The Russians clearly hacked the recount in addition to the original vote!!!
Cunning little devils aren't they!
Does the possibility of Russian state sponsored meddling in an American election register even the slightest bit of concern in your mind?
“The bipartisan electors' letter raises very grave issues involving our national security,” Podesta said in a statement Monday. “Electors have a solemn responsibility under the Constitution and we support their efforts to have their questions addressed.”
Does the possibility of Russian state sponsored meddling in an American election register even the slightest bit of concern in your mind?Yes, if I thought it was real. But I put this in the same realm as the fake video that caused Benghazi. It is just more lies from a corrupt regime trying to deflect blame from themselves.
Does the possibility of Russian state sponsored meddling in an American election register even the slightest bit of concern in your mind?
So what exactly did the Russians hack? There are only voters, and vote counters. Did they hack the people voting? How is that possible? Did they hack the people counting the votes? Did they hack every voting machine in the country, even though many are manual?
So what exactly did the Russians hack? There are only voters, and vote counters. Did they hack the people voting? How is that possible? Did they hack the people counting the votes? Did they hack every voting machine in the country, even though many are manual?From what I can tell, it doesn't matter. Because hack. Because Russia. Because Trump. Because Hillary should have won.
Did the Russians convince Obama to:
Have eight years of economic malaise
Preach divisiveness, and identity politics
Alienate middle income earners
Alienate white people
Side with criminals and cop killers
Bring down our standing in the world
Fight un-winnable wars worldwide with impossible rules of engagement
Kill four Americans in Benghazi including an ambassador
Over regulate
Over tax
Politicize the IRS, DOJ, FBI, CIA, EPA, Interior, etc
Have Hillary campaign on four more years of extending Obama's failed policies, then complain that it didn't work, and that we need even more liberal/progressive nonsense.
BTW, the Republicans picked up another seat in the Senate this weekend with the runoff in Louisiana.
This is just another Obama/Hillary/DNC and MEDIA cabal to UNDERMINE the American people. I agree with Bolton that it is a False Flag. I want a full investigation, just like I wanted the failed recount that found more votes for Trump!
This is just another Obama/Hillary/DNC and MEDIA cabal to UNDERMINE the American people. I agree with Bolton that it is a False Flag. I want a full investigation, just like I wanted the failed recount that found more votes for Trump!
Julian Assange is out there saying that the emails did not come from Russian hackers but came from a Clinton insider.
Not exactly a trustworthy source.
Did the Russians convince Obama to:
Have eight years of economic malaise
Preach divisiveness, and identity politics
Alienate middle income earners
Alienate white people
Side with criminals and cop killers
Bring down our standing in the world
Fight un-winnable wars worldwide with impossible rules of engagement
Kill four Americans in Benghazi including an ambassador
Over regulate
Over tax
Politicize the IRS, DOJ, FBI, CIA, EPA, Interior, etc
Have Hillary campaign on four more years of extending Obama's failed policies, then complain that it didn't work, and that we need even more liberal/progressive nonsense.
I said early - the ultimate indictment of both candidates is that neither was able to establish a commanding position over the other despite all the faults. You gave a laundry list of Hillary's problems, but Trump's are of the same calibre, starting with "Grab 'em in the p***y".
I said early - the ultimate indictment of both candidates is that neither was able to establish a commanding position over the other despite all the faults. You gave a laundry list of Hillary's problems, but Trump's are of the same calibre, starting with "Grab 'em in the p***y".
Former CIA officer Kent Clizbe charges that Mr. Brennan has politicized the spy agency, and with the hacking brief to Congress, even more so today.
“But all the politicization of the CIA of the previous eight years is nothing compared to Brennan’s current operation — his vile use of the good name of the CIA in an attempt to invalidate our presidential election,” Mr. Clizbe said. “Brennan’s misuse of the CIA in an effort to serve his political masters is unprecedented and unforgivable. These are the actions of totalitarian dictators, using foreign security services to sully political opponents. Someone needs to stop him before it’s too late.”
Does anyone else find it hypocritical that the same people who campaign so strongly for a global world are upset when another country influences the election?
Personally, I believe, without any substantial proof, that a disillusioned Hillary (or Bernie) supporter or other insider leaked this stuff. Not the Russians.
I'm curious. I realize that many of you refuse to believe there's anything to reports of Russian government hacking into DNC emails and that it's all a case of whining Democrats trying to delegitimize Trump's victory. I get that.
Just hypothetically, do any of you think it's acceptable for a foreign entity (or domestic one for that matter) to hack into a political party email server in the US? Do you consider hacking no big deal because one shouldn't put anything on the internet you're not willing to have leaked? Or do you believe any evidence of malfeasance or illegal acts are okay to use regardless of the manner in which they are obtained?
I suspect many will just start spouting anti-liberal rhetoric and not answer my questions but I'm just trying to determine just what y'all think is okay and not what your opinion (whether the CIA is right or wrong in its determination) of the current controversy happens to be.
John Podesta was an idiot for using a gmail account. HRC was an idiot for using a home brewed server. They opened themselves up for hacking and were careless with information.So you don't believe any of the reports that both the RNC and DNC were hacked with only the DNC emails given out for distribution? Seems, if true, to lend credence to whomever did the hacking attempting to help one candidate over the other instead of merely causing general mayhem in the election.
Noticed all of the leaked emails from the Trump campaign and the RNC? Me neither. Why? They took security seriously to prevent this from happening.
I'm willing to bet that won't happen again to the dems come 2020.
You betcha.
So you don't believe any of the reports that both the RNC and DNC were hacked with only the DNC emails given out for distribution? Seems, if true, to lend credence to whomever did the hacking attempting to help one candidate over the other instead of merely causing general mayhem in the election.
I know, I know, only believe whatever fits your bias. DNC--stupid. RNC--brilliant.
In case you haven't figured it out by now my bias is DNC=RNC Both have exactly the same ethical standards as do their fanatical proponents. Trump however, is a loose cannon that doesn't fit into either xNC mold. Whether this is good or bad remains to be seen but it potentially could be extremely bad which should concern us all. I truly hope the change is positive but change there will be.
Priebus has stated unequivocally that the RNC was not hacked and claims they had the FBI investigate and confirm that fact.
I'm curious. I realize that many of you refuse to believe there's anything to reports of Russian government hacking into DNC emails and that it's all a case of whining Democrats trying to delegitimize Trump's victory. I get that.Yeah, I think it would be a big deal if the Russians did that. But so far the only proof I have is partisan accusations. And accusations aren't proof.
Just hypothetically, do any of you think it's acceptable for a foreign entity (or domestic one for that matter) to hack into a political party email server in the US? Do you consider hacking no big deal because one shouldn't put anything on the internet you're not willing to have leaked? Or do you believe any evidence of malfeasance or illegal acts are okay to use regardless of the manner in which they are obtained?
I suspect many will just start spouting anti-liberal rhetoric and not answer my questions but I'm just trying to determine just what y'all think is okay and not what your opinion (whether the CIA is right or wrong in its determination) of the current controversy happens to be.
I'm curious. I realize that many of you refuse to believe there's anything to reports of Russian government hacking into DNC emails and that it's all a case of whining Democrats trying to delegitimize Trump's victory. I get that.
Just hypothetically, do any of you think it's acceptable for a foreign entity (or domestic one for that matter) to hack into a political party email server in the US? Do you consider hacking no big deal because one shouldn't put anything on the internet you're not willing to have leaked? Or do you believe any evidence of malfeasance or illegal acts are okay to use regardless of the manner in which they are obtained?
I suspect many will just start spouting anti-liberal rhetoric and not answer my questions but I'm just trying to determine just what y'all think is okay and not what your opinion (whether the CIA is right or wrong in its determination) of the current controversy happens to be.
What amazes me is the fact that a campaign would have their workers, especially someone at Podestas level, using Gmail, Yahoo, Hotmail or anything other than something the campaign would set up and make sure it was secured.
Trying to remember the Democrat protests when Dem operatives were trying to get Netanyahu defeated in Israel.
And did it with taxpayer dollars.
I for one absolutely believe that the DNC emails were hacked.I don't think there is any question about that. The only question is WHO did the hacking?
I don't think there is any question about that. The only question is WHO did the hacking?
I don't think there was ever any disagreement in the intelligence community about who did the hacking. They all agree(d) Russia.
There was some initial disagreement about whether or not the intent was to benefit a single candidate or just to mess with the system. Latest reports indicate that all the intelligence agencies have reached agreement based on what has been learned between then and now, that the Russian government at the highest levels was behind efforts to elect one candidate rather than any other.
