|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Dec 19, 2016 6:12:16 GMT
The FBI is now on board with the DNI, DHS, the CIA and other intelligence agencies that the Russian government directed the hackings for the purpose of swaying the election to Trump. There is now unanimity as to motive. Says who? Did Comey say this? Publicly? If not, why not? There's nothing secret left to protect. Funny. You were quick to believe and advocate the opposite without a shred of evidence! |
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Dec 19, 2016 12:01:24 GMT
Everyone here is old enough to remember Democrat Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Diane Feinstein, accusing Brennan of lying to her and congress (hek, I'm old enough to remember when they blamed James Comey, then voting machines, then white people for her loss); and worse yet, accusing Brennan of illegally hacking into, and spying on, her staff and congressional oversight personnel.
Now, however, all of a sudden, John Brennan is the bastion of intelligence integrity…. Ridiculous.
Thankfully, not everyone has forgotten. Representative Peter King again calls out CIA Head Brennan, and better still – says Brennan should be investigated.
Kellyanne said something that caught my attention: That she had spoken to Clinton donors who had attended the wake/party for Clinton, and they DON”T believe the Russians were involved.
The donors know Hillary is lying to them.
Interesting how the whole Russia thing blew up after everyone went home for Christmas. Much harder to stomp on it when you are in 50 different States.
|
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Dec 19, 2016 12:03:02 GMT
I reject political BS. I know you want to equate that stance with supporting Russia. I wish I could make you understand the difference. Clearly, it can't be done. You have often entertained us with some really bizarre, off the wall stuff during early Saturday morning hours. This bit of gobbledygook isn't up to your usual standards. I am disappointed. Psychological studies have shown that humans are indeed creatures of habit, and patterns of high output of intelligence and action are common at recurring times.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hero on Dec 19, 2016 13:12:22 GMT
You have often entertained us with some really bizarre, off the wall stuff during early Saturday morning hours. This bit of gobbledygook isn't up to your usual standards. I am disappointed. Psychological studies have shown that humans are indeed creatures of habit, and patterns of high output of intelligence and action are common at recurring times.
  |
|
|
|
Post by Hero on Dec 19, 2016 13:24:10 GMT
So does McLame:
“It’s obvious that the Russians hacked into our campaigns,” Sen. John McCain (D-Ariz.) told Reuters.
The above is the best evidence that there was no hacking... 
The DNC complaining that their corruption was leaked to the public is like a bank robber complaining that the cameras were on when they robbed the bank. It was an inside leak, but that doesn't make for good copy. Same people that said Benghazi was due to a video.
Idiotic. Pathetic. You are still trying to perpetuate the hoax, the fake story that it was an inside job, in the face of the broad consensus of the FBI, the DNI, DHS and the intelligence community that the Russian government directed the computer hackings with the intent to undermine confidence in the election, and to sway the election to Trump. Give'm Hell Harry said... |
|
|
|
Post by GatorGrad on Dec 19, 2016 14:13:51 GMT
This: "As we saw with Trump, when Republicans complain about one-sided coverage, the usual media retort is to ask whether anything that has been reported about them is untrue. With the shoe now on the other foot, though, Democrats duck this question. Why? Because they know the hacked e-mails are authentic — Debbie Wasserman Shultz really did skew the nomination process to help Clinton stave off Bernie Sanders; Donna Brazile really did leak the debate questions to the Clinton camp; the Democrats really do look at journalists as members of the team; top Clinton aides really did mock Catholics; Clinton advisers really did worry about Obama’s e-mails to Clinton’s private account — and about the fact that the president was lying when he claimed to have learned about Clinton’s use of private e-mail through news reports. Clinton and her top staffers really did stonewall the public on her private e-mails because “they wanted to get away with it.” |
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Dec 19, 2016 14:44:52 GMT
