OK it's time for logic

[OKTexas]

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?

None of those agencies inspected the DNC servers, they took the word of a private cyber security company hired by the DNC. The DNC refused to allow the FBI to look at their servers.


.

Look, Texas, I know you are going to refuse to believe that our good friend Russia would do anything as awful as hack into the Democrat's server and release their emails. You go on believing it while those of us who actually care about the integrity of our vote will try to establish enough evidence to fry Putin's ass to a crisp. Not militarily, necessarily, but somehow or other. And I don't care HOW dirty the retaliation is.

Once again, why aren't you trying to fry every administration in US history that has done the same thing to other countries? You're just pissed that the corruption at the DNC was exposed. The only possible thing it did to the vote, was give voters factual information on which to base their vote.

That leaves you and everyone else in a dilemma, you have to decide what is worse for the country, fabricated lies or the truth regardless of how it's obtained. So tell me, if you have the guts, do you vote for lies or truth?


.

 

[BluesLegend]

OK it's time for logic

Ahahaha how many liberals were injured by that thread title?

 

[OKTexas]

They've already said none of Flynns conversations with the Russian ambassador were illegal, what's there to sing about? The only thing related to Flynn that was illegal, that I'm aware of, were the classified leaks.

.

There's failure to register as a foreign agent, taking $500,000 from a foreign source without reporting it, failure to disclose foreign contacts on a security clearance. Lying to federal agents about his conversations with the Russian ambassador.

There's actually quite a list of crimes. And I'm sure Flynn doesn't want to do serious time in jail

He did register, just not in a timely manner, which from everything I've read is not unusual. The money was paid to Flynns company are you saying they didn't report it on their taxes? The rest you have no proof of, the only person we know he wasn't honest with was the VP and it cost him his job.


.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Verdict: False

While the intelligence report she mentions does express ‘high confidence’ that Russia sought to undermine her campaign, it only represents the views of three agencies – the FBI, CIA and NSA. Clinton incorrectly claims this report shows consensus among 17 intelligence agencies.

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper himself appeared in front of Congress and explicitly pushed back on the idea that “17 intelligence agencies agreed,” stating flatly that it was just three.

FACT CHECK: Did 17 Intel Agencies ‘All Agree’ Russia Influenced The Presidential Election?


.

Oh my God. LEARN TO READ.

You might want to practice what you preach, only two of the three agencies who prepared the report had a high level of confidence, the NSA only had a moderate level of confidence.


.

Okay. My understanding is that NONE of them disagreed and there is a pretty strong consensus that Russia hacked it. But like I said, if it's that important for you to believe in a fantasy, go for it.

The fact is the other agencies didn't express an opinion. There was no reason for them to. And it's you who is buying into fantasies. I've presented nothing but facts as best we know them.


.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Verdict: False

While the intelligence report she mentions does express ‘high confidence’ that Russia sought to undermine her campaign, it only represents the views of three agencies – the FBI, CIA and NSA. Clinton incorrectly claims this report shows consensus among 17 intelligence agencies.

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper himself appeared in front of Congress and explicitly pushed back on the idea that “17 intelligence agencies agreed,” stating flatly that it was just three.

FACT CHECK: Did 17 Intel Agencies ‘All Agree’ Russia Influenced The Presidential Election?


.

Oh my God. LEARN TO READ.

You might want to practice what you preach, only two of the three agencies who prepared the report had a high level of confidence, the NSA only had a moderate level of confidence.



.

Don't forget that due to the Vault 7 data dump that the CIA can mimic cyber attacks using certain "footprints" to make it appear that it was a foreign country committing a cyber attack. The Deep State basically shut down the internet on the west coast before the election to stop Wkileaks from releasing more information and guess what the news was? That it was a "foreign country" that did it....yeah, you betcha.

I'm aware of that, but without evidence it happened, I'm not going there.


.

 

[fncceo]

Why are we now defending Russia?

I'm only asking what, precisely, they did? No one has ever answered that.

Russia had hackers try to get into the systems during the votes of all democracies across the globe.
During the hearings our election officials said that the malware and virus programs either alerted and or stopped it and no votes were changed or compromised.

Voting machines are not online or networked during voting. They use cartridge loaded software.

