• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gowdy breaks from GOP committee, says Russia worked to undermine Clinton

danarhea

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
A top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee distanced himself Tuesday from one of the panel's most explosive findings in its Russia investigation — that the FBI, CIA and NSA overplayed their hand when they declared Russia preferred a Donald Trump victory in the 2016 election.
Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina said that the evidence gathered by the committee clearly showed Russia's disdain for Trump's rival, Hillary Clinton, and was "motivated in whole or in part by a desire to harm her candidacy or undermine her Presidency had she prevailed."
Click to expand...

Trey Gowdy? I am surprised as hell. Trumpanzees call out Gowdy as an evul leebrul who was brainwashed during sex with Saul Alinksy in 3.... 2.... 1.... LOL.

https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2018/03/13/gowdy-russia-undermine-clinton-republicans-461612
 
I suspect Trey Gowdy is the only republican on that committee who values his integrity more than his re-election, but that might just be because he's not running again. I still honor his willingness to stand up and do the right thing. I've honestly never had a problem with Gowdy until he kept voting with the GOP to cover Trump's ass and do Nunes' bidding. Glad to see this.
 
apdst said:
The committe said there was no coordination between the Trump Campaign and the Russians. It didn't say that the Russians weren't conducting a propaganda operation. In fact, no one has said that.
Click to expand...

SHHHH you'll wreck their house of cards logic.
 
apdst said:
The committe said there was no coordination between the Trump Campaign and the Russians. It didn't say that the Russians weren't conducting a propaganda operation. In fact, no one has said that.
Click to expand...

Bringing reality into this is only going to confuse them even more.

Just let it ride and enjoy. I even brought popcorn.
 
danarhea said:
Trey Gowdy? I am surprised as hell. Trumpanzees call out Gowdy as an evul leebrul who was brainwashed during sex with Saul Alinksy in 3.... 2.... 1.... LOL.

https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2018/03/13/gowdy-russia-undermine-clinton-republicans-461612
Click to expand...

I've always been a Gowdy fan since I first saw him on Forensic Files long before he ran for Congress. Smart man. He'll be missed in Washington.

I also heard Mike Conaway having to backpedal on his comments on their findings. What a damn disaster this Republican Party has become. Breaks my heart.
 
DiAnna said:
I suspect Trey Gowdy is the only republican on that committee who values his integrity more than his re-election, but that might just be because he's not running again. I still honor his willingness to stand up and do the right thing. I've honestly never had a problem with Gowdy until he kept voting with the GOP to cover Trump's ass and do Nunes' bidding. Glad to see this.
Click to expand...

This is his last term.
 
tres borrachos said:
I've always been a Gowdy fan since I first saw him on Forensic Files long before he ran for Congress. Smart man. He'll be missed in Washington.

I also heard Mike Conaway having to backpedal on his comments on their findings. What a damn disaster this Republican Party has become. Breaks my heart.
Click to expand...

Well Nunes and Conaway are the ones who should wear it.
 
1 - Anyone who's been following wouldn't be "surprised as hell" by what Trey Gowdy said.
2 - He's been consistently dependable throughout.
3 - He's not really breaking with the Rs on his committee. It's really a matter of where to place focus and what to emphasize.
4 - The Rs' committee report stresses that Russia wanted to sew distrust in the system ... which they did and which was noted when Mueller indicted the Internet Research Agency.
5 - If anyone is of a mind to view the facts as strictly Russia's support for Trump they can do that ... which was also noted by Mueller in the indictments.
6 - If you want to call it Putin's hatred for Hillary you can do that too.

That's the beauty of spin.
 
Oh look, how sweet: Trey finally located his balls .............. or did he? ................
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
Trey Gowdy? I am surprised as hell. Trumpanzees call out Gowdy as an evul leebrul who was brainwashed during sex with Saul Alinksy in 3.... 2.... 1.... LOL.

https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2018/03/13/gowdy-russia-undermine-clinton-republicans-461612
Click to expand...

