600 security requests and 4 dead Americans... Bigger moron
Quote:The big question, of course, is why are the Russians working so hard to damage Clinton and, in the process, aid Donald Trump?
A question no one seems to want to acknowledge.
Quote:A question no one seems to want to acknowledge.
Perhaps they don't want WW3?
Quote:600 security requests and 4 dead Americans... Bigger moron
First 600 requests is Donald's lie, and proof he has zero knowledge of the whole workings of State.
Second, ha ha ha Russians can't even spy correctly!
Third, why doesTrump want to be Putin and Assad's lapdog?
Quote:First 600 requests is Donald's lie, and proof he has zero knowledge of the whole workings of State.
Second, ha ha ha Russians can't even spy correctly!
Third, why doesTrump want to be Putin and Assad's lapdog?
Cuz they're the only ones left that haven't paid off Hillary?
Quote:Cuz they're the only ones left that haven't paid off Hillary?
So where do you stand on Putin and Assad? Ally or foe?
there is a third choice, "neutral"
you dont have to be one or the other
Quote:there is a third choice, "neutral"
you dont have to be one or the other
So you are cool with the genocide they have begun? You're neutral don't have any concern?
Haven't you heard? Russia is cool. They're defeating ISIS.
Oh...and building a naval base and rocket system in Syria.
Quote:So you are cool with the genocide they have begun? You're neutral don't have any concern?
what's the latest? there is blood on hands of both sides, but there has actually been ethnic cleansing on the rebel side (the side the US is supporting).
Quote:Haven't you heard? Russia is cool. They're defeating ISIS.
Oh...and building a naval base and rocket system in Syria.
They just got busted playing with our election too.
Can no longer claim that's not true. It's now a fact. Best part was Trump waving the phony report last night knowing he had to get it from the Russians.
BUSTED!
"Except the only fraud here was Nance’s claim, not any of the documents published by WikiLeaks. Those were all real. Indeed, at Sunday night’s debate, when asked directly about the excerpts of her Wall Street speeches found in the release, Clinton herself confirmed their authenticity. And news outlets such as the New York Times and AP reported — and
continue to report — on their contents without any caveat that they may be frauds. No real print journalists or actual newsrooms (as opposed to campaign operatives masquerading as journalists) fell for this scam, so this tactic did not prevent reporting from being done.
<p style="font-family:SwiftNeueLTW01, Georgia, serif;color:rgb(68,68,68);font-size:20px;">But it did signal to Clinton’s most devoted followers to simply ignore the contents of the release. Anyone writing articles about what these documents revealed was instantly barraged with claims from Democrats that they were fakes, by people often pointing to
“articles” like this one."
Quote:<a class="bbc_url" href='https://theintercept.com/2016/10/11/in-the-democratic-echo-chamber-inconvenient-truths-are-recast-as-putin-plots/'>https://theintercept.com/2016/10/11/in-the-democratic-echo-chamber-inconvenient-truths-are-recast-as-putin-plots/</a>
Except this report was on Russian state TV and not manipulated by Us Press!
And they ripped off an old Newsweek article.
These are facts and damning proof of Russia involvement as well as Trumps.
Quote:Except this report was on Russian state TV and not manipulated by Us Press!
And they ripped off an old Newsweek article.
These are facts and damning proof of Russia involvement as well as Trumps.
<p style="font-family:SwiftNeueLTW01, Georgia, serif;color:rgb(68,68,68);font-size:20px;">MORE INSIDIOUS AND subtle, but even worse, was what Newsweek and its Clinton-adoring writer Kurt Eichenwald did last night. What happened — in reality, in the world of facts — was extremely trivial.
One of the emails in the second installment of the WikiLeaks/Podesta archive — posted yesterday — was from Sidney Blumenthal to Podesta. The sole purpose of Blumenthal’s email was to show Podesta one of Eichenwald’s endless series of Clinton-exonerating articles,
this one about Benghazi. So in the body of the email to Podesta, Blumenthal simply pasted the link and the full contents of the article. Although the purpose of Eichenwald’s article (like everything he says and does) was to defend Clinton, one paragraph in the middle acknowledged that one minor criticism of Clinton on Benghazi was possibly rational.
<p style="font-family:SwiftNeueLTW01, Georgia, serif;color:rgb(68,68,68);font-size:20px;">Once WikiLeaks announced that this second email batch was online, many news organizations (including The Intercept, along with the NYT and AP) began combing through them to find relevant information and then published articles about them. One such story was published by Sputnik, the Russian government’s international outlet similar to RT, which highlighted that Blumenthal email. But the Sputnik story inaccurately attributed the text of the Newsweek article to Blumenthal, thus suggesting that one of Clinton’s closest advisers had expressed criticism of her on Benghazi. Sputnik quickly removed the article once Eichenwald pointed out that the words were his, not Blumenthal’s. Then, in his campaign speech last night, Trump made reference to the Sputnik article (hours after it was published and spread on social media), claiming (obviously inaccurately) that even Blumenthal had criticized Clinton on Benghazi."
its not damning proof of anything
"In any event, based on the available evidence, this is a small embarrassment for Trump: He cited an erroneous story from a non-credible Russian outlet, so it’s worth noting. But that’s not what happened. Eichenwald, with increasing levels of hysteria, manically posted
no fewer than three dozen tweets last night about his story, each time escalating his claims of what it proved. By the time he was done, he had misled large numbers of people into believing that he found proof that: 1) the documents in the WikiLeaks archive were altered; 2) Russia put forgeries into the WikiLeaks archive; 3) Sputnik knew about the WikiLeaks archive ahead of time, before it was posted online; 4) WikiLeaks coordinated the release of the documents with the Russian government; and 5) the Russian government and the Trump campaign coordinated to falsely attribute Eichenwald’s words to Blumenthal.
<p style="font-family:SwiftNeueLTW01, Georgia, serif;color:rgb(68,68,68);font-size:20px;">In fact, Eichenwald literally has zero evidence for any of that. The point is not that his evidence for these propositions is inconclusive or unpersuasive; the point is that there is zero evidence for any of it. It’s all just conspiracy theorizing and speculation that he invented. Worse, the article, while hinting at these claims and encouraging readers to believe them, does not even expressly claim any of those things. Instead, Eichenwald’s increasingly unhinged tweets repeatedly inflated his insignificant story from what it was — a misattribution of an email by Sputnik that Trump repeated — into a five-alarm warning that an insidious Russian plot to subvert U.S. elections had been proven, with Trump and fake WikiLeaks documents at the center."
![[Image: article-2525602-1A2B2A3600000578-553_634x408.jpg]](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/12/18/article-2525602-1A2B2A3600000578-553_634x408.jpg)