Proof of Russian Collusion!!!!

[Moonglow]

Democrats have kicked up quite a fuss, claiming some sort of collusion between Trump supporters and some Russian efforts to get Mr. Trump elected.


Of course they have no proof, but, the Democrats have authored this mantra:

“The nature of the evidence is irrelevant; it’s the seriousness of the charge that matters.”[ Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill, folks. Remember the left's battle cry: "The nature of the evidence is irrelevant; it's the seriousness of the charge that matters." You simply need to make a harsh, totally unfounded charge, and that's reason enough to investigate. ]



Hence, their argument has more twists and turns in that position than in Nadia Comaneci's floor routine!




But.....there is documented evidence of exactly that: offers to have foreign influence change the course of United States elections!!!


It's by the Democrats.


" It was a May 14, 1983 letter from the head of the KGB, Viktor Chebrikov, to the head of the USSR, the odious Yuri Andropov, with the highest level of classification. Chebrikov relayed to Andropov an offer from Senator Ted Kennedy, presented by Kennedy’s old friend and law-school buddy, John Tunney, a former Democratic senator from California, to reach out to the Soviet leadership at the height of a very hot time in the Cold War. According to Chebrikov, Kennedy was deeply troubled by the deteriorating relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, which he believed was bringing us perilously close to nuclear confrontation. Kennedy, according to Chebrikov, blamed this situation not on the Soviet leadership but on the American president---Ronald Reagan. Not only was the USSR not to blame, but, said Chebrikov, Kennedy was, quite the contrary, “very impressed” with Andropov.

The thrust of the letter is that Reagan had to be stopped, meaning his alleged aggressive defense policies, which then ranged from the Pershing IIs to the MX to SDI, and even his re-election bid, needed to be stopped. It was Ronald Reagan who was the hindrance to peace. That view of Reagan is consistent with things that Kennedy said and wrote at the time, including articles in sources like Rolling Stone (March 1984) and in a speeches like his March 24, 1983 remarks on the Senate floor the day after Reagan’s SDI speech, which he lambasted as “misleading Red-Scare tactics and reckless Star Wars schemes.”

Even more interesting than Kennedy’s diagnosis was the prescription: According to Chebrikov, Kennedy suggested a number of PR moves to help the Soviets in terms of their public image with the American public. He reportedly believed that the Soviet problem was a communication problem, resulting from an inability to counter Reagan’s (not the USSR’s) “propaganda.” If only Americans could get through Reagan’s smokescreen and hear the Soviets’ peaceful intentions." http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=30980



Just one more proof of the adage....'to know what the Democrats are doing, listen to what they blame the other side for."

Was there a left over bowl of borscht as a clue?

So another Democrat. Funny how every time I answer your call I can't find you people.

So has Obama hacked the Russians? What's your view?

Somewhere, in an undisclosed locality, 14 year old's are burning keyboards with rapid key strokes to infiltrate foriegn websites..

I don't know what that means, but neither do you. So let's go back to the question: "So has Obama hacked the Russians? What's your view?"

I don't think Oblama personally does the hacking, but the hacking does get the plywood...through....

 

[flacaltenn]

When we hack others including allies, perhaps being hacked should be expected.

"When we hack others including allies, perhaps being hacked should be expected."


This thread has noting to do with hacking, you dope.
Read carefully: it is documentation that, as usual, the Left is guilty of exactly what they blame the other side for.


I've observed that the very dumbest of posters tend to be of the 'moral equivalency' sort.
Do you guys have some kind of organization, with special handshakes and secret decoder rings?

So how does this new type of morality play out exactly? When one side gets absolved of sin and stinky hijinks just because "the other did it first"?? Doesn't that just open the drain into which American politics goes?

I guess the question becomes did the cluenessless of the Dems CONTRIBUTE to their rape by the Russians? Spying on political operations is STANDARD procedure in intelligence. A party that wants to lead the country, probably shouldn't be coordinating a campaign on Gmail huh? Or setting up illegal servers to get around security protocols. I know for a FACT, that if unsecured communications links are carried into foreign countries like Ms Clinton did -- that you can GUARANTEE -- they WILL be compromised.

