CIA Concludes Russia Interfered In Election To Help Trump Win

[eddiew37]

So the two agencies don't agree here! You understand that right?

Yes, of course. You understand that they have different missions, right? You understand that prior to DHS being established 25NOV02, the FBI and CIA didn't coordinate very well, right? You understand that even after DHS was established it took a few years to get everything working, right?

No, they don't, the FBI investigates the CIA find, and they didn't find what was suggested. There is no evidence of Russia hacking. None. AND, no states have online voting! So the vote was legitimate!

No one is stating that the vote was not legitimate. What they are stating is that the DNC was hacked by the Russians and emails released in order to influence the election.

If true then the Russians are screwing with the election system. That does not mean that Trump is not president or that the election is bogus unless he was actually involved in the hacking/dissemination himself. That would be a question for congress if it were possible. It does bring up some interesting questions about our relations with Russia.

And why wasn't the hacking on only dems known before the election ? WHY did the FBI head hide the info costing dems votes and senators

 

[Contumacious]

Your IP address is the computer you are logged into, not your location

IP's are your addresses in the network or the World Wide Web. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) provide or assign the necessary IP addresses to their clients (thru the clients DNS Servers) and have a list of these IPs. All IPs are unique. So once a crime has been committed on the web, all the police and/or FBI have to do is track the IP Address.

How? They go to the ISP and ask them who own this certain IP Address in their network. (lets say, an IP is 124.6.113.124) now this IP is unique and is assigned to an individual. So, once the ISP is identified the perpetrator will be caught and prosecuted.


Why are you worried? Are you the one who hacked into Georgia's Election System. Hope they nailed you ass.

.


.

You do realize there are several programs out there that can make it so that your IP is untraceable and shows it in a totally different country to where you live?

No, that is false.

There is literally nothing that can make your connection untraceable. There are things that encrypt the traffic itself in order to make what you are doing far more difficult to discover but the very act of sending a packet of data and receiving another in turn can be traced. VPN's go a long way in helping to make that trail difficult to follow but it can still be traced.

Ok then, tell me why the government created Tor Browser?

To make it more DIFFICULT.

That is the key. you can try to make your connection harder to trace and very hard to ease drop on. You can NEVER make it untraceable.

The problem is not TOR.

The problem is that most folks won't follow TOR's strict guidelines.


.

 

[FA_Q2]

So the two agencies don't agree here! You understand that right?

Yes, of course. You understand that they have different missions, right? You understand that prior to DHS being established 25NOV02, the FBI and CIA didn't coordinate very well, right? You understand that even after DHS was established it took a few years to get everything working, right?

No, they don't, the FBI investigates the CIA find, and they didn't find what was suggested. There is no evidence of Russia hacking. None. AND, no states have online voting! So the vote was legitimate!

No one is stating that the vote was not legitimate. What they are stating is that the DNC was hacked by the Russians and emails released in order to influence the election.

If true then the Russians are screwing with the election system. That does not mean that Trump is not president or that the election is bogus unless he was actually involved in the hacking/dissemination himself. That would be a question for congress if it were possible. It does bring up some interesting questions about our relations with Russia.

And why wasn't the hacking on only dems known before the election ? WHY did the FBI head hide the info costing dems votes and senators

?

It was all over the place before the election. Were you not paying attention to the news?

 

[FA_Q2]

IP's are your addresses in the network or the World Wide Web. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) provide or assign the necessary IP addresses to their clients (thru the clients DNS Servers) and have a list of these IPs. All IPs are unique. So once a crime has been committed on the web, all the police and/or FBI have to do is track the IP Address.

How? They go to the ISP and ask them who own this certain IP Address in their network. (lets say, an IP is 124.6.113.124) now this IP is unique and is assigned to an individual. So, once the ISP is identified the perpetrator will be caught and prosecuted.


Why are you worried? Are you the one who hacked into Georgia's Election System. Hope they nailed you ass.

.


.

You do realize there are several programs out there that can make it so that your IP is untraceable and shows it in a totally different country to where you live?

No, that is false.

