How did Putin get Trump nominated? Trump had to get nominated for Putin to get him elected. Your answer must include evidence, including documents, testimony, and other forms of evidence as defined in the Federal Code of Criminal Procedure, The Rules of Evidence.

@franifio I have the answer to how Trump got nominated, and the evidence, which is considerable. Putin had nothing to do with it.
@franifio Here we go---First, Hillary asked her friends in the media to "elevate" Trump as she wanted to run against him.

https://t.co/BYfwrPptcq

https://t.co/3ZmNq2n6d4
@franifio The media did exactly what they were asked to do by Hillary for America and DNC executives--They promoted Trump.

https://t.co/3Ypqfxpwwv
@franifio https://t.co/SPsyVaBnCr
@franifio Late in the campaign, Bill Clinton called Obamacare "crazy."

https://t.co/iiLkBuYX0g
@franifio Obama gave an interview concerning illegal immigrants voting. It caused a controversy that helped galvanize Trump's voters to turn out no matter what the polls said.

https://t.co/17VIRRE7DG
@franifio The polls showing Hillary to be a "shoo-in" and the only questions being how large her majority would be and how long her coattails down ballot actually damaged Hillary's turnout.

https://t.co/38W0V7yPFo
@franifio And finally, COMEY:

https://t.co/AuyEQwiy4Q
@franifio Did the DNC and Podesta emails have much effect on the election? Well, not according to the Steele Dossier, whose supporters keep telling us was "not disproven." Steele's sources told him Putin was disappointed in the impact the emails had on the campaign. It's right in there.
@franifio I suppose it didn't help when Putin had Fancy Bear hack the DNC when Cozy Bear already had ADMINISTRATIVE ACCESS to the entire network and already transmitted to Moscow from the DNC. Fancy Bear used brute force to break through the firewall and penetrate the network exposing...
@franifio ...their presence and bringing on CrowdStrike's incident response that resulted in the theory that Putin was trying to elect Trump and the DNC emails were part of that alleged scheme. Only a real covert operation would have succeeded, but it wasn't covert even if true.

More from Politics

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?