I think, most ALL (both sides) of our "leadership" is that stupid. I truly do.

 

[Ame®icano]

He's saying that because he doesn't say the word confirmed then none of it is true. You just HAFTA say confirmed and he'd believe all the other intel. Without that special word all evidence is inadmissible.

Oh, look who's back. I see you did not quote my post this time, because of the truth in it. So, who was lying, eh bitch?

What other intel? Could someone finally present it, instead of just saying there is an intel?

Hillary said it's "confirmed". Not a single agency, let alone 17 agencies confirmed anything. It's leftists lies and speculations, being buthurt for losing elections. Read the Clapper's statement.

Newsflash from last week:

The FBI did not corroborate the CIA’s claim that Russia had a hand in the election of president-elect Donald Trump in a meeting with lawmakers last week. A senior FBI counterintelligence official met with Republican and Democrat members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in order to give the bureau’s view of a recent CIA report. The official did not concur with the CIA, frustrating Democrats.

The CIA believes Russia “quite” clearly intended to send Trump to the White House. The claim is a bold one and concerned Democrats and some Republicans who are worried about Trump’s desire to mend relations with an increasingly aggressive Russia. The CIA report was “direct, bold and unqualified,” one of the officials at the meeting told The Washington Post Saturday.

FBI Disagrees With CIA On Russian Influence In The Presidential Election

If you ask me, what CIA is saying came straight up from the basement dwellers in Barry's White House, just as those edited and re-edited CIA reports we remember from the Benghazi hearings.

Peaceful transition my ass. Left is doing everything they can so there is no transition, or at least painful one.

 

[kaz]

Democrats have kicked up quite a fuss, claiming some sort of collusion between Trump supporters and some Russian efforts to get Mr. Trump elected.


Of course they have no proof, but, the Democrats have authored this mantra:

“The nature of the evidence is irrelevant; it’s the seriousness of the charge that matters.”[ Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill, folks. Remember the left's battle cry: "The nature of the evidence is irrelevant; it's the seriousness of the charge that matters." You simply need to make a harsh, totally unfounded charge, and that's reason enough to investigate. ]



Hence, their argument has more twists and turns in that position than in Nadia Comaneci's floor routine!




But.....there is documented evidence of exactly that: offers to have foreign influence change the course of United States elections!!!


It's by the Democrats.


" It was a May 14, 1983 letter from the head of the KGB, Viktor Chebrikov, to the head of the USSR, the odious Yuri Andropov, with the highest level of classification. Chebrikov relayed to Andropov an offer from Senator Ted Kennedy, presented by Kennedy’s old friend and law-school buddy, John Tunney, a former Democratic senator from California, to reach out to the Soviet leadership at the height of a very hot time in the Cold War. According to Chebrikov, Kennedy was deeply troubled by the deteriorating relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, which he believed was bringing us perilously close to nuclear confrontation. Kennedy, according to Chebrikov, blamed this situation not on the Soviet leadership but on the American president---Ronald Reagan. Not only was the USSR not to blame, but, said Chebrikov, Kennedy was, quite the contrary, “very impressed” with Andropov.

The thrust of the letter is that Reagan had to be stopped, meaning his alleged aggressive defense policies, which then ranged from the Pershing IIs to the MX to SDI, and even his re-election bid, needed to be stopped. It was Ronald Reagan who was the hindrance to peace. That view of Reagan is consistent with things that Kennedy said and wrote at the time, including articles in sources like Rolling Stone (March 1984) and in a speeches like his March 24, 1983 remarks on the Senate floor the day after Reagan’s SDI speech, which he lambasted as “misleading Red-Scare tactics and reckless Star Wars schemes.”