Funny. You were quick to believe and advocate the opposite without a shred of evidence! Well, given that "the opposite" is.... "Until we have evidence from an official source, we should conclude that we don't know who leaked the emails to wikileaks"? yea. I am quick to believe this. I've seen a BUNCH of "anonymous officials" saying crap. I've seen a tiny bit of "on the record" government officials saying they believe "Russian entities" hacked Podesta and DNC emails. I also read an official FBI report that said it is LIKELY that the DNC and Hillary's server were breached by multiple foreign agencies. Where were all the Hillary emails? Were the Russians saving them to use as blackmail against Hillary? If they REALLY wanted her to lose, why not release them? This level of "interfering" Is certainly no worse than things the USA has done in other countries. It's not a bad as what Obama did to Netanyahu. It might well have not gone the way the Russians wanted. And, here's another thing: You love to say Comey threw the election to Trump. Yet, we have NO WAY of knowing that. It's just as likely that, Comey's last second shenanigans energized complacent Hillary supporters to go vote. They might have sat home in even larger numbers without that last second scare. Of course, that is speculation on my part. Just as the reverse is speculation on your part. It's "unknown, and unknowable"... as, some smart guy used to say. |
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Dec 19, 2016 14:45:23 GMT
This: "As we saw with Trump, when Republicans complain about one-sided coverage, the usual media retort is to ask whether anything that has been reported about them is untrue. With the shoe now on the other foot, though, Democrats duck this question. Why? Because they know the hacked e-mails are authentic — Debbie Wasserman Shultz really did skew the nomination process to help Clinton stave off Bernie Sanders; Donna Brazile really did leak the debate questions to the Clinton camp; the Democrats really do look at journalists as members of the team; top Clinton aides really did mock Catholics; Clinton advisers really did worry about Obama’s e-mails to Clinton’s private account — and about the fact that the president was lying when he claimed to have learned about Clinton’s use of private e-mail through news reports. Clinton and her top staffers really did stonewall the public on her private e-mails because “they wanted to get away with it.” I agree totally. Even so, it doesn't absolve the Russian government from directing the computer hackings for the purposes of trying to undermine confidence in the election process and trying to sway the election to Trump. BTW -- Trump continues to stonewall on his tax returns and on the video of his interview with The NY Times editorial board. |
|
|
|
Post by Hero on Dec 19, 2016 14:51:02 GMT
This: "As we saw with Trump, when Republicans complain about one-sided coverage, the usual media retort is to ask whether anything that has been reported about them is untrue. With the shoe now on the other foot, though, Democrats duck this question. Why? Because they know the hacked e-mails are authentic — Debbie Wasserman Shultz really did skew the nomination process to help Clinton stave off Bernie Sanders; Donna Brazile really did leak the debate questions to the Clinton camp; the Democrats really do look at journalists as members of the team; top Clinton aides really did mock Catholics; Clinton advisers really did worry about Obama’s e-mails to Clinton’s private account — and about the fact that the president was lying when he claimed to have learned about Clinton’s use of private e-mail through news reports. Clinton and her top staffers really did stonewall the public on her private e-mails because “they wanted to get away with it.” I agree totally. Even so, it doesn't absolve the Russian government from directing the computer hackings for the purposes of trying to undermine confidence in the election process and trying to sway the election to Trump. ...by telling the truth...LMAO The truth sways election to the Republican...I love it |
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Dec 19, 2016 15:02:25 GMT
Here is what the ODNI release said:
What didn't they say? The didn't say the "Guccifer 2.0 persons" was definitely linked to the Russians. That little tidbit of linkage MATTERS.
I find it interesting that they are investigating such all the way back to 2008. Hmnnnn... I wonder who the Russians were trying to help then?
Also of note: This information was KNOWN, publicly on October 7th. A MONTH before the election. We now know Obama was briefed about in in early September. Yet, what did he do? As usual, NOTHING. The public KNEW what was going on. And, we knew who we wanted to deal with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Dec 19, 2016 15:03:18 GMT
This: "As we saw with Trump, when Republicans complain about one-sided coverage, the usual media retort is to ask whether anything that has been reported about them is untrue. With the shoe now on the other foot, though, Democrats duck this question. Why? Because they know the hacked e-mails are authentic — Debbie Wasserman Shultz really did skew the nomination process to help Clinton stave off Bernie Sanders; Donna Brazile really did leak the debate questions to the Clinton camp; the Democrats really do look at journalists as members of the team; top Clinton aides really did mock Catholics; Clinton advisers really did worry about Obama’s e-mails to Clinton’s private account — and about the fact that the president was lying when he claimed to have learned about Clinton’s use of private e-mail through news reports. Clinton and her top staffers really did stonewall the public on her private e-mails because “they wanted to get away with it.” As usual... you cut to the quick.
yes.... exactly this.