I don't actually disagree with Gowdy here, but I also think what he is saying is very different than what many people have been suggesting.

Preferring a Donald Trump victory and preferring a Hillary Clinton loss are two different sentiments that, ultimately, have the same outcome but have very different meanings.

Because politics always complicates things, let's take this another way and look at a sports analogy.

It's Superbowl 53, and it's the Cowboys vs the Jaguars. If you asked me my thoughts on the game, I'd be apt to say I'd want the Cowboys to lose. Does that mean that the Jaguars would ultimately be the ones to win in such a situation? Yes. However, my answer would make it clear that my concern isn't so much them winning but rather the Cowboys losing. There's an indifference to who the other team is, the bigger issue was simply my desire to see the Cowboys lose.

Why is this important in this case as it relates to Gowdy and what's being claimed with the Republicans?

The drumbeat for some time from many of those staunchly opposed to Trump is the notion that Russia was attempting to get Trump elected because they have something hanging over his head in order to manipulate him. That they were specifically wanting TRUMP to win.

Gowdy is not corroborating that notion; rather, he's his suggestion is that it had more to do with specifically wanting Hillary to lose. While this may be a step away from the idea that Russia had no preferred victor in the 2016 election, it's not a step towards the notion that their purpose was specifically to get Donald Trump elected.

My stance on this based on the evidence that's came out, the historical facts surrounding the candidates and Russia, and my own view of the logic surrounding the situation, hasn't really wavered since the election. Putin, as has been the case repeatedly over the years, seeks out win/win situations. The desire, above all else, was for chaos; the appearance of chaos to the outside word, chaos within our electoral systems, chaos within our governance. Trump was the longshot, and also readily provided fodder. If you could rile up his base and make the election close, you sew chaos with his base being upset if he lost, thus undermining Clinton. If the longshot actually occurred and he won, then the opposition will be incensed and believing wrongdoing occurred, thus undermining Trump. In either case, chaos ensues.

What's more, Putin is a spiteful and calculated individual. There were claims made by Putin during his last election that the Americans interfered and attempted to wrongfully influence the Russian elections in an effort to keep him from obtaining his position. The target of his criticism and accusations during that time was the Secretary of State for the US, Hillary Clinton. Given the opportunity to provide "poetic justice" in his mind by interfering with the US elections and hindering Clinton's potential presidency is something that screams "Putin" to me. Also, preferring Trump, should the long shot result actually happen, a man who is a political novice and is known to be emotional and impulsive...all things that would indicate someone who is easily manipulated on the political scene...would not shock me as a very "Putin" mindset either.

People forget in hindsight how incredibly unlikely a Trump Presidency was, especially at the start of this whole thing. Anyone believing that Putin has the wherewithal to actually flip the election, while at the same time believing he was putting all his eggs in the "Trump will win" basket when it was such a long shot, is kidding themselves about the disconnect in that logic. Assuming Russia's goals was simply "get Trump elected" is, frankly, foolhearty. That was likely, at best, a result of the greater purpose which was to sow discord and discontent for the United States.
 
So what name will the vindictive, child in the WH have for Gowdy today in his Tweets.

Ghey Trey?
 
danarhea said:
Trey Gowdy? I am surprised as hell. Trumpanzees call out Gowdy as an evul leebrul who was brainwashed during sex with Saul Alinksy in 3.... 2.... 1.... LOL.

https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2018/03/13/gowdy-russia-undermine-clinton-republicans-461612
Click to expand...
So how does Gowdy's comments disagree with the finding that there was no collusion?

30 months since the Obama admin started this witch hunt...the FBI, CIA, a special prosecutor...committing fraud in the FISA courts using fabricated evidence manufactured BY a political party FOR a political party...

