I need an answer to this question..

[usmbguest5318]

I don't know where they GOT the "code" from,

What is your need to know that information? Does the USIC agree with your assessment?

1) Name ONE agency that actually got access to Podesta's phone or the DNC servers.

Tell me how you know none did.

I don't know what specifically the USIC agencies examined. What I know is what the USIC have stated in their report. I have no basis for refuting what they say and I have no basis for reading into what they said more than they did say.

• "Intelligence Community analysts integrate information from a wide range of sources, including human sources, technical collection, and open source information, and apply specialized skills and structured analytic tools to draw inferences informed by the data available, relevant past activity, and logic and reasoning to provide insight into what is happening and the prospects for the future."
• "Every kind of cyber operation—malicious or not—leaves a trail. US Intelligence Community analysts use this information, their constantly growing knowledge base of previous events and known malicious actors, and their knowledge of how these malicious actors work and the tools that they use, to attempt to trace these operations back to their source. In every case, they apply the same tradecraft standards described in the Analytic Process above."

The report does not disclose the specific methods used. I doubt the USIC will disclose that level of information. That they don't or won't doesn't give you or me just cause to doubt the veracity of the conclusions shared in the report. You apparently work/worked in cybersecurity and you seem to know something about forensic tech investigation/analysis. Is there some reason for you to think that the USIC lacks equally or more competent employees and/or contractors than you? Are you that irreplaceable? If you are, I'm sure you've have been contacted by now.

I know that sounds like "who the fuck are you?" but that's not what I mean. I'm not trying to discredit you; I'm saying let's keep things in perspective. I'm saying the people who were tasked with looking into the matter know what they are doing and they don't have a reason to lie about what their findings indicate. This isn't Big Brother, Survivor, The Apprentice, or the Housewives. The government is serious even though Trump, various forum posters, and others may treat the political process as though it's a joke. The tone of your demands is indicative of that appropriate to scrutinizing children who are trying to get away with a prank. The matter is well beyond "punking."

There's not much that senior members of Congress from both sides agree on. This is one such thing. This matter has more agreement than did Iraq War II. The fact that you can ask for something that won't be made available to you, in this situation, is insufficient as a legitimate cause for denial or doubt about the USIC's findings.

2) How many OTHER intrusions were detected? Don't tell me the ONLY intrusion led back to the Kremlin.

Q1: I'm not going to do your "goggling" for you, and I'm certainly not for you or anyone going to plumb and distill the reports that have been published. I know some arm of the GOP was also hacked/duped. Who besides that? I have no idea.

C1: Not hard to not say seeing as I don't know.

for which the password was "PASSWORD"

I haven't seen one shred of corroborating evidence for that claim which was not made by the USIC or anyone who's actually been involved in the investigation or hack. I know Jesse Watters made that assertion on Fox as though it was common knowledge that Podesta's password was "password." I haven't seen any documentation that gives him the right to say that, and as he's not part of the government, the source information he uses to make such a claim must be somewhere be documented publicly seeing as he didn't attribute his knowledge to a verbal conversation with somebody.

I need answers to questions and I want the diversions, excuses and bickering to stop...

So let's say you get the answer(s). Then what? So what? Does it alter the conversation here? Does it do something worthwhile in your "real" life? Are you going to promote an operative or analyst to a new job? Are you going to do something to stop it from happening again? Where's the "there" there in your self-professed need to know?

 

[flacaltenn]

I don't know where they GOT the "code" from,

What is your need to know that information? Does the USIC agree with your assessment?

1) Name ONE agency that actually got access to Podesta's phone or the DNC servers.

Tell me how you know none did.

I don't know what specifically the USIC agencies examined. What I know is what the USIC have stated in their report. I have no basis for refuting what they say and I have no basis for reading into what they said more than they did say.

• "Intelligence Community analysts integrate information from a wide range of sources, including human sources, technical collection, and open source information, and apply specialized skills and structured analytic tools to draw inferences informed by the data available, relevant past activity, and logic and reasoning to provide insight into what is happening and the prospects for the future."
• "Every kind of cyber operation—malicious or not—leaves a trail. US Intelligence Community analysts use this information, their constantly growing knowledge base of previous events and known malicious actors, and their knowledge of how these malicious actors work and the tools that they use, to attempt to trace these operations back to their source. In every case, they apply the same tradecraft standards described in the Analytic Process above."