|
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Dec 19, 2016 17:37:36 GMT
Funny. You were quick to believe and advocate the opposite without a shred of evidence! Well, given that "the opposite" is.... "Until we have evidence from an official source, we should conclude that we don't know who leaked the emails to wikileaks"? yea. I am quick to believe this. I've seen a BUNCH of "anonymous officials" saying crap. I've seen a tiny bit of "on the record" government officials saying they believe "Russian entities" hacked Podesta and DNC emails. I also read an official FBI report that said it is LIKELY that the DNC and Hillary's server were breached by multiple foreign agencies. Where were all the Hillary emails? Were the Russians saving them to use as blackmail against Hillary? If they REALLY wanted her to lose, why not release them? This level of "interfering" Is certainly no worse than things the USA has done in other countries. It's not a bad as what Obama did to Netanyahu. It might well have not gone the way the Russians wanted. And, here's another thing: You love to say Comey threw the election to Trump. Yet, we have NO WAY of knowing that. It's just as likely that, Comey's last second shenanigans energized complacent Hillary supporters to go vote. They might have sat home in even larger numbers without that last second scare. Of course, that is speculation on my part. Just as the reverse is speculation on your part. It's "unknown, and unknowable"... as, some smart guy used to say. If they were conducting a legitimate investigation, Assange would have been the first person contacted. Alas, they aren't really investigating this...a report has already been written, its conclusion foregone, and will also be leaked at a later date. |
|
|
|
Post by GatorGrad on Dec 19, 2016 17:43:16 GMT
This: "As we saw with Trump, when Republicans complain about one-sided coverage, the usual media retort is to ask whether anything that has been reported about them is untrue. With the shoe now on the other foot, though, Democrats duck this question. Why? Because they know the hacked e-mails are authentic — Debbie Wasserman Shultz really did skew the nomination process to help Clinton stave off Bernie Sanders; Donna Brazile really did leak the debate questions to the Clinton camp; the Democrats really do look at journalists as members of the team; top Clinton aides really did mock Catholics; Clinton advisers really did worry about Obama’s e-mails to Clinton’s private account — and about the fact that the president was lying when he claimed to have learned about Clinton’s use of private e-mail through news reports. Clinton and her top staffers really did stonewall the public on her private e-mails because “they wanted to get away with it.” As usual... you cut to the quick.
yes.... exactly this.
It's just amazing to me how misleading this "Russian hack" story is. They didn't physically force any American voters to fill in the bubble for Trump over Hillary nor did they electronically tamper with the results. Let's assume that it was the Russian's...they simply exposed the truth. If that led to voters changing their mind and voting for Trump over Clinton then perhaps the dems shouldn't have been so careless with their actions and their willingness to discuss them via email. I never write anything in an email that I wouldn't be OK with it becoming public knowledge. That's just the world we live in - nothing is secure or private anymore. Not emails, texts, and not even private phone conversations. They have themselves to blame. They shouldn't be blaming Russia for outing their shadiness. Notice that no one is disputing the authenticity of the emails themselves. They are just mad that they got exposed for who they are. |
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Dec 19, 2016 18:11:35 GMT
As usual... you cut to the quick.
yes.... exactly this.
It's just amazing to me how misleading this "Russian hack" story is. They didn't physically force any American voters to fill in the bubble for Trump over Hillary nor did they electronically tamper with the results. Let's assume that it was the Russian's...they simply exposed the truth. If that led to voters changing their mind and voting for Trump over Clinton then perhaps the dems shouldn't have been so careless with their actions and their willingness to discuss them via email. I never write anything in an email that I wouldn't be OK with it becoming public knowledge. That's just the world we live in - nothing is secure or private anymore. Not emails, texts, and not even private phone conversations. They have themselves to blame. They shouldn't be blaming Russia for outing their shadiness. Notice that no one is disputing the authenticity of the emails themselves. They are just mad that they got exposed for who they are. You were on a roll, and I was agreeing with most everything, except that the Russian government must be exposed, condemned and severely punished for interfering with the U.S. election. I can't believe that any American would tolerate any foreign government interfering or attempting to interfere with a U.S. election. Yet, that is exactly what Donald Trump and many of his supporters are doing. Disgraceful. It shouldn't make any difference which side the foreign government was trying to help. |
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Dec 19, 2016 18:13:51 GMT
tigercpa:
"If they were conducting a legitimate investigation, Assange would have been the first person contacted.
Alas, they aren't really investigating this...a report has already been written, its conclusion foregone, and will also be leaked at a later date."
You are making stuff up again. You don't know anything.
|
|