There is literally nothing that can make your connection untraceable. There are things that encrypt the traffic itself in order to make what you are doing far more difficult to discover but the very act of sending a packet of data and receiving another in turn can be traced. VPN's go a long way in helping to make that trail difficult to follow but it can still be traced.

Ok then, tell me why the government created Tor Browser?

To make it more DIFFICULT.

That is the key. you can try to make your connection harder to trace and very hard to ease drop on. You can NEVER make it untraceable.

The problem is not TOR.

The problem is that most folks won't follow TOR's strict guidelines.


.

No, the problem is the structure of the internet and the rules that govern internet protocols.

 

[eddiew37]

So the two agencies don't agree here! You understand that right?

Yes, of course. You understand that they have different missions, right? You understand that prior to DHS being established 25NOV02, the FBI and CIA didn't coordinate very well, right? You understand that even after DHS was established it took a few years to get everything working, right?

No, they don't, the FBI investigates the CIA find, and they didn't find what was suggested. There is no evidence of Russia hacking. None. AND, no states have online voting! So the vote was legitimate!

No one is stating that the vote was not legitimate. What they are stating is that the DNC was hacked by the Russians and emails released in order to influence the election.

If true then the Russians are screwing with the election system. That does not mean that Trump is not president or that the election is bogus unless he was actually involved in the hacking/dissemination himself. That would be a question for congress if it were possible. It does bring up some interesting questions about our relations with Russia.

And why wasn't the hacking on only dems known before the election ? WHY did the FBI head hide the info costing dems votes and senators

?

It was all over the place before the election. Were you not paying attention to the news?

Were you not paying attention to what Harry Reid said today or yesterday???

 

[eddiew37]

FBI covered up Russian influence on Trump's election win, Harry Reid claims
Senator calls for James Comey to resign for withholding information revealed in CIA report that Russian operatives gave hacked emails to WikiLeaks

 

[FA_Q2]

Yes, of course. You understand that they have different missions, right? You understand that prior to DHS being established 25NOV02, the FBI and CIA didn't coordinate very well, right? You understand that even after DHS was established it took a few years to get everything working, right?

No, they don't, the FBI investigates the CIA find, and they didn't find what was suggested. There is no evidence of Russia hacking. None. AND, no states have online voting! So the vote was legitimate!

No one is stating that the vote was not legitimate. What they are stating is that the DNC was hacked by the Russians and emails released in order to influence the election.

If true then the Russians are screwing with the election system. That does not mean that Trump is not president or that the election is bogus unless he was actually involved in the hacking/dissemination himself. That would be a question for congress if it were possible. It does bring up some interesting questions about our relations with Russia.

And why wasn't the hacking on only dems known before the election ? WHY did the FBI head hide the info costing dems votes and senators

?

It was all over the place before the election. Were you not paying attention to the news?

Were you not paying attention to what Harry Reid said today or yesterday???

Nope, I am not because I could care less what Reid has to say on the subject. He is a liar and a shill for his own party (not to mention no longer relevant as he is leaving the senate) - not exactly the bastion of relevant facts I want to draw from.

Did he claim that the hacking was unknown before the election? Do you expect him (or any other democrat 'representative' for that matter) to say something different? I do not.

edit^ I assume that was supposed to be a link but it seems to be missing. Not that it matters, he can bloviate all he wants.

 

[eddiew37]

No, they don't, the FBI investigates the CIA find, and they didn't find what was suggested. There is no evidence of Russia hacking. None. AND, no states have online voting! So the vote was legitimate!

No one is stating that the vote was not legitimate. What they are stating is that the DNC was hacked by the Russians and emails released in order to influence the election.

If true then the Russians are screwing with the election system. That does not mean that Trump is not president or that the election is bogus unless he was actually involved in the hacking/dissemination himself. That would be a question for congress if it were possible. It does bring up some interesting questions about our relations with Russia.

And why wasn't the hacking on only dems known before the election ? WHY did the FBI head hide the info costing dems votes and senators

?

It was all over the place before the election. Were you not paying attention to the news?