The report does not disclose the specific methods used. I doubt the USIC will disclose that level of information. That they don't or won't doesn't give you or me just cause to doubt the veracity of the conclusions shared in the report. You apparently work/worked in cybersecurity and you seem to know something about forensic tech investigation/analysis. Is there some reason for you to think that the USIC lacks equally or more competent employees and/or contractors than you? Are you that irreplaceable? If you are, I'm sure you've have been contacted by now.

I know that sounds like "who the fuck are you?" but that's not what I mean. I'm not trying to discredit you; I'm saying let's keep things in perspective. I'm saying the people who were tasked with looking into the matter know what they are doing and they don't have a reason to lie about what their findings indicate. This isn't Big Brother, Survivor, The Apprentice, or the Housewives. The government is serious even though Trump, various forum posters, and others may treat the political process as though it's a joke. The tone of your demands is indicative of that appropriate to scrutinizing children who are trying to get away with a prank. The matter is well beyond "punking."

There's not much that senior members of Congress from both sides agree on. This is one such thing. This matter has more agreement than did Iraq War II. The fact that you can ask for something that won't be made available to you, in this situation, is insufficient as a legitimate cause for denial or doubt about the USIC's findings.

2) How many OTHER intrusions were detected? Don't tell me the ONLY intrusion led back to the Kremlin.

Q1: I'm not going to do your "goggling" for you, and I'm certainly not for you or anyone going to plumb and distill the reports that have been published. I know some arm of the GOP was also hacked/duped. Who besides that? I have no idea.

C1: Not hard to not say seeing as I don't know.

for which the password was "PASSWORD"

I haven't seen one shred of corroborating evidence for that claim which was not made by the USIC or anyone who's actually been involved in the investigation or hack. I know Jesse Watters made that assertion on Fox as though it was common knowledge that Podesta's password was "password." I haven't seen any documentation that gives him the right to say that, and as he's not part of the government, the source information he uses to make such a claim must be somewhere be documented publicly seeing as he didn't attribute his knowledge to a verbal conversation with somebody.

I need answers to questions and I want the diversions, excuses and bickering to stop...

So let's say you get the answer(s). Then what? So what? Does it alter the conversation here? Does it do something worthwhile in your "real" life? Are you going to promote an operative or analyst to a new job? Are you going to do something to stop it from happening again? Where's the "there" there in your self-professed need to know?

Well that was less than helpful.. Easiest ones first. The password was "password" reference is now OPEN sourced forever on WikiLeaks as part of the information found in the Podesta email dump. And -- I'm "not gonna Google that for you..

Secondly I need no motive for asking why these FUNDAMENTAL questions have not been asked and answered --- other than the following. I fear for my country and the CURRENT food fight is disgustingly "fact free".. And also -- the "narrative" here is phonier than the "video caused Benghazi" cover-up excuse.

The answer really seems to be -- there was NOTHING in the USIC reports indicating that ANY agency ever had access to the ACTUAL machines involved in this scandal. It's mostly bloviation based on what was ALLOWED to be known from "independent" investigations done by hired contractors with FULL CONTROL of the results up to the political hacks that hired them.

There was no 3 alarm reaction from the HUMONGEOUS USIC while this event was fresh. It's all "after action" ass covering -- as far as I can tell.

 

[Disir]

The first person to scream Russians came out of Clinton's campaign. Boom. We're done. Everything else is simply to make sure the show goes on.

Say what? The first thing I can recall was Trump imploring the Russians to hack for emails.

Nope. The very first person to scream Russians came from Clinton's campaign.

I saw your responses below. You're right about which side made the first claims about Russian interference and the act of hacking.

Now for the interesting parts:

• Mook/Pelosi were not making up that the DNC was hacked.
• They were not wrong that the Russians were behind it.

Hindsight thus shows us the Dems should have been believed from the start. That they weren't is troubling because it means that:

• a whole lot of people cannot truly see the political process as a trifle, that is, they think accusing another nation of malfeasant meddling in our political process is something our leaders would do purely for the sake of political gain. The actors who caused the hack/dupe to occur owe no allegiance to the U.S., but were they to, the hack/dupe and subsequent release would have been declared treason or sedition.
  
