Trumpers New Defense: Anyone Except the Russians could've done it!

[ClosedCaption]

Or their newest one is: Intel agencies find hacks but disagree with the conclusions so they just respond that the Washington Post lied.....ABOUT THE WHOLE THING!!

 

[toomuchtime_]

Or their newest one is: Intel agencies find hacks but disagree with the conclusions so they just respond that the Washington Post lied.....ABOUT THE WHOLE THING!!

The FBI has also dismissed the claims by Obama's CIA that Russia attempted to influence the election.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Or their newest one is: Intel agencies find hacks but disagree with the conclusions so they just respond that the Washington Post lied.....ABOUT THE WHOLE THING!!

The FBI has also dismissed the claims by Obama's CIA that Russia attempted to influence the election.

Of course they did except you forgot to link it. Purely by mistake

 

[MACAULAY]

All the "Trumpers" need for this newest example of Looney Liberal Dumbass Desperation is a Fly Swatter.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Or their newest one is: Intel agencies find hacks but disagree with the conclusions so they just respond that the Washington Post lied.....ABOUT THE WHOLE THING!!

The FBI has also dismissed the claims by Obama's CIA that Russia attempted to influence the election.

Of course they did except you forgot to link it. Purely by mistake

If you have been paying attention to the news, there should be no need for a link, however, since you seem to lack enough interest in this issue to read the news,

"The FBI does not dispute that the CIA's assessment could be accurate, said a U.S. official with knowledge of the matter. The difference lies in the institutional standards the agencies require in reaching such conclusions. While the CIA develops assessments based on a broad interpretation of available data, the FBI, as a law enforcement agency, requires a standard of proof that could sustain a possible criminal prosecution.

There have been differences, the official said, in how much weight to ascribe a range of possible motives: Were the Russians specifically seeking to tilt the election in favor of Trump? Was the effort designed to damage Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's future ability to govern, believing that she was destined to win? Or was the operation a hedging of bets to sow confusion and undermine confidence in the process?

Of the assessment that the Republican Party systems were likely breached, the official said the picture is not entirely clear. While not dismissing the intelligence community's conclusion, the official said a more definitive determination has not yet been reached.

Q&A: Why the CIA, FBI differ on Russian election hacking

In other words, in the FBI's assessment of the evidence, there is sufficient evidence for speculation about the motives behind the hacks, but not enough to reach a conclusion.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Or their newest one is: Intel agencies find hacks but disagree with the conclusions so they just respond that the Washington Post lied.....ABOUT THE WHOLE THING!!

The FBI has also dismissed the claims by Obama's CIA that Russia attempted to influence the election.

Of course they did except you forgot to link it. Purely by mistake

If you have been paying attention to the news, there should be no need for a link, however, since you seem to lack enough interest in this issue to read the news,

"The FBI does not dispute that the CIA's assessment could be accurate, said a U.S. official with knowledge of the matter. The difference lies in the institutional standards the agencies require in reaching such conclusions. While the CIA develops assessments based on a broad interpretation of available data, the FBI, as a law enforcement agency, requires a standard of proof that could sustain a possible criminal prosecution.

There have been differences, the official said, in how much weight to ascribe a range of possible motives: Were the Russians specifically seeking to tilt the election in favor of Trump? Was the effort designed to damage Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's future ability to govern, believing that she was destined to win? Or was the operation a hedging of bets to sow confusion and undermine confidence in the process?

Of the assessment that the Republican Party systems were likely breached, the official said the picture is not entirely clear. While not dismissing the intelligence community's conclusion, the official said a more definitive determination has not yet been reached.

Q&A: Why the CIA, FBI differ on Russian election hacking

In other words, in the FBI's assessment of the evidence, there is sufficient evidence for speculation about the motives behind the hacks, but not enough to reach a conclusion.

Lets focus on what you posted here:

The FBI does not dispute that the CIA's assessment could be accurate, said a U.S. official with knowledge of the matter. The difference lies in the institutional standards the agencies require in reaching such conclusions. While the CIA develops assessments based on a broad interpretation of available data, the FBI, as a law enforcement agency, requires a standard of proof that could sustain a possible criminal prosecution.

