The latest intel report explosive findings are that RT is a media company that focuses on increased viewership and was negative towards Hilliary and historically has been negative towards the US!!!!
The latest intel report explosive findings are that RT is a media company that focuses on increased viewership and was negative towards Hilliary and historically has been negative towards the US!!!!
Yes that is breaking news. But are you making the argument that the intel community is wrong on this, and the triumverate of Putin, Assange and Trump are right?
Declassified intel report on Russia and the US election: "Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries."
Has Tim Kaine commented on this???
How is that relevant at all. The question was not whether it was modified, it was whether the Russians conducted cyber espionage to influence the election. And that influence was in favor of one candidate.
Good news for you is that Tim Kaine lives 10 minutes from me. I'll go knock on his door and find out. This is a lucky break.
this guy seems to be a left wing conspiracy theorist, but offers some interesting ways that voting machines can be rigged and who might be doing it. interestingly, he never really mentions Russia. codered2014.com/electronic-vote-fraud-q-a/
published nov 23,2016. " The activists, among them J Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Centre for Computer Security and Society and voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz, told the Clinton campaign they believe there is a questionable trend of the Democratic candidate performing worse in counties that relied on electronic voting machines compared to paper ballots and optical scanners, according to a "source briefed on the call". " telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/23/hillary-clintons-campaign-urged-computer-scientists-challenge/
The latest intel report explosive findings are that RT is a media company that focuses on increased viewership and was negative towards Hilliary and historically has been negative towards the US!!!!
Don't forget that RT also backed Occupy Wall Street and the Anti-fracking movement. The report has essentially confirmed what conservatives have been saying about Russia/Soviet backing of the domestic left for years. Phony outrage.
"The same lesson in 2002 when a group of bipartisan senators assured the nation that the intelligence community convinced them that Saddam (Hussein) has weapons of mass destruction ... and the same lesson we learned in 2013, when, just months before the (Edward) Snowden reporting, James Clapper, Obama's top national security official, lied to the faces of the country when he said that he wants to assure everybody that the NSA doesn't collect data," he said.
"The same lesson in 2002 when a group of bipartisan senators assured the nation that the intelligence community convinced them that Saddam (Hussein) has weapons of mass destruction ... and the same lesson we learned in 2013, when, just months before the (Edward) Snowden reporting, James Clapper, Obama's top national security official, lied to the faces of the country when he said that he wants to assure everybody that the NSA doesn't collect data," he said.
Did we forget to mention the part that Greenwald has not seen the classified parts, whereas elected officials from both parties have? As of now, the only person I have seen dispute the conclusion is one person who benefited by it. At this point you can choose to believe Trump and Putin, or the intelligence community and the rest of the oversight committees. Because you have zero way of proving your argument. Nor do I.
"The same lesson in 2002 when a group of bipartisan senators assured the nation that the intelligence community convinced them that Saddam (Hussein) has weapons of mass destruction ... and the same lesson we learned in 2013, when, just months before the (Edward) Snowden reporting, James Clapper, Obama's top national security official, lied to the faces of the country when he said that he wants to assure everybody that the NSA doesn't collect data," he said.
Did we forget to mention the part that Greenwald has not seen the classified parts, whereas elected officials from both parties have? As of now, the only person I have seen dispute the conclusion is one person who benefited by it. At this point you can choose to believe Trump and Putin, or the intelligence community and the rest of the oversight committees. Because you have zero way of proving your argument. Nor do I.
Your critical thinking has no place in Trump's America.
"The same lesson in 2002 when a group of bipartisan senators assured the nation that the intelligence community convinced them that Saddam (Hussein) has weapons of mass destruction ... and the same lesson we learned in 2013, when, just months before the (Edward) Snowden reporting, James Clapper, Obama's top national security official, lied to the faces of the country when he said that he wants to assure everybody that the NSA doesn't collect data," he said.
