No one in the media has any evidence whatsoever that the russians rigged the elections. Full stop

[hadit]

The Russian's have been accused of meddling in the election, not necessarily rigging it. The extent of the meddling and it's outcome is unknown and awaiting investigation. That is what the media has been reporting. The OP gives a misinterpretation of the way the media has covered the story, a false narrative. In any case, it was the US intelligence community, 17 independent agencies who made the claim. It would be highly irresponsible for the media not to report and cover what those agencies said.

yes, the media should accurately report what, if anything, the Russians had to do with our election. But the entire premise of this exercise is flawed. Everyone knows that the only possible election impact resulted from the disclosure of corruption and fraud within the DNC, the Clinton campaign and the media.

There is absolutely no proof that WL got that info from the Russians. NONE, ZERO, ZILCH.

So what this is really about is trying desperately to find a reason for Hillary's loss other than her own lying, cheating, and corruption.

The media should report what the intelligence agencies and members of the investigation entities such as Congressional Committees are saying. What is flawed is the false narrative that this whole situation is somehow the fault of the "media". The media is not reporting fake news when it reports on what elected US Representatives and Senators are saying about the issue or what members of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies are saying.

NO, they should not report what people are "saying". That is exactly the problem. People "say" what suits their political agenda. An honest media (which we do not have) would report only what they can substantiate as fact.

Politicians using the media to establish a narrative of their liking is hardly new. It goes like this:

1. Politician A wants to bring down or prevent politician B from accomplishing something.
2. Politician A calls sympathetic media figure C and promises him a scoop.
3. During their meeting, politician A says something along the lines of, "Off the record, did you know that politician B is really a shape shifting xenomorph"?
4. Sympathetic media figure C writes a breathless story about how "sources say" that politician B is really a shape shifting xenomorph.
5. Politician A's idiotic sycophants, and sympathetic media figures, all start chanting in unison about how politician B is really a shape shifting xenomorph and thus needs to resign immediately and face charges.

None of it is true, naturally, but that never stops anything.

 

[Redfish]

The Russian's have been accused of meddling in the election, not necessarily rigging it. The extent of the meddling and it's outcome is unknown and awaiting investigation. That is what the media has been reporting. The OP gives a misinterpretation of the way the media has covered the story, a false narrative. In any case, it was the US intelligence community, 17 independent agencies who made the claim. It would be highly irresponsible for the media not to report and cover what those agencies said.

yes, the media should accurately report what, if anything, the Russians had to do with our election. But the entire premise of this exercise is flawed. Everyone knows that the only possible election impact resulted from the disclosure of corruption and fraud within the DNC, the Clinton campaign and the media.

There is absolutely no proof that WL got that info from the Russians. NONE, ZERO, ZILCH.

So what this is really about is trying desperately to find a reason for Hillary's loss other than her own lying, cheating, and corruption.

The media should report what the intelligence agencies and members of the investigation entities such as Congressional Committees are saying. What is flawed is the false narrative that this whole situation is somehow the fault of the "media". The media is not reporting fake news when it reports on what elected US Representatives and Senators are saying about the issue or what members of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies are saying.

NO, they should not report what people are "saying". That is exactly the problem. People "say" what suits their political agenda. An honest media (which we do not have) would report only what they can substantiate as fact.

Politicians using the media to establish a narrative of their liking is hardly new. It goes like this:

1. Politician A wants to bring down or prevent politician B from accomplishing something.
2. Politician A calls sympathetic media figure C and promises him a scoop.
3. During their meeting, politician A says something along the lines of, "Off the record, did you know that politician B is really a shape shifting xenomorph"?
4. Sympathetic media figure C writes a breathless story about how "sources say" that politician B is really a shape shifting xenomorph.
5. Politician A's idiotic sycophants, and sympathetic media figures, all start chanting in unison about how politician B is really a shape shifting xenomorph and thus needs to resign immediately and face charges.

