12-15-2016, 07:32 PM
Quote:It's my understanding that the CIA hasn't yet said anything, only that someone is saying they said something. It's hearsay.
And they refused to show up on the hill and testify under oath today.
12-15-2016, 07:32 PM
12-15-2016, 07:47 PM
Quote:It's my understanding that the CIA hasn't yet said anything, only that someone is saying they said something. It's hearsay.
It is my understanding if the CIA did not say anything, this would not be a news story at all.
12-15-2016, 08:34 PM
Keep spinnin' y'all. From an NBC (the former network of Donald!) article today:
"In an exclusive report Wednesday, U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News they now believe with "a high level of confidence" that Putin became personally involved in the covert Russian campaign in October.
Two senior officials with direct access to the information say new intelligence shows that Putin personally directed how hacked material from Democrats was leaked and otherwise used. The intelligence came from diplomatic sources and spies working for U.S. allies, the officials said.
Putin's objectives were multifaceted, a high-level intelligence source told NBC News. What began as a "vendetta" against Hillary Clinton morphed into an effort to show corruption in American politics and to "split off key American allies by creating the image that [other countries] couldn't depend on the U.S. to be a credible global leader anymore," the official said.
Ultimately, the CIA has assessed, the Russian government wanted to elect Donald Trump."
Not only did the Russians hack the election, they did it under the direction of Vladimir Putin.
But, take some solace, Trumpettes.
"Intelligence sources emphasize to NBC News that there is no evidence that Donald Trump collaborated behind the scenes with Putin or the Russians."
"In an exclusive report Wednesday, U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News they now believe with "a high level of confidence" that Putin became personally involved in the covert Russian campaign in October.
Two senior officials with direct access to the information say new intelligence shows that Putin personally directed how hacked material from Democrats was leaked and otherwise used. The intelligence came from diplomatic sources and spies working for U.S. allies, the officials said.
Putin's objectives were multifaceted, a high-level intelligence source told NBC News. What began as a "vendetta" against Hillary Clinton morphed into an effort to show corruption in American politics and to "split off key American allies by creating the image that [other countries] couldn't depend on the U.S. to be a credible global leader anymore," the official said.
Ultimately, the CIA has assessed, the Russian government wanted to elect Donald Trump."
Not only did the Russians hack the election, they did it under the direction of Vladimir Putin.
But, take some solace, Trumpettes.
"Intelligence sources emphasize to NBC News that there is no evidence that Donald Trump collaborated behind the scenes with Putin or the Russians."
12-15-2016, 08:54 PM
This is consistent with the NYT article.
12-15-2016, 09:52 PM
To say the election was hacked is a little disingenuous. No one manipulated the votes. As a matter of fact, it was revealed there was blatant vote inflation in Detroit by the Democrats. More accurately, it can be said the election was swayed to Trump by exposure of the truth. Plain and simple. I can't blame the Democrats for crying foul, Republicans would be doing the same if the shoe were on the other foot, but the fact of the matter is the Left's obligate nomination of an unlikable candidate who has more baggage than a mobster was a mistake. Hillary, the DNC, and the MSM did themselves in by doing the dirty with the door unlocked. A less corrupted candidate may have still been able to pull off the election. What's nauseating is the constant puling and efforts by the left to turn the electors. My god, enough is enough. Accept the inevitable, move on, and stop throwing tantrums.
12-15-2016, 09:58 PM
Quote:To say the election was hacked is a little disingenuous. No one manipulated the votes. As a matter of fact, it was revealed there was blatant vote inflation in Detroit by the Democrats. More accurately, it can be said the election was swayed to Trump by exposure of the truth. Plain and simple. I can't blame the Democrats for crying foul, Republicans would be doing the same if the shoe were on the other foot, but the fact of the matter is the Left's obligate nomination of an unlikable candidate who has more baggage than a mobster was a mistake. Hillary, the DNC, and the MSM did themselves in by doing the dirty with the door unlocked. A less corrupted candidate may have still been able to pull off the election. What's nauseating is the constant puling and efforts by the left to turn the electors. My god, enough is enough. Accept the inevitable, move on, and stop throwing tantrums.
