VIDEO - Biden Says Intelligence Community Said Obama Was Trying To Delegitimize Trumps Election

Been very busy but this is massive and needs out, can you all help?

Biden says: In 2016, the Intelligence community communicated that they thought that Obama was trying to delegitimize the Trump candidacy with the Russiagate business.

What this means is that they questioned this during the same time they were requesting FiSA’s to spy on the Trump admin.

Watch around 1:40

a reply to: elouina

Russia has an economy the the size Italy. Large land mass but end of the day, marginal ability to influence anything.
Russia is a dirt poor country.

If a dirt poor country is that big of a problem (it's not), then what other dirt poor countries are going to totally destroy our election process. It's complete nonsense.

No country is having that level of influence. Close to half was NEVER going to vote for her. What is left is small pockets; black voters, 3rd party fringe people. That is how he won. Those people didn't give two hershey squirts about Russia.

What else does this mean? Both Obama and Biden were involved in Russiagate. Here it is on video, silly.

Is he really trying to sell with a straight face that the Obama administration wasn't aware of Russian meddling in U.S. elections until September of 2016? Russia has been meddling in our elections since at least 1946. These people are either the most ignorant and incompetent fools on the face of the earth or else they think we all are.

a reply to: elouina

Maybe it means that the Steele Dossier wasn't as instrumental in the origins of the Russian investigation as so many people think.

a reply to: Stupidsecrets
Russia has been the deep state, military, industrial, intelligence, complexes boogieman since ww2. Can't sell weapons without a enemy.

a reply to: elouina

This really deserves a transcription. Here ya go!

INTERVIEWER: ...hindsight, should the Obama administration have done more once it was learned that the Russians were up to no good in interfering in our politics either before the election or during the transition, should the Obama administration have a Mulligan? Should it have done more?

BIDEN: Well, the answer to that question is that I'm not sure. I think we made the right...let me explain what I mean. This was a moving target. What we are originally told, that I guess, around August or September, we knew they were up to, uh, engaging in trying to delegitimize our electoral process, and...but the hard data we had was not very detailed and it did not...and then we...we had...the next point we want to...the, uh...its the only engagement with the House and Senate that I wasn't asked to lead...uh...uh...and, uh, because...anyway. I was always being sent to the Hill trying to settle things. Um, but the gang of 12 were called together, and we laid out to them in total, to this community, laid out to them exactly what we saw was happening, we did didn't know the extent of it then either, and we asked so that we wouldn't be in the position...the President and I would sit there literally, after the PDB, and everybody w'walk out of the room, and say 'what the hell are we gonna do?' Now Mr. President, you go out and you unilateraly say this is what's happening, you're gonna be accused of, in this environment, of trying to tip the election, and unless you can give harder data than we have now you're gonna be in a terrible position, and it's going to play into the delegitimizing of our electoral process, which was initially what the intelligence community, correct me if I'm wrong here, the intelligence community thought was what this was all about. And then, as we got further...and so we went up, and Mitch McConnell, who I get on with well, is a smart guy, Mitch McConnel wanted no part of having a bi-partisan commitment that we would say essentially, Russia is doing this, stop. Bi-partisan. So we couldn't be used as a weapon against the Democratic nominee of a President trying to use the Intelligence Community, which, you...now at the time people would say no, when we were internally having this discussion, no one would do that. Well now look what the hell they have done! The constant attack is on the Intelligence Community as a political organization, run by, you know, Barack Obama for...to take on his political enemies. Now, you know, as a friend of mine in Scranton would say "who would have thunk it?" but it was done! And so there was this constant tightrope is being walked here, as to what would we do so the second big play was, we went in and said okay, look here's all the data. And Brennan and company came up and said here's what we know: Why don't we put out a bi-partisan warning to Russia, "hands off man or there's gonna be a problem." Democrat, Republicans, well they would have no party...they would have no part of it. That, to me, hanging around that body up there for a longer than any of you were around doin' it, meant to me that this was the dyed and cast here. This was all about the political play. And so the moment the President at that time would come out and say "by the way, the Russians are doing this, and hacking the DNC, and so on" would have been turned into "the President is trying to make this play." Then we learned more, and we learned more immediately after the election was over, but we did have a conclusion of stop...there was a consesus in the Intelligence Community, that when the President gave a face-to-face warning to Putin over-seas of the conference that we saw no evidence which really worried me in particular but I think everybody, of actually going into the voting rolls, going into the voting itself, in...impacting on using cyber to...to go into and strip the roles of democrats, republicans, or...we had no evidence of that and it seemed that when that demarche was made that there was no more...it didn't move any further, but I'm sure I'm leaving stuff out. So the bottom line was it was tricky as hell, it's easy now to say "well, maybe we should have said more, but I ask you a rhetorical question: can you imagine if the President of the United States called a press conference in...in October with this...fella, and Bannon and company, and said "tell ya what. The Russians are trying to interfere in our elections, and we have to do something about it." What do ya think would have happened? Im not [won't even try, something about rhetorical] I have a view, but I genuinely mean it. Ask yourselves what do you think would have happened? Would things have gotten better, or would it have further looked like we were trying to delegitimize the electoral process because of our opponent? That was the constant battle. Had we known what we knew three weeks later we may have done something more but-yeah?...

