Seems the alt-right is losing the war on Mueller and have picked a new target- VA's Mark Warner.
The first round is this BS war on Senator Warner, is a lie from False News that can be easily dispelled. It is a fact that Faux News only tells the truth 17% of the time: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/

The facts are as follows:
Warner texted with a lobbyist
Also, "Sen.Warner fully disclosed this to the committee four months ago. Has had zero impact on our work," Rubio tweeted.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) dismissed a report Thursday claiming Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) texted with a **lobbyist** for a Russian oligarch who promised access to Christopher Steele, the author of a controversial dossier alleging ties between President Trump and Russia.
.
Attachments:

Sorry but Marco Rubio cannot "clear" anyone, especially with a Tweet.

The Russian Dossier was written by Kremlin forces, paid for by the DNC/Hillary and none of it has been proven to be true.

Mark Warner needs to answer questions.

Unemployed birthers are on the march. Some are making shit up in an attempt to distract from the Rob Porter/John Kelly scandal. Some are making shit up in an attempt to distract from the debacle of the second government shutdown in history while under one-party control. Some are making shit up in an attempt to distract from The Real Memo. Some are just making shit up in a general attempt to distract from all of the asshole fuck-ups that this ridiculous Trump clown has been responsible for.

Porter FIRED- Scandal Over.

Shutdown OVER, spending bill signed by Trump.

Russian Dossier Paid for by Democrats, Provided by Kremlin, Proven LIES.

The finger points at you.

Warner did this in July of 2017. He came clean to the committee in October after he found out that Adam Waldman (lobbyist for Kremlin-connected Russian billionaire) was going turn over his text messages to investigators. No beacon of virtue by any means.

But, if Warner was just trying to get information, this isn't that bad. Crappy optics and a bit sleazy, but tame compared to what Schiff, Hillary and the uppers at DOJ and FBI were doing.

Warner just caught Clinton stink! It happens when you get too close to them.

Just another wasted and worthless attempt at diversion here. Mueller has got the goods already, and Trump will end up perjuring himself for sure. You assholes will still defend him. LOL!

Can't wait for Hillary, Obama. Comey, and a few more go to prison.

The Dumb Douche Channel Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just another wasted and worthless attempt at
> diversion here. Mueller has got the goods
> already, and Trump will end up perjuring himself
> for sure. You assholes will still defend him.
> LOL!

Where are the charges? Nothing is related to collusion (or presumably conspiracy because collusion is not a crime). Mueller may be in the same boat as McCabe in which he may be found unnecessary before he has a chance to finish up his investigation.

How did that work out for Nixon? Why don't you fold that awful hand you're holding and just admit that you're programmed to be a blathering right-wing asshole and nothing more?

This is a recording Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How did that work out for Nixon? Why don't you
> fold that awful hand you're holding and just admit
> that you're programmed to be a blathering
> right-wing asshole and nothing more?


It's going to work out worse than Nixon for the clintons, obammy, 'cleanskin' steele, and the true author of the fakenews 'dossier' sid Blumenthal.

Your pathetic Russia narrative has come full circle, right back to the democrat party traitors that colluded with Russia for fake dirt on Trump.

Everyone sees this now and it's apparent from the bizarre quiet and occasional outbursts from the msm and their progtard sheep like you!

Rant, rant, rant. The wolf is at the door, Bozo, and will soon be taking your fat, bald idol down. That's assuming the dolt doesn't do it himself first.

PS. How 'bout those deficits, chump!

Back to your cave Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rant, rant, rant. The wolf is at the door, Bozo,
> and will soon be taking your fat, bald idol down.
> That's assuming the dolt doesn't do it himself
> first.
>
> PS. How 'bout those deficits, chump!

Haha The big bad TrumpenStein wolf already blew down your progtard, globalist house of straw and all you had to defend against him was actual russian collusion orchestrated by a haggardly, stroked-out, coattail riding crooked loser.

The Dumb Douche Channel Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just another wasted and worthless attempt at
> diversion here. Mueller has got the goods
> already, and Trump will end up perjuring himself
> for sure. You assholes will still defend him.
> LOL!


lol. Trump doesn't have to tell these FBI goons anything. He can blow them off and tell them to go fuck themselves. Trump will decide whether or not he meets with Mueller's partisan fucksticks. And only Trump will decide that.

If Trump did something illegal, then tell us. So far, we've heard nothing but conspiracy theories that have proven to be false and all evidence indicates it was the democrats and the FBI/DOJ that were breaking the law and colluding with the Russians.

Abandoned the Pacific to China. Abandoned the Middle East to Iran. Disinvited from visiting the UK for fear of riots. Getting his balls kicked by Canada and Mexico on NAFTA while TPP simply went ahead without us. Ditto the Paris climate accords. More people now look to both Germany and China for global leadership than the US. We did get condemned by the United Nations though, so it hasn't been a total loss.

Crash and burn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Abandoned the Pacific to China. Abandoned the
> Middle East to Iran. Disinvited from visiting the
> UK for fear of riots. Getting his balls kicked by
> Canada and Mexico on NAFTA while TPP simply went
> ahead without us. Ditto the Paris climate
> accords. More people now look to both Germany and
> China for global leadership than the US. We did
> get condemned by the United Nations though, so it
> hasn't been a total loss.


You care way too much about what the rest of the world thinks about you. Rest assured, the posters on this forum all think you're a fucking retarded douche. How does that make you feel.

It's just the truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> lol. Trump doesn't have to tell these FBI goons
> anything. He can blow them off and tell them to
> go fuck themselves. Trump will decide whether or
> not he meets with Mueller's partisan fucksticks.
> And only Trump will decide that.

He'll be subpoenaed and compelled to testify before a grand jury. There he can either plead the Fifth Amendment all day or quickly stumble into saying something stupid. In the end, Mueller can either indict Trump or (as was the case with Nixon) name him as an unindicted co-conspirator. Doesn't really bode well for him either way. Goose = cooked.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Crash and burn Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Abandoned the Pacific to China. Abandoned the
> > Middle East to Iran. Disinvited from visiting
> the
> > UK for fear of riots. Getting his balls kicked
> by
> > Canada and Mexico on NAFTA while TPP simply
> went
> > ahead without us. Ditto the Paris climate
> > accords. More people now look to both Germany
> and
> > China for global leadership than the US. We
> did
> > get condemned by the United Nations though, so
> it
> > hasn't been a total loss.
>
>
> You care way too much about what the rest of the
> world thinks about you. Rest assured, the posters
> on this forum all think you're a fucking retarded
> douche. How does that make you feel.

In America, we use question marks (?) after questions. Got it?

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Crash and burn Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Abandoned the Pacific to China. Abandoned the
> > Middle East to Iran. Disinvited from visiting
> the
> > UK for fear of riots. Getting his balls kicked
> by
> > Canada and Mexico on NAFTA while TPP simply
> went
> > ahead without us. Ditto the Paris climate
> > accords. More people now look to both Germany
> and
> > China for global leadership than the US. We
> did
> > get condemned by the United Nations though, so
> it
> > hasn't been a total loss.
>
>
> You care way too much about what the rest of the
> world thinks about you. Rest assured, the posters
> on this forum all think you're a fucking retarded
> douche. How does that make you feel.


I don't think he/she is a 'fucking retarded douche'.
I also don't think 'Crash and burn' cares about your assertion.

You clearly have zero grasp on global economics.
13% of the US GDP is exported products. That is products made in the US that support jobs. Leaders help define the rules.

Team Rational Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't think

This is the only truth that you posted. The rest is retard-babble. Thanks for nothing douche jr.

haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You care way too much about what the rest of the
> world thinks about you. Rest assured, the posters
> on this forum all think you're a fucking retarded
> douche. How does that make you feel.

I don't take seriously anything that patent assholes say, and your misguided MAGA isolationism clearly marks you as an asshole. We have taken nothing but backward steps so far under Trump. That costs us money, power, and influence, and it does so even if you are too stupid to recognize what's going on. For the first time in living memory, the US is being tuned out. People are looking past us to see what else is available. We are on the way to second-class status, and Trump has only got his foot on the accelerator.

We can all seemmthe next phase in the war on Mueller, the truth, reality & facts from the alt-right circle jerk (Faux News, GOP, & tRumpo).
The alt-right circle jerk is desperate as all other attacks have an an epic fail. What a bunch of whiny little bitches!

Everyone should read the Steele dossier that GOP paid for at Buzzfeed!
https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia?utm_term=.nk7921pXb#.lhvbjZD1v

Wow! So much of the dossier has proven to be true...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/10/25/what-the-trump-dossier-says-and-what-it-doesnt/?utm_term=.f99a0b5ff49d
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-golden-shower-dossier-russia-755831

Mueller has arrested 4 ex-Trump advisers:
- Michael Flynn, Trump national security adviser & campaign advisor
- George Papadopoulos, foreign policy adviser
- Paul Manafort (tRump campaign chairman) and his deputy, Rick Gates
.
Attachments:

People who aren't doing anything wrong don't worry about creating a paper trail.

Is that why everything you morons say is traceable back to the Echo Chamber? LOL!!! What a bunch of spoon-fed sorry-ass losers!!!

Adam Waldman is the founder, chairman, and president of the Endeavor Group, a D.C. consultancy based about two blocks from the White House. In May 2009, Waldman filed paperwork with the DOJ indicating he would be working with Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska to provide "legal advice on issues involving his U.S. visa as well as commercial transactions."

Deripaska had his U.S. visa revoked in 2006 due to longstanding concerns about his links to organized crime and because the State Department was concerned he lied to American investigators who were looking into his business. However, in August and October 2009, shortly after he began working with Waldman, Deripaska was allowed to make two visits to the U.S. During those trips, Deripaska met with FBI agents about an unspecified criminal probe and with top executives at American companies. The Wall Street Journal reported Deripaska's 2009 trip included meetings with Morgan Stanley, General Motors, and Goldman Sachs Chairman and CEO Lloyd Blankfein.

In his initial FARA paperwork, Waldman indicated Endeavor would receive "a monthly retainer of $40,000" for his work with Deripaska. Waldman also said Deripaska was not being "supervised" or "directed" by any foreign government. However, in October 2010, Waldman made another filing indicating he would be working with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, "gathering information and providing advice and analysis as it relates to the U.S. policy towards the visa status of Oleg Deripaska."

As part of its work with Lavrov, Waldman said Endeavor would "engage in correspondence and meetings with U.S. policymakers" about Deripaska's visa. Waldman indicated he had no "formal written contract" with Lavrov and did not specify how much he was being paid. However, Waldman included a letter Lavrov wrote to him Sept. 15, 2010 describing the assignment.

"Mr. Deripaska is one of our country's prominent business leaders who controls or directly manages a significant number of enterprises, which employ hundreds of thousands of people in Russia. … Yet over the past several years, there has been certain ambiguity upon his visa status in the United States. A persistent state of limbo regarding Mr. Deripaska's ability to travel freely between our two countries has become an impediment to the promotion of mutually advantageous contacts between the business communities of the two countries," Lavrov wrote to Waldman. "The Russian side has raised this issue with various U.S. officials on numerous occasions, including in the course of bilateral discussion with both the White House and the State Department at different levels. I believe the involvement of your firm will contribute to the ongoing efforts aimed at achieving a successful resolution of this problem."

Business Insider contacted the State Department to inquire about Deripaska's visa status Tuesday. Citing the confidentiality of visa records, a State Department spokesman declined to comment. Waldman has not responded to multiple requests for comment from Business Insider about his work with Deripaska and Lavrov. Based on the information in his 2009 FARA filing, Waldman has received at least $2.36 million working to help Deripaska with his visa.

Yep, please pay attention... you are falling behind.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) dismissed a report Thursday claiming Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) texted with a lobbyist for a Russian oligarch who promised access to Christopher Steele, the author of a controversial dossier alleging ties between President Trump and Russia.

Everyone should read the Steele dossier that GOP paid for at Buzzfeed!
https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia?utm_term=.nk7921pXb#.lhvbjZD1v

Wow! So much of the dossier has proven to be true...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/10/25/what-the-trump-dossier-says-and-what-it-doesnt/?utm_term=.f99a0b5ff49d
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-golden-shower-dossier-russia-755831
.
Attachments:

Wow!! Seems the russian trolls are out in force today...!!
.
Attachments:

Republicans'R'Traitors!! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yep, please pay attention... you are falling
> behind.
>
> Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) dismissed a report
> Thursday claiming Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) texted
> with a lobbyist for a Russian oligarch who
> promised access to Christopher Steele, the author
> of a controversial dossier alleging ties between
> President Trump and Russia.

People who aren't doing anything wrong don't worry about creating a paper trail.

^^^ Ummmm, so what.
Not having a paper trail means you are hiding something... right Jared.

Pointless Point Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^^^ Ummmm, so what.
> Not having a paper trail means you are hiding
> something... right Jared.