You would think people of integrity such as yourself would be demanding an investigation into the DNC colluding with foreign agencies to fabricate materials used to sway an election. Hell...that sounds an awful lot like collusion. You would think people of integrity such as yourself would be outraged that the FBI would use materials that it KNEW to be fabricated BY the DNC as 'evidence' to launch investigations. You would think people of integrity such as yourself would be demanding an investigation into how the FBI and other intel agencies under the Obama administration leaked masked materials to DNC campaign reps. You would think people of integrity such as yourself would be disgusted by this sham of an 'investigation in the first ****ing place and the use of our nations intel agencies as a means of attacking US citizens and interfering in the election process.

Being a person of integrity and all that.

Nah. Gowdy is no Alinskyite. He's correct here. He is also correct in demanding the FBI turn over the actual evidence to Congress, just like he was correct when he demanded the Clinton campaign be held accountable for destroying subpoenaed evidence during an investigation.
 
Zyphlin said:
I don't actually disagree with Gowdy here, but I also think what he is saying is very different than what many people have been suggesting.

Preferring a Donald Trump victory and preferring a Hillary Clinton loss are two different sentiments that, ultimately, have the same outcome but have very different meanings.

Because politics always complicates things, let's take this another way and look at a sports analogy.

It's Superbowl 53, and it's the Cowboys vs the Jaguars. If you asked me my thoughts on the game, I'd be apt to say I'd want the Cowboys to lose. Does that mean that the Jaguars would ultimately be the ones to win in such a situation? Yes. However, my answer would make it clear that my concern isn't so much them winning but rather the Cowboys losing. There's an indifference to who the other team is, the bigger issue was simply my desire to see the Cowboys lose.

Why is this important in this case as it relates to Gowdy and what's being claimed with the Republicans?

The drumbeat for some time from many of those staunchly opposed to Trump is the notion that Russia was attempting to get Trump elected because they have something hanging over his head in order to manipulate him. That they were specifically wanting TRUMP to win.

Gowdy is not corroborating that notion; rather, he's his suggestion is that it had more to do with specifically wanting Hillary to lose. While this may be a step away from the idea that Russia had no preferred victor in the 2016 election, it's not a step towards the notion that their purpose was specifically to get Donald Trump elected.

My stance on this based on the evidence that's came out, the historical facts surrounding the candidates and Russia, and my own view of the logic surrounding the situation, hasn't really wavered since the election. Putin, as has been the case repeatedly over the years, seeks out win/win situations. The desire, above all else, was for chaos; the appearance of chaos to the outside word, chaos within our electoral systems, chaos within our governance. Trump was the longshot, and also readily provided fodder. If you could rile up his base and make the election close, you sew chaos with his base being upset if he lost, thus undermining Clinton. If the longshot actually occurred and he won, then the opposition will be incensed and believing wrongdoing occurred, thus undermining Trump. In either case, chaos ensues.

What's more, Putin is a spiteful and calculated individual. There were claims made by Putin during his last election that the Americans interfered and attempted to wrongfully influence the Russian elections in an effort to keep him from obtaining his position. The target of his criticism and accusations during that time was the Secretary of State for the US, Hillary Clinton. Given the opportunity to provide "poetic justice" in his mind by interfering with the US elections and hindering Clinton's potential presidency is something that screams "Putin" to me. Also, preferring Trump, should the long shot result actually happen, a man who is a political novice and is known to be emotional and impulsive...all things that would indicate someone who is easily manipulated on the political scene...would not shock me as a very "Putin" mindset either.

People forget in hindsight how incredibly unlikely a Trump Presidency was, especially at the start of this whole thing. Anyone believing that Putin has the wherewithal to actually flip the election, while at the same time believing he was putting all his eggs in the "Trump will win" basket when it was such a long shot, is kidding themselves about the disconnect in that logic. Assuming Russia's goals was simply "get Trump elected" is, frankly, foolhearty. That was likely, at best, a result of the greater purpose which was to sow discord and discontent for the United States.
Click to expand...

