The NSA did the hacking

[S.J.]

It's all just speculation by everyone. Both sides.

Uh, it isn't "speculation," special one. It's a fact that Russia hacked the DNC emails and wanted to sway the election to Donald Putin.

No. It's a wish by the liberals whom can't own up to the fact that Hillary was a terrible candidate and is trying to blame everyone and everything but her.

No, it's a FACT confirmed by government intelligence officials and the president himself. Deal with it.

It's not a fact. It's political spin.

Got evidence, fruitcake? Post EVIDENCE from a RELIABLE SOURCE -- or GTFO.

Do YOU have evidence that Russia did any hacking? No? I didn't think so.

 

[SYTFE]

Uh, it isn't "speculation," special one. It's a fact that Russia hacked the DNC emails and wanted to sway the election to Donald Putin.

No. It's a wish by the liberals whom can't own up to the fact that Hillary was a terrible candidate and is trying to blame everyone and everything but her.

No, it's a FACT confirmed by government intelligence officials and the president himself. Deal with it.

It's not a fact. It's political spin.

Got evidence, fruitcake? Post EVIDENCE from a RELIABLE SOURCE -- or GTFO.

Do YOU have evidence that Russia did any hacking? No? I didn't think so.

LOL, as a matter of fact, I do -- dipshit. The FBI, CIA and DNI are ALL in agreement that Russia hacked the USA.

Right here, toots: Breaking: FBI BACKS CIA View that Russia Intervened to Help Trump Win Election

 

[S.J.]

No. It's a wish by the liberals whom can't own up to the fact that Hillary was a terrible candidate and is trying to blame everyone and everything but her.

No, it's a FACT confirmed by government intelligence officials and the president himself. Deal with it.

It's not a fact. It's political spin.

Got evidence, fruitcake? Post EVIDENCE from a RELIABLE SOURCE -- or GTFO.

Do YOU have evidence that Russia did any hacking? No? I didn't think so.

LOL, as a matter of fact, I do -- dipshit. The FBI, CIA and DNI are ALL in agreement that Russia hacked the USA.

Right here, toots: Breaking: FBI BACKS CIA View that Russia Intervened to Help Trump Win Election

Being in agreement with someone else's view is not evidence, dipshit.

 

[ClosedCaption]

It does make sense, and there's far more evidence of it than there is to support the Russia claim (which is none).

Let me get this straight.

Our intelligence agencies have said Russia hacked the DNC, but you are choosing to bleev a story which was just made up out of whole cloth instead.

Here's the best part. You are choosing to bleev this just now made up story because...wait for iiiiiit...you say there is no evidence for the Russian hacking.

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!

Thank you for once again demonstrating the profound stupidity and incredible gullibility of Trump's Chumps. Anyone anywhere can make up ANYTHING and you will bleev it if it aligns with your completely empty philosophy.

"I want to bleev it, so it must be true!"

If there was any truth to the Russian hacking story they would be briefing Congress on it. Why don't they show them the evidence?

Answer: They don't HAVE any evidence, they just want the ELECTORS to THINK they have evidence in the hopes that they will cast their votes for Hillary instead of Trump on Dec. 19. That's the only guarantee they have of staying out of prison.

I'll ask again: If they don't brief Congress, is that suspicious? If they do brief Congress will that exonerate them?

Depends on what they say. What they provide. if there is REALLY evidence why won't they show it to Congress, failure to brief tells me they have none and this is a political ploy engineered by Obama and his appointees.

Of course it depends. So I'll ask again. If they didn't brief Congress would that be suspicious? And in turn if they did brief Congress would that exonerate them?

 

[ClosedCaption]

It does make sense, and there's far more evidence of it than there is to support the Russia claim (which is none).

Let me get this straight.

Our intelligence agencies have said Russia hacked the DNC, but you are choosing to bleev a story which was just made up out of whole cloth instead.

Here's the best part. You are choosing to bleev this just now made up story because...wait for iiiiiit...you say there is no evidence for the Russian hacking.

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!

Thank you for once again demonstrating the profound stupidity and incredible gullibility of Trump's Chumps. Anyone anywhere can make up ANYTHING and you will bleev it if it aligns with your completely empty philosophy.

"I want to bleev it, so it must be true!"

