories about breakthrough revelations coming out of the Durham investigation. Time and again those stories have proven to be nothing but vaporware. Here we go again. This time, they dishonestly characterize and exaggerate what was testified to in a minor part of a minor aspect of the Trump-Russia collusion story and you people lap it up.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. “ He’ll never admit that the Clintons, Obamas, and Bidens are liars and crooks no matter how much proof is in front of him.”

        (Irony in bold red letters?)

        The “proof” is shaky. The sworn testimony of Elias is pretty adamant that Sussman was not “directed or authorized” to take the Alfa Bank story to the FBI.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

      3. What proof is there, besides the rantings of right wing glitterati that Obama is a liar and a criminal? I’d ask about the Clintons and the Bidens, but you will throw out the same old tired BS tropes you always do.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

          1. With all due respect, why? Other than lobbing spitballs from the back of the class, your thoughts on this debate are weak unless you at least offer up why you think you are right.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. Why? Because it’s a FACT.

            I don’t have the time or energy to convince people who have been brainwashed by the Democrats and left-wing media, so I’ll just keep spitballing.

            Like

          3. What FACT are you talking about?

            If it not to much trouble to answer of course.

            Or is this a case of “if you don’t know then I’m not gonna tell you, so there.”?

            Liked by 2 people

          5. Mr. Spitball 😇, Durham’s case fell apart. Unanimous acquittal by the jury.

            So after years of fruitless investigation, one guilty plea to altering a few words in an email, one acquittal and one more minor case pending.

            “Politics ain’t beanbag”, so I am not naive enough to think Democrats are squeaky clean, nor could they be while slugging it out in the mud pit of todays politics. But conspiracies are the hobgoblins of little minds, and in my opinion, the franchise on little minds is owned by the MAGA party.

            Liked by 2 people

          6. “Because it’s a FACT.”

            I am wondering the same thing. What FACT are you referring to? No need to offer proof. Just, for the record, clearly state what FACT that you know to be true that we brainwashed do not accept.

            Liked by 1 person

      4. “When he’s proven wrong, his posts just get longer”…

        Unlike you and Mr. Roberts who go in search of “material” that makes it seem you are right. But when the facts ALL come together, you are proven wrong. Again, and again, and again, and…

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

  2. “During cross examination, the defense asked Elias if he, or anyone from the Clinton campaign, had directed or authorized Sussmann to bring the Alfa Bank allegations to the FBI.”

    “No,” Elias testified.

    https://news.yahoo.com/sussmann-durham-trial-marc-elias-215316263.html

    It seems this brings Durham back to the starting point.

    Maybe I’m missing something, but wasn’t the crux of the trial whether or not Sussman was specifically authorized to go to the FBI?

    I’m not sure what the bombshell is for this story.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. RE: “Maybe I’m missing something, but wasn’t the crux of the trial whether or not Sussman was specifically authorized to go to the FBI?”

      No. The crux of the trial is that Sussman is accused of perjury and lying to the FBI. The crux of the TAC story is this:

      “In a bombshell moment in the Sussmann trial, Mook testified that Hillary Clinton signed off on the plan to push out the information about the link between Trump and Alfa Bank despite concerns that the connection was dubious at best. Mook’s testimony is the first confirmation that Clinton was directly involved in the decision to feed the Trump-Alfa story. It explains some of her later actions.”

      Like

      Reply

        1. Not really. It doesn’t really matter whether Sussman was directed to take the Alfa Bank allegation to the FBI. He did so.

          What matters in the TAC story is that Hillary and other senior campaign staff were briefed on the dirty-trick material and knew it was questionable. FBI aside, they went public with it anyway. If I were a Hillary supporter, I would probably feel that she cheated me.

          Like

          Reply

          2. Legal facts from a legal proceeding? To paraphrase an old western (Blazing Saddles was on this weekend, so it is fresh in my mind.), “Facts? We don’t need no stinkin’ facts.”

            Liked by 1 person

  4. “I don’t have any great hopes that the Durham prosecutions will lead to draining the swamp, but at least we can begin to speak factually about one of the most outrageous hoaxes in U.S. political history. ”

    Oops! The prosecution failed, BIGLY. What’s next?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  5. So, the verdict is in – Not guilty.

    Durham got his charter based on Trump’s claims that Trump/Russia was a giant hoax organized in a conspiracy between Democrats and the Deep State. By all accounts, he has been tough and diligent and had very free rein. If there was something to be found, he would have found it. He didn’t. It is now even more clear that Team Trump got caught in the net that the security agencies were casting to catch Russian interference in the election.

    So, Mr. Roberts, let me borrow from Jim and ask if you are ready to eat some crow? After all, you have been predicting for years that Durham would bring the house down on these fraudsters making up stuff about Dear Leader.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

      1. “You are getting the same crickets I did.”

        It is human nature to not want to admit when you have been gulled. “Conservative” media has been feeding them bullshit since the day that Durham was appointed. Trump was going to be totally vindicated “very soon” and a lot of the evil doers and the “witch” who created the Trump/Russia “hoax” would be going to jail.

        It may have been Mark Twain who said that. . .

        “It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”

        That is where we are now with the Trump cultists in our midst. Already some of them are blaming “urban” jurors rather than admitting they have been served yet another nothingburger.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

Leave a comment