You may now continue blaming HRC for manufacturing this controversy and somehow influencing the intelligence apparatus of the US into backing her supporters thinly disguised effort to delegitimize the election of Donald Trump.
I don't think there was ever any disagreement in the intelligence community about who did the hacking.
http://www.npr.org/2016/12/16/505890551/fbi-cia-agree-that-russia-was-trying-to-help-trump-win-the-election
Two intelligence sources say the FBI agrees with the CIA assessment that Russia interfered in the U.S. election, in part to help Donald Trump, clearing up any confusion and other reporting that the agencies weren't in sync.
The entire intelligence community, in fact, is now in alignment that the hacks were partly motivated to try and install Trump as president. The FBI and others continue to say that Russia didn't actually think that was going to happen.
An intelligence source also notes
Prior to coming to NPR in 2010, Johnson worked at the Washington Post for 10 years,
suuuuurrrrrreee. All of this stuff is unclassified.
Yep, we can talk about all of this stuff in the clear.
::)
And Julian Assange says a colleague of his went to D.C. and met a DNC operative that gave him those emails.
And Julian Assange says a colleague of his went to D.C. and met a DNC operative that gave him those emails.
So you don't believe Congressmen from either party or press statements from the current administration or NPR or the Washington Post but when Trump vomits out words on Twitter, you take it as gospel. I don't think they (intel agencies) will publicly release the evidence they have especially if it involves classified sources and methods but I tend to believe the conclusions of knowledgeable people who see the evidence if they arrive at a consensus with a high confidence factor. Every day more news stories come out citing intelligence sources developing more and more evidence linking the Russian government with deliberate attempts to corrupt an American election and instead of voicing outrage, many of you continue to attempt to kill the messenger. I can recall only one post where someone actually agreed that Russian interference in a American election would be a bad thing so apparently most of you think its acceptable. God help us all when we've become so partisan that some Americans accept foreign attempts at manipulating the American political system.
So you don't believe Congressmen from either party or press statements from the current administration or NPR or the Washington Post but when Trump vomits out words on Twitter, you take it as gospel. I don't think they (intel agencies) will publicly release the evidence they have especially if it involves classified sources and methods but I tend to believe the conclusions of knowledgeable people who see the evidence if they arrive at a consensus with a high confidence factor. Every day more news stories come out citing intelligence sources developing more and more evidence linking the Russian government with deliberate attempts to corrupt an American election and instead of voicing outrage, many of you continue to attempt to kill the messenger. I can recall only one post where someone actually agreed that Russian interference in a American election would be a bad thing so apparently most of you think its acceptable. God help us all when we've become so partisan that some Americans accept foreign attempts at manipulating the American political system.
Once again, Obama and all his sycophants have accomplished their goal, which was to divert attention from the content of the emails to the source of them. The emails themselves are damning evidence of corruption at the highest levels and prove unfitness to hold high office.Yes, if I were the Dems, I'd be careful to not call attention to the emails at all. Letting the issue drop and regrouping to save the party at the next election might be a higher priority. The more this story bloats, the more exposure the existence of the DNC whistleblower who gave the emails to Assange will get, and thus more exposure of the corruption of HRC and the Clinton Foundation.
And EVEN IF ( a big IF) it was the Russians who did it (unlikely), that in itself shows the total incompetence of the people entrusted with our national secrets.
The Democratic Party has latched onto reports citing anonymous CIA sources who allege the Russians tried to sway the 2016 presidential election. After blaming Fake News, the FBI, racism, sexism and the Electoral College, it appears the newest scapegoat for Hillary Clinton's and the party's crushing defeat is Russia.
The mainstream media and the Clinton campaign were in an uproar during the general election when President-elect Trump wouldn't commit to accepting the outcome. Now they are the ones who aren't accepting the outcome, even claiming that the election was rigged. After Clinton's lawyers joined Green Party candidate Jill Stein's bogus recount efforts, campaign chairman John Podesta has now upped the ante by calling for the electors to receive an intelligence briefing before they vote on Dec. 19.
Podesta's calls come on the heels of a letter sent by a small group of electors to National Intelligence Director James Clapper, which was spearheaded by the daughter of Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. According to Reuters, Clapper's agency, which oversees the 17-agency intelligence community, has not embraced the CIA leaker's assessment. It is important to note that the FBI also reached a different conclusion than the reported CIA sources.
Given the reported lack of agreement in the intelligence community, the biased coverage of the media of the general election, and the Democratic Party's desperate attempts to find a scapegoat, this reeks of politics. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson has already said the decentralized nature of our electoral system protects it from serious disruption. The White House has previously said there is no evidence of hackers tampering with the election. And even if Russia was behind the emails WikiLeaks uncovered, the damage was nominal at best.
Just curious here, did the Russians hack the polling organizations that showed that Clinto was going to win? Care to explain that one?
The Russians didn't make Clinton defy government rules by setting up a private email server, using software to bleach tens of thousands of emails, and then lie about it, which prompted a criminal probe by the FBI. The Russians didn't force Clinton to engage in pay-for-play scenarios involving the Clinton Foundation and foreign donations. The Russians didn't prevent Clinton from stepping foot in Wisconsin, being a likable person, or effectively driving a message that resonated with voters. The Russians also didn't prevent minority voters from turning out in cities such as Philadelphia and Detroit. President Obama even acknowledged the Clinton campaign's failure to invest time in rural towns as a major misstep.
What is getting little press is that Assange has said it was a disgruntled democrat who leaked the emails. And that Podesta, in his infinite stupidity fell for a phishing scheme that allowed the hackers months long access to his files. If it weren't so sad it would be funny.
So the Democrats, and the media are just saying the Russians hacked Hillary's email and divulged all the dirt that she committed with the DNC, and others? They are not saying the Russians hacked the results, correct?
Therefore, it doesn't matter that she did all these horrible things, it just matters who exposed them? Wow. Talk about priorities.
Bingo!
Except their talking points are spoken in a vagueness in order to plant the seed of doubt. After watching and reading the news this morning it's amazing how lock step they are in their daily talking points.
http://www.the-lighthouse.net/podesta-wikileaks-revelation-recap/ http://www.npr.org/2016/10/12/497698455/whats-in-the-latest-wikileaks-dump-of-clinton-campaign-emails https://shadowproof.com/2016/10/17/podesta-emails-revelations-collection/ http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-wikileaks-explained-20161031-story.html http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/12/top-10-hillary-clinton-scandals-exposed-wikileaks/ (http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w464/flybywire1959/leak_zps3yi4fhz5.jpg) |
the corruption of the liberals is old news.
why don't people realize that the possibility of the russians "influencing" the election is much much much more important?
Maybe because in a globalized world, every country has the opportunity to influence our election? Seriously, unless you want to try a complete ban on foreign money, this is where we are.
It isn't like a foreign billionaire(s?) hasn't been pumping money in to influence our elections for a decade already. The Left is upset now because they don't like Putin. Also old news.
Stolen from another forum I am on:
How was Putin able to get the sitting AG of the United States to meet in secret with the spouse of a potential Defendant on a tarmac?
How was Putin able to get the DNC to rig the primaries against Bernie Sanders?
How was Putin able to get the Republicans to start a #NeverTrump movement?
How was Putin able to trick the former Secretary of State into running a pay-for-play scam?
Can one of the liberal/progressives answer these questions? No, the CIA would never LIE, no never.
The content of the emails...the content of the emails....the content of the emails....
The topic for this thread was Russian hacking.
All most of you can rant on about is "the content of the emails"
You can discuss the content of the emails in another thread but as usual you answer anything about anything by immediately going into defense mode and blaming those evil democrats for everything that is wrong with the world. I stubbed my toe this morning...damn Obama said you could keep your doctor. Got stuck in traffic....damn Hillary emails are still missing. Sure is cold today....proof global warming is a Democratic fiction.
I can accept some partisan politics as the price for freedom in this country, but to accept Russian meddling in American politics should be a huge redline no American should accept Russia stepping over. All I hear from most on this board is...but the content of the emails....or...I'm not convinced Russia is behind hacking as I believe Trump when he dismisses the entire intel community's assessment based on.............nothing
It forces me to conclude that the concept of American patriotism is no longer a strong unifying factor for Americans. We've become such a polarized society that it's Conservatism, Liberalism, Republican, Democrat, Black, White, Christian, or Muslim FIRST and anyone of some other pursuasion must be evil incarnate, Russia excepted, provided the laws they break benefit my particular persuasion.
