Trump Needs Conspiracy Theories

[90DayFinancier 910]

The president uses them for political and personal ends. The damage he’s wrought along the way won’t be easily repaired.

PETER NICHOLAS

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/11/trump-conspiracy-theories-ukraine/602728/

 

 

ALEX WONG / GETTY

.

.

 

Out tumbled the groundless suspicions of Donald Trump. The hacked Democratic National Committee server was somehow in Ukraine. Barack Obama himself might have ordered spies to infiltrate Trump’s campaign.

 

For an hour last week, the folks at Fox & Friends struggled to get a word in and elicit some facts, any facts, that might have verified the conspiracy theories the 45th president was breathlessly disgorging. “Who are your sources?” one host asked Trump. “I can’t tell you that,” Trump replied. Are you sure the server is in Ukraine? another asked. “Well, that’s what the word is,” Trump said

 

 

A product of tabloid culture, Trump has long trafficked in conspiracy theories. But as chief executive, he’s used the machinery of government to give the ones especially useful to him the stamp of official validation. (That’s the main reason he now faces impeachment in the House.) These baseless theories are a way for Trump to explain away his problems and undercut opponents. Beyond that, though, they seem to serve distinct emotional needs, feeding a narcissistic ego that cold reality won’t satisfy. His efforts to persuade the public to go along with these self-protective myths have already corroded democratic institutions. The wreckage from that destructive legacy won’t be easily repaired after he leaves the stage

Edited November 30, 2019 by 90DayFinancier

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

4 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

The president uses them for political and personal ends. The damage he’s wrought along the way won’t be easily repaired.

PETER NICHOLAS

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/11/trump-conspiracy-theories-ukraine/602728/

 

 

ALEX WONG / GETTY

.

.

 

Out tumbled the groundless suspicions of Donald Trump. The hacked Democratic National Committee server was somehow in Ukraine. Barack Obama himself might have ordered spies to infiltrate Trump’s campaign.

 

For an hour last week, the folks at Fox & Friends struggled to get a word in and elicit some facts, any facts, that might have verified the conspiracy theories the 45th president was breathlessly disgorging. “Who are your sources?” one host asked Trump. “I can’t tell you that,” Trump replied. Are you sure the server is in Ukraine? another asked. “Well, that’s what the word is,” Trump said

 

 

A product of tabloid culture, Trump has long trafficked in conspiracy theories. But as chief executive, he’s used the machinery of government to give the ones especially useful to him the stamp of official validation. (That’s the main reason he now faces impeachment in the House.) These baseless theories are a way for Trump to explain away his problems and undercut opponents. Beyond that, though, they seem to serve distinct emotional needs, feeding a narcissistic ego that cold reality won’t satisfy. His efforts to persuade the public to go along with these self-protective myths have already corroded democratic institutions. The wreckage from that destructive legacy won’t be easily repaired after he leaves the stage

I wonder who ego the fake russian conspiracy feed for 3 years ? Oh I also remember when he said his campaign had been spied on. What a nut right ?

Edited November 30, 2019 by Nature Boy 2.0

[90DayFinancier 910]

20 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I wonder who ego the fake russian conspiracy feed for 3 years ? Oh I also remember when he said his campaign had been spied on. What a nut right ?

Do you have proof that the campaign was "spied" upon? I saw Barr up in the hit seat. He would only say thought "spying occurred". It seems like when asked point blank under oath he would have stated so in no uncertain terms.

 

In other words, the point of the article is backed up by your response.

 

 

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

18 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Do you have proof that the campaign was "spied" upon? I saw Barr up in the hit seat. He would only say thought "spying occurred". It seems like when asked point blank under oath he would have stated so in no uncertain terms.

 

In other words, the point of the article is backed up by your response.

 

 

Lol, A drum makes a better sound than that dead horse you are beating

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

43 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Do you have proof that the campaign was "spied" upon? I saw Barr up in the hit seat. He would only say thought "spying occurred". It seems like when asked point blank under oath he would have stated so in no uncertain terms.

 

In other words, the point of the article is backed up by your response.

It's pretty common knowledge that the some of the campaign's most important people were being wiretapped. So basically they were spying on the campaign by tapping those people

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

37 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

It's pretty common knowledge that the some of the campaign's most important people were being wiretapped. So basically they were spying on the campaign by tapping those people

Its so widely known , right !

