One reason the supposed Russian hacking to influence the election is a false narrative.

[toomuchtime_]

Why keep up this stupid pretense? Both the FBI and the ODNI have said there is no proof to support the CIA's allegation that Russia tried to influence the election.

FBI is internal, CIA is external, perhaps the CIA have intelligence that they can't reveal now. Perhaps they made it up. The simple answer is you don't know.

The CIA is under the ODNI and James Clapper, the DNI, has there is no proof Russia tried to influence the election.

You don't know that. One thing is proof, another is proof they're willing to give and jeopardize their sources.

The ODNI said there was no proof.

Where did they say this?

"While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named.

The position of the ODNI, which oversees the 17 agency-strong U.S. intelligence community, could give Trump fresh ammunition to dispute the CIA assessment, which he rejected as "ridiculous" in weekend remarks, and press his assertion that no evidence implicates Russia in the cyber attacks.

Trump's rejection of the CIA's judgment marks the latest in a string of disputes over Russia's international conduct that have erupted between the president-elect and the intelligence community he will soon command.

An ODNI spokesman declined to comment on the issue.

"ODNI is not arguing that the agency (CIA) is wrong, only that they can't prove intent," said one of the three U.S. officials. "Of course they can't, absent agents in on the decision-making in Moscow."

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose evidentiary standards require it to make cases that can stand up in court, declined to accept the CIA's analysis - a deductive assessment of the available intelligence - for the same reason, the three officials said."

Exclusive: Top U.S. spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hacking - sources

Of course, the while thing is preposterous since there is nothing in the Wikileaks emails that could have conceivably influenced the elections, so if their goal was to influence the election, why would they publish things that wouldn't do that? Clinton's email problems came from her handling of the controversy over her secret private server, not from Wikileaks.

Obama is now attacking the media for treating Clinton unfairly by reporting the content of the hacked emails. Apparently, the President believes that fair elections can only be had if the media ignores news that is unfavorable to Democrats. It is disturbing that man with such a mindset has been president for eight years.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Why keep up this stupid pretense? Both the FBI and the ODNI have said there is no proof to support the CIA's allegation that Russia tried to influence the election.

FBI is internal, CIA is external, perhaps the CIA have intelligence that they can't reveal now. Perhaps they made it up. The simple answer is you don't know.

The CIA is under the ODNI and James Clapper, the DNI, has there is no proof Russia tried to influence the election.

I believe the CIA.

Your Obama said today in his news conference that the Russians did not hack the election...so.....

Obama Suggests Russia’s Putin Had Role in Election Hacking
Obama Suggests Russia’s Putin Had Role in Election Hacking
I recommend you get behind the president on this one.

lol Obama is now claiming the media did Putin's work for him by reporting the content of the hacks. Apparently this president believes fact are the enemies of democracy.

 

[Eloy]

FBI is internal, CIA is external, perhaps the CIA have intelligence that they can't reveal now. Perhaps they made it up. The simple answer is you don't know.

The CIA is under the ODNI and James Clapper, the DNI, has there is no proof Russia tried to influence the election.

I believe the CIA.

Your Obama said today in his news conference that the Russians did not hack the election...so.....

Obama Suggests Russia’s Putin Had Role in Election Hacking
Obama Suggests Russia’s Putin Had Role in Election Hacking
I recommend you get behind the president on this one.

lol Obama is now claiming the media did Putin's work for him by reporting the content of the hacks. Apparently this president believes fact are the enemies of democracy.

It is debatable whether stolen emails can ethically be published especially if they serve the purposes of a foreign government.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The CIA is under the ODNI and James Clapper, the DNI, has there is no proof Russia tried to influence the election.

I believe the CIA.

Your Obama said today in his news conference that the Russians did not hack the election...so.....

Obama Suggests Russia’s Putin Had Role in Election Hacking
Obama Suggests Russia’s Putin Had Role in Election Hacking
I recommend you get behind the president on this one.

lol Obama is now claiming the media did Putin's work for him by reporting the content of the hacks. Apparently this president believes fact are the enemies of democracy.

It is debatable whether stolen emails can ethically be published especially if they serve the purposes of a foreign government.

So you agree with Obama that it is unethical to provide voters with relevant facts.

 

[Eloy]

I believe the CIA.

Your Obama said today in his news conference that the Russians did not hack the election...so.....

Obama Suggests Russia’s Putin Had Role in Election Hacking
Obama Suggests Russia’s Putin Had Role in Election Hacking
I recommend you get behind the president on this one.

lol Obama is now claiming the media did Putin's work for him by reporting the content of the hacks. Apparently this president believes fact are the enemies of democracy.