“As Chair of the Democratic National Committee — one of the main victims of the Russian attacks — I ask that you support and provide any needed assistance to an independent, bipartisan investigation of the attacks that includes public hearings," the interim chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee wrote in a letter to Congress Sunday.
“What we do know is that these intrusions were not just ‘hacks’ — they were attacks on the United States by a foreign power, and they must be treated as such,” she said.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/310940-brazile-writes-letter-to-congress-calling-for-investigation-into-russian
So Donna, just how did those rascally Russians convince you to pass debate questions to Hillary?
Since you're so intent on discussing the content of emails just what proof do you have that the emails are legitimate?
Could someone have edited these emails other than the alleged author(s)?
You're willing to believe anything, from any source, as long as it matches your beliefs. This is a dangerous way of looking at what you find on the internet.
It's disturbing when you accept foreign intervention in internal politics because you agree with it. I've come to the conclusion that it matters not what my political preferences are in reality, my disgust with fellow Americans who accept foreign meddling makes me Liberal. Got it.
Why are you (and other liberals) so concerned about who leaked the emails rather than the content of those emails? Does the content of those emails trouble you, at all?
And please tell us, what other "hacking" do you believe took place? Voting machines? County election offices? What? And how?
Since you're so intent on discussing the content of emails just what proof do you have that the emails are legitimate? If they indicate some sort of crime was committed, would they be admissible as evidence of wrongdoing? Could someone have edited these emails other than the alleged author(s)?Wikileaks has a 100% legitimacy rate and they protect it by ensuring accuracy. Wikileaks tweeted the other day that Obama should submit any documents he receives from Putin to Wikileaks' authentication procedure. Wikileaks uses robust authentication software to ensure material received has not been altered or tampered with. Wikileaks' whole goal is transparency for the people. Wikileaks has nothing on Trump at the moment but has stated they will publish it if obtained. Check out Wikileaks Twitter feed and their website.
You're willing to believe anything, from any source, as long as it matches your beliefs. This is a dangerous way of looking at what you find on the internet. It's disturbing when you accept foreign intervention in internal politics because you agree with it. I've come to the conclusion that it matters not what my political preferences are in reality, my disgust with fellow Americans who accept foreign meddling makes me Liberal. Got it.
But but I just heard Obama say it was the Russian and they will not get away with it.
Didn't Obama say that he'd have more flexibility after the 2012 election and would be in touch with Vlad at that time?
To explain again, anything the Left says is projection.
Yes, he also laughed at Romney for thinking the Russians were still a threat. They always have been. So, if the Russian hacking is true, which I doubt, then which is it? Are the Russians a threat or not Hussein Obama?
Obama, and Hillary are weak appeasers. Why would the Russians want Trump in power, a man that will stand up to them?
... Wikileaks has nothing on Trump at the moment but has stated they will publish it if obtained. Check out Wikileaks Twitter feed and their website.
(http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w464/flybywire1959/steve_kelley_steve_kelley_for_dec_13_2016_5__zpswd4lzne7.jpg)
It's doubly sad that Americans take the word of foreign provocateurs interfering with internal American politics.
It's doubly sad that Americans take the word of foreign provocateurs interfering with internal American politics.What foreign provocateurs have confessed to interfering? What were their words?
What foreign provocateurs have confessed to interfering? What were their words?
The charge is that the leaking of the DNC emails by Wikileaks affected the election.
The cartoon assumes something that is not proven.
You really expect Putin to admit or put forth the reasons for interfering with internal American politics? I don't really care what his reasons were. I don't really care whether Democrats were targeted or Republicans were targeted or Rosie O'donnell was targeted. The Russians have no business meddling in our business. I'm relying on what our intelligence agencies have concluded with high confidence.
I don't care about any "charge that the leaking of DNC emails by Wikileaks affected the election." I care that Putin directed hacking into American systems and his intent. The intent can be derived by anyone with a brain by what was released from the hacking. You all have shifted the focus to what was hacked and it's effect on the election--the focus should be on Russia doing anything to interfere regardless of whether it was effective or not. Your continuing focus on what was hacked makes me believe that you think it's okay because it reinforces your case against the godless Democrats. In your world it would be okay for cops to break into a home and search it without a search warrant provided they find evidence of a crime. Seems like you would do well in Nazi Germany of the 1940s and any talk about the sanctity of our Bill of Rights is just eyewash as long as you benefit from looking the other way.
I'm relying on what our intelligence agencies have concluded with high confidence.
The Russians have no business meddling in our business. I'm relying on what our intelligence agencies have concluded with high confidence.
I don't care about any "charge that the leaking of DNC emails by Wikileaks affected the election." I care that Putin directed hacking into American systems and his intent. The intent can be derived by anyone with a brain by what was released from the hacking. You all have shifted the focus to what was hacked and it's effect on the election--the focus should be on Russia doing anything to interfere regardless of whether it was effective or not. Your continuing focus on what was hacked makes me believe that you think it's okay because it reinforces your case against the godless Democrats. In your world it would be okay for cops to break into a home and search it without a search warrant provided they find evidence of a crime.
Seems like you would do well in Nazi Germany of the 1940s and any talk about the sanctity of our Bill of Rights is just eyewash as long as you benefit from looking the other way.
You really expect Putin to admit or put forth the reasons for interfering with internal American politics? I don't really care what his reasons were. I don't really care whether Democrats were targeted or Republicans were targeted or Rosie O'donnell was targeted. The Russians have no business meddling in our business. I'm relying on what our intelligence agencies have concluded with high confidence.
I don't care about any "charge that the leaking of DNC emails by Wikileaks affected the election." I care that Putin directed hacking into American systems and his intent. The intent can be derived by anyone with a brain by what was released from the hacking. You all have shifted the focus to what was hacked and it's effect on the election--the focus should be on Russia doing anything to interfere regardless of whether it was effective or not. Your continuing focus on what was hacked makes me believe that you think it's okay because it reinforces your case against the godless Democrats. In your world it would be okay for cops to break into a home and search it without a search warrant provided they find evidence of a crime. Seems like you would do well in Nazi Germany of the 1940s and any talk about the sanctity of our Bill of Rights is just eyewash as long as you benefit from looking the other way.
It's doubly sad that Americans take the word of foreign provocateurs interfering with internal American politics.
OK, once again, please cite that intelligence from those agencies, and please do it without citing a NPR article or other MSM unnamed "source". Those intelligence agencies have PR departments and they are allowed to make public statements on their collective letterheads. So please show us one of these press releases.Ask our Intelligence Agencies to release their evidence. I no longer have a security clearance and if I did I wouldn't tell you what my evidence was anyway. I'm going by what the directors of multiple agencies who do have security clearances have told Congressmen and what Congressmen have told the nation.
You've been asked repeatedly to please explain exactly how or what the Russians supposedly did to "influence" the election. And repeatedly you come up empty handed. Why? Because the DNC talking points you follow religiously haven't told you either. You can't show anything actually happened except for MSM articles and Talking Points. Nothing. Nada.
Ah, there it is! Whenever a liberal is pushed back they resort to the Nazi and Hitler arguments! On cue!
Ask our Intelligence Agencies to release their evidence. I no longer have a security clearance and if I did I wouldn't tell you what my evidence was anyway. I'm going by what the directors of multiple agencies who do have security clearances have told Congressmen and what Congressmen have told the nation.
I was waiting for when the "talking points" card would be played. Anytime one side or the other has no good counterpoint they claim they don't accept something since it's merely the other side's "talking point" and unworthy of argument. I wonder if you would be so tolerant of someone breaking into your computer as you seem to be with someone breaking into the DNC's?
Ask our Intelligence Agencies to release their evidence. I no longer have a security clearance and if I did I wouldn't tell you what my evidence was anyway. I'm going by what the directors of multiple agencies who do have security clearances have told Congressmen and what Congressmen have told the nation.
I was waiting for when the "talking points" card would be played. Anytime one side or the other has no good counterpoint they claim they don't accept something since it's merely the other side's "talking point" and unworthy of argument. I wonder if you would be so tolerant of someone breaking into your computer as you seem to be with someone breaking into the DNC's?
The article below is a pretty good summary of the lack of evidence of a Russian hack to influence the election. It makes cogent arguments as to the problems with attributing this to the Russians and the need to make the evidence public before we start "retributions".
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/14/heres-the-public-evidence-russia-hacked-the-dnc-its-not-enough/
Why were the Democrats so reticent to address the substance of the emails rather than always pivoting?
I no longer have a security clearance and if I did I COULDN'T tell you what my evidence was anyway.
FTFY. Unless you worked in this section of the intelligence agencies, it's unlikely that you would have had access.