You mean all that obstruction of justice commited by the Trump family crime syndicate was not necessary?
 
apdst said:
The committe said there was no coordination between the Trump Campaign and the Russians. It didn't say that the Russians weren't conducting a propaganda operation. In fact, no one has said that.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Just like I'm saying the media is conducting a propaganda campaign against every GOP candidate for president. The media, for example, meddles in every American election.
 
Zyphlin said:
I don't actually disagree with Gowdy here, but I also think what he is saying is very different than what many people have been suggesting.

Preferring a Donald Trump victory and preferring a Hillary Clinton loss are two different sentiments that, ultimately, have the same outcome but have very different meanings.

Because politics always complicates things, let's take this another way and look at a sports analogy.

It's Superbowl 53, and it's the Cowboys vs the Jaguars. If you asked me my thoughts on the game, I'd be apt to say I'd want the Cowboys to lose. Does that mean that the Jaguars would ultimately be the ones to win in such a situation? Yes. However, my answer would make it clear that my concern isn't so much them winning but rather the Cowboys losing. There's an indifference to who the other team is, the bigger issue was simply my desire to see the Cowboys lose.

Why is this important in this case as it relates to Gowdy and what's being claimed with the Republicans?

The drumbeat for some time from many of those staunchly opposed to Trump is the notion that Russia was attempting to get Trump elected because they have something hanging over his head in order to manipulate him. That they were specifically wanting TRUMP to win.

Gowdy is not corroborating that notion; rather, he's his suggestion is that it had more to do with specifically wanting Hillary to lose. While this may be a step away from the idea that Russia had no preferred victor in the 2016 election, it's not a step towards the notion that their purpose was specifically to get Donald Trump elected.

My stance on this based on the evidence that's came out, the historical facts surrounding the candidates and Russia, and my own view of the logic surrounding the situation, hasn't really wavered since the election. Putin, as has been the case repeatedly over the years, seeks out win/win situations. The desire, above all else, was for chaos; the appearance of chaos to the outside word, chaos within our electoral systems, chaos within our governance. Trump was the longshot, and also readily provided fodder. If you could rile up his base and make the election close, you sew chaos with his base being upset if he lost, thus undermining Clinton. If the longshot actually occurred and he won, then the opposition will be incensed and believing wrongdoing occurred, thus undermining Trump. In either case, chaos ensues.

What's more, Putin is a spiteful and calculated individual. There were claims made by Putin during his last election that the Americans interfered and attempted to wrongfully influence the Russian elections in an effort to keep him from obtaining his position. The target of his criticism and accusations during that time was the Secretary of State for the US, Hillary Clinton. Given the opportunity to provide "poetic justice" in his mind by interfering with the US elections and hindering Clinton's potential presidency is something that screams "Putin" to me. Also, preferring Trump, should the long shot result actually happen, a man who is a political novice and is known to be emotional and impulsive...all things that would indicate someone who is easily manipulated on the political scene...would not shock me as a very "Putin" mindset either.

People forget in hindsight how incredibly unlikely a Trump Presidency was, especially at the start of this whole thing. Anyone believing that Putin has the wherewithal to actually flip the election, while at the same time believing he was putting all his eggs in the "Trump will win" basket when it was such a long shot, is kidding themselves about the disconnect in that logic. Assuming Russia's <PUTIN'S> goals was simply "get Trump elected" is, frankly, foolhearty. That was likely, at best, a result of the greater purpose which was to sow discord and discontent for the United States.
Click to expand...
Should've condensed your post down to this bolded.:) Gets your point across and doesn't put anyone to sleep (good thing I had a full night's rest).

But, I understand, the 2016 deniers want to deny the 2016 election any way they can.
 
The Republicans on the Committee...Get it correct!
 
Putin/Russia worked to get Trump elected.
They also worked to make Hillary lose.
They also worked some to help Bernie win.
They also sowed discord.