Did we forget to mention the part that Greenwald has not seen the classified parts, whereas elected officials from both parties have? As of now, the only person I have seen dispute the conclusion is one person who benefited by it. At this point you can choose to believe Trump and Putin, or the intelligence community and the rest of the oversight committees. Because you have zero way of proving your argument. Nor do I.
My argument...GG suggests don't take the intelligence on face. My argument is that I believe Assange who has been 100% truthful from jump unless you have information otherwise, over the US intelligence that frequently lies, even when it means killing innocent civilians and US troops.
Anyway, what exactly did Russia hack? Is that the classified info you are referring to?
"The same lesson in 2002 when a group of bipartisan senators assured the nation that the intelligence community convinced them that Saddam (Hussein) has weapons of mass destruction ... and the same lesson we learned in 2013, when, just months before the (Edward) Snowden reporting, James Clapper, Obama's top national security official, lied to the faces of the country when he said that he wants to assure everybody that the NSA doesn't collect data," he said.
If the NSA doesn't collect data, what exactly do they collect? What an oversimplified version of outrage. But now that Julian Asstrange wants to track Twitter users it's all A Okay. Welcome to Trump's 1984.
"The same lesson in 2002 when a group of bipartisan senators assured the nation that the intelligence community convinced them that Saddam (Hussein) has weapons of mass destruction ... and the same lesson we learned in 2013, when, just months before the (Edward) Snowden reporting, James Clapper, Obama's top national security official, lied to the faces of the country when he said that he wants to assure everybody that the NSA doesn't collect data," he said.
Did we forget to mention the part that Greenwald has not seen the classified parts, whereas elected officials from both parties have? As of now, the only person I have seen dispute the conclusion is one person who benefited by it. At this point you can choose to believe Trump and Putin, or the intelligence community and the rest of the oversight committees. Because you have zero way of proving your argument. Nor do I.
My argument...GG suggests don't take the intelligence on face. My argument is that I believe Assange who has been 100% truthful from jump unless you have information otherwise, over the US intelligence that frequently lies, even when it means killing innocent civilians and US troops.
Anyway, what exactly did Russia hack? Is that the classified info you are referring to?
"Don't take intelligence on face"... well that's great advice if any of us had access to it. Perhaps then we could critically analyze it. But we don't. And he doesn't.
Regarding Assange, according to the intelligence community the path from Russia to Assange was made deliberately multi-channel so he can make the denial he is making. I have no doubt he didn't get it straight from Russia. There was at least one intermediary. The guy needs a new benefactor and he found one.
Like I said, at this point you have to choose who you believe....and then you should sit under the blanket of protection of who you believe.
My semi-educated guess is that the evidence, the methodology, the code utilized to trace and decrypt, and the underlying details that led to the conclusion are going to be classified. Releasing the methodology would compromise future counter-intelligence estimates.
"The same lesson in 2002 when a group of bipartisan senators assured the nation that the intelligence community convinced them that Saddam (Hussein) has weapons of mass destruction ... and the same lesson we learned in 2013, when, just months before the (Edward) Snowden reporting, James Clapper, Obama's top national security official, lied to the faces of the country when he said that he wants to assure everybody that the NSA doesn't collect data," he said.
Did we forget to mention the part that Greenwald has not seen the classified parts, whereas elected officials from both parties have? As of now, the only person I have seen dispute the conclusion is one person who benefited by it. At this point you can choose to believe Trump and Putin, or the intelligence community and the rest of the oversight committees. Because you have zero way of proving your argument. Nor do I.
My argument...GG suggests don't take the intelligence on face. My argument is that I believe Assange who has been 100% truthful from jump unless you have information otherwise, over the US intelligence that frequently lies, even when it means killing innocent civilians and US troops.
Anyway, what exactly did Russia hack? Is that the classified info you are referring to?
"Don't take intelligence on face"... well that's great advice if any of us had access to it. Perhaps then we could critically analyze it. But we don't. And he doesn't.
Regarding Assange, according to the intelligence community the path from Russia to Assange was made deliberately multi-channel so he can make the denial he is making. I have no doubt he didn't get it straight from Russia. There was at least one intermediary. The guy needs a new benefactor and he found one.