Even more interesting than Kennedy’s diagnosis was the prescription: According to Chebrikov, Kennedy suggested a number of PR moves to help the Soviets in terms of their public image with the American public. He reportedly believed that the Soviet problem was a communication problem, resulting from an inability to counter Reagan’s (not the USSR’s) “propaganda.” If only Americans could get through Reagan’s smokescreen and hear the Soviets’ peaceful intentions." http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=30980



Just one more proof of the adage....'to know what the Democrats are doing, listen to what they blame the other side for."

Was there a left over bowl of borscht as a clue?

So another Democrat. Funny how every time I answer your call I can't find you people.

So has Obama hacked the Russians? What's your view?

Somewhere, in an undisclosed locality, 14 year old's are burning keyboards with rapid key strokes to infiltrate foriegn websites..

I don't know what that means, but neither do you. So let's go back to the question: "So has Obama hacked the Russians? What's your view?"

I don't think Oblama personally does the hacking, but the hacking does get the plywood...through....

So you think Obama is investigating our intelligence for spying on the Russians and apologizing to the Russians for it?

 

[Moonglow]

Was there a left over bowl of borscht as a clue?

So another Democrat. Funny how every time I answer your call I can't find you people.

So has Obama hacked the Russians? What's your view?

Somewhere, in an undisclosed locality, 14 year old's are burning keyboards with rapid key strokes to infiltrate foriegn websites..

I don't know what that means, but neither do you. So let's go back to the question: "So has Obama hacked the Russians? What's your view?"

I don't think Oblama personally does the hacking, but the hacking does get the plywood...through....

So you think Obama is investigating our intelligence for spying on the Russians and apologizing to the Russians for it?

I have no idea what Oblama is up to...

 

[PoliticalChic]

So another Democrat. Funny how every time I answer your call I can't find you people.

So has Obama hacked the Russians? What's your view?

Somewhere, in an undisclosed locality, 14 year old's are burning keyboards with rapid key strokes to infiltrate foriegn websites..

I don't know what that means, but neither do you. So let's go back to the question: "So has Obama hacked the Russians? What's your view?"

I don't think Oblama personally does the hacking, but the hacking does get the plywood...through....

So you think Obama is investigating our intelligence for spying on the Russians and apologizing to the Russians for it?

I have no idea what Oblama is up to...

"I have no idea what Oblama is up to..."

Neither does he!

 

[kaz]

So another Democrat. Funny how every time I answer your call I can't find you people.

So has Obama hacked the Russians? What's your view?

Somewhere, in an undisclosed locality, 14 year old's are burning keyboards with rapid key strokes to infiltrate foriegn websites..

I don't know what that means, but neither do you. So let's go back to the question: "So has Obama hacked the Russians? What's your view?"

I don't think Oblama personally does the hacking, but the hacking does get the plywood...through....

So you think Obama is investigating our intelligence for spying on the Russians and apologizing to the Russians for it?

I have no idea what Oblama is up to...

So you know what the Russians are up to but you don't know what Obama is up to. How does that work? Are you on Putin's staff?

 

[kaz]

Somewhere, in an undisclosed locality, 14 year old's are burning keyboards with rapid key strokes to infiltrate foriegn websites..

I don't know what that means, but neither do you. So let's go back to the question: "So has Obama hacked the Russians? What's your view?"

I don't think Oblama personally does the hacking, but the hacking does get the plywood...through....

So you think Obama is investigating our intelligence for spying on the Russians and apologizing to the Russians for it?

I have no idea what Oblama is up to...

"I have no idea what Oblama is up to..."

Neither does he!

Yet he does know what Putin is up to and why, Putin is trying to manipulate our elections.

Meanwhile he doesn't know or care if Obama is spying on Putin and the Russians while he shrieks Putin is spying on us. It's not in the Democrat playbook to care, he hasn't received instructions on what his opinion on that should be from Pelosi

 

[kaz]

When we hack others including allies, perhaps being hacked should be expected.

"When we hack others including allies, perhaps being hacked should be expected."


