Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump

[Kaleredar]

I think he's trolling personally (or at least I hope he is) but I'm not really fond of your conclusion either. You can't control who endorses you, only who you endorse. People going out and 'speaking for your name' or claiming (or even!) supporting you does not mean that its what you represent or intend. This is a sort of hypocrisy you see in many subjects be it Trump, Different News Sites, or even Black Lives Matters.

If the KKK endorses Trump, that should not give you pause.
If Trump endorses the KKK, that should probably give you whiplash.

The same is true of Russia 'hacks', the same is true of whether or not BLM were to endorse the "cops fry 'em like bacon chant" instead of claiming that isn't a representation of them.

And although KrazyK is getting tired of it being reminded that Hillary was a terrible candidate, it does have to be said even if it isn't original material. Without concrete proof and with her campaign taking zero responsibility for their failures you cannot gauge how much influence this event did or didn't have; meanwhile we know the 'clownshow' was failing miserably before these claims.

Besides, you guys don't get any pause out of the content of the emails & leaks never being denied but instead their rebuttals have always been focused on the origins of how they got out? The best analogy I can think of is if your 'lover' cheats on you and you bump into proof of it via a message log and they complain that you're an awful person for invading their privacy rather than any sort of denial of the cheating. Its a crude deflection.

I never felt the emails revealed much of anything.

[Reivur]

I never felt the emails revealed much of anything.

Truthfully that's fair. Personally I didn't find much to be annoyed by other than the DNC Bernie ones. The only Hillary ones I recall finding ghastly were the ones about Libya.

To be clear though, my 'complaint' of sorts you're quoting is its pretty easy to just deny something. You see her deny things in debates all the time or many politicians. Just casual people like you or I will call out blatant falsehoods pretty easily. But their campaign never did that despite it being so easy. The topic instead always came from Russia being the origin of the message-- a much harder claim to make in the first place than also including "Yeah that didn't/isn't happening".

I wish I were joking, but its always been le-Russian hackz and never "Nope, that's non-sense." and that's just depressing. And its not like they're allergic to saying when something is non-sense, she called most of Trump's claims non-sense with ease and even at times detailed how he was hypocritical in those claims-- but the emails? Nope, Russia. With no denial. Bleh.

[Thrive]

It's not even about who won, man. Take out all of the proper nouns, and this boils down to a foreign power possibly interfering in our electoral process. Why is this not worth investigating?

I mean it is. But you've got the same news sites blaming Comey, the FBI, the CIA, and white supremacists along with Russia on why Trump won. When people keep giving you bullshit boogiemen you kind of get tired of seeing bullshit boogiemen.

[Merkava]

I mean I pointed out why you were wrong first, I guess that's not hostile enough for you.

You pointed nothing out. You gave a sophomoric reply to my post and you've been trying to top it ever since.

[Steve French]

So posting about how Obama has literally the same policy and we haven't gone to war with Russia yet is dishonest?

Maybe stop pretending Clinton is the Illuminati Hitler Devil and you wont' come across like such an insane person.

Whats dishonest is this kind of shit, "Maybe stop pretending Clinton is the Illuminati Hitler Devil and you wont' come across like such an insane person."

Like I said, you lie, exaggerate and toss around insults, you're only fooling yourself. Waste. Of. Time.

[Thrive]

I never felt the emails revealed much of anything.

Then you didn't read them

[Merkava]

Right there.

Assuming that the goal of these hackers was to get Trump elected, of course.

No. You said that they swayed the election results. Remember?

So the article says that hackers with ties to Russia swayed the election result..

Now youre saying that the article said the goal was to favor one candidate over the other. That an entirely different thing.

[Wells]

Then you didn't read them

Did you? Did you sit down and go through them? Or did you read the excerpts your chosen source picked out?

[Thrive]

Did you? Did you sit down and go through them? Or did you read the excerpts your chosen source picked out?

Did I sit down and read 33,000 plus emails? No I did not. That doesn't really mean jack shit though. Nice ad hominem

[Wells]

Did I sit down and read 33,000 plus emails? No I did not. That doesn't really mean jack shit though. Nice ad hominem

A) Not an ad hominem.
B) Criticizing people for not reading emails you didn't read either is hella silly.

