I need an answer to this question..

[Lewdog]

Really? If the hacking by the Russians and the subsequent Wikileaks did not influence the election in any way, why did the Trump team do nothing but bring up the Wikileaks during the months of September and October?

About a thousand mentions of wikileaks by trump in all of his rallies and tweets, trump was relentless!

Anytime a Trump surrogate was asked about some new revelation about Trump, they said "yeah, but what about the Wikileaks"...

The shit found on Wikileaks was much better than anything lefties used against Trump.

So you are saying it was so good it could influence how people voted in an election? Thanks for confirming that.

No, that's what you're saying.

What I said is that Wikileaks stuff was much better than anything lefties used against Trump.

What you just confirmed, and I stated few posts earlier, is that you're still talking out of your ass.

Wrong, you just complimented the information from WikiLeaks. If it was not good enough to influence people's votes on the election then it wouldn't be quality stuff...

You just got caught talking out of both sides of your mouth.

 

[radical right]

What? Do you ascribe to the notion that it was one of those Hollywood Blvd. impersonators of famous people who implored Russia to find some of Hillary Clinton's emails?

​

Why don't you post a video of what Trump actually said? How about a transcript?

No, you think everyone is an idiot to believe in what media wants you to believe.

As I said, it never happened.

Seriously? Seriously?

 

[Ame®icano]

I'm amazed at the number of people that still think the government intelligence agencies are just going to give out the way they were able to trace the hackers...

Every time I see someone say that it's obvious they have no idea how intelligence gathering works.

You seems to be amazed by many things.

Every time you claim you know something it turns out that you speaking out of your ass.

Every time? Please make a list and show me. Most times when I say I know something I provide proof of it.

Has that professor you said you contacted about hacking the voting machines ever answered to you?

Nope he never did... I didn't expect him to given how busy he probably is, but I gave it a shot.

He wasn't that busy to talk bullshit when he was seeking attention. I'm not buying the "busy" excuse.

Just to be clear, you contacted him to disprove what I was saying. Since he never replied, that means that he was full of shit or more likely that I was right and telling the truth. Either way works for me.

 

[Ame®icano]

What? Do you ascribe to the notion that it was one of those Hollywood Blvd. impersonators of famous people who implored Russia to find some of Hillary Clinton's emails?

​

Why don't you post a video of what Trump actually said? How about a transcript?

No, you think everyone is an idiot to believe in what media wants you to believe.

As I said, it never happened.

Seriously? Seriously?

Yes, seriously.

He didn't asked them to hack anything. He said "Russia, I hope you're able to find 30k emails that are missing."

You know what word "missing" means. By the way, at the time he said that, Clinton's server, that she claimed was never hacked, was already sealed as FBI evidence, so how Russians could possibly hack into it?

 

[usmbguest5318]

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.

Never happened.

What? Do you ascribe to the notion that it was one of those Hollywood Blvd. impersonators of famous people who implored Russia to find some of Hillary Clinton's emails?

​

Why don't you post a video of what Trump actually said? How about a transcript?

No, you think everyone is an idiot to believe in what media wants you to believe.

As I said, it never happened.

At the time he said "Russia, I hope you could find missing emails", Clinton's server was already in FBI evidence room, so how Russians could possibly hack into it?

Why don't you post a video of what Trump actually said?

OMG...you do indeed ascribe to the impersonator theory! L8R.

 

[radical right]

He didn't asked them to hack anything. He said "Russia, I hope you're able to find 30k emails that are missing."

You know what word "missing" means. By the way, at the time he said that, Clinton's server, that she claimed was never hacked, was already sealed as FBI evidence, so how Russians could possibly hack into it?

And Bathsheeba didnt ask to hurt anyone when she asked "Bring me the head of John the baptist."

 

[radical right]

And Trump the Orange asked, "Bring me the e-mails of Hillary the Clinton"

 

[Lewdog]

I'm amazed at the number of people that still think the government intelligence agencies are just going to give out the way they were able to trace the hackers...

Every time I see someone say that it's obvious they have no idea how intelligence gathering works.

You seems to be amazed by many things.

Every time you claim you know something it turns out that you speaking out of your ass.

