Should we NO longer trust our intelligence-gathering systems?

[ClosedCaption]

Moscow has in the past used middlemen to participate in sensitive intelligence operations so it has plausible deniability.

from your own link it says they've used middle men in the past.

For example, intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin “directing” the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second senior U.S. official said

So now knowing they used middle men in the past you're obviously wanting a direct link which is different than their previous motus operandi.

At least yoube moved past saying there is no evidence. We'll get there.

 

[Disir]

Moscow has in the past used middlemen to participate in sensitive intelligence operations so it has plausible deniability.

from your own link it says they've used middle men in the past.

For example, intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin “directing” the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second senior U.S. official said

So now knowing they used middle men in the past you're obviously wanting a direct link which is different than their previous motus operandi.

At least yoube moved past saying there is no evidence. We'll get there.

There is no evidence. What you want is for there to be evidence the Russians were culpable in some way for Wikileaks and that way you can save whatever shred of dignity you think the Democrats have.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Moscow has in the past used middlemen to participate in sensitive intelligence operations so it has plausible deniability.

from your own link it says they've used middle men in the past.

For example, intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin “directing” the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second senior U.S. official said

So now knowing they used middle men in the past you're obviously wanting a direct link which is different than their previous motus operandi.

At least yoube moved past saying there is no evidence. We'll get there.

There is no evidence. What you want is for there to be evidence the Russians were culpable in some way for Wikileaks and that way you can save whatever shred of dignity you think the Democrats have.

Then why does all the links you provide say they do have evidence? Do you want a do over?

 

[Disir]

Moscow has in the past used middlemen to participate in sensitive intelligence operations so it has plausible deniability.

from your own link it says they've used middle men in the past.

For example, intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin “directing” the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second senior U.S. official said

So now knowing they used middle men in the past you're obviously wanting a direct link which is different than their previous motus operandi.

At least yoube moved past saying there is no evidence. We'll get there.

There is no evidence. What you want is for there to be evidence the Russians were culpable in some way for Wikileaks and that way you can save whatever shred of dignity you think the Democrats have.

Then why does all the links you provide say they do have evidence? Do you want a do over?

They all admit at some point within the articles they don't have evidence. In fact, what you have is a dog and pony show in an attempt to redeem the Democrats.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Moscow has in the past used middlemen to participate in sensitive intelligence operations so it has plausible deniability.

from your own link it says they've used middle men in the past.

For example, intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin “directing” the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second senior U.S. official said

So now knowing they used middle men in the past you're obviously wanting a direct link which is different than their previous motus operandi.

At least yoube moved past saying there is no evidence. We'll get there.

There is no evidence. What you want is for there to be evidence the Russians were culpable in some way for Wikileaks and that way you can save whatever shred of dignity you think the Democrats have.

Then why does all the links you provide say they do have evidence? Do you want a do over?

They all admit at some point within the articles they don't have evidence. In fact, what you have is a dog and pony show in an attempt to redeem the Democrats.

SURE thing! Maybe you just couldn't find that part so you've decided to share your findings via type. Lol. But the articles you provide says they do which is a good way to own yourself in a debate.

 

[Disir]

Moscow has in the past used middlemen to participate in sensitive intelligence operations so it has plausible deniability.

from your own link it says they've used middle men in the past.

For example, intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin “directing” the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second senior U.S. official said

So now knowing they used middle men in the past you're obviously wanting a direct link which is different than their previous motus operandi.

At least yoube moved past saying there is no evidence. We'll get there.

There is no evidence. What you want is for there to be evidence the Russians were culpable in some way for Wikileaks and that way you can save whatever shred of dignity you think the Democrats have.

Then why does all the links you provide say they do have evidence? Do you want a do over?

They all admit at some point within the articles they don't have evidence. In fact, what you have is a dog and pony show in an attempt to redeem the Democrats.

SURE thing! Maybe you just couldn't find that part so you've decided to share your findings via type. Lol. But the articles you provide says they do which is a good way to own yourself in a debate.

Except they don't. Within the articles you find that they admit there is no evidence. They bullshit their way through trying to turn the evidence they don't have into something more concrete. This is nothing more than an attempt to pretend the Democratic Party is not the Douchebag Party.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I know that there are other threads tangential on this topic and that many of us on the left have also criticized the CIA and FBI (especially) for their political subjectivity.

Nonetheless, how should we feel if indeed it is strongly proven that Russia helped Trump win the election by sabotaging the DNC???

Should we let bygones be bygones? Or should we be outraged that a foreign government interfered in our domestic affairs?

I don't trust anything that comes from the government. Everyone should be healthy skeptics of what ever they tell us.

 

[ClosedCaption]

from your own link it says they've used middle men in the past.

So now knowing they used middle men in the past you're obviously wanting a direct link which is different than their previous motus operandi.

