Once again how did wiki leaks releasing emails about Donna Brazil's directly influence the election
Hillary blames "fake news" for loss...
- Thread starter andy4theherd
- Start date
It didn't. The Democrat electorate wanted Jackie Robinson. Instead, they got some old white woman. Doesn't put asses in the seats of the ACORN buses.
Russian's forced Donna to give out those debate questions...
Intel committee chairman: Report on Russia meddling conflicts with DNI testimony
The Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee says a reported CIA assessment that Russian government actors interfered in the U.S. election to help Donald Trump win conflicts with the mid-November public testimony from the nation’s intelligence chief, according to a new letter obtained by Fox News.
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 response to a question from ranking Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, Clapper had said, “As far as the WikiLeaks connection, the evidence there is not as strong and we don't have good insight into the sequencing of the releases or when the data may have been provided. We don't have as good insight into that.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ia-meddling-conflicts-with-dni-testimony.html
The Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee says a reported CIA assessment that Russian government actors interfered in the U.S. election to help Donald Trump win conflicts with the mid-November public testimony from the nation’s intelligence chief, according to a new letter obtained by Fox News.
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 response to a question from ranking Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, Clapper had said, “As far as the WikiLeaks connection, the evidence there is not as strong and we don't have good insight into the sequencing of the releases or when the data may have been provided. We don't have as good insight into that.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ia-meddling-conflicts-with-dni-testimony.html
So.....Wikileaks exposing the DNC's ability to help crazy Bernie collect his retirement payoff faster influenced Trumps win???
Only the insanity of a liberal can make up or believe this kind nonsense.
Only the insanity of a liberal can make up or believe this kind nonsense.
at least they are dancing around like the won something. i saw we give them this so they stop rioting and physically assaulting Trump voters...
The left is losing their minds accusing the Russians of doing something that Hillary & the DNC got caught doing. Even the plan to placate Bernie supporters by giving them something meaningless but making them think it was a big deal was leaked. The head of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, was forced to resign in disgrace. But Hillary didn't seem to have any issues with it then & there was actual proof. In fact, Clinton was so okay with it that she immediately hired Schultz after she resigned.
And if there's any room for people to doubt intelligence information from this administration, it's probably because they got caught feverishly pushing a lie for the Benghazi attack. If they'll frame an innocent American for his little viewed Youtube video, just maybe they're capable of politicizing intelligence to harm someone they truly dislike.
And if there's any room for people to doubt intelligence information from this administration, it's probably because they got caught feverishly pushing a lie for the Benghazi attack. If they'll frame an innocent American for his little viewed Youtube video, just maybe they're capable of politicizing intelligence to harm someone they truly dislike.
That's irrelevant, there were no competing garbage coming from the wiki leaks regarding republican underhanded actions. And if you don't believe there were any, you're not being honest.
So, what you're believing and Nunes is saying is that in a matter of 3 weeks no additional data could have been acquired.
The CIA says the russians were trying to get trump elected, why would they hack the RNC? That's the point.
The New York Times or wapo can't recall which ones whole premise was that Russians had dirt on rnc but didn't release it. If Russians didn't hack rnc then that negates their whole argument.
And once again what exactly did the Russians supposedly release that cost Hillary the election. Did they delete her visits to Wisconsin from her schedule? Did they put a secret server in her bathroom? Did they drug her on sept 11? Did they feed her debate questions?
They convinced people like you that trump was a qualified candidate for president of the United States. And once again, you cons ignore the findings of the U S intelligence agencies. The irony.
So what your saying, extra, is that the electorate was too well informed for Hillary to win?
Where's the release of this? Where's the congressional hearing? Why does the FBI not concur? Will Rep Cummings flip the fvck out and call this a waste of taxpayer money?
No. The SVR are such spymasters that they influenced the election enough to give Hillz the popular vote but still allowed Trump to win the electorate. I mean, that's some Machiavellian shit, Comrade.
They don't concur at this moment because the nature of the CIA and FBI roles in the investigation differ somewhat. The CIA produces raw intelligence, the FBI moves more slowly to reach conclusions based on the intelligence and other investigative work.
Part of the reason the CIA leans more toward the idea russians helped trump is that the CIA believes the Russians hacked not only Democratic organizations but Republican groups too, but that they only published documents from Democrats.
Innocent until charged.
That's been your argument and that's been your last stand. According to you, Russia is as clean as a virgins honey pot. Just like Hillary.
You're a moron. My argument has always been that they're innocent until found guilty, not charged.
According to you, you would jail hillary and french kiss Putin.
Are you drunk? How many times have you asked if Hillary has been charged? You've said you don't drink, so maybe you're just GD stupid.
So we should always believe intelligence agencies? I don't remember you guys saying that after Iraq.
And the intelligence agencies don't all agree on CIA analysis that Russia was trying to influence one candidate over the other
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN14204E?il=0
The ODNI does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not yet endorsed the concept that it was done to help trump, but all of them are of the mind that the russians attempted to undermine the process.
as soon as the Russians are officially charged and in handcuffs i'll believe it......
Once again how did they undermine the process? Releasing info didn't cause Hillary to call half of trumps voters deplorable. And your original argument was they did it to help trump now you've changed your mind to undermining the process which is utterly ridiculous. There is no evidence they hacked voter rolls added or subtracted votes from one candidate or the other.
Obamacare renewal period sunk her. look at the poll numbers (not that they were worth anything). she had her largest lead right before the renewal period kicked off. she then steadily tanked throughout the month of November. Wikileaks "top 18 revelations" all came out before November. you could argue Jame Comey did more in a week to hurt her than Russia (or whomever released the hacked info) did the entire month of November...
Once again, by failing to release any information about any republican person or organization. I have NOT changed my mind. You simply continue to give a pass to the russians while disbelieving 17 national security agencies.
You continue to assume they had info on the republicans and you also continue to ignore the flaws of your candidate which had more to do with her losing than ANYTHING the Wikileaks emails did
Hillary Clinton was a shit candidate with unfavorable ratings so bad it should have immediately steered a national party away from making her the nominee. She had no real achievements to hang her hat on, her campaign conspired with the DNC to screw over Sanders & his voters, & she insulted a large portion of America by calling them deplorable. Her campaign felt more like a coronation than a well executed strategy. The media did everything they could to shield her while attacking Trump & it was so blatant that trust in the media plummeted. Her health was a legitimate issue - so much so that she literally got carried away by SS in a van that was basically a rolling hospital bed. She was consistently caught lying about her use of a home server to the point that it overshadowed the actual decision to use it (which in itself was incredibly reckless.) Her right hand woman was married to a sexual deviant mired in a pedophilia investigation which ended up bringing her server back into the news. The family business was exposed as a pay-for-play scheme which, for some unexplained reason, is losing donations like crazy now that Hillary won't be the President.
The left can try to pin her loss on the Russians without providing hard evidence but the truth is this, Hillary was a shit candidate with a ton of reasons why people wouldn't support her.
Those bad wiki leaks manipulated the election by exposing the DNC fix on Bernie and rigging debates.
Liberalism is a lie.....wiki let the truth out for public consumption
Liberalism is a lie.....wiki let the truth out for public consumption