This thread has noting to do with hacking, you dope.
Read carefully: it is documentation that, as usual, the Left is guilty of exactly what they blame the other side for.


I've observed that the very dumbest of posters tend to be of the 'moral equivalency' sort.
Do you guys have some kind of organization, with special handshakes and secret decoder rings?

So how does this new type of morality play out exactly? When one side gets absolved of sin and stinky hijinks just because "the other did it first"?? Doesn't that just open the drain into which American politics goes?

I guess the question becomes did the cluenessless of the Dems CONTRIBUTE to their rape by the Russians? Spying on political operations is STANDARD procedure in intelligence. A party that wants to lead the country, probably shouldn't be coordinating a campaign on Gmail huh? Or setting up illegal servers to get around security protocols. I know for a FACT, that if unsecured communications links are carried into foreign countries like Ms Clinton did -- that you can GUARANTEE -- they WILL be compromised.

I think, most ALL (both sides) of our "leadership" is that stupid. I truly do.

Swish. This isn't a one side gets absolved of anything. This is a we don't want to stop spying on everyone else, so while we can make some sort of token objection, we can't go too far since we are worse. We don't want to stop the electronic spying because we're the best at it.

And seriously, we spied on our European allies' leaders directly. Putin is just laughing at us. I'm sure he'd jump at the deal to stop electronic spying on each other in a heartbeat, but he knows we aren't going to stop. The lady doth protest too much.

We need to keep working on our security and counter espionage, it never ends

 

[PoliticalChic]

I don't know what that means, but neither do you. So let's go back to the question: "So has Obama hacked the Russians? What's your view?"

I don't think Oblama personally does the hacking, but the hacking does get the plywood...through....

So you think Obama is investigating our intelligence for spying on the Russians and apologizing to the Russians for it?

I have no idea what Oblama is up to...

"I have no idea what Oblama is up to..."

Neither does he!

Yet he does know what Putin is up to and why, Putin is trying to manipulate our elections.

Meanwhile he doesn't know or care if Obama is spying on Putin and the Russians while he shrieks Putin is spying on us. It's not in the Democrat playbook to care, he hasn't received instructions on what his opinion on that should be from Pelosi

The real question is 'just what does releasing the emails do, as we

I don't know what that means, but neither do you. So let's go back to the question: "So has Obama hacked the Russians? What's your view?"

I don't think Oblama personally does the hacking, but the hacking does get the plywood...through....

So you think Obama is investigating our intelligence for spying on the Russians and apologizing to the Russians for it?

I have no idea what Oblama is up to...

"I have no idea what Oblama is up to..."

Neither does he!

Yet he does know what Putin is up to and why, Putin is trying to manipulate our elections.

Meanwhile he doesn't know or care if Obama is spying on Putin and the Russians while he shrieks Putin is spying on us. It's not in the Democrat playbook to care, he hasn't received instructions on what his opinion on that should be from Pelosi

The question I'd like to see explained is what damage the leaked emails did....no matter who leaked them....as we on the Right have been saying those things for decades.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Democrats have kicked up quite a fuss, claiming some sort of collusion between Trump supporters and some Russian efforts to get Mr. Trump elected.


Of course they have no proof, but, the Democrats have authored this mantra:

“The nature of the evidence is irrelevant; it’s the seriousness of the charge that matters.”[ Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill, folks. Remember the left's battle cry: "The nature of the evidence is irrelevant; it's the seriousness of the charge that matters." You simply need to make a harsh, totally unfounded charge, and that's reason enough to investigate. ]



Hence, their argument has more twists and turns in that position than in Nadia Comaneci's floor routine!




But.....there is documented evidence of exactly that: offers to have foreign influence change the course of United States elections!!!


It's by the Democrats.