CARPENTER: I would just say one other thing, in addition to that, which is that, especially in the Fall if '16, the focus in the Admininstration was really on the cyber-attack. We knew that they had...were...had intruded into 21 states election infrastructure, and we were very focused, precisely as the Vice-President said, on not allowing the Russians to be able to go in and physically change votes, or flip people's, for example, addresses to supress voter registration. That was the preoccupation. We're only learning now, in fact, the last 12 months, we've learned so much in terms of the propaganda campaign, the disinformation and stuff on Twitter and Facebook, uh, I, you know, I think we both feel, that, that warrants an aditional response and that CATS, uh, the Countering America's Adversaries Act, provides the right authorities now to be able to amp up the costs even further.

INTERVIEWER: That's really, uh, I think helpful in getting that on the record.

Best to ya!
z

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: elouina

Maybe it means that the Steele Dossier wasn't as instrumental in the origins of the Russian investigation as so many people think.

Would you perhaps be referring to Joseph Misfud's influence on George Papadopolous's revelations to Australian Intelligence?

There is a strong hatred for her going back 30 years. Younger voters might be aware of some of the reasons why but not all of them and they did not experience it. Russia had nothing to do with any of those reasons.

One of those reasons, Bill put her in charge of healthcare and she tried to screw over the middle class. This was covered on the PBS show NOVA a few years ago. People were literally throwing items at her motorcade when she was pushing to make massive changes to their healthcare. She was the First Lady with no experience in healthcare.

There were also numerous other scandals with her specifically that had nothing to do with Bill's impeachment either.
The media bagged all those scandals up and stamped Russia on it. Think Hunter and Joe look bad, go look up Hillary and her brother. It's 10X's worse.

Joe is hyper aware of all of it. He knows why she lost. It was not about Russia. It was her.

originally posted by: Zelun

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: elouina

Maybe it means that the Steele Dossier wasn't as instrumental in the origins of the Russian investigation as so many people think.

Would you perhaps be referring to Joseph Misfud's influence on George Papadopolous's revelations to Australian Intelligence?

No

Now Mr. President, you go out and you unilateraly say this is what's happening, you're gonna be accused of, in this environment, of trying to tip the election, and unless you can give harder data than we have now you're gonna be in a terrible position, and it's going to play into the delegitimizing of our electoral process, which was initially what the intelligence community, correct me if I'm wrong here, the intelligence community thought was what this was all about.

John McCain delivered the Steele Dossier to the FBI, but Clinton PACs paid for a good portion of it too. We know that when the Obama Administration met with the "Gang of Eight" Mitch McConnell accused the Obama Administration of politics and trying to tilt the election. So, the Obama Administration pulled back, especially on informing the public.

So, I think, can't really say the way he rambles, but I'm thinking that it was the Steele Dossier that they were saying was political and biased.

a reply to: Sookiechacha


Then why did the FBI depend on it almost exclusively to obtain the FISA warrants used to spy on everyday American citizens ?

a reply to: DJMSN

I don't know that they did. Papadopoulos wasn't mentioned in the Steele Dossier. They were already watching Rodger Stone and Manafort.

What FISA warrant do you think they got based on the Steele Dossier?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Clinton/DNC paid for the entire dossier.
McCain, along with at least Bruce Ohr and a Perkins Coie attorney (Clinton/DNC law firm), shopped it around to FBI officials.

Republicans hired Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Trump prior to him receiving the nomination. After that, Clinton/DNC, via undisclosed payments to Perkins Coie, paid Fusion GPS who then hired Steele.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Carter Paige

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Thank you, this was greatly appreciated.

a reply to: elDooberino

Carter Page. LOL

Even Carter Page qualified that the "dodgy dossier" only played a small part in the his FISA warrants.

But, I doubt info about Carter Page, and however he was involved in the campaign, is what the intel community thought was going to tilt the election.

a reply to: Stupidsecrets

Russia is a dirt poor country.

Not sure what planet you must be living on but that statement is rather false. Russia was indeed poor with the American puppet Boris Yeltsin in power for sure but that only was in the 90s.

marginal ability to influence anything.

What happened in Syria with the Russians preventing another intervention/Regime Change charade that shows that Russia has the ability to influence anything.


Russia has a similar size to China to compare Russia to Italy your a joke on foreign policy.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You asked whose FISA warrant was based on the dossier.
As you said, it played a role in Carter Paige's FISA warrant.

Newsflash: The Intel community didn't think anybody in the trump campaign was going to tilt the election. They fabricated the justification for the entire investigation.

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets
a reply to: elouina

Russia has an economy the the size Italy. Large land mass but end of the day, marginal ability to influence anything.
Russia is a dirt poor country.

If a dirt poor country is that big of a problem (it's not), then what other dirt poor countries are going to totally destroy our election process. It's complete nonsense.

No country is having that level of influence. Close to half was NEVER going to vote for her. What is left is small pockets; black voters, 3rd party fringe people. That is how he won. Those people didn't give two hershey squirts about Russia.

I almost voted for Clinton, but then Russians paid me a visit and changed my mind after I was waterboarded and forced to choose between a steak dinner and hummus. A decision that changed my life forever.

a reply to: elDooberino

The Intel community didn't think anybody in the trump campaign was going to tilt the election.

No, they thought the Russians were trying to, or at least cause people to doubt the legitimacy of the democratic process. And they thought that perhaps some of the people in Trump's circle were soliciting/welcoming/encouraging Russia's help in exchange for the promise of sanction relief/Magnitsky Act repeal. There is plenty of evidence in the Mueller report that that was true.

"Russia! If you're listening..."

According to Biden, they also thought that going public with the administration's concern WOULD tilt the election, from what I understand.