When your mission is to cast dissension for the purpose of sidetracking the agenda, any Russian will due for a Democrat.
Please do explain how Russia kept the Republicans from agreeing amongst themselves on a health insurance plan... or any other policy item. barfo
You're looking at this all wrong. The Russian fake news controversy has kept the American people in a constant state of distraction, preventing them from realizing how good the Republicans' health care plan is. Thanks to that, their health care plan has about a 10% approval rating, making it hard to pass among any senators who want to keep being senators. If that distraction went away, people would pay attention to the policy and realize how much they want separate risk pools for those with pre-existing conditions and those without, and how much they want Medicaid slashed. Claiming it doesn't all come back to Russia is the kind of classic left-leaning views we've come to expect from you, Neil Barofsky.
I just don't get it. What could possibly be fake about Russia's involvement, or the Trump campaign meeting with them and then lying about and failing to disclose it? Something like 16 federal agencies have confirmed the Russian efforts to manipulate our election. Needless to say, had Hillary done this, the outrage on the right would be deafening. The hypocrisy of some posters in this forum is truly astonishing.
How can our government agencies determine there was any hacking when they couldn't physically examine the server? They're relying on a private company hired by the democrats telling the truth or not being accurate.
Right, there was no hacking. The democrats sent their emails to wikileaks themselves, so that they would have a way to justify a special counsel after Comey was fired. Or Aliens. Could be Aliens. Pretty sure the gummint has other sources of information besides just examining email servers. barfo
But I hear that Real Americans consider the Russia fake news story a big nothingburger. I better ask Mayor Bloomberg to outlaw Nothingburgers. When you are not having a Big Gulp, you can not have a Nothingburger to go with it. barfo
WikiLeaks claims it wasn't the Russians, and it sure seems possible, even likely, that some whistleblower within the DNC might have handed over the emails on a thumb drive. Pretty sure the gummint relied exclusively on information from a 3rd party hired by the DNC. We know for sure the Russians didn't write the awful things in those emails.
this is ignoring completely the assessment of 3 US intelligence agencies. not credible in the face of it.
I'm not ignoring what they chose to decide. I'm questioning how they came to their conclusions without being able to perform forensic analysis/examination of the supposedly hacked machines. You believed what they said about Saddam's WMDs? There was a clear rush to blame the Russians by the Obama administration on its way out. That includes the swamp known as those 3 US intelligence agencies.
There are lots of ways. They could have intercepted communications. They could have a mole or 20. Definitely a false equivalence. Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. cherry picked the intelligence to justify their preconceptions. barfo
The intelligence reports were not cherry picked. The contained the claims Saddam had WMDs. If they have proof, let's see it. I read what they released and it's not well supported with evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. These are the folks you side with. http://thehill.com/policy/national-...memos-detail-extent-of-improper-obama-era-nsa
You must have read the Rand report where it was found that despite the CIA's reservations, the WMD mantra was pushed by the republican administration with no reference to the afore mentioned caveats that the cia had listed , including the citation of unreliable or verifiable sources. as the report went up the chain of command at defense and the white house, mention of the cia's reservations were ignored and/or the assessment CHERRY PICKED to produce the WMD excuse to "liberate" Iraq.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael...n-powell-about-cia-pre-iraq-war-wmd-evidence/ Morell "wanted to apologize" to Powell about WMD evidence In the book, Morell details how the CIA was wrong to conclude Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. "We said he has chemical weapons, he has a biological weapons production capability, and he's restarting his nuclear weapons program. We were wrong on all three of those," he said. Almost a year after he made the United States' case for war to the world, Powell said he was not sure he would have supported the invasion of Iraq if he knew Iraq had no weapons stockpiles. (Morell was CIA director, endorsed Clinton, etc.)
One report of many. The guy at the CIA admits they got all three things wrong. The one report thing is cherry picking, by definition.
the one report "thing" was an all inclusive rreview of the failures of the intelligence community and how the information was used and disseminated. hardly cherry picking LOL