" It was a May 14, 1983 letter from the head of the KGB, Viktor Chebrikov, to the head of the USSR, the odious Yuri Andropov, with the highest level of classification. Chebrikov relayed to Andropov an offer from Senator Ted Kennedy, presented by Kennedy’s old friend and law-school buddy, John Tunney, a former Democratic senator from California, to reach out to the Soviet leadership at the height of a very hot time in the Cold War. According to Chebrikov, Kennedy was deeply troubled by the deteriorating relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, which he believed was bringing us perilously close to nuclear confrontation. Kennedy, according to Chebrikov, blamed this situation not on the Soviet leadership but on the American president---Ronald Reagan. Not only was the USSR not to blame, but, said Chebrikov, Kennedy was, quite the contrary, “very impressed” with Andropov.

The thrust of the letter is that Reagan had to be stopped, meaning his alleged aggressive defense policies, which then ranged from the Pershing IIs to the MX to SDI, and even his re-election bid, needed to be stopped. It was Ronald Reagan who was the hindrance to peace. That view of Reagan is consistent with things that Kennedy said and wrote at the time, including articles in sources like Rolling Stone (March 1984) and in a speeches like his March 24, 1983 remarks on the Senate floor the day after Reagan’s SDI speech, which he lambasted as “misleading Red-Scare tactics and reckless Star Wars schemes.”

Even more interesting than Kennedy’s diagnosis was the prescription: According to Chebrikov, Kennedy suggested a number of PR moves to help the Soviets in terms of their public image with the American public. He reportedly believed that the Soviet problem was a communication problem, resulting from an inability to counter Reagan’s (not the USSR’s) “propaganda.” If only Americans could get through Reagan’s smokescreen and hear the Soviets’ peaceful intentions." http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=30980



Just one more proof of the adage....'to know what the Democrats are doing, listen to what they blame the other side for."

If Putin was hacking it seems he'd want Hildabeast to win. She can be bought off with a few hundred million donation to her foundation. Trump can't be bought.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Democrats have kicked up quite a fuss, claiming some sort of collusion between Trump supporters and some Russian efforts to get Mr. Trump elected.


Of course they have no proof, but, the Democrats have authored this mantra:

“The nature of the evidence is irrelevant; it’s the seriousness of the charge that matters.”[ Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill, folks. Remember the left's battle cry: "The nature of the evidence is irrelevant; it's the seriousness of the charge that matters." You simply need to make a harsh, totally unfounded charge, and that's reason enough to investigate. ]



Hence, their argument has more twists and turns in that position than in Nadia Comaneci's floor routine!




But.....there is documented evidence of exactly that: offers to have foreign influence change the course of United States elections!!!


It's by the Democrats.


" It was a May 14, 1983 letter from the head of the KGB, Viktor Chebrikov, to the head of the USSR, the odious Yuri Andropov, with the highest level of classification. Chebrikov relayed to Andropov an offer from Senator Ted Kennedy, presented by Kennedy’s old friend and law-school buddy, John Tunney, a former Democratic senator from California, to reach out to the Soviet leadership at the height of a very hot time in the Cold War. According to Chebrikov, Kennedy was deeply troubled by the deteriorating relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, which he believed was bringing us perilously close to nuclear confrontation. Kennedy, according to Chebrikov, blamed this situation not on the Soviet leadership but on the American president---Ronald Reagan. Not only was the USSR not to blame, but, said Chebrikov, Kennedy was, quite the contrary, “very impressed” with Andropov.

The thrust of the letter is that Reagan had to be stopped, meaning his alleged aggressive defense policies, which then ranged from the Pershing IIs to the MX to SDI, and even his re-election bid, needed to be stopped. It was Ronald Reagan who was the hindrance to peace. That view of Reagan is consistent with things that Kennedy said and wrote at the time, including articles in sources like Rolling Stone (March 1984) and in a speeches like his March 24, 1983 remarks on the Senate floor the day after Reagan’s SDI speech, which he lambasted as “misleading Red-Scare tactics and reckless Star Wars schemes.”

