what did the russians do to control the ballot box.... ?

[Cecilie1200]

maybe Putin sent in about 300,000 Russian dwarfs to break into the polling stations after midnite? and somehow they were able to break into the voting machines?

It's fascinating how republicans won't accept that it's possible for a charasmatic billionaire to release damaging information about the democdratic candidate in order to sway the electorate and change their votes.

It could be possible, but you need proof. Just like I needed proof for many other issues. Let them investigate, let them do what they need.

It could be possible that the Intel community and the FBI are lying. Not likely though.

Like that matters, since you have no idea what they actually SAID. All we ever hear from you people is what you want to believe they said.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The hacking was a crime.
It was perpetrated by a foreign govt with the intention of influencing our electoral process. It worked.

Why on Earth would you accept that type of attack on our system? Will an equivalent attack on a Republican candidate be required before you find fault with the tactic?

Many republicans welcomed Putin's interferance.

\Make sure and keep your tinfoil hat polished.

Only if you do the same with your urban legend megaphone.

 

[JohnnyApplesack]

Trump Soviet partners didn't 'control the ballot box', they heavily influenced the ballot box tally

big dif, and completely lost on the Trumpeteers

 

[Papageorgio]

"The hacking was a crime.
It was perpetrated by a foreign govt with the intention of influencing our electoral process. It worked."


Sooo......did you eat the fortune cookie after you copied this???



There is zero evidence of what you claim....either that it was a foreign govt., or that it influenced the electorate.

That makes you a liar and a fool.
True?

Facts here:

“There’s no evidence that this was done by the state itself, only evidence it was done by non-state actors that might be Russian-speaking,” said Jeffrey Carr, CEO of the cyber security consultancy firm Taia Global, referring to the evidence available to the public.

That evidence, which was released by private threat assessment companies rather than official channels, indicates hackers used Cyrillic keyboards and operated during Moscow working hours.
But indicators of identity like timestamps, language preferences and IP addresses “can be manipulated or faked rather easily,” said Juan Andres Guerrero-Saade, a senior security researcher at Kaspersky Lab."
Does the U.S. government really know who hacked Democrats' emails?


BTW....this is from PBS

You're right.
There's no investigation into Russian hacking and the nature of the relationship between Trump's people and Russian officials.

The FBI is completely wrong about this. You know the truth.

1. "You're right.
There's no investigation into Russian hacking and the nature of the relationship between Trump's people and Russian officials."

Why are you pretending that I said that?

Is it because I smacked your knuckles....again.....by proving that there is no evidence....nor will there ever be.....that "It was perpetrated by a foreign govt with the intention of influencing our electoral process. It worked."

That's your quote...and I utterly destroyed it.




2. I've noticed that you alternate between bafflement and falsification, leaving an observer with the impression of one on a bungee cord.

Or, in your case, a dope on a rope.

If there weren't evidence of it , Trump wouldn't be under investigation for his possible ties to it now would he, dope?

Just because someone's name is included in an investigation in no way 'proves' that perso did anything wrong.
GOD you're an asshole!
In ANY investigation at ANY level within the legal system there can be a thousand names listed.
Just because the name of a six month old who is the daughter of someone you witnessed a crime is 'listed' does that mean the baby is 'under investigation????
******* GROW UP!!!!

I never said anyone committed a crime or was guilty of anything, dope.

Try reading and understanding the conversation before jumping in.

You claimed they had "evidence" and that is why they are investigating. The DNC was hacked, they are looking and investigating leads. When they investigate they try to gather evidence. So they aren't investigating evidence, they are looking for evidence, and whether it exists or not.

I don't think I did.
Quote me so I have an idea of what you're referring to.
That's why that function exists.

Here you go, maybe you should read what you post.

If there weren't evidence of it , Trump wouldn't be under investigation for his possible ties to it now would he, dope?

I know what I posted. You should take an adult reader refresher.

Evidence that Russia was behind the hacking and subsequent release, dope.

If you had read a few prior posts, you would have seen that who I responded to denied that Russia was behind anything.

My question was, if it's not true, then how can Trump be under investigation for his connection to it?

It's pretty self evident. It's certainly not something you needed to chase me around over.

Until there is a link between Russia and Trump, you have nothing. There is no evidence, it is just an investigation. Like any investigation it will follow the leads. So far, like Benghazi, no link has been found. You got nothing but pure speculation and nothing else. I'm not seeing an issue here, dope.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"The hacking was a crime.
It was perpetrated by a foreign govt with the intention of influencing our electoral process. It worked."


Sooo......did you eat the fortune cookie after you copied this???



There is zero evidence of what you claim....either that it was a foreign govt., or that it influenced the electorate.

That makes you a liar and a fool.
True?

Facts here:

“There’s no evidence that this was done by the state itself, only evidence it was done by non-state actors that might be Russian-speaking,” said Jeffrey Carr, CEO of the cyber security consultancy firm Taia Global, referring to the evidence available to the public.

That evidence, which was released by private threat assessment companies rather than official channels, indicates hackers used Cyrillic keyboards and operated during Moscow working hours.
But indicators of identity like timestamps, language preferences and IP addresses “can be manipulated or faked rather easily,” said Juan Andres Guerrero-Saade, a senior security researcher at Kaspersky Lab."
Does the U.S. government really know who hacked Democrats' emails?


BTW....this is from PBS

You're right.
There's no investigation into Russian hacking and the nature of the relationship between Trump's people and Russian officials.

The FBI is completely wrong about this. You know the truth.

1. "You're right.
There's no investigation into Russian hacking and the nature of the relationship between Trump's people and Russian officials."

Why are you pretending that I said that?

Is it because I smacked your knuckles....again.....by proving that there is no evidence....nor will there ever be.....that "It was perpetrated by a foreign govt with the intention of influencing our electoral process. It worked."

That's your quote...and I utterly destroyed it.