How, precisely, did Russians attempt to hack them during the votes?

 

[IM2]

Why are we now defending Russia?

I'm only asking what, precisely, they did? No one has ever answered that.

Russia had hackers try to get into the systems during the votes of all democracies across the globe.
During the hearings our election officials said that the malware and virus programs either alerted and or stopped it and no votes were changed or compromised.

Voting machines are not online or networked during voting. They use cartridge loaded software.

How, precisely, did Russians attempt to hack them during the votes?

You ask questions and they are stupid questions. We do not work for the intelligence agencies. If you want to know specific ways in which these machine were hacked send an email to those agencies and ask.

 

[Divine Wind]

USA.INC hasn't been friendly to Russia and it is USA.INC that started this pissing match to begin with when they backed the illegal coup of the duly elected Ukrainian government...

I've suspected you were an anti-American Russophile for quite some time. Thanks for publicly confirming my suspicions.

Let's hope our (meaning US) national security services are monitoring your Internet and cellphone communications.

 

[bripat9643]

So you're saying Trump should investigate himself?
Since CNN already admitted it was a witch hunt I dont see that as necessary.

I am saying that Trump shod l be more involved and concerned about how the Russians were able to do what they did then get to putting policies in place to make it so it doesn't happen again.. Because if there was not collusion the reality is that 17 intelligence agencies have said Russia hacked into our system and he can start getting his agencies to begin creating preventative measures to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Trump can start worrying about that after the media witch hunt is over. Then he can focus on Democrat voter fraud and Obama admin obstruction of justice.

Are you saying President Trump should ignore his oath for Public Relations reasons?

That's called "proprietorial discretion." At least, that's what Obama called it.

Translation: Since I believe Obama was a lying scumbag traitor who broke his oath, I support Trump being a lying scumbag traitor too.

Got it. Thanks for your opinion.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

I ignore people who didn't say a word about anything Obama did but now want to hold Trump to their hypocritical standards.

 

[bripat9643]

Why are we now defending Russia?

I'm only asking what, precisely, they did? No one has ever answered that.

Russia had hackers try to get into the systems during the votes of all democracies across the globe.
During the hearings our election officials said that the malware and virus programs either alerted and or stopped it and no votes were changed or compromised.

Voting machines are not online or networked during voting. They use cartridge loaded software.

How, precisely, did Russians attempt to hack them during the votes?

You ask questions and they are stupid questions. We do not work for the intelligence agencies. If you want to know specific ways in which these machine were hacked send an email to those agencies and ask.

You claim something happened, but you can't explain how it happened. Why should any rational intelligent person pay attention to anything you have to say?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Why are we now defending Russia?

I'm only asking what, precisely, they did? No one has ever answered that.

Russia had hackers try to get into the systems during the votes of all democracies across the globe.
During the hearings our election officials said that the malware and virus programs either alerted and or stopped it and no votes were changed or compromised.

Voting machines are not online or networked during voting. They use cartridge loaded software.

How, precisely, did Russians attempt to hack them during the votes?

You ask questions and they are stupid questions. We do not work for the intelligence agencies. If you want to know specific ways in which these machine were hacked send an email to those agencies and ask.

Hold up a minute.
Are you actually claiming the voting machines were hacked?

 

[Divine Wind]

I am saying that Trump shod l be more involved and concerned about how the Russians were able to do what they did then get to putting policies in place to make it so it doesn't happen again.. Because if there was not collusion the reality is that 17 intelligence agencies have said Russia hacked into our system and he can start getting his agencies to begin creating preventative measures to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Trump can start worrying about that after the media witch hunt is over. Then he can focus on Democrat voter fraud and Obama admin obstruction of justice.

Are you saying President Trump should ignore his oath for Public Relations reasons?

That's called "proprietorial discretion." At least, that's what Obama called it.

Translation: Since I believe Obama was a lying scumbag traitor who broke his oath, I support Trump being a lying scumbag traitor too.

Got it. Thanks for your opinion.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

I ignore people who didn't say a word about anything Obama did but now want to hold Trump to their hypocritical standards.

There are partisan hypocrites on both sides. The fact remains we should be holding all of our elected officials to the same high standard.

