Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We know the DOJ was corrupted to protect Hillary. Grand juries and subpoenas were refused.The theory is not too far fetched.
You think that means the CIA is lying because you came up with a theory and added "is not too far fetched"
I'll take the word of the intel agencies over your half cocked theories anyday.
The FBI was compromised as we saw because anyone watching the hearing whom isn't brain dead could tell that indictments were warranted.
So would anyone believe anything coming out of the Obama CIA? It's clearly politically based.
I can't say the NSA doing the hacking is a fact. It's speculation that fits.Because it was presented to Congress for the last year. Now, I was gracious to answer first. How do expect someone to show you classified information?
What was presented exactly and why is the CIA refusing to meet with congress about it?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
So you asked me for information that you yourself can't describe how to get it. Got it.
If you don't know what it is, how do you know it proves anything?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Right back at you. Except my reasoning is based on the intel briefings congress have already had. Your assessment ignores those meetings and opts for the more effective stance of "who knows?"
The intel agencies know and so does congress.
How do you know what was in the intel briefings? Were you there?
The corruption of the DOJ and FBI means that under Obama what they say is deemed political and not credible. They are political organizations or they wouldn't be getting involved in this.We know the DOJ was corrupted to protect Hillary. Grand juries and subpoenas were refused.The theory is not too far fetched.
You think that means the CIA is lying because you came up with a theory and added "is not too far fetched"
I'll take the word of the intel agencies over your half cocked theories anyday.
We dont know that but you saying so you seem to think means something...Like Micheal Flynn you mean.
The FBI was compromised as we saw because anyone watching the hearing whom isn't brain dead could tell that indictments were warranted.
Saying "anyone with a brain" isnt a substitution for facts. Like Micheal Flynn you mean?
So would anyone believe anything coming out of the Obama CIA? It's clearly politically based.
How about the CIA and 16 other agencies? How about Lindsey Graham? How many people will you attempt to destroy to defend Russia?
I can't say the NSA doing the hacking is a fact. It's speculation that fits.What was presented exactly and why is the CIA refusing to meet with congress about it?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
So you asked me for information that you yourself can't describe how to get it. Got it.
If you don't know what it is, how do you know it proves anything?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Right back at you. Except my reasoning is based on the intel briefings congress have already had. Your assessment ignores those meetings and opts for the more effective stance of "who knows?"
The intel agencies know and so does congress.
How do you know what was in the intel briefings? Were you there?
How do you know the moon exists? Have you been there?
I can't say the NSA doing the hacking is a fact. It's speculation that fits.So you asked me for information that you yourself can't describe how to get it. Got it.
If you don't know what it is, how do you know it proves anything?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Right back at you. Except my reasoning is based on the intel briefings congress have already had. Your assessment ignores those meetings and opts for the more effective stance of "who knows?"
The intel agencies know and so does congress.
How do you know what was in the intel briefings? Were you there?
How do you know the moon exists? Have you been there?
I have seen pictures of it. Have you seen the pictures of the proof regarding Russians being involved?
Let me get this straight.It does make sense, and there's far more evidence of it than there is to support the Russia claim (which is none).
And yet these agencies REFUSED to provide their supposed evidence to Congress. I wonder why?I can't say the NSA doing the hacking is a fact. It's speculation that fits.What was presented exactly and why is the CIA refusing to meet with congress about it?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
So you asked me for information that you yourself can't describe how to get it. Got it.
If you don't know what it is, how do you know it proves anything?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Right back at you. Except my reasoning is based on the intel briefings congress have already had. Your assessment ignores those meetings and opts for the more effective stance of "who knows?"
The intel agencies know and so does congress.
How do you know what was in the intel briefings? Were you there?
How do you know the moon exists? Have you been there?
And yet these agencies REFUSED to provide their supposed evidence to Congress. I wonder why?I can't say the NSA doing the hacking is a fact. It's speculation that fits.So you asked me for information that you yourself can't describe how to get it. Got it.
If you don't know what it is, how do you know it proves anything?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Right back at you. Except my reasoning is based on the intel briefings congress have already had. Your assessment ignores those meetings and opts for the more effective stance of "who knows?"
The intel agencies know and so does congress.
How do you know what was in the intel briefings? Were you there?
How do you know the moon exists? Have you been there?
You don't. Once again, what exactly is the proof?I can't say the NSA doing the hacking is a fact. It's speculation that fits.If you don't know what it is, how do you know it proves anything?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Right back at you. Except my reasoning is based on the intel briefings congress have already had. Your assessment ignores those meetings and opts for the more effective stance of "who knows?"
The intel agencies know and so does congress.
How do you know what was in the intel briefings? Were you there?
How do you know the moon exists? Have you been there?
I have seen pictures of it. Have you seen the pictures of the proof regarding Russians being involved?
So why are you requiring me having to be in the room before believing our Intel Agencies and several republicans?
You don't. Once again, what exactly is the proof?I can't say the NSA doing the hacking is a fact. It's speculation that fits.Right back at you. Except my reasoning is based on the intel briefings congress have already had. Your assessment ignores those meetings and opts for the more effective stance of "who knows?"
The intel agencies know and so does congress.
How do you know what was in the intel briefings? Were you there?
How do you know the moon exists? Have you been there?
I have seen pictures of it. Have you seen the pictures of the proof regarding Russians being involved?