Were you not paying attention to what Harry Reid said today or yesterday???

Nope, I am not because I could care less what Reid has to say on the subject. He is a liar and a shill for his own party (not to mention no longer relevant as he is leaving the senate) - not exactly the bastion of relevant facts I want to draw from.

Did he claim that the hacking was unknown before the election? Do you expect him (or any other democrat 'representative' for that matter) to say something different? I do not.

edit^ I assume that was supposed to be a link but it seems to be missing. Not that it matters, he can bloviate all he wants.

LOL the Pot calling the Kettle black Repubs are a party of liars shills and cowards as is noted by their kissing of trump butt after calling him every name in the book

 

[eddiew37]

Oh and who do you want to draw your facts from ?? Trump Cruz Christy Giuliani???? Repubs make me sick and their followers make me sicker

 

[FA_Q2]

No one is stating that the vote was not legitimate. What they are stating is that the DNC was hacked by the Russians and emails released in order to influence the election.

If true then the Russians are screwing with the election system. That does not mean that Trump is not president or that the election is bogus unless he was actually involved in the hacking/dissemination himself. That would be a question for congress if it were possible. It does bring up some interesting questions about our relations with Russia.

And why wasn't the hacking on only dems known before the election ? WHY did the FBI head hide the info costing dems votes and senators

?

It was all over the place before the election. Were you not paying attention to the news?

Were you not paying attention to what Harry Reid said today or yesterday???

Nope, I am not because I could care less what Reid has to say on the subject. He is a liar and a shill for his own party (not to mention no longer relevant as he is leaving the senate) - not exactly the bastion of relevant facts I want to draw from.

Did he claim that the hacking was unknown before the election? Do you expect him (or any other democrat 'representative' for that matter) to say something different? I do not.

edit^ I assume that was supposed to be a link but it seems to be missing. Not that it matters, he can bloviate all he wants.

LOL the Pot calling the Kettle black Repubs are a party of liars shills and cowards as is noted by their kissing of trump butt after calling him every name in the book

So...

Deflection then. I did not call the democrats anything in the quoted post - just Reid. I have not supported the republicans either.

 

[eddiew37]

And why wasn't the hacking on only dems known before the election ? WHY did the FBI head hide the info costing dems votes and senators

?

It was all over the place before the election. Were you not paying attention to the news?

Were you not paying attention to what Harry Reid said today or yesterday???

Nope, I am not because I could care less what Reid has to say on the subject. He is a liar and a shill for his own party (not to mention no longer relevant as he is leaving the senate) - not exactly the bastion of relevant facts I want to draw from.

Did he claim that the hacking was unknown before the election? Do you expect him (or any other democrat 'representative' for that matter) to say something different? I do not.

edit^ I assume that was supposed to be a link but it seems to be missing. Not that it matters, he can bloviate all he wants.

LOL the Pot calling the Kettle black Repubs are a party of liars shills and cowards as is noted by their kissing of trump butt after calling him every name in the book

So...

Deflection then. I did not call the democrats anything in the quoted post - just Reid. I have not supported the republicans either.

Just reid?? An ex Democrat leader? Have you called McConnel a lying ***? or Ryan??? if so I stand corrected

 

[Divine Wind]

And why wasn't the hacking on only dems known before the election ? WHY did the FBI head hide the info costing dems votes and senators

The hacking was well known before the election. Remember when Wasserman resigned as co-chair of the DNC? Do you remember why? DNC chairwoman will resign in aftermath of committee email controversy

From last July: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/.../trail-of-dnc-emails-russia-hacking.html?_r=0

Timeline of the DNC and AKP Hacks WikiLeaks Releases - Glomar Disclosure


I have not seen a single shred of evidence that the hacking cost the Democrats a single vote. If you have actual evidence, please post it.

 

[GLASNOST]

I need one more

Kim Il-sung

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just toundermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.

Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, according to U.S. officials. Those officials described the individuals as actors known to the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and hurt Clinton’s chances.

“It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. senators. “That’s the consensus view.”

Much more...