You said the FBI dismissed the CIA's claims and as proof you provide a link that says the FBI does not dispute that the CIA's assessment could be accurate. And follows with saying they dont disagree they only have...From your link: The difference lies in the institutional standards the agencies require in reaching such conclusions.

So they have different standards to come to conclusions. Not that they disagree with "Obama's CIA" at all. Thats why I love asking you guys for links. It always says something different than what you claim and then you guys are forced to use the "what they are really saying" defense

 

[Tank]

That's how great Trump is, even a whole other country voted for him

 

[toomuchtime_]

Or their newest one is: Intel agencies find hacks but disagree with the conclusions so they just respond that the Washington Post lied.....ABOUT THE WHOLE THING!!

The FBI has also dismissed the claims by Obama's CIA that Russia attempted to influence the election.

Of course they did except you forgot to link it. Purely by mistake

If you have been paying attention to the news, there should be no need for a link, however, since you seem to lack enough interest in this issue to read the news,

"The FBI does not dispute that the CIA's assessment could be accurate, said a U.S. official with knowledge of the matter. The difference lies in the institutional standards the agencies require in reaching such conclusions. While the CIA develops assessments based on a broad interpretation of available data, the FBI, as a law enforcement agency, requires a standard of proof that could sustain a possible criminal prosecution.

There have been differences, the official said, in how much weight to ascribe a range of possible motives: Were the Russians specifically seeking to tilt the election in favor of Trump? Was the effort designed to damage Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's future ability to govern, believing that she was destined to win? Or was the operation a hedging of bets to sow confusion and undermine confidence in the process?

Of the assessment that the Republican Party systems were likely breached, the official said the picture is not entirely clear. While not dismissing the intelligence community's conclusion, the official said a more definitive determination has not yet been reached.

Q&A: Why the CIA, FBI differ on Russian election hacking

In other words, in the FBI's assessment of the evidence, there is sufficient evidence for speculation about the motives behind the hacks, but not enough to reach a conclusion.

Lets focus on what you posted here:

The FBI does not dispute that the CIA's assessment could be accurate, said a U.S. official with knowledge of the matter. The difference lies in the institutional standards the agencies require in reaching such conclusions. While the CIA develops assessments based on a broad interpretation of available data, the FBI, as a law enforcement agency, requires a standard of proof that could sustain a possible criminal prosecution.

You said the FBI dismissed the CIA's claims and as proof you provide a link that says the FBI does not dispute that the CIA's assessment could be accurate. And follows with saying they dont disagree they only have...From your link: The difference lies in the institutional standards the agencies require in reaching such conclusions.

So they have different standards to come to conclusions. Not that they disagree with "Obama's CIA" at all. Thats why I love asking you guys for links. It always says something different than what you claim and then you guys are forced to use the "what they are really saying" defense

Yes, different standards, the FBI demands proof before reaching conclusions and the CIA makes their best guess based on what evidence they have. That means there is no proof Russia tried to intervene in the election, but it is one possibility.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Or their newest one is: Intel agencies find hacks but disagree with the conclusions so they just respond that the Washington Post lied.....ABOUT THE WHOLE THING!!

The FBI has also dismissed the claims by Obama's CIA that Russia attempted to influence the election.

Of course they did except you forgot to link it. Purely by mistake

If you have been paying attention to the news, there should be no need for a link, however, since you seem to lack enough interest in this issue to read the news,

"The FBI does not dispute that the CIA's assessment could be accurate, said a U.S. official with knowledge of the matter. The difference lies in the institutional standards the agencies require in reaching such conclusions. While the CIA develops assessments based on a broad interpretation of available data, the FBI, as a law enforcement agency, requires a standard of proof that could sustain a possible criminal prosecution.

There have been differences, the official said, in how much weight to ascribe a range of possible motives: Were the Russians specifically seeking to tilt the election in favor of Trump? Was the effort designed to damage Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's future ability to govern, believing that she was destined to win? Or was the operation a hedging of bets to sow confusion and undermine confidence in the process?

Of the assessment that the Republican Party systems were likely breached, the official said the picture is not entirely clear. While not dismissing the intelligence community's conclusion, the official said a more definitive determination has not yet been reached.