Nobody ever said Russians manipulated the votes. I don't know where you got that from.
12-15-2016, 10:03 PM
Quote:It is my understanding if the CIA did not say anything, this would not be a news story at all.
Again, more sarcasm.
Don't be so naive as to believe the media doesn't routinely use "anonymous" as their sources when no one actually provided anything
12-15-2016, 10:23 PM
Quote:Again, more sarcasm.
Don't be so naive as to believe the media doesn't routinely use "anonymous" as their sources when no one actually provided anything
What was sarcasm?
12-15-2016, 10:31 PM
Quote:It is not fake news when everyone is saying the same thing - that Russia hacked the DNC, or specifically John Podesta's email account.
It can be fake if everyone is fooled.
example: everyone ran with the fact that pepe was a racist symbol when really he is just really really bad art by a community of people who rebrand art to do silly things with to get reactions. A few people took the pepe art and did racist things with it, that does not make pepe a racist symbol that means a small percentage of people are racists doing racist things with bad art.
12-15-2016, 10:56 PM
Quote:It can be fake if everyone is fooled.
example: everyone ran with the fact that pepe was a racist symbol when really he is just really really bad art by a community of people who rebrand art to do silly things with to get reactions. A few people took the pepe art and did racist things with it, that does not make pepe a racist symbol that means a small percentage of people are racists doing racist things with bad art.
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
12-15-2016, 10:58 PM
Quote:It can be fake if everyone is fooled.
example: everyone ran with the fact that pepe was a racist symbol when really he is just really really bad art by a community of people who rebrand art to do silly things with to get reactions. A few people took the pepe art and did racist things with it, that does not make pepe a racist symbol that means a small percentage of people are racists doing racist things with bad art.
WMD's were a fake narrative pushed by the CIA.
12-16-2016, 02:13 AM
Quote:Nobody ever said Russians manipulated the votes. I don't know where you got that from.
Can someone please tell that to Jill Stein and the millions of dollars she just spent?
12-16-2016, 02:23 AM
Quote:Can someone please tell that to Jill Stein and the millions of dollars she just spent?
Jill Stein never had a gmail account hacked by a foreign country.
12-16-2016, 02:33 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...iders.html
It is my personal belief that the fervor around this story leading up to the electoral college on 12-19 is being driven solely by the left entering the bargaining phase of grief. In reality, none of these allegations are new or present any new evidence. Usually when you rehash something like this, there was some form of cover up or gross misrepresentation. That's not the case here. The head of WikiLeaks was on television and radio multiple times during the election cycle. People were given full access to his background, publishing history and accuracy. The left made several allegations during the debates and on television alleging Russian involvement with no real evidence. It was left for the people to decide what to believe and how best to use the information when making their decision on who to vote for.
Another remarkable consistency is that no one on the left is actually challenging the veracity of the leaked emails. Think about this. A major party in the united states of America was basically caught red handed rigging their primary elections and proliferating the biggest media collusion in a general election in the history of the television era. Who's talking about that now? The fact that the truth got out means that the cheaters actually won? What kind of backward logic is this?
When did we descend into this kind of pseudo McCarthyism by the way? And if this is to believed why aren't the new Russo-warmongers concerned with this little bit of history:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-ken...inson.html
So now we are to believe that the party willing to preserve the former soviet union in exchange for undermining the presidency of Ronald Reagan is our chief check against Russian aggression? Was this before or after they gave 150 billion dollars to their subsidiary IRan? Was this before or after we sold them 20% of our Uranium? Was this before or after the Start Treaty? Was this before or after the annexing of the Crimea? Was this before or after the Russian Reset? Was this before or after Russian state actors gave the Clinton foundation millions of dollars? Was this before or after Russian state interests paid Bill Clinton millions of dollars in speech fees?