Like I said, at this point you have to choose who you believe....and then you should sit under the blanket of protection of who you believe.
My semi-educated guess is that the evidence, the methodology, the code utilized to trace and decrypt, and the underlying details that led to the conclusion are going to be classified. Releasing the methodology would compromise future counter-intelligence estimates.
BTW - this is a dumb argument.
And yet you or anyone else won't answer what was hacked by Russia? States secrets?
"The same lesson in 2002 when a group of bipartisan senators assured the nation that the intelligence community convinced them that Saddam (Hussein) has weapons of mass destruction ... and the same lesson we learned in 2013, when, just months before the (Edward) Snowden reporting, James Clapper, Obama's top national security official, lied to the faces of the country when he said that he wants to assure everybody that the NSA doesn't collect data," he said.
Did we forget to mention the part that Greenwald has not seen the classified parts, whereas elected officials from both parties have? As of now, the only person I have seen dispute the conclusion is one person who benefited by it. At this point you can choose to believe Trump and Putin, or the intelligence community and the rest of the oversight committees. Because you have zero way of proving your argument. Nor do I.
My argument...GG suggests don't take the intelligence on face. My argument is that I believe Assange who has been 100% truthful from jump unless you have information otherwise, over the US intelligence that frequently lies, even when it means killing innocent civilians and US troops.
Anyway, what exactly did Russia hack? Is that the classified info you are referring to?
"Don't take intelligence on face"... well that's great advice if any of us had access to it. Perhaps then we could critically analyze it. But we don't. And he doesn't.
Regarding Assange, according to the intelligence community the path from Russia to Assange was made deliberately multi-channel so he can make the denial he is making. I have no doubt he didn't get it straight from Russia. There was at least one intermediary. The guy needs a new benefactor and he found one.
Like I said, at this point you have to choose who you believe....and then you should sit under the blanket of protection of who you believe.
My semi-educated guess is that the evidence, the methodology, the code utilized to trace and decrypt, and the underlying details that led to the conclusion are going to be classified. Releasing the methodology would compromise future counter-intelligence estimates.
BTW - this is a dumb argument.
And yet you or anyone else won't answer what was hacked by Russia? States secrets?
certainly DNC emails... Do you really not know this or is it a troll question?
"The same lesson in 2002 when a group of bipartisan senators assured the nation that the intelligence community convinced them that Saddam (Hussein) has weapons of mass destruction ... and the same lesson we learned in 2013, when, just months before the (Edward) Snowden reporting, James Clapper, Obama's top national security official, lied to the faces of the country when he said that he wants to assure everybody that the NSA doesn't collect data," he said.
Did we forget to mention the part that Greenwald has not seen the classified parts, whereas elected officials from both parties have? As of now, the only person I have seen dispute the conclusion is one person who benefited by it. At this point you can choose to believe Trump and Putin, or the intelligence community and the rest of the oversight committees. Because you have zero way of proving your argument. Nor do I.
My argument...GG suggests don't take the intelligence on face. My argument is that I believe Assange who has been 100% truthful from jump unless you have information otherwise, over the US intelligence that frequently lies, even when it means killing innocent civilians and US troops.
Anyway, what exactly did Russia hack? Is that the classified info you are referring to?
"Don't take intelligence on face"... well that's great advice if any of us had access to it. Perhaps then we could critically analyze it. But we don't. And he doesn't.
Regarding Assange, according to the intelligence community the path from Russia to Assange was made deliberately multi-channel so he can make the denial he is making. I have no doubt he didn't get it straight from Russia. There was at least one intermediary. The guy needs a new benefactor and he found one.
Like I said, at this point you have to choose who you believe....and then you should sit under the blanket of protection of who you believe.
My semi-educated guess is that the evidence, the methodology, the code utilized to trace and decrypt, and the underlying details that led to the conclusion are going to be classified. Releasing the methodology would compromise future counter-intelligence estimates.
BTW - this is a dumb argument.
