Breaking: FBI BACKS CIA View that Russia Intervened to Help Trump Win Election

[Manonthestreet]

That is the ONLY way Russia could have altered the election. Providing information to the public cannot.

Not true at all. Apply some critical thought.

The selective daily release of information timed in such a way as to step on Clinton events and announcements certainly has an effect. The constant drip of emails reinforced a negative perception of Clinton just as the daily hammering by Trump of the latest leaks did.

Of course, so they ran with what they had. That doesn't necessarily mean they had a preference on who won the election.

Report: Russians failed to hack RNC

It certainly does when they only target one
candidate and their party to attack.

It's indisputable that it gave trump an advantage and hurt Clinton more than Trump.

Obama did nothing because it was his opinion it would have no affect on the outcome

Who says?

His actions....Acts outraged now but did nothing........

 

[bripat9643]

So, you have proof that Russia cast votes for Trump?

No one has said that they did.

That is the ONLY way Russia could have altered the election. Providing information to the public cannot.

Not true at all. Apply some critical thought.

The selective daily release of information timed in such a way as to step on Clinton events and announcements certainly has an effect. The constant drip of emails reinforced a negative perception of Clinton just as the daily hammering by Trump of the latest leaks did.

Of course, so they ran with what they had. That doesn't necessarily mean they had a preference on who won the election.

Report: Russians failed to hack RNC

It certainly does when they only target one
candidate and their party to attack.

It's indisputable that it gave trump an advantage and hurt Clinton more than Trump.

The Podesta emails were the result of a phishing attack by a DNC insider. How did the supposed "Russian hack" affect the election?

 

[Picaro]

So the OP tard is going to go with the idiocy that the Russians broke into the voting system to help Trump win by handing Hillary 4 million more votes than Trump? lol these morons are just too funny, and can't keep from making stupid contradictory claims, can they?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

That's just it, I am smart enough to be influenced by the hack and know better...unlike the Trump supporters on this board that now want to defend Russia.

So, you have proof that Russia cast votes for Trump?

No one has said that they did.

That is the ONLY way Russia could have altered the election. Providing information to the public cannot.

Not true at all. Apply some critical thought.

The selective daily release of information timed in such a way as to step on Clinton events and announcements certainly has an effect. The constant drip of emails reinforced a negative perception of Clinton just as the daily hammering by Trump of the latest leaks did.

Now you apply some critical thought. There are thousands of agencies in this country and around the world that release information designed to influence how people vote.

The main stream media in this country alone has admitted to influencing voters simply by picking and choosing the information they see fit to shape and promote a specific narrative. You can see by their meltdown that they were influencing information to ensure that their candidate won the election. Going so far as to time and release information to make it appear that Clinton was a lock for winning.

Now, information has come to light about the Clinton's, the media was busy trying to shape how voters thought about the election, so wikileaks ran with information they would not.

I don't see anyone on the left complaining about the media influencing the vote. I didn't see you complain about the New York Times releasing Trumps taxes, even though the information was gained under questionable means.

Sorry, but all of this just highlights why Clinton is a flawed human being (as noted by the campaign discussions) and also brings to light their indifference to security, a trait I would not want anywhere near the White House.

Sorry, but this is just sour grapes.

Unless you want to talk about what measures should be taken by political parties to ensure that they take their IT security seriously.

The media isn't a foreign entity who targeted a candidate and their party, obtained information through theft with the intention of using it against them during the campaign.

Certainly you can see the difference.

 

[bripat9643]

So, you have proof that Russia cast votes for Trump?

No one has said that they did.

That is the ONLY way Russia could have altered the election. Providing information to the public cannot.

Not true at all. Apply some critical thought.

The selective daily release of information timed in such a way as to step on Clinton events and announcements certainly has an effect. The constant drip of emails reinforced a negative perception of Clinton just as the daily hammering by Trump of the latest leaks did.

Now you apply some critical thought. There are thousands of agencies in this country and around the world that release information designed to influence how people vote.

The main stream media in this country alone has admitted to influencing voters simply by picking and choosing the information they see fit to shape and promote a specific narrative. You can see by their meltdown that they were influencing information to ensure that their candidate won the election. Going so far as to time and release information to make it appear that Clinton was a lock for winning.