2. I've noticed that you alternate between bafflement and falsification, leaving an observer with the impression of one on a bungee cord.

Or, in your case, a dope on a rope.

If there weren't evidence of it , Trump wouldn't be under investigation for his possible ties to it now would he, dope?

Just because someone's name is included in an investigation in no way 'proves' that perso did anything wrong.
GOD you're an asshole!
In ANY investigation at ANY level within the legal system there can be a thousand names listed.
Just because the name of a six month old who is the daughter of someone you witnessed a crime is 'listed' does that mean the baby is 'under investigation????
******* GROW UP!!!!

I never said anyone committed a crime or was guilty of anything, dope.

Try reading and understanding the conversation before jumping in.

You claimed they had "evidence" and that is why they are investigating. The DNC was hacked, they are looking and investigating leads. When they investigate they try to gather evidence. So they aren't investigating evidence, they are looking for evidence, and whether it exists or not.

I don't think I did.
Quote me so I have an idea of what you're referring to.
That's why that function exists.

Here you go, maybe you should read what you post.

If there weren't evidence of it , Trump wouldn't be under investigation for his possible ties to it now would he, dope?

I know what I posted. You should take an adult reader refresher.

Evidence that Russia was behind the hacking and subsequent release, dope.

If you had read a few prior posts, you would have seen that who I responded to denied that Russia was behind anything.

My question was, if it's not true, then how can Trump be under investigation for his connection to it?

It's pretty self evident. It's certainly not something you needed to chase me around over.

He nailed you, huh?

Rammed your own words down your stupid throat.



Seems that happened quite a bit in this thread, huh?

 

[dannyboys]

Where did I say it meant guilt?
Can you read?

PC is asserting that there is no evidence that Russia was behind the hacking and subsequent release of information.

I'm asserting that if that were true, then how can Trump be under investigation for his connection to something that isn't real?

"PC is asserting that there is no evidence that Russia was behind the hacking and subsequent release of information."

That's a fact...just as you've been revealed as a lying low-life is a fact.


Here, more folks asserting that there is no such evidencde:

"Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” former Obama Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told host Chuck Todd that he was not aware of evidence showing the Trump campaign had colluded with the Russian government to influence last November’s presidential election.

TODD: Well, that’s an important revelation at this point.

Let me ask you this, does intelligence exist that can definitively answer the following question, whether there were improper contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia officials?

CLAPPER: We did not include evidence in our report, and I say our, that’s NSA, FBI and CIA with my office, the director of national intelligence that had anything — that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was there no evidence of that including in our report.

TODD: I understand that, but does it exist?

CLAPPER: Not to my knowledge.

TODD: If it existed, it would have been in the report?

CLAPPER: This could have unfolded or become available in the time since I left the government. But at the time, we had no evidence of such collusion.


TODD: But at this point, what’s not proven is the idea of collusion?

CLAPPER: that’s correct."
Fmr Obama DNI Clapper: Evidence of Trump-Russian Collusion Doesn't Exist to His 'Knowledge' - Breitbart






-------------------------------------------------------------------

"While many Democrats frequently say Russia “hacked” the presidential election, National Security Administration Director Adm. Michael Rogers and FBI Director James Comey both confirmed today that Russian activities had no impact on tallying votes in states."
FBI, NSA: 'No evidence' Russia manipulated US vote tallying - The American Mirror


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no evidence of the slander that the Russians and the Trump campaign collaborated.....
So saith Clapper, Comey, Rogers...and Michael Morrell.

Morrell....presumed head of the CIA in a Hillary presidency....

"Morrell wrote an op-ed for the New York Times back in August where he both announced his support for Hillary Clinton and argued that Trump was a puppet of Vladimir Putin, “In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.” However, he’s now changed his tune and believes that Mr. Trump is not only innocent of any collaboration with Russia but he further argued that the “Trump dossier” released a few months ago is likely a fraud. "
Intelligence Chiefs say NO Evidence of Trump-Russia Connection

Answer my question, idiot.

How can Trump be under investigation for connections to something that doesn't exist?

Just because someone's name is included in an investigation in no way 'proves' that perso did anything wrong.
GOD you're an asshole!
In ANY investigation at ANY level within the legal system there can be a thousand names listed.
Just because the name of a six month old who is the daughter of someone you witnessed a crime is 'listed' does that mean the baby is 'under investigation????
******* GROW UP!!!!

I never said anyone committed a crime or was guilty of anything, dope.

Try reading and understanding the conversation before jumping in.

You claimed they had "evidence" and that is why they are investigating. The DNC was hacked, they are looking and investigating leads. When they investigate they try to gather evidence. So they aren't investigating evidence, they are looking for evidence, and whether it exists or not.

Careful. You don't want to complicate the LIB narrative that Trump and the Russians stole the election from their Queen Bee Piss-Head.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The hacking was a crime.
It was perpetrated by a foreign govt with the intention of influencing our electoral process. It worked.

Why on Earth would you accept that type of attack on our system? Will an equivalent attack on a Republican candidate be required before you find fault with the tactic?

Many republicans welcomed Putin's interferance.

Prove it.

Liberalism is what they worshiped.....it could not lose.....


They need some myth to explain the loss and assuage the pain.

They must feel the way Rastafarians felt when Haile Selassie died, or the moment before the Heaven's Gate Members felt when the poison kicked in.

Sooo....hacking and Putin and every other lie they can dream up......

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Do you believe that Clinton was hurt by the release of hacked emails?