Lucifer...Here's my latest talking point
Why are some Trump supporters turning a blind eye towards Russian meddling? Why aren't specific questions concerning specific emails being asked? If they're not answered we'd have something to discuss. Perhaps some feel that answering questions about illegally obtained emails is tantamount to accepting the legitimacy of the emails. I don't know. It's like asking when was the last time you beat your wife.
Why are some Trump supporters turning a blind eye towards Russian meddling?
FTFY. Unless you worked in this section of the intelligence agencies, it's unlikely that you would have had access.
Because the conclusion that it was Russia backed is based on speculation, not evidence. Russia had the capability and the motive is what the conclusion is based on...
Because this was not targeted at just the US. This was part of a larger effort to target politics around the world.
Because there is nothing to be done. The US Constitution guarantees that people cannot be silenced. What would you suggest, that we tell everyone from Russia to shut up? We block websites outside the US then they don't conform to....whose standard? That we censor websites and media inside the US? WHAT SHOULD WE DO?.
We are adults. Bad things happen and then we move on.
To add to that, Clinton's campaign philosophy was "run the clock out". She and her campaign felt they already had everything wrapped up and all they needed to do was wait until election day. The MSM did such a hatchet job of becoming her media support that her campaign had believed their own bullshit. Useless poll after useless poll showing Hillary as the winner and the MSM mocking and berating Trump added to their over confidence. Campaign in WI? Ha! They'll vote democrat no matter what! Trump win in MI and PA? Ha! That's part of the "Blue Wall" and Trump could never win there! Florida? Ha! The Latinos will come out in force for Hillary!
I sure wish I had a yawning emoji. Your answer to everything is "Hillary this Obama that, you can't believe anything on MSN". You really need to take a deep breath and rest that noggin of yours so you can come up with something different.
You should start now on thinking up better reasons to explain why Trump didn't come through on his promises four years from now. I don't think HRC's 2016 campaign debacle will suffice.
Oh, for heavens sake.
There is no substantive evidence yet of Russia's government initiating deliberate election interference.
Earlier you said that "Some Trump supporters" are ignoring the Russian interference aspect and focusing on the email contents. You are correct to say "some." I would say the majority of Trump supporters are waiting to see what transpires.
You have to understand, though, that given the dozen or so things the Democrats have blamed their losses on in this election, the "crying wolf" effect has kicked in big time.
The weapons-grade cognitive dissonance on the left is truly a spectacle to behold in wonder.
I wonder if the Libs support the harassment of electors including death threats. Does the MSM even mention this in their coverage?
I wonder if the Libs support the harassment of electors including death threats. Does the MSM even mention this in their coverage?
I wonder if the Libs support the harassment of electors including death threats. Does the MSM even mention this in their coverage?
I have seen reports in the media of electors being threatened, by the way, but there's little value in publicizing anonymous threats because it may just encourage these wackos if they get a lot of unwarranted attention.
It has nothing to do with working in the intelligence agency
You should start now on thinking up better reasons to explain why Trump didn't come through on his promises four years from now.
It's doubly sad that Americans take the word of foreign provocateurs interfering with internal American politics.Like all these foreign leaders did:
Like all these foreign leaders did:Just some of the over 61 quotes found here:
- “His discourse is so dumb, so basic." Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa.
- "Trump is an irrational type." Chinese Finance Minister Lou Jiwei.
- "You [Trump] are a disgrace not only to the GOP but to all America. Withdraw from the U.S. presidential race as you will never win." Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Alsaud.
- “A person who thinks only about building walls — wherever they may be — and not building bridges, is not Christian." Pope Francis.
- "It's not a man I would vote for, I can tell you that [...] I hope that the American people, and I think they will, choose someone else who is better equipped for this task." Swedish Defense Minister Peter Hultqvist.
- “A lot of what Donald Trump says makes for a more unstable world." Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg.
- Trump reflects "the ultraconservative, racist, and war-like thinking that is incubated in the roots of the empire." Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega.
- “He is not predictable and this unpredictability is a danger. And therefore it is not in the common interest, nor in the interest of the west, that we have President Donald Trump.” Elmar Brok, German MEP and chair of the European parliament’s foreign affairs committee.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/05/06/47-not-very-positive-things-foreign-leaders-have-said-about-donald-trump/?utm_term=.a6c0f77937c0 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/05/06/47-not-very-positive-things-foreign-leaders-have-said-about-donald-trump/?utm_term=.a6c0f77937c0)
There was also the the UK attempt to ban Trump:
The "Block Donald J Trump from UK entry" petition:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/114003 (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/114003)
Though it eventually triggered the "Don't ban Trump from the United Kingdom " counter-petition which didn't do as well:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/114907 (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/114907)
It has everything to do with a need to know. Where did you say you had a clearance before? You should know this inside and out.
If you don't work in the intelligence agencies - or even if you do work there but not in the right group - then you do not have access to the full intelligence. You will get a summary, a boiled down opinion, a consensus opinion or sometimes just the director's choice of which opinion to float.
I'm worried that I even have to say this.
Like all these foreign leaders did:Just some of the over 61 quotes found here:
- “His discourse is so dumb, so basic." Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa.
- "Trump is an irrational type." Chinese Finance Minister Lou Jiwei.
- "You [Trump] are a disgrace not only to the GOP but to all America. Withdraw from the U.S. presidential race as you will never win." Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Alsaud.
- “A person who thinks only about building walls — wherever they may be — and not building bridges, is not Christian." Pope Francis.
- "It's not a man I would vote for, I can tell you that [...] I hope that the American people, and I think they will, choose someone else who is better equipped for this task." Swedish Defense Minister Peter Hultqvist.
- “A lot of what Donald Trump says makes for a more unstable world." Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg.
- Trump reflects "the ultraconservative, racist, and war-like thinking that is incubated in the roots of the empire." Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega.
- “He is not predictable and this unpredictability is a danger. And therefore it is not in the common interest, nor in the interest of the west, that we have President Donald Trump.” Elmar Brok, German MEP and chair of the European parliament’s foreign affairs committee.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/05/06/47-not-very-positive-things-foreign-leaders-have-said-about-donald-trump/?utm_term=.a6c0f77937c0 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/05/06/47-not-very-positive-things-foreign-leaders-have-said-about-donald-trump/?utm_term=.a6c0f77937c0)
There was also the the UK attempt to ban Trump:
The "Block Donald J Trump from UK entry" petition:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/114003 (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/114003)
Though it eventually triggered the "Don't ban Trump from the United Kingdom " counter-petition which didn't do as well:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/114907 (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/114907)
Do you understand the difference between voicing an opinion and hacking into an American computer system and seeding supposed emails from this illegal activity to favor one American candidate over another or alternatively, cast doubt as to the legitimacy of the American political system?
Do you understand the difference between voicing an opinion and hacking into an American computer system and seeding supposed emails from this illegal activity to favor one American candidate over another or alternatively, cast doubt as to the legitimacy of the American political system?
When Premier Smith from Country X says Trump is a dangerous psychopath, I can agree with him or disagree with him but I can also blow him off completely and say he should mind his own business but he can say whatever he wants to 'cuz I ain't his mother. If Premier Smith orders a cyber attack against the US to corrupt our election, that's a whole different kettle of fish. Can you see the difference or should I use smaller words?
You're really going off the deep end on this.
There is no evidence of "seeding supposed emails", and you know that. Now you are simply making shit up to make your case.
All emails that were exposed, none, not one, was proven to be false or altered.
Do you understand the difference between voicing an opinion and hacking into an American computer system and seeding supposed emails from this illegal activity to favor one American candidate over another or alternatively, cast doubt as to the legitimacy of the American political system?
I've said this before. I was an operator who had a need to know and security clearances up to and including special access programs. What experience do you claim? Do you even know the distinction between intelligence and (combat) information? Intel folks are extremely protective of what they know and how they got it to the point that oftentimes they have to be forced to give it up to people with a need to know. It's a balancing act that I had to deal with on a daily basis and we operators (at least the good ones) never acted on information we were given unless we knew how confident the analyst who made the assessment was in his source(s).
Submarines. Funny, I dealt with a lot of SEALs but never heard a single one refer to themselves as an operator. It's a title to denote the competence, you can't say it about yourself.
This information probably would not have been available for you unless you were involved in the analysis.
Never said I was a SEAL or any other flavor of "special" operator although I worked with a fair amount of them. You don't (didn't) get around much did you. I've dealt with plenty of operators and special operators who had very limited experience outside their very cloistered community.
So how does an F-111 EWO work with Navy SEALs?