[InDecisive]

I'm curious, have they devoted any time or attention to the possibility that Saudi Arabia was trying to help Clinton? You know, with dozens of millions of dollars in illegal foreign donations?

Remind me, I'm having trouble remembering, which country has been involved in more American deaths lately? 9/11, those hijackers were all Saudis, weren't they? Wasn't their money all from Saudi Arabia? Wasn't Bin Laden from Saudia Arabia? Aren't Saudi Arabia (according to Clinton's own emails) heavily involved in funding ISIS?

Does it bother the CIA (and other various agencies who told us Iraq had WMDs and was responsible for 9/11) that this country is attempting to influence the US' elections, or are they just focused on destabilising the middle east and provoking a second cold war?

[Ehrenpanzer]

Ivan, is that you?

OT: Lets stop with the russian boogeyman already, its not like they have hacked government organizations before and its not like they invaded an innocent country and took a huge chunk of it. /s

I know right... and its not like the US has been invading sovereign countries to install new governments for oil...er..freedom...yeah...freedom... that just so happy to be more compliant with the wishes of the West. This seems to be a sour grapes situation, *IF* (and I`m hardly going to take the word of 1 newspaper with a shady `well we think this might have happened with no real evidence` article in a paper that practically invented kissing the Clinton family's ass) the Russians, or anyone else ILLEGALLY tamped with election results, then yes, an entire re-election should be held... but while we`re at it, lets also take a good hard look at ourselves and the countries we've left a fucking disaster area in failed attempts to change governments, sounds like America is getting a taste of their own medicine and realizing it fucking sucks.

[Post]

You pointed nothing out. You gave a sophomoric reply to my post and you've been trying to top it ever since.

"no" isn't a very convincing response. Your insults don't work on me either.

[Wells]

I'm curious, have they devoted any time or attention to the possibility that Saudi Arabia was trying to help Clinton? You know, with dozens of millions of dollars in illegal foreign donations?

Remind me, I'm having trouble remembering, which country has been involved in more American deaths lately? 9/11, those hijackers were all Saudis, weren't they? Wasn't their money all from Saudi Arabia? Wasn't Bin Laden from Saudia Arabia? Aren't Saudi Arabia (according to Clinton's own emails) heavily involved in funding ISIS?

Does it bother the CIA (and other various agencies who told us Iraq had WMDs and was responsible for 9/11) that this country is attempting to influence the US' elections, or are they just focused on destabilising the middle east and provoking a second cold war?

If you have evidence that Clinton broke the law with donations to her Foundation give the IRS a call.

This is not a thread about Clinton.

[Thrive]

A) Not an ad hominem.
B) Criticizing people for not reading emails you didn't read either is hella silly.

A) If you say so
B) I'm criticizing people for claiming saying they didn't see anything in emails they obviously haven't read since the most public emails show rather shady things. I don't expect everyone to read everything, nor did I say I did.

[Merkava]

"no" isn't a very convincing response. Your insults don't work on me either.

I'm not insulting you. But I am ignoring you. Now. Best of luck.

[Wells]

A) If you say so
B) I'm criticizing people for claiming they know everything about emails they obviously haven't read since the most public emails show she was doing shady things. I don't expect everyone to read everything, nor did I say I did.

Yes, the excerpts you've seen make her look bad. That's kind of the point.

[Thrive]

Yes, the excerpts you've seen make her look bad. That's kind of the point.

I mean I'm not going to argue against someone who thinks it's acceptable to leak top secret documents. Regardless of your opinion on the election, she should be in jail for that alone, and anyone else would be.

[Wells]

I mean I'm not going to argue against someone who thinks it's acceptable to leak top secret documents.

Oh look, a thing I did not say.

Regardless of your opinion on the election, she should be in jail for that alone, and anyone else would be.

There have never been any credible allegations that she leaked top secret info.

[Independent voter]

First Putin gets his ally Assad to drive the Syrian Sunnis into the EU as refugees to destabilize the EU and get the Brexit passed by the narrowest of margins, and now Putin gets Trump elected.

The boy is off the hook.