I believe Hillary was "hurt" by people uncovering her illegal private server and telling the world about what she had done.
I believe her campaign was hurt when someone uncovered the collusion with CNN and corruption within her campaign.
I beleive that had she not been complicit and corrupt and a ******* liar she would have easily beaten Trump.
What the LIBs are whining about is someone, doesn't really matter who, uncovered what Hillary was/is.
What the LIBs are really pissed off about is not what Hillary had done so much as someone uncovered the truth and told everyone.
Does anyone find it extremely hypocritical of the LIBs to now tell everyone that "it doesn't matter how any possible 'dirt' on Trump is turned up. Leaking classified information and giving it to the WAPO/NYT so they can EXPOSE TRUMP!!!!! is just fine now but having the truth come out about Hillary is wrong!
******* hypocrites!
I can't WAIT for the DEMs to stand on the White House steps in a month and tell the world that in fact there is ZERO evidence that anyone on the Trump campaign had any 'nefarious' involvement with the Russians either before or after the election.
And that in fact there are a number of people working in the intelligence agencies who are going to face federal criminal charges for leaking classified information.

What the LIBs are whining about is someone, doesn't really matter who, uncovered what Hillary was/is.
What the LIBs are really pissed off about is not what Hillary had done so much as someone uncovered the truth and told everyone.

Someone?
You act as if that is still a mystery. You know who did it but won't admit it. I don't blame you thought as that admission would blow the entire narrative.

I ask that question to see the various tortured responses I get to a rather simple question.

The Russians were behind the hacking. That is established fact.

The release of that material hurt Clinton with voters. Even you admit that just not who released it.

By default then, if the leak hurt Clinton, it had to have helped Trump. The Russians helped Trump. The only question left then is, did the Trump campaign and it's members work in concert with the Russians?

I 100% totally agree that the hackers were either Russian or more likely Romanian who sold gave the hacked emails to Putin. I don't care who released "damaging information" about the *****.
The FACT there was "damaging information" is the point asshole!
Yes by default the "damaging information" exposing one candidate will help the candidate who did not have any "damaging information" to expose.
One and one make two!
The FBI REPEATEDLY warned the DNC that their email server was in danger of being hacked. The 'man-buns' in Hillary's campaign hired to keep the DNCs emails from being hacked REFUSED to allow the FBI experts come in and put up up-to-date firewalls.
Blame the ***** Rooy Mook and Hillary for their **** up. NOT the Russians or Trump.

The hacking was a crime.
It was perpetrated by a foreign govt with the intention of influencing our electoral process. It worked.

Why on Earth would you accept that type of attack on our system? Will an equivalent attack on a Republican candidate be required before you find fault with the tactic?

1) Hacking IS a crime, and as such, should be investigated. However, the information provided in the hack was still true, and any votes cast on the basis of that information are still valid, which means the election itself is still valid.

2) If you're going to take the position that the left seems to be taking, which is that any election where voters listen to information other than that put out directly by the campaigns themselves is invalidated and should be replaced by the will of the political left, you're going to have a very hard sell. You let us know how that works out for you.

3) If nothing else, the hacks definitely demolished every argument the left had been trying to make about how the lackadaisical attitude of Hillary and her cronies toward computer security was no big deal.

4) You can scream, "And a foreign government did it! We KNOW they did!" until your face turns blue, but the fact remains that the evidence so far still doesn't indicate exactly who was responsible. Hence the investigation.

5) Did you know that "investigation" does NOT mean "simply assuming the left's narrative is correct"?

Here comes PC's henchmen. I will do this once. I'm not answering spam posts. I will explain my position for those who need extra help.

It's a simple question meant to encourage PC to further explain her thinking.

We had very public testimony that clearly said that Russia was indeed behind the hacking. There is complete agreement of this within the Intel community. It is accepted as fact. It is the basis of the counter intelligence investigation meant to suss out the players, methods and motives of the operation.

As part of that, members of the Trump campaign and the campaign it's self is also part of that investigation in an effort to understand the nature and motives of their known communications with Russian officials.

That is all fact.


Now, PC was asserting repeatedly that Russia was not behind the hack.
PC seemed to be taking a position that was not possible given that Trump was indeed under investigation. I wanted to know how she believes both could be true and how that would work.

In an attempt the get her to expand on her thinking so I could follow her logic, I asked a simple question. I asked, If Russia wasn't behind the hacking, then how is Trump under investigation for his connection to it?
IOW, How is Trump under investigation for his connection to something that never happened?

PC chose to not address that question. Her choice.
Now her hit squad is descending on me.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

If there weren't evidence of it , Trump wouldn't be under investigation for his possible ties to it now would he, dope?

I don't think I did.
Quote me so I have an idea of what you're referring to.
That's why that function exists.

Here you go, maybe you should read what you post.

If there weren't evidence of it , Trump wouldn't be under investigation for his possible ties to it now would he, dope?

I know what I posted. You should take an adult reader refresher.

Evidence that Russia was behind the hacking and subsequent release, dope.

If you had read a few prior posts, you would have seen that who I responded to denied that Russia was behind anything.

My question was, if it's not true, then how can Trump be under investigation for his connection to it?

It's pretty self evident. It's certainly not something you needed to chase me around over.

There's something seriously wrong with you.
Yes 'Russia; was involved with the DNC hacking and subsequent release of damaging information about Hillary and the DNC. ("If only everyone would have keep their mouths shut and that ***** Mook hadn't hired a bunch of 'pretty-boys' in man-buns to operate the computers I would have been the President")
You are DESPERATE for their to be a "connection" to Trump.
If you had a shred of honesty you would have posted: "....then how can Tump be under investigation for his POSSIBLE CONNECTION to it".
You have already made your mind up Trump and his campaign "colluded" with the Russians to win the election.
******* GROW UP!
When the results of the investigations are complete and they prove Trump and his campaign did in no way collude with the Russians I 100% guarantee that you will scream your head off that the investigators were bought off by Trump.
The closer the Congressional investigation gets to releasing the FACTS the more the DEMs are screaming for a SP.
They KNOW they are going to end up looking like fools.........again.
You still believe Big Mike was an innocent victim of a deranged White supremacist cop.

If you had a shred of honesty you would have posted: "....then how can Tump be under investigation for his POSSIBLE CONNECTION to it".

That's implied with the investigation, dope. There's nothing I said that is questionable.