The only reason the democrats' emails were the ones released is because they were the ones successfully hacked. No republican emails were released because they were better at protecting their servers. Would republican emails have been released if they were successfully hacked? Who knows? But given hacking attempts on both parties, we can't assume that the hacker preferred one party over the other.
So how does an F-111 EWO work with Navy SEALs?
. Maybe the RNC defenses were great and successfully defended against a major attack or maybe they didn't need to be that good because they weren't the primary target.
Submarines. Funny, I dealt with a lot of SEALs but never heard a single one refer to themselves as an operator. It's a title to denote the competence, you can't say it about yourself.
This information probably would not have been available for you unless you were involved in the analysis.
Witmo at work:
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/921176/100207808/stock-photo-unhappy-operator-100207808.jpg)
The CIA has accused Russia of interfering in the 2016 presidential election by hacking into Democratic and Republican computer networks and selectively releasing emails. But critics might point out the U.S. has done similar things.
The U.S. has a long history of attempting to influence presidential elections in other countries – it’s done so as many as 81 times between 1946 and 2000, according to a database amassed by political scientist Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.htmlBecause we've done it in the past, you're saying it's acceptable for foreign countries to interfere with our internal politics?
Because we've done it in the past, you're saying it's acceptable for foreign countries to interfere with our internal politics?
I asked a question. All you had to do is answer No, it is unacceptable for a foreign country to attempt to interfere with an American election. Since you didn't answer no, we all have to assume you agree with the posted article and that interference in another country[s internal politics is okay since the US has done it to others. Just answer the question and we won't have to make assumptions based on an article you chose to disseminate.
Actually I posted an article, I didn't comment on it as I would leave that to the reader to make up his own mind.
Nice spin by attempting to make it appear I'm "saying something" that I never did.
And another comment. Over in the DNC email thread you have demanded people to post emails and give their opinions because your bias is that Hillary and the DNC have never done anything wrong and you want to prove it by having others do the research so you can twist it to make a feeble point. Yet you have been asked time and time again to prove how the Russians supposedly interfered in he US election and all you can do is point to a NPR article as proof. You have been asked, multiple times, just how did the Russians interfere in the election, what method did they use, and you spin and won't answer it.
You are either too lazy to do any reading or research a topic or if you do it won't jive with your preconceived notions so you just simply ignore it.
I asked a question. All you had to do is answer No, it is unacceptable for a foreign country to attempt to interfere with an American election. Since you didn't answer no, we all have to assume you agree with the posted article and that interference in another country[s internal politics is okay since the US has done it to others. Just answer the question and we won't have to make assumptions based on an article you chose to disseminate.
I asked a question. All you had to do is answer No, it is unacceptable for a foreign country to attempt to interfere with an American election. Since you didn't answer no, we all have to assume you agree with the posted article and that interference in another country[s internal politics is okay since the US has done it to others. Just answer the question and we won't have to make assumptions based on an article you chose to disseminate.
I can't wait until the evidence of Putin helping Trump win the election is released. Of course that will probably never happen because I don't think it is true.
You are so full of shit. Again, all you are attempting to do is put words into a post that wasn't said.
So you refuse to answer the question to clarify your post.
just like your hero who "hears people say" and then repeats what "people say" to enflame his supporters but doesn't have the guts to say what he thinks.
I asked a question and you refuse to answer. There I said it again. I own what I say and don't just post crap on a board and tell people to make up their own mind. I've made up my mind--you're full of (sh)it.
My answer doesn't meet your agenda. It's the same MO you use over and over. And it gets really old.
You're a one trick pony.
http://www.npr.org/2016/12/16/505890551/fbi-cia-agree-that-russia-was-trying-to-help-trump-win-the-electionBy that time, Obama had enough time to coerce any opinion he wanted from his intelligence service.
By that time, Obama had enough time to coerce any opinion he wanted from his intelligence service.
You don't believe that? Then why were you so anxious to blame Bush for the intelligence he got before Gulf War II?
And even if it was Putin and official government actors that did the hacking, and even if the purpose was to force Hillary to lose, then how did she manage to win the popular vote, which you liberals are so quick to point out? If their goal was to make people NOT vote for Hillary, they failed miserably.
Also, if it was Putin, then what can we do about it in the face of the fact that we do the same things. I for one sure as hell hope we do NOT cease our covert hacking of foreign governments.
You don't know the first thing about our intelligence agencies if you think the President can coerse them to fabricate intelligence.I didn't say he would coerce them to fabricate intelligence. I said he had enough time to coerce an opinion. And you don't know the first thing about politics if you don't think that can happen.
I didn't say he would coerce them to fabricate intelligence. I said he had enough time to coerce an opinion. And you don't know the first thing about politics if you don't think that can happen.He must have worked really hard to coerse the same opinion from every intelligence agency.
Do you understand the difference between intelligence and an opinion?
He must have worked really hard to coerse the same opinion from every intelligence agency.That's what he's best at. Especially when he replaced all the competent people with his cronies.
Because we've done it in the past, you're saying it's acceptable for foreign countries to interfere with our internal politics?
I guess the only way to get Republicans to denounce Russian hacking is if the Russians were to manipulate the stock market.. With Donald Trump and his tweets, they have no need of that. Who would have thought Americans have become so polarized that they accept Russians pulling our strings and pitting ourselves against each other.
Come on Witmo, Republicans absolutely denounce Russian hacking and all other hacking for that matter. What I don't accept is that there is any proof that the hacking was done to help Trump, I don't believe there is any proof of that, nor does that make sense. Your argument is typical of a liberal, where a specific fact is disputed so you take liberty and broaden the accusation to the ridiculous.
I missed the part where Lucifer, et al, denounced Russian hacking interference in our election process.
First they refuse to accept the fact, then they claim it had no impact but no where do they admit to the fact that Russia attempted to influence an American election by hacking into the DNC.
You keep trying to explain this all away as an attack on the outcome of the election and I keep saying it's not about how effective or ineffective their efforts were but the fact that they did it for whatever reason is unacceptable and should be denounced by EVERY American not just the ones who lost the election.
We are being asked now to believe that the Russians wished to influence a U.S. presidential election. This master stroke of statecraft by Putin was designed, however, to bring to power a man, Donald J. Trump, who has pledged to rebuild the United States militarily and economically. Trump has detailed his intent to build a national missile defense, modernize our strategic arsenal to match that of Russia and China, ensure our ability to dominate the high seas with an expanded and more technologically advanced navy, guarantee our ability to project power with an improved air force, and have an intelligence and cyber capability second to none. How any of this is in the Russian strategic interest is yet to be explained.
By contrast, Hillary Clinton, following the policies of Barack Obama, stated she would, by not building missile defenses—no small strategic matter—continue the policy of vulnerability to Russian, Chinese, and Iranian ballistic missiles; delay the upkeep and modernization of our nuclear weaponry; and, pursue a reduction of our conventional military forces. On traditional strategic grounds, it defies logic that Putin would have preferred Trump to Clinton.
On economic affairs the contrast is even more stark. Trump has called for “complete energy independence” with expanded oil, fracking and natural gas production. Hillary Clinton has opposed each of these on environmental grounds. Russia, whose economy and wealth is based on exporting their vast oil and gas reserves, would very much desire a world where the United States is dependent on world oil markets for their energy requirements. Energy independence is the last policy the Russians would want a U.S. president to pursue. Here again, a Clinton presidency was in the Russian interest.
If Putin's goal was to demonstrate that he could mettle in U.S. politics and in so doing shake our faith in our democratic institutions, he could certainly have done so without hurting the political fortunes of Hillary Clinton. Surely the good of Russia’s economy and Russia’s strategic position in the world outweighs whatever short term benefit there might be in embarrassing the United States and interfering in our political process.
Poor witmo. The unwashed conservatives refuse to accept his massive intelligence and don't want to concede that Russia WANTED Donald Trump as President because they couldn't deal with queen Hilary. Considering Hilary sold a huge amount of our uranium to Russia in exchange for 'donations' and she oversaw the pathetic Russian Reset debacle, I can see why such a qualified 'expert' as witmo would conclude that Vlad would rather deal with an unknown than an incompetent idiot.
No reliable sources indicate Russian hacking? Are you kidding? Every national intelligence entity has agreed that Russian government directed hacking of the DNC has occurred and yet you're in full denial because DT hasn't said so and he's the only source you're willing to believe?
Really? Have you totally ceded any sort of rational thought to what DT tweets?
I guess the first thing DT should do upon taking office is dismiss every government employee charged with developing intelligence since they're obviously all puppets being controlled by a faliled politician and a lame duck president. it's all a conspiracy against his (and Putin's) attempt at making America great again.