REPORT: CIA Concludes Russia Interfered In Election To Help Trump Win

Obama Demands Answers

More proof that Hillary was swiftboated. Her popular vote lead is now over 2.8 million. Trump was not fairly elected. Putin, Wikileaks, and Comey all had their thumbs on the scale for Trump - including other idiots who were pumping out conspiracy theories and fake news for fun and profit to discredit Hillary.

Putin, WikiLeaks, AND Comey!? Holy shit, what chance did she have? All 3 of those hugely influential sources, and all she had on her side was the US department of Justice, CNN, NBC, ABC, NYT, Washington Post, Hollywood, Us Weekly, the entirety of George Soros's online media empire, Gawker, Facebook, Google, Yahoo, the vast majority of monetary donations from the financial sector, and virtually every mainstream politician and news outlet in Europe. How are those tiny fringe groups supposed to balance Putin, Comey, and a website?! SO UNFAIR!

If you want to say they were on Hillary's side because they reported the crazy stuff Trump said and did, then you could be partly right. Mostly,they just reported his crazier stuff as if it was just another valid point of view, when it was anything but.

LMFAO, and all Comey did was let everybody know that the investigation which he said had concluded hadn't quite concluded. He never offered opinions or analysis one way or the other, just a statement of raw fact.

And all Putin and WikiLeaks did was release some factual information on the DNC and Hillary's campaign that nobody else was reporting on. There was no opinion or analysis offered on the site where the information appeared, just raw info.

And yet when CNN hears Trump's "they aren't sending us their best" statement about illegal immigrants from Mexico and states, many times over, that Trump said that "all Hispanics are rapists", I'm supposed to ignore that exaggeration and believe that they're being even-handed?

When The New York Times, on its front page, declares that engaging in journalistic objectivity regarding the presidential election would be immoral, and that their mission is to help defeat Trump, I'm supposed to go on believing that they're not biased for Hillary?

When MSNBC pundits, to a person, declare that the "grab 'em by the *****" tape couldn't possibly be the locker room banter of a self aggrandizer bragging about the liberties women allowed him to take sexually (the sort of locker room banter I heard throughout my adolescent/teenage years playing football and basketball, to be sure), but was DEFINITIVELY somewhere between a normalization of sexual assault and an admission of serial rape, I'm supposed to believe, despite my own experience with locker room banter, despite the fact that Trump specifically said "they LET you do it" (you know, let? That word that is synonymous with consent?), that these people are reporting unbiased facts?

Sorry, but if Comey was obviously biased for Trump, then the news organizations that I listed were active campaigners for Hillary.

 

[BULLDOG]

The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just toundermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.

Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, according to U.S. officials. Those officials described the individuals as actors known to the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and hurt Clinton’s chances.

“It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. senators. “That’s the consensus view.”

Much more...

REPORT: CIA Concludes Russia Interfered In Election To Help Trump Win

Obama Demands Answers

More proof that Hillary was swiftboated. Her popular vote lead is now over 2.8 million. Trump was not fairly elected. Putin, Wikileaks, and Comey all had their thumbs on the scale for Trump - including other idiots who were pumping out conspiracy theories and fake news for fun and profit to discredit Hillary.

Putin, WikiLeaks, AND Comey!? Holy shit, what chance did she have? All 3 of those hugely influential sources, and all she had on her side was the US department of Justice, CNN, NBC, ABC, NYT, Washington Post, Hollywood, Us Weekly, the entirety of George Soros's online media empire, Gawker, Facebook, Google, Yahoo, the vast majority of monetary donations from the financial sector, and virtually every mainstream politician and news outlet in Europe. How are those tiny fringe groups supposed to balance Putin, Comey, and a website?! SO UNFAIR!

If you want to say they were on Hillary's side because they reported the crazy stuff Trump said and did, then you could be partly right. Mostly,they just reported his crazier stuff as if it was just another valid point of view, when it was anything but.

LMFAO, and all Comey did was let everybody know that the investigation which he said had concluded hadn't quite concluded. He never offered opinions or analysis one way or the other, just a statement of raw fact.