It is debatable whether stolen emails can ethically be published especially if they serve the purposes of a foreign government.

So you agree with Obama that it is unethical to provide voters with relevant facts.

That would depend on whether publishing stolen emails is designed to further the aims of a foreign government, for example to get a Friend of Russia to become the president of the United States.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Your Obama said today in his news conference that the Russians did not hack the election...so.....

Obama Suggests Russia’s Putin Had Role in Election Hacking
Obama Suggests Russia’s Putin Had Role in Election Hacking
I recommend you get behind the president on this one.

lol Obama is now claiming the media did Putin's work for him by reporting the content of the hacks. Apparently this president believes fact are the enemies of democracy.

It is debatable whether stolen emails can ethically be published especially if they serve the purposes of a foreign government.

So you agree with Obama that it is unethical to provide voters with relevant facts.

That would depend on whether publishing stolen emails is designed to further the aims of a foreign government, for example to get a Friend of Russia to become the president of the United States.

So now you agree with Obama that the US media had entered into a conspiracy with Russia to attack Clinton with innocuous stolen emails.

 

[Eloy]

Obama Suggests Russia’s Putin Had Role in Election Hacking
Obama Suggests Russia’s Putin Had Role in Election Hacking
I recommend you get behind the president on this one.

lol Obama is now claiming the media did Putin's work for him by reporting the content of the hacks. Apparently this president believes fact are the enemies of democracy.

It is debatable whether stolen emails can ethically be published especially if they serve the purposes of a foreign government.

So you agree with Obama that it is unethical to provide voters with relevant facts.

That would depend on whether publishing stolen emails is designed to further the aims of a foreign government, for example to get a Friend of Russia to become the president of the United States.

So now you agree with Obama that the US media had entered into a conspiracy with Russia to attack Clinton with innocuous stolen emails.

If that is what President Obama said, I believe he is wrong. I do believe, however, that FOX News and hate radio, in their desire to see that Hillary Clinton lost the election did become unwitting agents of Russia.

 

[owebo]

Your Obama said today in his news conference that the Russians did not hack the election...so.....

Obama Suggests Russia’s Putin Had Role in Election Hacking
Obama Suggests Russia’s Putin Had Role in Election Hacking
I recommend you get behind the president on this one.

lol Obama is now claiming the media did Putin's work for him by reporting the content of the hacks. Apparently this president believes fact are the enemies of democracy.

It is debatable whether stolen emails can ethically be published especially if they serve the purposes of a foreign government.

So you agree with Obama that it is unethical to provide voters with relevant facts.

That would depend on whether publishing stolen emails is designed to further the aims of a foreign government, for example to get a Friend of Russia to become the president of the United States.

She lost though.....

 

[owebo]

lol Obama is now claiming the media did Putin's work for him by reporting the content of the hacks. Apparently this president believes fact are the enemies of democracy.

It is debatable whether stolen emails can ethically be published especially if they serve the purposes of a foreign government.

So you agree with Obama that it is unethical to provide voters with relevant facts.

That would depend on whether publishing stolen emails is designed to further the aims of a foreign government, for example to get a Friend of Russia to become the president of the United States.

So now you agree with Obama that the US media had entered into a conspiracy with Russia to attack Clinton with innocuous stolen emails.

If that is what President Obama said, I believe he is wrong. I do believe, however, that FOX News and hate radio, in their desire to see that Hillary Clinton lost the election did become unwitting agents of Russia.

How so? You think the Russians invaded their studios under the nise of your idiot Obama?

 

[Eloy]

It is debatable whether stolen emails can ethically be published especially if they serve the purposes of a foreign government.

So you agree with Obama that it is unethical to provide voters with relevant facts.

That would depend on whether publishing stolen emails is designed to further the aims of a foreign government, for example to get a Friend of Russia to become the president of the United States.

So now you agree with Obama that the US media had entered into a conspiracy with Russia to attack Clinton with innocuous stolen emails.

If that is what President Obama said, I believe he is wrong. I do believe, however, that FOX News and hate radio, in their desire to see that Hillary Clinton lost the election did become unwitting agents of Russia.

How so? You think the Russians invaded their studios under the nise of your idiot Obama?

I cannot tell you. Unlike the CIA, I am not an expert on cyber crime.

 

[owebo]

So you agree with Obama that it is unethical to provide voters with relevant facts.

That would depend on whether publishing stolen emails is designed to further the aims of a foreign government, for example to get a Friend of Russia to become the president of the United States.