I've explained my thinking as clearly as is possible. It was a simple question.

You have already made your mind up Trump and his campaign "colluded" with the Russians to win the election.
******* GROW UP!

I have not. I said no such thing. I've even explained my thinking.

Grow up?

That's rich coming from someone who is attacking me over nothing while not even bothering to answer the question I originally posted.

Like I said earlier, it cannot be answered without collapsing the narrative that Russia was not behind the hack.

I have answered your "question" AKA acquisition a number of times.
YES the Russians or their surrogates DID hack into the DNC computers!!!!!
Too bad the fuckwitts at the DNC didn't heed the REPEATED warnings by the FBI that the DNC computers were EXTREMELY vulnerable to being hacked.
Too bad the Russians found out what a bunch of low-life scum buckets were in the DNC.
I'm DELIGHTED the Russians exposed the entire corrupt DNC and their Queen Bee for what they were/are.
But as Hillary repeatedly slurs every day: "If everyone would have just kept their ******* mouths shut I'd be President now!!!!!".
Just because someone is 'named' in an investigation does not mean they are in any way 'guilty' of anything.
Large criminal investigations can have thousands of people 'named'.
This is all going to blow up in your face pal.
(Any takers on the 'BIG MIKE' hoodie you've been trying to sell on EBAY yet?)

YES the Russians or their surrogates DID hack into the DNC computers!!!!!

Take it up with PC. That's who I was conversing with. Not you. My point was within that context.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The hacking was a crime.
It was perpetrated by a foreign govt with the intention of influencing our electoral process. It worked.

Why on Earth would you accept that type of attack on our system? Will an equivalent attack on a Republican candidate be required before you find fault with the tactic?

Many republicans welcomed Putin's interferance.

Prove it.

Liberalism is what they worshiped.....it could not lose.....


They need some myth to explain the loss and assuage the pain.

They must feel the way Rastafarians felt when Haile Selassie died, or the moment before the Heaven's Gate Members felt when the poison kicked in.

Sooo....hacking and Putin and every other lie they can dream up......

I see that you feel you have enough suppressive fire to re-enter the thread.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You're right.
There's no investigation into Russian hacking and the nature of the relationship between Trump's people and Russian officials.

The FBI is completely wrong about this. You know the truth.

1. "You're right.
There's no investigation into Russian hacking and the nature of the relationship between Trump's people and Russian officials."

Why are you pretending that I said that?

Is it because I smacked your knuckles....again.....by proving that there is no evidence....nor will there ever be.....that "It was perpetrated by a foreign govt with the intention of influencing our electoral process. It worked."

That's your quote...and I utterly destroyed it.




2. I've noticed that you alternate between bafflement and falsification, leaving an observer with the impression of one on a bungee cord.

Or, in your case, a dope on a rope.

If there weren't evidence of it , Trump wouldn't be under investigation for his possible ties to it now would he, dope?

I never said anyone committed a crime or was guilty of anything, dope.

Try reading and understanding the conversation before jumping in.

You claimed they had "evidence" and that is why they are investigating. The DNC was hacked, they are looking and investigating leads. When they investigate they try to gather evidence. So they aren't investigating evidence, they are looking for evidence, and whether it exists or not.

I don't think I did.
Quote me so I have an idea of what you're referring to.
That's why that function exists.

Here you go, maybe you should read what you post.

If there weren't evidence of it , Trump wouldn't be under investigation for his possible ties to it now would he, dope?

I know what I posted. You should take an adult reader refresher.

Evidence that Russia was behind the hacking and subsequent release, dope.

If you had read a few prior posts, you would have seen that who I responded to denied that Russia was behind anything.

My question was, if it's not true, then how can Trump be under investigation for his connection to it?

It's pretty self evident. It's certainly not something you needed to chase me around over.

Until there is a link between Russia and Trump, you have nothing. There is no evidence, it is just an investigation. Like any investigation it will follow the leads. So far, like Benghazi, no link has been found. You got nothing but pure speculation and nothing else. I'm not seeing an issue here, dope.

I never said there was evidence, dumbfuck.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You're right.
There's no investigation into Russian hacking and the nature of the relationship between Trump's people and Russian officials.

The FBI is completely wrong about this. You know the truth.

1. "You're right.
There's no investigation into Russian hacking and the nature of the relationship between Trump's people and Russian officials."

Why are you pretending that I said that?

Is it because I smacked your knuckles....again.....by proving that there is no evidence....nor will there ever be.....that "It was perpetrated by a foreign govt with the intention of influencing our electoral process. It worked."

That's your quote...and I utterly destroyed it.




2. I've noticed that you alternate between bafflement and falsification, leaving an observer with the impression of one on a bungee cord.

Or, in your case, a dope on a rope.

If there weren't evidence of it , Trump wouldn't be under investigation for his possible ties to it now would he, dope?

I never said anyone committed a crime or was guilty of anything, dope.

Try reading and understanding the conversation before jumping in.

You claimed they had "evidence" and that is why they are investigating. The DNC was hacked, they are looking and investigating leads. When they investigate they try to gather evidence. So they aren't investigating evidence, they are looking for evidence, and whether it exists or not.

I don't think I did.
Quote me so I have an idea of what you're referring to.
That's why that function exists.

Here you go, maybe you should read what you post.

If there weren't evidence of it , Trump wouldn't be under investigation for his possible ties to it now would he, dope?

I know what I posted. You should take an adult reader refresher.

Evidence that Russia was behind the hacking and subsequent release, dope.

If you had read a few prior posts, you would have seen that who I responded to denied that Russia was behind anything.

My question was, if it's not true, then how can Trump be under investigation for his connection to it?

It's pretty self evident. It's certainly not something you needed to chase me around over.

He nailed you, huh?

Rammed your own words down your stupid throat.



Seems that happened quite a bit in this thread, huh?

Answer the question, dope.

