cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
Those immoral defects are not issued. lol
Trump refutes CIA's claim that Russia helped him win the election
- Thread starter midian182
- Start date
D
davislane1
Since they said Trump's comments about unregulated immigration bringing in rapists and murderers were incorrect. And this, among other things.
I'd pull more links, but I've hit the monthly limit for "free" reads and will have to wait for January view further WaPo content.
He said he would win. He did. He said he would get Carrier to keep jobs in the US. He did. He said he would renegotiate NAFTA, Mexico and Canada have stepped up to the plate.
That's a lot of follow-through for someone who only tells lies. Methinks you need to go back to college and retake that marketing class you skipped.
wiyosaya
Posts: 9,760 +9,644
Dude, I am not going to argue with you.
From your comments, you seem to think that Trump, though he is not even in office yet, has accomplished all his campaign promises. NOPE, SORRY, HAS NOT HAPPENED! Maybe it will, but is HAS NOT HAPPENED YET!
Lies are Lies. There is no honor or honesty in any lie that benefits any one. As I see it, you imply that if there is a lie and it favors your candidate, who cares?
Even my most hated Mitch McConnel is now being reported to support an investigation into this. So, if the investigation uncovers lies, then the establishment is wrong?
As I see it, Trump, even though he is not yet in office, is on his way to impeachment.
Good luck with your attitude and your fantasy world! As I see it, you are drunk on Trump's whining!
mbrowne5061
Posts: 2,158 +1,362
It's not pretty, but at least it is labeled as opinion. Not as well labeled for my taste though.
J
Joe Blow
The writers of this site are just doing what they are told by the site owners. That's how they pay their bills.
J
Joe Blow
The Washington Post has been fake news for a long time.
[QUOTESince when is the Washington Post a "fake news site"?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTESince when is the Washington Post a "fake news site"?[/QUOTE]
I see it now, your carefully reasoned arguments and insights have shown me the path - how could I have been so foolish? Of course it must be that Marketing class I skipped!
J
Joe Blow
This is just a desperate attempt by the Establishment media to con the public into thinking that criminal Hillary Clinton should be the President.
D
davislane1
If you are going to tell lies, wiyosaya, at least have the wherewithal to tell lies that can't be proven false.
Bingo.
EClyde
Posts: 2,404 +950
Bigtruckseries
Posts: 583 +320
The level of ignorance behind the Stein recount effort is staggering. Jill Stein took in $3,509,477 during the entire campaign, but has exceeded that by millions by asking for a recount which she can't win. Her logic is that the machines were "susceptible to hacking" even though they were not connected to the Internet! A recount would simply result in those machines having their totals re-scanned and will not provide any evidence of any supposed tampering. The Greens have pulled this stunt before, in the 2000 election in Ohio. The re-count found an error of only 300 votes, well within statistical "noise" and having absolutely no impact on the election. PT Barnam was right! All liberals, especially those in the "Media", should immediately contribute everything they can to this effort!
JamesSWD
Posts: 331 +184
You're chastising the other poster for his claims, yet you make numerous claims without any proof? Are you on the DNC's payroll or something? The CIA claims Russia was involved, yet it says they don't have any evidence and can name no persons responsible. The FBI doesn't even agree with them. That's pretty shaky having no evidence...yet you believe it? That's akin to all the fake rape accusers without any evidence...then later admit they made up the story. Or all the hoax hate/race crimes liberals are reporting...then admit they did it themselves. The OP is correct...this is just another excuse, in a long list of failed excuses, for why Hillary lost. They're also trying to divert attention away from all the corruption & lies found in the exposed emails of Hillary and the DNC.
JamesSWD
Posts: 331 +184
First off, this is a non-technical political hit piece on a technical website. Wrong place. Second, the author doesn't have the gravitas or background to discuss this, hence it's mostly copy & paste from other 'news' sources.
But I'll jump in to clarify some things...
Citing WaPo and NYTimes already discredits this article. WaPo already had to retract a similar article recently because they admitted it was based on false info & research and got caught. And NYTimes...pffft...everyone knows they're a propaganda arm for the DNC and are a humiliation to journalism and news reporting. Doubt that? Look at their consistently failing numbers and circulation as their readers have fled for years.
Fact is, although the CIA claims Russia hacked voting machines and/or affected the election results, it has also admitted they have no evidence and can name no persons responsible. That's just the simple facts right now. Even the FBI doesn't support their 'findings'.