• a whole lot of people don't hold as sacrosanct the U.S. political process. The first thing that should have crossed the electorate's mind is that responsible people do not lightly make direct and overt assertions about the involvement of another world power. Though the context (domestic vs. international) differs, the McCarthy era's false accusations should be lesson enough for people to know better than to trifle like that. It is destabilizing, which in turn diminishes our credibility in the world, and that is exactly what Russia and China's government want to see happen. Quite simply, back "when America was great," the entire nation would have taken great offense from the get go.
• looking at the making-light of the Democrats' claims about Russian intervention, one has to question the sincerity of the proclaimed patriotism of the many who, rather than giving the benefit of the doubt, cried BS. That strongly suggests they place their party above their country. That's what Trump did. It's what a lot of his followers did. I don't find that acceptable. Of all the reasons for not wanting Trump as president, that one thing is, for me at least, singularly disqualifying.

(FWIW, a date would have been enough.)

Okay. When?

The Russians didn't hack the DNC. They did not interfere with the election.

 

[Disir]

The first person to scream Russians came out of Clinton's campaign. Boom. We're done. Everything else is simply to make sure the show goes on.

Say what? The first thing I can recall was Trump imploring the Russians to hack for emails.

You are deliberately continuing the lies. No, Trump didn't implore Russians to hack. He was referring to Hillary's missing emails, which Hillary claimed didn't exist. Trump suggested that Russia release them if they had them. Any hacking of her emails would have been done prior to her leaving the State Dept in 2013 and, at that time, no one knew who would be running for president. It was totally Hillary's fault that she disregarded security measures in the handling of State Dept emails. And, again, she claimed she never deleted any of the work emails. The left is pissed because someone proved that to be a lie.

The DNC emails are another matter entirely. And there is no evidence of hacking there. Assange has said all along that an insider leaked them. Because the insider had legal access, no hacking was required.

In both cases, the emails showed evidence of deep corruption, which the left continues to ignore as they attack those they think might be responsible for exposing what a criminal some libs are.

You guys think exposing Dems is the crime here.

This bogus claim of Russia supporting Trump has gone too far. The intolerance and shameless whining on the part of Dems is disgusting.

Keep beating a dead horse! Hilarious!

You can bullshit some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Well that was less than helpful.. Easiest ones first. The password was "password" reference is now OPEN sourced forever on WikiLeaks as part of the information found in the Podesta email dump. And -- I'm "not gonna Google that for you..

You do realize that Google doesn't allow "password" as a password?

I just tried to setup a Gmail account using "password" as my password. I couldn't get past the first step. The message I got is, "Common words are easy to guess. Try again?" I kept pressing "Next" to no avail.

"Password" was not Podesta's Gmail password.

There was no 3 alarm reaction from the HUMONGEOUS USIC while this event was fresh. It's all "after action" ass covering -- as far as I can tell.

I suspect that when the CIA (USIC) got a bead on Bin Laden, they were going apesh*t all over the place. I didn't hear about anything "going on" or any "hustle and bustle" or that any intel organization was having any "3 alarm reactions." It was done and over with by the time I heard about it. Perhaps with your former security credentials you received advance notice and think, therefore, that you should have this time round too?

 

[Statistikhengst]

More snowflake cons who can't take some hard words.... gee, I am so surprised.

Now, cons, go run to your safe places. Flacciddicktenn will save you!!!

View attachment 105643

Yes, I bet you do....

 

[percysunshine]

More snowflake cons who can't take some hard words.... gee, I am so surprised.

Now, cons, go run to your safe places. Flacciddicktenn will save you!!!

View attachment 105643

Yes, I bet you do....

Holy shit, the covert operative Statisticalangst is here.

When did you first meet Eric Snowden?

 

[Statistikhengst]

More snowflake cons who can't take some hard words.... gee, I am so surprised.

Now, cons, go run to your safe places. Flacciddicktenn will save you!!!

View attachment 105643

Yes, I bet you do....

Holy shit, the covert operative Statisticalangst is here.

When did you first meet Eric Snowden?

Hey, Dude, how are those anal warts doing?

 

[owebo]

More snowflake cons who can't take some hard words.... gee, I am so surprised.

Now, cons, go run to your safe places. Flacciddicktenn will save you!!!

View attachment 105643

Yes, I bet you do....

Holy shit, the covert operative Statisticalangst is here.

When did you first meet Eric Snowden?

Seems he's vacationing in his safe space.....

 

[percysunshine]

More snowflake cons who can't take some hard words.... gee, I am so surprised.

Now, cons, go run to your safe places. Flacciddicktenn will save you!!!