I think part of the problem goes back to Bill Clinton and the far Left defending adultery and blowjobs in the White House as "personal" problems, not official ones.

 

[bripat9643]

Trump can start worrying about that after the media witch hunt is over. Then he can focus on Democrat voter fraud and Obama admin obstruction of justice.

Are you saying President Trump should ignore his oath for Public Relations reasons?

That's called "proprietorial discretion." At least, that's what Obama called it.

Translation: Since I believe Obama was a lying scumbag traitor who broke his oath, I support Trump being a lying scumbag traitor too.

Got it. Thanks for your opinion.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

I ignore people who didn't say a word about anything Obama did but now want to hold Trump to their hypocritical standards.

There are partisan hypocrites on both sides. The fact remains we should be holding all of our elected officials to the same high standard.

I think part of the problem goes back to Bill Clinton and the far Left defending adultery and blowjobs in the White House as "personal" problems, not official ones.

That's like saying there were those on both sides of the German/French border who wanted war. Those on the French side were insignificant.

Saying both sides do it is just another leftwing scam to justify their abject hypocrisy.

 

[Divine Wind]

Are you saying President Trump should ignore his oath for Public Relations reasons?

That's called "proprietorial discretion." At least, that's what Obama called it.

Translation: Since I believe Obama was a lying scumbag traitor who broke his oath, I support Trump being a lying scumbag traitor too.

Got it. Thanks for your opinion.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

I ignore people who didn't say a word about anything Obama did but now want to hold Trump to their hypocritical standards.

There are partisan hypocrites on both sides. The fact remains we should be holding all of our elected officials to the same high standard.

I think part of the problem goes back to Bill Clinton and the far Left defending adultery and blowjobs in the White House as "personal" problems, not official ones.

That's like saying there were those on both sides of the German/French border who wanted war. Those on the French side were insignificant.

Saying both sides do it is just another leftwing scam to justify their abject hypocrisy.

There were those on both sides who did want war, but one side had a majority and the other side a minority.

Regardless, President Trump took an oath. He either can abide by it or be a lying scumbag. What others do is on them, what Trump does is equally on him.

 

[bripat9643]

That's called "proprietorial discretion." At least, that's what Obama called it.

Translation: Since I believe Obama was a lying scumbag traitor who broke his oath, I support Trump being a lying scumbag traitor too.

Got it. Thanks for your opinion.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

I ignore people who didn't say a word about anything Obama did but now want to hold Trump to their hypocritical standards.

There are partisan hypocrites on both sides. The fact remains we should be holding all of our elected officials to the same high standard.

I think part of the problem goes back to Bill Clinton and the far Left defending adultery and blowjobs in the White House as "personal" problems, not official ones.

That's like saying there were those on both sides of the German/French border who wanted war. Those on the French side were insignificant.

Saying both sides do it is just another leftwing scam to justify their abject hypocrisy.

There were those on both sides who did want war, but one side had a majority and the other side a minority.

Regardless, President Trump took an oath. He either can abide by it or be a lying scumbag. What others do is on them, what Trump does is equally on him.

Nothing in his oath requires him to go to war with Russia over trivial misdemeanors.

 

[Divine Wind]

Translation: Since I believe Obama was a lying scumbag traitor who broke his oath, I support Trump being a lying scumbag traitor too.

Got it. Thanks for your opinion.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

I ignore people who didn't say a word about anything Obama did but now want to hold Trump to their hypocritical standards.

There are partisan hypocrites on both sides. The fact remains we should be holding all of our elected officials to the same high standard.

I think part of the problem goes back to Bill Clinton and the far Left defending adultery and blowjobs in the White House as "personal" problems, not official ones.

That's like saying there were those on both sides of the German/French border who wanted war. Those on the French side were insignificant.

Saying both sides do it is just another leftwing scam to justify their abject hypocrisy.

There were those on both sides who did want war, but one side had a majority and the other side a minority.

Regardless, President Trump took an oath. He either can abide by it or be a lying scumbag. What others do is on them, what Trump does is equally on him.

Nothing in his oath requires him to go to war with Russia over trivial misdemeanors.

That's correct. A straw man argument, but correct.