So why are you requiring me having to be in the room before believing our Intel Agencies and several republicans?
If there was any truth to the Russian hacking story they would be briefing Congress on it. Why don't they show them the evidence?Let me get this straight.It does make sense, and there's far more evidence of it than there is to support the Russia claim (which is none).
Our intelligence agencies have said Russia hacked the DNC, but you are choosing to bleev a story which was just made up out of whole cloth instead.
Here's the best part. You are choosing to bleev this just now made up story because...wait for iiiiiit...you say there is no evidence for the Russian hacking.
BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!
Thank you for once again demonstrating the profound stupidity and incredible gullibility of Trump's Chumps. Anyone anywhere can make up ANYTHING and you will bleev it if it aligns with your completely empty philosophy.
"I want to bleev it, so it must be true!"
If there was any truth to the Russian hacking story they would be briefing Congress on it. Why don't they show them the evidence?Let me get this straight.It does make sense, and there's far more evidence of it than there is to support the Russia claim (which is none).
Our intelligence agencies have said Russia hacked the DNC, but you are choosing to bleev a story which was just made up out of whole cloth instead.
Here's the best part. You are choosing to bleev this just now made up story because...wait for iiiiiit...you say there is no evidence for the Russian hacking.
BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!
Thank you for once again demonstrating the profound stupidity and incredible gullibility of Trump's Chumps. Anyone anywhere can make up ANYTHING and you will bleev it if it aligns with your completely empty philosophy.
"I want to bleev it, so it must be true!"
Answer: They don't HAVE any evidence, they just want the ELECTORS to THINK they have evidence in the hopes that they will cast their votes for Hillary instead of Trump on Dec. 19. That's the only guarantee they have of staying out of prison.
Depends on what they say. What they provide. if there is REALLY evidence why won't they show it to Congress, failure to brief tells me they have none and this is a political ploy engineered by Obama and his appointees.If there was any truth to the Russian hacking story they would be briefing Congress on it. Why don't they show them the evidence?Let me get this straight.It does make sense, and there's far more evidence of it than there is to support the Russia claim (which is none).
Our intelligence agencies have said Russia hacked the DNC, but you are choosing to bleev a story which was just made up out of whole cloth instead.
Here's the best part. You are choosing to bleev this just now made up story because...wait for iiiiiit...you say there is no evidence for the Russian hacking.
BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!
Thank you for once again demonstrating the profound stupidity and incredible gullibility of Trump's Chumps. Anyone anywhere can make up ANYTHING and you will bleev it if it aligns with your completely empty philosophy.
"I want to bleev it, so it must be true!"
Answer: They don't HAVE any evidence, they just want the ELECTORS to THINK they have evidence in the hopes that they will cast their votes for Hillary instead of Trump on Dec. 19. That's the only guarantee they have of staying out of prison.
I'll ask again: If they don't brief Congress, is that suspicious? If they do brief Congress will that exonerate them?
No. It's a wish by the liberals whom can't own up to the fact that Hillary was a terrible candidate and is trying to blame everyone and everything but her.It's all just speculation by everyone. Both sides.
Uh, it isn't "speculation," special one. It's a fact that Russia hacked the DNC emails and wanted to sway the election to Donald Putin.
It's not a fact. It's political spin.No. It's a wish by the liberals whom can't own up to the fact that Hillary was a terrible candidate and is trying to blame everyone and everything but her.It's all just speculation by everyone. Both sides.
Uh, it isn't "speculation," special one. It's a fact that Russia hacked the DNC emails and wanted to sway the election to Donald Putin.
No, it's a FACT confirmed by government intelligence officials and the president himself. Deal with it.
It makes sense to me
It's not a fact. It's political spin.No. It's a wish by the liberals whom can't own up to the fact that Hillary was a terrible candidate and is trying to blame everyone and everything but her.It's all just speculation by everyone. Both sides.
Uh, it isn't "speculation," special one. It's a fact that Russia hacked the DNC emails and wanted to sway the election to Donald Putin.
No, it's a FACT confirmed by government intelligence officials and the president himself. Deal with it.
A briefing could consist of them simply repeating the claim but not showing the evidence, so no, it would not necessarily exonerate them. If they show proof, that would be different but if they had proof they would have already shown it.If there was any truth to the Russian hacking story they would be briefing Congress on it. Why don't they show them the evidence?Let me get this straight.It does make sense, and there's far more evidence of it than there is to support the Russia claim (which is none).
Our intelligence agencies have said Russia hacked the DNC, but you are choosing to bleev a story which was just made up out of whole cloth instead.
Here's the best part. You are choosing to bleev this just now made up story because...wait for iiiiiit...you say there is no evidence for the Russian hacking.
BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!
Thank you for once again demonstrating the profound stupidity and incredible gullibility of Trump's Chumps. Anyone anywhere can make up ANYTHING and you will bleev it if it aligns with your completely empty philosophy.
"I want to bleev it, so it must be true!"
Answer: They don't HAVE any evidence, they just want the ELECTORS to THINK they have evidence in the hopes that they will cast their votes for Hillary instead of Trump on Dec. 19. That's the only guarantee they have of staying out of prison.
I'll ask again: If they don't brief Congress, is that suspicious? If they do brief Congress will that exonerate them?