View attachment 105643

Yes, I bet you do....

Holy shit, the covert operative Statisticalangst is here.

When did you first meet Eric Snowden?

Hey, Dude, how are those anal warts doing?

My investment advisors tell me the anal warts are small..and I am supposed to trust them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well, stop starting from a position of fantasy.

I'm not, you are. The Russian government tried to influence our election to get Donald Trump elected. You think their efforts did not, I think they did. The efforts themselves are not in question by anyone but you it would seem.

No. You are. The Russians did not try to influence our election. In fact, most people were aware of her policies before any of the Wikileaks dumps. So, rather than deal with the issues presented in the dumps you want to pretend it was big bad Russia "influencing" an election. Influencing which is completely and totally subjective used as a distraction. Then you don't have to pay attention to policies or past actions or make any changes. Now that is convenient. Is it not?

Uh, yes, they did. Even the the Mango Mussolini himself is admitting it. Russia hacked into the DNC and released only emails damaging to Clinton. Nothing from the Bernie camp and his piece of shit attack dog Weaver, nothing from the RNC, only Clinton. That was done to intentionally hurt Hillary Clinton and for no other reason.

Russia did not hack into the DNC. Clinton damaged herself. Clinton screwed Bernie and Clinton's paid for trolls and supporters damaged themselves. Pretending Clinton was a victim is rather telling and a saint at that even more so.

I'm sorry but your saying the opposite of 17 intelligence agencies doesn't convince me. You wanting to continue to love Assange and Wikileaks does not change the fact that Russia tried to influence a US election and were, most likely, effective.

Clinton was the victim...this time. It could have just as easily been Bernie whose emails were released. I guarantee you it would have left him just as sullied as it left Clinton and if the RNC was hacked...I can just imagine what Vlad has on the GOP and the Gropenfuhrer especially.

Uh, oh.....

“The Associated Press reported that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies have agreed that Russia tried to influence the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump,” the AP stated, citing four specific reports from as early as April that made the assertion. “That assessment was based on information collected by three agencies – the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency – and published by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which represents all U.S. intelligence agencies.”

“Not all 17 intelligence agencies were involved in reaching the assessment,” the statement concludes."
Associated Press Corrects Big Falsehood In Four Trump-Russia Reports


Agencies headed by Obama political appointees.

In your face, boooyyyyyyeeeeeee!!!

 

[francoHFW]

I'm not, you are. The Russian government tried to influence our election to get Donald Trump elected. You think their efforts did not, I think they did. The efforts themselves are not in question by anyone but you it would seem.

No. You are. The Russians did not try to influence our election. In fact, most people were aware of her policies before any of the Wikileaks dumps. So, rather than deal with the issues presented in the dumps you want to pretend it was big bad Russia "influencing" an election. Influencing which is completely and totally subjective used as a distraction. Then you don't have to pay attention to policies or past actions or make any changes. Now that is convenient. Is it not?

Uh, yes, they did. Even the the Mango Mussolini himself is admitting it. Russia hacked into the DNC and released only emails damaging to Clinton. Nothing from the Bernie camp and his piece of shit attack dog Weaver, nothing from the RNC, only Clinton. That was done to intentionally hurt Hillary Clinton and for no other reason.

Russia did not hack into the DNC. Clinton damaged herself. Clinton screwed Bernie and Clinton's paid for trolls and supporters damaged themselves. Pretending Clinton was a victim is rather telling and a saint at that even more so.

I'm sorry but your saying the opposite of 17 intelligence agencies doesn't convince me. You wanting to continue to love Assange and Wikileaks does not change the fact that Russia tried to influence a US election and were, most likely, effective.

Clinton was the victim...this time. It could have just as easily been Bernie whose emails were released. I guarantee you it would have left him just as sullied as it left Clinton and if the RNC was hacked...I can just imagine what Vlad has on the GOP and the Gropenfuhrer especially.

Uh, oh.....

“The Associated Press reported that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies have agreed that Russia tried to influence the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump,” the AP stated, citing four specific reports from as early as April that made the assertion. “That assessment was based on information collected by three agencies – the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency – and published by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which represents all U.S. intelligence agencies.”

“Not all 17 intelligence agencies were involved in reaching the assessment,” the statement concludes."
Associated Press Corrects Big Falsehood In Four Trump-Russia Reports


Agencies headed by Obama political appointees.