We are being asked now to believe that the Russians wished to influence a U.S. presidential election. This master stroke of statecraft by Putin was designed, however, to bring to power a man, Donald J. Trump, who has pledged to rebuild the United States militarily and economically. Trump has detailed his intent to build a national missile defense, modernize our strategic arsenal to match that of Russia and China, ensure our ability to dominate the high seas with an expanded and more technologically advanced navy, guarantee our ability to project power with an improved air force, and have an intelligence and cyber capability second to none. How any of this is in the Russian strategic interest is yet to be explained.But read the whole article! It is quite good on the subject of hacking.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/12/23/the_illogic_of_russian_hacking_132636.htmlBut read the whole article! It is quite good on the subject of hacking.
THERE YOU GO!!!!
Comey said so! That's all the proof necessary.
The most partisan FBI Director in history is the sole source for all knowledge!
Hooray.
witmo found the holy grail!!!!!
taken from the Chicago Tribune:
taken from the Chicago Tribune:That's hard to believe, given McCain's love of Trump.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., on Sunday again decried Russia's alleged interference in the 2016 presidential race and called for a select Senate committee to investigate the country's cyber activities during the election.
On CNN's "State of the Union," McCain told host Jake Tapper that there was "no doubt" Russia interfered with the election.
"We need to get to the bottom of this," he said. "There's no doubt they were interfering. There's no doubt. The question is now, how much and what damage? And what should the United States of America do?"
Seriously, that's your "proof".
I noticed there was no mention of "all of the intelligence agencies" agreeing as well.
Very lame attempt Witmo, very lame.
I don't sit in on the intelligence briefings that Senator McCain gets to. Sorry if you don't trust anything unless it has DT's hashtag attached do it.
I, too, noticed the falloff of news about Russian hacking after Dec. 19. Hmmm.
1) What exactly did the Russians supposedly do when they supposedly hacked the campaign? How exactly did the hack affect the outcome of the election? What was hacked?
2) You have claimed time and time again that "all of the intelligence agencies agree that the Russians hacked the election". Please provide a citation to prove this.
I only care about the fact that they hacked the DNC with the intention of favoring one candidate over another. This I got from what FBI/CIA have concluded. Senator McCain and others have been briefed and unequivocally have stated they have high confidence in the conclusions reached by the intelligence agencies of the United States.None of this jives with all of your hypotheses about those that believed the intelligence agencies were liars re: Gulf War WMDs.
I've linked the Tribune interview with Senator McCain in which he said as much and more. I don't have access to the sources as Sen McCain does so either he's telling the truth or flat out lying in which case I would think the Directors would publicly say he's making stuff up and they deny his statement of their conclusions.
Looks like a duck ...
http://www.unz.com/mwhitney/ah-so-putin-didnt-hack-those-emails-after-all/
None of this jives with all of your hypotheses about those that believed the intelligence agencies were liars re: Gulf War WMDs.
You sir, are a hypocrite.
You discount CBS and NBC but believe the drivel linked above? Okay, I get it.I'm sure you read the article thoroughly and thoughtfully. Unz is one of my trusted sites because they don't defend either "side" exclusively. They have published articles excoriating Trump.
I won't argue with you. I've found it difficult to win an argument with someone incapable of reason. I've stated the difference between Intel in the Gulf War 2 and today's issues with intel but you sir seem incapable of seeing any difference so Merry Christmas and happy New Year,If you did describe a difference, I missed it. I would be willing to read it if you could point me to it.
I only care about the fact that they hacked the DNC with the intention of favoring one candidate over another. This I got from what FBI/CIA have concluded. Senator McCain and others have been briefed and unequivocally have stated they have high confidence in the conclusions reached by the intelligence agencies of the United States.
I've linked the Tribune interview with Senator McCain in which he said as much and more. I don't have access to the sources as Sen McCain does so either he's telling the truth or flat out lying in which case I would think the Directors would publicly say he's making stuff up and they deny his statement of their conclusions.
Still in denial I see.
No reliable sources indicate Russian hacking? Are you kidding? Every national intelligence entity has agreed that Russian government directed hacking of the DNC has occurred and yet you're in full denial because DT hasn't said so and he's the only source you're willing to believe? Really? Have you totally ceded any sort of rational thought to what DT tweets? I guess the first thing DT should do upon taking office is dismiss every government employee charged with developing intelligence since they're obviously all puppets being controlled by a faliled politician and a lame duck president. it's all a conspiracy against his (and Putin's) attempt at making America great again.
If you did describe a difference, I missed it. I would be willing to read it if you could point me to it.It's become obvious to me that I'm wasting my time here trying to have a serious discussion. Close your eyes to Russian interference, close your eyes to global warming and continue believing that facts are an illusion and truth is only what you find is convenient. Good luck and have a Merry Christmas
But unless you have some insight that I have overlooked, I see no difference.
You think those that believed the intel about WMDs were liars, yet you think those that don't believe the intel about Russian hacking are idiots.
It's become obvious to me that I'm wasting my time here trying to have a serious discussion. Close your eyes to Russian interference, close your eyes to global warming and continue believing that facts are an illusion and truth is only what you find is convenient. Good luck and have a Merry Christmas
No one is ignoring Russian interference. IF any was done it needs addressing. What is being ignored is the content of the emails.
No one is ignoring "global warming." What is being ignored is science, scientists, and data that sheds doubt on the supporting data, data collection methods, data doctoring and massaging methods, political goals of the proponents, and proposed drastic anti-US "solutions."
Merry Christmas to you too.
It's become obvious to me that I'm wasting my time here trying to have a serious discussion. Close your eyes to Russian interference, close your eyes to global warming and continue believing that facts are an illusion and truth is only what you find is convenient. Good luck and have a Merry ChristmasThe reason you can't have a serious discussion, is because you won't admit that you are a hypocrite. You say that the intelligence claiming there were WMDs was a lie, yet you reject that those same intelligence officials would lie about Russia. The only difference is where your alliance lies.
The reason you can't have a serious discussion, is because you won't admit that you are a hypocrite. You say that the intelligence claiming there were WMDs was a lie, yet you reject that those same intelligence officials would lie about Russia. The only difference is where your alliance lies.
If it is true that the Russians hacked us, (and it probably is), then the people that need to be punished are the people that allowed it to happen. We will get nowhere trying to punish the Russians. They will never quit hacking us just as we will never quit hacking them.
There's a separate thread on email content and no one has been able to quote a specific email indicating criminal activity. The vast majority of climate scientist agree man is having an impact on global warming.The intent of Assange is and always has been transparency for the people, uncovering their governments for them. Check out their website and Twitter feed that I linked earlier.
As for the climate, I have linked elsewhere to the best pro/con analysis site in existence, to my knowledge. You apparently ignored it, and also ignored the comments I and others made regarding the failure of models to reflect observable trends, and a number of other extremely cogent and germane reasons to question certain "assumptions" assumed to be true.
Ok, here's the game plan. Obama is just laying another potential trap for Trump.
Obama is going to lay out sanctions on Russia for the perceived "interfering in the US election". This helps delegitimization Trump, and if Trump attempts to change any of the sanctions once in office then the democrats can jump up and down proclaiming "See! He was involved with the Russians! And now he's helping them out! See! See!"
Look for more gamesmanship from BHO in the next 24 days. January 20th can't get here fast enough.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-white-house-is-scrambling-for-a-way-to-punish-russian-hackers-via-sanctions/2016/12/27/0eee2fdc-c58f-11e6-85b5-76616a33048d_story.html?utm_term=.2d7fed782d1a
Still in denial I see.
No reliable sources indicate Russian hacking? Are you kidding? Every national intelligence entity has agreed that Russian government directed hacking of the DNC has occurred and yet you're in full denial because DT hasn't said so and he's the only source you're willing to believe? Really? Have you totally ceded any sort of rational thought to what DT tweets? I guess the first thing DT should do upon taking office is dismiss every government employee charged with developing intelligence since they're obviously all puppets being controlled by a faliled politician and a lame duck president. it's all a conspiracy against his (and Putin's) attempt at making America great again.
Sadly, the JAR, as the Joint Analysis Report is called, does little to end the debate. Instead of providing smoking guns that the Russian government was behind specific hacks, it largely restates previous private-sector claims without providing any support for their validity. Even worse, it provides an effective bait and switch by promising newly declassified intelligence into Russian hackers' "tradecraft and techniques" and instead delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups.