How can Trump be under investigation for his connection to something that never happened?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I believe Hillary was "hurt" by people uncovering her illegal private server and telling the world about what she had done.
I believe her campaign was hurt when someone uncovered the collusion with CNN and corruption within her campaign.
I beleive that had she not been complicit and corrupt and a ******* liar she would have easily beaten Trump.
What the LIBs are whining about is someone, doesn't really matter who, uncovered what Hillary was/is.
What the LIBs are really pissed off about is not what Hillary had done so much as someone uncovered the truth and told everyone.
Does anyone find it extremely hypocritical of the LIBs to now tell everyone that "it doesn't matter how any possible 'dirt' on Trump is turned up. Leaking classified information and giving it to the WAPO/NYT so they can EXPOSE TRUMP!!!!! is just fine now but having the truth come out about Hillary is wrong!
******* hypocrites!
I can't WAIT for the DEMs to stand on the White House steps in a month and tell the world that in fact there is ZERO evidence that anyone on the Trump campaign had any 'nefarious' involvement with the Russians either before or after the election.
And that in fact there are a number of people working in the intelligence agencies who are going to face federal criminal charges for leaking classified information.

What the LIBs are whining about is someone, doesn't really matter who, uncovered what Hillary was/is.
What the LIBs are really pissed off about is not what Hillary had done so much as someone uncovered the truth and told everyone.

Someone?
You act as if that is still a mystery. You know who did it but won't admit it. I don't blame you thought as that admission would blow the entire narrative.

I ask that question to see the various tortured responses I get to a rather simple question.

The Russians were behind the hacking. That is established fact.

The release of that material hurt Clinton with voters. Even you admit that just not who released it.

By default then, if the leak hurt Clinton, it had to have helped Trump. The Russians helped Trump. The only question left then is, did the Trump campaign and it's members work in concert with the Russians?

I 100% totally agree that the hackers were either Russian or more likely Romanian who sold gave the hacked emails to Putin. I don't care who released "damaging information" about the *****.
The FACT there was "damaging information" is the point asshole!
Yes by default the "damaging information" exposing one candidate will help the candidate who did not have any "damaging information" to expose.
One and one make two!
The FBI REPEATEDLY warned the DNC that their email server was in danger of being hacked. The 'man-buns' in Hillary's campaign hired to keep the DNCs emails from being hacked REFUSED to allow the FBI experts come in and put up up-to-date firewalls.
Blame the ***** Rooy Mook and Hillary for their **** up. NOT the Russians or Trump.

The hacking was a crime.
It was perpetrated by a foreign govt with the intention of influencing our electoral process. It worked.

Why on Earth would you accept that type of attack on our system? Will an equivalent attack on a Republican candidate be required before you find fault with the tactic?

1) Hacking IS a crime, and as such, should be investigated. However, the information provided in the hack was still true, and any votes cast on the basis of that information are still valid, which means the election itself is still valid.

2) If you're going to take the position that the left seems to be taking, which is that any election where voters listen to information other than that put out directly by the campaigns themselves is invalidated and should be replaced by the will of the political left, you're going to have a very hard sell. You let us know how that works out for you.

3) If nothing else, the hacks definitely demolished every argument the left had been trying to make about how the lackadaisical attitude of Hillary and her cronies toward computer security was no big deal.

4) You can scream, "And a foreign government did it! We KNOW they did!" until your face turns blue, but the fact remains that the evidence so far still doesn't indicate exactly who was responsible. Hence the investigation.

5) Did you know that "investigation" does NOT mean "simply assuming the left's narrative is correct"?

Here comes PC's henchmen. I will do this once. I'm not answering spam posts. I will explain my position for those who need extra help.

It's a simple question meant to encourage PC to further explain her thinking.

We had very public testimony that clearly said that Russia was indeed behind the hacking. There is complete agreement of this within the Intel community. It is accepted as fact. It is the basis of the counter intelligence investigation meant to suss out the players, methods and motives of the operation.

As part of that, members of the Trump campaign and the campaign it's self is also part of that investigation in an effort to understand the nature and motives of their known communications with Russian officials.

That is all fact.


Now, PC was asserting repeatedly that Russia was not behind the hack.
PC seemed to be taking a position that was not possible given that Trump was indeed under investigation. I wanted to know how she believes both could be true and how that would work.

In an attempt the get her to expand on her thinking so I could follow her logic, I asked a simple question. I asked, If Russia wasn't behind the hacking, then how is Trump under investigation for his connection to it?
IOW, How is Trump under investigation for his connection to something that never happened?

PC chose to not address that question. Her choice.
Now her hit squad is descending on me.

1."We had very public testimony that clearly said that Russia was indeed behind the hacking."
No intell agency has claimed any such evidence.

2. "There is complete agreement of this within the Intel community."
No intell agency has claimed any such evidence.
That's why you have been unable to provide such a statement about evidence....that should be evident even to a dunce like you.

3. "It is accepted as fact."
No it isn't.
It has never been advanced as anything but conjecture.
It is designed to give marching orders to dunces....you.

4. "Now, PC was asserting repeatedly that Russia was not behind the hack."
You're lying again.
What I have said....and proved....is that there never was, is, or will be any such proof.

I proved this with testimony from PBS:
“There’s no evidence that this was done by the state itself, only evidence it was done by non-state actors that might be Russian-speaking,” said Jeffrey Carr, CEO of the cyber security consultancy firm Taia Global, referring to the evidence available to the public.

That evidence, which was released by private threat assessment companies rather than official channels, indicates hackers used Cyrillic keyboards and operated during Moscow working hours.
But indicators of identity like timestamps, language preferences and IP addresses “can be manipulated or faked rather easily,” said Juan Andres Guerrero-Saade, a senior security researcher at Kaspersky Lab."
Does the U.S. government really know who hacked Democrats' emails?