All of the above. That Republican cannot admit #1, is a problem...that we'll solve at some point. Splitting hairs isn't going to save the partisan House Intelligence report's reputation when all this is said and done, nor will it redeem the true-believers.

This is so obvious it's painful. But that's really just the tip of the iceberg. The conflicts of interest on Trump's side, were just as bad.

James clapper:"I obviously disagree. The four intelligence chiefs all agreed with the assessment, which was based on highly classified intelligence," Clapper told CNN. "This is a case of people living in their own reality bubbles when we can't agree on basic facts."
Click to expand...

I mean, even a fraction of the information should wake you up:
https://www.motherjones.com/politic...p-obsession-putin-david-corn-michael-isikoff/

Trump: “Russia is one of the hottest places in the world for investment,” he said in a 2007 court deposition.“We will be in Moscow at some point,” he promised in the deposition.

Trump wooed Putin in 2013 with his beauty pageant, invited him personally, tweeting about wondering if Putin will be his new best friend. He was gifted a personal letter from Putin who did not attend.

During the campaign Trump was literally trying to get his Trump Tower Moscow deal to go through. He was told it won't happen without Putin's blessing.
Trump denied all of this and never disclosed it publicly...ever. In fact, he appeared to deny it outright saying he had nothing to do with Russia on more than once occasion.

Emails show the Trump Organization was pursuing a major deal in Russia while Trump was running for president, and simultaneously claiming he had nothing to do with Russia.
Click to expand...

The Russian market is attracted to me,” Trump told Real Estate Weekly. “I have a great relationship with many Russians.” He added, with his customary exaggeration, “Almost all of the oligarchs” had been at the Miss Universe event.
Click to expand...

In February 2014, Ivanka Trump flew to Moscow to scout potential sites for the Trump Tower project with Emin Agalarov. “We thought that building a Trump Tower next to an Agalarov tower—having the two big names—could be a really cool project to execute,” Emin later said.

But international events would quickly intervene. Weeks after Ivanka’s visit, the Obama administration and the European Union imposed tough sanctions on Russia in response to Putin’s annexation of Crimea and his military intervention in Ukraine. It would be a kick to Russia’s faltering economy, already struggling because of the plummeting price of oil. And one round of sanctions imposed by the European Union targeted Russian banks in which the Russia government held a majority interest—that included Sberbank, which had agreed to finance the Trump deal. Its access to capital was now hindered.
Click to expand...

Apparently part of the linkage resulted from Rob Goldstone, who befriend Emin, son of a Russian billionaire, made his money in...real estate!
They together helped orchestrate the Trump Tower discussions. Didn't Goldstone set up the Trump tower meeting too?
 
We need to republicans to grow some backbone and integrity before they announce their retirement.
 
danarhea said:
Trey Gowdy? I am surprised as hell. Trumpanzees call out Gowdy as an evul leebrul who was brainwashed during sex with Saul Alinksy in 3.... 2.... 1.... LOL.

https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2018/03/13/gowdy-russia-undermine-clinton-republicans-461612
Click to expand...

Does he disagree with the finding that there was no collusion? No. The actual intent of the Russians isnt nearly as important as the fact that the Trump campaign was not involved with aiding or colluding with Russia to achieve that goal.

Good to see all you liberals congratulating Gowdy on his honesty. Now lets see if you guys are honest enough to admit that there was no collusion between Trump and the Russians
 
JANFU said:
After yesterday's upset in PA, many will no longer toe the line for Trump.
A solid Red district turned into a nail bitter, less that 1/2 % vote difference.
Does not bode a good future for a number of House republicans.
Click to expand...

So you believe the republicans should adopt the Gowdy/Rooney line that the Russians wanted Hillary to lose but the Trump campaign did not collude with them to achieve their goals? Ok. Do you also suggest that the democrats stop lying about the collusion bit or do you think they should keep it up until after novembers elections?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom