Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House

[Hardcore troubadour 15,911]

You have proof that NBC or others haven't gotten the story from multiple sources, or seen the report being discussed....again another example of you making up stuff again with no proof.

 

Here's me NOT holding my breath waiting for you to back up your bs...

No, but I do have common sense enough to know that it would take a little time to verify it. You don't.

[Mike Honcho 5,433]

No, but I do have common sense enough to know that it would take a little time to verify it. You don't.

Oh..common sense, much better than proof!!!! :lol:

[Hardcore troubadour 15,911]

Oh..common sense, much better than proof!!!! :lol:

Are you aware of the term " burden of proof" and who it applies to? If you're not, maybe Slownuff can help you. Dumber every day.

[Sho Nuff 720]

who ? Real source please ?

 

My hack Web site called the polls being a joke and trump winning. how'd you do ? How'd NBC news do ?

 

You win geek club ass clown of the year...again.

So...you have no information to refute the report? And are just going to whine about the source.

Great...thanks Hacky Hackerson

[Mike Honcho 5,433]

Would love to see some names next to those quotes. That's how a real news organization does it.

Are you aware of the term " burden of proof" and who it applies to? If you're not, maybe Slownuff can help you. Dumber every day.

Yes I am aware of it, also aware of the phrase can't disprove a negative...so I'm not going to try and disprove your theory that the newspapers DID NOT verify their sources.

 

No, but I do have common sense enough to know that it would take a little time to verify it. You don't.

Yeah, it would take so much time for a reporter to get a source saying "We presented a report to so and so senator" and then call so and so senator to find out if such report was presented.

 

Your common sense, sucks.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,911]

Yes I am aware of it, also aware of the phrase can't disprove a negative...so I'm not going to try and disprove your theory that the newspapers DID NOT verify their sources.

 

Yeah, it would take so much time for a reporter to get a source saying "We presented a report to so and so senator" and then call so and so senator to find out if such report was presented.

 

Your common sense, sucks.

Great. Then they can say that. Buuuuuuut, they didn't. Shutty

[Baker Boy 1,710]

 

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., slammed the intelligence community Wednesday for forcing the cancellation of a planned House Intelligence Committee briefing on alleged Russian interference in the U.S. election.

 

"All we’ve heard from the intelligence community over the last several months is that they could not say that there was any attempt to undermine Hillary Clinton [or] to help Donald Trump," King told Fox News' Megyn Kelly on "The Kelly File." "The consensus was that there was an attempt by the Russians to put a cloud over the election, to create disunity. Well, that’s what’s happening right now, but it’s the intelligence community that’s doing it."

[Sho Nuff 720]

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., slammed the intelligence community Wednesday for forcing the cancellation of a planned House Intelligence Committee briefing on alleged Russian interference in the U.S. election.

 

"All weve heard from the intelligence community over the last several months is that they could not say that there was any attempt to undermine Hillary Clinton [or] to help Donald Trump," King told Fox News' Megyn Kelly on "The Kelly File." "The consensus was that there was an attempt by the Russians to put a cloud over the election, to create disunity. Well, thats whats happening right now, but its the intelligence community thats doing it."

You should link the full article so you don't leave out much of the pertinent information.

[Mike Honcho 5,433]

Great. Then they can say that. Buuuuuuut, they didn't. Shutty

You are trying to justify your earlier stupid comments now, unnamed sources should have to be verified and that needs to be known, but I can't ever recall seeing the verification(why, cause it's a waste of newsprint and bandwidth), please provide examples if you have some. Credible newspapers, like the Post and Times for the most part do their due diligence, it's part of the job or they lose all credibility.

 

You are flailing now and have fallen back to making up claims you can't support. So basically, you've thrown the gun, you're done.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,911]

You are trying to justify your earlier stupid comments now, unnamed sources should have to be verified and that needs to be known, but I can't ever recall seeing the verification(why, cause it's a waste of newsprint and bandwidth), please provide examples if you have some. Credible newspapers, like the Post and Times for the most part do their due diligence, it's part of the job or they lose all credibility.

 

You are flailing now and have fallen back to making up claims you can't support. So basically, you've thrown the gun, you're done.

I don't know what your life experience is, but I think it's limited. The information can't be verified. That doesn't mean someone didn't tell a reporter that, they probably did. Doesnt mean diddly without some sort of verification, which is impossible given the time range.

[Mike Honcho 5,433]

I don't know what your life experience is, but I think it's limited. The information can't be verified. That doesn't mean someone didn't tell a reporter that, they probably did. Doesnt mean diddly without some sort of verification, which is impossible given the time range.

What information are you saying can't be verified...cause the information we are talking about is, did the intelligence agencies present to Senators/White House the assessment that Russia was trying to influence the election. That can easily be verified. And if in your life experience, you think that's impossible to verify in the time range of MONTHS, you are must be getting your information via telegraph.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,911]

What information are you saying can't be verified...cause the information we are talking about is, did the intelligence agencies present to Senators/White House the assessment that Russia was trying to influence the election. That can easily be verified. And if in your life experience, you think that's impossible to verify in the time range of MONTHS, you are must be getting your information via telegraph.

Maybe the source died in Santas arms.

[Mike Honcho 5,433]

Maybe the source died in Santas arms.

you trying to throw the horse...at your age!

[Hardcore troubadour 15,911]

you trying to throw the horse...at your age!

I win.

[Mike Honcho 5,433]

I win.

 

If by winning you mean providing no evidence to back up your allegations & and out and out making up journalistic standards that don't exist..yes you win all right, The Secretariat Award for being full of Horse Sh!t. Congrats.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,911]

 

If by winning you mean providing no evidence to back up your allegations & and out and out making up journalistic standards that don't exist..yes you win all right, The Secretariat Award for being full of Horse Sh!t. Congrats.

Journalistic standards. You lose.

[Gepetto 1,454]

Oliver Stone writes fiction and tries to pass it off as truth. Please don't waste your time or at least don't discuss anything Oliver Stone produces in the context of the actual reality that we all live in.

[MDC 7,883]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CzupyqyVQAA1jd0.jpg:large

 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,911]

Oliver Stone writes fiction and tries to pass it off as truth. Please don't waste your time or at least don't discuss anything Oliver Stone produces in the context of the actual reality that we all live in.

JFK was enjoyable though. The acting in that was top notch. It didn't change my view much, I didn't think Oswald worked alone before I saw it. Still don't, but Stone went in some pretty far fetched directions with it. It was interesting, not gospel.

[Mike Honcho 5,433]

 

We don't know that Russia was involved. We have an unnamed source making these accusations. What's funny is that Obummer was on the Daily Show and guess what he said? He said we shouldn't give a flying fock if Russia is trying this stuff because they've been doing it back to the Cold War. Which is exactly correct. It's what government's do. It's what OUR government does. When I mentioned that to you the other day your response was "that's the other country's problem." Talk about DEFLECTING. Shouldn't we set an example? And if we know they have been doing this for decades why is it a story now? Oh, right. TRUMP.

 

 

Yup, your synopsis that Obama said 'we shouldn't give a flying fock"...right on the money.

 

Obama On Russian Hacking: 'We Need To Take Action. And We Will'

 

President Obama says the United States will respond to Russian cyberattacks that the intelligence community has concluded were part of an effort to influence the 2016 presidential election.

 

In an interview with NPR's Steve Inskeep that will air Friday on Morning Edition, Obama said, "I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections ... we need to take action. And we will — at a time and place of our own choosing. Some of it may be explicit and publicized; some of it may not be."

 

 

Right on the money as usual, Strike.

[Sho Nuff 720]

So...multiple intel sources confirming Russia...hacks still not convinced.

Now saying all the way up to Putin...no big deal.

Obama saying we will take action...nothing to it.

 

Head completely in the sand with the Trump supporters...and those that claim they don't really even like or support him yet defend him nonstop.

[drobeski 3,061]

Yep, as my amazingly accurate sources predicted...the administration will be willing to start war with russia to protect the details of their dirty deeds.

 

 

 

Treasonous scumbags...thankfully soon will be done.

[NorthernVike 2,095]

 

 

Head completely in the sand with the Hillary supporters...and those that claim they don't really even like or support her yet defend her nonstop.

See how that works.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,911]

So...multiple intel sources confirming Russia...hacks still not convinced.

Now saying all the way up to Putin...no big deal.

Obama saying we will take action...nothing to it.

 

Head completely in the sand with the Trump supporters...and those that claim they don't really even like or support him yet defend him nonstop.

Who says Russinas didn't hack and give the info to wiki-leaks?

[drobeski 3,061]

Who says Russinas didn't hack and give the info to wiki-leaks?

Julian Assange

[Hardcore troubadour 15,911]

Julian Assange

Ok. But even if they did, who's fault is it? And how did it affect the election? Would love to hear an answer for that besides "it's wrong". No shite hacking is wrong.

[Gepetto 1,454]

John McCain: “Vladimir Putin is a thug and a murderer and a killer and a KGB agent,” he said. “...Let’s call Vladimir Putin for what he is. Does that mean you don’t deal with him or talk to him? Of course you talk to him. But you do it the way that Ronald Reagan did, and that’s from a position of strength.” source: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-mccain-donald-trump-russia-hacking-response/

 

 

Me: Why is John McCain publicly on recorded television saying Vladimir Putin, the leader of Russia, is a murderer? Seems to me not a smart thing to say about someone you want to negotiate with.

[giraldi02 476]

Wake me up when one of these anonymous sources has the wherewithal to put their name to these baseless accusations.

 

The Democrats grilled people, in hindsight, for the weapons of mass destruction that never showed up.

 

The Democrats grilled people for having no tangible evidence about the Clinton negligence with a private server.

 

Now they engage in a three month campaign of McCarthyism with not one piece of evidence released to the American people, and every single Democrat is expecting us to believe the election was rigged.

 

If you're too bullheaded to believe that this reeks of BS, or at the very least is severely overblown, you're a hypocrite.

 

I can assure everyone here of this too: Once December 19th comes and goes and the Electorate determines Trump to be the winner of this election, all the "Russia rigged the election" talk is going to quietly make its way into oblivion.

[cbfalcon 827]

Wake me up when one of these anonymous sources has the wherewithal to put their name to these baseless accusations.

 

 

Are you wanting the names of the spies?

 

Or the names of politicians that have gotten the reports and seem to believe them? Because it feels like we have some of those.

[giraldi02 476]

 

Are you wanting the names of the spies?

 

Or the names of politicians that have gotten the reports and seem to believe them? Because it feels like we have some of those.

 

 

This quote from Glenn Greenwald's article sums up my position on this.

 

 

 

There is still no such evidence for any of these claims. What we have instead are assertions, disseminated by anonymous people, completely unaccompanied by any evidence, let alone proof. As a result, none of the purported evidence — still — can be publicly seen, reviewed, or discussed. Anonymous claims leaked to newspapers about what the CIA believes do not constitute proof, and certainly do not constitute reliable evidence that substitutes for actual evidence that can be reviewed. Have we really not learned this lesson yet?

 

[crackattack 520]

I say we send troops to support the defence of Ukraine from Russia. That'll teach them to influence and meddle in or elections. We need to make a serious statement, since this is a serious issue. Sanctions haven't been a deterrent, Obama's public shaming surprisingly hasn't worked, the UN = weak and neutered. Seems we have but one option, and that's punch Vlad in the face in front of his wife and mistresses.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Yep, as my amazingly accurate sources predicted...the administration will be willing to start war with russia to protect the details of their dirty deeds.

 

 

 

Treasonous scumbags...thankfully soon will be done.

 

Treasonous for wanting action against a country trying to influence our election process?

You sir are completely mental.

[Sho Nuff 720]

See how that works.

 

Not really...how is this defending Hillary?

Psst...its not.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Julian Assange

 

Funny how actual treasonous behavior is now cool with you.

[Sho Nuff 720]

John McCain: “Vladimir Putin is a thug and a murderer and a killer and a KGB agent,” he said. “...Let’s call Vladimir Putin for what he is. Does that mean you don’t deal with him or talk to him? Of course you talk to him. But you do it the way that Ronald Reagan did, and that’s from a position of strength.” source: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-mccain-donald-trump-russia-hacking-response/

 

 

Me: Why is John McCain publicly on recorded television saying Vladimir Putin, the leader of Russia, is a murderer? Seems to me not a smart thing to say about someone you want to negotiate with.

 

Because Putin is a murderer?

[Sho Nuff 720]

Wake me up when one of these anonymous sources has the wherewithal to put their name to these baseless accusations.

 

The Democrats grilled people, in hindsight, for the weapons of mass destruction that never showed up.

 

The Democrats grilled people for having no tangible evidence about the Clinton negligence with a private server.

 

Now they engage in a three month campaign of McCarthyism with not one piece of evidence released to the American people, and every single Democrat is expecting us to believe the election was rigged.

 

If you're too bullheaded to believe that this reeks of BS, or at the very least is severely overblown, you're a hypocrite.

 

I can assure everyone here of this too: Once December 19th comes and goes and the Electorate determines Trump to be the winner of this election, all the "Russia rigged the election" talk is going to quietly make its way into oblivion.

 

You don't seem to understand what the bolded word means.

[Sho Nuff 720]

 

 

This quote from Glenn Greenwald's article sums up my position on this.

 

 

http://www.threatgeek.com/2016/10/podcast-how-experts-traced-the-dnc-hack-to-russian-spies.html

 

Again...baseless doesn't seem to be the right word...there is evidence and proof that can be traced back to Russia.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,911]

 

Because Putin is a murderer?

Obama is a murderer. Drones. And did you see those kids in Allepo? How does he sleep at night?

[Reality 3,121]

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by Sho Nuff. View it anyway?

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by Sho Nuff. View it anyway?

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by Sho Nuff. View it anyway?

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by Sho Nuff. View it anyway?

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by Sho Nuff. View it anyway?

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by Sho Nuff. View it anyway?

 

Giant's Fan, is that you? I've got a feeling he's really bringing it this time.

[crackattack 520]

Ok. Russia was involved. Now what? All this bluster, now action. What's our next move? Cyber war? More sanctions? World stage bittch fest?