5. "If Russia wasn't behind the hacking, then how is Trump under investigation for his connection to it?"
There is no connection between the two.
All the farrago about Russia is to make dunces who voted for the career criminal feel better.
That's the only fact here.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Someone?
You act as if that is still a mystery. You know who did it but won't admit it. I don't blame you thought as that admission would blow the entire narrative.

I ask that question to see the various tortured responses I get to a rather simple question.

The Russians were behind the hacking. That is established fact.

The release of that material hurt Clinton with voters. Even you admit that just not who released it.

By default then, if the leak hurt Clinton, it had to have helped Trump. The Russians helped Trump. The only question left then is, did the Trump campaign and it's members work in concert with the Russians?

I 100% totally agree that the hackers were either Russian or more likely Romanian who sold gave the hacked emails to Putin. I don't care who released "damaging information" about the *****.
The FACT there was "damaging information" is the point asshole!
Yes by default the "damaging information" exposing one candidate will help the candidate who did not have any "damaging information" to expose.
One and one make two!
The FBI REPEATEDLY warned the DNC that their email server was in danger of being hacked. The 'man-buns' in Hillary's campaign hired to keep the DNCs emails from being hacked REFUSED to allow the FBI experts come in and put up up-to-date firewalls.
Blame the ***** Rooy Mook and Hillary for their **** up. NOT the Russians or Trump.

The hacking was a crime.
It was perpetrated by a foreign govt with the intention of influencing our electoral process. It worked.

Why on Earth would you accept that type of attack on our system? Will an equivalent attack on a Republican candidate be required before you find fault with the tactic?

1) Hacking IS a crime, and as such, should be investigated. However, the information provided in the hack was still true, and any votes cast on the basis of that information are still valid, which means the election itself is still valid.

2) If you're going to take the position that the left seems to be taking, which is that any election where voters listen to information other than that put out directly by the campaigns themselves is invalidated and should be replaced by the will of the political left, you're going to have a very hard sell. You let us know how that works out for you.

3) If nothing else, the hacks definitely demolished every argument the left had been trying to make about how the lackadaisical attitude of Hillary and her cronies toward computer security was no big deal.

4) You can scream, "And a foreign government did it! We KNOW they did!" until your face turns blue, but the fact remains that the evidence so far still doesn't indicate exactly who was responsible. Hence the investigation.

5) Did you know that "investigation" does NOT mean "simply assuming the left's narrative is correct"?

Here comes PC's henchmen. I will do this once. I'm not answering spam posts. I will explain my position for those who need extra help.

It's a simple question meant to encourage PC to further explain her thinking.

We had very public testimony that clearly said that Russia was indeed behind the hacking. There is complete agreement of this within the Intel community. It is accepted as fact. It is the basis of the counter intelligence investigation meant to suss out the players, methods and motives of the operation.

As part of that, members of the Trump campaign and the campaign it's self is also part of that investigation in an effort to understand the nature and motives of their known communications with Russian officials.

That is all fact.


Now, PC was asserting repeatedly that Russia was not behind the hack.
PC seemed to be taking a position that was not possible given that Trump was indeed under investigation. I wanted to know how she believes both could be true and how that would work.

In an attempt the get her to expand on her thinking so I could follow her logic, I asked a simple question. I asked, If Russia wasn't behind the hacking, then how is Trump under investigation for his connection to it?
IOW, How is Trump under investigation for his connection to something that never happened?

PC chose to not address that question. Her choice.
Now her hit squad is descending on me.

1."We had very public testimony that clearly said that Russia was indeed behind the hacking."
No intell agency has claimed any such evidence.

2. "There is complete agreement of this within the Intel community."
No intell agency has claimed any such evidence.
That's why you have been unable to provide such a statement about evidence....that should be evident even to a dunce like you.

3. "It is accepted as fact."
No it isn't.
It has never been advanced as anything but conjecture.
It is designed to give marching orders to dunces....you.

4. "Now, PC was asserting repeatedly that Russia was not behind the hack."
You're lying again.
What I have said....and proved....is that there never was, is, or will be any such proof.

I proved this with testimony from PBS:
“There’s no evidence that this was done by the state itself, only evidence it was done by non-state actors that might be Russian-speaking,” said Jeffrey Carr, CEO of the cyber security consultancy firm Taia Global, referring to the evidence available to the public.

That evidence, which was released by private threat assessment companies rather than official channels, indicates hackers used Cyrillic keyboards and operated during Moscow working hours.
But indicators of identity like timestamps, language preferences and IP addresses “can be manipulated or faked rather easily,” said Juan Andres Guerrero-Saade, a senior security researcher at Kaspersky Lab."
Does the U.S. government really know who hacked Democrats' emails?


5. "If Russia wasn't behind the hacking, then how is Trump under investigation for his connection to it?"
There is no connection between the two.
All the farrago about Russia is to make dunces who voted for the career criminal feel better.
That's the only fact here.

So is the FBI lying or simply confused?

 

[Papageorgio]

1. "You're right.
There's no investigation into Russian hacking and the nature of the relationship between Trump's people and Russian officials."

Why are you pretending that I said that?

Is it because I smacked your knuckles....again.....by proving that there is no evidence....nor will there ever be.....that "It was perpetrated by a foreign govt with the intention of influencing our electoral process. It worked."

That's your quote...and I utterly destroyed it.




2. I've noticed that you alternate between bafflement and falsification, leaving an observer with the impression of one on a bungee cord.

Or, in your case, a dope on a rope.

If there weren't evidence of it , Trump wouldn't be under investigation for his possible ties to it now would he, dope?

You claimed they had "evidence" and that is why they are investigating. The DNC was hacked, they are looking and investigating leads. When they investigate they try to gather evidence. So they aren't investigating evidence, they are looking for evidence, and whether it exists or not.

I don't think I did.
Quote me so I have an idea of what you're referring to.
That's why that function exists.

Here you go, maybe you should read what you post.

If there weren't evidence of it , Trump wouldn't be under investigation for his possible ties to it now would he, dope?

