OH SNAP! 'House Intelligence Chair: ‘No Proof’ Russians Were Trying To Get Trump Elected'

[RetiredGySgt]

How is it an assumption when the FBI report specifically says that they did try to interfere in the election?

It is an assumption because you believe something without proof. That is what the definition was for, to explain it to you. There is no proof in the JAR.

I have the proof- which is the FBI report.

The FBI says that Russia tried to hack our election.

That is not an assumption- that is a statement of fact.

Now an assumption would be assuming that Russia did not try to hack the election.

No one hacked the election so if the FBI used the words hack the election they lied.

 

[Tehon]

How is it an assumption when the FBI report specifically says that they did try to interfere in the election?

It is an assumption because you believe something without proof. That is what the definition was for, to explain it to you. There is no proof in the JAR.

I have the proof- which is the FBI report.

The FBI says that Russia tried to hack our election.

That is not an assumption- that is a statement of fact.

Now an assumption would be assuming that Russia did not try to hack the election.

It is not a statement of fact, it is merely a statement. A statement of fact would be supported by evidence. The FBI statement is not supported by evidence.

 

[Syriusly]

Why don't any of your right wing nut jobs care whether Russia tried to hack our election?

My concern right now is that my country is provoking Russia and has been now for a number of years. .

And by 'provoking' Russia you mean how we forced Russia to hack the United States- something that the OP's own citation noted is occurring?

Or were we provocative when we 'forced' Russia to invade Crimea?

Or were we provocative when we 'forced' Russia to invade Georgia?

 

[Syriusly]

How is it an assumption when the FBI report specifically says that they did try to interfere in the election?

It is an assumption because you believe something without proof. That is what the definition was for, to explain it to you. There is no proof in the JAR.

I have the proof- which is the FBI report.

The FBI says that Russia tried to hack our election.

That is not an assumption- that is a statement of fact.

Now an assumption would be assuming that Russia did not try to hack the election.

No one hacked the election so if the FBI used the words hack the election they lied.

Wow- thanks for you acknowledging you haven't even bothered to read the FBI's report.

 

[JakeStarkey]

PEOTUS trusts accused rapist Julian Assange more than he does our own intelligence services. Also, he can't keep straight what intelligence briefing is supposed to occur on what day. Therefore he still "doesn't know something that we don't know."

So Assange is Trump's go to guy for intel. if so, what else is the PEOTUS not telling us.

Come on snowflake, answer the questions asked before trying to change the subject.

The answer is obvious: kwcflake, Trump trust Assange more than our intel agencies. For how long? And why?

 

[Tehon]

Why don't any of your right wing nut jobs care whether Russia tried to hack our election?

My concern right now is that my country is provoking Russia and has been now for a number of years. .

And by 'provoking' Russia you mean how we forced Russia to hack the United States- something that the OP's own citation noted is occurring?

Or were we provocative when we 'forced' Russia to invade Crimea?

Or were we provocative when we 'forced' Russia to invade Georgia?

I mean how we orchestrated a coup against the Ukrainian government.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

as·sump·tion
əˈsəm(p)SH(ə)n/
noun

1. 1.
   a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

How is it an assumption when the FBI report specifically says that they did try to interfere in the election?

https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

GRIZZLY STEPPE – Russian Malicious Cyber Activity

This Joint Analysis Report (JAR) is the result of analytic efforts between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This document
provides technical details regarding the tools and infrastructure used by the Russian civilian and
military intelligence Services (RIS) to compromise and exploit networks and endpoints
associated with the U.S. election,

'Russian... military intelligence Services to.... compromise with the U.S. election."

So you are saying that the FBI, Homeland Security and the CIA are all lying?

Why don't any of your right wing nut jobs care whether Russia tried to hack our election?

Trump will be President regardless- but why do you just not give a damn whether or not Russia tried to influence our election?

The hack of DNC files did NOT HACK the election,there is absolutely ZERO evidence or anyone saying any voting machines were hacked,.

Wow- great way not to address my post.

Why don't any of your right wing nut jobs care whether Russia tried to hack our election?

Trump will be President regardless- but why do you just not give a damn whether or not Russia tried to influence our election?

Perhaps you can answer me, what Law or regulation makes it illegal for a third party to release damaging information about a Presidential Candidate?

Wow- once again- you are desperately trying not to address my post.

Why don't any of your right wing nut jobs care whether Russia tried to hack our election?

