Speaking of loud minorities... The main stream media won't put this on the air, but they will play a similar town hall with republican representative all day.
no the Russians didn't do any of those things, and yes Clinton was a horrible candidate. what your not addressing is that they did try to influence the election, disseminate the hacked emails, and through bots and other devises/hackers, target swing voters with fake and/or uncomplimentary news. they did try to gain access to our voting machines and election boards and were successful to some degree. it remains to be seen the evidence of how much so. they did try and to some extent succeed in there goals of supporting a trump presidency. who helped and to what extent in disseminating republican voter data remains to be seen.
As you say Sly, very interesting response. Mr. Trump is innocent as of right now. Doing an investigation just to please those that want to find something is ridiculous in my view. Sort of like doing and murder investigation, when you have no missing persons, no body.
We're trusting the word of 3 Intelligence agencies who spy on us, lie about it under oath, and have hacking tools that leave the footprints of Russia (or anyone else they choose) as part of the hacking process. We know some people in the Intelligence agencies are willing to break laws and leak classified information to the press - why wouldn't they use these hacking tools, too? I'm skeptical about the whole narrative.
I thought this deserves a separate response. I don't accept the effort now. There is nothing solid to suggest I would accept it in the future.
so now you are absolving Russia to make a case that our own intelligence agencies are responsible? talk about friggin snipe hunt! only a true swampthing, a true blue trump apologist would throw this out there and hope it sticks. shouting lies often and loudly does not make them truthes. lieing to yourself only leads to bad descions. I fear the current administration qualifies. I did not ever support the democratic candidate, not ever. I believe my integrity is far to valuable to my core principals.
>>> Yes I support the President, Mr. Trump. I don't understand what there is to apologizes about? >>> What lies? >>> Qualifies for what? In short, you confuse me sir.
I am not. I just say the evidence isn't as conclusive as it's being made out to be. It looks like North Korean hackers are breaking into our businesses (see Netflix, recent story about release of Orange is the New Black season), not Russia. It looks like Chinese hackers are stealing as much intellectual property as they can. In fact, this site is continuously under attack by Chinese sources, and we spend a decent amount of time both preventing their success and cleaning up immediately when they manage to get through. Assange says Russia isn't the source of the emails. Why should we assume he's lying, when he's been posting nothing but the truth for years? Read this whole thing. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...-capable-cyber-false-flag-attack-blame-russia According to a Wikileaks press release, the 8,761 newly published files came from the CIA’s Center for Cyber Intelligence (CCI) in Langley, Virginia. The release says that the UMBRAGE group, a subdivision of the center’s Remote Development Branch (RDB), has been collecting and maintaining a “substantial library of attack techniques ‘stolen’ from malware produced in other states, including the Russian Federation.” As Wikileaks notes, the UMBRAGE group and its related projects allow the CIA to misdirect the attribution of cyber attacks by “leaving behind the ‘fingerprints’ of the very groups that the attack techniques were stolen from.” In other words, the CIA’s sophisticated hacking tools all have a “signature” marking them as originating from the agency. In order to avoid arousing suspicion as to the true extent of its covert cyber operations, the CIA has employed UMBRAGE’s techniques in order to create signatures that allow multiple attacks to be attributed to various entities – instead of the real point of origin at the CIA – while also increasing its total number of attack types. Other parts of the release similarly focus on avoiding the attribution of cyberattacks or malware infestations to the CIA during forensic reviews of such attacks. In a document titled “Development Tradecraft DOs and DON’Ts,” hackers and code writers are warned “DO NOT leave data in a binary file that demonstrates CIA, U.S. [government] or its witting partner companies’ involvement in the creation or use of the binary/tool.” It then states that “attribution of binary/tool/etc. by an adversary can cause irreversible impacts to past, present and future U.S. [government] operations and equities.” While a major motivating factor in the CIA’s use of UMBRAGE is to cover it tracks, events over the past few months suggest that UMBRAGE may have been used for other, more nefarious purposes. After the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential election shocked many within the U.S. political establishment and corporate-owned media, the CIA emerged claiming that Russia mounted a “covert intelligence operation” to help Donald Trump edge out his rival Hillary Clinton. Prior to the election, Clinton’s campaign had also accused Russia of being behind the leak of John Podesta’s emails, as well as the emails of employees of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Last December, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper – a man known for lying under oath about NSA surveillance – briefed senators in a closed-door meeting where he described findings on Russian government “hacks and other interference” in the election. Following the meeting, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), a ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, remarked: “After many briefings by our intelligence community, it is clear to me that the Russians hacked our democratic institutions and sought to interfere in our elections and sow discord.” Incidentally, the U.S. intelligence community’s assertions that Russia used cyber-attacks to interfere with the election overshadowed reports that the U.S. government had actually been responsible for several hacking attempts that targeted state election systems. For instance, the state of Georgia reported numerous hacking attempts on its election agencies’ networks, nearly all of which were traced back to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Now that the CIA has been shown to not only have the capability but also the express intention of replacing the “fingerprint” of cyber-attacks it conducts with those of another state actor, the CIA’s alleged evidence that Russia hacked the U.S. election – or anything else for that matter – is immediately suspect. There is no longer any way to determine if the CIA’s proof of Russian hacks on U.S. infrastructure is legitimate, as it could very well be a “false flag” attack.
If the Russians amplified the gross errors of the Clinton campaign through media not loyal to Clinton like most of the domestic MSM, so what? Our own media has the responsibility to do this work and we give them protection to do so. They failed but Clinton was exposed anyway. I find that good.
unbelievable...you just stated that you supported the Russian hacking and influencing of our democratically elected officials.................just fuck'n unbelievable. only the outcome mattered to you, as long as the results achieved the means were justified.... un fucking believable. you are no patriot or supporter of the constitution by those two statements you just made
No, I did not say I supported them hacking, but then I don't care to go to war over it either. influencing is another matter and the main bitch as I hear it, is her email. Well the Russian did not write even one of them. If MSNNC published them, who would complain?
Then I suppose, the impeachment would have already begun. Our Republic would be in it's finally days.
the process of disseminating the emails is directly linked to the hacking of them. the two acts can not be supported separately for without one the other doesn't exist. to say that was a good thing is unpatriotic. to support the actions of a foreign state that we are attempting to punitively influence, and find that to be "a good thing" is unpatriotic. that the meddling of said foreign state may have influenced the election of the most powerful figure in our government and one of the three branches there of is not supporting the constitutional process of electing our president. I find it hypocritical to state otherwise.
You are so dramatic. Was it the final days of the republic when Clinton was impeached? When Andrew Johnson was impeached? When Nixon was about to be impeached? barfo