So now you agree with Obama that the US media had entered into a conspiracy with Russia to attack Clinton with innocuous stolen emails.

If that is what President Obama said, I believe he is wrong. I do believe, however, that FOX News and hate radio, in their desire to see that Hillary Clinton lost the election did become unwitting agents of Russia.

How so? You think the Russians invaded their studios under the nise of your idiot Obama?

I cannot tell you. Unlike the CIA, I am not an expert on cyber crime.

So you think the Russians were holograms?

 

[frigidweirdo]

FBI is internal, CIA is external, perhaps the CIA have intelligence that they can't reveal now. Perhaps they made it up. The simple answer is you don't know.

The CIA is under the ODNI and James Clapper, the DNI, has there is no proof Russia tried to influence the election.

You don't know that. One thing is proof, another is proof they're willing to give and jeopardize their sources.

The ODNI said there was no proof.

Where did they say this?

"While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named.

The position of the ODNI, which oversees the 17 agency-strong U.S. intelligence community, could give Trump fresh ammunition to dispute the CIA assessment, which he rejected as "ridiculous" in weekend remarks, and press his assertion that no evidence implicates Russia in the cyber attacks.

Trump's rejection of the CIA's judgment marks the latest in a string of disputes over Russia's international conduct that have erupted between the president-elect and the intelligence community he will soon command.

An ODNI spokesman declined to comment on the issue.

"ODNI is not arguing that the agency (CIA) is wrong, only that they can't prove intent," said one of the three U.S. officials. "Of course they can't, absent agents in on the decision-making in Moscow."

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose evidentiary standards require it to make cases that can stand up in court, declined to accept the CIA's analysis - a deductive assessment of the available intelligence - for the same reason, the three officials said."

Exclusive: Top U.S. spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hacking - sources

Of course, the while thing is preposterous since there is nothing in the Wikileaks emails that could have conceivably influenced the elections, so if their goal was to influence the election, why would they publish things that wouldn't do that? Clinton's email problems came from her handling of the controversy over her secret private server, not from Wikileaks.

Obama is now attacking the media for treating Clinton unfairly by reporting the content of the hacked emails. Apparently, the President believes that fair elections can only be had if the media ignores news that is unfavorable to Democrats. It is disturbing that man with such a mindset has been president for eight years.

And what they said, as you've posted is "ODNI is not arguing that the agency (CIA) is wrong"

The evidence that there is hacking appears to be there, what isn't there is enough proof of INTENT TO HELP TRUMP.

 

[Eloy]

That would depend on whether publishing stolen emails is designed to further the aims of a foreign government, for example to get a Friend of Russia to become the president of the United States.

So now you agree with Obama that the US media had entered into a conspiracy with Russia to attack Clinton with innocuous stolen emails.

If that is what President Obama said, I believe he is wrong. I do believe, however, that FOX News and hate radio, in their desire to see that Hillary Clinton lost the election did become unwitting agents of Russia.

How so? You think the Russians invaded their studios under the nise of your idiot Obama?

I cannot tell you. Unlike the CIA, I am not an expert on cyber crime.

So you think the Russians were holograms?

No, I think the Russians are the same enemies of the United States known for many decades.

 

[bripat9643]

Our military is quite capable of taking out both China and Russia NOW.

Trump will gut the military.

You obviously know nothing about the current state of these militaries.

 

[toomuchtime_]

lol Obama is now claiming the media did Putin's work for him by reporting the content of the hacks. Apparently this president believes fact are the enemies of democracy.

It is debatable whether stolen emails can ethically be published especially if they serve the purposes of a foreign government.

So you agree with Obama that it is unethical to provide voters with relevant facts.

That would depend on whether publishing stolen emails is designed to further the aims of a foreign government, for example to get a Friend of Russia to become the president of the United States.

So now you agree with Obama that the US media had entered into a conspiracy with Russia to attack Clinton with innocuous stolen emails.

If that is what President Obama said, I believe he is wrong. I do believe, however, that FOX News and hate radio, in their desire to see that Hillary Clinton lost the election did become unwitting agents of Russia.

But of course, you have no reason to believe that.

 

[rdean]

Donald Trump's campaign slogan "Make America Great again" also applied to the US Military.

“We will completely rebuild our depleted military, and the countries that we protect, at a massive cost to us, will be asked to pay their fair share.”

A stronger US military is not something Russia would actively encourage.

Unless Trump is working for Russia. Then, by Manchurian Extension, our US Military will be working for Russia. If Trump believes Russia over ALL of our intelligence agencies, then how can you trust Trump?