Trump will be President regardless- but why do you just not give a damn whether or not Russia tried to influence our election?

NO ONE hacked the election retard. NO ONE. No machines were hacked no votes were tampered with and NO ONE is claiming they were, it is a bald faced lie to claim the election was hacked. As to the hacking of the DNC and the release of damaging information to Hillary Clinton again I ask what law was broken? Perhaps YOU can provide us now with the statute or regulation that makes it illegal for a third party to release damaging information about a presidential candidate? No matter how the information was obtained.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

I heard some libtard talking head this morning saying of course there's no direct evidence the Russians were involved, they are very good at covering their tracks.

So the proof is there's no direct evidence. How do these people manage to survive one day to the next?

bet this same libtard will tell you that illegals didnt vote for Hillary because it cant be proven that they did.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

How is it an assumption when the FBI report specifically says that they did try to interfere in the election?

It is an assumption because you believe something without proof. That is what the definition was for, to explain it to you. There is no proof in the JAR.

I have the proof- which is the FBI report.

The FBI says that Russia tried to hack our election.

That is not an assumption- that is a statement of fact.

Now an assumption would be assuming that Russia did not try to hack the election.

No one hacked the election so if the FBI used the words hack the election they lied.

Wow- thanks for you acknowledging you haven't even bothered to read the FBI's report.

If they used the words "hacking the election" or " the election was hacked" they lied. No hack occurred of the election. No voting machines were hacked and no votes were tampered with. As to interfering with the election I ask ONCE AGAIN for you to cite the law or regulation that makes it illegal for a third party to release damaging information about a Presidential Candidate no matter how the materials was obtained.

 

[paperview]

GOP Sen. Tom Cotton Defies Trump On Wikileaks: I Trust Our Analysts More Than I Trust Assange


The Hill reports:

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) on Wednesday said he had more trust in the country’s intelligence community than in WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange. “I have a lot more faith in our intelligence officers serving around the world, very smart and experienced analysts that we have here in the nation’s capital, than I do in people like Julian Assange,” Cotton said Wednesday on MSNBC. “I can tell you that much.”

Cotton’s comments come after President-elect Donald Trump tweeted earlier in the day that Assange said a “14 year old could have hacked Podesta” and questioned why the DNC was “so careless.”

Cotton said Wednesday he thinks it “reasonable” for people to wait and see what comes out in the intelligence report, adding he doesn’t see a need to jump to conclusions before looking at that report.

He also said he doesn’t dispute the intelligence community’s report from last year that said Russia was behind the attack on the Democratic National Committee. “That’s to be expected from Russia. That’s what they do,” Cotton said.

 

[Boss]

Especially when we have no evidence Russia was involved.

Do you not ******* get that anything and everything else you may say is entirely moot without establishing this point first?

I know to Trumpster koolaid drinkers American Intelligence unanimous findings are without merit but not to the rest of the world.

The only "unanimous" thing I've seen is that they THINK the Russians MAY have done the hacking because it APPEARS to have their signature. That's not proof it was them, it could be someone wanted to make it look like them.... a frame job. We just don't know at this point. To run around crowing that all these agencies unanimously agree it was definitely a Russian hacking job is just a flat out lie.

Oh, and I am FAR from a "Trumpster koolaid drinker".

 

[aris2chat]

LOL[emoji11]

Sent from my YD206 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[westwall]

Have you stopped to wonder why the intel agencies have not given it to the intel committee yet.

Traitors on the committee who would give it to the Russians?

Oh, poor, poor fakey. It has already been admitted that the claim that the evil russkis had hacked our power grid system was fake news, and wouldn't you know it, it appears that all the rest is fake news too. Funny how it's you progs who are the primary purveyors of fake news in this country. Shocked I am, I tell ya!



Well....not really!

 

[usmbguest5318]

So what do you call it when President Obama tells British citizens that if they vote for Brexit they can expect to be in the back of the line on trade deals?

Openly setting expectations is what I call that.

I will note too that Brexit was not an election it was a policy referendum. The two are not the same.

Or when he sends hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund a political activist group in opposition of Netanyahu in Israel's elections? Is that not interfering? Was he not trying to influence the elections?

I'm not aware of that having happened. I'll look into it and get back to you.

In advance of my looking into it, I can tell you for a fact that I don't care about the U.S. interfering in Israel's political process. Israel literally wouldn't exist but for the U.S. I can also tell you that what matters to me is the existential plausibility and probability of one of the U.S.' foremost enemies nationally backing and authorizing covert or over action that interferes with our election process.