Now, information has come to light about the Clinton's, the media was busy trying to shape how voters thought about the election, so wikileaks ran with information they would not.

I don't see anyone on the left complaining about the media influencing the vote. I didn't see you complain about the New York Times releasing Trumps taxes, even though the information was gained under questionable means.

Sorry, but all of this just highlights why Clinton is a flawed human being (as noted by the campaign discussions) and also brings to light their indifference to security, a trait I would not want anywhere near the White House.

Sorry, but this is just sour grapes.

Unless you want to talk about what measures should be taken by political parties to ensure that they take their IT security seriously.

The media isn't a foreign entity who targeted a candidate and their party, obtained information through theft with the intention of using it against them during the campaign.

Certainly you can see the difference.

Yes it is.

 

[Picaro]

Not true at all. Apply some critical thought.

The selective daily release of information timed in such a way as to step on Clinton events and announcements certainly has an effect. The constant drip of emails reinforced a negative perception of Clinton just as the daily hammering by Trump of the latest leaks did.

Of course, so they ran with what they had. That doesn't necessarily mean they had a preference on who won the election.

Report: Russians failed to hack RNC

It certainly does when they only target one
candidate and their party to attack.

It's indisputable that it gave trump an advantage and hurt Clinton more than Trump.

Obama did nothing because it was his opinion it would have no affect on the outcome

Who says?

His actions....Acts outraged now but did nothing........

He's a petty sicko, and wants to leave a mess behind him, hopefully a war, just to spite America for not voting for the Democratic Party criminal syndicate.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Hmmm this is odd. Just not but a couple days ago Comey told Trump over the phone that there was no evidence of a Russian hack. I wonder what new information or what happened in the last couple of days.

Just shows how much of an agenda he has. Time for Comey to resign.

Well if this is true, this evidence needs to be made available immediately before the Electoral College casts their votes.

The so-called "evidence" is purely irrelevant to the electoral college. The election is over. We won. You lost. Now get in the back and shut the fuck up.

This isn't about who won. This is about foreign govt interference in our electoral process.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Not true at all. Apply some critical thought.

The selective daily release of information timed in such a way as to step on Clinton events and announcements certainly has an effect. The constant drip of emails reinforced a negative perception of Clinton just as the daily hammering by Trump of the latest leaks did.

Of course, so they ran with what they had. That doesn't necessarily mean they had a preference on who won the election.

Report: Russians failed to hack RNC

It certainly does when they only target one
candidate and their party to attack.

It's indisputable that it gave trump an advantage and hurt Clinton more than Trump.

Then you have specific numbers ?

Otherwise it is very disputable.

It's impossible to quantify how many voters were turned off of Clinton but it's also equally impossible to to say it had no effect at all.

The Podesta emails were the result of a phishing attack by some DNC insider. Even the CIA admits that. So how did hacks that no one knew about turn off the voters?

Read the damned thread, dope. That's been answered.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It certainly does when they only target one
candidate and their party to attack.

LOL They targeted BOTH PARTIES!

Egads! Use your head man!

Did they? They supposedly tried the RNC. Any congressional candidates, staffers, associates?

 

[bripat9643]

Hmmm this is odd. Just not but a couple days ago Comey told Trump over the phone that there was no evidence of a Russian hack. I wonder what new information or what happened in the last couple of days.

Just shows how much of an agenda he has. Time for Comey to resign.

Well if this is true, this evidence needs to be made available immediately before the Electoral College casts their votes.

The so-called "evidence" is purely irrelevant to the electoral college. The election is over. We won. You lost. Now get in the back and shut the fuck up.

This isn't about who won. This is about foreign govt interference in our electoral process.

No it isn't. You douche bags obviously think you're fooling someone. You're a bunch of petulant little crybabies who can't accept the fact that the voters rejected your candidate and your agenda.

 

[bripat9643]

Of course, so they ran with what they had. That doesn't necessarily mean they had a preference on who won the election.

Report: Russians failed to hack RNC

It certainly does when they only target one
candidate and their party to attack.