 

[toomuchtime_]

The CIA is under the ODNI and James Clapper, the DNI, has there is no proof Russia tried to influence the election.

You don't know that. One thing is proof, another is proof they're willing to give and jeopardize their sources.

The ODNI said there was no proof.

Where did they say this?

"While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named.

The position of the ODNI, which oversees the 17 agency-strong U.S. intelligence community, could give Trump fresh ammunition to dispute the CIA assessment, which he rejected as "ridiculous" in weekend remarks, and press his assertion that no evidence implicates Russia in the cyber attacks.

Trump's rejection of the CIA's judgment marks the latest in a string of disputes over Russia's international conduct that have erupted between the president-elect and the intelligence community he will soon command.

An ODNI spokesman declined to comment on the issue.

"ODNI is not arguing that the agency (CIA) is wrong, only that they can't prove intent," said one of the three U.S. officials. "Of course they can't, absent agents in on the decision-making in Moscow."

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose evidentiary standards require it to make cases that can stand up in court, declined to accept the CIA's analysis - a deductive assessment of the available intelligence - for the same reason, the three officials said."

Exclusive: Top U.S. spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hacking - sources

Of course, the while thing is preposterous since there is nothing in the Wikileaks emails that could have conceivably influenced the elections, so if their goal was to influence the election, why would they publish things that wouldn't do that? Clinton's email problems came from her handling of the controversy over her secret private server, not from Wikileaks.

Obama is now attacking the media for treating Clinton unfairly by reporting the content of the hacked emails. Apparently, the President believes that fair elections can only be had if the media ignores news that is unfavorable to Democrats. It is disturbing that man with such a mindset has been president for eight years.

And what they said, as you've posted is "ODNI is not arguing that the agency (CIA) is wrong"

The evidence that there is hacking appears to be there, what isn't there is enough proof of INTENT TO HELP TRUMP.

Actually, there's more than that that isn't there. No one has said that there is evidence the alleged Russia hacks produced the emails that were published by Wikileaks. There could have been other hacks or leaks that produced these emails. We all know Republicans and Democrats spy on each other during election campaigns and there were many outraged Sanders supporters who believed the DNC had cheated Sanders out of the nomination who would likely have jumped at the opportunity to expose DNC secrets and abuses. Keep in mind that none of the Wikileaks emails were damaging to Clinton, contrary to the propaganda coming from the WH and Clinton campaign, but they were often very damaging to the DNC the Sanders supporters hated. The only real casualty of the Wikileaks emails was Wasserman-Schultz.

 

[Eloy]

It is debatable whether stolen emails can ethically be published especially if they serve the purposes of a foreign government.

So you agree with Obama that it is unethical to provide voters with relevant facts.

That would depend on whether publishing stolen emails is designed to further the aims of a foreign government, for example to get a Friend of Russia to become the president of the United States.

So now you agree with Obama that the US media had entered into a conspiracy with Russia to attack Clinton with innocuous stolen emails.

If that is what President Obama said, I believe he is wrong. I do believe, however, that FOX News and hate radio, in their desire to see that Hillary Clinton lost the election did become unwitting agents of Russia.

But of course, you have no reason to believe that.

Indeed there is a good reason to believe FOX News and hate radio produces nothing but spin and propaganda. Since the Russians, on the invitation of minority president-elect Trump, hacked into the Democrats' computers and leaked information to American media some of which were delighted to do as the Russians wished. Americans have been utterly abused by loudmouths who have destroyed all civil standards.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You don't know that. One thing is proof, another is proof they're willing to give and jeopardize their sources.

The ODNI said there was no proof.

Where did they say this?

"While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named.

The position of the ODNI, which oversees the 17 agency-strong U.S. intelligence community, could give Trump fresh ammunition to dispute the CIA assessment, which he rejected as "ridiculous" in weekend remarks, and press his assertion that no evidence implicates Russia in the cyber attacks.

Trump's rejection of the CIA's judgment marks the latest in a string of disputes over Russia's international conduct that have erupted between the president-elect and the intelligence community he will soon command.

An ODNI spokesman declined to comment on the issue.

"ODNI is not arguing that the agency (CIA) is wrong, only that they can't prove intent," said one of the three U.S. officials. "Of course they can't, absent agents in on the decision-making in Moscow."

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose evidentiary standards require it to make cases that can stand up in court, declined to accept the CIA's analysis - a deductive assessment of the available intelligence - for the same reason, the three officials said."

Exclusive: Top U.S. spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hacking - sources

Of course, the while thing is preposterous since there is nothing in the Wikileaks emails that could have conceivably influenced the elections, so if their goal was to influence the election, why would they publish things that wouldn't do that? Clinton's email problems came from her handling of the controversy over her secret private server, not from Wikileaks.