None of it is true, naturally, but that never stops anything.

what is true is that countries (including the USA) have been trying to impact the elections in other countries to their advantage. The USA has been doing that since 1776. We backed the Shah or Iran, We backed Churchill and Blair in the UK. We backed the muslim brotherhood in Egypt.

Anyone who thinks that Russia trying to affect our election is something unique or new is very ill informed on history, especially the history of the USA and its CIA.

 

[Redfish]

yes dems and libs, the leaked truth about corruption within the DNC, the Hillary campaign, and the media may have cost her the election. It doesn't really matter who uncovered that corruption, the American voters have the right to know.

Actually it does, if it was due to Russian hacking. Then you've presented prima facia evidence of the Russian hacking influencing an american election.

the disclosure of democrat corruption MAY have changed the outcome of the election. Those disclosures came from wikileaks, not the Russian government.

Do you think its something new for one country to try to affect the elections in another country? Do you think that the USA doesn't do that in virtually every election in virtually every other country? Don't be so fricken naïve, this is nothing new.

 

[Theowl32]

The Russian's have been accused of meddling in the election, not necessarily rigging it. The extent of the meddling and it's outcome is unknown and awaiting investigation. That is what the media has been reporting. The OP gives a misinterpretation of the way the media has covered the story, a false narrative. In any case, it was the US intelligence community, 17 independent agencies who made the claim. It would be highly irresponsible for the media not to report and cover what those agencies said.

yes, the media should accurately report what, if anything, the Russians had to do with our election. But the entire premise of this exercise is flawed. Everyone knows that the only possible election impact resulted from the disclosure of corruption and fraud within the DNC, the Clinton campaign and the media.

There is absolutely no proof that WL got that info from the Russians. NONE, ZERO, ZILCH.

So what this is really about is trying desperately to find a reason for Hillary's loss other than her own lying, cheating, and corruption.

The media should report what the intelligence agencies and members of the investigation entities such as Congressional Committees are saying. What is flawed is the false narrative that this whole situation is somehow the fault of the "media". The media is not reporting fake news when it reports on what elected US Representatives and Senators are saying about the issue or what members of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies are saying.

NO, they should not report what people are "saying". That is exactly the problem. People "say" what suits their political agenda. An honest media (which we do not have) would report only what they can substantiate as fact.

Politicians using the media to establish a narrative of their liking is hardly new. It goes like this:

1. Politician A wants to bring down or prevent politician B from accomplishing something.
2. Politician A calls sympathetic media figure C and promises him a scoop.
3. During their meeting, politician A says something along the lines of, "Off the record, did you know that politician B is really a shape shifting xenomorph"?
4. Sympathetic media figure C writes a breathless story about how "sources say" that politician B is really a shape shifting xenomorph.
5. Politician A's idiotic sycophants, and sympathetic media figures, all start chanting in unison about how politician B is really a shape shifting xenomorph and thus needs to resign immediately and face charges.

None of it is true, naturally, but that never stops anything.

The Russian's have been accused of meddling in the election, not necessarily rigging it. The extent of the meddling and it's outcome is unknown and awaiting investigation. That is what the media has been reporting. The OP gives a misinterpretation of the way the media has covered the story, a false narrative. In any case, it was the US intelligence community, 17 independent agencies who made the claim. It would be highly irresponsible for the media not to report and cover what those agencies said.

yes, the media should accurately report what, if anything, the Russians had to do with our election. But the entire premise of this exercise is flawed. Everyone knows that the only possible election impact resulted from the disclosure of corruption and fraud within the DNC, the Clinton campaign and the media.

There is absolutely no proof that WL got that info from the Russians. NONE, ZERO, ZILCH.

So what this is really about is trying desperately to find a reason for Hillary's loss other than her own lying, cheating, and corruption.

The media should report what the intelligence agencies and members of the investigation entities such as Congressional Committees are saying. What is flawed is the false narrative that this whole situation is somehow the fault of the "media". The media is not reporting fake news when it reports on what elected US Representatives and Senators are saying about the issue or what members of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies are saying.

NO, they should not report what people are "saying". That is exactly the problem. People "say" what suits their political agenda. An honest media (which we do not have) would report only what they can substantiate as fact.

