Israel may beg to differ

 

About what?

---

Listen. It wasn't 17 agencies. That is an MSM talking point. It was James Clapper. A single person, the head of the Intelligence. The FBI, NSA, DHS, and the rest didn't all come out individually and say they believe its the Russians.


This is the same guy who lied to Congress about NSA surveillance.


In this same statement that all you gullible lefties get this talking point from, he said they didn't have the evidence to attribute their suspicion to the Russian government.

 

So James Clapper just told 17 agencies to say the same thing?


How do you know it was just one guy lying to everybody if the articles cite anonymous sources?

---

So James Clapper just told 17 agencies to say the same thing?

How do you know it was just one guy lying to everybody if the articles cite anonymous sources?

 

You are conflating two stories. The "17 agencies" talking point came before the election. The "anonymous sources" from the CIA came after (but also came from the same 17 agencies narrative (the media doesn't want you to know its rehashing old news)).

 

The 17 agencies didn't say anything. Not one of those agencies has made any formal declaration. There was no joint agreement. The media ran with "17 agencies all said X" because James Clapper, the head of intelligence which represents the 17 agencies, said HE believes the Russians "may have hacked", but again has no evidence. You fell for fake news.

---

My favorite fake news of all time http://www.theonion.com/article/planned-...plex-20476

 

You are conflating two stories. The "17 agencies" talking point came before the election. The "anonymous sources" from the CIA came after (but also came from the same 17 agencies narrative (the media doesn't want you to know its rehashing old news)).

 

The 17 agencies didn't say anything. Not one of those agencies has made any formal declaration. There was no joint agreement. The media ran with "17 agencies all said X" because James Clapper, the head of intelligence which represents the 17 agencies, said HE believes the Russians "may have hacked", but again has no evidence. You fell for fake news.

---

Go Jags!
*To stay up for atleast 2 years 3/6/17
2016 draft players I think will be good

• On the Fournette train, will be best back of his class 3/6/17
  
• Lattimore please,  Lockdowns on both sides would be nice
  
• Engram at TE and the MJD clone Samaje Perine
  

What is bothersome is when he calls a serial woman assaulter a great guy!

---

What is bothersome is when he calls a serial woman assaulter a great guy!

 

:no:

 

Sad.

---

You are conflating two stories. The "17 agencies" talking point came before the election. The "anonymous sources" from the CIA came after (but also came from the same 17 agencies narrative (the media doesn't want you to know its rehashing old news)).

 

The 17 agencies didn't say anything. Not one of those agencies has made any formal declaration. There was no joint agreement. The media ran with "17 agencies all said X" because James Clapper, the head of intelligence which represents the 17 agencies, said HE believes the Russians "may have hacked", but again has no evidence. You fell for fake news.

 

It is not fake news when everyone is saying the same thing - that Russia hacked the DNC, or specifically John Podesta's email account.

---

Uk daily mail begs to differ

---

Wouldn't it be interesting to find out the leaked DNC emails were an inside job? Hillary isn't distasteful to only the right.

---

UK Daily Mail begs to differ.

 

UK Daily Mail is not considered as reliable as the New York Times.

---

Wouldn't it be interesting to find out the leaked DNC emails were an inside job? Hillary isn't distasteful to only the right.

 

There is no way it could be an inside job. The DNC endorsed Hillary. The hacked email belongs to someone who worked for her campaign.

---

Sorry, man, from our back-and-forth I thought you knew way more about computers than I did due to your work.  Maybe you know way more because you're just plain smarter than me.

 

Anyhoo...

 

All the MSM (Damn, I can't believe I just wrote that) articles and radio I've heard have really focused much more on the fact that a hostile foreign actor exerted influence on our election than an appeal for a Hillary victory.  I bolded the part of your quote because I heard an expert on the Smerconish show definitively contradict it.  The CIA is near 100% sure it was Cozy Bear.  I don't know how they got the signature - it may be on the release of the info as opposed to the acquisition side.  If you need absolute certain confirmation, I hear that doesn't really exist in the world of spooks.