Obama is now attacking the media for treating Clinton unfairly by reporting the content of the hacked emails. Apparently, the President believes that fair elections can only be had if the media ignores news that is unfavorable to Democrats. It is disturbing that man with such a mindset has been president for eight years.

And what they said, as you've posted is "ODNI is not arguing that the agency (CIA) is wrong"

The evidence that there is hacking appears to be there, what isn't there is enough proof of INTENT TO HELP TRUMP.

Actually, there's more than that that isn't there. No one has said that there is evidence the alleged Russia hacks produced the emails that were published by Wikileaks. There could have been other hacks or leaks that produced these emails. We all know Republicans and Democrats spy on each other during election campaigns and there were many outraged Sanders supporters who believed the DNC had cheated Sanders out of the nomination who would likely have jumped at the opportunity to expose DNC secrets and abuses. Keep in mind that none of the Wikileaks emails were damaging to Clinton, contrary to the propaganda coming from the WH and Clinton campaign, but they were often very damaging to the DNC the Sanders supporters hated. The only real casualty of the Wikileaks emails was Wasserman-Schultz.

Sure, but then again no one actually knows what the hacking entails either. Hacking of the DNC websites is one thing, would Sander's people want to give Trump a lift? Why not wait until after the elect then release the things when more people would take notice?

Election based systems were scanned.

Why the US fears Russia is hacking its presidential election - BBC News

"A number of US states have also reported scanning and probing of election related systems - such as voter databases."

Why would Sander's people do this? This is more likely the work of people who don't know about these systems, say, a foreign govt.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The ODNI said there was no proof.

Where did they say this?

"While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named.

The position of the ODNI, which oversees the 17 agency-strong U.S. intelligence community, could give Trump fresh ammunition to dispute the CIA assessment, which he rejected as "ridiculous" in weekend remarks, and press his assertion that no evidence implicates Russia in the cyber attacks.

Trump's rejection of the CIA's judgment marks the latest in a string of disputes over Russia's international conduct that have erupted between the president-elect and the intelligence community he will soon command.

An ODNI spokesman declined to comment on the issue.

"ODNI is not arguing that the agency (CIA) is wrong, only that they can't prove intent," said one of the three U.S. officials. "Of course they can't, absent agents in on the decision-making in Moscow."

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose evidentiary standards require it to make cases that can stand up in court, declined to accept the CIA's analysis - a deductive assessment of the available intelligence - for the same reason, the three officials said."

Exclusive: Top U.S. spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hacking - sources

Of course, the while thing is preposterous since there is nothing in the Wikileaks emails that could have conceivably influenced the elections, so if their goal was to influence the election, why would they publish things that wouldn't do that? Clinton's email problems came from her handling of the controversy over her secret private server, not from Wikileaks.

Obama is now attacking the media for treating Clinton unfairly by reporting the content of the hacked emails. Apparently, the President believes that fair elections can only be had if the media ignores news that is unfavorable to Democrats. It is disturbing that man with such a mindset has been president for eight years.

And what they said, as you've posted is "ODNI is not arguing that the agency (CIA) is wrong"

The evidence that there is hacking appears to be there, what isn't there is enough proof of INTENT TO HELP TRUMP.

Actually, there's more than that that isn't there. No one has said that there is evidence the alleged Russia hacks produced the emails that were published by Wikileaks. There could have been other hacks or leaks that produced these emails. We all know Republicans and Democrats spy on each other during election campaigns and there were many outraged Sanders supporters who believed the DNC had cheated Sanders out of the nomination who would likely have jumped at the opportunity to expose DNC secrets and abuses. Keep in mind that none of the Wikileaks emails were damaging to Clinton, contrary to the propaganda coming from the WH and Clinton campaign, but they were often very damaging to the DNC the Sanders supporters hated. The only real casualty of the Wikileaks emails was Wasserman-Schultz.

Sure, but then again no one actually knows what the hacking entails either. Hacking of the DNC websites is one thing, would Sander's people want to give Trump a lift? Why not wait until after the elect then release the things when more people would take notice?

Election based systems were scanned.

Why the US fears Russia is hacking its presidential election - BBC News

"A number of US states have also reported scanning and probing of election related systems - such as voter databases."

Why would Sander's people do this? This is more likely the work of people who don't know about these systems, say, a foreign govt.

The hacks of the DNC did not hurt Clinton or help Trump, they did hurt some in the leadership of the Party, the very people Sanders supporters accused of cheating them.