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

[Lewdog]

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?

Why would I bother doing that since I'm not accusing Tillerson of being Putin's boyfriend or Melania of being a KGP spy?

So you admit it's true? Ok thanks.

Hmmmm. . . . no, only a moron would draw that conclusion.

No, only a moron would accept the lies Trump tells them as a lie and then say they don't trust every single intelligence agency in the U.S.

 

[jc456]

The burden of proof falls to the one making the claim not the one denying it.

WRONG. Trump supporters support his claims as truth and tell others to prove he is wrong. Therefor I can make a claim and you have to prove it wrong... that is unless you are a hypocrite?

His claims of what?

Everything... every single fucking thing he says. He said he could shoot and kill someone on 5th Avenue and you guys would still support him... and you believe it.

Did he do that?

Google it.

He shot someone? I couldn't find it sorry, perhaps you can post what you found

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Why would I bother doing that since I'm not accusing Tillerson of being Putin's boyfriend or Melania of being a KGP spy?

So you admit it's true? Ok thanks.

Hmmmm. . . . no, only a moron would draw that conclusion.

No, only a moron would accept the lies Trump tells them as a lie and then say they don't trust every single intelligence agency in the U.S.

Whether we trust intelligence agencies isn't the point. The only evidence we have that intelligence agencies believe what you claim are "unnamed sources." Calling people who don't accept that kind of evidence as credible "traitors" only proves that you're a douche bag.

 

[Lewdog]

WRONG. Trump supporters support his claims as truth and tell others to prove he is wrong. Therefor I can make a claim and you have to prove it wrong... that is unless you are a hypocrite?

His claims of what?

Everything... every single fucking thing he says. He said he could shoot and kill someone on 5th Avenue and you guys would still support him... and you believe it.

Did he do that?

Google it.

He shot someone? I couldn't find it sorry, perhaps you can post what you found

Yeah...he shot jizz all over your face and you licked it up...

 

[Lewdog]

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

Why would I bother doing that since I'm not accusing Tillerson of being Putin's boyfriend or Melania of being a KGP spy?

So you admit it's true? Ok thanks.

Hmmmm. . . . no, only a moron would draw that conclusion.

No, only a moron would accept the lies Trump tells them as a lie and then say they don't trust every single intelligence agency in the U.S.

Whether we trust intelligence agencies isn't the point. The only evidence we have that intelligence agencies believe what you claim are "unnamed sources." Calling people who don't accept that kind of evidence as credible "traitors" only proves that you're a douche bag.

So you're saying that intelligence agencies reported their findings that Russia hacked the DNC based on unnamed sources?

 

[jc456]

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?

Why would I bother doing that since I'm not accusing Tillerson of being Putin's boyfriend or Melania of being a KGP spy?

So you admit it's true? Ok thanks.

Hmmmm. . . . no, only a moron would draw that conclusion.

No, only a moron would accept the lies Trump tells them as a lie and then say they don't trust every single intelligence agency in the U.S.

More fake crap from you! You have no credibility

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Can you prove you're human, and can think....

I don't know about him but I'm trying, but I assume as soon as I get an intelligent response I'll have my confirmation

WRONG. Trump supporters support his claims as truth and tell others to prove he is wrong. Therefor I can make a claim and you have to prove it wrong... that is unless you are a hypocrite?

Are you really trying to get me to pull this out of you word by word?

I started out doing it for you, decided it was just easier to let you try

Did you suddenly forget what this discussion is about?

For me it's about the last quote in the OP not meaning or proving anything at all, anything other than that is where you took it, you know, like calling the CIA and FBI for confirmation...trusting fake news because the CIA and FBI has chosen to ignore it...stuff like that

 

[jc456]

Why would I bother doing that since I'm not accusing Tillerson of being Putin's boyfriend or Melania of being a KGP spy?

So you admit it's true? Ok thanks.

Hmmmm. . . . no, only a moron would draw that conclusion.

No, only a moron would accept the lies Trump tells them as a lie and then say they don't trust every single intelligence agency in the U.S.

Whether we trust intelligence agencies isn't the point. The only evidence we have that intelligence agencies believe what you claim are "unnamed sources." Calling people who don't accept that kind of evidence as credible "traitors" only proves that you're a douche bag.

So you're saying that intelligence agencies reported their findings that Russia hacked the DNC based on unnamed sources?

EXACTLY

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

It's English and it's meaning is self evident. I've humored you for sometime to stretch this out so all of the readers can get a clear picture of the depths of your dysfunction and you have obliged happily. For that, I thank you.

The meaning of any word is not self evident when Left wing douche bags like you are using them. Left wingers always have idiosyncratic definitions for the words they use.

You haven't "humored" jack shit. You're just running away because you are a fucking coward who is wriggling on a hook.

Now try it again: What does the word "verified" mean in your opinion?

It's a word in my native language, it has one meaning and I used it accordingly.

 

[jc456]

His claims of what?

Everything... every single fucking thing he says. He said he could shoot and kill someone on 5th Avenue and you guys would still support him... and you believe it.

Did he do that?

Google it.

He shot someone? I couldn't find it sorry, perhaps you can post what you found

Yeah...he shot jizz all over your face and you licked it up...