And yet you or anyone else won't answer what was hacked by Russia? States secrets?
certainly DNC emails... Do you really not know this or is it a troll question?
Ok...DNC emails. Does guccifer2 have anything to do with the hacking?
"The same lesson in 2002 when a group of bipartisan senators assured the nation that the intelligence community convinced them that Saddam (Hussein) has weapons of mass destruction ... and the same lesson we learned in 2013, when, just months before the (Edward) Snowden reporting, James Clapper, Obama's top national security official, lied to the faces of the country when he said that he wants to assure everybody that the NSA doesn't collect data," he said.
Did we forget to mention the part that Greenwald has not seen the classified parts, whereas elected officials from both parties have? As of now, the only person I have seen dispute the conclusion is one person who benefited by it. At this point you can choose to believe Trump and Putin, or the intelligence community and the rest of the oversight committees. Because you have zero way of proving your argument. Nor do I.
My argument...GG suggests don't take the intelligence on face. My argument is that I believe Assange who has been 100% truthful from jump unless you have information otherwise, over the US intelligence that frequently lies, even when it means killing innocent civilians and US troops.
Anyway, what exactly did Russia hack? Is that the classified info you are referring to?
"Don't take intelligence on face"... well that's great advice if any of us had access to it. Perhaps then we could critically analyze it. But we don't. And he doesn't.
Regarding Assange, according to the intelligence community the path from Russia to Assange was made deliberately multi-channel so he can make the denial he is making. I have no doubt he didn't get it straight from Russia. There was at least one intermediary. The guy needs a new benefactor and he found one.
Like I said, at this point you have to choose who you believe....and then you should sit under the blanket of protection of who you believe.
My semi-educated guess is that the evidence, the methodology, the code utilized to trace and decrypt, and the underlying details that led to the conclusion are going to be classified. Releasing the methodology would compromise future counter-intelligence estimates.
BTW - this is a dumb argument.
And yet you or anyone else won't answer what was hacked by Russia? States secrets?
certainly DNC emails... Do you really not know this or is it a troll question?
Ok...DNC emails. Does guccifer2 have anything to do with the hacking?
"The same lesson in 2002 when a group of bipartisan senators assured the nation that the intelligence community convinced them that Saddam (Hussein) has weapons of mass destruction ... and the same lesson we learned in 2013, when, just months before the (Edward) Snowden reporting, James Clapper, Obama's top national security official, lied to the faces of the country when he said that he wants to assure everybody that the NSA doesn't collect data," he said.
Did we forget to mention the part that Greenwald has not seen the classified parts, whereas elected officials from both parties have? As of now, the only person I have seen dispute the conclusion is one person who benefited by it. At this point you can choose to believe Trump and Putin, or the intelligence community and the rest of the oversight committees. Because you have zero way of proving your argument. Nor do I.
Your critical thinking has no place in Trump's America.
EXACTLY
Because without posting ignorant hatefull memes, vague links to fake news sites, and cut and pastes of tweets, you can't possible know what the hell you are talking about.
Trump indicated cnbc or nbc was given or parts of the classified reports were leaked to them by anonymous sources, they reported as if it were the case.
Interesting that Kirby does not refute that Intel reports contain zero evidence of Russia's involvement. Kirby says the US should have high confidence in the intel community and when it has high confidence, they should too, even without proof. Kirby says the WMD claims were along time ago so don't compare this to Iraq and WMDs, we learned allot From that, when asked about intel false claims that lead to Iraq war started a long time ago over those false claims that we are still fighting today, interesting.
Informative and funny. Reading this may cause discomfort.
Just an excerpt: The New York Times calls the latest report “damning and surprisingly detailed” before later admitting in the same “news” article that the report “contained no information about how the agencies had collected their data or had come to their conclusions.” A quick glance at the report itself would have made clear to you that it did not pretend to present a shred of evidence that Russia hacked emails or served as a source for WikiLeaks. Yet Congresswoman Barbara Lee declared the evidence in this evidence-free report “overwhelming.” What should progressives believe, the best Congresswoman we’ve got or our own lying eyes?