Every time? Please make a list and show me. Most times when I say I know something I provide proof of it.

Has that professor you said you contacted about hacking the voting machines ever answered to you?

Nope he never did... I didn't expect him to given how busy he probably is, but I gave it a shot.

He wasn't that busy to talk bullshit when he was seeking attention. I'm not buying the "busy" excuse.

Just to be clear, you contacted him to disprove what I was saying. Since he never replied, that means that he was full of shit or more likely that I was right and telling the truth. Either way works for me.

Are you fucking serious or seriously delusional? Let's see... CNN writes him an email asking him to do an interview... or some random guy from a message board writes him an email. Which is going to get his attention more? You also realize the guy is a fucking professor too right?

A non-answer doesn't make you correct. That's a logical fallacy... but something like a logical fallacy is too far over your head.

 

[Ame®icano]

And Trump the Orange asked, "Bring me the e-mails of Hillary the Clinton"

Nope. That's what you wish he said.

What he actually said is: "Russia, I hope you're able to find 30k emails that are missing."

 

[usmbguest5318]

What? Do you ascribe to the notion that it was one of those Hollywood Blvd. impersonators of famous people who implored Russia to find some of Hillary Clinton's emails?

​

Why don't you post a video of what Trump actually said? How about a transcript?

No, you think everyone is an idiot to believe in what media wants you to believe.

As I said, it never happened.

Seriously? Seriously?

Yes, seriously.

He didn't asked them to hack anything. He said "Russia, I hope you're able to find 30k emails that are missing."

You know what word "missing" means. By the way, at the time he said that, Clinton's server, that she claimed was never hacked, was already sealed as FBI evidence, so how Russians could possibly hack into it?

You know what word "missing" means.

Just how many ignoramuses are there among this site's membership? There should be no reason for anyone posting here to have misconstrued Trump's statement re: Russia finding Clinton's allegedly missing emails. Even middle-schoolers aren't so doltish as to deign to equivocate and dissemble (one hopes) as you have above.

Though you and other nitwits may, regarding Trump's remark, focus on the word "missing," the actively operative parts of that statement are the verbs/infinitives "to hope" and "to find."

• "Missing" is an adjectival form of "to miss." Thus, "missing," as Trump used it, describes as state of being, not an action.
• "To find" is an infinitive. It identifies an action that a person, place or thing performs.

You'll also notice that Trump's statement used "hope" as a transitive verb, not an intransitive one. (My parenthetical use of "hope" in this post's first paragraph illustrates the intransitive use of the word; thus it carries that denotation rather than the transitive one.) As a transitive verb, "hope" means "to desire with expectation of obtainment or fulfillment" and " to expect with confidence." Connotatively, "hope" indicates the speaker has "little certainty" about the actual outcome, while at the same time suggesting "confidence or assurance in the possibility that what one desires or longs for will happen."

Trump's use of "hope" is much the same as, say, my mother saying, "I hope you get to the fishmonger before he sells out of extra large male crabs." She's obviously asking me to to do so, and she knows I have some means by which I can try to do so, but she's also not expressly ordering me to do so for she's aware I may not be able to.

I realize that occasionally I use arcane words, but Trump rarely does. What I've shared above is the standard use and meaning of the transitive form of the verb "to hope," which is neither a recondite, esoteric nor abstruse word. People who've mastered English know that and apply "hope's" standard meaning accordingly. If English isn't your native language, you're forgiven for not being aware of that.

 

[Ame®icano]

You seems to be amazed by many things.

Every time you claim you know something it turns out that you speaking out of your ass.

Every time? Please make a list and show me. Most times when I say I know something I provide proof of it.

Has that professor you said you contacted about hacking the voting machines ever answered to you?

Nope he never did... I didn't expect him to given how busy he probably is, but I gave it a shot.

He wasn't that busy to talk bullshit when he was seeking attention. I'm not buying the "busy" excuse.

Just to be clear, you contacted him to disprove what I was saying. Since he never replied, that means that he was full of shit or more likely that I was right and telling the truth. Either way works for me.