At least yoube moved past saying there is no evidence. We'll get there.

There is no evidence. What you want is for there to be evidence the Russians were culpable in some way for Wikileaks and that way you can save whatever shred of dignity you think the Democrats have.

Then why does all the links you provide say they do have evidence? Do you want a do over?

They all admit at some point within the articles they don't have evidence. In fact, what you have is a dog and pony show in an attempt to redeem the Democrats.

SURE thing! Maybe you just couldn't find that part so you've decided to share your findings via type. Lol. But the articles you provide says they do which is a good way to own yourself in a debate.

Except they don't. Within the articles you find that they admit there is no evidence. They bullshit their way through trying to turn the evidence they don't have into something more concrete. This is nothing more than an attempt to pretend the Democratic Party is not the Douchebag Party.

If within the article they admitted it then why haven't you quoted it yet but instead keep quoting sections that say the opposite? Want to start over?

 

[Disir]

There is no evidence. What you want is for there to be evidence the Russians were culpable in some way for Wikileaks and that way you can save whatever shred of dignity you think the Democrats have.

Then why does all the links you provide say they do have evidence? Do you want a do over?

They all admit at some point within the articles they don't have evidence. In fact, what you have is a dog and pony show in an attempt to redeem the Democrats.

SURE thing! Maybe you just couldn't find that part so you've decided to share your findings via type. Lol. But the articles you provide says they do which is a good way to own yourself in a debate.

Except they don't. Within the articles you find that they admit there is no evidence. They bullshit their way through trying to turn the evidence they don't have into something more concrete. This is nothing more than an attempt to pretend the Democratic Party is not the Douchebag Party.

If within the article they admitted it then why haven't you quoted it yet but instead keep quoting sections that say the opposite? Want to start over?

I did for the first one. You can read them. Stand back and look at the bullshit and they are telling you they don't have evidence. At best it is speculation and circumstantial. If you are one of those people that firmly believes Russia hacked the DNC then you are full of shit.

You are lying. We know you are lying.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Then why does all the links you provide say they do have evidence? Do you want a do over?

They all admit at some point within the articles they don't have evidence. In fact, what you have is a dog and pony show in an attempt to redeem the Democrats.

SURE thing! Maybe you just couldn't find that part so you've decided to share your findings via type. Lol. But the articles you provide says they do which is a good way to own yourself in a debate.

Except they don't. Within the articles you find that they admit there is no evidence. They bullshit their way through trying to turn the evidence they don't have into something more concrete. This is nothing more than an attempt to pretend the Democratic Party is not the Douchebag Party.

If within the article they admitted it then why haven't you quoted it yet but instead keep quoting sections that say the opposite? Want to start over?

I did for the first one. You can read them. Stand back and look at the bullshit and they are telling you they don't have evidence. At best it is speculation and circumstantial. If you are one of those people that firmly believes Russia hacked the DNC then you are full of shit.

You are lying. We know you are lying.

Your disbelief doesn't weigh more than the findings of 17 agencies.

 

[Disir]

They all admit at some point within the articles they don't have evidence. In fact, what you have is a dog and pony show in an attempt to redeem the Democrats.

SURE thing! Maybe you just couldn't find that part so you've decided to share your findings via type. Lol. But the articles you provide says they do which is a good way to own yourself in a debate.

Except they don't. Within the articles you find that they admit there is no evidence. They bullshit their way through trying to turn the evidence they don't have into something more concrete. This is nothing more than an attempt to pretend the Democratic Party is not the Douchebag Party.

If within the article they admitted it then why haven't you quoted it yet but instead keep quoting sections that say the opposite? Want to start over?

I did for the first one. You can read them. Stand back and look at the bullshit and they are telling you they don't have evidence. At best it is speculation and circumstantial. If you are one of those people that firmly believes Russia hacked the DNC then you are full of shit.

You are lying. We know you are lying.

Your disbelief doesn't weigh more than the findings of 17 agencies.

It absolutely does.

You are lying. You know you are lying. We know you are lying.

 

[Camp]

I know that there are other threads tangential on this topic and that many of us on the left have also criticized the CIA and FBI (especially) for their political subjectivity.

Nonetheless, how should we feel if indeed it is strongly proven that Russia helped Trump win the election by sabotaging the DNC???

Should we let bygones be bygones? Or should we be outraged that a foreign government interfered in our domestic affairs?

I don't trust anything that comes from the government. Everyone should be healthy skeptics of what ever they tell us.

I don't trust anything that comes from my insane President-elect and his cult follower staff.

 

[ClosedCaption]

SURE thing! Maybe you just couldn't find that part so you've decided to share your findings via type. Lol. But the articles you provide says they do which is a good way to own yourself in a debate.