If there was any truth to the Russian hacking story they would be briefing Congress on it. Why don't they show them the evidence?

Answer: They don't HAVE any evidence, they just want the ELECTORS to THINK they have evidence in the hopes that they will cast their votes for Hillary instead of Trump on Dec. 19. That's the only guarantee they have of staying out of prison.

I'll ask again: If they don't brief Congress, is that suspicious? If they do brief Congress will that exonerate them?

A briefing could consist of them simply repeating the claim but not showing the evidence, so no, it would not necessarily exonerate them. If they show proof, that would be different but if they had proof they would have already shown it.

Again, If they've shown proof to Congress would that exonerate them?

Because right now you're saying that not showing proof means they don't have proof. Right? Or will you wiggle around on the floor some more?

 

[CMike]

No. It's a wish by the liberals whom can't own up to the fact that Hillary was a terrible candidate and is trying to blame everyone and everything but her.

No, it's a FACT confirmed by government intelligence officials and the president himself. Deal with it.

It's not a fact. It's political spin.

Got evidence, fruitcake? Post EVIDENCE from a RELIABLE SOURCE -- or GTFO.

Do YOU have evidence that Russia did any hacking? No? I didn't think so.

LOL, as a matter of fact, I do -- dipshit. The FBI, CIA and DNI are ALL in agreement that Russia hacked the USA.

Right here, toots: Breaking: FBI BACKS CIA View that Russia Intervened to Help Trump Win Election

Even assuming that's true, the DOJ and FBI were corrupted as we saw by the Hillary coverup.

Therefore, I believe that what they say is political and ordered by the Obama regime.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It does make sense, and there's far more evidence of it than there is to support the Russia claim (which is none).

Let me get this straight.

Our intelligence agencies have said Russia hacked the DNC, but you are choosing to bleev a story which was just made up out of whole cloth instead.

Here's the best part. You are choosing to bleev this just now made up story because...wait for iiiiiit...you say there is no evidence for the Russian hacking.

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!

Thank you for once again demonstrating the profound stupidity and incredible gullibility of Trump's Chumps. Anyone anywhere can make up ANYTHING and you will bleev it if it aligns with your completely empty philosophy.

"I want to bleev it, so it must be true!"

If there was any truth to the Russian hacking story they would be briefing Congress on it. Why don't they show them the evidence?

Answer: They don't HAVE any evidence, they just want the ELECTORS to THINK they have evidence in the hopes that they will cast their votes for Hillary instead of Trump on Dec. 19. That's the only guarantee they have of staying out of prison.

I'll ask again: If they don't brief Congress, is that suspicious? If they do brief Congress will that exonerate them?

Depends on what they say. What they provide. if there is REALLY evidence why won't they show it to Congress, failure to brief tells me they have none and this is a political ploy engineered by Obama and his appointees.

Of course it depends. So I'll ask again. If they didn't brief Congress would that be suspicious? And in turn if they did brief Congress would that exonerate them?

And again NOT briefing congress is PROOF they have no evidence if they brief them it would depend on what they said and what they provided. One can brief someone with out providing any evidence to support the brief.

 

[S.J.]

It does make sense, and there's far more evidence of it than there is to support the Russia claim (which is none).

Let me get this straight.

Our intelligence agencies have said Russia hacked the DNC, but you are choosing to bleev a story which was just made up out of whole cloth instead.

Here's the best part. You are choosing to bleev this just now made up story because...wait for iiiiiit...you say there is no evidence for the Russian hacking.

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!

Thank you for once again demonstrating the profound stupidity and incredible gullibility of Trump's Chumps. Anyone anywhere can make up ANYTHING and you will bleev it if it aligns with your completely empty philosophy.

"I want to bleev it, so it must be true!"

If there was any truth to the Russian hacking story they would be briefing Congress on it. Why don't they show them the evidence?

Answer: They don't HAVE any evidence, they just want the ELECTORS to THINK they have evidence in the hopes that they will cast their votes for Hillary instead of Trump on Dec. 19. That's the only guarantee they have of staying out of prison.

I'll ask again: If they don't brief Congress, is that suspicious? If they do brief Congress will that exonerate them?

A briefing could consist of them simply repeating the claim but not showing the evidence, so no, it would not necessarily exonerate them. If they show proof, that would be different but if they had proof they would have already shown it.