In your face, boooyyyyyyeeeeeee!!!

Also all the GOPers on congressional intelligence committees. You dupes are technically insane....

 

[radical right]

“Not all 17 intelligence agencies were involved in reaching the assessment,” the statement concludes."
Associated Press Corrects Big Falsehood In Four Trump-Russia Reports


Agencies headed by Obama political appointees.

In your face, boooyyyyyyeeeeeee!!!

Have you ever been on a jury? The 17 agencies are like the 12 jurors. They all agreed on the conclusions.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No. You are. The Russians did not try to influence our election. In fact, most people were aware of her policies before any of the Wikileaks dumps. So, rather than deal with the issues presented in the dumps you want to pretend it was big bad Russia "influencing" an election. Influencing which is completely and totally subjective used as a distraction. Then you don't have to pay attention to policies or past actions or make any changes. Now that is convenient. Is it not?

Uh, yes, they did. Even the the Mango Mussolini himself is admitting it. Russia hacked into the DNC and released only emails damaging to Clinton. Nothing from the Bernie camp and his piece of shit attack dog Weaver, nothing from the RNC, only Clinton. That was done to intentionally hurt Hillary Clinton and for no other reason.

Russia did not hack into the DNC. Clinton damaged herself. Clinton screwed Bernie and Clinton's paid for trolls and supporters damaged themselves. Pretending Clinton was a victim is rather telling and a saint at that even more so.

I'm sorry but your saying the opposite of 17 intelligence agencies doesn't convince me. You wanting to continue to love Assange and Wikileaks does not change the fact that Russia tried to influence a US election and were, most likely, effective.

Clinton was the victim...this time. It could have just as easily been Bernie whose emails were released. I guarantee you it would have left him just as sullied as it left Clinton and if the RNC was hacked...I can just imagine what Vlad has on the GOP and the Gropenfuhrer especially.

Uh, oh.....

“The Associated Press reported that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies have agreed that Russia tried to influence the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump,” the AP stated, citing four specific reports from as early as April that made the assertion. “That assessment was based on information collected by three agencies – the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency – and published by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which represents all U.S. intelligence agencies.”

“Not all 17 intelligence agencies were involved in reaching the assessment,” the statement concludes."
Associated Press Corrects Big Falsehood In Four Trump-Russia Reports


Agencies headed by Obama political appointees.

In your face, boooyyyyyyeeeeeee!!!

Also all the GOPers on congressional intelligence committees. You dupes are technically insane....

And not just the AP:


TheNYT added a paragraph to the end that reflects either an astoundingly poor ability to communicate in English, or a deliberate effort to obscure the error and resulting correction.


It reads:


“A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump’s deflections and denials about Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia orchestrated hacking attacks during last year’s presidential election. The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.”


Fixed: An Absurdly Written NYT Correction To A Trump-Russia Story



I'd say you were made to look like a fool......

...but it's not just 'look like.'

 

[PoliticalChic]

“Not all 17 intelligence agencies were involved in reaching the assessment,” the statement concludes."
Associated Press Corrects Big Falsehood In Four Trump-Russia Reports


Agencies headed by Obama political appointees.

In your face, boooyyyyyyeeeeeee!!!

Have you ever been on a jury? The 17 agencies are like the 12 jurors. They all agreed on the conclusions.

And not just the AP:


TheNYT added a paragraph to the end that reflects either an astoundingly poor ability to communicate in English, or a deliberate effort to obscure the error and resulting correction.


It reads:


“A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump’s deflections and denials about Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia orchestrated hacking attacks during last year’s presidential election. The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.”
Fixed: An Absurdly Written NYT Correction To A Trump-Russia Story



I'd say you were made to look like a fool...

...but it's not just 'look like.'

 

[francoHFW]

Uh, yes, they did. Even the the Mango Mussolini himself is admitting it. Russia hacked into the DNC and released only emails damaging to Clinton. Nothing from the Bernie camp and his piece of shit attack dog Weaver, nothing from the RNC, only Clinton. That was done to intentionally hurt Hillary Clinton and for no other reason.

Russia did not hack into the DNC. Clinton damaged herself. Clinton screwed Bernie and Clinton's paid for trolls and supporters damaged themselves. Pretending Clinton was a victim is rather telling and a saint at that even more so.