Even more interesting than Kennedy’s diagnosis was the prescription: According to Chebrikov, Kennedy suggested a number of PR moves to help the Soviets in terms of their public image with the American public. He reportedly believed that the Soviet problem was a communication problem, resulting from an inability to counter Reagan’s (not the USSR’s) “propaganda.” If only Americans could get through Reagan’s smokescreen and hear the Soviets’ peaceful intentions." http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=30980



Just one more proof of the adage....'to know what the Democrats are doing, listen to what they blame the other side for."

If Putin was hacking it seems he'd want Hildabeast to win. She can be bought off with a few hundred million donation to her foundation. Trump can't be bought.

I do sorta' wonder what Bill's wife woulda' charged for the nuclear codes......

 

[kaz]

Democrats have kicked up quite a fuss, claiming some sort of collusion between Trump supporters and some Russian efforts to get Mr. Trump elected.


Of course they have no proof, but, the Democrats have authored this mantra:

“The nature of the evidence is irrelevant; it’s the seriousness of the charge that matters.”[ Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill, folks. Remember the left's battle cry: "The nature of the evidence is irrelevant; it's the seriousness of the charge that matters." You simply need to make a harsh, totally unfounded charge, and that's reason enough to investigate. ]



Hence, their argument has more twists and turns in that position than in Nadia Comaneci's floor routine!




But.....there is documented evidence of exactly that: offers to have foreign influence change the course of United States elections!!!


It's by the Democrats.


" It was a May 14, 1983 letter from the head of the KGB, Viktor Chebrikov, to the head of the USSR, the odious Yuri Andropov, with the highest level of classification. Chebrikov relayed to Andropov an offer from Senator Ted Kennedy, presented by Kennedy’s old friend and law-school buddy, John Tunney, a former Democratic senator from California, to reach out to the Soviet leadership at the height of a very hot time in the Cold War. According to Chebrikov, Kennedy was deeply troubled by the deteriorating relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, which he believed was bringing us perilously close to nuclear confrontation. Kennedy, according to Chebrikov, blamed this situation not on the Soviet leadership but on the American president---Ronald Reagan. Not only was the USSR not to blame, but, said Chebrikov, Kennedy was, quite the contrary, “very impressed” with Andropov.

The thrust of the letter is that Reagan had to be stopped, meaning his alleged aggressive defense policies, which then ranged from the Pershing IIs to the MX to SDI, and even his re-election bid, needed to be stopped. It was Ronald Reagan who was the hindrance to peace. That view of Reagan is consistent with things that Kennedy said and wrote at the time, including articles in sources like Rolling Stone (March 1984) and in a speeches like his March 24, 1983 remarks on the Senate floor the day after Reagan’s SDI speech, which he lambasted as “misleading Red-Scare tactics and reckless Star Wars schemes.”

Even more interesting than Kennedy’s diagnosis was the prescription: According to Chebrikov, Kennedy suggested a number of PR moves to help the Soviets in terms of their public image with the American public. He reportedly believed that the Soviet problem was a communication problem, resulting from an inability to counter Reagan’s (not the USSR’s) “propaganda.” If only Americans could get through Reagan’s smokescreen and hear the Soviets’ peaceful intentions." http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=30980



Just one more proof of the adage....'to know what the Democrats are doing, listen to what they blame the other side for."

If Putin was hacking it seems he'd want Hildabeast to win. She can be bought off with a few hundred million donation to her foundation. Trump can't be bought.

I do sorta' wonder what Bill's wife woulda' charged for the nuclear codes......

Shouldn't take much, she gave away our nuclear response time for free

 

[jc456]

The CIA needs to de-classify the presentation on the Russian Hacking they gave to Congress in Sept.

How....exactly....did the Russians help Trump win?


How?


Nothing in the leaked emails....who ever leaked them.....was denied.

Nothing.

I want to know what McConnell didn't want the citizens to know too, so hopefully we'll get to see the documentation before the alleged beneficiary of their aid takes office.

Hmmm.....you linked to this:
How....exactly....did the Russians help Trump win?
How?

Nothing in the leaked emails....who ever leaked them.....was denied.
Nothing.