Q&A: Why the CIA, FBI differ on Russian election hacking

In other words, in the FBI's assessment of the evidence, there is sufficient evidence for speculation about the motives behind the hacks, but not enough to reach a conclusion.

Lets focus on what you posted here:

The FBI does not dispute that the CIA's assessment could be accurate, said a U.S. official with knowledge of the matter. The difference lies in the institutional standards the agencies require in reaching such conclusions. While the CIA develops assessments based on a broad interpretation of available data, the FBI, as a law enforcement agency, requires a standard of proof that could sustain a possible criminal prosecution.

You said the FBI dismissed the CIA's claims and as proof you provide a link that says the FBI does not dispute that the CIA's assessment could be accurate. And follows with saying they dont disagree they only have...From your link: The difference lies in the institutional standards the agencies require in reaching such conclusions.

So they have different standards to come to conclusions. Not that they disagree with "Obama's CIA" at all. Thats why I love asking you guys for links. It always says something different than what you claim and then you guys are forced to use the "what they are really saying" defense

Yes, different standards, the FBI demands proof before reaching conclusions and the CIA makes their best guess based on what evidence they have. That means there is no proof Russia tried to intervene in the election, but it is one possibility.

See? Thats not what your link says...Its says (this is what you posted)

"the FBI, as a law enforcement agency, requires a standard of proof that could sustain a possible criminal prosecution."

They have proof as it says right there. I already predicted you would try to translate English but its clear what it says.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The FBI has also dismissed the claims by Obama's CIA that Russia attempted to influence the election.

Of course they did except you forgot to link it. Purely by mistake

If you have been paying attention to the news, there should be no need for a link, however, since you seem to lack enough interest in this issue to read the news,

"The FBI does not dispute that the CIA's assessment could be accurate, said a U.S. official with knowledge of the matter. The difference lies in the institutional standards the agencies require in reaching such conclusions. While the CIA develops assessments based on a broad interpretation of available data, the FBI, as a law enforcement agency, requires a standard of proof that could sustain a possible criminal prosecution.

There have been differences, the official said, in how much weight to ascribe a range of possible motives: Were the Russians specifically seeking to tilt the election in favor of Trump? Was the effort designed to damage Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's future ability to govern, believing that she was destined to win? Or was the operation a hedging of bets to sow confusion and undermine confidence in the process?

Of the assessment that the Republican Party systems were likely breached, the official said the picture is not entirely clear. While not dismissing the intelligence community's conclusion, the official said a more definitive determination has not yet been reached.

Q&A: Why the CIA, FBI differ on Russian election hacking

In other words, in the FBI's assessment of the evidence, there is sufficient evidence for speculation about the motives behind the hacks, but not enough to reach a conclusion.

Lets focus on what you posted here:

The FBI does not dispute that the CIA's assessment could be accurate, said a U.S. official with knowledge of the matter. The difference lies in the institutional standards the agencies require in reaching such conclusions. While the CIA develops assessments based on a broad interpretation of available data, the FBI, as a law enforcement agency, requires a standard of proof that could sustain a possible criminal prosecution.

You said the FBI dismissed the CIA's claims and as proof you provide a link that says the FBI does not dispute that the CIA's assessment could be accurate. And follows with saying they dont disagree they only have...From your link: The difference lies in the institutional standards the agencies require in reaching such conclusions.

So they have different standards to come to conclusions. Not that they disagree with "Obama's CIA" at all. Thats why I love asking you guys for links. It always says something different than what you claim and then you guys are forced to use the "what they are really saying" defense

Yes, different standards, the FBI demands proof before reaching conclusions and the CIA makes their best guess based on what evidence they have. That means there is no proof Russia tried to intervene in the election, but it is one possibility.

See? Thats not what your link says...Its says (this is what you posted)

"the FBI, as a law enforcement agency, requires a standard of proof that could sustain a possible criminal prosecution."

They have proof as it says right there. I already predicted you would try to translate English but its clear what it says.