And all Putin and WikiLeaks did was release some factual information on the DNC and Hillary's campaign that nobody else was reporting on. There was no opinion or analysis offered on the site where the information appeared, just raw info.

And yet when CNN hears Trump's "they aren't sending us their best" statement about illegal immigrants from Mexico and states, many times over, that Trump said that "all Hispanics are rapists", I'm supposed to ignore that exaggeration and believe that they're being even-handed?

When The New York Times, on its front page, declares that engaging in journalistic objectivity regarding the presidential election would be immoral, and that their mission is to help defeat Trump, I'm supposed to go on believing that they're not biased for Hillary?

When MSNBC pundits, to a person, declare that the "grab 'em by the *****" tape couldn't possibly be the locker room banter of a self aggrandizer bragging about the liberties women allowed him to take sexually (the sort of locker room banter I heard throughout my adolescent/teenage years playing football and basketball, to be sure), but was DEFINITIVELY somewhere between a normalization of sexual assault and an admission of serial rape, I'm supposed to believe, despite my own experience with locker room banter, despite the fact that Trump specifically said "they LET you do it" (you know, let? That word that is synonymous with consent?), that these people are reporting unbiased facts?

Sorry, but if Comey was obviously biased for Trump, then the news organizations that I listed were active campaigners for Hillary.

Yep. You're nuts. Believe what you want. I won't bother offering you facts. It's clear you don't like them.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just toundermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.

Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, according to U.S. officials. Those officials described the individuals as actors known to the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and hurt Clinton’s chances.

“It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. senators. “That’s the consensus view.”

Much more...

REPORT: CIA Concludes Russia Interfered In Election To Help Trump Win

Obama Demands Answers

More proof that Hillary was swiftboated. Her popular vote lead is now over 2.8 million. Trump was not fairly elected. Putin, Wikileaks, and Comey all had their thumbs on the scale for Trump - including other idiots who were pumping out conspiracy theories and fake news for fun and profit to discredit Hillary.

Putin, WikiLeaks, AND Comey!? Holy shit, what chance did she have? All 3 of those hugely influential sources, and all she had on her side was the US department of Justice, CNN, NBC, ABC, NYT, Washington Post, Hollywood, Us Weekly, the entirety of George Soros's online media empire, Gawker, Facebook, Google, Yahoo, the vast majority of monetary donations from the financial sector, and virtually every mainstream politician and news outlet in Europe. How are those tiny fringe groups supposed to balance Putin, Comey, and a website?! SO UNFAIR!

If you want to say they were on Hillary's side because they reported the crazy stuff Trump said and did, then you could be partly right. Mostly,they just reported his crazier stuff as if it was just another valid point of view, when it was anything but.

LMFAO, and all Comey did was let everybody know that the investigation which he said had concluded hadn't quite concluded. He never offered opinions or analysis one way or the other, just a statement of raw fact.

And all Putin and WikiLeaks did was release some factual information on the DNC and Hillary's campaign that nobody else was reporting on. There was no opinion or analysis offered on the site where the information appeared, just raw info.

And yet when CNN hears Trump's "they aren't sending us their best" statement about illegal immigrants from Mexico and states, many times over, that Trump said that "all Hispanics are rapists", I'm supposed to ignore that exaggeration and believe that they're being even-handed?

When The New York Times, on its front page, declares that engaging in journalistic objectivity regarding the presidential election would be immoral, and that their mission is to help defeat Trump, I'm supposed to go on believing that they're not biased for Hillary?

When MSNBC pundits, to a person, declare that the "grab 'em by the *****" tape couldn't possibly be the locker room banter of a self aggrandizer bragging about the liberties women allowed him to take sexually (the sort of locker room banter I heard throughout my adolescent/teenage years playing football and basketball, to be sure), but was DEFINITIVELY somewhere between a normalization of sexual assault and an admission of serial rape, I'm supposed to believe, despite my own experience with locker room banter, despite the fact that Trump specifically said "they LET you do it" (you know, let? That word that is synonymous with consent?), that these people are reporting unbiased facts?

Sorry, but if Comey was obviously biased for Trump, then the news organizations that I listed were active campaigners for Hillary.