Politicians using the media to establish a narrative of their liking is hardly new. It goes like this:

1. Politician A wants to bring down or prevent politician B from accomplishing something.
2. Politician A calls sympathetic media figure C and promises him a scoop.
3. During their meeting, politician A says something along the lines of, "Off the record, did you know that politician B is really a shape shifting xenomorph"?
4. Sympathetic media figure C writes a breathless story about how "sources say" that politician B is really a shape shifting xenomorph.
5. Politician A's idiotic sycophants, and sympathetic media figures, all start chanting in unison about how politician B is really a shape shifting xenomorph and thus needs to resign immediately and face charges.

None of it is true, naturally, but that never stops anything.

Wont make one bit of difference. Nothing ever does with the left. Not one of those facts. They don't give a rat shit about any of it.

They will giggle, ignore and fall back on their script. That is all they know and they cannot get away from their group think mentality.

 

[jc456]

theBawk is just bawking, nothing more.

The feebs, the congressional hearings, the intel agencies, and the media will get to the bottom of it.

or haven't.

 

[jc456]

The Russian's have been accused of meddling in the election, not necessarily rigging it. The extent of the meddling and it's outcome is unknown and awaiting investigation. That is what the media has been reporting. The OP gives a misinterpretation of the way the media has covered the story, a false narrative. In any case, it was the US intelligence community, 17 independent agencies who made the claim. It would be highly irresponsible for the media not to report and cover what those agencies said.

yes, the media should accurately report what, if anything, the Russians had to do with our election. But the entire premise of this exercise is flawed. Everyone knows that the only possible election impact resulted from the disclosure of corruption and fraud within the DNC, the Clinton campaign and the media.

There is absolutely no proof that WL got that info from the Russians. NONE, ZERO, ZILCH.

So what this is really about is trying desperately to find a reason for Hillary's loss other than her own lying, cheating, and corruption.

The media should report what the intelligence agencies and members of the investigation entities such as Congressional Committees are saying. What is flawed is the false narrative that this whole situation is somehow the fault of the "media". The media is not reporting fake news when it reports on what elected US Representatives and Senators are saying about the issue or what members of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies are saying.

NO, they should not report what people are "saying". That is exactly the problem. People "say" what suits their political agenda. An honest media (which we do not have) would report only what they can substantiate as fact.

Politicians using the media to establish a narrative of their liking is hardly new. It goes like this:

1. Politician A wants to bring down or prevent politician B from accomplishing something.
2. Politician A calls sympathetic media figure C and promises him a scoop.
3. During their meeting, politician A says something along the lines of, "Off the record, did you know that politician B is really a shape shifting xenomorph"?
4. Sympathetic media figure C writes a breathless story about how "sources say" that politician B is really a shape shifting xenomorph.
5. Politician A's idiotic sycophants, and sympathetic media figures, all start chanting in unison about how politician B is really a shape shifting xenomorph and thus needs to resign immediately and face charges.

None of it is true, naturally, but that never stops anything.

well we do know that NBC attempted to influence the election.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Deflection ^^^ The issue is the Russians.

 

[jc456]

Deflection ^^^ The issue is the Russians.

it is? why can't you prove it then?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Deflection ^^^ The issue is the Russians.

it is? why can't you prove it then?

The intel agencies said they had reasons to believe so, and the FBI is running the investigation.

jc, little buddy, think with the even littler head on top of your shoulders: you don't want Comey to reveal what they know at this point. It is not good for Trump.

 

[jc456]

Deflection ^^^ The issue is the Russians.

it is? why can't you prove it then?

The intel agencies said they had reasons to believe so, and the FBI is running the investigation.

jc, little buddy, think with the even littler head on top of your shoulders: you don't want Comey to reveal what they know at this point. It is not good for Trump.

I'm about country not about a person. so let's have it? why are you afraid to have him show it? I'm good with that, go, for fk sake it's been seven months of pretendland. If you got it let's go. why all the hemming and hawing?