We are saying the same thing: the FBI requires proof before coming to a conclusion and the CIA makes its best guess on the basis of whatever evidence it has. Since this is not an emergency situation, what do you think moved the CIA to release its speculations about the motives about the hacks before waiting for proof? The point is that even if it were true, what could the US do about it? Nothing, so what was the point of making this claim publicly if it weren't a purely political act?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Of course they did except you forgot to link it. Purely by mistake

If you have been paying attention to the news, there should be no need for a link, however, since you seem to lack enough interest in this issue to read the news,

"The FBI does not dispute that the CIA's assessment could be accurate, said a U.S. official with knowledge of the matter. The difference lies in the institutional standards the agencies require in reaching such conclusions. While the CIA develops assessments based on a broad interpretation of available data, the FBI, as a law enforcement agency, requires a standard of proof that could sustain a possible criminal prosecution.

There have been differences, the official said, in how much weight to ascribe a range of possible motives: Were the Russians specifically seeking to tilt the election in favor of Trump? Was the effort designed to damage Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's future ability to govern, believing that she was destined to win? Or was the operation a hedging of bets to sow confusion and undermine confidence in the process?

Of the assessment that the Republican Party systems were likely breached, the official said the picture is not entirely clear. While not dismissing the intelligence community's conclusion, the official said a more definitive determination has not yet been reached.

Q&A: Why the CIA, FBI differ on Russian election hacking

In other words, in the FBI's assessment of the evidence, there is sufficient evidence for speculation about the motives behind the hacks, but not enough to reach a conclusion.

Lets focus on what you posted here:

The FBI does not dispute that the CIA's assessment could be accurate, said a U.S. official with knowledge of the matter. The difference lies in the institutional standards the agencies require in reaching such conclusions. While the CIA develops assessments based on a broad interpretation of available data, the FBI, as a law enforcement agency, requires a standard of proof that could sustain a possible criminal prosecution.

You said the FBI dismissed the CIA's claims and as proof you provide a link that says the FBI does not dispute that the CIA's assessment could be accurate. And follows with saying they dont disagree they only have...From your link: The difference lies in the institutional standards the agencies require in reaching such conclusions.

So they have different standards to come to conclusions. Not that they disagree with "Obama's CIA" at all. Thats why I love asking you guys for links. It always says something different than what you claim and then you guys are forced to use the "what they are really saying" defense

Yes, different standards, the FBI demands proof before reaching conclusions and the CIA makes their best guess based on what evidence they have. That means there is no proof Russia tried to intervene in the election, but it is one possibility.

See? Thats not what your link says...Its says (this is what you posted)

"the FBI, as a law enforcement agency, requires a standard of proof that could sustain a possible criminal prosecution."

They have proof as it says right there. I already predicted you would try to translate English but its clear what it says.

We are saying the same thing: the FBI requires proof before coming to a conclusion

You keep trying to say this and ignore what you quoted. The FBI has proof. The FBI cannot come to same conclusion because as a law enforcement agency they require a HIGHER standard that COULD SUSTAIN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.

No where does it say the FBI doesnt have proof. Didnt I tell you you would try this before you even did it?

 

[Contumacious]

Or their newest one is: Intel agencies find hacks but disagree with the conclusions so they just respond that the Washington Post lied.....ABOUT THE WHOLE THING!!

The FBI has also dismissed the claims by Obama's CIA that Russia attempted to influence the election.

Of course they did except you forgot to link it. Purely by mistake

If you have been paying attention to the news, there should be no need for a link, however, since you seem to lack enough interest in this issue to read the news,

"The FBI does not dispute that the CIA's assessment could be accurate, said a U.S. official with knowledge of the matter. The difference lies in the institutional standards the agencies require in reaching such conclusions. While the CIA develops assessments based on a broad interpretation of available data, the FBI, as a law enforcement agency, requires a standard of proof that could sustain a possible criminal prosecution.

There have been differences, the official said, in how much weight to ascribe a range of possible motives: Were the Russians specifically seeking to tilt the election in favor of Trump? Was the effort designed to damage Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's future ability to govern, believing that she was destined to win? Or was the operation a hedging of bets to sow confusion and undermine confidence in the process?

Of the assessment that the Republican Party systems were likely breached, the official said the picture is not entirely clear. While not dismissing the intelligence community's conclusion, the official said a more definitive determination has not yet been reached.

Q&A: Why the CIA, FBI differ on Russian election hacking

In other words, in the FBI's assessment of the evidence, there is sufficient evidence for speculation about the motives behind the hacks, but not enough to reach a conclusion.