Are you fucking serious or seriously delusional? Let's see... CNN writes him an email asking him to do an interview... or some random guy from a message board writes him an email. Which is going to get his attention more? You also realize the guy is a fucking professor too right?

A non-answer doesn't make you correct. That's a logical fallacy... but something like a logical fallacy is too far over your head.

Basically you're saying... "Americano saw my bullshit and got me cornered, the only way I could get out of it if I ask the "expert". I knew he'll never answer, but I'll write to him anyways, so I can keep my bullshit going".

Got it.

 

[Seawytch]

As I've said before...people defended Nixon too...until it became impossible.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

DC has been leaking like a sieve so anything concrete would have been around the globe at the speed of light long ago. You aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Not in the drawer.....

...on the floor.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

All the evidence is classified. So you believe all those in a position to know are lying, but your bought off HS grad pundit heroes and the big orange con man are telling the truth? Gotcha. IT'S A CONSPIRACEE!!! Just like the Justice system's Hillary/Obama/Lerner/Lynch/Bill/etc etc conspiracees!!!!

"So you believe all those in a position to know are lying,"

Haven't you yet learned that I am never wrong????



Aside from an astoundingly poor record of prognostication, what is laughingly called the 'intelligence community' suffers from the result of Leftists ruling the schools and the media for decades.

Just two dispositive examples:
a. Felonious leaks to the Leftist Washington Compost
and
b. Advancing what they know to be a slander and a lie: the Trump/Putin Collusion Thesis




The following from the former CIA Moscow Station head...


1. "The U.S. intelligence community is in the midst of a severe crisis. It has been used, or perhaps allowed itself to be used, as a tool of political destruction,...

2. We are seeing the widespread abuse of intelligence by an incumbent administration to target political opposition. Long a technique in the developing world — a tactic I often witnessed as a CIA station chief working abroad — the Third World has come to roost in the United States.

3. ...politicization is widely accepted throughout the intelligence community as the greatest hazard,....History is littered with intel failures; one need only look to the invasion of Iraq to see how politicization can lead to costly failure ...

4. The twin serpents of politicization and political correctness — a Soviet term, by the way — walk hand in hand throughout the intelligence community, as well as every other government agency. The PC mindset that now dominates every college campus is also positioned firmly throughout our government — particularly within the intelligence community, which saw its greatest personnel influx ever in the post-9/11 environment. Today’s intelligence community, ... reached professional maturity primarily under the Obama administration, immersed in a PC environment.

5. ....all diversity is embraced — except diversity of thought. Federal workers have been partisan for years, but combined with the rigid Obama PC mindset, it has created a Frankenstein of politicization that has never been seen before.



6. Watching Evelyn Farkas admit on TV that the Obama administration wanted the intelligence community to “get as much information as you can” before Donald Trumptook office resembles some sort of social science experiment gone bad — and it frames the problems wrought by PC/political brainwashing.

7. Here a mid-level official, permanently dwelling in a bubble of progressive liberalism, acknowledged being complicit in the breaking of U.S. ethics rules and perhaps law — because, as she explained, that’s what they needed to do!

8. What is lacking, however, is any level of self-awareness, common sense or judgment. She is emblematic of the denizens of the Deep State that everyone in Washington likes to tell us doesn’t exist....made up of thousands of similarly credentialed, remarkably “un-diverse” civil servants and political appointees who saw themselves promoted rapidly during the eight years of the Obama administration. The appointees have left, but make no mistake — the progressive civil servants remain.



9. ...made up of thousands of similarly credentialed, remarkably “un-diverse” civil servants and political appointees who saw themselves promoted rapidly during the eight years of the Obama administration. The appointees have left, but make no mistake — the progressive civil servants remain.

10. The present culture of the intelligence community and the shameless political shenanigans of the Obama administration combined to create this disaster. ....CIA leadership famously stood up to the Nixon administration when asked to domestically spy on Justice during Watergate, for example.

It seems that today we lack the character and the competence to ensure that the intelligence community honors the trust of the American people."
How the intel community was turned into a political weapon against President Trump

 

[PoliticalChic]

DC has been leaking like a sieve so anything concrete would have been around the globe at the speed of light long ago.