 

[Theowl32]

The Russian's have been accused of meddling in the election, not necessarily rigging it. The extent of the meddling and it's outcome is unknown and awaiting investigation. That is what the media has been reporting. The OP gives a misinterpretation of the way the media has covered the story, a false narrative. In any case, it was the US intelligence community, 17 independent agencies who made the claim. It would be highly irresponsible for the media not to report and cover what those agencies said.

yes, the media should accurately report what, if anything, the Russians had to do with our election. But the entire premise of this exercise is flawed. Everyone knows that the only possible election impact resulted from the disclosure of corruption and fraud within the DNC, the Clinton campaign and the media.

There is absolutely no proof that WL got that info from the Russians. NONE, ZERO, ZILCH.

So what this is really about is trying desperately to find a reason for Hillary's loss other than her own lying, cheating, and corruption.

The media should report what the intelligence agencies and members of the investigation entities such as Congressional Committees are saying. What is flawed is the false narrative that this whole situation is somehow the fault of the "media". The media is not reporting fake news when it reports on what elected US Representatives and Senators are saying about the issue or what members of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies are saying.

NO, they should not report what people are "saying". That is exactly the problem. People "say" what suits their political agenda. An honest media (which we do not have) would report only what they can substantiate as fact.

Politicians using the media to establish a narrative of their liking is hardly new. It goes like this:

1. Politician A wants to bring down or prevent politician B from accomplishing something.
2. Politician A calls sympathetic media figure C and promises him a scoop.
3. During their meeting, politician A says something along the lines of, "Off the record, did you know that politician B is really a shape shifting xenomorph"?
4. Sympathetic media figure C writes a breathless story about how "sources say" that politician B is really a shape shifting xenomorph.
5. Politician A's idiotic sycophants, and sympathetic media figures, all start chanting in unison about how politician B is really a shape shifting xenomorph and thus needs to resign immediately and face charges.

None of it is true, naturally, but that never stops anything.

The Russian's have been accused of meddling in the election, not necessarily rigging it. The extent of the meddling and it's outcome is unknown and awaiting investigation. That is what the media has been reporting. The OP gives a misinterpretation of the way the media has covered the story, a false narrative. In any case, it was the US intelligence community, 17 independent agencies who made the claim. It would be highly irresponsible for the media not to report and cover what those agencies said.

yes, the media should accurately report what, if anything, the Russians had to do with our election. But the entire premise of this exercise is flawed. Everyone knows that the only possible election impact resulted from the disclosure of corruption and fraud within the DNC, the Clinton campaign and the media.

There is absolutely no proof that WL got that info from the Russians. NONE, ZERO, ZILCH.

So what this is really about is trying desperately to find a reason for Hillary's loss other than her own lying, cheating, and corruption.

The media should report what the intelligence agencies and members of the investigation entities such as Congressional Committees are saying. What is flawed is the false narrative that this whole situation is somehow the fault of the "media". The media is not reporting fake news when it reports on what elected US Representatives and Senators are saying about the issue or what members of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies are saying.

NO, they should not report what people are "saying". That is exactly the problem. People "say" what suits their political agenda. An honest media (which we do not have) would report only what they can substantiate as fact.

Politicians using the media to establish a narrative of their liking is hardly new. It goes like this:

1. Politician A wants to bring down or prevent politician B from accomplishing something.
2. Politician A calls sympathetic media figure C and promises him a scoop.
3. During their meeting, politician A says something along the lines of, "Off the record, did you know that politician B is really a shape shifting xenomorph"?
4. Sympathetic media figure C writes a breathless story about how "sources say" that politician B is really a shape shifting xenomorph.
5. Politician A's idiotic sycophants, and sympathetic media figures, all start chanting in unison about how politician B is really a shape shifting xenomorph and thus needs to resign immediately and face charges.

None of it is true, naturally, but that never stops anything.

Wont make one bit of difference. Nothing ever does with the left. Not one of those facts. They don't give a rat shit about any of it.

They will giggle, ignore and fall back on their script. That is all they know and they cannot get away from their group think mentality.