 

The emails didn't really expose "widespread corruption in the DNC," but they did show some embarrassing conversations within the party.  The larger point is that the RNC, though probed by the same hackers, was not exposed.  Sean Spicer of the RNC posited it was because the RNC had better security and was not hacked.  When pressed, he had to admit that he did not know whether the RNC was hacked or not.

 

So here are your facts:

 

We know the DNC was hacked.

We are almost 100% sure the Russians hacked them.

The hacked information was released strategically (with the specific goal to bring about a result favorable to Vladimir Putin - which a logical conclusion, but not yet fact).

 

From the NYT article:

 

“There shouldn’t be any doubt in anybody’s mind,” Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency and commander of United States Cyber Command said at a postelection conference. “This was not something that was done casually, this was not something that was done by chance, this was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily,” he said. “This was a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect.”

 

Even Donald has backtracked on his original "The CIA sucks!" tweet, to a more conciliatory "Why the hell didn't anyone talk about this before election day?"  Which we did, and in the debates, he did.

 

This article gives a little bit of insight to the whole situation.  I also have seen other "articles" that pretty much confirm this, though I'm unable to post links to said articles.

 

The bottom line is, there is no evidence to conclude that the hacks originated from any certain country and/or from any government entity.

 

The other bottom line is the "election" wasn't hacked or rigged, the only "hack" was against the DNC.  The MSM should be focusing on what came out of those hacks and what was published rather than trying to spin the narrative that the hacks took place to change the election.  All the hacks did was expose the corruption within the DNC.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

UK Daily Mail is not considered as reliable as the New York Times.

 

The NYT is not reliable and is clearly a left wing publication.  The information that they are feeding is flawed and outright wrong.

 

There is no way it could be an inside job. The DNC endorsed Hillary. The hacked email belongs to someone who worked for her campaign.

 

It's very possible that leaks came from inside the Hillary camp.  However, evidence points to incompetence more than anything else.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

There is no way it could be an inside job. The DNC endorsed Hillary. The hacked email belongs to someone who worked for her campaign.

 

It's entirely possible. 

---

This article gives a little bit of insight to the whole situation.  I also have seen other "articles" that pretty much confirm this, though I'm unable to post links to said articles.

 

The bottom line is, there is no evidence to conclude that the hacks originated from any certain country and/or from any government entity.

 

The other bottom line is the "election" wasn't hacked or rigged, the only "hack" was against the DNC.  The MSM should be focusing on what came out of those hacks and what was published rather than trying to spin the narrative that the hacks took place to change the election.  All the hacks did was expose the corruption within the DNC.

 

There is no evidence being revealed to the public. How does anyone know there is no evidence being hidden from us? If no such evidence existed, the CIA would not be "highly confident" that all the hacks came from Russia's government.

 

The DNC's election campaign was hacked. It was clearly an attempt to influence the election not just according to the NYT, but many other news sources that do not favor one side or the other.

---

There is no way it could be an inside job. The DNC endorsed Hillary. The hacked email belongs to someone who worked for her campaign.

 

At this point, a leak from DNC staffer Seth Rich is as likely as a hack from the Russians. Julian Assange has also confirmed as much. He has made it well-known that his information came from a non-state.

---

There is no evidence being revealed to the public. How does anyone know there is no evidence being hidden from us? If no such evidence existed, the CIA would not be "highly confident" that all the hacks came from Russia's government.


The DNC's election campaign was hacked. It was clearly an attempt to influence the election not just according to the NYT, but many other news sources that do not favor one side or the other.

It's my understanding that the CIA hasn't yet said anything, only that someone is saying they said something. It's hearsay.

---

UK Daily Mail is not considered as reliable as the New York Times.

Lol

---

About what?

 

Much like in the U.S. 2016 General Presidential Election,  in the 2015 Israeli election,   I thought all of the ballot choices were horrible.   That doesn't change the fact of Obama's true intentions.   Thankfully,  his occupation of the oval office will end next month.

 

https://zionica.com/2016/12/15/obama-sta...-election/

---

There is no way it could be an inside job. The DNC endorsed Hillary. The hacked email belongs to someone who worked for her campaign.

... Wow...

---