OK it's time for logic

[OldLady]

They hacked the DNC, including Hillary's server and sent the intell to Wikileaks

Wrong, they got into the DNC server and Podesta fell for a phishing scam. How did that interfere with the election?


.

Wrong? You just admitted they got the DNC server like I said. WTF? Are you so defensive you can't see anything except what you want to see?

Yep, they supposedly got into the DNC server and Podestas email. All they got was information. If you read the intel report, you yourself posted, it was to influence peoples opinion, just like any campaign ad ran by the candidates or pacs. Trying to influence opinions is not interference in an election, if it were, we are all guilty.


.

I've never thought the Russians "hacked the election". They did as you said; they hacked the servers, collected intell and sought to influence opinions with selective release of information.

The bottom line here is that Russians are hostile to the US. They are not our friends. If someone takes a shot at me and misses, I'm not going to be friendly about it. I will shoot back to kill.

look, you have no idea if the russians hacked any server. any! do you, you have that evidence?

It's really convenient to insist you won't believe 17 intelligence agencies who said they did. You can insist they release the highly classified information they have already said they cannot release before you will believe there is "proof." Very convenient. If you have so little trust in our government's ability to collect intel, maybe you should move to a country you can trust--like Russia.

 

[postman]

/---- in Oct 2016 Barack O said anyone who thought the Russians were capable of hacking the election was an idiot. That's what he thinks of you.

Obama also called ISIS the JV team. Sometimes reality will surprise you.

 

[jc456]

so you can't. one down.

Neither can you, but that's the point.

I can't what? I haven't seen anything, and I've asked for evidence, I've seen others ask for evidence from our congressmen, and not one has any. In fact, I've seen congresspeople stating there is nothing. so, which is it? do you have evidence or not?

 

[postman]

The suppose proof of Russian hacking the DNC was produced by a civilian company, why would it be classified?
.

Because the actual hacking was recorded in NSA intercepts of internet communications. They were able to record where the hacking came from. And point the fingers at Russia. But they can't share the proof of how they know what they know, without letting the world know how they know what they know.

 

[jc456]

Wrong, they got into the DNC server and Podesta fell for a phishing scam. How did that interfere with the election?


.

Wrong? You just admitted they got the DNC server like I said. WTF? Are you so defensive you can't see anything except what you want to see?

Yep, they supposedly got into the DNC server and Podestas email. All they got was information. If you read the intel report, you yourself posted, it was to influence peoples opinion, just like any campaign ad ran by the candidates or pacs. Trying to influence opinions is not interference in an election, if it were, we are all guilty.


.

I've never thought the Russians "hacked the election". They did as you said; they hacked the servers, collected intell and sought to influence opinions with selective release of information.

The bottom line here is that Russians are hostile to the US. They are not our friends. If someone takes a shot at me and misses, I'm not going to be friendly about it. I will shoot back to kill.

look, you have no idea if the russians hacked any server. any! do you, you have that evidence?

It's really convenient to insist you won't believe 17 intelligence agencies who said they did. You can insist they release the highly classified information they have already said they cannot release before you will believe there is "proof." Very convenient. If you have so little trust in our government's ability to collect intel, maybe you should move to a country you can trust--like Russia.

17 agencies have commented. show me their comments. I like how you all want to pull that out. So you're saying that the Coast Guard has seen evidence and congress hasn't? wow.

 

[jc456]

The suppose proof of Russian hacking the DNC was produced by a civilian company, why would it be classified?
.

Because the actual hacking was recorded in NSA intercepts of internet communications. They were able to record where the hacking came from. And point the fingers at Russia. But they can't share the proof of how they know what they know, without letting the world know how they know what they know.

huh? wtf are you talking about. jibberish shit.

 

[OldLady]

And btw, I challenge any of you fking libturds to post one piece of evidence that russia did anything. One. queue the jeopardy music. in fact, i know I'll get this,

I challenge you to post one piece of evidence that any of the atomic bombs in the US military arsenal still work.
Like the gold in fort knox, there is no unclassified proof of either one. So if you're hiding behind people being unable to post proof of Russian hacking because of the proof being classified, I say show there's gold in fort know, or uranium in our nuclear weapons.

The suppose proof of Russian hacking the DNC was produced by a civilian company, why would it be classified?


.

Who knew the CIA, NSA and FBI were civilian companies?
FACT CHECK: Did 17 Intel Agencies ‘All Agree’ Russia Influenced The Presidential Election?

 

[JoeMoma]

Wrong, they got into the DNC server and Podesta fell for a phishing scam. How did that interfere with the election?


.

Wrong? You just admitted they got the DNC server like I said. WTF? Are you so defensive you can't see anything except what you want to see?

Yep, they supposedly got into the DNC server and Podestas email. All they got was information. If you read the intel report, you yourself posted, it was to influence peoples opinion, just like any campaign ad ran by the candidates or pacs. Trying to influence opinions is not interference in an election, if it were, we are all guilty.