Again, If they've shown proof to Congress would that exonerate them?

Because right now you're saying that not showing proof means they don't have proof. Right? Or will you wiggle around on the floor some more?

Now you're changing your question. First you said "If they BRIEF Congress will that exonerate them?". Now you're saying "If they've SHOWN PROOF to Congress would that exonerate them?".
How about if you decide what your fucking question is, THEN ask it?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Let me get this straight.

Our intelligence agencies have said Russia hacked the DNC, but you are choosing to bleev a story which was just made up out of whole cloth instead.

Here's the best part. You are choosing to bleev this just now made up story because...wait for iiiiiit...you say there is no evidence for the Russian hacking.

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!

Thank you for once again demonstrating the profound stupidity and incredible gullibility of Trump's Chumps. Anyone anywhere can make up ANYTHING and you will bleev it if it aligns with your completely empty philosophy.

"I want to bleev it, so it must be true!"

If there was any truth to the Russian hacking story they would be briefing Congress on it. Why don't they show them the evidence?

Answer: They don't HAVE any evidence, they just want the ELECTORS to THINK they have evidence in the hopes that they will cast their votes for Hillary instead of Trump on Dec. 19. That's the only guarantee they have of staying out of prison.

I'll ask again: If they don't brief Congress, is that suspicious? If they do brief Congress will that exonerate them?

A briefing could consist of them simply repeating the claim but not showing the evidence, so no, it would not necessarily exonerate them. If they show proof, that would be different but if they had proof they would have already shown it.

Again, If they've shown proof to Congress would that exonerate them?

Because right now you're saying that not showing proof means they don't have proof. Right? Or will you wiggle around on the floor some more?

Now you're changing your question. First you said "If they BRIEF Congress will that exonerate them?". Now you're saying "If they've SHOWN PROOF to Congress would that exonerate them?".
How about if you decide what your fucking question is, THEN ask it?

I'll be fair. Pick one and answer it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If there was any truth to the Russian hacking story they would be briefing Congress on it. Why don't they show them the evidence?

Answer: They don't HAVE any evidence, they just want the ELECTORS to THINK they have evidence in the hopes that they will cast their votes for Hillary instead of Trump on Dec. 19. That's the only guarantee they have of staying out of prison.

I'll ask again: If they don't brief Congress, is that suspicious? If they do brief Congress will that exonerate them?

A briefing could consist of them simply repeating the claim but not showing the evidence, so no, it would not necessarily exonerate them. If they show proof, that would be different but if they had proof they would have already shown it.

Again, If they've shown proof to Congress would that exonerate them?

Because right now you're saying that not showing proof means they don't have proof. Right? Or will you wiggle around on the floor some more?

Now you're changing your question. First you said "If they BRIEF Congress will that exonerate them?". Now you're saying "If they've SHOWN PROOF to Congress would that exonerate them?".
How about if you decide what your fucking question is, THEN ask it?

I'll be fair. Pick one and answer it.

I answered your question if they fail to provide actual evidence to Congress then that means they have none. A brief can be given without any actual evidence presented. But in this case the agencies did not even show up to brief them, perhaps you can tell us what they are hiding?

 

[S.J.]

If there was any truth to the Russian hacking story they would be briefing Congress on it. Why don't they show them the evidence?

Answer: They don't HAVE any evidence, they just want the ELECTORS to THINK they have evidence in the hopes that they will cast their votes for Hillary instead of Trump on Dec. 19. That's the only guarantee they have of staying out of prison.

I'll ask again: If they don't brief Congress, is that suspicious? If they do brief Congress will that exonerate them?

A briefing could consist of them simply repeating the claim but not showing the evidence, so no, it would not necessarily exonerate them. If they show proof, that would be different but if they had proof they would have already shown it.

Again, If they've shown proof to Congress would that exonerate them?

Because right now you're saying that not showing proof means they don't have proof. Right? Or will you wiggle around on the floor some more?

Now you're changing your question. First you said "If they BRIEF Congress will that exonerate them?". Now you're saying "If they've SHOWN PROOF to Congress would that exonerate them?".
How about if you decide what your fucking question is, THEN ask it?

I'll be fair. Pick one and answer it.

What, you can't decide what you want to ask?