Sure. Keep telling yourself that.

What could possibly be wrong with a Senator having close ties to a guy who represents a member of Putin's inner circle?.

So close that they are talking about spending time together at the beach, having dinner together with their wives, meeting for drinks after work, etc.

If there were the exact same texts between someone on the Trump campaign and the same guy under the exact same circumstances, libtards all would be screaming "IMPEACH HIM."

LOL!

Wow! Someone is hitting the crack pipe hard. This is just the next phase in the war on Mueller & the russia investigation. Seems like a coordinated effort from the alt-right circle jerk, with false news leading the way . You can not believe anything that comes out of them: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/

Only 17% of Faux News is true!

Warner texted with a lobbyist

Also, "Sen.Warner fully disclosed this to the committee four months ago. Has had zero impact on our work," Rubio tweeted.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) dismissed a report Thursday claiming Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) texted with a **lobbyist** for a Russian oligarch who promised access to Christopher Steele, the author of a controversial dossier alleging ties between President Trump and Russia.

Done & done... Next!
.
Attachments:

If there were the exact same texts between someone on the Trump campaign and the same guy under the exact same circumstances, libtards all would be screaming "IMPEACH HIM."

LOL!

Republicans'R'Traitors!! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/
>
> Only 17% of Faux News is true!

17% of analyzed stories. You do realize they don't analyze every story they do, don't you?

While it's your prerogative to engage in logical fallacies by discrediting the source, it'd be much more beneficial to your argument if you addressed the facts of the matter.

Are you denying the fact that Senator Warner engaged in a series of texts with a lobbyist representing Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska?

Oleg Deripaska previously employed the services of Paul Manafort. Deripaska had his U.S. visa revoked in 2006 due to longstanding concerns about his links to organized crime. The man getting paid millions of dollars by this man is who Senator Warner was texting with. Oh, and talked about not creating a paper trail. Innocent people always talk about not wanting to create a paper trail.

That's a bit troubling.

Mark Warner slandered himself when he decided to get cozy with the lobbyist of a banned Russian oligarch.

Bannon was correct, the meeting with the russians at trump tower was treason.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/03/donald-trump-russia-steve-bannon-michael-wolff
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steve-bannon-trump-tower_us_5a4cde0be4b0b0e5a7a9fe93

.
Attachments:

If there were the exact same texts between someone on the Trump campaign and the same guy under the exact same circumstances, libtards all would be screaming "IMPEACH HIM."

LOL!

Republicans'R'Traitors Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bannon was correct, the meeting with the russians
> at trump tower was treason.
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/03/do
> nald-trump-russia-steve-bannon-michael-wolff
> https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steve-bannon-
> trump-tower_us_5a4cde0be4b0b0e5a7a9fe93

The best you can do is change the subject?

Do you not want to address the fact that Senator Warner engaged in a series of texts with a lobbyist representing Russian billionaire and Putin ally Oleg Deripaska?

What are you afraid of?

Crash and burn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You care way too much about what the rest of
> the
> > world thinks about you. Rest assured, the
> posters
> > on this forum all think you're a fucking
> retarded
> > douche. How does that make you feel.
>
> I don't take seriously anything that patent
> assholes say, and your misguided MAGA isolationism
> clearly marks you as an asshole. We have taken
> nothing but backward steps so far under Trump.
> That costs us money, power, and influence, and it
> does so even if you are too stupid to recognize
> what's going on. For the first time in living
> memory, the US is being tuned out. People are
> looking past us to see what else is available. We
> are on the way to second-class status, and Trump
> has only got his foot on the accelerator.


Sure shithead. And half the country felt the same way when Obammy was president. It's called being a partisan. Sorry if this is news to you. That's why no one gives a shit about what you think or what you write and more than you do about them. See how that works?

Russian bots are working hard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Republicans'R'Traitors!! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/
> >
> > Only 17% of Faux News is true!
>
> 17% of analyzed stories. You do realize they
> don't analyze every story they do, don't you?
>
> While it's your prerogative to engage in logical
> fallacies by discrediting the source, it'd be much
> more beneficial to your argument if you addressed
> the facts of the matter.
>
> Are you denying the fact that Senator Warner
> engaged in a series of texts with a lobbyist
> representing Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska?
>
>
> Oleg Deripaska previously employed the services of
> Paul Manafort. Deripaska had his U.S. visa
> revoked in 2006 due to longstanding concerns about
> his links to organized crime. The man getting
> paid millions of dollars by this man is who
> Senator Warner was texting with. Oh, and talked
> about not creating a paper trail. Innocent people
> always talk about not wanting to create a paper
> trail.
>
> That's a bit troubling.
>
> Mark Warner slandered himself when he decided to
> get cozy with the lobbyist of a banned Russian
> oligarch.


Politfacts is run by the leftwing morons at the Tampa Bay Times. TBT is one of the most liberal papers out there. Just google 'politifact bias'. Multiple studies show how leftwing they are.

Mark Levin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Russian bots are working hard Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Republicans'R'Traitors!! Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > > http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/
> > >
> > > Only 17% of Faux News is true!
> >
> > 17% of analyzed stories. You do realize they
> > don't analyze every story they do, don't you?
> >
> > While it's your prerogative to engage in
> logical
> > fallacies by discrediting the source, it'd be
> much
> > more beneficial to your argument if you
> addressed
> > the facts of the matter.
> >
> > Are you denying the fact that Senator Warner
> > engaged in a series of texts with a lobbyist
> > representing Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska?
>
> >
> >
> > Oleg Deripaska previously employed the services
> of
> > Paul Manafort. Deripaska had his U.S. visa
> > revoked in 2006 due to longstanding concerns
> about
> > his links to organized crime. The man getting
> > paid millions of dollars by this man is who
> > Senator Warner was texting with. Oh, and
> talked
> > about not creating a paper trail. Innocent
> people
> > always talk about not wanting to create a paper
> > trail.
> >
> > That's a bit troubling.
> >
> > Mark Warner slandered himself when he decided
> to
> > get cozy with the lobbyist of a banned Russian
> > oligarch.
>
>
> Politfacts is run by the leftwing morons at the
> Tampa Bay Times. TBT is one of the most liberal
> papers out there. Just google 'politifact bias'.
> Multiple studies show how leftwing they are.


Didn't they try to hire wife beater Allen Grayson?

But you're a retard so...... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sure shithead. And half the country felt the same
> way when Obammy was president. It's called being
> a partisan. Sorry if this is news to you. That's
> why no one gives a shit about what you think or
> what you write and more than you do about them.
> See how that works?

Seems like you don't really understand the difference between geo-politics and partisan politics. Nuf Ced, dude. Get back to us once you've moved past the 3rd grade. Meanwhile, serious damage is being done to long-term US political and economic interests.

Do you think typing in large font nad bold face makes your lies any more believable? If you do, you are a fool.

Right-wing hates facts. Hence they hate fact-checkers.

I'd like to know why he was acting unilaterally and why he did not want to leave a "paper trail".

That is a fact.

Hmmm... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But you're a retard so...... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Sure shithead. And half the country felt the
> same
> > way when Obammy was president. It's called
> being
> > a partisan. Sorry if this is news to you.
> That's
> > why no one gives a shit about what you think or
> > what you write and more than you do about them.
>
> > See how that works?
>
> Seems like you don't really understand the
> difference between geo-politics and partisan
> politics. Nuf Ced, dude. Get back to us once
> you've moved past the 3rd grade. Meanwhile,
> serious damage is being done to long-term US
> political and economic interests.


Seems like that to you because you're a partisan nutsack. Half the country thought serious damage was being done to long-term US political and economic interests for 8 years under Obama too. Why don't you partisan fucksticks understand that you're blinded by your partisanship?

2 + 2 = 4 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Right-wing hates lies. Hence they hate
> leftwing fact-checkers that studies have proven to be liars.

FIFY

"Fox & Friends" takes precedence over the PDB. It's never been this bad before.

Why? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'd like to know why he was acting unilaterally
> and why he did not want to leave a "paper
> trail". That is a fact.

Fact would be that He was acting with and through the committee. They knew all about it and had no problem. You are merely a lying asshole seeking to make a silk purse out of a pile of rat shit.

Lemme break it down fer ya Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Seems like that to you because you're a partisan
> nutsack. Half the country thought serious damage
> was being done to long-term US political and
> economic interests for 8 years under Obama too.

Because he was a Kenyan Muslim.

> Why don't you partisan fucksticks understand that
> you're blinded by your partisanship?

No, it's having at least half a clue about the nature f the real world and how it actually works. You dismal dipshits are completely in the dark on that front. No relevant skills or understanding at all.

What more can go wrong Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Fox & Friends" takes precedence over the PDB.
> It's never been this bad before.

Well, Nixon didn't always read the PDB either, but he did regularly talk to Kissinger who knew what was in it. The problem with Trump is that he is completely disinterested.

Oopsie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I'd like to know why he was acting unilaterally
> > and why he did not want to leave a "paper
> > trail". That is a fact.
>
> Fact would be that He was acting with and through
> the committee. They knew all about it and had no
> problem. You are merely a lying asshole seeking
> to make a silk purse out of a pile of rat shit.


False. They only knew about it after the fact.

If someone on e the Trump campaign had done the exact same thing, then you'd be out on Maple Street in your pussy hat screaming for impeachment.

Mark Warner's got Clinton Stink!!!

Trump and his asswipe followers are in quite a pickle. Mark Warner and friends are not.

MAGA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can't wait for Hillary, Obama. Comey, and a few
> more go to prison.


Is this yours?
Attachments:

Mark Wanker only admitted he was texting the Russians after he got caught--when he learned the FBI had his texts. Then he decided to tell the committee, 8 months after he began contacting the Russians. And his text exchanges with them are pathetic. He sounds like a complete tool.

Typical False News pulling lies from their ass...

Fox News ran a breaking news report using text messages obtained through illegal channels.

Someone close to the Senate Intelligence Committee is a leaker, who might have a connection to Julian Assange. Who could it be, who could it be? Tunes??

False News already knew Warner had the entire committee in the loop.

Finally Warner was communicating with a lobbyist...

Yeah what do you expect Faux only tells the truth 17% of the time..
.
Attachments:

^^^^^^


17% of analyzed stories. You do realize they don't analyze every story they do, don't you?

While it's your prerogative to engage in logical fallacies by discrediting the source, it'd be much more beneficial to your argument if you addressed the facts of the matter.

Are you denying the fact that Senator Warner engaged in a series of texts with a lobbyist representing Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska? 

Oleg Deripaska previously employed the services of Paul Manafort. Deripaska had his U.S. visa revoked in 2006 due to longstanding concerns about his links to organized crime. The man getting paid millions of dollars by this man is who Senator Warner was texting with. Oh, and talked about not creating a paper trail. Innocent people always talk about not wanting to create a paper trail.

That's a bit troubling. 

Mark Warner slandered himself when he decided to get cozy with the lobbyist of a banned Russian oligarch.

Why did the Obama campaign retard the Russian oligarch's lobbyist's donation? Did they know the lobbyist was dirty?

The interesting part is that Democrats would be saddened to find credible evidence of wrongdoing by the Clintons, yet the GOP spent how long and how much failing to find any?

Meanwhile, the Trump camp vows to tighten their tinfoil hats if Trump is indicted.

Reality seems to be hard for some folks to deal with.

Selective Outrage Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If there were the exact same texts between someone
> on the Trump campaign and the same guy under the
> exact same circumstances, libtards all would be
> screaming "IMPEACH HIM."
>
> LOL!

No we wouldn't. You still don't get it.

Morons abound Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Selective Outrage Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If there were the exact same texts between
> someone
> > on the Trump campaign and the same guy under
> the
> > exact same circumstances, libtards all would be
> > screaming "IMPEACH HIM."
> >
> > LOL!
>
> No we wouldn't. You still don't get it.


You already have been for the last year when you dumb fuckers went into a collective mental breakdown after Hillary lost. LOL!

Love America Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Seems the alt-right is losing the war on Mueller
> and have picked a new target- VA's Mark Warner.
> The first round is this BS war on Senator Warner,
> is a lie from False News that can be easily
> dispelled. It is a fact that Faux News only tells
> the truth 17% of the time:
> http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/
>
> The facts are as follows:
> Warner texted with a lobbyist
> Also, "Sen.Warner fully disclosed this to the
> committee four months ago. Has had zero impact on
> our work," Rubio tweeted.
>
> Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) dismissed a report
> Thursday claiming Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) texted
> with a **lobbyist** for a Russian oligarch who
> promised access to Christopher Steele, the author
> of a controversial dossier alleging ties between
> President Trump and Russia.
> .


You're a moron.

Disclosing six months after the fact is far from "fully disclosing". The texts show he is colluding with Russians in an attempt to frame a sitting POTUS, and trying to cover it up by wanting no paper trail of his activities.