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 hour ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Do you have proof that the campaign was "spied" upon? I saw Barr up in the hit seat. He would only say thought "spying occurred". It seems like when asked point blank under oath he would have stated so in no uncertain terms.

 

In other words, the point of the article is backed up by your response.

 

 

He can't say under oath whether or not something is true while investigating it, prejudging his own investigation, and thus destroying its legitimacy in fact-finding for the impending IG Report. It would be dumb and have consequences in any actual trial.

 

He succinctly said he believes there was not only spying, but coordinated leaks between these agencies and the media.

 

But nonetheless, your media has presented countless articles, utilizing their bureau connections to talk up spying on Trump, only to gaslight you and tell you it didn't happen. It's an excellent case study on how effective gaslighting is. Here's the evidence:

 

1) Jan 12, 2017: Carter Page FISA warrant (that everyone's been talking about for almost 3 years now):

 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/10/fbi-chief-given-dossier-by-john-mccain-alleging-secret-trump-russia-contacts

Quote

The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials.

 

2) Jan 12: 2017: Obama admin, after 8 years, decides in the last few weeks before handing over to the Trump admin to change information sharing rules at the same exact time a myriad of leaks happened (hence why I'm putting dates on these publications):

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/politics/nsa-gets-more-latitude-to-share-intercepted-communications.html?platform=hootsuite

 

Quote

In its final days, the Obama administration has expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.

 

The new rules significantly relax longstanding limits on what the N.S.A. may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations, which are largely unregulated by American wiretapping laws. These include collecting satellite transmissions, phone calls and emails that cross network switches abroad, and messages between people abroad that cross domestic network switches.

 

 

3) Jan 12, 2017: Thankfully after two (supposed) rejections, they finally got a FISA order granted against the Trump campaign. I wonder who Trump campaign associates communicate with. 🤔

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38589427

 

Quote

Lawyers from the National Security Division in the Department of Justice then drew up an application. They took it to the secret US court that deals with intelligence, the Fisa court, named after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They wanted permission to intercept the electronic records from two Russian banks.

 

Their first application, in June, was rejected outright by the judge. They returned with a more narrowly drawn order in July and were rejected again.Finally, before a new judge, the order was granted, on 15 October, three weeks before election day.

Neither Mr Trump nor his associates are named in the Fisa order, which would only cover foreign citizens or foreign entities – in this case the Russian banks. But ultimately, the investigation is looking for transfers of money from Russia to the United States, each one, if proved, a felony offence.

A lawyer – outside the Department of Justice but familiar with the case – told me that three of Mr. Trump’s associates were the subject of the inquiry. “But it’s clear this is about Trump,” he said.

 

 

4) Jan 18, 2017: McClatchy confirms BBC report about spying on Americans in the Trump campaign:

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article127231799.html

 

Quote

The agencies involved in the inquiry are the FBI, the CIA, the National Security Agency, the Justice Department, the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and representatives of the director of national intelligence, the sources said. …

 

A key mission of the six-agency group has been to examine who financed the email hacks of the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. The London-based transparency group WikiLeaks released the emails last summer and in October.

The working group is scrutinizing the activities of a few Americans who were affiliated with Trump’s campaign or his business empire and of multiple individuals from Russia and other former Soviet nations.

The BBC reported that the FBI had obtained a warrant on Oct. 15 from the highly secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court allowing investigators access to bank records and other documents about potential payments and money transfers related to Russia. One of McClatchy’s sources confirmed the report.

 

 

5) Jan 19, 2017 (day before inauguration): Several agencies wiretapped Trump campaign, provide data to WH, with the media right on it to report. 🤔

 

Also to note, they changed the headline of this article, likely after bureaus contacted them:

From:  "Wiretapped Data Used In Inquiry of Trump Aides"

To: "Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates"

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html

 

Quote

The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the C.I.A. and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit.The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.

 

6) Feb 9, 2017: Spied on Trump campaign, provided sensitive spy info to media:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/national-security-adviser-flynn-discussed-sanctions-with-russian-ambassador-despite-denials-officials-say/2017/02/09/f85b29d6-ee11-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html

 

Quote

National security adviser Michael Flynn privately discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with that country’s ambassador to the United States during the month before President Trump took office, contrary to public assertions by Trump officials, current and former U.S. officials said.

