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

[bripat9643]

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.

Then how did this so-called "Russian hack" affect the election?

 

[Darkwind]

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?

International espionage? So, political parties are now the equivalent of governments?

Tell Me something. If the Guardian manages to get a piece of information that can or does lead to the impeachement and jailing of Donald Trump, will you then be complaining about England affecting our political landscape? Or is the British media on the list of approved agencies that can disseminate information to the American people?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

In other words, you can't answer the question.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

International espionage? So, political parties are now the equivalent of governments?

Tell Me something. If the Guardian manages to get a piece of information that can or does lead to the impeachement and jailing of Donald Trump, will you then be complaining about England affecting our political landscape? Or is the British media on the list of approved agencies that can disseminate information to the American people?

Remember when the Guardian was publishing stories that said Saddam never tried to buy yellow cake from Niger?

 

[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.

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?"

OMFG!
The act of acquiring it and using it to influence an outcome is the espionage.


Too dumb to breathe.

 

[Tom Horn]

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?

Obama used the word "leak" twice in his presser today without realizing he'd blown up everything he's said about a "hack".....we all had a good laugh at the fool's expense.

 

[bripat9643]

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?"

OMFG!
The act of acquiring it and using it to influence an outcome is the espionage.


Too dumb to breathe.

How did they "use it?"

 

[Darkwind]

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?

International espionage? So, political parties are now the equivalent of governments?

Tell Me something. If the Guardian manages to get a piece of information that can or does lead to the impeachement and jailing of Donald Trump, will you then be complaining about England affecting our political landscape? Or is the British media on the list of approved agencies that can disseminate information to the American people?

Remember when the Guardian was publishing stories that said Saddam never tried to buy yellow cake from Niger?

I do. Wasn't that in response to the Brits wanting to affect the election for John, "Why the long face?" Kerry....

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

In other words, you can't answer the question.

Not can't, won't. It's all there ,dumbfuck.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

In other words, you can't answer the question.

Not can't, won't. It's all there ,dumbfuck.

Then simply post a link to it.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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?"

OMFG!
The act of acquiring it and using it to influence an outcome is the espionage.


Too dumb to breathe.

How did they "use it?"

Fuck off.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

In other words, you can't answer the question.

Not can't, won't. It's all there ,dumbfuck.

Then simply post a link to it.

Simply read the fucking thread.

 

[bripat9643]

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?"

OMFG!
The act of acquiring it and using it to influence an outcome is the espionage.


Too dumb to breathe.

How did they "use it?"

Fuck off.

Thought so. You have no answer to the question. You're repeating a narrative fed to you by the DNC propaganda organs.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

In other words, you can't answer the question.

Not can't, won't. It's all there ,dumbfuck.

Then simply post a link to it.

Simply read the fucking thread.

I'm not reading 400 posts because you're too fucking lazy to answer a simple question.

 

[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.

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?

International espionage? So, political parties are now the equivalent of governments?

Tell Me something. If the Guardian manages to get a piece of information that can or does lead to the impeachement and jailing of Donald Trump, will you then be complaining about England affecting our political landscape? Or is the British media on the list of approved agencies that can disseminate information to the American people?

The US electoral process.

What is with you dopes?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You tend to look dumb by responding without knowing what in the hell you're talking about.

In other words, you can't answer the question.

Not can't, won't. It's all there ,dumbfuck.

Then simply post a link to it.

Simply read the fucking thread.

I'm not reading 400 posts because you're too fucking lazy to answer a simple question.

A question you could answer yourself. It's not my responsibility to bring you up to speed.

 

[Lewdog]

In other words, you can't answer the question.

Not can't, won't. It's all there ,dumbfuck.

Then simply post a link to it.

Simply read the fucking thread.

I'm not reading 400 posts because you're too fucking lazy to answer a simple question.

A question you could answer yourself. It's not my responsibility to bring you up to speed.

Yep, lots and lots of people who are too lazy to find information for themselves. They want you to find it for them just so they can shoot it down as biased and then deny it.

 

[Contumacious]

Obama Vows Retaliation Against Russia for Nonexistent US Election Hacking
Stephen Lendman :

The atmosphere in America is the most surreal and dangerous in my lifetime - imperial madness combined with escalated war on fundamental freedoms. With five weeks left in office, Obama seems determined to leave in a greater blaze of infamy than already, the most loathsome, lawless, reckless president in my lifetime.

He’s a greater war criminal than all his predecessors, heading America’s police state apparatus hardened on his watch, a serial liar, a moral coward, a disgrace to his high office, a dangerous rogue leader, trying to provoke Russia into a belligerent confrontation. …

In a Friday interview on National Public Radio, a known proliferator of fake news, he said “I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections…we need to take action. … And we will - at a time and place of our own choosing. Some of it may be explicit and publicized. Some of it may not be.” …

he lied claiming “the (nonexistent) hack…creat(ed) more problems for the Clinton campaign than (for) Trump…”. He attacked Putin at the same time, saying “(t)his is somebody, the former head of the KGB, who is responsible for crushing democracy in Russia, muzzling the press, throwing political dissidents in jail, countering American efforts to expand freedom at every turn, is currently making decisions that’s leading to a slaughter in Syria.” Sounds like his own rap sheet high crimes, certainly not Putin’s, a disgraceful denigration of a preeminent world leader, polar opposite himself. ...

Obama will elaborate further at a Friday afternoon press conference - certain to focus on nonexistent US election hacking and Syria, especially Big Lies about nonexistent massacres by government and allied forces in liberating Aleppo.

.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Rubber Room this OP.

Nut house for the cowboy!

 

[namvet]

this has turned into a real slapstick comedy