How about responding to it.

Remember, it is very possible that someone LEAKED information to.... whomever.

But NOTHING prevents whomever from disclosing the information.

The ONLY government agency which can tell if some one was HACKED and who the HACKER was is the NSA. The NSA has NOT claimed that it has that information.

The motherfucking Democrats and their media are motivated by the intention to smear DJT's victory,


.

yep

 

[jc456]

Grabbing the pussy of a consenting adult is the most wonderful feeling in this world. There is NOTHING better. You should try it sometime.

.

You might want to explain to him what one is first

with five kids, I think he found it five times.

 

[skookerasbil]

Thought for sure this thread would be about Aunt Hilda sealing a deal for US uranium with the Ruskies.

 

[skookerasbil]

This is another fake msm story to keep people distracted from Pizzagate........which if fully exposed would take down the whole government.

 

[jc456]

How....exactly....did the Russians help Trump win?


How?


Nothing in the leaked emails....who ever leaked them.....was denied.

Nothing.

I want to know what McConnell didn't want the citizens to know too, so hopefully we'll get to see the documentation before the alleged beneficiary of their aid takes office.

Hmmm.....you linked to this:
How....exactly....did the Russians help Trump win?
How?

Nothing in the leaked emails....who ever leaked them.....was denied.
Nothing.



How about responding to it.

The classified briefing was given to Congress back in September. I think we'll find out soon enough for me. We'll survive the Groper Elect too.

Asked on two occasions.....
Hmmm.....you linked to this:
How....exactly....did the Russians help Trump win?
How?

Nothing in the leaked emails....who ever leaked them.....was denied.
Nothing.
How about responding to it.


You won't, so one is led to conclude that you can't.

There is no basis for your whining other than what a previous poster suggested....your chagrin at the terrible and unexpected beating your side took.


Meditate on it.

The answer to your inquiry is in the classified briefing Congress got on the matter. Do you support the release of that information? Or are you just going to ask your trite questions again?

well congressmen stated there wasn't any evidence Russia interfered with the election, I doubt they know if Russia was anywhere, so yeah, let's see the documents!!!!

 

[jc456]

How....exactly....did the Russians help Trump win?


How?


Nothing in the leaked emails....who ever leaked them.....was denied.

Nothing.

I want to know what McConnell didn't want the citizens to know too, so hopefully we'll get to see the documentation before the alleged beneficiary of their aid takes office.

Hmmm.....you linked to this:
How....exactly....did the Russians help Trump win?
How?

Nothing in the leaked emails....who ever leaked them.....was denied.
Nothing.



How about responding to it.

The classified briefing was given to Congress back in September. I think we'll find out soon enough for me. We'll survive the Groper Elect too.

Asked on two occasions.....
Hmmm.....you linked to this:
How....exactly....did the Russians help Trump win?
How?

Nothing in the leaked emails....who ever leaked them.....was denied.
Nothing.
How about responding to it.


You won't, so one is led to conclude that you can't.

There is no basis for your whining other than what a previous poster suggested....your chagrin at the terrible and unexpected beating your side took.


Meditate on it.

The answer to your inquiry is in the classified briefing Congress got on the matter. Do you support the release of that information? Or are you just going to ask your trite questions again?

so you're saying the WaPo never saw anything and yet reported it? That isn't fake to you? They have no evidence of anything right? you just stated only congress has it. So, how is it possible to report on?

BTW, Wikileaks reported on the emails not Russia. So how is it Russia was involved in interfering? And Wikileaks is like the WaPo. so now the WaPo is interfering correct?

 

[jc456]

Did you claim that Russia made Trump's victory possible?

If you'd like to retreat from that position at this time, that'd be fine.

Didn't make that claim so I hardly feel the need to retreat from it. I always said it was Hillary's election to lose. I think she could have pulled out the Rust belt states if she had chosen Bernie over Tim even with the Russian hacking and whatever else they did to interfere.

so you do believe they interfered?