Read the texts and think for yourself...if you can. https://www.scribd.com/document/371101285/TEXTS-Mark-Warner-texted-with-Russian-oligarch-lobbyist-in-effort-to-contact-Christopher-Steele

^^^ Potus is doing a great job of framing & indicting himself, because this is the most vile, corrupt administration in out history.

Really hope that he is not a coward and testifies under oath to Mueller.
.

Ha-Ha! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^^^ Potus is doing a great job of framing & indicting
> himself, because this is the most vile, corrupt
> administration in out history. Really hope that he is
> not a coward and testifies under oath to Mueller.

It's pretty clear that Trump is a coward. Otherwise, he is sort of following along in the footsteps of Rudy Giuliani -- it's not illegal until they send someone who can stop you. Mueller will be that someone.

Brave new world Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ha-Ha! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ^^^ Potus is doing a great job of framing &
> indicting
> > himself, because this is the most vile, corrupt
>
> > administration in out history. Really hope that
> he is
> > not a coward and testifies under oath to
> Mueller.
>
> It's pretty clear that Trump is a coward.
> Otherwise, he is sort of following along in the
> footsteps of Rudy Giuliani -- it's not illegal
> until they send someone who can stop you. Mueller
> will be that someone.


Over half of the voters in this county don't think Mueller can be fair and is too conflicted to lead this investigation. Image what that number would be if 95% of the media wasn't suppressing all the baggage his investigative team has.

Mueller couldn't get Trump to stop murdering babies in public at this point. His credibility is shot. Sorry, Trump fights back and, at least this time, it worked.

^^^^ Looks like someone has their facts on backwards.

The vast majority support Mueller. In addition, the majority support legislation support legislation to protect Mueller from being fired by Donne Doll-hands. Futhermore the majority believe the president has tried to obstruct or derail the federal probe.

In addition, 82% Say tRumpo interview with Mueller should be under oath. God love to see this!!

Not looking good for president pedophile and his grifter gang.
.
Attachments:

^^^ That is one of the funniest memes I have ever seen.

It is a fact that Faux News only tells the truth 17% of the time: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/

Faux News is sort of like a religion in that they state they are the only true news source (religion) and all others are bad (false)...

The danger is the stupid people that watch Faux News have been conditioned to believe only Faux News is true, as a result they cannot differentiate fact from fiction.

FoxNews Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^^^ That is one of the funniest memes I have ever
> seen.
>
> It is a fact that Faux News only tells the truth
> 17% of the time:
> http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/
>
> Faux News is sort of like a religion in that they
> state they are the only true news source
> (religion) and all others are bad (false)...
>
> The danger is the stupid people that watch Faux
> News have been conditioned to believe only Faux
> News is true, as a result they cannot
> differentiate fact from fiction.

17% of analyzed stories. You do realize they don't analyze every story they do, don't you?

According to your logic, NBC tells the truth 12% of the time and CNN tells the truth 16% of the time.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/nbc/
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/cnn/

While it's your prerogative to engage in logical fallacies by discrediting the source, it'd be much more beneficial to your argument if you addressed the facts of the matter.

Are you denying the fact that Senator Warner engaged in a series of texts with a lobbyist representing Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska?

Oleg Deripaska previously employed the services of Paul Manafort. Deripaska had his U.S. visa revoked in 2006 due to longstanding concerns about his links to organized crime. The man getting paid millions of dollars by this man is who Senator Warner was texting with. Oh, and talked about not creating a paper trail. Innocent people always talk about not wanting to create a paper trail.

Mark Warner is so close with this lobbyist that they talk about spending time together at the beach, having dinner together with their wives, meeting for drinks after work, etc.

That's a bit troubling.

Mark Warner slandered himself when he decided to get cozy with the lobbyist of a banned Russian oligarch.

More troubling that you have no idea what you are writing about- sad.

Prove this wrong, "Sen.Warner fully disclosed this to the committee four months ago. Has had zero impact on our work," Rubio tweeted.

Otherwise you are puling from your ass! Hahahaha!
.
Attachments:

Republicans 'R' Traitors!!! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> More troubling that you have no idea what you are
> writing about- sad.
>
> Prove this wrong, "Sen.Warner fully disclosed this
> to the committee four months ago. Has had zero
> impact on our work," Rubio tweeted.
>
> Otherwise you are puling from your ass! Hahahaha!
> .

How much is Shareblue paying you?

So funny. The right sees their "man" being reeled in and readied for the frying pan. They are freaked from morning to night.

Yeah, typical deflect, deflect, redirect...

Again. Prove this wrong, "Sen.Warner fully disclosed this to the committee four months ago. Has had zero impact on our work," Rubio tweeted.

Otherwise you are puling from your ass! Hahahaha!
.
Attachments:

Repblicans'B'Traitors Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, typical deflect, deflect, redirect...
>
> Again. Prove this wrong, "Sen.Warner fully
> disclosed this to the committee four months ago.
> Has had zero impact on our work," Rubio tweeted.
>
> Otherwise you are puling from your ass! Hahahaha!
> .

You won't answer the question. How much is David Brock paying you to troll FFXU?

I love nigger cock.

Repblicans'B'Traitors Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, typical deflect, deflect, redirect...
>
> Again. Prove this wrong, "Sen.Warner fully
> disclosed this to the committee four months ago.
> Has had zero impact on our work," Rubio tweeted.
>
> Otherwise you are puling from your ass! Hahahaha!
> .


4 months ago was October/November 2017.

He was texting in March 2017. That's 11 months ago.

Thanks for confirming that he hid them.

Wow! Unstick from stupid. Redirect, deflect, deflect.. just pathetic.

Again, prove this wrong, "Sen.Warner fully disclosed this to the committee four months ago. Has had zero impact on our work," Rubio tweeted.

Destroys your entire false narrative... what is it like to have Faux News do all your thinking... unable to tell fact from fiction... unable to admit you are wrong. So very sad.
.
Attachments:

Repblicans'B'Traitors Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow! Unstick from stupid. Redirect, deflect,
> deflect.. just pathetic.
>
> Again, prove this wrong, "Sen.Warner fully
> disclosed this to the committee four months ago.
> Has had zero impact on our work," Rubio tweeted.

Prove what wrong? Senator Warner failed to disclose the fact to his Senate colleages for 7 months that he texted with the lobbyist of a Russian oligarch who has travel restrictions placed on him by the US government. Or that despite the fact that Senator Warner attempted to covertly communicate with the lobbyist of a Russian oligarch, the investigation has not been hindered by his underhanded tactics.

Now your turn. Are you denying the fact that Senator Warner engaged in a series of texts with a lobbyist representing Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska?

Huh... provide a link for the above that does not omit Rubio's information.

You do realize that your entire narrative has been destroyed.
.
Attachments:

Repblicans'B'Traitors Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Huh... provide a link for the above that does not
> omit Rubio's information.
>
> You do realize that your entire narrative has been
> destroyed.
> .

You're a bot.

^^^ Does that make you a russian troll...
:)
Attachments:

Repblicans'B'Traitors Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^^^ Does that make you a russian troll...
> :)

Go away bot.

Dem circus heats up Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Repblicans'B'Traitors Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ^^^ Does that make you a russian troll...
> > :)
>
> Go away bot.

Bot-botty-bot

Hahaha!

Umm... NOPE!

Lol!
Attachments:

Democrats %100 OWN PAY FOR AND RUN FAKE NEWS USING TAXPAYER MONEY

TV STATIONS GET TAXPAYER MONEY TO PLAY FAKE NEWS - WHICH IS %100 VIOLATION OF LAW (USING TAXPAYER MONEY TO FUND DEMOCRAT ELECTION AND COMMUNIST AGENDA)

DEMOCRATS CREATED and back the most hated systems: the use of "governent psychologists" to make false claims against white males, which "stick in court" when the Courthouse is run by stinking democrats.
Attachments:

Wow! Someone needs to check their tin foil hat...
.
Attachments:

Once the right-wing makes something up (which they are forced to do all the time), they have no problem making up even more piles of shit to make that first pile of shit seem defensible. At the end of the day though, all you have is a lot of piles of shit. That's the right-wing way. Has been for friggin' decades. The GOP is like a Dollar Store for useless piles of shit.

Repblicans'B'Traitors Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Huh... provide a link for the above that does not
> omit Rubio's information.
>
> You do realize that your entire narrative has been
> destroyed.

Provide a link for what?

That Senator Warner exchanged texts with a lobbyist for a Russian oligarch?

OK.

https://www.scribd.com/document/371101285/TEXTS-Mark-Warner-texted-with-Russian-oligarch-lobbyist-in-effort-to-contact-Christopher-Steele#from_embed

If you notice, the texts begin one year ago from tomorrow, February 14, 2017. They continue for a couple of months after that.

That the Russian Oligarch had travel restrictions placed on him by the US government?

OK.

https://www.reuters.com/article/deripaska-chrysler-usa/u-s-revoked-deripaska-visa-state-dept-official-idUSN1143738620070511

That Senator Warner failed to disclose his texts to his Senate colleagues for seven months?

OK.

https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/961768764747415553

Senator Rubio's twitter, which you erroneously rely upon, confirms that the texts were disclosed four months ago. Four months ago was October of 2017. As noted above, Senator Warner began texting in February of 2017. That's a difference of seven or eight months. Here's a link to a 2017 calendar so you can count for yourself.

https://www.calendar-365.com/2017-calendar.html

That despite the fact that Senator Warner attempted to covertly communicate with the lobbyist of a Russian oligarch, the investigation has not been hindered by his underhanded tactics?

OK.

https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/961768764747415553

Again, Senator Rubio's twitter post indicated it had zero impact on the investigation. The twitter post did not say it was OK for Senator Warner to covertly communicate with a lobbyist for a Russian Oligarch with close ties to Putin. It only indicated that it didn't have an impact on the investigation.

And remember, Senator Warner curiously indicated he did not want to create a paper trail.

There, now you have your links. Your turn. Are you denying the fact that Senator Warner engaged in a series of texts with a lobbyist representing Russian billionaire oligarch Oleg Deripaska?

Seems that the only one who didn't 'collude with the Russians' was Trump.

lol

here you go Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Repblicans'B'Traitors Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Huh... provide a link for the above that does
> not
> > omit Rubio's information.
> >
> > You do realize that your entire narrative has
> been
> > destroyed.
>
> Provide a link for what?
>
> That Senator Warner exchanged texts with a
> lobbyist for a Russian oligarch?
>
> OK.
>
> https://www.scribd.com/document/371101285/TEXTS-Ma
> rk-Warner-texted-with-Russian-oligarch-lobbyist-in
> -effort-to-contact-Christopher-Steele#from_embed
>
> If you notice, the texts begin one year ago from
> tomorrow, February 14, 2017. They continue for a
> couple of months after that.
>
> That the Russian Oligarch had travel restrictions
> placed on him by the US government?
>
> OK.
>
> https://www.reuters.com/article/deripaska-chrysler
> -usa/u-s-revoked-deripaska-visa-state-dept-officia
> l-idUSN1143738620070511
>
> That Senator Warner failed to disclose his texts
> to his Senate colleagues for seven months?
>
> OK.
>
> https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/961768764747
> 415553
>
> Senator Rubio's twitter, which you erroneously
> rely upon, confirms that the texts were disclosed
> four months ago. Four months ago was October of
> 2017. As noted above, Senator Warner began
> texting in February of 2017. That's a difference
> of seven or eight months. Here's a link to a 2017
> calendar so you can count for yourself.
>
> https://www.calendar-365.com/2017-calendar.html
>
> That despite the fact that Senator Warner
> attempted to covertly communicate with the
> lobbyist of a Russian oligarch, the investigation
> has not been hindered by his underhanded tactics?
>
> OK.
>
> https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/961768764747
> 415553
>
> Again, Senator Rubio's twitter post indicated it
> had zero impact on the investigation. The twitter
> post did not say it was OK for Senator Warner to
> covertly communicate with a lobbyist for a Russian
> Oligarch with close ties to Putin. It only
> indicated that it didn't have an impact on the
> investigation.
>
> And remember, Senator Warner curiously indicated
> he did not want to create a paper trail.
>
> There, now you have your links. Your turn. Are
> you denying the fact that Senator Warner engaged
> in a series of texts with a lobbyist representing
> Russian billionaire oligarch Oleg Deripaska?