Furthermore, before the election, numerous intelligence & LE agencies, and Obama, publicly stated that our election system and machines were secure and there were no worries about their integrity (the videos, news stories, transcripts are all over the web...look them up). Post-election, they're all now trying to ramp up the 'Red Scare' of Russians everywhere and the voting machines were manipulated...but offer no evidence? Come on...seriously...you couldn't buy this BS if it was free?
Next...intel agencies claim Hillary's illegal, insecure homebrew server was hacked. We accept that...it was an easy and high value target and she should have paid a price for exposing that kind of breach. But then they claim there's no evidence or 'fingerprints' because they used a sophisticated 'A-Team' of hackers who left no traces...so never mind. Yet, these same forces used the 'B-Team' of hackers to go after the much greater targets of the DNC and voting machines...and supposedly left traces everywhere (yet, the CIA claims they have no evidence)?
Are we getting it yet?
If this Techspot author were journalistically capable and a serious person, he'd write a fact-based article about the technology of the of the voting machines, the system, and their security and possible flaws. He'd be informative and educational, without bias, instead of trying to pander with this political hit piece that's nothing more than copy & paste from other sources. You didn't earn your paycheck today.
But I'll jump in to clarify some things...
Citing WaPo and NYTimes already discredits this article. WaPo already had to retract a similar article recently because they admitted it was based on false info & research and got caught. And NYTimes...pffft...everyone knows they're a propaganda arm for the DNC and are a humiliation to journalism and news reporting. Doubt that? Look at their consistently failing numbers and circulation as their readers have fled for years.
Fact is, although the CIA claims Russia hacked voting machines and/or affected the election results, it has also admitted they have no evidence and can name no persons responsible. That's just the simple facts right now. Even the FBI doesn't support their 'findings'.
Furthermore, before the election, numerous intelligence & LE agencies, and Obama, publicly stated that our election system and machines were secure and there were no worries about their integrity (the videos, news stories, transcripts are all over the web...look them up). Post-election, they're all now trying to ramp up the 'Red Scare' of Russians everywhere and the voting machines were manipulated...but offer no evidence? Come on...seriously...you couldn't buy this BS if it was free?
Next...intel agencies claim Hillary's illegal, insecure homebrew server was hacked. We accept that...it was an easy and high value target and she should have paid a price for exposing that kind of breach. But then they claim there's no evidence or 'fingerprints' because they used a sophisticated 'A-Team' of hackers who left no traces...so never mind. Yet, these same forces used the 'B-Team' of hackers to go after the much greater targets of the DNC and voting machines...and supposedly left traces everywhere (yet, the CIA claims they have no evidence)?
Are we getting it yet?
If this Techspot author were journalistically capable and a serious person, he'd write a fact-based article about the technology of the of the voting machines, the system, and their security and possible flaws. He'd be informative and educational, without bias, instead of trying to pander with this political hit piece that's nothing more than copy & paste from other sources. You didn't earn your paycheck today.
You can keep your head in the sand all you want and blame it on the whiners. Personally I don't give a **** who is president. I'm glad Hillary lost. I voted for Deez Nuts. That said, here is some more proof. http://www.factcheck.org/2016/12/trump-russia-u-s-election/ You might also listen to this: http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2016-12-12/investigations-of-russian-election-related-hacking
JamesSWD
Posts: 331 +184
You, my friend, are the one with his head in the sand by making claims and denouncing others when there is no proof. And your links are not proof that trump the CIA's admission that they have no evidence or persons responsible. No reputable attorney, DA, or AG would walk into court with that.
You clearly didn't listen to that program. It's 48 minutes long. There's no way that you could have listened to it. Someone during the show states very clearly, exactly in the manner that you have that there is no proof... one of the security experts on the panel then goes on and on and lists a lot of very technical proof. Technical to the degree that a reader on this site could probably appreciate. If you're not interested in hearing it, that's on you.
Do you think anything happens from all this Russia hacking bullshit? Or do you think it will all blow over? I'm not interested in arguing over semantics all night. I think bottom line, the only thing that matters is whether or not something comes out of it. In that regard, I don't think anything will happen so none of this **** matters all that much. In the meantime, Trump hasn't even taken office, yet he's already managed to piss off the Chinese. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/1...after-trump-taiwan-call-us-officials-say.html
We have at least 4 years of embarrassing bullshit to look forward to.
kapital98
Posts: 427 +393
Factcheck.org is a highly reputable website. It cites 19 different sources that have reached the same conclusion. As an attorney, I'd say the vast majority of cases I get have far less credible evidence then this to go by.
