Wanting Their Cake And To Eat It, Too

[12icer]

Bengazi aint dead just a lot of people are because of shitbitch and boplenty.

 

[jc456]

lets bring up Benghazi, and piss and moan about more irrelevant horseshit.

yaaaaaaawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

seems you brought it up. point?

 

[OldLady]

I wasn't talking about the election. See, this is why it's impossible to have a sensible discussion about this. We're hollering about two different things. The Russians hacked one of our political parties. Will you accept that?

I'll accept that hey may have hacked the DNC.

Then why did you post this?

"I believe the experts and the members of the Senate who HAVE seen the evidence--they believe Russia hacked the election."

Are you mentally ill or drunk?

Neither. That is not what I posted. I'm not senile, either.

You posted they hacked the election then claimed you weren't talking about hacking the election... soooooo....

I posted they hacked a political party during a Presidential campaign. You screwed with my words to make your own quote and I could report you for it, so if I were you, I would STFU.

Fact:

You posted this in post #103:

"I believe the experts and the members of the Senate who HAVE seen the evidence--they believe Russia hacked the election."

Then you posted this in post #105:

"I wasn't talking about the election"

Go ahead, report me.

All this twisting and turning without answering my question, do you accept that Russia hacked the Podesta and DNC emails? That is all this about.

 

[jc456]

I'll accept that hey may have hacked the DNC.

Then why did you post this?

"I believe the experts and the members of the Senate who HAVE seen the evidence--they believe Russia hacked the election."

Are you mentally ill or drunk?

Neither. That is not what I posted. I'm not senile, either.

You posted they hacked the election then claimed you weren't talking about hacking the election... soooooo....

I posted they hacked a political party during a Presidential campaign. You screwed with my words to make your own quote and I could report you for it, so if I were you, I would STFU.

Fact:

You posted this in post #103:

"I believe the experts and the members of the Senate who HAVE seen the evidence--they believe Russia hacked the election."

Then you posted this in post #105:

"I wasn't talking about the election"

Go ahead, report me.

All this twisting and turning without answering my question, do you accept that Russia hacked the Podesta and DNC emails? That is all this about.

The intelligence community has no proof Russia hacked the 2016 presidential election to get Donald Trump elected, according to the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

“There’s no proof that we have from intelligence sources that I’ve seen that show that the Russians were directly trying to help Trump,” said Rep. Devin Nunes during an interview with the Washington Examiner’s “Examining Politics” podcast Monday. Nunes did not rule out that Russia possibly had a hand in the recent hacking of various political institutions."
-- HUGE difference between 'did hack' and 'did not rule it out'!

"In his role as chairman overseeing the intelligence community, Nunes has access to the nation’s most important secrets. He is also a member of the intelligence version of the Gang of Eight, a select group of congressional leaders who are given special access to national security information from the executive branch."


http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/03/house-intelligence-chair-no-proof-russians-were-trying-to-get-trump-elected/#ixzz4Und2Qxtk


'Russia Hacked The Election To Help Trump Win' 'Fake News' EXPOSED!'

'Snowflake Bubble Bursts!

THIS is why the CIA and other Intel agencies illegally ignored a Congressional Subpoena to come before congress and show them the 'evidence' they have - THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY!

THIS is why Barry hasn't released 'definitive' proof Russia 'hacked the election' - HE DOESN'T HAVE ANY.

THIS is why snowflakes on this board keep parroting liberal sources, Barry, and the Intel agencies yet not being able to post any 'evidence' it happened - THERE ISN'T ANY!

Now how do you have evidence?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I'll accept that hey may have hacked the DNC.

Then why did you post this?

"I believe the experts and the members of the Senate who HAVE seen the evidence--they believe Russia hacked the election."

Are you mentally ill or drunk?

Neither. That is not what I posted. I'm not senile, either.

You posted they hacked the election then claimed you weren't talking about hacking the election... soooooo....

I posted they hacked a political party during a Presidential campaign. You screwed with my words to make your own quote and I could report you for it, so if I were you, I would STFU.

Fact:

You posted this in post #103:

"I believe the experts and the members of the Senate who HAVE seen the evidence--they believe Russia hacked the election."

Then you posted this in post #105:

"I wasn't talking about the election"

Go ahead, report me.

All this twisting and turning without answering my question, do you accept that Russia hacked the Podesta and DNC emails? That is all this about.

I accept that they may have. If they did, it just shows the Dems can't even be trusted with e-mails.

Now, the point of all of this is that the Russians influenced the elections which of course is utter nonsense and without merit.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Funny, a month prior to the election all we heard was that hacking was utter nonsense and of no consequence. Now that HRC lost, it is the cause of the day.

You people are mental.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Here's your sign:

 

[Uncensored2008]

Russia interfered in our election process. Fact.

Lying as always, huh Guno?

Show ANY direct action, one hacked voting machine, one hacked tabulation station, anything?

Anything?

Nah, you're just another lying fucking democrat.

Donald Trump worships Putin. Fact.

Yep, I remember him telling Vlad, "after the election I'll have more flexibility."

Obama tells Russia's Medvedev more flexibility after election

Oh wait.

Well, he did maneuver all of that Uranium..

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...s-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

Ooops...

Donald Trump asked Russia to hack Clinton's emails. Fact.


So, in accordance with the pseudocon methods and practices, it is now okay to state as a fact that Donald Trump colluded with Vladimir Putin to rig our election and that this is grounds to demand his impeachment.

Pile of shit, lying fuck democrat is redundant, as you prove Guno.

Imagine what your life would be like if you had even a shred of integrity?

 

[usmbguest5318]

....All 17 organs of the U.S. intelligence community unanimously agree that the Russians did it. All 17 of them did not agree that Iraq had WMDs back in 2002. These are people whose job it is to know. This is not the sales clerk at your local Walmart, or the hair bender with the "inside line," or the all knowing taxi driver (see my signature line) sharing whatever dumbass hypothesis crossed their mind.

A stretch to say "all 17 organs....unanimously agree". It's more accurate to say "James Clapper, the head of ODNI, said..." I strongly doubt all 17 agencies were able to review all of the intell on this event in order to draw a conclusion.

That may be an accurate statement, but it is not more or less accurate. It is merely what may be an accurate statement.

The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations.
​

It is thus neither a stretch nor inaccurate to say, as I did before, that ".all 17 organs of the U.S. intelligence community unanimously agree that the Russians did it." [1] It is not because to date, not one of the organizations in the USIC has expressed one iota of dissent with the statement the DHS and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) issued on behalf of the USIC. Nothing prevented the heads of one or more USIC agencies/departments from doing so. None did so.

Just as State and the DoE dissented with the other units of the USIC in the report the CIA delivered to President Bush, they or others could have expressed an slightly or greatly differing point of view. Dissent could have been aired concurrently with, before or after release of the DHS and ODNI's joint statement.

While there may be some vagueness about the hierarchical authority/role of the DNI and DCI, perhaps other agency heads, there is no such lack of clarity when it comes to departmental secretaries - they do not report to the DNI and they do not have to concur with the DNI's or SecDHS' pronouncements.

• AllGov - Departments
  
• AllGov - Departments

That said, I know that while the heads of the various USIC units don't go out of their way to disagree with the DNI or other department heads, if they feel good reason exists to do so, they will.

Out of curiosity, on what basis do you "strongly doubt" that personnel at each of the USIC units have not reviewed enough (it's the rare individual that reads all of the information gathered by the USIC) information, or independently obtained convincing information, to draw a conclusion? I have to ask because the discussion on USMB, in the press and comments by Trump make it clear that a fair quantity of people, apparently not one of whom is part of the USIC, have drawn conclusions about whether Russia acted to directed the hacks on the DNC and/or other political individuals/organizations that were closely involved in the 2016 election.



Note 1: I won't be surprised to see someone equivocate over whether the actual persons who wrote code or did whatever were Russian or not. I'm just hoping you won't be among those who do.

 

[usmbguest5318]

That is a direct and deliberate lie.

Per the FBI;

“None of this new data constitutes a smoking gun that can clearly frame Russia as the culprit behind the almost unprecedented hacking campaign that has hit the DNC and several other targets somewhat connected to the U.S. presidential campaign.”

You clearly do not know what you are talking about, yet there you are talking anyway. (Click the link. Read the first sentence.

 

[Uncensored2008]

UC is a retard. He thinks citing facts means I supported Clinton.

The next time you cite a fact will be the first time, Guno.

You actually think you fool people, but you don't. You are a shrill, DNC hack. Basically Lakhota or rdean with less integrity.

What does it tell you about a retard who thinks FACTS are a LIBERAL thing! BWA-HA-HA-HA!

I cited polls all during the campaign season which showed Clinton in the lead.

You repeated what you read on DailyKOS and ThinkProgress. You're a hack who spews leftist bullshit

Dumb fuck interpreted that to mean I supported Clinton. What a maroon, especially since I made my utter contempt of BOTH candidates well known.

And I sure as fuck was not on this forum November 7 saying Clinton was going to win. He's been caught in another lie. Again. I've lost count.

He does that. It's his thing.

You spent a YEAR running around calling anyone who denied that your little goddess would win a "rube.'

I got "caught" exposing you as the lying hack you are, Guno. Now that you lost, and lost BIG, you throw a daily tantrum to try and assuage your chronic butthurt.

You lost, moron. And this loss will cost you for decades, because your filthy party will not be able to put another traitor on the SCOTUS to end the BoR.

Go cry yourself to sleep.

 

[jc456]

....All 17 organs of the U.S. intelligence community unanimously agree that the Russians did it. All 17 of them did not agree that Iraq had WMDs back in 2002. These are people whose job it is to know. This is not the sales clerk at your local Walmart, or the hair bender with the "inside line," or the all knowing taxi driver (see my signature line) sharing whatever dumbass hypothesis crossed their mind.

A stretch to say "all 17 organs....unanimously agree". It's more accurate to say "James Clapper, the head of ODNI, said..." I strongly doubt all 17 agencies were able to review all of the intell on this event in order to draw a conclusion.

That may be an accurate statement, but it is not more or less accurate. It is merely what may be an accurate statement.

The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations.
​

It is thus neither a stretch nor inaccurate to say, as I did before, that ".all 17 organs of the U.S. intelligence community unanimously agree that the Russians did it." [1] It is not because to date, not one of the organizations in the USIC has expressed one iota of dissent with the statement the DHS and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) issued on behalf of the USIC. Nothing prevented the heads of one or more USIC agencies/departments from doing so. None did so.

Just as State and the DoE dissented with the other units of the USIC in the report the CIA delivered to President Bush, they or others could have expressed an slightly or greatly differing point of view. Dissent could have been aired concurrently with, before or after release of the DHS and ODNI's joint statement.

While there may be some vagueness about the hierarchical authority/role of the DNI and DCI, perhaps other agency heads, there is no such lack of clarity when it comes to departmental secretaries - they do not report to the DNI and they do not have to concur with the DNI's or SecDHS' pronouncements.

• AllGov - Departments
  
• AllGov - Departments

That said, I know that while the heads of the various USIC units don't go out of their way to disagree with the DNI or other department heads, if they feel good reason exists to do so, they will.

Out of curiosity, on what basis do you "strongly doubt" that personnel at each of the USIC units have not reviewed enough (it's the rare individual that reads all of the information gathered by the USIC) information, or independently obtained convincing information, to draw a conclusion? I have to ask because the discussion on USMB, in the press and comments by Trump make it clear that a fair quantity of people, apparently not one of whom is part of the USIC, have drawn conclusions about whether Russia acted to directed the hacks on the DNC and/or other political individuals/organizations that were closely involved in the 2016 election.



Note 1: I won't be surprised to see someone equivocate over whether the actual persons who wrote code or did whatever were Russian or not. I'm just hoping you won't be among those who do.

I'd really like to know why the POTUS and Congress haven't received a report yet? Why?

 

[usmbguest5318]

[

No, I do not agree that "no evidence" of hacking has been presented. I think you think that because its what you wrote. It's not at all what I wrote.

Revealing the corruption of the DNC is NOT directly affecting an election. WikiLeaks provided Americans with factual information, much to the chagrin of the criminal conspiracy that is the democratic party.

Brains, brains, thought he said trains and asked for a slow one. Are you one of the white male, poorly educated people who supported Trump? You seem like one, but I have to ask because I don't know you.

The comment above is your latest response in the following chain of comments? Do you even know what this thread is about?

Please enlighten us, how did the Rooskies "help" Trump win?

You clearly have not read the topic. Or you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Or you are too stupid and over your head.

Based on the past, I would say all of the above.

dude, you have posted nothing to support your OP. so. Please feel free to post up the evidence the russians hacked. Let's see it. Come clean sally.

Really? Given what has been made available to date, that's your best retort?

No, the intelligence community has not released it's full reporting of how they know the Russians hacked Podesta and others. What they have released indicates that it is more plausible that the Russians did it than did any of the other actors who may reasonably be thought to have done it.

All 17 organs of the U.S. intelligence community unanimously agree that the Russians did it. All 17 of them did not agree that Iraq had WMDs back in 2002. These are people whose job it is to know. This is not the sales clerk at your local Walmart, or the hair bender with the "inside line," or the all knowing taxi driver (see my signature line) sharing whatever dumbass hypothesis crossed their mind.

so you agree no evidence of hacking has been presented. thanks.

No, I do not agree that "no evidence" of hacking has been presented. I think you think that because its what you wrote. It's not at all what I wrote.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That is a direct and deliberate lie.

Per the FBI;

“None of this new data constitutes a smoking gun that can clearly frame Russia as the culprit behind the almost unprecedented hacking campaign that has hit the DNC and several other targets somewhat connected to the U.S. presidential campaign.”

You clearly do not know what you are talking about, yet there you are talking anyway. (Click the link. Read the first sentence.

From your own link;

{However, we are not now in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian Government. The USIC and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) assess that it would be extremely difficult for someone, including a nation-state actor, to alter actual ballot counts or election results by cyber attack or intrusion.}

I get it, you're butthurt.

Someone told the truth, and that is the worst thing that can happen to a democrat.

Find a safe space, snowflake.

 

[jc456]

Trump unleashes his schoolgirl crush toward Putin in 2013. He drops to his knees and fellates Putin for his work mass murdering innocents in Syria. He claims to have a conversational relationship with the KGB thug. So it is not beyond the scope of possibility that the fanboi colluded with his hero to interfere in our election:


Q: Do you have a relationship with Vladimir Putin? A conversational relationship, or anything that you feel you have sway or influence over his government?

TRUMP: I do have a relationship, and I can tell you that he's very interested in what we're doing here today. He's probably very interested in what you and I are saying today, and I'm sure he's going to be seeing it in some form. But I do have a relationship with him, and I think it's very interesting to see what's happened. Look, he's done a very brilliant job in terms of what he represents and who he's representing. If you look at what he's done with Syria, if you look at so many of the different things (sniff), he has really eaten our President's lunch. Let's not kid ourselves. He's done an amazing job. He's put himself, really, a lot of people would say he's put himself at the forefront of the world as a leader.

you into high school girls or something, sicko?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hillary is a criminal who mishandled classified information --- so that makes me a rube....? Yeah, I don't get it either

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Brains, brains, thought he said trains and asked for a slow one. Are you one of the white male, poorly educated people who supported Trump? You seem like one, but I have to ask because I don't know you.

The comment above is your latest response in the following chain of comments? Do you even know what this thread is about?

You clearly have not read the topic. Or you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Or you are too stupid and over your head.

Based on the past, I would say all of the above.

dude, you have posted nothing to support your OP. so. Please feel free to post up the evidence the russians hacked. Let's see it. Come clean sally.

Really? Given what has been made available to date, that's your best retort?

No, the intelligence community has not released it's full reporting of how they know the Russians hacked Podesta and others. What they have released indicates that it is more plausible that the Russians did it than did any of the other actors who may reasonably be thought to have done it.

All 17 organs of the U.S. intelligence community unanimously agree that the Russians did it. All 17 of them did not agree that Iraq had WMDs back in 2002. These are people whose job it is to know. This is not the sales clerk at your local Walmart, or the hair bender with the "inside line," or the all knowing taxi driver (see my signature line) sharing whatever dumbass hypothesis crossed their mind.

so you agree no evidence of hacking has been presented. thanks.

No, I do not agree that "no evidence" of hacking has been presented. I think you think that because its what you wrote. It's not at all what I wrote.

Didn't you lie that the BOOGY MAN (Russians) had STOLEN the election from our rightful ruler Hillary?

Here's the thing sparky, let's say Gucifer 2.0 is a Russian; so what? Providing the public with facts that our corrupt press suppress is not a direct incursion into our elections, and far less of an influence than that of the DNC controlled press itself in quashing information that harms or exposes the party.

Gucifer 2.0 played EXACTLY the same role as Woodward and Bernstien, an investigative journalist who exposed MASSIVE corruption by the corrupt, ruling elite. Once exposed to the truth, the American public rejected your party, which infuriates you. But reporting facts is a noble and positive thing. That you think otherwise simply reveals your personal integrity.

 

[usmbguest5318]

That is a direct and deliberate lie.

Per the FBI;

“None of this new data constitutes a smoking gun that can clearly frame Russia as the culprit behind the almost unprecedented hacking campaign that has hit the DNC and several other targets somewhat connected to the U.S. presidential campaign.”

You clearly do not know what you are talking about, yet there you are talking anyway. (Click the link. Read the first sentence.

From your own link;

{However, we are not now in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian Government. The USIC and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) assess that it would be extremely difficult for someone, including a nation-state actor, to alter actual ballot counts or election results by cyber attack or intrusion.}

I get it, you're butthurt.

Someone told the truth, and that is the worst thing that can happen to a democrat.

Find a safe space, snowflake.

No "butt hurt,' baby. You conveniently failed to include the sentence that precedes the one you did include.

From the same paragraph:

Some states have also recently seen scanning and probing of their election-related systems, which in most cases originated from servers operated by a Russian company. However, we are not now in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian Government.
​

This is now the second time in an hour or so that someone has put their ignorance against my knowledge. I'm telling you now, as I did them before, that dog won't hunt.

 

[OldLady]

Neither. That is not what I posted. I'm not senile, either.

You posted they hacked the election then claimed you weren't talking about hacking the election... soooooo....

I posted they hacked a political party during a Presidential campaign. You screwed with my words to make your own quote and I could report you for it, so if I were you, I would STFU.

Fact:

You posted this in post #103:

"I believe the experts and the members of the Senate who HAVE seen the evidence--they believe Russia hacked the election."

Then you posted this in post #105:

"I wasn't talking about the election"

Go ahead, report me.

All this twisting and turning without answering my question, do you accept that Russia hacked the Podesta and DNC emails? That is all this about.

I accept that they may have. If they did, it just shows the Dems can't even be trusted with e-mails.

Now, the point of all of this is that the Russians influenced the elections which of course is utter nonsense and without merit.

If the only point of all this was that the Russians influenced the elections, I'd not bother arguing about it. What is scary to me is folks like jc who are actually denying that the Russians were involved at all, or if they were, what's the big deal--we do it too. It is not good when a chunk of the people don't believe the newspapers and nightly news and now don't believe the FBI and intelligence agencies. I can't see anything good coming from such cynicism.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

No "butt hurt,' baby. You conveniently failed to include the sentence that precedes the one you did include.

From the same paragraph:

Some states have also recently seen scanning and probing of their election-related systems, which in most cases originated from servers operated by a Russian company. However, we are not now in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian Government.
​

This is now the second time in an hour or so that someone has put their ignorance against my knowledge. I'm telling you now, as I did them before, that dog won't hunt.

Essentially, WikiLeaks played the role of an actual free press. This angers you and your corrupt party. You seek to control what information the American people have access to. WikiLeaks provided America with the truth, which will crush the democrats every time.