Wow. Libtarded meme boy just got his ass whooped. Looks like he's too cowardly to show his face here. It appears HIS narrative just got destroyed.

here you go Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Repblicans'B'Traitors Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Huh... provide a link for the above that does
> not
> > omit Rubio's information.
> >
> > You do realize that your entire narrative has
> been
> > destroyed.
>
> Provide a link for what?
>
> That Senator Warner exchanged texts with a
> lobbyist for a Russian oligarch?
>
> OK.
>
> https://www.scribd.com/document/371101285/TEXTS-Ma
> rk-Warner-texted-with-Russian-oligarch-lobbyist-in
> -effort-to-contact-Christopher-Steele#from_embed
>
> If you notice, the texts begin one year ago from
> tomorrow, February 14, 2017. They continue for a
> couple of months after that.
>
> That the Russian Oligarch had travel restrictions
> placed on him by the US government?
>
> OK.
>
> https://www.reuters.com/article/deripaska-chrysler
> -usa/u-s-revoked-deripaska-visa-state-dept-officia
> l-idUSN1143738620070511
>
> That Senator Warner failed to disclose his texts
> to his Senate colleagues for seven months?
>
> OK.
>
> https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/961768764747
> 415553
>
> Senator Rubio's twitter, which you erroneously
> rely upon, confirms that the texts were disclosed
> four months ago. Four months ago was October of
> 2017. As noted above, Senator Warner began
> texting in February of 2017. That's a difference
> of seven or eight months. Here's a link to a 2017
> calendar so you can count for yourself.
>
> https://www.calendar-365.com/2017-calendar.html
>
> That despite the fact that Senator Warner
> attempted to covertly communicate with the
> lobbyist of a Russian oligarch, the investigation
> has not been hindered by his underhanded tactics?
>
> OK.
>
> https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/961768764747
> 415553
>
> Again, Senator Rubio's twitter post indicated it
> had zero impact on the investigation. The twitter
> post did not say it was OK for Senator Warner to
> covertly communicate with a lobbyist for a Russian
> Oligarch with close ties to Putin. It only
> indicated that it didn't have an impact on the
> investigation.
>
> And remember, Senator Warner curiously indicated
> he did not want to create a paper trail.
>
> There, now you have your links. Your turn. Are
> you denying the fact that Senator Warner engaged
> in a series of texts with a lobbyist representing
> Russian billionaire oligarch Oleg Deripaska?

Umm,,,, so what.

Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee panel defended Warner, stating they knew of the contact with Waldman.

“Sen. Warner fully disclosed this to the committee four months ago,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a member of the panel, tweeted Thursday. “Has had zero impact on our work.”

An aide to Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the committee’s chairman, told Fox News that the senator knew Warner was trying to reach Steele through a “back channel” and was not concerned by the effort. Burr in fact told reporters during an October news conference that he and Warner had each personally attempted to reach out to Steele.

“From the beginning of our investigation, we have taken each step in a bipartisan way, and we intend to continue to do so,” Burr and Warner said in a joint statement on Feburary 8th.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/video-and-transcript-press-conference-senators-richard-burr-and-mark-warner-ssci-russia-probe
.

Repblicans'B'Traitors Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> here you go Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Repblicans'B'Traitors Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Huh... provide a link for the above that does
> > not
> > > omit Rubio's information.
> > >
> > > You do realize that your entire narrative has
> > been
> > > destroyed.
> >
> > Provide a link for what?
> >
> > That Senator Warner exchanged texts with a
> > lobbyist for a Russian oligarch?
> >
> > OK.
> >
> >
> https://www.scribd.com/document/371101285/TEXTS-Ma
>
> >
> rk-Warner-texted-with-Russian-oligarch-lobbyist-in
>
> >
> -effort-to-contact-Christopher-Steele#from_embed
> >
> > If you notice, the texts begin one year ago
> from
> > tomorrow, February 14, 2017. They continue for
> a
> > couple of months after that.
> >
> > That the Russian Oligarch had travel
> restrictions
> > placed on him by the US government?
> >
> > OK.
> >
> >
> https://www.reuters.com/article/deripaska-chrysler
>
> >
> -usa/u-s-revoked-deripaska-visa-state-dept-officia
>
> > l-idUSN1143738620070511
> >
> > That Senator Warner failed to disclose his
> texts
> > to his Senate colleagues for seven months?
> >
> > OK.
> >
> >
> https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/961768764747
>
> > 415553
> >
> > Senator Rubio's twitter, which you erroneously
> > rely upon, confirms that the texts were
> disclosed
> > four months ago. Four months ago was October
> of
> > 2017. As noted above, Senator Warner began
> > texting in February of 2017. That's a
> difference
> > of seven or eight months. Here's a link to a
> 2017
> > calendar so you can count for yourself.
> >
> > https://www.calendar-365.com/2017-calendar.html
> >
> > That despite the fact that Senator Warner
> > attempted to covertly communicate with the
> > lobbyist of a Russian oligarch, the
> investigation
> > has not been hindered by his underhanded
> tactics?
> >
> > OK.
> >
> >
> https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/961768764747
>
> > 415553
> >
> > Again, Senator Rubio's twitter post indicated
> it
> > had zero impact on the investigation. The
> twitter
> > post did not say it was OK for Senator Warner
> to
> > covertly communicate with a lobbyist for a
> Russian
> > Oligarch with close ties to Putin. It only
> > indicated that it didn't have an impact on the
> > investigation.
> >
> > And remember, Senator Warner curiously
> indicated
> > he did not want to create a paper trail.
> >
> > There, now you have your links. Your turn.
> Are
> > you denying the fact that Senator Warner
> engaged
> > in a series of texts with a lobbyist
> representing
> > Russian billionaire oligarch Oleg Deripaska?
>
> Umm,,,, so what.

So what? You asked for a link to verify my claims. You got five and in the process had your ass handed to you. Your "so what" comeback proves that. You have nothing to counter my claim that Senator Warner failed to disclose the fact to his Senate colleagues for 7 months that he texted with the lobbyist of a Russian oligarch who has travel restrictions placed on him by the US government. Or that despite the fact that Senator Warner attempted to covertly communicate with the lobbyist of a Russian oligarch, the investigation has not been hindered by his underhanded tactics.

> Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee
> panel defended Warner, stating they knew of the
> contact with Waldman.

They didn't defend him. They simply stated he told them about it 7 months after the interaction occurred and that covert communications with a lobbyist for a Russian oligarch did not hinder the investigation. That's it.

> “Sen. Warner fully disclosed this to the
> committee four months ago,” Sen. Marco Rubio
> (R-Fla.), a member of the panel, tweeted Thursday.
> “Has had zero impact on our work.”

That's not a defense. Those a simple facts that confirm that Warner told his colleagues about the communications 7 months after the interaction occurred and that the covert communications with a lobbyist for a Russian oligarch did not hinder the investigation.

> An aide to Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the
> committee’s chairman, told Fox News that the
> senator knew Warner was trying to reach Steele
> through a “back channel” and was not concerned
> by the effort. Burr in fact told reporters during
> an October news conference that he and Warner had
> each personally attempted to reach out to Steele.

Fox News? Didn't you lead off this thread with "t is a fact that Faux(sic) News only tells the truth 17% of the time"? Didn't you say that? Now you want to use them as a source? How fucking retarded are you? Seriously, answer the question? What level of retardation have the doctors put you at? Are you a full retard or just a half wit?

You got your links, you got your answers. Now stop being a coward and answer the following question: Are you denying the fact that Senator Warner engaged in a series of texts with a lobbyist representing Russian billionaire oligarch Oleg Deripaska?

Repblicans'B'Traitors Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Umm,,,, so what.


 
Attachments:

The left are the ones blowing hot air.

Love when the triggered alt-right snowflake's stories fall apart so they start grasping... By the way, it is a fact that Faux News only tells the truth 17% of the time: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/

False News comes out with Mark Warner is secretly texting with a russian oligarch - everyone watching Faux New shits themselves...

Wait... he was texting a lobbyist who had links to Christopher Steele. Author of the Steele dossier that the GOP started & paid for... OK..., alt-right just clutching pearls.

Oh No's... Marco Rubio tweets that Warner's had no impact on the russian investigation. Alt-right goes with fake rage over over some perceived time lapse.

The final nail in your bullshit coffin. An aide to Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the committee’s chairman, told Fox News that the senator knew Warner was trying to reach Steele through a “back channel” and was not concerned by the effort. Burr in fact told reporters during an **October** news conference that he and Warner had each personally attempted to reach out to Steele. October... Hahahahah!

Senate Intelligence Committee Russia Probe Press Conference
October 4, 2017

SENATOR RICHARD BURR:

Busy day around the country. Mark and I recognize the tragedy of Nevada this week, and at this point I'm glad to say that it doesn't seem to have a terrorism nexus. That's not always the outcome, but our hearts and our prayers go out to all the individuals who were affected both directly and indirectly, and I can assure you that from an intelligence committee standpoint and in the agencies they are providing this many assets to local law enforcement and to those people that are tasked with investigation of this unbelievable act.

So we're here to update you and the American people about the investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 election. When we started this investigation on 23 January of this year, we had a very clear focus.

We were focused on an evaluation of the ICA, the intelligence community assessment, of Russia's involvement in our 2016 election. Additionally, the investigation was to look into any collusion by either campaign during the 2016 elections. The third piece was an assessment of the ongoing Russian active measures, including information and influence campaigns that may still exist and may be ongoing. The investigation started with those three buckets of interest. Now we're over 100 interviews later, which translates to 250 plus hours of interviews; almost 4000 pages of transcripts; almost 100000 thousand pages of documents reviewed by our staff and some by members. It includes highly classified intelligence reporting. It includes e-mails campaign documents and technical cyber analysis products. The committee has held 11 open hearings this calendar year that have touched on Russia's interference in U.S. elections. I can say that our dedicated Russia investigative staff have literally worked six to seven hours a day since 23 January to get us to the point we are today.

SENATOR MARK WARNER:

Six or seven days a week.

SENATOR BURR:

Six or seven days a week, excuse me. So far in the interview process we have interviewed everybody who had a hand or a voice in the creation of the intelligence community assessment. We have spent nine times the amount of time that the community spent putting the ICA together, reviewing the ICA, and reviewing all the supporting documents that went in it. But in addition to that the things that were thrown on the cutting room floor that they might not have found appropriate for the ICA itself, but we may have found of relevance to our investigation.

We have interviewed every official of the Obama administration to fully understand what they saw what clarity and transparency they had and the Russian involvement and more importantly what they did or did not do and what drove those actions.

Again I'm reminded that we will come out with a finding at some point.

And part of that hopefully will be recommendations with the changes we need to make. So we've tried to think thoroughly through this as we can. We have interviewed, literally, individuals from around the world. So for those of you that choose to stake out when the next witnesses come in there are some that have snuck through because you don't know who they are. Now it's safe to say that the inquiry has expanded slightly.

Initial interviews and document review generated hundreds of additional requests on our part for information. It identified many leads that expanded our initial inquiry the volume of work done by the staff has prepared the committee. To look at some areas of our investigation that we hope will very soon reach some definite conclusion. But we're not there yet. We're not ready to close them. One of those areas is the ICA itself. Given that we have interviewed everybody who had a hand in the ICA I think there is general consensus among members and staff that we trust the conclusions of the ICA. But we don't close our consideration of it in the unlikelihood that we find additional information through the completion of our investigation. The Obama administration's response to Russian interference – as I said we have interviewed every person within the administration, they have volunteered and they have been unbelievably cooperative to come in and share everything they knew and in most cases were interviewed for over two hours.

The meeting at the Mayflower — I mean be specific. These are not issues that are closed. We have not come to any final conclusions. We have interviewed seven individuals that attended the Mayflower event. The testimony from all seven were consistent with each other. But we understand that with the current investigation open there may be additional information we find that pulling that thread may give us some additional insight that we don't see today.

Changes to the platform committee: And again I'm addressing some things that have been written by you in this room and they may not have been on our chart but we felt that we had to dig deeply into them. We have, the committee staff, has interviewed every person involved in the drafting of the campaign platform. Campaign staff was attempting to implement what they believed to be guidance to be strong, to be a strong ally in Ukraine but also leave the door open for better relations with Russia. I'm giving you the feedback we got from the individuals who were in the room making the decision. Again not closed - open for the continuation.

The last one I want to cover is the Comey memos. This topic has been hotly debated and the committee is satisfied that our involvement with this issue has reached a logical end as it relates to the Russia investigation. Now again this is not something that we've closed but we have exhausted every person that we can talk to get information that's pertinent to us relative to the Russia investigation. Questions that you might have surrounding Comey’s firing are better answered by the general counsel or by the Justice Department, not the Select Committee of Intelligence in the United States Senate.

There are concerns that we continue to pursue: collusion. The committee continues to look into all evidence to see if there was any hint of collusion. Now I'm not going to even discuss the initial findings because we haven't any. We've got a tremendous amount of documents still to go through. And just to put it in perspective I said we've done over 100 interviews over 250 hours. We currently have booked for the balance of this month 25 additional interviews that may not end up being the total but as of today there are 25 individuals booked to meet with our staff before the end of this month alone pertaining to the Russian investigation. We have more work to do as it relates to collusion, but we're developing a clearer picture of what happened. What I will confirm is that the Russian intelligence service is determined, clever, and I recommend that every campaign and every election official take this very seriously as we move into this November's election. And as we move into preparation for the 2018 election I will ask Vice-Chairman to cover the other areas that were in the process of pursuing.