I know what I posted. You should take an adult reader refresher.

Evidence that Russia was behind the hacking and subsequent release, dope.

If you had read a few prior posts, you would have seen that who I responded to denied that Russia was behind anything.

My question was, if it's not true, then how can Trump be under investigation for his connection to it?

It's pretty self evident. It's certainly not something you needed to chase me around over.

Until there is a link between Russia and Trump, you have nothing. There is no evidence, it is just an investigation. Like any investigation it will follow the leads. So far, like Benghazi, no link has been found. You got nothing but pure speculation and nothing else. I'm not seeing an issue here, dope.

I never said there was evidence, dumbfuck.

LOL!!!! You have been exposed for the little whiny ***** you are, you said it and now you cry. LOL!!!

 

[Hutch Starskey]

If there weren't evidence of it , Trump wouldn't be under investigation for his possible ties to it now would he, dope?

I don't think I did.
Quote me so I have an idea of what you're referring to.
That's why that function exists.

Here you go, maybe you should read what you post.

If there weren't evidence of it , Trump wouldn't be under investigation for his possible ties to it now would he, dope?

I know what I posted. You should take an adult reader refresher.

Evidence that Russia was behind the hacking and subsequent release, dope.

If you had read a few prior posts, you would have seen that who I responded to denied that Russia was behind anything.

My question was, if it's not true, then how can Trump be under investigation for his connection to it?

It's pretty self evident. It's certainly not something you needed to chase me around over.

Until there is a link between Russia and Trump, you have nothing. There is no evidence, it is just an investigation. Like any investigation it will follow the leads. So far, like Benghazi, no link has been found. You got nothing but pure speculation and nothing else. I'm not seeing an issue here, dope.

I never said there was evidence, dumbfuck.

LOL!!!! You have been exposed for the little whiny ***** you are, you said it and now you cry. LOL!!!

Sure thing, dope.

You say that as if no one can read what's been posted.

Weak shit, dude.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I 100% totally agree that the hackers were either Russian or more likely Romanian who sold gave the hacked emails to Putin. I don't care who released "damaging information" about the *****.
The FACT there was "damaging information" is the point asshole!
Yes by default the "damaging information" exposing one candidate will help the candidate who did not have any "damaging information" to expose.
One and one make two!
The FBI REPEATEDLY warned the DNC that their email server was in danger of being hacked. The 'man-buns' in Hillary's campaign hired to keep the DNCs emails from being hacked REFUSED to allow the FBI experts come in and put up up-to-date firewalls.
Blame the ***** Rooy Mook and Hillary for their **** up. NOT the Russians or Trump.

The hacking was a crime.
It was perpetrated by a foreign govt with the intention of influencing our electoral process. It worked.

Why on Earth would you accept that type of attack on our system? Will an equivalent attack on a Republican candidate be required before you find fault with the tactic?

1) Hacking IS a crime, and as such, should be investigated. However, the information provided in the hack was still true, and any votes cast on the basis of that information are still valid, which means the election itself is still valid.

2) If you're going to take the position that the left seems to be taking, which is that any election where voters listen to information other than that put out directly by the campaigns themselves is invalidated and should be replaced by the will of the political left, you're going to have a very hard sell. You let us know how that works out for you.

3) If nothing else, the hacks definitely demolished every argument the left had been trying to make about how the lackadaisical attitude of Hillary and her cronies toward computer security was no big deal.

4) You can scream, "And a foreign government did it! We KNOW they did!" until your face turns blue, but the fact remains that the evidence so far still doesn't indicate exactly who was responsible. Hence the investigation.

5) Did you know that "investigation" does NOT mean "simply assuming the left's narrative is correct"?

Here comes PC's henchmen. I will do this once. I'm not answering spam posts. I will explain my position for those who need extra help.

It's a simple question meant to encourage PC to further explain her thinking.

We had very public testimony that clearly said that Russia was indeed behind the hacking. There is complete agreement of this within the Intel community. It is accepted as fact. It is the basis of the counter intelligence investigation meant to suss out the players, methods and motives of the operation.

As part of that, members of the Trump campaign and the campaign it's self is also part of that investigation in an effort to understand the nature and motives of their known communications with Russian officials.

That is all fact.


Now, PC was asserting repeatedly that Russia was not behind the hack.
PC seemed to be taking a position that was not possible given that Trump was indeed under investigation. I wanted to know how she believes both could be true and how that would work.

In an attempt the get her to expand on her thinking so I could follow her logic, I asked a simple question. I asked, If Russia wasn't behind the hacking, then how is Trump under investigation for his connection to it?
IOW, How is Trump under investigation for his connection to something that never happened?

PC chose to not address that question. Her choice.
Now her hit squad is descending on me.

1."We had very public testimony that clearly said that Russia was indeed behind the hacking."
No intell agency has claimed any such evidence.

2. "There is complete agreement of this within the Intel community."
No intell agency has claimed any such evidence.
That's why you have been unable to provide such a statement about evidence....that should be evident even to a dunce like you.

3. "It is accepted as fact."
No it isn't.
It has never been advanced as anything but conjecture.
It is designed to give marching orders to dunces....you.

4. "Now, PC was asserting repeatedly that Russia was not behind the hack."
You're lying again.
What I have said....and proved....is that there never was, is, or will be any such proof.

I proved this with testimony from PBS:
“There’s no evidence that this was done by the state itself, only evidence it was done by non-state actors that might be Russian-speaking,” said Jeffrey Carr, CEO of the cyber security consultancy firm Taia Global, referring to the evidence available to the public.

That evidence, which was released by private threat assessment companies rather than official channels, indicates hackers used Cyrillic keyboards and operated during Moscow working hours.
But indicators of identity like timestamps, language preferences and IP addresses “can be manipulated or faked rather easily,” said Juan Andres Guerrero-Saade, a senior security researcher at Kaspersky Lab."
Does the U.S. government really know who hacked Democrats' emails?


