CIA says Russia helped Donald Trump win the White House

[NeverSure]

3 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Sean Spicer looks like an insane man in his replies.  He gets taken apart several times by the CNN host.  He's working with Trump and trying to make sure this doesn't come back on him.  He's got a vested interest.

 

Watch at minute 7:30 and then again at 8:00. Sean loses it. And admits a "foreign hostile actor" hacked the DNC email server.  He admits it.  Just doesn't want to admit the hack may have had an effect on the election.  He's trying to protect his boss.  Biased person.

 

Watch Reince Priebus who is the outgoing head of the Republican National Committee and incoming White House Chief of Staff eat NBC's Chuck Todd's lunch on this subject of "Russian Hacking" on Meet The Press today.

 

Start at 9:00.

 

Cheers.

 

 

[craigt3365]

5 minutes ago, rabas said:

The presiding issue is that the corrupt nature of HRC and the DNC was exposed for all to see during the election. This may well have affected the election, as it should have. Even many democrats said the party had lost its way.

 

The ultimate issue and threat to our system is why do voters need to rely on Wiki-leaks to find even shreds of truth?What has happened to our once independent news media?

The details are many but the answer is simple, corrupt politics.

The pending issue is that a hostile nation hacked emails systems inside the US with the intent to, in one way or another, influence an election.  Politics aside.  I understand what you are saying, but this is about whether Russia helped Trump win the election.  It's a guarantee at least some voters were swayed.

[Pakboong]

I am more concerned with why my government wants me to believe those nasty Russians are cheating as usual as if we didn't already know that. Could be a smoke screen for some 1st amendment changes making their way though congress.

[Diplomatico]

  Last week the red herring was the recount (how's that going, btw, lol.)  This week's red herring is those evil Russian hackers who used their supernatural powers to "Jedi mind trick" the US voters into voting against their will.  Wonder what next week's red herring will be?  

Edited December 12, 2016 by Diplomatico

[simple1]

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Political issues aside, the crux of this matter is that a foreign country hacked the election system of the US.  This needs to be addressed.  And yes, it did have an impact on the election.  Thus, Trump is against this being investigated. 

 

Plus certain member/s repeatedly using this OP and similar to attack Clinton with unproven / false allegations. Shame they don't  listen to their own advise and shut up - the election is over.

 

 

 

[Scott]

Posts removed.   One was removed for violating Fair Use and others were removed because the election is over, so you can save it for the history book your righting.   For here, and now, stay on topic.  

[impulse]

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Political issues aside, the crux of this matter is that a foreign country hacked the election system of the US.  This needs to be addressed.  And yes, it did have an impact on the election.  Thus, Trump is against this being investigated. 

 

If I'm considering buying a VW, and some Ford fan hacks Volkwagen's confidential emails and publishes emails revealing that their diesel engines cheat on their emissions testing, hasn't that guy done me a favor?

 

It would be one thing if they released false information.  But if the DNC and HRC can't keep their emails private, or aren't then smart enough not to leave a smoking email trail, they kind of did it to themselves.   If they're sorry it (whatever "it" was) got outed, shouldn't they be ashamed that they did it?  But they're not.  They're just pissed that they got caught.

[craigt3365]

8 minutes ago, NeverSure said:

 

Watch Reince Priebus who is the outgoing head of the Republican National Committee and incoming White House Chief of Staff eat NBC's Chuck Todd's lunch on this subject of "Russian Hacking" on Meet The Press today.

 

Start at 9:00.

 

Cheers.

 

This guy is extremely biased.  I listened to the whole thing.  Didn't see him "eat" Todd's lunch. LOL.  He didn't even answer some questions.  He totally deflected.  Just like Clinton did about Monica.  He's going after this guy like a lawyer.  Somebody with NO bias would be better.  He's a lawyer, they're trained to debate.  Of course he's good! LOL

[craigt3365]

6 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

If I'm considering buying a VW, and some Ford fan hacks Volkwagen's confidential emails and publishes emails revealing that their diesel engines cheat on their emissions testing, hasn't that guy done me a favor?

 

It would be one thing if they released false information.  But if the DNC and HRC can't keep their emails private, or aren't then smart enough not to leave a smoking email trail, they kind of did it to themselves.   If they're sorry it (whatever "it" was) got outed, shouldn't they be ashamed that they did it?  But they're not.  They're just pissed that they got caught.

The OP is the CIA says Russia influenced the election.  Not whether or not it was a good thing.  I think it's totally inappropriate to place the blame with the DNC because they didn't keep their emails private or secure. 