Those are those "anonymous" sources you how admit to, but discount. Which one is it? It was leaked how Michael Flynn was linked to Smith, who was caught colluding with the russians trying to get Clintons emails for Flynn.

1. In December, unnamed intelligence sources told the Washington Post that Russia helped Donald Trump win the presidency

2. A week later, senior intelligence sources told NBC News that Putin personally was involved in helping Trump win.

3. In February current and former officials released the details of a phone call between incoming national security adviser Mike Flynn and Russian ambassador Kislyak. The call was monitored because the Russian ambassador was being spied on, and Flynn's name should have been concealed.. but was unmasked and then leaked.

4. Trump's private phone call with the President of Mexico was surveilled by intell and then leaked.

5. His call with the Australian Prime Minister, also surveilled and then leaked.

6. His call with Vladimir Putin, again, leaked by the intell community.

7. Their job is to advance American national security....none of the above fits that description.

On the contrary, it was entirely political.

8. In fact, in March, a half dozen current and former intell officials told the NYTimes how they'd decide to spread classified information about the Trump campaign as widely as possible throughout government, so as to insure that it would eventually leak.

9. These people's job is to safeguard that intelligence, to hold information secret, not use them for political reasons.....and with enormous power goes...or should go....enormous responsibility.

10. Their job is to keep us safe from foreign threats.....not to pick our political leaders.
Tucker Carlson

 

[PoliticalChic]

Did anyone ask the lying bastard DNI -- if they EVER got direct access to the DNC servers for forensics? If so WHEN? And was all the forensic data preserved?

You can ask, but all you will get from the dems is hot air talking points.

The server won't tell you either who got it, or what they took. For that you need to look at the data traffic, which is what the NSA has, and what pointed them to the russians.

Would you rather have the body, or the security footage of everybody coming and going to the murder scene?

Here's how we prove you to be nothing more than a recording of DNC talking points.

Now...because I'm magnanimous....I'll throw you a life-line.

Wanna prove you're not as stupid as you appear...and your worldview, i.e., Trump must have gotten help from Putin (snicker snicker), all you have to do is

1. give a few examples of things the public found out about the career criminal and congenital liar from wikileaks that they didn't already know


and

2. explain this:

a. The day before any leaks, wikileaks or otherwise, the RealClearPolitics had Hillary at 48%

b. The election result gave Hillary 48.08% per the election.



Now...waddle on back into the dunce chair.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[
Those are those "anonymous" sources you how admit to, but discount. Which one is it? It was leaked how Michael Flynn was linked to Smith, who was caught colluding with the russians trying to get Clintons emails for Flynn.

Huh? You spun off into a ditch there junior. Try to focus. Oh, and I not "the right wing". I'm not the representative of everything every righty has ever said. The point is you can't argue my point.

You want evidence. You say DC leaks everything, but you don't accept the evidence that leaks out anonymously.

Pay attention to your own talking points.

There is no 'evidence' that links Trump to the Kremlin.

There is evidence that the Kremlin wanted to sink his candidacy: the 'dossier' the Russians produced given to a firm Hillary employed.

Kremlin-> Christopher Steele -> Fusion GPS -> the DNC

 

[PoliticalChic]

As I've said before...people defended Nixon too...until it became impossible.

Exactly what has happened with Hillary and the current leadership

 

[Iceweasel]

You said it every time you asked for evidence.

Huh? I said evidence would be leaked. Jesus Christ.

And every time that anonymous leaked evidence is posted, you cry it's not evidence.

You are thick as a goddamn brick. An anonymous source isn't evidence, only that maybe someone said something. If EVIDENCE existed it would have been out there long ago. Your problem is obvious.

 

[rightwinger]

You said it every time you asked for evidence.

Huh? I said evidence would be leaked. Jesus Christ.

And every time that anonymous leaked evidence is posted, you cry it's not evidence.

You are thick as a goddamn brick. An anonymous source isn't evidence, only that maybe someone said something. If EVIDENCE existed it would have been out there long ago. Your problem is obvious.

No, the evidence would not be out there

Criminal evidence is not released until an indictment is released. There is still much to be done, key players have yet to be interviewed