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

[bripat9643]

Liberal dictionary:
===================================================
Independently verified - not verified.

Bripat's dictionary:

Independently verified - .....................

You're the one who used the term. I didn't. You haven't verified jack shit.

You don't even understand what it means. I haven't been arguing with you so much as ridiculing you. You didn't even get that.
OK then. Off to bed with you now. Run along.

Explain to us what you think it means.

I know. I chose to use it. Your posts betray your ignorance.

You still haven't explained what you think it means. Obviously, you don't want to go down that road.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No need. The reporting agencies already have.

The fake news agencies?

That's why you aren't seeing each of those people refuting it publicly.

If that were really true then you wouldn't have had asked me "why not"...Fake news will always catch up with you...they can say anything they want and get away with it because there is no fear of rebuttal, but when you repeat it here where people have a voice it all falls apart on you.

Show me one of them publicly refuting the veracity of the reports that cite them.

 

[bripat9643]

Liberal dictionary:
===================================================
Independently verified - not verified.

Bripat's dictionary:

Independently verified - .....................

You're the one who used the term. I didn't. You haven't verified jack shit.

You don't even understand what it means. I haven't been arguing with you so much as ridiculing you. You didn't even get that.
OK then. Off to bed with you now. Run along.

Explain to us what you think it means.

I know. I chose to use it. Your posts betray your ignorance.

You keep saying that, but you fail to produce the evidence that you do.

What do you think "verified" means?

 

[namvet]

 

[bripat9643]

No need. The reporting agencies already have.

The fake news agencies?

That's why you aren't seeing each of those people refuting it publicly.

If that were really true then you wouldn't have had asked me "why not"...Fake news will always catch up with you...they can say anything they want and get away with it because there is no fear of rebuttal, but when you repeat it here where people have a voice it all falls apart on you.

Show me one of them publicly refuting the veracity of the reports that cite them.

What reports? Can you produce a link to one so we can read what it says?

 

[jc456]

The AG is anonymous? The President of the United States is anonymous? James Clapper the Director of National Intelligence is anonymous?

James Clapper is a douche bag toady who got caught telling egregious lies. The AG and Obama are both a couple of known liars. They are politicians - professional liars, in other words.

Again... so you are saying this is a huge widespread global conspiracy between every intelligence agency in the U.S., the DoJ, the President, and foreign intelligence agencies? You are a fucking loon.

Yeah, what part of that didn't you understand about two days ago

Well I had my suspicions two days ago you were a fucking loon, but today I understand it to be certain.

Propellants and solvents will do that.
You gotta be careful with that shit.

I agree, really an election is no reason to resort to such tactics. You didn't know the rules of the game obviously!

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The context of the broader article is what?
Intelligence agencies in agreement on Russian hacking?

According to the fake news source, referring back to themselves the proof they offered was:
"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."

So yes then. In the broader context they verified the conclusions made in the article.

What was your point again?

They verified nothing. To verify anything would require actual proof, not just some toady spouting off.

The fact that none of them are publicly refuting it is your proof. Do you believe those individuals in those positions would just sit there and let these claims go unanswered if they knew them to be false?

 

[jc456]

tl;dr

The FBI, CIA and DNI are all in agreement -- Russia intervened in our election in order to help Trump win.

What this means, is Russian leaders would rather Trump be president than Hillary.

It does not mean that voting machines were hacked and the results of voting were changed.

Not one person has claimed that the Russians hacked any voting machines, but thanks for stating the obvious.

Then how could the have interfered? There are no other possibilities!

 

[bripat9643]

The context of the broader article is what?
Intelligence agencies in agreement on Russian hacking?

According to the fake news source, referring back to themselves the proof they offered was:
"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."

So yes then. In the broader context they verified the conclusions made in the article.

What was your point again?

They verified nothing. To verify anything would require actual proof, not just some toady spouting off.

The fact that none of them are publicly refuting it is your proof. Do you believe those individuals in those positions would just sit there and let these claims go unanswered if they knew them to be false?

Hmmm, no, that proves exactly nothing. 330 million people are not "refuting" them. What does that prove? The failure of some political toady to comment on something doesn't prove a damn thing aside from the fact that he declined to comment on it.

 

[Lewdog]

No need. The reporting agencies already have.

The fake news agencies?

That's why you aren't seeing each of those people refuting it publicly.

If that were really true then you wouldn't have had asked me "why not"...Fake news will always catch up with you...they can say anything they want and get away with it because there is no fear of rebuttal, but when you repeat it here where people have a voice it all falls apart on you.