"This ultimately seems like a very rushed report put together by multiple teams working different data sets and motivations," Robert M. Lee, CEO and Founder of the security company Dragos, wrote in a critique published Friday. "It is my opinion and speculation that there were some really good government analysts and operators contributing to this data and then report reviews, leadership approval processes, and sanitation processes stripped out most of the value and left behind a very confusing report trying to cover too much while saying too little."
http://www.herald-dispatch.com/ap/ap_nation/us-gives-detailed-look-at-russia-s-alleged-election-hacking/article_2f7cdfa1-e9a1-5e7f-b633-52078c848902.html
More will be revealed but I doubt everything will be publicly disclosed for security reasons. I'm convinced,
but you're obviously in denial and would dispute this if the hacker knocked on your door and confessed after showing you his GRU identity card and signed written orders.
Deny, deny deny...
No proof, no proof, no proof......
Talk about disappointments. The US government’s much-anticipated analysis of Russian-sponsored hacking operations provides almost none of the promised evidence linking them to breaches that the Obama administration claims were orchestrated in an attempt to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.
The 13-page report, which was jointly published Thursday by the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI, billed itself as an indictment of sorts that would finally lay out the intelligence community’s case that Russian government operatives carried out hacks on the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Clinton Campaign Chief John Podesta and leaked much of the resulting material.
While security companies in the private sector have said for months the hacking campaign was the work of people working for the Russian government, anonymous people tied to the leaks have claimed they are lone wolves. Many independent security experts said there was little way to know the true origins of the attacks.
Deny, deny deny...
“I just want them to be sure, because it’s a pretty serious charge, and I want them to be sure. And if you look at the weapons of mass destruction, that was a disaster, and they were wrong,” Trump said, referencing failed intelligence in the lead-up to the Iraq War as a reason for skepticism.
“I think it’s unfair if they don’t know,” he said. “And I know a lot about hacking. And hacking is a very hard thing to prove.”
So this is unrelated, but I think they were right about the WDM. I think GWB took one for the team, one of many. I can't for the life of me figure out why though.
You have to understand what the claims were about WMDs. There was no nuclear program underway in Iraq and no new chemical weapons program. There were WMDs that had been reported as destroyed but had not been. I believe there was a better than average chance that Saddam had aspirations of both, but we will never know that.
Bush made a mistake based on bad intel. Fortunately Obama does not have enough time or personal authority left to screw this up very much. That is the source of Putin's restraint, he simple disregards what Obama does as a temporary inconvenience. It will change in 19...call it 18 days from now.
The Democrats VOTED for the invasion of Iraq based on our intel, and our allied intel. It wasn't just Bush. Not really a Bush fan, btw.
The Democrats VOTED for the invasion of Iraq based on our intel, and our allied intel. It wasn't just Bush. Not really a Bush fan, btw.It is not just that they voted for it, it is that they INSISTED on a show vote, then turned their backs in the men and women over there in order to score political points against W.
It is not just that they voted for it, it is that they INSISTED on a show vote, then turned their backs in the men and women over there in order to score political points against W.
Fucking pathetic whiny assholes.
'Gimp
This, they were a beacon of hope for the soon to be Taliban in the midst of a total asskicking by our forces.
The Democrats VOTED for the invasion of Iraq based on our intel, and our allied intel. It wasn't just Bush. Not really a Bush fan, btw.
Another FACT the dems would rather everyone forget.
Why even bother spending billions of dollars on an intelligence community and then ignore their findings. Deny all you want. I'm waiting for Trump's revelations he's promised for sometime this week. I'm sure his buddy Putin has told him the real story about how it's all Hillary's doing and he's going to share that with the nation. Fire all the intelligence agencies. Trump will just contract with the GRU for intelligence.
The Democrats VOTED for the invasion of Iraq based on our intel, and our allied intel. It wasn't just Bush. Not really a Bush fan, btw.
Even the uber liberal Rolling Stone says something stinks:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/something-about-this-russia-story-stinks-w458439
I have to laugh when you link a story from Rolling Stone to bolster your case. Lots of hard facts in that one, not. We might as well dismantle the intelligence agencies because nothing they come up with after WMD in Iraq will ever be given any credence by Trumpists unless it should fit their agenda and then the other side will play the WMD card.
Why can't they just say the Hillary sucked as a candidate and ran a shitty campaign.
I have to laugh when you link a story from Rolling Stone to bolster your case. Lots of hard facts in that one, not. We might as well dismantle the intelligence agencies because nothing they come up with after WMD in Iraq will ever be given any credence by Trumpists unless it should fit their agenda and then the other side will play the WMD card.When i challenge you about the WMD intelligence, I am not ridiculing our intelligence services. I am ridiculing your hypocritically partisan decision on when to believe them. I happen to still believe there were WMDs in Iraq but we gave them enough time to get them out of country.
I'm not "bolstering" my case, I'm showing how this is being reported. And even the ultra liberal rag Rolling Stone is not buying the bullshit.
Obama has made himself a laughing stock by pursuing this idiotic agenda. Only the close minded ultra liberals who are still reeling with butt hurt are clinging to this diatribe as a way to explain their horrific loss t the hands of the Clintons.
When i challenge you about the WMD intelligence, I am not ridiculing our intelligence services. I am ridiculing your hypocritically partisan decision on when to believe them. I happen to still believe there were WMDs in Iraq but we gave them enough time to get them out of country.
If an American corporation gets hacked, the government blames the company. But if Dems get hacked, they blame everyone else.
Why do you keep linking any attack on Russian hacking with Hillary's loss?
I've said it once and I'll say it a hundred times, Putin should not be hacking into any American systems whether they're public utilities or political parties and the issue is just that.
Whether or not he was effective in aiding Trump's campaign is a separate issue and I have stated before that I don't care because Trump is the President elect and that ship has sailed. This does not excuse Russia from meddling in American politics and give it immunity from the consequences.
This is different from our intelligence agencies saying with confidence that Russia hacked the DNC but you're too stupid to see a distinction.
Too bad, I'm tired of trying to explain it to you. Some people are just too dense.
Total made up bullshit. You apparently have the reading comprehension of a third grader or just intellectually dishonest.
Pot, meet kettle.
.
Keep on denying that our intelligence agencies have high confidence that the Russian Government, ie. Putin, directed hacking against an American election.
Just like President Trump denies he ever said this or that despite it being on video. Deny, Deny, Deny. And when that gets's old just bring up Hillary. You really need to freshen up your argument strategy. I fully expect you to be defending Trump a couple of years down the road by saying "well, it would have been worse if Hillary were president.,.." Mark my words.
Why do you keep linking any attack on Russian hacking with Hillary's loss? I've said it once and I'll say it a hundred times, Putin should not be hacking into any American systems whether they're public utilities or political parties and the issue is just that. Whether or not he was effective in aiding Trump's campaign is a separate issue and I have stated before that I don't care because Trump is the President elect and that ship has sailed. This does not excuse Russia from meddling in American politics and give it immunity from the consequences.
Do you feel the same way about the U.S.? Should we not be hacking other governments?
BTW, is it really hacking when one of the people that was hacked, Podesta, handed over his credentials?
Keep on denying that our intelligence agencies have high confidence that the Russian Government, ie. Putin, directed hacking against an American election.
“Breaking: State Dept expels 20 Nigerian diplomats after John Podesta fails to receive $1 million wire transfer from nephew of General Okezi."
And confirmed once again at the source.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/01/02/assange_to_hannity_our_source_was_not_the_russian_government.html
Assange thinks his wikileaks is the only distributor of DNC emails. He's angry because he's missing out on all the free publicity if wikileaks gets mentioned on the news in relation to hacking. Even if his particular source wasn't connected to the Russian government, it doesn't prove or disprove Russian government attempts to interfere with an American election process.
So please provide the links you have proving who else had access to the Podesta and DNC emails. Seems to me you are now just making it up as you go to keep the narrative going.Please provide specific links to lamestream news stories claiming other than Wikileaks as source for the Podesta/DNC subject - CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, etc.
Assange thinks his wikileaks is the only distributor of DNC emails. He's angry because he's missing out on all the free publicity if wikileaks gets mentioned on the news in relation to hacking. Even if his particular source wasn't connected to the Russian government, it doesn't prove or disprove Russian government attempts to interfere with an American election process.
IN THE PAST SIX WEEKS, the Washington Post published two blockbuster stories about the Russian threat that went viral: one on how Russia is behind a massive explosion of “fake news,” the other on how it invaded the U.S. electric grid. Both articles were fundamentally false. Each now bears a humiliating Editor’s Note grudgingly acknowledging that the core claims of the story were fiction: the first Note of which was posted a full two weeks later to the top of the original article, the other of which was buried the following day at the bottom.
The second story on the electric grid turned out to be far worse than I realized when I wrote about it on Saturday, when it became clear that there was no “penetration of the U.S. electricity grid” as the Post had claimed. In addition to the Editor’s Note, the Russia-hacked-our-electric-grid story now has a full-scale retraction in the form of a separate article admitting that “the incident is not linked to any Russian government effort to target or hack the utility” and that there may not have even been malware at all on this laptop.
But while these debacles are embarrassing for the paper, they are also richly rewarding. That’s because journalists – including those at the Post – aggressively hype and promote the original, sensationalistic false stories, ensuring that they go viral, generating massive traffic for the Post (the paper’s Executive Editor, Marty Baron, recently boasted about how profitable the paper has become).
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/04/washpost-is-richly-rewarded-for-false-news-about-russia-threat-while-public-is-deceived/
Apparently Podesta's password was "password" ::)
Based on the lack of tweets dissing our intelligence agencies after his briefing today, it seems likely that the evidence of Russian meddling might have been compelling to our President Elect. Of course he did have to say it didn't effect the outcome of the election. Whether it did or not we'll never know but the fact is, the Russians gave it their best shot. We'll have to wait another 24 hours to know for sure what DT is thinking as I'm sure he's thinking of more important things like Arnold's Apprentice TV ratings.
Someone thought the briefing was so important that it was leaked to NBC before Trump was briefed on it.Everything is "politicized" by politicians. The facts are Russia meddled in an American political process and favored a particular candidate. This can't be tolerated.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-06/angry-trump-demands-congressional-probe-media-leak-top-secret-intelligence-report
So tell us again how this is not politicized?
Everything is "politicized" by politicians. The facts are Russia meddled in an American political process and favored a particular candidate. This can't be tolerated.
Everything is "politicized" by politicians. The facts are Russia meddled in an American political process and favored a particular candidate. This can't be tolerated.
The Chinese hacked the OPM and stole 21+million files.........and Obama did nothing.I really don't care if we hack our enemies. I would probably care if we didn't. I do care when they meddle in our affairs. Israel would do better to realize they ain't crap without our support.
The IRS was hacked, twice.........and Obama did nothing.
The EPA was hacked.......and Obama did nothing.
The DOD was hacked......and Obama did nothing.
The White House was hacked......and Obama did nothing.
Yet the democrats lose an election in one of the most embarrassing political upsets of modern history, and all of the sudden it was because of "Russian hacking" and Obama jumps into action by kicking 35 diplomats out of the US.
So does it disturb you at all when a sitting US President uses tax payer dollars to "meddle" in another countries political process and a "favored a particular candidate"?
Where was the outrage when BHO did this to Israel? Should have Israel booted out American diplomats for "meddling" in their election?
Do you even have the intellectual honesty to answer such a question?
I really don't care if we hack our enemies. I would probably care if we didn't.
I do care when they meddle in our affairs. Israel would do better to realize they ain't crap without our support.
Thanks for showing and admitting your hypocrisy.
So to summarize:
There was no Russian hacking.
Then there was no proof of Russian hacking.
Then there may have been Russian hacking but it wasn't to favor one candidate over another.
They may have favored one candidate but it didn't make a difference.
Other countries have hacked us but Obama did nothing. (If so where were the Republicans demanding sanctions?)
We do the same thing to other countries, so we shouldn't complain.
It's political.
Got it. Anymore rationalizations indicating it's okay for Vladimir to secretly campaign for a particular candidate in an American election?
Wait a minute. Hypocrisy? Ok, sure, but that's the kind of hypocrisy an American patriot would want. If we bomb the shit out of an enemy we're at war with, and then they successfully do the same to us, do you claim hypocrisy when we're pissed about it?
That's an idiotic analogy, but considering the source.....
"Useful idiot" explains everything we need to know about Witmo.Thanks. I know I've won the argument when all you've got to answer me with is name calling. Are you and Number Seven the same person?
It's not hypocrisy to do what it takes to defend this nation against all enemies foreign and domestic. I suppose in your world it's okay for our enemies to attack us because we attack them. Maybe someday you'll accept enemy drones overhead St. Louis firing Hellfire's at our leadership, afterall, isn't that what we do around the world.
Thanks. I know I've won the argument when all you've got to answer me with is name calling. Are you and Number Seven the same person?
How does Lucifer know the RNC wasn't hacked? Because no emails were published by Assange? Or maybe they actually were hacked and the Russians chose not to provide the public insight into the GOP. If the DNC emails hadn't been published, would we know they had been hacked?
Russian hackers tried to penetrate the computer networks of the Republican National Committee, using the same techniques that allowed them to infiltrate its Democratic counterpart, according to U.S. officials who have been briefed on the attempted intrusion.
But the intruders failed to get past security defenses on the RNC’s computer networks, the officials said.
Everything is "politicized" by politicians. The facts are Russia meddled in an American political process and favored a particular candidate. This can't be tolerated.Perhaps it was the other way around and Russia was like a lot of us: They weren't so much pulling for Trump as they were against Hillary. It is well known that Putin had no respect for Hillary. What kind of situation would that have set up for international relations for the next 8 years if Hillary won? The Crimea would have just been an appetizer for them, as long as her foundation made Billions.
Perhaps it was the other way around and Russia was like a lot of us: They weren't so much pulling for Trump as they were against Hillary. It is well known that Putin had no respect for Hillary. What kind of situation would that have set up for international relations for the next 8 years if Hillary won? The Crimea would have just been an appetizer for them, as long as her foundation made Billions.
So much for her "Russian Reset".
And NO, that doesn't mean I approve of any Russian interference in or politics, but there are a lot of things I don't like that are a fact of life.
Truth is most of the world is sick and tired of Obama and viewed Hillary as being worse. She was a joke as Secretary of State and garnered very little respect.I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing Russian hacking. Oops, I forget that every argument you ever make ultimately ends up as being the fault of Liberals, Dems, Obama or Hillary. Now you presume to speak for the world--you're a bit pretentious aren't you?
The facts are Russia meddled in an American political process and favored a particular candidate. This can't be tolerated.
I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing Russian hacking. Oops, I forget that every argument you ever make ultimately ends up as being the fault of Liberals, Dems, Obama or Hillary. Now you presume to speak for the world--you're a bit pretentious aren't you?I didn't realize that these threads were required to stay on topic. And I believe that you may have been guilty of a little thread drift or diversion on occasion too. I"m sure I have. That is the way the game is played.
WikiLeaks released all the DNC, Hillary Clinton and John Podesta emails that were in play during the 2016 presidential election. Julian Assange claims he did not receive any of these emails from Russia, Russia-related individuals, or Russian agents. He received them all from a "private, non-state party." Assange was not provided any similar data regarding Trump and the RNC, so he had none to release. In the last election cycle, let's not forget, he released Sarah Palin's emails, which backs up his claim that he is non-partisan in his promulgation of political leaks.
Whether you view Assange as heroic or treacherous, the veracity of his releases is not contested. Therefore, if these revelations did impact the election results, it is the deplorable actions of Hillary Clinton and DNC that show who is responsible – the message, if you will, not the messenger we ought to blame. This does not advance the narrative of the left, however, who must find a more palatable explanation for the Clinton loss. Hence the Russians.
Democrats feel entitled to win, it's in their DNA. If they lose, there must be some other reason for it. Somehow the fact that Trump drew much larger crowds to his rallies and the fact that he held many more rallies than Hillary and the fact that he campaigned in states that Hillary knew she had in the bag all pail in comparison to the fact that those that watch FOX News and actually heard about the emails somehow caused Hillary to lose is all we need to know.[size=78%] [/size] ::)Trump drew more people to rallies, HRC had close to 3 MILLION more votes. Yeah, he won an overwhelming victory. :-\
Of course the Russian hackers forced Podesta to click on the link in the phishing email and give away his credentials.
Trump drew more people to rallies, HRC had close to 3 MILLION more votes. Yeah, he won an overwhelming victory. :-\
Trump drew more people to rallies, HRC had close to 3 MILLION more votes. Yeah, he won an overwhelming victory. :-\304 to 227, pretty overwhelming to me, especially coupled in context with the devastation Barack Obama has visited on the Democrat party since his election in 2008, more than 900 State legislative seats, 12 governships, 69 seats in the House, 13 seats in the Senate - ALL GONE.
Trump drew more people to rallies, HRC had close to 3 MILLION more votes. Yeah, he won an overwhelming victory. :-\