 

Flynn’s communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were interpreted by some senior U.S. officials as an inappropriate and potentially illegal signal to the Kremlin that it could expect a reprieve from sanctions that were being imposed by the Obama administration in late December to punish Russia for its alleged interference in the 2016 election.

 

 

7) Feb 10, 2017: Bureau person leaks info on Trump campaign people being spied on in conversations:

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/10/us-official-confirms-trump-advisor-flynn-talked-sanctions-with-russian-ambassador-before-inauguration-nbc.html

Quote

A U.S. intelligence official briefed on the matter confirmed to NBC News that National Security Advisor Mike Flynn discussed sanctions with the Russian ambassador before Flynn took office[.]

 

The official said he was told there was no quid pro quo and that there has been no finding inside the government that Flynn did anything illegal. …

Flynn spoke to Kislyak on Dec. 29, the same day the sanctions were announced.

 

 

8 ) Feb 13: 2017: DOJ warns Trump admin about the results of them spying on their campaign (clearly to give the impression of transparency😞

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/59644838458b43b8a81de720698a71f6/latest-trump-evaluating-flynn-russia-situation

 

Quote

Two people familiar with the situation say the Justice Department warned the Trump administration about Michael Flynn’s contacts with Russia.

 

One of the people says the Justice Department told the administration there was a discrepancy between what the White House was saying publicly about Flynn’s contacts and the facts of what occurred.

 

 

9) Feb 14, 2019: Media talks about bureau spying on Trump campaign people in December, which not only occurred, for them to have that data to publish, but to clearly have a relationship with these leaking bureau people to be given it in the first place.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/14/media/michael-flynn-investigative-journalism/

 

Quote

Washington Post columnist David Ignatius cited a single “senior U.S. government official” while reporting that “Flynn phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak several times on Dec. 29, the day the Obama administration announced the expulsion of 35 Russian officials as well as other measures in retaliation for the hacking.” …

 

Last Thursday, The Post cited “nine current and former officials” in a story headlined “National security adviser Flynn discussed sanctions with Russian ambassador, despite denials, officials say.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's a conspiracy! That bad orange man and his need for conspiracies.

 

This thread is proof why the media does their gaslighting. They can sit there and prove it happened, and then turn around and say it didn't happen, with their readers not even remotely utilizing critical thinking, just eating up the real conspiracy narrative (didn't happen, Trump-Russia collusion, etc.) instead. Results. I'm a capitalist so I absolutely don't mind the mindscrewing they're doing to the left, because they're such amusing fervent/willful participants to this sham, but I'm also a human and feel slightly bad. 

Edited November 30, 2019 by Burnt Reynolds

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

It's pretty common knowledge that the some of the campaign's most important people were being wiretapped. So basically they were spying on the campaign by tapping those people

Perhaps "she" is a wire denier?

[90DayFinancier 910]

28 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

He can't say under oath whether or not something is true while investigating it, prejudging his own investigation, and thus destroying its legitimacy in fact-finding for the impending IG Report. It would be dumb and have consequences in any actual trial.

 

He succinctly said he believes there was not only spying, but coordinated leaks between these agencies and the media.

 

But nonetheless, your media has presented countless articles, utilizing their bureau connections to talk up spying on Trump, only to gaslight you and tell you it didn't happen. It's an excellent case study on how effective gaslighting is. Here's the evidence:

 .......

Shortened for quotation

.....

9) Feb 14, 2019: Media talks about bureau spying on Trump campaign people in December, which not only occurred, for them to have that data to publish, but to clearly have a relationship with these leaking bureau people to be given it in the first place.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/14/media/michael-flynn-investigative-journalism/

It's a conspiracy! That bad orange man and his need for conspiracies.