Yep. You're nuts. Believe what you want. I won't bother offering you facts. It's clear you don't like them.

You say that like you ever offered any in the first place. Just claims. Now you counter by claiming that I'm crazy. Way to ignore the substance of my post and declare victory. Pretty common with you dems, these days.

 

[BULLDOG]

The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just toundermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.

Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, according to U.S. officials. Those officials described the individuals as actors known to the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and hurt Clinton’s chances.

“It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. senators. “That’s the consensus view.”

Much more...

REPORT: CIA Concludes Russia Interfered In Election To Help Trump Win

Obama Demands Answers

More proof that Hillary was swiftboated. Her popular vote lead is now over 2.8 million. Trump was not fairly elected. Putin, Wikileaks, and Comey all had their thumbs on the scale for Trump - including other idiots who were pumping out conspiracy theories and fake news for fun and profit to discredit Hillary.

Putin, WikiLeaks, AND Comey!? Holy shit, what chance did she have? All 3 of those hugely influential sources, and all she had on her side was the US department of Justice, CNN, NBC, ABC, NYT, Washington Post, Hollywood, Us Weekly, the entirety of George Soros's online media empire, Gawker, Facebook, Google, Yahoo, the vast majority of monetary donations from the financial sector, and virtually every mainstream politician and news outlet in Europe. How are those tiny fringe groups supposed to balance Putin, Comey, and a website?! SO UNFAIR!

If you want to say they were on Hillary's side because they reported the crazy stuff Trump said and did, then you could be partly right. Mostly,they just reported his crazier stuff as if it was just another valid point of view, when it was anything but.

LMFAO, and all Comey did was let everybody know that the investigation which he said had concluded hadn't quite concluded. He never offered opinions or analysis one way or the other, just a statement of raw fact.

And all Putin and WikiLeaks did was release some factual information on the DNC and Hillary's campaign that nobody else was reporting on. There was no opinion or analysis offered on the site where the information appeared, just raw info.

And yet when CNN hears Trump's "they aren't sending us their best" statement about illegal immigrants from Mexico and states, many times over, that Trump said that "all Hispanics are rapists", I'm supposed to ignore that exaggeration and believe that they're being even-handed?

When The New York Times, on its front page, declares that engaging in journalistic objectivity regarding the presidential election would be immoral, and that their mission is to help defeat Trump, I'm supposed to go on believing that they're not biased for Hillary?

When MSNBC pundits, to a person, declare that the "grab 'em by the *****" tape couldn't possibly be the locker room banter of a self aggrandizer bragging about the liberties women allowed him to take sexually (the sort of locker room banter I heard throughout my adolescent/teenage years playing football and basketball, to be sure), but was DEFINITIVELY somewhere between a normalization of sexual assault and an admission of serial rape, I'm supposed to believe, despite my own experience with locker room banter, despite the fact that Trump specifically said "they LET you do it" (you know, let? That word that is synonymous with consent?), that these people are reporting unbiased facts?

Sorry, but if Comey was obviously biased for Trump, then the news organizations that I listed were active campaigners for Hillary.

Yep. You're nuts. Believe what you want. I won't bother offering you facts. It's clear you don't like them.

You say that like you ever offered any in the first place. Just claims. Now you counter by claiming that I'm crazy. Way to ignore the substance of my post and declare victory. Pretty common with you dems, these days.

No victory to be declared. You're spouting Fox and Alex Jones propaganda, and there is no need to even address that silly crap. As I said, believe what you want.

 

[jc456]

And why wasn't the hacking on only dems known before the election ? WHY did the FBI head hide the info costing dems votes and senators

The hacking was well known before the election. Remember when Wasserman resigned as co-chair of the DNC? Do you remember why? DNC chairwoman will resign in aftermath of committee email controversy

From last July: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/.../trail-of-dnc-emails-russia-hacking.html?_r=0

Timeline of the DNC and AKP Hacks WikiLeaks Releases - Glomar Disclosure


I have not seen a single shred of evidence that the hacking cost the Democrats a single vote. If you have actual evidence, please post it.

and there is absolutely no new information. So why is it such a big deal today? Oh can I say, the whiney bitches that are libturds who think only their point of view matters in the world and every opposing view is bigotted or racist or influenced by Russia I guess.