.

I've never thought the Russians "hacked the election". They did as you said; they hacked the servers, collected intell and sought to influence opinions with selective release of information.

The bottom line here is that Russians are hostile to the US. They are not our friends. If someone takes a shot at me and misses, I'm not going to be friendly about it. I will shoot back to kill.

look, you have no idea if the russians hacked any server. any! do you, you have that evidence?

It's really convenient to insist you won't believe 17 intelligence agencies who said they did. You can insist they release the highly classified information they have already said they cannot release before you will believe there is "proof." Very convenient. If you have so little trust in our government's ability to collect intel, maybe you should move to a country you can trust--like Russia.

Did all 17 agencies verify that It's the Russians, or did 2 or 3 agencies find evidence that It's the Russians and the rest of the agencies jumped on the band wagon?

 

[postman]

I can't what? I haven't seen anything, and I've asked for evidence, I've seen others ask for evidence from our congressmen, and not one has any. In fact, I've seen congresspeople stating there is nothing. so, which is it? do you have evidence or not?

Anybody who says there's nothing, doesn't have the security clearance to see it. Those people with the access to the proof, can't confirm or deny its existence.

 

[jc456]

[QUOTE="jc456, post: 17614469, member: 46512
I can't what? I haven't seen anything, and I've asked for evidence, I've seen others ask for evidence from our congressmen, and not one has any. In fact, I've seen congresspeople stating there is nothing. so, which is it? do you have evidence or not?

Anybody who says there's nothing, doesn't have the security clearance to see it. Those people with the access to the proof, can't confirm or deny its existence.[/QUOTE]
yeah I don't play that game. sorry chump. one can't say something is unless they have seen it. have you? that is the question. have you seen any evidence from anyone? seen any congressman who would have clearance? nope. me either. there is no there there. It is the only logical conclusion.

 

[OldLady]

Wrong? You just admitted they got the DNC server like I said. WTF? Are you so defensive you can't see anything except what you want to see?

Yep, they supposedly got into the DNC server and Podestas email. All they got was information. If you read the intel report, you yourself posted, it was to influence peoples opinion, just like any campaign ad ran by the candidates or pacs. Trying to influence opinions is not interference in an election, if it were, we are all guilty.


.

I've never thought the Russians "hacked the election". They did as you said; they hacked the servers, collected intell and sought to influence opinions with selective release of information.

The bottom line here is that Russians are hostile to the US. They are not our friends. If someone takes a shot at me and misses, I'm not going to be friendly about it. I will shoot back to kill.

look, you have no idea if the russians hacked any server. any! do you, you have that evidence?

It's really convenient to insist you won't believe 17 intelligence agencies who said they did. You can insist they release the highly classified information they have already said they cannot release before you will believe there is "proof." Very convenient. If you have so little trust in our government's ability to collect intel, maybe you should move to a country you can trust--like Russia.

Did all 17 agencies verify that It's the Russians, or did 2 or 3 agencies find evidence that It's the Russians and the rest of the agencies jumped on the band wagon?

I believe the article goes into that in more depth. You got some issue with the CIA, NSA and FBI?

 

[postman]

Did all 17 agencies verify that It's the Russians, or did 2 or 3 agencies find evidence that It's the Russians and the rest of the agencies jumped on the band wagon?

It's like peer reviewed science.

 

[jc456]

Yep, they supposedly got into the DNC server and Podestas email. All they got was information. If you read the intel report, you yourself posted, it was to influence peoples opinion, just like any campaign ad ran by the candidates or pacs. Trying to influence opinions is not interference in an election, if it were, we are all guilty.


.

I've never thought the Russians "hacked the election". They did as you said; they hacked the servers, collected intell and sought to influence opinions with selective release of information.

The bottom line here is that Russians are hostile to the US. They are not our friends. If someone takes a shot at me and misses, I'm not going to be friendly about it. I will shoot back to kill.

look, you have no idea if the russians hacked any server. any! do you, you have that evidence?

It's really convenient to insist you won't believe 17 intelligence agencies who said they did. You can insist they release the highly classified information they have already said they cannot release before you will believe there is "proof." Very convenient. If you have so little trust in our government's ability to collect intel, maybe you should move to a country you can trust--like Russia.

Did all 17 agencies verify that It's the Russians, or did 2 or 3 agencies find evidence that It's the Russians and the rest of the agencies jumped on the band wagon?

I believe the article goes into that in more depth. You got some issue with the CIA, NSA and FBI?

they never looked at the DNC server. they know shit.

 

[koshergrl]

All right. Let's just play along with the right wingers and conclude that there was no collusion. Does that mean there was no Russian interference in the last election?

No.

So if Trump is so innocent, then why isn't he trying to help find out what happened during the election whereby Russia was able to do what they did?

He is, you idiot.