The Saudi Arabian government donated $25 million to Hillary Clinton's campaign.... was that not an attempt to influence the election?

1. I'm aware of Saudi donations to the Clinton Foundation, not the Clinton campaign. If there were Saudi donations to the Clinton campaign, they were returned. The Clinton Foundation has yet to spend any money on political campaigns.
2. Is Hillary Clinton's election campaign part-funded by Saudi Arabia?
   
3. EXCLUSIVE: Donald Trump made millions from Saudi government -- Seeing as he was "self funding," it's safe to say the Saudis did to some degree and without question fund his campaign.

Someone released a tape recording of a private conversation between Trump and Billy Bush where Trump talked about grabbing a woman's *****... was that not an attempt to influence the election?

No. The recording was made ages ago. The owner, editors and publisher of The Washington Post released the tape. The are, as far as I know, American citizens, thus well within their rights to try to influence U.S. election outcomes.

• Owner: Jeff Bezos
• Publisher: Fred Ryan
• Editorial Board:
  • Editorial Page Editor: Fred Hiatt;
  • Deputy Editorial Page Editor: Jackson Diehl;
  • Associate Editorial Page Editor: Jo-Ann Armao
  • Jonathan Capehart
  • Lee Hockstader
  • Charles Lane
  • Stephen Stromberg
  • Tom Toles.
  • Michael Larabee

When the media gave Hillary the questions for the debate, was that not an attempt to influence the election?

I don't know that anyone gave questions to Hillary Clinton. I know that Donna Brazile gave questions to people who are close to Hillary Clinton, but Donna is close enough to HRC that she could have given her the questions directly and nobody would or could have found out.

With all due respect for your exception taking, where do you draw this arbitrary line when it comes to influencing and interfering with the election?

The line isn't arbitrary. I draw it at the border of the United States of America, which is to say, I have an issue with state sponsored/encouraged/authorized foreign actors interfering in the United States' electoral process. It is untenable to me that the U.S.' leaders would ignore, minimize or in any way do nothing about any instances of that happening, and it is 100% anathema to me that any elected leader in the U.S. would speak or act to openly deny, refute or downplay the USIC's public and unanimous attestations, moreover support Julian Assange's claims to the contrary, about a foreign actor having interfered. That is seditious, perhaps treasonous, in my mind.

As far as the U.S. interfering in other nations' electoral process, well, if those nations are okay with it, I'm okay with it. If they are not and the U.S. did interfere in their electoral process, those nations will do whatever the do.

 

[JakeStarkey]

the alt right stains don't need no stinkin' reading.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

the alt right stains don't need no stinkin' reading.

Perhaps YOU can link or post the law or regulation that makes it illegal for a third party to post damaging information about a Political campaign or person running for office?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Have you stopped to wonder why the intel agencies have not given it to the intel committee yet.

Traitors on the committee who would give it to the Russians?

Oh, poor, poor fakey. It has already been admitted that the claim that the evil russkis had hacked our power grid system was fake news, and wouldn't you know it, it appears that all the rest is fake news too. Funny how it's you progs who are the primary purveyors of fake news in this country. Shocked I am, I tell ya! Well....not really!

oh, westwallflake tries to distract. We are talking about other matters of hacking. You are such a retard; you need to go to college. I am not shocked that you don't know nothing, not at all. Why is Trump listening to assange, the friend of the russians, rather than our intel agencies? The truth frightens you; it should.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I heard some libtard talking head this morning saying of course there's no direct evidence the Russians were involved, they are very good at covering their tracks.

So the proof is there's no direct evidence. How do these people manage to survive one day to the next?

bet this same libtard will tell you that illegals didnt vote for Hillary because it cant be proven that they did.

You can believe in false assumptions all you want: it changes nothing other than others opinions of you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

the alt right stains don't need no stinkin' reading.

Perhaps YOU can link or post the law or regulation that makes it illegal for a third party to post damaging information about a Political campaign or person running for office?

You attempt to distract is noted.

 

[JakeStarkey]

the alt right stains don't need no stinkin' reading.

Perhaps YOU can link or post the law or regulation that makes it illegal for a third party to post damaging information about a Political campaign or person running for office?

Check your libel laws. If it was done knowingly with intention to deceive, such a person could be charged.