And now we get this garbage "unnamed high ranking officials speculate that it might have been a hacking group affiliated with Russian state agencies and if the Russian actors were behind the possible hackers possibly hacking then more likely than not on a Thursday with the window open Putin May or may not have been involved directly while taking his morning Tea watching "Wrecking ball" with what may or may not have been a sarcastic grin..." Headline on CNN: RUSSIAN HACK HAS PUTINS SIGNATURE!!!!
It is my personal belief that the fervor around this story leading up to the electoral college on 12-19 is being driven solely by the left entering the bargaining phase of grief. In reality, none of these allegations are new or present any new evidence. Usually when you rehash something like this, there was some form of cover up or gross misrepresentation. That's not the case here. The head of WikiLeaks was on television and radio multiple times during the election cycle. People were given full access to his background, publishing history and accuracy. The left made several allegations during the debates and on television alleging Russian involvement with no real evidence. It was left for the people to decide what to believe and how best to use the information when making their decision on who to vote for.
Another remarkable consistency is that no one on the left is actually challenging the veracity of the leaked emails. Think about this. A major party in the united states of America was basically caught red handed rigging their primary elections and proliferating the biggest media collusion in a general election in the history of the television era. Who's talking about that now? The fact that the truth got out means that the cheaters actually won? What kind of backward logic is this?
When did we descend into this kind of pseudo McCarthyism by the way? And if this is to believed why aren't the new Russo-warmongers concerned with this little bit of history:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-ken...inson.html
So now we are to believe that the party willing to preserve the former soviet union in exchange for undermining the presidency of Ronald Reagan is our chief check against Russian aggression? Was this before or after they gave 150 billion dollars to their subsidiary IRan? Was this before or after we sold them 20% of our Uranium? Was this before or after the Start Treaty? Was this before or after the annexing of the Crimea? Was this before or after the Russian Reset? Was this before or after Russian state actors gave the Clinton foundation millions of dollars? Was this before or after Russian state interests paid Bill Clinton millions of dollars in speech fees?
And now we get this garbage "unnamed high ranking officials speculate that it might have been a hacking group affiliated with Russian state agencies and if the Russian actors were behind the possible hackers possibly hacking then more likely than not on a Thursday with the window open Putin May or may not have been involved directly while taking his morning Tea watching "Wrecking ball" with what may or may not have been a sarcastic grin..." Headline on CNN: RUSSIAN HACK HAS PUTINS SIGNATURE!!!!
12-16-2016, 02:39 AM
Quote:Jill Stein never had a gmail account hacked by a foreign country.
you made the statement that no one alleged Russia hacked vote totals. Jill Stein dragged the country through two weeks of subversive garbage alleging exactly that.
And by the way, when the Democrats hacked Sarah Palin's e-mail where was the outcry from the media? Where was Wolf Blitzer and Joy bayher begging the electors to consider the foundations of our democracy?
12-16-2016, 02:41 AM
The truth will set us free
12-16-2016, 06:56 AM
"In 1992, Tim Sebastian published a story about the memorandum in the London Times. Here in the U.S., Sebastian’s story received no attention."
"“The media,” Kengor says, “ignored the revelation.”"
Which is precisely why the left and the American MSM loath Matt Drudge.
"“The media,” Kengor says, “ignored the revelation.”"
Which is precisely why the left and the American MSM loath Matt Drudge.
12-16-2016, 01:51 PM
Two sources claim it was Sanders-supporting Dems who leaked to Wikileaks not Russia. So it was communists who leaked, not former communists.
Just found this tweet on reddit from Ann Coulter
Just found this tweet on reddit from Ann Coulter
12-16-2016, 02:15 PM
Quote:Two sources claim it was Sanders-supporting Dems who leaked to Wikileaks not Russia. So it was communists who leaked, not former communists.
Just found this tweet on reddit from Ann Coulter
Lol at ann coulter
12-16-2016, 02:27 PM
Quote:Two sources claim it was Sanders-supporting Dems who leaked to Wikileaks not Russia. So it was communists who leaked, not former communists.
Just found this tweet on reddit from Ann Coulter
If most sources say the opposite, that statement holds no credibility.
Who do the two sources work for?