SENATOR WARNER:

Thank you, Richard. And I am on a saying at the outset again. I am very proud of this committee and proud of the way the committee has acted. I'm proud of our staff and the enormous amount of work they've done. I know Chairman and I see many of you daily in the hallways and know that this feels like it's taking a long time. It is taking a long time. But getting it right and getting all the facts is what we owe the American people. And as we’ve seen, for examples, stories that emerged in the late summer around Mr. Trump Jr's meeting and possibilities in the Trump Tower Moscow. You know, Chairman, I would love to find ways to close things down, but we also still see strains and threads that we need to continue to pursue. I want to touch on two subjects.

The first is echoing what Richard said. The Russian-acted measures efforts did not end on Election Day 2016. They were not only geared at the United States of America. We've seen Russian active measures take place in France. We’ve seen concerns raised in the Netherlands. We've seen concerns raised in Germany and we need to be on guard. One of the things that is particularly troubling to both of us is the fact that, become evident that 21 states electoral systems were not all penetrated, but there was at least ....there was at least … trying to open the door in these 21 states. It has been very disappointing to me and I believe the chairman as well, that it took 11 months for the Department of Homeland Security to reveal those 21 states and still don't know why exactly last Friday was the date they chose to reveal that information but I still believe there needs to be a more aggressive whole of government approach in terms of protecting our electoral system. Remember, to make a change even in a national election doesn't require penetration into 50 states arguably in states like the chairman's and mine that could be key you could pick two or three states and two or three jurisdictions and alter an election.

And I believe in a state like mine, where in Virginia and New Jersey in 34 days, we have elections, I'm glad to see the DHS has said they are going to up their game and particularly help those states with elections that are happening this year.

But we need to make sure that there is an organized, again, whole of government approach. I know in Virginia, for example, even before we discovered that we were one of the 21 states, I think the state electoral board in an abundance of caution decertified one set of machines that were touch screens that didn't have kind of a paper ballot or a paper trail. That's one of the things we wanted to emphasize with this briefing that this is an ongoing concern and that if states don't proactively move forward very shortly we'll be getting into primary seasons early on in 2018. And this is a this is an ongoing challenge. And again I'd point out even after last week, Wisconsin, Texas, and California still have some lack of clarity about whether the appropriate individuals were notified.

I also want to raise an issue that the chairman and I have been working jointly on as well, and that is the Russian’s use of social media platforms - social media platforms that increasingly the vast majority of us turn to for information, for news, in a way that is very different. If you look, for example, in the realm of political advertising, we've seen an over 700 percent increase in the use of digital political advertising between 2012 and 2016. The expectation is that may double or triple again in terms of the next election cycle because of the ability to target voters. I was concerned at first that some of these social media platform companies did not take this threat seriously enough. I believe they are recognizing that threat now. They have provided us with information.

We think it's important that the three companies that we've invited - Google Twitter and Facebook - will appear in a public hearing so that Americans can again hear both about how we're going to protect, I would argue, three areas. One, making sure that if you see an ad that appears on a social media site, then Americans can know whether the source of that ad was generated by foreign entities. Two, make sure that if you see a story that is trending and becoming more popular, whether that trending is because a series of Americans are liking that story or liking that particular page generated by real individuals or whether that's generated by bots or in some cases it may be falsely identified accounts. For example, Facebook has indicated between 30,000 - 50000 of such accounts were taken down in France because, due to Russian interference in France. And third just the notion that—both of us have been in politics a long time—if you have somebody wanting an ad for you against you, you ought to be able to be able get out and take at least a look at that content the same way that if ads are run for or against you on the radio or newsprint you can at least get a look at the content.

This is an ongoing process. But we're seeing increasing levels of cooperation. And with that I'll turn it back over to the chairman and be happy to take questions.

SENATOR BURR:

Let me just say that many of you have asked us, “Are we going to release the Facebook ads?” We don't release documents provided to our committee, period.

I’ll say it again. The Senate Intelligence Committee does not release documents provided by witnesses, companies, or whoever, whatever the classification. It's not a practice that we're going to get into. Clearly if any of the social media platforms would like to do that, we're fine with them doing it because we've already got scheduled an open hearing because we believe the American people deserve to hear it firsthand.

And just to remind people on October the 25th we will have another open hearing, number 12, with Michael Cohen. On November 1st, we have invited the social media companies that Mark mentioned to be our guest at an open hearing and we feel confident that they will take us up on it.

As it relates to the Steele dossier:

Unfortunately the committee has hit a wall. We have on several occasions made attempts to contact Mr. Steele, to meet with Mr. Steele, to include personally the vice chairman and myself as two individuals making that connection. Those offers have gone unaccepted. The committee cannot really decide the credibility of the dossier without understanding things like who paid for it. Who are your sources and sub sources?

We're investigating a very expansive Russian network of interference in U.S. elections. And though we have been incredibly enlightened at our ability to rebuild backwards the Steele dossier up to a certain date, getting past that point has been somewhat impossible. I say this because I don't think we're going to find any intelligence products that unlocked that key to pre-June of 2016. My hope is that Mr. Steele will make a decision to meet with either Mark and I or the committee or both so that we can hear his side of it versus for us to depict in our findings what his intent or what his actions were.

And I say that to you but I also say it to Chris Steele.

Potential witnesses that we might ask to come in in the future: I strongly suggest that you come in and speak with us if we believe that you have something valuable to bring to the committee. If you don't voluntarily do it, I will assure you today you will be compelled to do it. I can compel you to come, I can't compel you to talk. But that would be in a very public…done in a very public way if in fact you turned down the private offer.

The committee has proven to be balanced, professional and proved that we're willing to listen to everybody.

Let me say in closing for those following our investigation in the press. I want you to know that you only see glimpses of the amount of work the committee has done. We're doing much of our work behind closed doors to ensure the privacy and the protection of witnesses and sensitive sources and methods. It's become increasingly clear that the committee has stayed focused on building the foundation to be able to finish our investigation thoroughly and in an accountable way. I'm confident today that when we started, we chose wisely by choosing our professional staff to do this investigation and not to the talking heads all around the country that suggested we couldn't do this unless we went out and hire a whole new group. And I think the numbers here reflect that.

Ultimately, we look forward to completing our work and presenting our findings to the public. I can't set a date as to when that will be. Mark can't set a date as to when that can be. We will share with you when we have exhausted every thread of intelligence, every potential witnesses that can contribute anything to this. I don't by any stretch of the imagination tell you that there have been value to everybody we've met with. But if we hadn't met with them, then you would have questions as to why we didn't. Now the truth is nobody in this room, and Mark and I might be included, and none of us in this room may know everybody we've met with.

We're not going to share who we interview. We're not going to share what we asked, and we are certainly not going to share what they tell us. We're not going to share with you the documents that we got. But when you receive 100000 documents plus a large group of that coming from the Trump campaign alone, when you look at this country's most sensitive intelligence products, let me assure you if we're going to get the best view of what happened that anybody could possibly get at the end of this process we will be sure that we present to the American people our findings as best we have been able to accumulate them. So with that I'll be happy to open up for questions. Chad.

REPORTER:

Have you seen any evidence of a nexus between these Russian Facebook ads with the Trump campaign or with any political campaign?

SENATOR BURR:

Chad - we haven’t even had our hearing yet, so any of the social media platforms, I think if you look at it from 10,000 feet, the subject matter of the ads seems to have been to create chaos in every group that they could possibly identify in America. From a standpoint of any involvement, let us have the opportunity to have these folks and ask them the questions. In many cases they didn't even take advantage of some of the most technical targeting tools that exist within those social media companies. So I would defer answering your question until we've completed the investigation.

SENATOR WARNER:

Let me just say that that I believe, and I think you will see that there will be more forensics done by these companies. Again when we just look at scale, France versus the United States for example, on one of the platforms Facebook in terms of what happened. I think they've got some more work to do, and I'm pleased to say I think they are out doing that work better.

REPORTER:

Senator Burr, the president has said repeatedly that any talk of collusion is a hoax. You've gone through all of these documents, you've interviewed all these people. At this point, is the president right? Is this a hoax?

SENATOR BURR:

I'm going to let you guys quote the president and ask him questions about what he says. It’s not going to be the committee where we're going to have any evidence ….

REPORTER:

But do you have any evidence to suggest to rule out that the president knew anything about any of these contacts between any of his associates and the Russians?

SENATOR BURR:

Let me go back and say, because I thought I was pretty clear, that the issue of collusion is still open, that we continue to investigate both intelligence and witnesses, and that we're not in a position where we will come to any type of temporary finding on that until we've completed the process.

REPORTER:

So you say that the issue of collusion is still open. Are you pursuing the question of whether there is a link between the ads that appeared on the social media sites and the Trump campaign?

SENATOR BURR:

Well let me just say, and I’ll let Mark address it if he’d like to, if there was any connection that would be pertinent to our investigation of Russia’s influence in the elections, we have had incredible access and cooperation by those social media companies. Some of them have been interviewed twice. At the end of the day, we will be prepared to ask the right questions that will answer some of your questions at the open hearing.

SENATOR WARNER:

So we also have to get we have to get to the universe first. I was concerned on the frontend of the first pass was not a thorough enough pass. For example, I cited the fact that one entity, the only ads that were produced were paid for in rubles. There are various forms of payment. So I think I think the companies are increasingly understanding that their actions need to match their public statements. That they realize how important it is to maintain the integrity of our democratic process.

REPORTER:

Would you call on Facebook to release those ads?

SENATOR WARNER:

I think at the end of the day it's important that the public sees these ads.

REPORTER:

Senator - two questions. You talked about that level of cooperation that you've gotten from Obama administration officials. Can you characterize the level of cooperation and candor you’ve seen from Trump campaign officials and those in the Trump orbit?

SENATOR BURR:

I can't think of a Trump campaign official that we have asked to come in that has not come in. There are some individuals that may have been involved in the Trump campaign that up to this point we might have limited the scope of our questions, but with the full intent of them coming back when we knew a little bit more and had pulled a few more intelligence threads.

REPORTER:

When you compare what they’ve said to you to the documents that you’ve reviewed, do you find that they’ve been truthful?

SENATOR BURR:

I don't think that … I think our interviews to this point, outside of the five specific areas of buckets that that we knew exactly what the universe people we want to talk to we knew what we were trying to find out, that were very much in an exploratory mode trying to piece together what people did, where they were, who they talked to. In most cases we have access to email records text messages phone records voluntarily. Usually when you get something like that voluntarily somebody is probably going to tell you the truth when they answer the questions. But the reason that we can't definitively answer some of your questions today is we will take everything that our staff has put in the transcripts and we will test that against every piece of intelligence and other interviews that we've done. To suggest that we've done that to everybody thoroughly would be misleading. So let us go through that process. But I will assure you that if somebody has come in and not been truthful with us, we will catch them on that and they will come back and that will be the subject of great intensity.

REPORTER:

Based on the work done so far, what's your assessment of what the Russians did do in 2016, what they're doing now, and what you portend they will do in the future?

SENATOR WARNER:

Well I would just say, I think there is large consensus that they hacked into political files, released those files, in an effort to influence the election. We think they actively tried to at least test the vulnerabilities of 21 states electoral systems. And we feel that they used the social media firms, both in terms of paid advertising and what I believe is more problematic, in creating false accounts and others that would drive interest toward stories or groups. And generally those stories or groups were to sow chaos and drive division in our country. And I think that the pattern that they used in America, they have used in other nations around the world. And I fear sometimes if you add up all they've spent, that was a decent rate of return for them on their own.

SENATOR BURR:

Look let me add to that if I can. We can certifiably say that no vote totals were affected, that the tallies are accurate. The outcome of the election, based upon the counting votes. They did not in any way shape or form that we've been able to find alter that. I want to reiterate something that Mark said. You can't walk away from this and believe that Russia is not currently active in trying to create chaos in our election process.

I assume that the same tactics that we saw in Montenegro and in France, in Belgium and in the United States will continue to be tested within our structure of the election process here.

REPORTER:

Thank you, Senator. Pivoting off that point, you just noted that Facebook - they say 10 million people saw their ads, there was an information campaign waged against one candidate by the Russians, and of course they probed 21 states, perhaps more that we didn’t catch. So can you definitely look at the American public, Senator Burr, and say that the election was not influenced in any way by this massive Russian operation?

SENATOR BURR:

Well, let me take issue with your premise of your question. Neither Mark nor I said that there was a campaign targeted against one. We're looking at both campaigns.

REPORTER:

Well that is what the ICA has said.

SENATOR BURR:

The ICA did not look at collusion of the campaigns. The ICA looked at Russian - let me finish -Russian involvement in the election process. We're in agreement with that. We have no come to any determination on collusion or Russia's preferences. If we used solely the social media advertising that we seen, there's no way that you can look at that and say that that was to help the right side of the ideological charge and not the left or vice versa. They were indiscriminate.