It's indisputable that it gave trump an advantage and hurt Clinton more than Trump.

Then you have specific numbers ?

Otherwise it is very disputable.

It's impossible to quantify how many voters were turned off of Clinton but it's also equally impossible to to say it had no effect at all.

The Podesta emails were the result of a phishing attack by some DNC insider. Even the CIA admits that. So how did hacks that no one knew about turn off the voters?

Read the damned thread, dope. That's been answered.

I'm not reading this whole thread, douche bag.

 

[bripat9643]

It certainly does when they only target one
candidate and their party to attack.

LOL They targeted BOTH PARTIES!

Egads! Use your head man!

Did they? They supposedly tried the RNC. Any congressional candidates, staffers, associates?

The difference is that no one in the RNC was stupid enough to fall for an obvious phishing attack, as Podesta obviously was.

 

[Darkwind]

So, you have proof that Russia cast votes for Trump?

No one has said that they did.

That is the ONLY way Russia could have altered the election. Providing information to the public cannot.

Not true at all. Apply some critical thought.

The selective daily release of information timed in such a way as to step on Clinton events and announcements certainly has an effect. The constant drip of emails reinforced a negative perception of Clinton just as the daily hammering by Trump of the latest leaks did.

Now you apply some critical thought. There are thousands of agencies in this country and around the world that release information designed to influence how people vote.

The main stream media in this country alone has admitted to influencing voters simply by picking and choosing the information they see fit to shape and promote a specific narrative. You can see by their meltdown that they were influencing information to ensure that their candidate won the election. Going so far as to time and release information to make it appear that Clinton was a lock for winning.

Now, information has come to light about the Clinton's, the media was busy trying to shape how voters thought about the election, so wikileaks ran with information they would not.

I don't see anyone on the left complaining about the media influencing the vote. I didn't see you complain about the New York Times releasing Trumps taxes, even though the information was gained under questionable means.

Sorry, but all of this just highlights why Clinton is a flawed human being (as noted by the campaign discussions) and also brings to light their indifference to security, a trait I would not want anywhere near the White House.

Sorry, but this is just sour grapes.

Unless you want to talk about what measures should be taken by political parties to ensure that they take their IT security seriously.

The media isn't a foreign entity who targeted a candidate and their party, obtained information through theft with the intention of using it against them during the campaign.

Certainly you can see the difference.

Oh, so we are now going to put qualifications on exactly who can disseminate information?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Not true at all. Apply some critical thought.

The selective daily release of information timed in such a way as to step on Clinton events and announcements certainly has an effect. The constant drip of emails reinforced a negative perception of Clinton just as the daily hammering by Trump of the latest leaks did.

Of course, so they ran with what they had. That doesn't necessarily mean they had a preference on who won the election.

Report: Russians failed to hack RNC

It certainly does when they only target one
candidate and their party to attack.

It's indisputable that it gave trump an advantage and hurt Clinton more than Trump.

Obama did nothing because it was his opinion it would have no affect on the outcome

Who says?

His actions....Acts outraged now but did nothing........

What could he do without being attacked for being partisan and further disrupting the process?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It certainly does when they only target one
candidate and their party to attack.

LOL They targeted BOTH PARTIES!

Egads! Use your head man!

Did they? They supposedly tried the RNC. Any congressional candidates, staffers, associates?

The difference is that no one in the RNC was stupid enough to fall for an obvious phishing attack, as Podesta obviously was.

Sure, that's it.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No one has said that they did.

That is the ONLY way Russia could have altered the election. Providing information to the public cannot.

Not true at all. Apply some critical thought.

The selective daily release of information timed in such a way as to step on Clinton events and announcements certainly has an effect. The constant drip of emails reinforced a negative perception of Clinton just as the daily hammering by Trump of the latest leaks did.

Now you apply some critical thought. There are thousands of agencies in this country and around the world that release information designed to influence how people vote.

The main stream media in this country alone has admitted to influencing voters simply by picking and choosing the information they see fit to shape and promote a specific narrative. You can see by their meltdown that they were influencing information to ensure that their candidate won the election. Going so far as to time and release information to make it appear that Clinton was a lock for winning.