I'm still waiting for what the interference was. why can't anyone at least tell the public what exactly the interference was? That can't be classified. I don't believe that. It's why I call all of this a ploy by the left. PLOY!!!!! can I say it louder? yes....PLOY

 

[jc456]

Putin, WikiLeaks, AND Comey!? Holy shit, what chance did she have? All 3 of those hugely influential sources, and all she had on her side was the US department of Justice, CNN, NBC, ABC, NYT, Washington Post, Hollywood, Us Weekly, the entirety of George Soros's online media empire, Gawker, Facebook, Google, Yahoo, the vast majority of monetary donations from the financial sector, and virtually every mainstream politician and news outlet in Europe. How are those tiny fringe groups supposed to balance Putin, Comey, and a website?! SO UNFAIR!

If you want to say they were on Hillary's side because they reported the crazy stuff Trump said and did, then you could be partly right. Mostly,they just reported his crazier stuff as if it was just another valid point of view, when it was anything but.

LMFAO, and all Comey did was let everybody know that the investigation which he said had concluded hadn't quite concluded. He never offered opinions or analysis one way or the other, just a statement of raw fact.

And all Putin and WikiLeaks did was release some factual information on the DNC and Hillary's campaign that nobody else was reporting on. There was no opinion or analysis offered on the site where the information appeared, just raw info.

And yet when CNN hears Trump's "they aren't sending us their best" statement about illegal immigrants from Mexico and states, many times over, that Trump said that "all Hispanics are rapists", I'm supposed to ignore that exaggeration and believe that they're being even-handed?

When The New York Times, on its front page, declares that engaging in journalistic objectivity regarding the presidential election would be immoral, and that their mission is to help defeat Trump, I'm supposed to go on believing that they're not biased for Hillary?

When MSNBC pundits, to a person, declare that the "grab 'em by the *****" tape couldn't possibly be the locker room banter of a self aggrandizer bragging about the liberties women allowed him to take sexually (the sort of locker room banter I heard throughout my adolescent/teenage years playing football and basketball, to be sure), but was DEFINITIVELY somewhere between a normalization of sexual assault and an admission of serial rape, I'm supposed to believe, despite my own experience with locker room banter, despite the fact that Trump specifically said "they LET you do it" (you know, let? That word that is synonymous with consent?), that these people are reporting unbiased facts?

Sorry, but if Comey was obviously biased for Trump, then the news organizations that I listed were active campaigners for Hillary.

Yep. You're nuts. Believe what you want. I won't bother offering you facts. It's clear you don't like them.

You say that like you ever offered any in the first place. Just claims. Now you counter by claiming that I'm crazy. Way to ignore the substance of my post and declare victory. Pretty common with you dems, these days.

No victory to be declared. You're spouting Fox and Alex Jones propaganda, and there is no need to even address that silly crap. As I said, believe what you want.

\
this entire interference thing is propaganda by the top propaganda folks on the planet the left clintonites.

 

[jc456]

So the two agencies don't agree here! You understand that right?

Yes, of course. You understand that they have different missions, right? You understand that prior to DHS being established 25NOV02, the FBI and CIA didn't coordinate very well, right? You understand that even after DHS was established it took a few years to get everything working, right?

No, they don't, the FBI investigates the CIA find, and they didn't find what was suggested. There is no evidence of Russia hacking. None. AND, no states have online voting! So the vote was legitimate!

No one is stating that the vote was not legitimate. What they are stating is that the DNC was hacked by the Russians and emails released in order to influence the election.

If true then the Russians are screwing with the election system. That does not mean that Trump is not president or that the election is bogus unless he was actually involved in the hacking/dissemination himself. That would be a question for congress if it were possible. It does bring up some interesting questions about our relations with Russia.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. The russians never ever reported anything about our election. Ever. Who from them did that?