WINNING

 

[Lewdog]

So you admit it's true? Ok thanks.

Hmmmm. . . . no, only a moron would draw that conclusion.

No, only a moron would accept the lies Trump tells them as a lie and then say they don't trust every single intelligence agency in the U.S.

Whether we trust intelligence agencies isn't the point. The only evidence we have that intelligence agencies believe what you claim are "unnamed sources." Calling people who don't accept that kind of evidence as credible "traitors" only proves that you're a douche bag.

So you're saying that intelligence agencies reported their findings that Russia hacked the DNC based on unnamed sources?

EXACTLY

 

[jc456]

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.

It's English and it's meaning is self evident. I've humored you for sometime to stretch this out so all of the readers can get a clear picture of the depths of your dysfunction and you have obliged happily. For that, I thank you.

The meaning of any word is not self evident when Left wing douche bags like you are using them. Left wingers always have idiosyncratic definitions for the words they use.

You haven't "humored" jack shit. You're just running away because you are a fucking coward who is wriggling on a hook.

Now try it again: What does the word "verified" mean in your opinion?

It's a word in my native language, it has one meaning and I used it accordingly.

Or not

 

[bripat9643]

Why would I bother doing that since I'm not accusing Tillerson of being Putin's boyfriend or Melania of being a KGP spy?

So you admit it's true? Ok thanks.

Hmmmm. . . . no, only a moron would draw that conclusion.

No, only a moron would accept the lies Trump tells them as a lie and then say they don't trust every single intelligence agency in the U.S.

Whether we trust intelligence agencies isn't the point. The only evidence we have that intelligence agencies believe what you claim are "unnamed sources." Calling people who don't accept that kind of evidence as credible "traitors" only proves that you're a douche bag.

So you're saying that intelligence agencies reported their findings that Russia hacked the DNC based on unnamed sources?

You have no idea what intelligence agencies have reported. Can you post a link to their reports?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

It's English and it's meaning is self evident. I've humored you for sometime to stretch this out so all of the readers can get a clear picture of the depths of your dysfunction and you have obliged happily. For that, I thank you.

The meaning of any word is not self evident when Left wing douche bags like you are using them. Left wingers always have idiosyncratic definitions for the words they use.

You haven't "humored" jack shit. You're just running away because you are a fucking coward who is wriggling on a hook.

Now try it again: What does the word "verified" mean in your opinion?

It's a word in my native language, it has one meaning and I used it accordingly.

You're obviously a sleazy lying douche bag. Nothing you say can be believed. Nothing.

 

[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?

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.

Do you even know what we're currently discussing?

You know that you can open the quote boxes and see the flow of the discussion. Nowhere were we talking about 330 million people.

 

[Lewdog]

So you admit it's true? Ok thanks.

Hmmmm. . . . no, only a moron would draw that conclusion.

No, only a moron would accept the lies Trump tells them as a lie and then say they don't trust every single intelligence agency in the U.S.

Whether we trust intelligence agencies isn't the point. The only evidence we have that intelligence agencies believe what you claim are "unnamed sources." Calling people who don't accept that kind of evidence as credible "traitors" only proves that you're a douche bag.

So you're saying that intelligence agencies reported their findings that Russia hacked the DNC based on unnamed sources?

You have no idea what intelligence agencies have reported. Can you post a link to their reports?

WTF are you talking about? Put down the fucking spray paint can. People including me have posted numerous links and videos in this thread, including me from a guy who has been working directly on the case... you fucking idiot troll.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

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.

Do you even know what we're currently discussing?

We're discussing your inability to explain what "verified" means.

 

[jc456]

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.

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.

Do you even know what we're currently discussing?

Fake news you posted

 

[bripat9643]

Hmmmm. . . . no, only a moron would draw that conclusion.

No, only a moron would accept the lies Trump tells them as a lie and then say they don't trust every single intelligence agency in the U.S.

Whether we trust intelligence agencies isn't the point. The only evidence we have that intelligence agencies believe what you claim are "unnamed sources." Calling people who don't accept that kind of evidence as credible "traitors" only proves that you're a douche bag.

So you're saying that intelligence agencies reported their findings that Russia hacked the DNC based on unnamed sources?

You have no idea what intelligence agencies have reported. Can you post a link to their reports?

WTF are you talking about? Put down the fucking spray paint can. People including me have posted numerous links and videos in this thread, including me from a guy who has been working directly on the case... you fucking idiot troll.

Post a link to these "reports" you keep talking about. So far I haven't seen a single sentence from one.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

It's English and it's meaning is self evident. I've humored you for sometime to stretch this out so all of the readers can get a clear picture of the depths of your dysfunction and you have obliged happily. For that, I thank you.

The meaning of any word is not self evident when Left wing douche bags like you are using them. Left wingers always have idiosyncratic definitions for the words they use.

You haven't "humored" jack shit. You're just running away because you are a fucking coward who is wriggling on a hook.

Now try it again: What does the word "verified" mean in your opinion?

It's a word in my native language, it has one meaning and I used it accordingly.

You're obviously a sleazy lying douche bag. Nothing you say can be believed. Nothing.

Obviously.


Reader please open boxes to see the conversation.