 

[Divine Wind]

In those cases, yes, it can be a crime. Are you agreeing that Trump or his reps can have innocent business relations with the Russians?

Sure, but up until now none of them have admitted having an open and above board meeting with the Russians.

When a man tells his wife he's meeting an old girlfriend, that's o.k. When he meets up with an old girlfriend, and denies it, and lies to his wife about it, that's suspicious.

Suspicious? Yes. Automatically an admission of guilt? No. A crime? No. Most of us know that when it comes to politics, it isn't what was done (like getting a blowjob in the Oval Office) it is the cover-up.

 

[jc456]

Wrong? You just admitted they got the DNC server like I said. WTF? Are you so defensive you can't see anything except what you want to see?

Yep, they supposedly got into the DNC server and Podestas email. All they got was information. If you read the intel report, you yourself posted, it was to influence peoples opinion, just like any campaign ad ran by the candidates or pacs. Trying to influence opinions is not interference in an election, if it were, we are all guilty.


.

I've never thought the Russians "hacked the election". They did as you said; they hacked the servers, collected intell and sought to influence opinions with selective release of information.

The bottom line here is that Russians are hostile to the US. They are not our friends. If someone takes a shot at me and misses, I'm not going to be friendly about it. I will shoot back to kill.

look, you have no idea if the russians hacked any server. any! do you, you have that evidence?

It's really convenient to insist you won't believe 17 intelligence agencies who said they did. You can insist they release the highly classified information they have already said they cannot release before you will believe there is "proof." Very convenient. If you have so little trust in our government's ability to collect intel, maybe you should move to a country you can trust--like Russia.

Did all 17 agencies verify that It's the Russians, or did 2 or 3 agencies find evidence that It's the Russians and the rest of the agencies jumped on the band wagon?

no one found any evidence of anything and I challenge the FBI to produce it. Because I know for a fact they never looked at the DNC Server. they admitted that. which means the other two didn't either. Jeh Johnson admitted that.

 

[postman]

yeah I don't play that game. sorry chump. one can't say something is unless they have seen it. have you? that is the question. have you seen any evidence from anyone? seen any congressman who would have clearance? nope. me either. there is no there there. It is the only logical conclusion.

There is evidence, and there is evidence. Somebody shown declassified information, may claim there was no proof presented. Those shown the classified information see the proof, but can't reveal that they saw the proof.

Remember when the head of the secret service was asked if there were additional threats against incoming president Obama, and he said the threats were the same as under Bush.

He said it in open session to congress, so he couldn't say the secret service got 400% more threats, and were overworked, and taxed to their limits.

 

[JoeMoma]

Yep, they supposedly got into the DNC server and Podestas email. All they got was information. If you read the intel report, you yourself posted, it was to influence peoples opinion, just like any campaign ad ran by the candidates or pacs. Trying to influence opinions is not interference in an election, if it were, we are all guilty.


.

I've never thought the Russians "hacked the election". They did as you said; they hacked the servers, collected intell and sought to influence opinions with selective release of information.

The bottom line here is that Russians are hostile to the US. They are not our friends. If someone takes a shot at me and misses, I'm not going to be friendly about it. I will shoot back to kill.

look, you have no idea if the russians hacked any server. any! do you, you have that evidence?

It's really convenient to insist you won't believe 17 intelligence agencies who said they did. You can insist they release the highly classified information they have already said they cannot release before you will believe there is "proof." Very convenient. If you have so little trust in our government's ability to collect intel, maybe you should move to a country you can trust--like Russia.

Did all 17 agencies verify that It's the Russians, or did 2 or 3 agencies find evidence that It's the Russians and the rest of the agencies jumped on the band wagon?

I believe the article goes into that in more depth. You got some issue with the CIA, NSA and FBI?

I have issue saying 17 agencies say The Russians did it if 12 of the agencies had nothing to do with the investigation and are simply rubber stamping the work of the other few. Let the agencies involved stand on their own merit.

 

[koshergrl]

cleaning the swamp cleaning the swamp cleaning the swamp.

I'm really optimistic that Obama is going to be held criminally accountable. And Hillary for sure.

 

[jc456]

[QUOTE="jc456, post: 17614494, member: 46512
yeah I don't play that game. sorry chump. one can't say something is unless they have seen it. have you? that is the question. have you seen any evidence from anyone? seen any congressman who would have clearance? nope. me either. there is no there there. It is the only logical conclusion.

There is evidence, and there is evidence. Somebody shown declassified information, may claim there was no proof presented. Those shown the classified information see the proof, but can't reveal that they saw the proof.

Remember when the head of the secret service was asked if there were additional threats against incoming president Obama, and he said the threats were the same as under Bush.

He said it in open session to congress, so he couldn't say the secret service got 400% more threats, and were overworked, and taxed to their limits.[/QUOTE]
dude, not one fking agency ever looked at the DNC server. so how do they have evidence? really are you that fking stupid?