I'm sorry but your saying the opposite of 17 intelligence agencies doesn't convince me. You wanting to continue to love Assange and Wikileaks does not change the fact that Russia tried to influence a US election and were, most likely, effective.

Clinton was the victim...this time. It could have just as easily been Bernie whose emails were released. I guarantee you it would have left him just as sullied as it left Clinton and if the RNC was hacked...I can just imagine what Vlad has on the GOP and the Gropenfuhrer especially.

Uh, oh.....

“The Associated Press reported that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies have agreed that Russia tried to influence the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump,” the AP stated, citing four specific reports from as early as April that made the assertion. “That assessment was based on information collected by three agencies – the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency – and published by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which represents all U.S. intelligence agencies.”

“Not all 17 intelligence agencies were involved in reaching the assessment,” the statement concludes."
Associated Press Corrects Big Falsehood In Four Trump-Russia Reports


Agencies headed by Obama political appointees.

In your face, boooyyyyyyeeeeeee!!!

Also all the GOPers on congressional intelligence committees. You dupes are technically insane....

And not just the AP:


TheNYT added a paragraph to the end that reflects either an astoundingly poor ability to communicate in English, or a deliberate effort to obscure the error and resulting correction.


It reads:


“A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump’s deflections and denials about Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia orchestrated hacking attacks during last year’s presidential election. The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.”


Fixed: An Absurdly Written NYT Correction To A Trump-Russia Story



I'd say you were made to look like a fool......

...but it's not just 'look like.'

But they all agree on it DUHHH....
Congressional Republicans Break with Trump on Russia Hacking, Julian Assange

 

[radical right]

But they all agree on it DUHHH....
Congressional Republicans Break with Trump on Russia Hacking, Julian Assange

Oklahoma senator James Lankford, a member of the intelligence committee, said on CNN Thursday that there's no doubt that Russia was behind the hacking of Democratic campaign officials.


"You heard DNI Clapper today say in those hearings that there is no doubt that Russia was behind the election interference.

"Do you have any doubt that Russia perpetrated these attacks?"

"No," Lankford replied, "I don't have any doubt that Russia's been engaged in trying to interfere with our elections

Lankford was then asked if he could "describe in general terms" the evidence that proved senior Russian leaders were behind the email hacking. "No, I can't," Lankford replied, saying that would reveal classified information.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Russia did not hack into the DNC. Clinton damaged herself. Clinton screwed Bernie and Clinton's paid for trolls and supporters damaged themselves. Pretending Clinton was a victim is rather telling and a saint at that even more so.

I'm sorry but your saying the opposite of 17 intelligence agencies doesn't convince me. You wanting to continue to love Assange and Wikileaks does not change the fact that Russia tried to influence a US election and were, most likely, effective.

Clinton was the victim...this time. It could have just as easily been Bernie whose emails were released. I guarantee you it would have left him just as sullied as it left Clinton and if the RNC was hacked...I can just imagine what Vlad has on the GOP and the Gropenfuhrer especially.

Uh, oh.....

“The Associated Press reported that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies have agreed that Russia tried to influence the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump,” the AP stated, citing four specific reports from as early as April that made the assertion. “That assessment was based on information collected by three agencies – the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency – and published by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which represents all U.S. intelligence agencies.”

“Not all 17 intelligence agencies were involved in reaching the assessment,” the statement concludes."
Associated Press Corrects Big Falsehood In Four Trump-Russia Reports


Agencies headed by Obama political appointees.

In your face, boooyyyyyyeeeeeee!!!

Also all the GOPers on congressional intelligence committees. You dupes are technically insane....

And not just the AP:


TheNYT added a paragraph to the end that reflects either an astoundingly poor ability to communicate in English, or a deliberate effort to obscure the error and resulting correction.


It reads:


“A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump’s deflections and denials about Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia orchestrated hacking attacks during last year’s presidential election. The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.”


Fixed: An Absurdly Written NYT Correction To A Trump-Russia Story



I'd say you were made to look like a fool......

...but it's not just 'look like.'

But they all agree on it DUHHH....
Congressional Republicans Break with Trump on Russia Hacking, Julian Assange

Not a single one claims to have evidence.

It's made up to sound dispositve to morons.

Raise your paw.

 

[radical right]

Not a single one claims to have evidence.

It's made up to sound dispositve to morons.

Raise your paw.

Actually not a single one says they can reveal the classified evidence.

 

[tinydancer]

None.