Show me one of them publicly refuting the veracity of the reports that cite them.

What reports? Can you produce a link to one so we can read what it says?

Can you produce proof Tillerson isn't Putin's boyfriend? Can you provide proof Melania isn't a KGB spy?

 

[Frankeneinstein]

The fact that none of them are publicly refuting it is your proof. Do you believe those individuals in those positions would just sit there and let these claims go unanswered if they knew them to be false?

The only claim is that they agree in nature, scope and intent..what is there to refute?

 

[jc456]

tl;dr

The FBI, CIA and DNI are all in agreement -- Russia intervened in our election in order to help Trump win.

What this means, is Russian leaders would rather Trump be president than Hillary.

It does not mean that voting machines were hacked and the results of voting were changed.

Not one person has claimed that the Russians hacked any voting machines, but thanks for stating the obvious.

So in other words the Russians only influenced the election, much like the UK attempted when leaders there did not want to see Trump win the presidency.

Only with espionage in the form of cyber attacks and a disinformation campaign.

Fake news

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No need. The reporting agencies already have.

The fake news agencies?

That's why you aren't seeing each of those people refuting it publicly.

If that were really true then you wouldn't have had asked me "why not"...Fake news will always catch up with you...they can say anything they want and get away with it because there is no fear of rebuttal, but when you repeat it here where people have a voice it all falls apart on you.

Show me one of them publicly refuting the veracity of the reports that cite them.

What reports? Can you produce a link to one so we can read what it says?

The fucking news report that is the subject of the conversation.


Bripat's plea to the forum.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The fact that none of them are publicly refuting it is your proof. Do you believe those individuals in those positions would just sit there and let these claims go unanswered if they knew them to be false?

The only claim is that they agree in nature, scope and intent..what is there to refute?

And the article described the scope, nature and intent as what?

 

[bripat9643]

No need. The reporting agencies already have.

The fake news agencies?

That's why you aren't seeing each of those people refuting it publicly.

If that were really true then you wouldn't have had asked me "why not"...Fake news will always catch up with you...they can say anything they want and get away with it because there is no fear of rebuttal, but when you repeat it here where people have a voice it all falls apart on you.

Show me one of them publicly refuting the veracity of the reports that cite them.

What reports? Can you produce a link to one so we can read what it says?

The fucking news report that is the subject of the conversation.


Bripat's plea to the forum.

View attachment 102541

The news report is fake news.

 

[jc456]

I love how people called Obama a Manchurian Candidate during his presidency. Trump literally is just that.

He is? Hmmm seems he won 306 to 232! You're saying 65 million people are Russian? Dude you need to put down the booze!

 

[jc456]

The fact that none of them are publicly refuting it is your proof. Do you believe those individuals in those positions would just sit there and let these claims go unanswered if they knew them to be false?

The only claim is that they agree in nature, scope and intent..what is there to refute?

And the article described the scope, nature and intent as what?

Exactly what is that?

 

[jc456]

No need. The reporting agencies already have.

The fake news agencies?

That's why you aren't seeing each of those people refuting it publicly.

If that were really true then you wouldn't have had asked me "why not"...Fake news will always catch up with you...they can say anything they want and get away with it because there is no fear of rebuttal, but when you repeat it here where people have a voice it all falls apart on you.

Show me one of them publicly refuting the veracity of the reports that cite them.

What reports? Can you produce a link to one so we can read what it says?

The fucking news report that is the subject of the conversation.


Bripat's plea to the forum.

View attachment 102541

Fake news

 

[Hutch Starskey]

tl;dr

The FBI, CIA and DNI are all in agreement -- Russia intervened in our election in order to help Trump win.

What this means, is Russian leaders would rather Trump be president than Hillary.

It does not mean that voting machines were hacked and the results of voting were changed.

Not one person has claimed that the Russians hacked any voting machines, but thanks for stating the obvious.

So in other words the Russians only influenced the election, much like the UK attempted when leaders there did not want to see Trump win the presidency.

Only with espionage in the form of cyber attacks and a disinformation campaign.

Fake news

Bless your heart.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The fact that none of them are publicly refuting it is your proof. Do you believe those individuals in those positions would just sit there and let these claims go unanswered if they knew them to be false?

The only claim is that they agree in nature, scope and intent..what is there to refute?

And the article described the scope, nature and intent as what?

Exactly what is that?

Part of the thread you should be reading.