Nobody reasonable is questioning that Russia undermined the US election. The important question is to what extent? If all they did was use email leaks and fake news stories, yeah, that sucks. But it's probably not anything worth starting a cold war over. If they intentionally hacked and manipulated a presidential election? That would be arguably the greatest crime against America in 80 years.
kapital98
Posts: 427 +393
JamesSWD
Posts: 331 +184
Really? You'd go to court with no evidence or proof? Until the CIA presents evidence, all your links and 'experts' are spitballing. It's that simple.
As for pissing off the Chinese...so what? They're sabre rattling and you know it. Why do you cower to the Chinese, like a snowflake grabbing his blanky and safety pin?
And yes...this 'Red Scare' will blow over...as soon as the public gets fed up with this BS. Then the left will move on to another 'crisis'. Or did you miss all the furor over the recount that's petering out because it's a farce too?
kapital98
Posts: 427 +393
I literally go to court on accusatory instruments with far, far less evidence than this on an almost daily basis. A criminal complaint only requires a person to make an accusation. "He punched me" is enough to charge someone (and convict them) of a assault. You're type of reasoning is what's been coined the "CSI Effect" by criminal law attorneys. You simply don't understand the criminal justice system.
With that said: They have an outstanding amount of evidence. Have you read the private firm research? Have you seen the academic papers that show how you hack these machines? For serious reasons, the CIA will not divulge all of it's sources for security purposes. Suffice to say, they have provided evidence in internal briefings with high ranking federal politicians.
Toque
Posts: 7 +5
"Intel committee chairman: Report on Russia meddling conflicts with DNI testimony"
In a letter Monday to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said, "On November 17, 2016 you told the Committee during an open hearing that the IC (Intelligence Community) lacked strong evidence connecting Russian government Cyber-attacks and Wikileaks disclosures."
In a letter Monday to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said, "On November 17, 2016 you told the Committee during an open hearing that the IC (Intelligence Community) lacked strong evidence connecting Russian government Cyber-attacks and Wikileaks disclosures."
JamesSWD
Posts: 331 +184
You said:
"He punched me" is enough to charge someone (and convict them) of a assault."
-- Absolute BS. You're not an attorney...you're just pretending to be one to puff yourself up. Or maybe you are an attorney...what we call an 'ambulance chaser' or one that files frivolous suits. Yes, anyone can be charged or sued for just about anything, but proof is required for a conviction. Look it up in your 'Lawyering for Dummies' book.
But let's take your ignorance seriously, just for fun:
1) Under your 'legal expertise', one can be convicted, without proof, based on a claim only. That's exactly what you said. Never mind all that legal stuff about 'innocent until proven guilty', one of the pillars of our legal system, right?
2) So if I accuse you of rape, but have no proof, no witnesses, no evidence...nothing, I can expect that a court & jury will convict you? Based on what? My tearful accusation?
Maybe you live in a banana republic, 3rd world craphole...but that's not the way it works in the US legal system, unless you get a jury of SWJ snowflakes who convict on emotion instead of proof...and that sounds like you, emotionally worked up over this fake Russian vote tampering.
I've wasted enough time with you now. You are dismissed, but have my permission to continue ranting into the wind.
captaincranky
Posts: 19,684 +8,825
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
1: The president we have right now is in office because of racism in his favor. Barack Obama's plurality in predominately black precincts was in some cases up to and exceeding 90%. If a white candidate received votes at a 9 to 1 ratio, you can bet some radical organization would be up in arms creating a new slogan, "black voters opinions matter", or similar.
Hence, it would appear in the USA today, you can only level accusations of "racism" at whites, but not at blacks. To further that example, it appears that now, if a white voter does have the gall to vote for a white candidate who isn't Obama's lapdog, he or she is automatically labeled "racist".
Historically, the "runner up" (loser), in a party's primaries whose candidate succeeded in taking the White House, is presumptively that party's next candidate for president. Assuming the prior same party's president's term was somewhat successful, that "runner up" (loser), should, (ostensibly), become the next POTUS.
What this accomplishes is, effectively extending the legal 8 years maximum term for POTUS, to 16 full years. This is simply by virtue of the fact that the party in power is actually calling the shots, while the president him or herself, is nothing by a figurehead.
So, here's the very easy math on that: "8 years (Omama) + 8 years (Clinton) would equal 16 years Democrats doing whatever they pleased..