Lets focus on what you posted here:

The FBI does not dispute that the CIA's assessment could be accurate, said a U.S. official with knowledge of the matter. The difference lies in the institutional standards the agencies require in reaching such conclusions. While the CIA develops assessments based on a broad interpretation of available data, the FBI, as a law enforcement agency, requires a standard of proof that could sustain a possible criminal prosecution.

You said the FBI dismissed the CIA's claims and as proof you provide a link that says the FBI does not dispute that the CIA's assessment could be accurate. And follows with saying they dont disagree they only have...From your link: The difference lies in the institutional standards the agencies require in reaching such conclusions.

So they have different standards to come to conclusions. Not that they disagree with "Obama's CIA" at all. Thats why I love asking you guys for links. It always says something different than what you claim and then you guys are forced to use the "what they are really saying" defense

Listen Dingleberry

BOTH the FBI and the CIA depend on the NSA to identify the Hacker and the Hackee. The NSA states they have NO EVIDENCE that a hacking took effect.

If the information was LEAKED oh, well, hire more reliable employees next time.

Meanwhile, shut the fuck up.

.

 

[toomuchtime_]

If you have been paying attention to the news, there should be no need for a link, however, since you seem to lack enough interest in this issue to read the news,

"The FBI does not dispute that the CIA's assessment could be accurate, said a U.S. official with knowledge of the matter. The difference lies in the institutional standards the agencies require in reaching such conclusions. While the CIA develops assessments based on a broad interpretation of available data, the FBI, as a law enforcement agency, requires a standard of proof that could sustain a possible criminal prosecution.

There have been differences, the official said, in how much weight to ascribe a range of possible motives: Were the Russians specifically seeking to tilt the election in favor of Trump? Was the effort designed to damage Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's future ability to govern, believing that she was destined to win? Or was the operation a hedging of bets to sow confusion and undermine confidence in the process?

Of the assessment that the Republican Party systems were likely breached, the official said the picture is not entirely clear. While not dismissing the intelligence community's conclusion, the official said a more definitive determination has not yet been reached.

Q&A: Why the CIA, FBI differ on Russian election hacking

In other words, in the FBI's assessment of the evidence, there is sufficient evidence for speculation about the motives behind the hacks, but not enough to reach a conclusion.

Lets focus on what you posted here:

The FBI does not dispute that the CIA's assessment could be accurate, said a U.S. official with knowledge of the matter. The difference lies in the institutional standards the agencies require in reaching such conclusions. While the CIA develops assessments based on a broad interpretation of available data, the FBI, as a law enforcement agency, requires a standard of proof that could sustain a possible criminal prosecution.

You said the FBI dismissed the CIA's claims and as proof you provide a link that says the FBI does not dispute that the CIA's assessment could be accurate. And follows with saying they dont disagree they only have...From your link: The difference lies in the institutional standards the agencies require in reaching such conclusions.

So they have different standards to come to conclusions. Not that they disagree with "Obama's CIA" at all. Thats why I love asking you guys for links. It always says something different than what you claim and then you guys are forced to use the "what they are really saying" defense

Yes, different standards, the FBI demands proof before reaching conclusions and the CIA makes their best guess based on what evidence they have. That means there is no proof Russia tried to intervene in the election, but it is one possibility.

See? Thats not what your link says...Its says (this is what you posted)

"the FBI, as a law enforcement agency, requires a standard of proof that could sustain a possible criminal prosecution."

They have proof as it says right there. I already predicted you would try to translate English but its clear what it says.

We are saying the same thing: the FBI requires proof before coming to a conclusion

You keep trying to say this and ignore what you quoted. The FBI has proof. The FBI cannot come to same conclusion because as a law enforcement agency they require a HIGHER standard that COULD SUSTAIN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.

No where does it say the FBI doesnt have proof. Didnt I tell you you would try this before you even did it?

It clearly says the FBI believes it has proof Russians, but not necessarily the Russian government, were responsible for at least some of the hacks, but that there is no proof that the motive was to influence the election.

 

[Tank]

Who cares, soon Trump will be the worlds President anyways

 

[tinydancer]

Trump needs no defense. None whatsoever.