 

This thread is proof why the media does their gaslighting. They can sit there and prove it happened, and then turn around and say it didn't happen, with their readers not even remotely utilizing critical thinking, just eating up the real conspiracy narrative (didn't happen, Trump-Russia collusion, etc.) instead. Results. I'm a capitalist so I absolutely don't mind the mindscrewing they're doing to the left, because they're such amusing fervent/willful participants to this sham, but I'm also a human and feel slightly bad. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/justice-department-finds-fbi-didnt-spy-on-trump-2016-2019-11

In a huge blow to Trump, the DOJ watchdog found no evidence to support the claim that the FBI spied on his 2016 campaign

Sonam Sheth and Eliza Relman

 

Nov 27, 2019, 12:25 PM

 

President Donald Trump.  Reuters

• The Justice Department's inspector general found no evidence to support President Donald Trump's claim that the FBI inserted spies in his 2016 presidential campaign, The New York Times reported on Wednesday, citing people familiar with a draft of the report.
• Trump has repeatedly and baselessly alleged that the FBI inserted covert operators in his campaign.
• He also alleged, without evidence, that former President Barack Obama had intelligence officials tap his phones, a claim the report is also expected to undercut.
• Sources told The Times and The Washington Post that while the report undermines Trump's most extreme claims, it also faults the FBI for making bureaucratic mistakes when applying for a warrant to surveil Carter Page, a former Trump campaign aide.
• Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

The Justice Department's inspector general found no evidence to support President Donald Trump's claim that the FBI spied on his 2016 presidential campaign while investigating whether the campaign was conspiring with the Russian government to interfere in the election, The New York Times reported on Wednesday, citing people familiar with a draft of the report.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Is this the SAME FBI which, during the same time frame, said Hillary wasn't going to be prosecuted for mishandling classified material?  ThAt FBI?

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

23 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/justice-department-finds-fbi-didnt-spy-on-trump-2016-2019-11

In a huge blow to Trump, the DOJ watchdog found no evidence to support the claim that the FBI spied on his 2016 campaign

Sonam Sheth and Eliza Relman

 

Nov 27, 2019, 12:25 PM

 

President Donald Trump.  Reuters

• The Justice Department's inspector general found no evidence to support President Donald Trump's claim that the FBI inserted spies in his 2016 presidential campaign, The New York Times reported on Wednesday, citing people familiar with a draft of the report.
• Trump has repeatedly and baselessly alleged that the FBI inserted covert operators in his campaign.
• He also alleged, without evidence, that former President Barack Obama had intelligence officials tap his phones, a claim the report is also expected to undercut.
• Sources told The Times and The Washington Post that while the report undermines Trump's most extreme claims, it also faults the FBI for making bureaucratic mistakes when applying for a warrant to surveil Carter Page, a former Trump campaign aide.
• Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

The Justice Department's inspector general found no evidence to support President Donald Trump's claim that the FBI spied on his 2016 presidential campaign while investigating whether the campaign was conspiring with the Russian government to interfere in the election, The New York Times reported on Wednesday, citing people familiar with a draft of the report.

The beauty of being a willful participant to gaslighting is you can Google search for something, in 5 seconds, cut and paste, and think you've given a retort.

 

Except, in your confirmation bias seeking attempt, you found an article that went after Trump's claims about "inserting spies into his campaign" and that "Obama ordered US intelligence officials to tap his phones", none of which has a single thing to do with the facts I cited showing the Trump campaign was repeatedly spied on. 

 

Even funnier? In that very article you cited, they said this:

 

Quote

Sources told The Post and The Times that while the report undermines the president's most extreme claims, it also finds fault with

how the FBI handled its surveillance of the former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.

 

Why is that important? It means they spied on the campaign. 

 

Your post I responded to?

 

2 hours ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Do you have proof that the campaign was "spied" upon? I saw Barr up in the hit seat. He would only say thought "spying occurred". It seems like when asked point blank under oath he would have stated so in no uncertain terms.

 

In other words, the point of the article is backed up by your response.

 

 

 

You deny they were spied upon at all. You're wrong.

 

But this is more educating than you know. They're relying on your inattentiveness to relevant details, looking for confirmation bias elsewhere, while ignoring the substance of the arguments. As I said, willful participants. Perfect illustration.

 

I won't fault them entirely, yeah, they're gaslighting you, but they're also giving you exactly what you're wanting, which is precisely why you used it in the way you did. I'd personally feel insulted if I was being fished with a carrot in this way, but that's just me.

 

 

Edited November 30, 2019 by Burnt Reynolds

[90DayFinancier 910]

28 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

The beauty of being a willful participant to gaslighting is you can Google search for something, in 5 seconds, cut and paste, and think you've given a retort.

 

Except, in your confirmation bias seeking attempt, you found an article that went after Trump's claims about "inserting spies into his campaign" and that "Obama ordered US intelligence officials to tap his phones", none of which has a single thing to do with the facts I cited showing the Trump campaign was repeatedly spied on. 