As for the CIA, it is an organization that, (again ostensibly), is not allowed to operate on US soil! That's the NSA's job. So why is the CIA running its mouth about what went on here? Give up, I'll tell you. One of the CIA's chief tactics, is to "mingle" with foreign populations, and start rumors, movements, insurrections, and whatnot, to coerce said country's citizens into thinking more like the US wants them to think. So, if there were Russian actors in the US, trying to effect our election, the CIA should shut up about it, simply by virtue of the fact they can't stand the smell of their own sh!t.
As fa as Obama starting this big investigation right before his term expires, I figure the guy is just trying to cast more doubt on Trump's win, and being vindictive.
As far as how Clinton lost the election, she only carried precincts which Obama carried @90& by 80%. So as it happens, the black, (racially biased) voting community, wanted a real black woman as their president, not a "reasonable facsimile". As a consequence, not a many of them got off their a**es to go out and vote for her.
As it turns out, Bill Clinton had Monica Lewinsky's head in his lap in the OVAL Office. Yet Trump is the sexist.
Remember this is America! We are a democracy! And the party which is able to sweep the most garbage under the rug, while pumping the most air freshener into the media, will triumph in a "fair and unbiased election".
AND YES, in case you're wondering, I sat up til 6:00 AM and watched ALL of the election coverage, which is where I got any statistics I've published.
1: The president we have right now is in office because of racism in his favor. Barack Obama's plurality in predominately black precincts was in some cases up to and exceeding 90%. If a white candidate received votes at a 9 to 1 ratio, you can bet some radical organization would be up in arms creating a new slogan, "black voters opinions matter", or similar.
Hence, it would appear in the USA today, you can only level accusations of "racism" at whites, but not at blacks. To further that example, it appears that now, if a white voter does have the gall to vote for a white candidate who isn't Obama's lapdog, he or she is automatically labeled "racist".
Historically, the "runner up" (loser), in a party's primaries whose candidate succeeded in taking the White House, is presumptively that party's next candidate for president. Assuming the prior same party's president's term was somewhat successful, that "runner up" (loser), should, (ostensibly), become the next POTUS.
What this accomplishes is, effectively extending the legal 8 years maximum term for POTUS, to 16 full years. This is simply by virtue of the fact that the party in power is actually calling the shots, while the president him or herself, is nothing by a figurehead.
So, here's the very easy math on that: "8 years (Omama) + 8 years (Clinton) would equal 16 years Democrats doing whatever they pleased..
As for the CIA, it is an organization that, (again ostensibly), is not allowed to operate on US soil! That's the NSA's job. So why is the CIA running its mouth about what went on here? Give up, I'll tell you. One of the CIA's chief tactics, is to "mingle" with foreign populations, and start rumors, movements, insurrections, and whatnot, to coerce said country's citizens into thinking more like the US wants them to think. So, if there were Russian actors in the US, trying to effect our election, the CIA should shut up about it, simply by virtue of the fact they can't stand the smell of their own sh!t.
As fa as Obama starting this big investigation right before his term expires, I figure the guy is just trying to cast more doubt on Trump's win, and being vindictive.
As far as how Clinton lost the election, she only carried precincts which Obama carried @90& by 80%. So as it happens, the black, (racially biased) voting community, wanted a real black woman as their president, not a "reasonable facsimile". As a consequence, not a many of them got off their a**es to go out and vote for her.
As it turns out, Bill Clinton had Monica Lewinsky's head in his lap in the OVAL Office. Yet Trump is the sexist.
Remember this is America! We are a democracy! And the party which is able to sweep the most garbage under the rug, while pumping the most air freshener into the media, will triumph in a "fair and unbiased election".
AND YES, in case you're wondering, I sat up til 6:00 AM and watched ALL of the election coverage, which is where I got any statistics I've published.
Last edited:
kapital98
Posts: 427 +393
You have utterly no idea what you are talking about (just like the rest of this thread). As for #1, yes. As for #2, I've worked on a case where a guy was sentenced to 7 years in prison because of 'tearful accusations' where his teenage daughter was the only witness to him raping her (I was an intern at the time -- I only do misdemeanors in my practice). There was no physical proof or testimony by other parties. The people who convicted him were young and old. Black and white. Male and female.
Ignorance and arrogance go together?
kapital98
Posts: 427 +393
Jesus, to add insult to injury, the rape kit came back negative and his wife testified for him.
But no. You keep living in a post-factual Trumpland.
Similar threads