One of the things that's most challenging to this investigation is, with the exception of certain pieces that have already been discussed, it seems that the overall theme of the Russian involvement in the U.S. elections was to create chaos at every level. And I would tell you the fact that we're sitting here nine months later investigating it … They have been pretty darn successful.

REPORTER:

Chairman Burr, how would you rate the administration and the country's response to this in terms of preventing something like this from happening in the future? And how ready are we for Virginia's election and 2018? What more needs to be done?

SENATOR BURR:

I’ll let Mark address Virginia. But let me just say this. Our role is not to necessarily suggest here the things we need to do. Our investigation should create a roadmap for communities of the proper jurisdiction to follow for states to follow. Mark and I made a decision to take the initiative in our authorization bill. That we require in our authorization bill that there be a designated person in every state who has a security clearance to be briefed on election issues. We couldn't say Secretary of State because that's not the case in every state but we felt compelled with what we had learned to make sure that just the fact that somebody wasn't clear to the high level would put a state out there not being notified. So we've made some steps in the right direction as we see those things that we think it's appropriate for do we will do if we say it's not appropriate for us to do. We will hopefully convey that in a way that presents a roadmap for somebody else.

REPORTER:

Are you satisfied that the administration is paying close enough level of attention to this?

SENATOR WARNER:

And I appreciate what Richard just said. I think you're putting this impetus in our intel bill. I mean it was it seemed very strange to me that somehow there was an excuse being even we can't tell top election official because he or she may not have high enough clearance. I'm glad to see, as of last Friday, DHS has changed that position.

But I do believe we need more, and this is you know I would say that, this administration or any administration, a whole of government approach about protecting our electoral system, but we need a whole of government approach for that matter and the society approach in terms of our cyber vulnerabilities across the board.

I came from a hearing this morning where there was pretty uniform consensus that the Equifax breach where most of our private personal, financial information may be in the hands now of rogue elements, and that there wasn’t an appropriate cyber protection there. So this is why we characterize some of these … wild wild west this whole realm in cyber. We all need to step up our game center as the Russian lawyer who never had a problem like you or do you think this is.

REPORTER:

Do you think that this report needs to be done, that your conclusion has happened before the 2018 election in order to warn people about what can happen next and where do you think the most work needs to be done?

SENATOR BURR:

I’m not going to set an artificial deadline but I think Mark and I would agree we we've got to make our facts as it relates to Russia's involvement in our election available to the public prior to the primaries getting started in 2018 which means sometime in the next year but it's still my aspirational goal to finish the entire investigation this calendar year, don’t think I’ve changed. But, when we started nine months ago. I saw three buckets, and today I talked about five or six. So I didn't dream then what would what would have been to an end and predict what witnesses are going to share with us that might lead us in a different direction.

SENATOR WARNER:

And one of the things and again I think that the committee's been very good at it, is that. you know we're going to follow the facts. And we want to do it as quickly as possible. We want to do it right and follow the facts

REPORTER:

Is the Russian attorney going to come through – the Russian attorney that met with Donald Trump Jr, she’s offered to come through and offer testimony in open committee. Have you reach out to her or is she on the 25 on your list?

SENATOR BURR:

How do you know we haven’t already interviewed her?

REPORTER:

I didn’t say I did. I’m asking.

SENATOR BURR:

Thank you.

[Laughter]

REPORTER:

This is a question for both of you. Is there any progress on creating legislation that would create new laws regulating how political advertising works on these platforms that Republicans have discussed with Democrats. I know that you're are working with Senator Klobuchar are working on something ….

SENATOR WARNER:

Yeah, Senator Klobuchar and I are working on something that would, I believe be the lightest touch possible. And that light touch would focus on making sure that foreign, paid-for advertising doesn't penetrate our political system. And if there was an ability to at least look at the content that appears in political campaigns the same way that similar rules of the rest of the media already have. Some of the companies, I've heard at least comments that they are they are open to this type of disclosure.

SENATOR BURR:

Well let me just state the fact that it is illegal today for foreign money to find its way into U.S. elections. So it's not like we've got to rewrite some laws. I just want to get clarification.

REPORTER:

I just wanted to get a clarification on this. So far you have not been able to verify the intelligence community assessment .. that Russia was weighing in on the side of Donald Trump?

SENATOR BURR:

We feel very confident that the ICA's accuracy is going to be supported by our committee. We're not willing to close the issue given the nature of the rest of the investigation that we might get a threat of intelligence that suggests possibly an area of the ICA that we pursue… that our interpretation is different. So we're leaving it open. It's not closed. And I think any smart investigation would stay open until we completely …

SENATOR WARNER:

And that’s one of the reasons that we are trying to be very careful here, as Richard mentioned, some of these meetings where we’ve talked to most folks. We also know we will have to, this has to be talked through with all the balance the committee members and that we’re being extra cautious here saying, “We're not reaching final conclusions until we've had those conversations with all of you.”

REPORTER:

Could there ever be a point where the meddling from Russia was so overwhelming that it could indeed lead to the negating of the results of the election?

SENATOR BURR:

Maybe, maybe that's a theory people are working under. All I can tell you is that the votes were counted; one person won, and that's how going to stay.

REPORTER:

Prior to the release of your committee’s report will there be any coordination on what the Senate Judiciary Committee has found in its own investigation?

SENATOR BURR:

Well listen we're focused on our investigation. Everybody has their jurisdictional lanes. My hope is that they stay within those lanes. We talk. I won't say regularly, but we need to with the special counsel - the special counsel is focused on criminal acts. We're not focused on criminal acts. If we find one then they're the first phone call we make.

REPORTER:

Senator Burr, as you know the president is the commander-in-chief and he’s charged with protecting the country, but he hasn’t really spoken out on this issue, other than to call it a hoax. Do you want to see him lead some kind of effort – speak out, do something tangible to protect the country from what you consider the ongoing acts from Russia?

SENATOR BURR:

Listen I think the vice chairman alluded to the fact that although it was slow getting DHS to recognize this. It didn't take as long as it did for the last administration to run the clock on it. So we're not trying to look back and can point to things that were done wrong.

Everybody's done things wrong.

REPORTER:

Should the president now take what you’re saying today and speak out against and lead some kind of formal effort to protect the country from Russian…

SENATOR BURR:

I’m not asking the president to a press briefing that we give about progress and assume that that in any way shape or form fully encapsulates what our final report will say. What I will say is what the vice chairman pointed out - that the Department of Homeland Security has taken a different posture. It's his administration. I'm sure they had his direction or his leadership's direction. We're pleased with the progress that they're making but some of the things that hopefully we will be able to point out will be important steps to be incorporated in their thought process moving forward.

Thank you guys. Thank you. Thank. You.

Repblicans'B'Traitors Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you guys. Thank you. Thank. You.

LOL TLDR stoopid progtard. Also, your pathetic flailing to protect the fakenews globalist traitors like Warner is just....pathetic.


So much for your fakenews 'blue wave' LOL. Get ready for Warner to be primaried just like the fakenews globalist republican Eric Cantor.

Stoopid progtards think it's really dem vs. rep but the reality it's American Nationalist Patriots vs. globalists with no loyalty to the USA.

Didn't I see you in Charlottesville, boy?

Skinhead alert Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Didn't I see you in Charlottesville, boy?


I saw you hanging outside the Rt. 66 rest stop trolling for cock, so I decided to keep driving...for YOUR own safety you faggoty old beta male progtard.

Go back to the trailer and swallow some more FOX News bullshit, you worthless pea-brained failure. Nobody has any respect for mindless white-trash dick-tards such as you.

Repblicans'B'Traitors Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Love when the triggered alt-right snowflake's
> stories fall apart so they start grasping... By
> the way, it is a fact that Faux News only tells
> the truth 17% of the time:
> http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/

If that's the case, why did you use them as a source?

> False News comes out with Mark Warner is secretly
> texting with a russian oligarch - everyone
> watching Faux New shits themselves...
>
> Wait... he was texting a lobbyist who had links to
> Christopher Steele. Author of the Steele dossier
> that the GOP started & paid for... OK...,
> alt-right just clutching pearls.
>
> Oh No's... Marco Rubio tweets that Warner's had no
> impact on the russian investigation. Alt-right
> goes with fake rage over over some perceived time
> lapse.

Senator Warner failed to disclose the fact to his Senate colleages for 7 months that he texted with the lobbyist of a Russian oligarch who has travel restrictions placed on him by the US government. Despite the fact that Senator Warner attempted to covertly communicate with the lobbyist of a Russian oligarch, the investigation has not been hindered by his underhanded tactics.

Now your turn. Are you denying the fact that Senator Warner engaged in a series of texts with a lobbyist representing Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska?