5. "If Russia wasn't behind the hacking, then how is Trump under investigation for his connection to it?"
There is no connection between the two.
All the farrago about Russia is to make dunces who voted for the career criminal feel better.
That's the only fact here.

So is the FBI lying or simply confused?

You can run, but you can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber

Let's try again:
I was very specific....called you out as a liar....and you tried to ignore what I wrote.

Either admit you're a brain-dead, lying, low-life Liberal drone or respond to the specifics I provided.



1."We had very public testimony that clearly said that Russia was indeed behind the hacking."
No intell agency has claimed any such evidence.

2. "There is complete agreement of this within the Intel community."
No intell agency has claimed any such evidence.
That's why you have been unable to provide such a statement about evidence....that should be evident even to a dunce like you.

3. "It is accepted as fact."
No it isn't.
It has never been advanced as anything but conjecture.
It is designed to give marching orders to dunces....you.

4. "Now, PC was asserting repeatedly that Russia was not behind the hack."
You're lying again.
What I have said....and proved....is that there never was, is, or will be any such proof.

I proved this with testimony from PBS:
“There’s no evidence that this was done by the state itself, only evidence it was done by non-state actors that might be Russian-speaking,” said Jeffrey Carr, CEO of the cyber security consultancy firm Taia Global, referring to the evidence available to the public.

That evidence, which was released by private threat assessment companies rather than official channels, indicates hackers used Cyrillic keyboards and operated during Moscow working hours.
But indicators of identity like timestamps, language preferences and IP addresses “can be manipulated or faked rather easily,” said Juan Andres Guerrero-Saade, a senior security researcher at Kaspersky Lab."
Does the U.S. government really know who hacked Democrats' emails?


5. "If Russia wasn't behind the hacking, then how is Trump under investigation for his connection to it?"
There is no connection between the two.
All the farrago about Russia is to make dunces who voted for the career criminal feel better.
That's the only fact here.

 

[Papageorgio]

1. "You're right.
There's no investigation into Russian hacking and the nature of the relationship between Trump's people and Russian officials."

Why are you pretending that I said that?

Is it because I smacked your knuckles....again.....by proving that there is no evidence....nor will there ever be.....that "It was perpetrated by a foreign govt with the intention of influencing our electoral process. It worked."

That's your quote...and I utterly destroyed it.




2. I've noticed that you alternate between bafflement and falsification, leaving an observer with the impression of one on a bungee cord.

Or, in your case, a dope on a rope.

If there weren't evidence of it , Trump wouldn't be under investigation for his possible ties to it now would he, dope?

You claimed they had "evidence" and that is why they are investigating. The DNC was hacked, they are looking and investigating leads. When they investigate they try to gather evidence. So they aren't investigating evidence, they are looking for evidence, and whether it exists or not.

I don't think I did.
Quote me so I have an idea of what you're referring to.
That's why that function exists.

Here you go, maybe you should read what you post.

If there weren't evidence of it , Trump wouldn't be under investigation for his possible ties to it now would he, dope?

I know what I posted. You should take an adult reader refresher.

Evidence that Russia was behind the hacking and subsequent release, dope.

If you had read a few prior posts, you would have seen that who I responded to denied that Russia was behind anything.

My question was, if it's not true, then how can Trump be under investigation for his connection to it?

It's pretty self evident. It's certainly not something you needed to chase me around over.

He nailed you, huh?

Rammed your own words down your stupid throat.



Seems that happened quite a bit in this thread, huh?

Answer the question, dope.

How can Trump be under investigation for his connection to something that never happened?

I think you just have no clue. I understand PC, it seems you don't like her answer so you ignore it. Again, you follow leads and possibilities and more often than not, the leads are a dead end. It means that people are doing their job. Doesn't who is or is not involved.

 

[Papageorgio]

Here you go, maybe you should read what you post.

I know what I posted. You should take an adult reader refresher.

Evidence that Russia was behind the hacking and subsequent release, dope.

If you had read a few prior posts, you would have seen that who I responded to denied that Russia was behind anything.

My question was, if it's not true, then how can Trump be under investigation for his connection to it?

It's pretty self evident. It's certainly not something you needed to chase me around over.

Until there is a link between Russia and Trump, you have nothing. There is no evidence, it is just an investigation. Like any investigation it will follow the leads. So far, like Benghazi, no link has been found. You got nothing but pure speculation and nothing else. I'm not seeing an issue here, dope.

I never said there was evidence, dumbfuck.

LOL!!!! You have been exposed for the little whiny ***** you are, you said it and now you cry. LOL!!!

Sure thing, dope.

You say that as if no one can read what's been posted.

Weak shit, dude.

Dumbass, you have posted the same shit over and over and over and no one understands your stupid ******* point. It is you that can't seem to communicate with others. Grow up!

 

[PoliticalChic]

I know what I posted. You should take an adult reader refresher.

Evidence that Russia was behind the hacking and subsequent release, dope.

If you had read a few prior posts, you would have seen that who I responded to denied that Russia was behind anything.

My question was, if it's not true, then how can Trump be under investigation for his connection to it?

It's pretty self evident. It's certainly not something you needed to chase me around over.

Until there is a link between Russia and Trump, you have nothing. There is no evidence, it is just an investigation. Like any investigation it will follow the leads. So far, like Benghazi, no link has been found. You got nothing but pure speculation and nothing else. I'm not seeing an issue here, dope.

I never said there was evidence, dumbfuck.

LOL!!!! You have been exposed for the little whiny ***** you are, you said it and now you cry. LOL!!!

Sure thing, dope.

You say that as if no one can read what's been posted.

Weak shit, dude.

Dumbass, you have posted the same shit over and over and over and no one understands your stupid ******* point. It is you that can't seem to communicate with others. Grow up!

You seem to have hurt his widdle feelings.....now see if you can coax him back out from under his bed.