Now, information has come to light about the Clinton's, the media was busy trying to shape how voters thought about the election, so wikileaks ran with information they would not.

I don't see anyone on the left complaining about the media influencing the vote. I didn't see you complain about the New York Times releasing Trumps taxes, even though the information was gained under questionable means.

Sorry, but all of this just highlights why Clinton is a flawed human being (as noted by the campaign discussions) and also brings to light their indifference to security, a trait I would not want anywhere near the White House.

Sorry, but this is just sour grapes.

Unless you want to talk about what measures should be taken by political parties to ensure that they take their IT security seriously.

The media isn't a foreign entity who targeted a candidate and their party, obtained information through theft with the intention of using it against them during the campaign.

Certainly you can see the difference.

Oh, so we are now going to put qualifications on exactly who can disseminate information?

You do understand that this was an act of international espionage and not simply a reporter running down a lead?

Really, you see no difference?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

So the OP tard is going to go with the idiocy that the Russians broke into the voting system to help Trump win by handing Hillary 4 million more votes than Trump? lol these morons are just too funny, and can't keep from making stupid contradictory claims, can they?

No one has said that, dope.

 

[bripat9643]

That is the ONLY way Russia could have altered the election. Providing information to the public cannot.

Not true at all. Apply some critical thought.

The selective daily release of information timed in such a way as to step on Clinton events and announcements certainly has an effect. The constant drip of emails reinforced a negative perception of Clinton just as the daily hammering by Trump of the latest leaks did.

Now you apply some critical thought. There are thousands of agencies in this country and around the world that release information designed to influence how people vote.

The main stream media in this country alone has admitted to influencing voters simply by picking and choosing the information they see fit to shape and promote a specific narrative. You can see by their meltdown that they were influencing information to ensure that their candidate won the election. Going so far as to time and release information to make it appear that Clinton was a lock for winning.

Now, information has come to light about the Clinton's, the media was busy trying to shape how voters thought about the election, so wikileaks ran with information they would not.

I don't see anyone on the left complaining about the media influencing the vote. I didn't see you complain about the New York Times releasing Trumps taxes, even though the information was gained under questionable means.

Sorry, but all of this just highlights why Clinton is a flawed human being (as noted by the campaign discussions) and also brings to light their indifference to security, a trait I would not want anywhere near the White House.

Sorry, but this is just sour grapes.

Unless you want to talk about what measures should be taken by political parties to ensure that they take their IT security seriously.

The media isn't a foreign entity who targeted a candidate and their party, obtained information through theft with the intention of using it against them during the campaign.

Certainly you can see the difference.

Oh, so we are now going to put qualifications on exactly who can disseminate information?

You do understand that this was an act of international espionage and not simply a reporter running down a lead?

Really, you see no difference?

How is publishing information "international espionage?"

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It certainly does when they only target one
candidate and their party to attack.

It's indisputable that it gave trump an advantage and hurt Clinton more than Trump.

Then you have specific numbers ?

Otherwise it is very disputable.

It's impossible to quantify how many voters were turned off of Clinton but it's also equally impossible to to say it had no effect at all.

The Podesta emails were the result of a phishing attack by some DNC insider. Even the CIA admits that. So how did hacks that no one knew about turn off the voters?

Read the damned thread, dope. That's been answered.

I'm not reading this whole thread, douche bag.

You tend to look dumb by responding without knowing what in the hell you're talking about.
You admit to being a lazy assholes and I'm a douchebag?

Dope.

 

[Contumacious]

Gee, it's about time.

FBI Director James B. Comey and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. have backed a CIA assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election in part to help Donald Trump win the presidency, according to U.S. officials.

Comey’s support for the CIA’s conclusion suggests that the leaders of the three agencies are in agreement on Russian intentions, contrary to suggestions by some lawmakers that the FBI disagreed with the CIA.

“Earlier this week, I met separately with (Director) FBI James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election,” CIA Director John Brennan said in a message to the agency’s workforce, according to U.S. officials who have seen the message.
​

Rest here: FBI backs CIA view that Russia intervened to help Trump win election

WARNING : A FAKE NEWS WEBSITE


.