Repblicans'B'Traitors Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Love when the triggered alt-right snowflake's
> stories fall apart so they start grasping... By
> the way, it is a fact that Faux News only tells
> the truth 17% of the time:
> http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/
>
> False News comes out with Mark Warner is secretly
> texting with a russian oligarch - everyone
> watching Faux New shits themselves...
>
> Wait... he was texting a lobbyist who had links to
> Christopher Steele. Author of the Steele dossier
> that the GOP started & paid for... OK...,
> alt-right just clutching pearls.
>
> Oh No's... Marco Rubio tweets that Warner's had no
> impact on the russian investigation. Alt-right
> goes with fake rage over over some perceived time
> lapse.
>
> The final nail in your bullshit coffin. An aide
> to Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the committee’s
> chairman, told Fox News that the senator knew
> Warner was trying to reach Steele through a
> “back channel” and was not concerned by the
> effort. Burr in fact told reporters during an
> **October** news conference that he and Warner had
> each personally attempted to reach out to Steele.
> October... Hahahahah!
>
> Senate Intelligence Committee Russia Probe Press
> Conference
> October 4, 2017
>
> SENATOR RICHARD BURR:
>
> Busy day around the country. Mark and I recognize
> the tragedy of Nevada this week, and at this point
> I'm glad to say that it doesn't seem to have a
> terrorism nexus. That's not always the outcome,
> but our hearts and our prayers go out to all the
> individuals who were affected both directly and
> indirectly, and I can assure you that from an
> intelligence committee standpoint and in the
> agencies they are providing this many assets to
> local law enforcement and to those people that are
> tasked with investigation of this unbelievable
> act.
>
> So we're here to update you and the American
> people about the investigation into Russia's
> meddling in the 2016 election. When we started
> this investigation on 23 January of this year, we
> had a very clear focus.
>
> We were focused on an evaluation of the ICA, the
> intelligence community assessment, of Russia's
> involvement in our 2016 election. Additionally,
> the investigation was to look into any collusion
> by either campaign during the 2016 elections. The
> third piece was an assessment of the ongoing
> Russian active measures, including information and
> influence campaigns that may still exist and may
> be ongoing. The investigation started with those
> three buckets of interest. Now we're over 100
> interviews later, which translates to 250 plus
> hours of interviews; almost 4000 pages of
> transcripts; almost 100000 thousand pages of
> documents reviewed by our staff and some by
> members. It includes highly classified
> intelligence reporting. It includes e-mails
> campaign documents and technical cyber analysis
> products. The committee has held 11 open hearings
> this calendar year that have touched on Russia's
> interference in U.S. elections. I can say that our
> dedicated Russia investigative staff have
> literally worked six to seven hours a day since 23
> January to get us to the point we are today.
>
> SENATOR MARK WARNER:
>
> Six or seven days a week.
>
> SENATOR BURR:
>
> Six or seven days a week, excuse me. So far in the
> interview process we have interviewed everybody
> who had a hand or a voice in the creation of the
> intelligence community assessment. We have spent
> nine times the amount of time that the community
> spent putting the ICA together, reviewing the ICA,
> and reviewing all the supporting documents that
> went in it. But in addition to that the things
> that were thrown on the cutting room floor that
> they might not have found appropriate for the ICA
> itself, but we may have found of relevance to our
> investigation.
>
> We have interviewed every official of the Obama
> administration to fully understand what they saw
> what clarity and transparency they had and the
> Russian involvement and more importantly what they
> did or did not do and what drove those actions.
>
> Again I'm reminded that we will come out with a
> finding at some point.
>
> And part of that hopefully will be recommendations
> with the changes we need to make. So we've tried
> to think thoroughly through this as we can. We
> have interviewed, literally, individuals from
> around the world. So for those of you that choose
> to stake out when the next witnesses come in there
> are some that have snuck through because you don't
> know who they are. Now it's safe to say that the
> inquiry has expanded slightly.
>
> Initial interviews and document review generated
> hundreds of additional requests on our part for
> information. It identified many leads that
> expanded our initial inquiry the volume of work
> done by the staff has prepared the committee. To
> look at some areas of our investigation that we
> hope will very soon reach some definite
> conclusion. But we're not there yet. We're not
> ready to close them. One of those areas is the ICA
> itself. Given that we have interviewed everybody
> who had a hand in the ICA I think there is general
> consensus among members and staff that we trust
> the conclusions of the ICA. But we don't close our
> consideration of it in the unlikelihood that we
> find additional information through the completion
> of our investigation. The Obama administration's
> response to Russian interference – as I said we
> have interviewed every person within the
> administration, they have volunteered and they
> have been unbelievably cooperative to come in and
> share everything they knew and in most cases were
> interviewed for over two hours.
>
> The meeting at the Mayflower — I mean be
> specific. These are not issues that are closed. We
> have not come to any final conclusions. We have
> interviewed seven individuals that attended the
> Mayflower event. The testimony from all seven were
> consistent with each other. But we understand that
> with the current investigation open there may be
> additional information we find that pulling that
> thread may give us some additional insight that we
> don't see today.
>
> Changes to the platform committee: And again I'm
> addressing some things that have been written by
> you in this room and they may not have been on our
> chart but we felt that we had to dig deeply into
> them. We have, the committee staff, has
> interviewed every person involved in the drafting
> of the campaign platform. Campaign staff was
> attempting to implement what they believed to be
> guidance to be strong, to be a strong ally in
> Ukraine but also leave the door open for better
> relations with Russia. I'm giving you the feedback
> we got from the individuals who were in the room
> making the decision. Again not closed - open for
> the continuation.
>
> The last one I want to cover is the Comey memos.
> This topic has been hotly debated and the
> committee is satisfied that our involvement with
> this issue has reached a logical end as it relates
> to the Russia investigation. Now again this is not
> something that we've closed but we have exhausted
> every person that we can talk to get information
> that's pertinent to us relative to the Russia
> investigation. Questions that you might have
> surrounding Comey’s firing are better answered
> by the general counsel or by the Justice
> Department, not the Select Committee of
> Intelligence in the United States Senate.
>
> There are concerns that we continue to pursue:
> collusion. The committee continues to look into
> all evidence to see if there was any hint of
> collusion. Now I'm not going to even discuss the
> initial findings because we haven't any. We've got
> a tremendous amount of documents still to go
> through. And just to put it in perspective I said
> we've done over 100 interviews over 250 hours. We
> currently have booked for the balance of this
> month 25 additional interviews that may not end up
> being the total but as of today there are 25
> individuals booked to meet with our staff before
> the end of this month alone pertaining to the
> Russian investigation. We have more work to do as
> it relates to collusion, but we're developing a
> clearer picture of what happened. What I will
> confirm is that the Russian intelligence service
> is determined, clever, and I recommend that every
> campaign and every election official take this
> very seriously as we move into this November's
> election. And as we move into preparation for the
> 2018 election I will ask Vice-Chairman to cover
> the other areas that were in the process of
> pursuing.
>
> SENATOR WARNER:
>
> Thank you, Richard. And I am on a saying at the
> outset again. I am very proud of this committee
> and proud of the way the committee has acted. I'm
> proud of our staff and the enormous amount of work
> they've done. I know Chairman and I see many of
> you daily in the hallways and know that this feels
> like it's taking a long time. It is taking a long
> time. But getting it right and getting all the
> facts is what we owe the American people. And as
> we’ve seen, for examples, stories that emerged
> in the late summer around Mr. Trump Jr's meeting
> and possibilities in the Trump Tower Moscow. You
> know, Chairman, I would love to find ways to close
> things down, but we also still see strains and
> threads that we need to continue to pursue. I want
> to touch on two subjects.
>
> The first is echoing what Richard said. The
> Russian-acted measures efforts did not end on
> Election Day 2016. They were not only geared at
> the United States of America. We've seen Russian
> active measures take place in France. We’ve seen
> concerns raised in the Netherlands. We've seen
> concerns raised in Germany and we need to be on
> guard. One of the things that is particularly
> troubling to both of us is the fact that, become
> evident that 21 states electoral systems were not
> all penetrated, but there was at least ....there
> was at least … trying to open the door in these
> 21 states. It has been very disappointing to me
> and I believe the chairman as well, that it took
> 11 months for the Department of Homeland Security
> to reveal those 21 states and still don't know why
> exactly last Friday was the date they chose to
> reveal that information but I still believe there
> needs to be a more aggressive whole of government
> approach in terms of protecting our electoral
> system. Remember, to make a change even in a
> national election doesn't require penetration into
> 50 states arguably in states like the chairman's
> and mine that could be key you could pick two or
> three states and two or three jurisdictions and
> alter an election.
>
> And I believe in a state like mine, where in
> Virginia and New Jersey in 34 days, we have
> elections, I'm glad to see the DHS has said they
> are going to up their game and particularly help
> those states with elections that are happening
> this year.
>
> But we need to make sure that there is an
> organized, again, whole of government approach. I
> know in Virginia, for example, even before we
> discovered that we were one of the 21 states, I
> think the state electoral board in an abundance of
> caution decertified one set of machines that were
> touch screens that didn't have kind of a paper
> ballot or a paper trail. That's one of the things
> we wanted to emphasize with this briefing that
> this is an ongoing concern and that if states
> don't proactively move forward very shortly we'll
> be getting into primary seasons early on in 2018.
> And this is a this is an ongoing challenge. And
> again I'd point out even after last week,
> Wisconsin, Texas, and California still have some
> lack of clarity about whether the appropriate
> individuals were notified.
>
> I also want to raise an issue that the chairman
> and I have been working jointly on as well, and
> that is the Russian’s use of social media
> platforms - social media platforms that
> increasingly the vast majority of us turn to for
> information, for news, in a way that is very
> different. If you look, for example, in the realm
> of political advertising, we've seen an over 700
> percent increase in the use of digital political
> advertising between 2012 and 2016. The expectation
> is that may double or triple again in terms of the
> next election cycle because of the ability to
> target voters. I was concerned at first that some
> of these social media platform companies did not
> take this threat seriously enough. I believe they
> are recognizing that threat now. They have
> provided us with information.
>
> We think it's important that the three companies
> that we've invited - Google Twitter and Facebook -
> will appear in a public hearing so that Americans
> can again hear both about how we're going to
> protect, I would argue, three areas. One, making
> sure that if you see an ad that appears on a
> social media site, then Americans can know whether
> the source of that ad was generated by foreign
> entities. Two, make sure that if you see a story
> that is trending and becoming more popular,
> whether that trending is because a series of
> Americans are liking that story or liking that
> particular page generated by real individuals or
> whether that's generated by bots or in some cases
> it may be falsely identified accounts. For
> example, Facebook has indicated between 30,000 -
> 50000 of such accounts were taken down in France
> because, due to Russian interference in France.
> And third just the notion that—both of us have
> been in politics a long time—if you have
> somebody wanting an ad for you against you, you
> ought to be able to be able get out and take at
> least a look at that content the same way that if
> ads are run for or against you on the radio or
> newsprint you can at least get a look at the
> content.
>
> This is an ongoing process. But we're seeing
> increasing levels of cooperation. And with that
> I'll turn it back over to the chairman and be
> happy to take questions.
>
> SENATOR BURR:
>
> Let me just say that many of you have asked us,
> “Are we going to release the Facebook ads?” We
> don't release documents provided to our committee,
> period.
>
> I’ll say it again. The Senate Intelligence
> Committee does not release documents provided by
> witnesses, companies, or whoever, whatever the
> classification. It's not a practice that we're
> going to get into. Clearly if any of the social
> media platforms would like to do that, we're fine
> with them doing it because we've already got
> scheduled an open hearing because we believe the
> American people deserve to hear it firsthand.
>
> And just to remind people on October the 25th we
> will have another open hearing, number 12, with
> Michael Cohen. On November 1st, we have invited
> the social media companies that Mark mentioned to
> be our guest at an open hearing and we feel
> confident that they will take us up on it.
>
> As it relates to the Steele dossier:
>
> Unfortunately the committee has hit a wall. We
> have on several occasions made attempts to contact
> Mr. Steele, to meet with Mr. Steele, to include
> personally the vice chairman and myself as two
> individuals making that connection. Those offers
> have gone unaccepted. The committee cannot really
> decide the credibility of the dossier without
> understanding things like who paid for it. Who are
> your sources and sub sources?
>
> We're investigating a very expansive Russian
> network of interference in U.S. elections. And
> though we have been incredibly enlightened at our
> ability to rebuild backwards the Steele dossier up
> to a certain date, getting past that point has
> been somewhat impossible. I say this because I
> don't think we're going to find any intelligence
> products that unlocked that key to pre-June of
> 2016. My hope is that Mr. Steele will make a
> decision to meet with either Mark and I or the
> committee or both so that we can hear his side of
> it versus for us to depict in our findings what
> his intent or what his actions were.
>
> And I say that to you but I also say it to Chris
> Steele.
>
> Potential witnesses that we might ask to come in
> in the future: I strongly suggest that you come in
> and speak with us if we believe that you have
> something valuable to bring to the committee. If
> you don't voluntarily do it, I will assure you
> today you will be compelled to do it. I can compel
> you to come, I can't compel you to talk. But that
> would be in a very public…done in a very public
> way if in fact you turned down the private offer.
>
> The committee has proven to be balanced,
> professional and proved that we're willing to
> listen to everybody.
>
> Let me say in closing for those following our
> investigation in the press. I want you to know
> that you only see glimpses of the amount of work
> the committee has done. We're doing much of our
> work behind closed doors to ensure the privacy and
> the protection of witnesses and sensitive sources
> and methods. It's become increasingly clear that
> the committee has stayed focused on building the
> foundation to be able to finish our investigation
> thoroughly and in an accountable way. I'm
> confident today that when we started, we chose
> wisely by choosing our professional staff to do
> this investigation and not to the talking heads
> all around the country that suggested we couldn't
> do this unless we went out and hire a whole new
> group. And I think the numbers here reflect that.
>
> Ultimately, we look forward to completing our work
> and presenting our findings to the public. I can't
> set a date as to when that will be. Mark can't set
> a date as to when that can be. We will share with
> you when we have exhausted every thread of
> intelligence, every potential witnesses that can
> contribute anything to this. I don't by any
> stretch of the imagination tell you that there
> have been value to everybody we've met with. But
> if we hadn't met with them, then you would have
> questions as to why we didn't. Now the truth is
> nobody in this room, and Mark and I might be
> included, and none of us in this room may know
> everybody we've met with.
>
> We're not going to share who we interview. We're
> not going to share what we asked, and we are
> certainly not going to share what they tell us.
> We're not going to share with you the documents