My memory isn't that intel said Iraq had wmd, it's that they presented flimsy evidence, acknowledged as such, and Bush and friends stretched that into fabricated evidence to build up the case to go to war.
Comments
But are you making the argument that the intel community is wrong on this, and the triumverate of Putin, Assange and Trump are right?
Has Tim Kaine commented on this???
Good news for you is that Tim Kaine lives 10 minutes from me. I'll go knock on his door and find out. This is a lucky break.
codered2014.com/electronic-vote-fraud-q-a/
"
The activists, among them J Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Centre for Computer Security and Society and voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz, told the Clinton campaign they believe there is a questionable trend of the Democratic candidate performing worse in counties that relied on electronic voting machines compared to paper ballots and optical scanners, according to a "source briefed on the call".
"
telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/23/hillary-clintons-campaign-urged-computer-scientists-challenge/
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/media/304686-campaign-collusion-is-cnbcs-john-harwood-too-close-to-the-clinton
Ms Martin points out the NYTs bull poo article.
Now nyt correction hilariously disproves its point—"Putin propaganda" yet she denounced Russia on air, still had primetime show for 1yr
"The same lesson in 2002 when a group of bipartisan senators assured the nation that the intelligence community convinced them that Saddam (Hussein) has weapons of mass destruction ... and the same lesson we learned in 2013, when, just months before the (Edward) Snowden reporting, James Clapper, Obama's top national security official, lied to the faces of the country when he said that he wants to assure everybody that the NSA doesn't collect data," he said.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/01/08/us/greenwald-intel-report-reliable-cnntv/index.html?client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us
At this point you can choose to believe Trump and Putin, or the intelligence community and the rest of the oversight committees. Because you have zero way of proving your argument. Nor do I.
My argument is that I believe Assange who has been 100% truthful from jump unless you have information otherwise, over the US intelligence that frequently lies, even when it means killing innocent civilians and US troops.
Anyway, what exactly did Russia hack? Is that the classified info you are referring to?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Nobody wants to dig the devilish details?
Regarding Assange, according to the intelligence community the path from Russia to Assange was made deliberately multi-channel so he can make the denial he is making. I have no doubt he didn't get it straight from Russia. There was at least one intermediary. The guy needs a new benefactor and he found one.
Like I said, at this point you have to choose who you believe....and then you should sit under the blanket of protection of who you believe.
My semi-educated guess is that the evidence, the methodology, the code utilized to trace and decrypt, and the underlying details that led to the conclusion are going to be classified. Releasing the methodology would compromise future counter-intelligence estimates.
BTW - this is a dumb argument.
States secrets?
Because without posting ignorant hatefull memes, vague links to fake news sites, and cut and pastes of tweets, you can't possible know what the hell you are talking about.
Trump indicated cnbc or nbc was given or parts of the classified reports were leaked to them by anonymous sources, they reported as if it were the case.
Interesting that Kirby does not refute that Intel reports contain zero evidence of Russia's involvement.
Kirby says the US should have high confidence in the intel community and when it has high confidence, they should too, even without proof.
Kirby says the WMD claims were along time ago so don't compare this to Iraq and WMDs, we learned allot From that, when asked about intel false claims that lead to Iraq war started a long time ago over those false claims that we are still fighting today, interesting.
Informative and funny. Reading this may cause discomfort.
Just an excerpt:
The New York Times calls the latest report “damning and surprisingly detailed” before later admitting in the same “news” article that the report “contained no information about how the agencies had collected their data or had come to their conclusions.” A quick glance at the report itself would have made clear to you that it did not pretend to present a shred of evidence that Russia hacked emails or served as a source for WikiLeaks. Yet Congresswoman Barbara Lee declared the evidence in this evidence-free report “overwhelming.” What should progressives believe, the best Congresswoman we’ve got or our own lying eyes?
RT anchor Liz Wahl said she could no longer be "part of a network that whitewashes the actions of Putin."
March 5, 2014