 

Even funnier? In that very article you cited, they said this:

 

 

Why is that important? It means they spied on the campaign. 

 

Your post I responded to?

 

 

You deny they were spied upon at all. You're wrong.

 

But this is more educating than you know. They're relying on your inattentiveness to relevant details, looking for confirmation bias elsewhere, while ignoring the substance of the arguments. As I said, willful participants. Perfect illustration.

 

I won't fault them entirely, yeah, they're gaslighting you, but they're also giving you exactly what you're wanting, which is precisely why you used it in the way you did. I'd personally feel insulted if I was being fished with a carrot in this way, but that's just me.

 

 

Clever, position the audience as being gaslit and naive. Then gaslights the audience.

Edited November 30, 2019 by 90DayFinancier

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

44 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Clever, position the audience as being gaslit and naive. Then gaslights the audience.

Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug, and there's no end to dealers right now peddling it to their audience, especially those on the left (where the vast majority of this media cater to), because they're such fervent addicts. 

 

I don't magically expect the addicts to question their reliance upon it. I also don't expect the dealers to magically grow a conscience, because they too rely on that relationship, even though they clearly have the upper hand.

 

Example: I just directly refuted your posts. I cited nearly a dozen examples of actual spying on Trump's campaign that the media could only get by talking to the people doing the spying. I also demonstrated that corrupt relationship (another serious issue, because it means they're working together to harm Trump) between the media and bureau employees. Then demonstrated how the article you cited later neatly avoids addressing that (to give you the headline "didn't spy on Trump!" you're seeking), only to cite two straw man arguments that are unrelated to the premise of the headline, yet confirming in the very article that the Trump campaign was spied on, confirming the headline false. 

 

Yet, you selectively bypass those direct arguments, to cut and paste that confirmation bias article, then suggest I'm the one gaslighting the audience. 🤔 

 

😂

 

Can't help but feel bad.

Edited November 30, 2019 by Burnt Reynolds

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Hey 90DayFinancier, here's another beauty:

 

NBC:

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/doj-inspector-general-draft-report-says-fbi-didn-t-spy-n1093066

Quote

DOJ inspector general draft report says FBI didn't spy on Trump campaign

 

Trump has long insisted that his campaign was spied on.

 

 

5 second Google search.. what a beautiful headline. Take that gaslighters!

 

Oh wait..

The FBI investigated multiple members of the Trump campaign who were suspected of having ties to Russia, including former Trump adviser George Papadopoulos, who later plead guilty to lying to the FBI about his contact with Russia. But the draft IG report, according to the Times, found that the campaign itself was not under surveillance and that the investigations into the Trump advisers were not illegal or politically motivated.

 

I wonder what that FBI investigation entailed?   🤔 Clearly they don't expect people to bother.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/21/us/politics/carter-page-fisa.html

 

But worry not, I love reading.

 

On Saturday evening, those materials — an October 2016 application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to wiretap Mr. Page, along with several renewal applications — were released to The New York Times and other news organizations that had filed Freedom of Information Act lawsuits to obtain them. Mr. Trump had declassified their existence earlier this year.

 

 

 

Oh.. FOIA requests? Wonder what that's about.. lets click the link

 

https://charliesavage.com/?page_id=303#anchor22

 

That's some website linking to this dump of a FISA application.. by who?

 

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4614704-Savage-NYT-FOIA-Carter-Page-FISA-Documents-FOIA.html

 

The FBI. When? Middle of the 2016 campaign.

 

But why would they need a FISA application? Oh right, to spy. On who? Carter Page. But it wasn't just him being spied on. They spied on the Trump campaign a handful of times, at minimum. FISA apps against Manafort and Flynn also demonstrate this.

 

It's hard work reporting the truth, and the media can say they did indeed do it, but their readers demand a narrative, so, they produce both, while you only read the part you want to read, discard the rest, or evade it entirely like you did with me. 

 

It's a great experiment, I do concede. But gaslighters do need willful participants who want to be gaslighted. You play that part well too. 

Edited November 30, 2019 by Burnt Reynolds

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

I’m not sure I can get behind the idea that a multi-billionaire, with many successful years of business behind him, needs conspiracy theories to survive.  Kinda counter-intuitive to me.