Except they don't. Within the articles you find that they admit there is no evidence. They bullshit their way through trying to turn the evidence they don't have into something more concrete. This is nothing more than an attempt to pretend the Democratic Party is not the Douchebag Party.

If within the article they admitted it then why haven't you quoted it yet but instead keep quoting sections that say the opposite? Want to start over?

I did for the first one. You can read them. Stand back and look at the bullshit and they are telling you they don't have evidence. At best it is speculation and circumstantial. If you are one of those people that firmly believes Russia hacked the DNC then you are full of shit.

You are lying. We know you are lying.

Your disbelief doesn't weigh more than the findings of 17 agencies.

It absolutely does.

You are lying. You know you are lying. We know you are lying.

Sorry it doesnt. If your beliefs mattered more than reality you'd be able to fly from sheer belief.

Also you can't say their evidence is circumstantial at best while claiming they don't have any evidence. Again, you lose.

Wondering if someone is correct doesn't mean they are wrong. That's where you lose.

 

[Onyx]

You should never take anybodies word for anything. Especially not the Central Intelligence Agency.

 

[ClosedCaption]

You should never take anybodies word for anything. Especially not the Central Intelligence Agency.

That's why it should be investigated. So far there isn't any argument why one shouldn't be done yet we did 7 investigations into Benghazi.

 

[Disir]

Except they don't. Within the articles you find that they admit there is no evidence. They bullshit their way through trying to turn the evidence they don't have into something more concrete. This is nothing more than an attempt to pretend the Democratic Party is not the Douchebag Party.

If within the article they admitted it then why haven't you quoted it yet but instead keep quoting sections that say the opposite? Want to start over?

I did for the first one. You can read them. Stand back and look at the bullshit and they are telling you they don't have evidence. At best it is speculation and circumstantial. If you are one of those people that firmly believes Russia hacked the DNC then you are full of shit.

You are lying. We know you are lying.

Your disbelief doesn't weigh more than the findings of 17 agencies.

It absolutely does.

You are lying. You know you are lying. We know you are lying.

Sorry it doesnt. If your beliefs mattered more than reality you'd be able to fly from sheer belief.

Also you can't say their evidence is circumstantial at best while claiming they don't have any evidence. Again, you lose.

Wondering if someone is correct doesn't mean they are wrong. That's where you lose.

There is no evidence. Circumstantial relies on an inference. You are lying, you know you are lying. We know you are lying.

 

[ClosedCaption]

If within the article they admitted it then why haven't you quoted it yet but instead keep quoting sections that say the opposite? Want to start over?

I did for the first one. You can read them. Stand back and look at the bullshit and they are telling you they don't have evidence. At best it is speculation and circumstantial. If you are one of those people that firmly believes Russia hacked the DNC then you are full of shit.

You are lying. We know you are lying.

Your disbelief doesn't weigh more than the findings of 17 agencies.

It absolutely does.

You are lying. You know you are lying. We know you are lying.

Sorry it doesnt. If your beliefs mattered more than reality you'd be able to fly from sheer belief.

Also you can't say their evidence is circumstantial at best while claiming they don't have any evidence. Again, you lose.

Wondering if someone is correct doesn't mean they are wrong. That's where you lose.

There is no evidence. Circumstantial relies on an inference. You are lying, you know you are lying. We know you are lying.

You yourself said theIR evidence was circumstantial. Now you're saying the circumstantial evidence you cited doesn't exist? Well you're going to have to debate yourself on that one.

 

[Disir]

I did for the first one. You can read them. Stand back and look at the bullshit and they are telling you they don't have evidence. At best it is speculation and circumstantial. If you are one of those people that firmly believes Russia hacked the DNC then you are full of shit.

You are lying. We know you are lying.

Your disbelief doesn't weigh more than the findings of 17 agencies.

It absolutely does.

You are lying. You know you are lying. We know you are lying.

Sorry it doesnt. If your beliefs mattered more than reality you'd be able to fly from sheer belief.

Also you can't say their evidence is circumstantial at best while claiming they don't have any evidence. Again, you lose.

Wondering if someone is correct doesn't mean they are wrong. That's where you lose.

There is no evidence. Circumstantial relies on an inference. You are lying, you know you are lying. We know you are lying.

You yourself said theIR evidence was circumstantial. Now you're saying the circumstantial evidence you cited doesn't exist? Well you're going to have to debate yourself on that one.

You don't have any evidence. You are lying. You KNOW you are lying. We know you are lying. You have nothing.

And the longer you guys want to lie the worse it's going to get.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Should we let bygones be bygones? Or should we be outraged that a foreign government interfered in our domestic affairs?

If they directly hacked our election systems (which is near to impossible), then we should go after them with unmitigated fury. But there has been no proof of that. Unless you have some, in which case inquiring minds would to see it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Is there any proof that they hacked paper ballots?

How can you hack paper? You mean with a pair of scissors or something?