[Usernames]

23 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Nobody knows the answer to this.  One reason Wikileaks isn't really a good source of info.  It causes more problems than solves.  But gives great fodder to those who are anti-West/anti-establishment.

 

Link please showing where Obama got the IRS to after his enemies, same with CIA.  Credible links only, please.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/05/opinion/what-were-missing-while-we-obsess-over-john-podestas-email.html

WikiLeaks Isn’t Whistleblowing

 

 

 

Okay, can you give me examples where any of the Wikileaks have been refuted?

[impulse]

5 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

The OP is the CIA says Russia influenced the election.  Not whether or not it was a good thing.  I think it's totally inappropriate to place the blame with the DNC because they didn't keep their emails private or secure. 

 

I blame the DNC and HRC on 3 levels because the content of their emails indicated behavior that the American people deem unacceptable.

 

1)  They did those unacceptable things in the first place, figuring the people would never find out.

2) They were stupid enough to put it in emails.

3) They weren't smart enough to secure their emails.

 

I'm not claiming that hacking is acceptable.  But that only revealed the root problems.

[lannarebirth]

17 minutes ago, Usernames said:

 

Okay, can you give me examples where any of the Wikileaks have been refuted?

 

I don't think they have either been affirmed or refuted. What is known is that Wasserman-Schultz resigned her DNC chairmanship when it was released (immediately given another high stature job by HRC). That Tulsi Gabbert felt like she had to resign from her DNC committee position in order to endorse Bernie Sanders. And that Donna Brazille was forced by CNN to leave the network when news of her "alleged" duplicity came to light. 

Edited December 12, 2016 by lannarebirth

[Usernames]

58 minutes ago, rabas said:

The presiding issue is that the corrupt nature of HRC and the DNC was exposed for all to see during the election. This may well have affected the election, as it should have. Even many democrats said the party had lost its way.

 

The ultimate issue and threat to our system is why do voters need to rely on Wiki-leaks to find even shreds of truth?What has happened to our once independent news media?

The details are many but the answer is simple, corrupt politics.

 

We need to rely on Wikileaks because Wikileaks also proved that the mainstream media was actively participating in the campaign FOR Clinton, sending articles for HRC to approve, leaking debate questions to HRC before debates.

[NeverSure]

16 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

This guy is extremely biased.  I listened to the whole thing.  Didn't see him "eat" Todd's lunch. LOL.  He didn't even answer some questions.  He totally deflected.  Just like Clinton did about Monica.  He's going after this guy like a lawyer.  Somebody with NO bias would be better.  He's a lawyer, they're trained to debate.  Of course he's good! LOL

 

He ate his lunch by pointing out over and over that the only "source" that says Russia hacked emails is a New York Times article that won't name sources. Reince just keeps asking Todd for any other source and Todd doesn't have one. Reince, as nice a guy as he is, well makes the case that Russian hacking isn't proven.

 

Cheers.

[Usernames]

8 minutes ago, NeverSure said:

 

He ate his lunch by pointing out over and over that the only "source" that says Russia hacked emails is a New York Times article that won't name sources. Reince just keeps asking Todd for any other source and Todd doesn't have one. Reince, as nice a guy as he is, well makes the case that Russian hacking isn't proven.

 

Cheers.

 

Yes, this is the point. The entire story is based upon reports in the Washington Post and NY Times that have been proven to contain demonstrably FALSE information.  There was no hacking of the RNC.  If there was no hacking of the RNC, how could Putin or anybody else CHOOSE to release DNC hacks and keep RNC hacks. 

[ilostmypassword]

17 minutes ago, NeverSure said:

 

He ate his lunch by pointing out over and over that the only "source" that says Russia hacked emails is a New York Times article that won't name sources. Reince just keeps asking Todd for any other source and Todd doesn't have one. Reince, as nice a guy as he is, well makes the case that Russian hacking isn't proven.

 

Cheers.

You're lying:

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/12/trump-russia-u-s-election/

[craigt3365]

17 minutes ago, NeverSure said:

 

He ate his lunch by pointing out over and over that the only "source" that says Russia hacked emails is a New York Times article that won't name sources. Reince just keeps asking Todd for any other source and Todd doesn't have one. Reince, as nice a guy as he is, well makes the case that Russian hacking isn't proven.

 

Cheers.

He never answered several questions.  Deflected all the way.  Just like a lawyer does.

[ding]

The Main Stream Media in America did more damage to fair elections than Russia could ever dream of.

 

Laughable to see them afterwards in shocked terror when they realized they sank Sanders and got Trump elected.

 

"Oh dear, what have we done?"

 

[Usernames]

1 minute ago, craigt3365 said:

He never answered several questions.  Deflected all the way.  Just like a lawyer does.

 

For example?

[craigt3365]

5 minutes ago, NeverSure said:

 

There aren't any. The many leaks that were released were in the form of someone else's writing and mostly emails. Wikileaks was just the messenger. Many times it was the only place we could get information we could trust because news sources with their own writers were so biased.

 

Now that I know that Hillary got actual debate questions ahead of time from CNN and was allowed to review and edit and even ashcan MSM articles about her I have to ask:  "Which crooks were actually influencing the US election? The Russians or our own MSM?"

 

Cheers.

And here's CNN's response to this.  Stand up thing to do:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/donna-brazile-wikileaks-cnn.html

 

Quote

 

“We are completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor,” Lauren Pratapas, a network spokeswoman, said in a statement.

“CNN never gave Brazile access to any questions, prep material, attendee list, background information or meetings in advance of a town hall or debate,” Ms. Pratapas wrote.

 

 

[craigt3365]

3 minutes ago, Usernames said:

 

For example?

Watch the video....

[Usernames]

2 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Watch the video....

 

I did. He didn't deflect at all. He asked for a source. Todd couldn't provide one. He also pointed out that the story was based on a demonstrably false allegation.  There was no hack of the RNC. That's why Todd kept backing off and and immediately started asking different questions.  If that isn't a definition of deflection, what is?  It was NBC and Todd doing the deflecting, not Priebus.

[NeverSure]

7 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

He never answered several questions.  Deflected all the way.  Just like a lawyer does.

 

If you call repeatedly asking Todd for sources that prove Russia hacked emails "deflecting" then I guess you think he did.

 

My take is that he kept asking Todd that simple question and of course Todd couldn't give an answer because there aren't any sources.

 

Craig there aren't any named sources that claim that Russia hacked emails! This is a Democrat talking point to deflect from the horrible things that are in those emails. I truly believe it was an inside job known as "social hacking" which if known would really make the Democrats look bad. How much more sinister and distracting to blame the Russians!

 

Cheers.

[craigt3365]

22 minutes ago, Usernames said:

 

Yes, this is the point. The entire story is based upon reports in the Washington Post and NY Times that have been proven to contain demonstrably FALSE information.  There was no hacking of the RNC.  If there was no hacking of the RNC, how could Putin or anybody else CHOOSE to release DNC hacks and keep RNC hacks. 

I don't see in the initial report where it says the RNC was hacked.  But lots of info on the DNC hacks.  Even if the RNC was not hacked, it's hard to argue with the into that the DNC was hacked by Russia and emails put up on Wikileaks.  Seems many are deflecting here with the RNC hack. Reince being a big one.

 

Interesting article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/09/the-cia-concluded-russia-worked-to-elect-trump-republicans-now-face-an-impossible-choice/?tid=hybrid_collaborative_1_na&utm_term=.f7f4177bc5d9

 

Quote

 

The CIA concluded that Russia worked to elect Trump. Republicans now face an impossible choice.

By acknowledging and digging into the increasing evidence that Russia helped — or at least attempted to help — tip the scales in Trump’s favor, they risk raising questions about whether Trump would have won without Russian intervention.

 

Trump, after all, won by a margin of about 80,000 votes cast across three states, winning each of the decisive states by less than one percentage point. So even a slight influence could have plausibly made the difference, though we'll never be able to prove it one way or another.

 

 

I don't like either party.  So I've got no political bias.  I voted for Ted Nugent.  Seems the republicans are circling their wagons.  And for good reasons. I don't think anything will change, other than the fact Trump might not have won without Russia's support.

[NeverSure]

6 minutes ago, Usernames said:

 

I did. He didn't deflect at all. He asked for a source. Todd couldn't provide one. He also pointed out that the story was based on a demonstrably false allegation.  There was no hack of the RNC. That's why Todd kept backing off and and immediately started asking different questions.  If that isn't a definition of deflection, what is?  It was NBC and Todd doing the deflecting, not Priebus.

 

Exactly. Thank you.

 

There are no named sources that claim that Russia hacked those emails. Preibus was pushing that very point and Todd deflected. Todd had no answer because there isn't one. The claim that anyone knows that Russia hacked emails is completely indefensible. 

 

Cheers.

[craigt3365]

3 minutes ago, NeverSure said:

 

Exactly. Thank you.

 

There are no named sources that claim that Russia hacked those emails. Preibus was pushing that very point and Todd deflected. Todd had no answer because there isn't one. The claim that anyone knows that Russia hacked emails is completely indefensible. 

 

Cheers.

Seems some Republicans in the know are going after this.  And believe there is evidence.  I can't trust Trump's team.  They're trying to save their butts here. LOL

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/12/08/republicans-ready-to-launch-wide-ranging-probe-of-russia-despite-trumps-stance/?utm_term=.d1b46c13f798&wpisrc=nl_rainbow&wpmm=1

 

Quote

 

Republicans ready to launch wide-ranging probe of Russia, despite Trump’s stance

Leading Senate Republicans are preparing to launch a coordinated and wide-ranging probe into Russia’s alleged meddling in the U.S. elections and its potential cyberthreats to the military, digging deep into what they view as corrosive interference in the nation’s institutions.

 

 

 

[NeverSure]

4 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

I don't see in the initial report where it says the RNC was hacked.  But lots of info on the DNC hacks.  Even if the RNC was not hacked, it's hard to argue with the into that the DNC was hacked by Russia and emails put up on Wikileaks.  Seems many are deflecting here with the RNC hack. Reince being a big one.

 

Interesting article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/09/the-cia-concluded-russia-worked-to-elect-trump-republicans-now-face-an-impossible-choice/?tid=hybrid_collaborative_1_na&utm_term=.f7f4177bc5d9

 

 

I don't like either party.  So I've got no political bias.  I voted for Ted Nugent.  Seems the republicans are circling their wagons.  And for good reasons. I don't think anything will change, other than the fact Trump might not have won without Russia's support.

 

You're still quoting sources that use unnamed sources and largely quote each other's unsubstantiated claims.

 

There is no proof that Russia did anything regarding the election much less that it hacked emails. There is no named person who even claims he can prove it in any way. The "CIA" keeps getting mentioned but they haven't gone on record as saying it happened nor has anyone close to them.

 

It's all a bunch of bull! It all just deflects from the corruption proven in the emails.

 

Cheers.

[craigt3365]

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/07/politics/lindsey-graham-democrats-investigations-russia-hacking/index.html

 

Quote

Lindsey Graham, Democrats plan probes of Russia hacking

 

"It's pretty clear to me that Wikileaks was designed to hurt (Democratic presidential nominee Hillary) Clinton and it could be us tomorrow," Graham said, referring to published emails stolen from her campaign chairman and posted on the site.

 

"I'm going after Russia in every way you can go after Russia," Graham said. Referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin, he added, "I want Putin personally to pay a price."

Seems those in the know...well...know! LOL

[craigt3365]

2 minutes ago, NeverSure said:

 

You're still quoting sources that use unnamed sources and largely quote each other's unsubstantiated claims.

 

There is no proof that Russia did anything regarding the election much less that it hacked emails. There is no named person who even claims he can prove it in any way. The "CIA" keeps getting mentioned but they haven't gone on record as saying it happened nor has anyone close to them.

 

It's all a bunch of bull! It all just deflects from the corruption proven in the emails.

 

Cheers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-government-officially-accuses-russia-of-hacking-campaign-to-influence-elections/2016/10/07/4e0b9654-8cbf-11e6-875e-2c1bfe943b66_story.html?utm_term=.fdaf0ca8c921

Quote

U.S. government officially accuses Russia of hacking campaign to interfere with elections

 

Hard to argue with all the articles stating they've done it.  You and I know very little.  If all these power players are going after this, there's got to be something in it.

[NeverSure]

3 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Seems some Republicans in the know are going after this.  And believe there is evidence.  I can't trust Trump's team.  They're trying to save their butts here. LOL

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/12/08/republicans-ready-to-launch-wide-ranging-probe-of-russia-despite-trumps-stance/?utm_term=.d1b46c13f798&wpisrc=nl_rainbow&wpmm=1

 

 

 

 

Investigating "alleged" and "potential"...

 

They don't know anything either other than what we know. The only entity that knows where those emails came from is Wikileaks and they say it wasn't Russia. My money is still on an inside job either from a Bernie lover in the DNC or from a Hillary hater in the CIA.

 

BTW you do know that the last big email dump came from John Podesta's phone which he lost getting out of a cab? LINK Those people were really sloppy with emails which should have at least had 256 bit encryption.

 

Cheers.