> that we got. But when you receive 100000 documents
> plus a large group of that coming from the Trump
> campaign alone, when you look at this country's
> most sensitive intelligence products, let me
> assure you if we're going to get the best view of
> what happened that anybody could possibly get at
> the end of this process we will be sure that we
> present to the American people our findings as
> best we have been able to accumulate them. So with
> that I'll be happy to open up for questions.
> Chad.
>
> REPORTER:
>
> Have you seen any evidence of a nexus between
> these Russian Facebook ads with the Trump campaign
> or with any political campaign?
>
> SENATOR BURR:
>
> Chad - we haven’t even had our hearing yet, so
> any of the social media platforms, I think if you
> look at it from 10,000 feet, the subject matter of
> the ads seems to have been to create chaos in
> every group that they could possibly identify in
> America. From a standpoint of any involvement, let
> us have the opportunity to have these folks and
> ask them the questions. In many cases they didn't
> even take advantage of some of the most technical
> targeting tools that exist within those social
> media companies. So I would defer answering your
> question until we've completed the investigation.
>
> SENATOR WARNER:
>
> Let me just say that that I believe, and I think
> you will see that there will be more forensics
> done by these companies. Again when we just look
> at scale, France versus the United States for
> example, on one of the platforms Facebook in terms
> of what happened. I think they've got some more
> work to do, and I'm pleased to say I think they
> are out doing that work better.
>
> REPORTER:
>
> Senator Burr, the president has said repeatedly
> that any talk of collusion is a hoax. You've gone
> through all of these documents, you've interviewed
> all these people. At this point, is the president
> right? Is this a hoax?
>
> SENATOR BURR:
>
> I'm going to let you guys quote the president and
> ask him questions about what he says. It’s not
> going to be the committee where we're going to
> have any evidence ….
>
> REPORTER:
>
> But do you have any evidence to suggest to rule
> out that the president knew anything about any of
> these contacts between any of his associates and
> the Russians?
>
> SENATOR BURR:
>
> Let me go back and say, because I thought I was
> pretty clear, that the issue of collusion is still
> open, that we continue to investigate both
> intelligence and witnesses, and that we're not in
> a position where we will come to any type of
> temporary finding on that until we've completed
> the process.
>
> REPORTER:
>
> So you say that the issue of collusion is still
> open. Are you pursuing the question of whether
> there is a link between the ads that appeared on
> the social media sites and the Trump campaign?
>
> SENATOR BURR:
>
> Well let me just say, and I’ll let Mark address
> it if he’d like to, if there was any connection
> that would be pertinent to our investigation of
> Russia’s influence in the elections, we have had
> incredible access and cooperation by those social
> media companies. Some of them have been
> interviewed twice. At the end of the day, we will
> be prepared to ask the right questions that will
> answer some of your questions at the open hearing.
>
>
> SENATOR WARNER:
>
> So we also have to get we have to get to the
> universe first. I was concerned on the frontend of
> the first pass was not a thorough enough pass. For
> example, I cited the fact that one entity, the
> only ads that were produced were paid for in
> rubles. There are various forms of payment. So I
> think I think the companies are increasingly
> understanding that their actions need to match
> their public statements. That they realize how
> important it is to maintain the integrity of our
> democratic process.
>
> REPORTER:
>
> Would you call on Facebook to release those ads?
>
> SENATOR WARNER:
>
> I think at the end of the day it's important that
> the public sees these ads.
>
> REPORTER:
>
> Senator - two questions. You talked about that
> level of cooperation that you've gotten from Obama
> administration officials. Can you characterize the
> level of cooperation and candor you’ve seen from
> Trump campaign officials and those in the Trump
> orbit?
>
> SENATOR BURR:
>
> I can't think of a Trump campaign official that we
> have asked to come in that has not come in. There
> are some individuals that may have been involved
> in the Trump campaign that up to this point we
> might have limited the scope of our questions, but
> with the full intent of them coming back when we
> knew a little bit more and had pulled a few more
> intelligence threads.
>
> REPORTER:
>
> When you compare what they’ve said to you to the
> documents that you’ve reviewed, do you find that
> they’ve been truthful?
>
> SENATOR BURR:
>
> I don't think that … I think our interviews to
> this point, outside of the five specific areas of
> buckets that that we knew exactly what the
> universe people we want to talk to we knew what we
> were trying to find out, that were very much in an
> exploratory mode trying to piece together what
> people did, where they were, who they talked to.
> In most cases we have access to email records text
> messages phone records voluntarily. Usually when
> you get something like that voluntarily somebody
> is probably going to tell you the truth when they
> answer the questions. But the reason that we can't
> definitively answer some of your questions today
> is we will take everything that our staff has put
> in the transcripts and we will test that against
> every piece of intelligence and other interviews
> that we've done. To suggest that we've done that
> to everybody thoroughly would be misleading. So
> let us go through that process. But I will assure
> you that if somebody has come in and not been
> truthful with us, we will catch them on that and
> they will come back and that will be the subject
> of great intensity.
>
> REPORTER:
>
> Based on the work done so far, what's your
> assessment of what the Russians did do in 2016,
> what they're doing now, and what you portend they
> will do in the future?
>
> SENATOR WARNER:
>
> Well I would just say, I think there is large
> consensus that they hacked into political files,
> released those files, in an effort to influence
> the election. We think they actively tried to at
> least test the vulnerabilities of 21 states
> electoral systems. And we feel that they used the
> social media firms, both in terms of paid
> advertising and what I believe is more
> problematic, in creating false accounts and others
> that would drive interest toward stories or
> groups. And generally those stories or groups were
> to sow chaos and drive division in our country.
> And I think that the pattern that they used in
> America, they have used in other nations around
> the world. And I fear sometimes if you add up all
> they've spent, that was a decent rate of return
> for them on their own.
>
> SENATOR BURR:
>
> Look let me add to that if I can. We can
> certifiably say that no vote totals were affected,
> that the tallies are accurate. The outcome of the
> election, based upon the counting votes. They did
> not in any way shape or form that we've been able
> to find alter that. I want to reiterate something
> that Mark said. You can't walk away from this and
> believe that Russia is not currently active in
> trying to create chaos in our election process.
>
> I assume that the same tactics that we saw in
> Montenegro and in France, in Belgium and in the
> United States will continue to be tested within
> our structure of the election process here.
>
> REPORTER:
>
> Thank you, Senator. Pivoting off that point, you
> just noted that Facebook - they say 10 million
> people saw their ads, there was an information
> campaign waged against one candidate by the
> Russians, and of course they probed 21 states,
> perhaps more that we didn’t catch. So can you
> definitely look at the American public, Senator
> Burr, and say that the election was not influenced
> in any way by this massive Russian operation?
>
> SENATOR BURR:
>
> Well, let me take issue with your premise of your
> question. Neither Mark nor I said that there was a
> campaign targeted against one. We're looking at
> both campaigns.
>
> REPORTER:
>
> Well that is what the ICA has said.
>
> SENATOR BURR:
>
> The ICA did not look at collusion of the
> campaigns. The ICA looked at Russian - let me
> finish -Russian involvement in the election
> process. We're in agreement with that. We have no
> come to any determination on collusion or Russia's
> preferences. If we used solely the social media
> advertising that we seen, there's no way that you
> can look at that and say that that was to help the
> right side of the ideological charge and not the
> left or vice versa. They were indiscriminate.
>
> One of the things that's most challenging to this
> investigation is, with the exception of certain
> pieces that have already been discussed, it seems
> that the overall theme of the Russian involvement
> in the U.S. elections was to create chaos at every
> level. And I would tell you the fact that we're
> sitting here nine months later investigating it
> … They have been pretty darn successful.
>
> REPORTER:
>
> Chairman Burr, how would you rate the
> administration and the country's response to this
> in terms of preventing something like this from
> happening in the future? And how ready are we for
> Virginia's election and 2018? What more needs to
> be done?
>
> SENATOR BURR:
>
> I’ll let Mark address Virginia. But let me just
> say this. Our role is not to necessarily suggest
> here the things we need to do. Our investigation
> should create a roadmap for communities of the
> proper jurisdiction to follow for states to
> follow. Mark and I made a decision to take the
> initiative in our authorization bill. That we
> require in our authorization bill that there be a
> designated person in every state who has a
> security clearance to be briefed on election
> issues. We couldn't say Secretary of State because
> that's not the case in every state but we felt
> compelled with what we had learned to make sure
> that just the fact that somebody wasn't clear to
> the high level would put a state out there not
> being notified. So we've made some steps in the
> right direction as we see those things that we
> think it's appropriate for do we will do if we say
> it's not appropriate for us to do. We will
> hopefully convey that in a way that presents a
> roadmap for somebody else.
>
> REPORTER:
>
> Are you satisfied that the administration is
> paying close enough level of attention to this?
>
> SENATOR WARNER:
>
> And I appreciate what Richard just said. I think
> you're putting this impetus in our intel bill. I
> mean it was it seemed very strange to me that
> somehow there was an excuse being even we can't
> tell top election official because he or she may
> not have high enough clearance. I'm glad to see,
> as of last Friday, DHS has changed that position.
>
> But I do believe we need more, and this is you
> know I would say that, this administration or any
> administration, a whole of government approach
> about protecting our electoral system, but we need
> a whole of government approach for that matter and
> the society approach in terms of our cyber
> vulnerabilities across the board.
>
> I came from a hearing this morning where there was
> pretty uniform consensus that the Equifax breach
> where most of our private personal, financial
> information may be in the hands now of rogue
> elements, and that there wasn’t an appropriate
> cyber protection there. So this is why we
> characterize some of these … wild wild west this
> whole realm in cyber. We all need to step up our
> game center as the Russian lawyer who never had a
> problem like you or do you think this is.
>
> REPORTER:
>
> Do you think that this report needs to be done,
> that your conclusion has happened before the 2018
> election in order to warn people about what can
> happen next and where do you think the most work
> needs to be done?
>
> SENATOR BURR:
>
> I’m not going to set an artificial deadline but
> I think Mark and I would agree we we've got to
> make our facts as it relates to Russia's
> involvement in our election available to the
> public prior to the primaries getting started in
> 2018 which means sometime in the next year but
> it's still my aspirational goal to finish the
> entire investigation this calendar year, don’t
> think I’ve changed. But, when we started nine
> months ago. I saw three buckets, and today I
> talked about five or six. So I didn't dream then
> what would what would have been to an end and
> predict what witnesses are going to share with us
> that might lead us in a different direction.
>
> SENATOR WARNER:
>
> And one of the things and again I think that the
> committee's been very good at it, is that. you
> know we're going to follow the facts. And we want
> to do it as quickly as possible. We want to do it
> right and follow the facts
>
> REPORTER:
>
> Is the Russian attorney going to come through –
> the Russian attorney that met with Donald Trump
> Jr, she’s offered to come through and offer
> testimony in open committee. Have you reach out to
> her or is she on the 25 on your list?
>
> SENATOR BURR:
>
> How do you know we haven’t already interviewed
> her?
>
> REPORTER:
>
> I didn’t say I did. I’m asking.
>
> SENATOR BURR:
>
> Thank you.
>
> [Laughter]
>
> REPORTER:
>
> This is a question for both of you. Is there any
> progress on creating legislation that would create
> new laws regulating how political advertising
> works on these platforms that Republicans have
> discussed with Democrats. I know that you're are
> working with Senator Klobuchar are working on
> something ….
>
> SENATOR WARNER:
>
> Yeah, Senator Klobuchar and I are working on
> something that would, I believe be the lightest
> touch possible. And that light touch would focus
> on making sure that foreign, paid-for advertising
> doesn't penetrate our political system. And if
> there was an ability to at least look at the
> content that appears in political campaigns the
> same way that similar rules of the rest of the
> media already have. Some of the companies, I've
> heard at least comments that they are they are
> open to this type of disclosure.
>
> SENATOR BURR:
>
> Well let me just state the fact that it is illegal
> today for foreign money to find its way into U.S.
> elections. So it's not like we've got to rewrite
> some laws. I just want to get clarification.
>
> REPORTER:
>
> I just wanted to get a clarification on this. So
> far you have not been able to verify the
> intelligence community assessment .. that Russia
> was weighing in on the side of Donald Trump?
>
> SENATOR BURR:
>
> We feel very confident that the ICA's accuracy is
> going to be supported by our committee. We're not
> willing to close the issue given the nature of the
> rest of the investigation that we might get a
> threat of intelligence that suggests possibly an
> area of the ICA that we pursue… that our
> interpretation is different. So we're leaving it
> open. It's not closed. And I think any smart
> investigation would stay open until we completely
> …
>
> SENATOR WARNER:
>
> And that’s one of the reasons that we are trying
> to be very careful here, as Richard mentioned,
> some of these meetings where we’ve talked to
> most folks. We also know we will have to, this has
> to be talked through with all the balance the
> committee members and that we’re being extra
> cautious here saying, “We're not reaching final
> conclusions until we've had those conversations
> with all of you.”
>
> REPORTER:
>
> Could there ever be a point where the meddling
> from Russia was so overwhelming that it could
> indeed lead to the negating of the results of the
> election?
>
> SENATOR BURR:
>
> Maybe, maybe that's a theory people are working
> under. All I can tell you is that the votes were
> counted; one person won, and that's how going to
> stay.
>
> REPORTER:
>
> Prior to the release of your committee’s report
> will there be any coordination on what the Senate
> Judiciary Committee has found in its own
> investigation?
>
> SENATOR BURR:
>
> Well listen we're focused on our investigation.
> Everybody has their jurisdictional lanes. My hope
> is that they stay within those lanes. We talk. I
> won't say regularly, but we need to with the
> special counsel - the special counsel is focused
> on criminal acts. We're not focused on criminal
> acts. If we find one then they're the first phone
> call we make.
>
> REPORTER:
>
> Senator Burr, as you know the president is the
> commander-in-chief and he’s charged with
> protecting the country, but he hasn’t really
> spoken out on this issue, other than to call it a
> hoax. Do you want to see him lead some kind of
> effort – speak out, do something tangible to
> protect the country from what you consider the
> ongoing acts from Russia?
>
> SENATOR BURR:
>
> Listen I think the vice chairman alluded to the
> fact that although it was slow getting DHS to
> recognize this. It didn't take as long as it did
> for the last administration to run the clock on
> it. So we're not trying to look back and can point
> to things that were done wrong.
>
> Everybody's done things wrong.
>
> REPORTER:
>
> Should the president now take what you’re saying
> today and speak out against and lead some kind of
> formal effort to protect the country from
> Russian…
>
> SENATOR BURR:
>
> I’m not asking the president to a press briefing
> that we give about progress and assume that that
> in any way shape or form fully encapsulates what
> our final report will say. What I will say is what
> the vice chairman pointed out - that the
> Department of Homeland Security has taken a
> different posture. It's his administration. I'm
> sure they had his direction or his leadership's
> direction. We're pleased with the progress that
> they're making but some of the things that
> hopefully we will be able to point out will be
> important steps to be incorporated in their
> thought process moving forward.
>
> Thank you guys. Thank you. Thank. You.

Give me a fucking break, some stupid anonymous blog poster knows the inner working of a Senate intelligence panel.
Attachments: