Bluegrassrivals

Half of these threads belong in the conspiracy boards. Not Politics.

That is all.

Like the multiple Russian "hacking" investigations?

infowars.com is calling.

So is that Maddow dude.

Answer me; was Sandy Hook a fake? Was "Pizza Gate" real? And did Ted Cruz's dad kill JFK?

catdoggy Wrote:Answer me; was Sandy Hook a fake? Was "Pizza Gate" real? And did Ted Cruz's dad kill JFK?

About as real as Russia hacking the election.

jetpilot Wrote:About as real as Russia hacking the election.

Influencing and hacking are different. I'm sure you realize that though.

Listen Guys and Gals,

Anyone who doubts that the Russians hacked AND influenced the elections in 2016 has their head in the sand. I am a diehard conservative and republican. Proudly. People who know me from a couple years ago on this board, know that. I'm also a pragmatist. With that said... the only people who doubt these headlines are a fringe group of Trump supporters and Donald Trump himself.

What is most likely untrue is that Trump helped the Russians do it. Now, did the hacking and influence help Trump? Probably a little.... but its doubtful that it won Trump the election. I have spoken first hand to couple hundred people while researching this, and have yet to find anyone who was going to vote for Hillary and decided to vote for Trump instead after reading the emails or visiting with social media.

Still, a thorough counter-intelligence investigation is warranted. However, I find Mueller's probe to be problematic. For a couple of reasons.

1)The order appointing him as special counsel didn't specify a law that was broken. Was one broken? Maybe. But what is he investigating exactly?

2)If there's no law broken, Mueller is able to work until he finds a law that is broken. Lets face it, if a special counsel with no mandate or limits were appointed to investigate each and every person on this board... we'd likely all end up in jail for something we've done over the past decade or two.

---------------

ronald reagan Wrote:Listen Guys and Gals,

Anyone who doubts that the Russians hacked AND influenced the elections in 2016 has their head in the sand. I am a diehard conservative and republican. Proudly. People who know me from a couple years ago on this board, know that. I'm also a pragmatist. With that said... the only people who doubt these headlines are a fringe group of Trump supporters and Donald Trump himself.

What is most likely untrue is that Trump helped the Russians do it. Now, did the hacking and influence help Trump? Probably a little.... but its doubtful that it won Trump the election. I have spoken first hand to couple hundred people while researching this, and have yet to find anyone who was going to vote for Hillary and decided to vote for Trump instead after reading the emails or visiting with social media.

Still, a thorough counter-intelligence investigation is warranted. However, I find Mueller's probe to be problematic. For a couple of reasons.

1)The order appointing him as special counsel didn't specify a law that was broken. Was one broken? Maybe. But what is he investigating exactly?

2)If there's no law broken, Mueller is able to work until he finds a law that is broken. Lets face it, if a special counsel with no mandate or limits were appointed to investigate each and every person on this board... we'd likely all end up in jail for something we've done over the past decade or two.

---------------

nicker: Lots of typing, lots of ifs, no evidence.

catdoggy Wrote:Influencing and hacking are different. I'm sure you realize that though.

A zillion people influenced it. So? Tell us how the Russians influenced it. Even if they did, I would rather be influenced by Russians that Rachel Maddow.nicker:

I guarantee whatever the Russians real goal with election tampering may have been it had absolutely nothing to do with changing the vote count. Dems have that one nailed down with the dead/illegal vote. No, the Ruskies play their cards closer to the vest than to allow easy discernment to that end. Nobody in the media have thus far actually defined what the hacking involved, and we'll be darn lucky to ever hear the truth of it.

Though there may well have been some form of hack, the whole thing IMHO (as has been presented to the American people) is a fabrication to bring about distrust and suspicion against President Trump; And was motivated 100% by sore loser Democrats who wrongly believed their tactics had this past, and all near term Presidential elections too frankly, in the bag. That generated distrust then would serve they reason, to make the going easier to kangaroo the President out of his duly earned office.

Ronald Reagan is right, Mueller's is an investigation IN SEARCH of a crime. An investigation of which Rosenstein had no basis for initiating other than grinding the establishment ax, and you can bet they will at some point drum up something. And an investigation without historical precedent in that no crime was shown to have existed nor any cursory evidence of any crime was shown to exist for which an investigation could lawfully be launched. My complaint has been that any investigation into the affairs of the present administration, by definition must ignore what is surely mountains of existing evidence of Russian collusion associated with the past administration. But like Rham Emanuel famously said, "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." - Rahm Emanuel

IF the news reports are true and to partially define the mountains of evidence; The Podesta brothers (whom recently filed federally mandated forms two years late and provided evidence in a retroactive fashion following the Clinton for President Campaign) and who actually do have proven ties to Russian mega-banking entity Sberbank have to date gotten a pass, . Bill AND Hill, also got multiple millions of dollars from Russian donors? Debbie Wasserman Schultz is up to her cyber eyeballs in the DNC hacking incident, and the list of 'say whats?' goes on from there.

ABTW, there has yet to be any link shown between Russia and Wikileaks, which leaked all those Podesta emails. Talk about fodder for the news media, literally thousands of emails go by the board with nary an arched eyebrow other than forlorn laments for their gal Hillary. That's how the collusion thing picked up steam. Dems were dripping with righteous indignation, not because the emails were lies, but because they were leaked. They're getting even on the leak business now boy, but not with the perpetrators of the stolen emails. They've turned their ire toward the sabotaging of the American voter if you can believe that.

jetpilot Wrote:nicker: Lots of typing, lots of ifs, no evidence.

Not sure what you're point is, but all 3 of those 'facts' are incorrect.

Took about 2 minutes to type, only has 2 "ifs" in it, and there's plenty of evidence of hacking. There's no longer debate about it. That ended when Trump admitted as much, his attorney general did so, his current fbi director, his deputy attorney general, his national security adviser, his cyber command general, the DIA chief, and about 535 congressmen and women with with clearances did so as well.

"Ronald Reagan is right, Mueller's is an investigation IN SEARCH of a crime."

Reminds you a lot of the Starr investigation has to be the most expensive Bl0wj0b on record can't wait to get Donald under oath

vector Wrote:"Ronald Reagan is right, Mueller's is an investigation IN SEARCH of a crime."

Reminds you a lot of the Starr investigation has to be the most expensive Bl0wj0b on record can't wait to get Donald under oath

There would have to be a high crime for that to happen. You know, such as when Billy Boy lied to a federal judge, got disbarred and fined?

Jul 30, 1999 · Clinton Fined $90,686 for Lying in Paula Jones Case

A federal judge yesterday fined Bill Clinton over $90,000 (£57,000) for denying under oath that he had had sex with Monica Lewinsky, in an unprecedented penalty imposed on an incumbent US president.

ronald reagan Wrote:Not sure what you're point is, but all 3 of those 'facts' are incorrect.

Took about 2 minutes to type, only has 2 "ifs" in it, and there's plenty of evidence of hacking. There's no longer debate about it. That ended when Trump admitted as much, his attorney general did so, his current fbi director, his deputy attorney general, his national security adviser, his cyber command general, the DIA chief, and about 535 congressmen and women with with clearances did so as well.

That's just stupid. No debate? More like NO EVIDENCE.:Shaking:

ronald reagan Wrote:Not sure what you're point is, but all 3 of those 'facts' are incorrect.

Took about 2 minutes to type, only has 2 "ifs" in it, and there's plenty of evidence of hacking. There's no longer debate about it. That ended when Trump admitted as much, his attorney general did so, his current fbi director, his deputy attorney general, his national security adviser, his cyber command general, the DIA chief, and about 535 congressmen and women with with clearances did so as well.

Please explain what the evidence is or provide a link to something that explains what the evidence is. I'll be here all week.nicker:

jetpilot Wrote:Please explain what the evidence is or provide a link to something that explains what the evidence is. I'll be here all week.nicker:

Agreed. There is no evidence of hacking other than at the DNC. Subsequently the FBI of course, upon demanding the DNC servers and such be handed over, were told what they could go do with themselves. At that point the FBI evidently, with a James Comey whimper, dutifully capitulated. Top that one.

TheRealThing Wrote:Agreed. There is no evidence of hacking other than at the DNC. Subsequently the FBI of course, upon demanding the DNC servers and such be handed over, were told what they could go do with themselves. At that point the FBI evidently, with a James Comey whimper, dutifully capitulated. Top that one.

And Julian Assange has said repeatedly that it wasn't the Russians who provided WikiLeaks with the hacked DNC/Podesta emails. So we have it straight from the horse's mouth and they have...nothing.

jetpilot Wrote:And Julian Assange has said repeatedly that it wasn't the Russians who provided WikiLeaks with the hacked DNC/Podesta emails. So we have it straight from the horse's mouth and they have...nothing.

Because Julian Assange is known for being honest. :lmao: He wouldn't even talk to investigators in his rape case. Instead he 'honorably' took refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy.

I'm not in the position to point out the evidence for hacking or influence. But I can point again to Trumps own position and words, his own Director of National Intelligence, his own National Security Advisor, his own Vice President, his 535 member Congress, his own Cyber Command 4 star general, his own FBI and CIA directors, his own attorney general, his own deputy attorney general, etc.

I voted for Trump. Will likely vote for him again. I'm also a card carrying member of the Republican Party, a diehard conservative, a 8 year veteran of Active Duty Army (Cav Scout and Combat Medic with 2 tours in Iraq).... but above all, I'm an American with pragmatic tendencies. And I trust Trump and his many chiefs/advisors that all agree with the assessment that Russia meddled in the election. Let me repeat again, Do I think it changed the results of the election? NO. I have yet to meet anyone willing to admit that they voted for trump because of this. However, that doesn't negate the facts and views of Trumps entire intelligence, law enforcement, and military team.

In my study of this issue, I have met only a couple of people of disagree with their assessments. And they reside within these forums.

Collusion didn't happen. Thats pretty plain to see. But we have intelligence intercepts showing that Russians were involved, and at high levels. I don't know what the big deal is with you admitting that? It doesn't delegitimize the presidency. It shows strength in recognizing that we have enemies, and that we are going to deal with it appropriately. Notice, Trump didn't remove sanctions on Russia when he came into office. Why is that? Is he took weak to make that decision? No. He intuitively knew that Russia was involved. Which is why he said:

“As far as hacking, I think it was Russia, Hacking’s bad, and it shouldn’t be done. But look at the things that were hacked, look at what was learned from that hacking."

"And I will give Reince Priebus credit, because when Reince saw what was happening in the world and with this country, he went out and went to various firms and ordered a very, very strong hacking defense. And they tried to hack the Republican National Committee and they were unable to break through."

"With that being said, I'll go along with Russia"

-------------------------------------

As I said, I trust Trump and his team on this.

You keep your head in the sand a bit longer. Maybe it was Seth Rich haha.

As I said, there is no debate. I'm done with this thread. You guys crack me up.

catdoggy Wrote:Answer me; was Sandy Hook a fake? Was "Pizza Gate" real? And did Ted Cruz's dad kill JFK?

No. No. And No.

you said half the threads here belong in the conspiracy forum. I haven't seen any threads about these topics.

(PS -- still waiting on your glorious plan for reunification and denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.)

ronald reagan Wrote:Because Julian Assange is known for being honest. :lmao: He wouldn't even talk to investigators in his rape case. Instead he 'honorably' took refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy.

I'm not in the position to point out the evidence for hacking or influence. But I can point again to Trumps own position and words, his own Director of National Intelligence, his own National Security Advisor, his own Vice President, his 535 member Congress, his own Cyber Command 4 star general, his own FBI and CIA directors, his own attorney general, his own deputy attorney general, etc.

I voted for Trump. Will likely vote for him again. I'm also a card carrying member of the Republican Party, a diehard conservative, a 8 year veteran of Active Duty Army (Cav Scout and Combat Medic with 2 tours in Iraq).... but above all, I'm an American with pragmatic tendencies. And I trust Trump and his many chiefs/advisors that all agree with the assessment that Russia meddled in the election. Let me repeat again, Do I think it changed the results of the election? NO. I have yet to meet anyone willing to admit that they voted for trump because of this. However, that doesn't negate the facts and views of Trumps entire intelligence, law enforcement, and military team.

In my study of this issue, I have met only a couple of people of disagree with their assessments. And they reside within these forums.

Collusion didn't happen. Thats pretty plain to see. But we have intelligence intercepts showing that Russians were involved, and at high levels. I don't know what the big deal is with you admitting that? It doesn't delegitimize the presidency. It shows strength in recognizing that we have enemies, and that we are going to deal with it appropriately. Notice, Trump didn't remove sanctions on Russia when he came into office. Why is that? Is he took weak to make that decision? No. He intuitively knew that Russia was involved. Which is why he said:

“As far as hacking, I think it was Russia, Hacking’s bad, and it shouldn’t be done. But look at the things that were hacked, look at what was learned from that hacking."

"And I will give Reince Priebus credit, because when Reince saw what was happening in the world and with this country, he went out and went to various firms and ordered a very, very strong hacking defense. And they tried to hack the Republican National Committee and they were unable to break through."

"With that being said, I'll go along with Russia"

-------------------------------------

As I said, I trust Trump and his team on this.

You keep your head in the sand a bit longer. Maybe it was Seth Rich haha.

As I said, there is no debate. I'm done with this thread. You guys crack me up.

I stopped reading right there. You conveniently forgot to state that you are also unable to cite any evidence. Save yourself all the typing and guessing and get back to me when you have a shred of a shred of a tiny scintilla of evidence, or can even cite any evidence from any source. In the meantime you should change your handle to bill clinton.nicker:

ronald reagan Wrote:Because Julian Assange is known for being honest. :lmao: He wouldn't even talk to investigators in his rape case. Instead he 'honorably' took refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy.

I'm not in the position to point out the evidence for hacking or influence. But I can point again to Trumps own position and words, his own Director of National Intelligence, his own National Security Advisor, his own Vice President, his 535 member Congress, his own Cyber Command 4 star general, his own FBI and CIA directors, his own attorney general, his own deputy attorney general, etc.

I voted for Trump. Will likely vote for him again. I'm also a card carrying member of the Republican Party, a diehard conservative, a 8 year veteran of Active Duty Army (Cav Scout and Combat Medic with 2 tours in Iraq).... but above all, I'm an American with pragmatic tendencies. And I trust Trump and his many chiefs/advisors that all agree with the assessment that Russia meddled in the election. Let me repeat again, Do I think it changed the results of the election? NO. I have yet to meet anyone willing to admit that they voted for trump because of this. However, that doesn't negate the facts and views of Trumps entire intelligence, law enforcement, and military team.

In my study of this issue, I have met only a couple of people of disagree with their assessments. And they reside within these forums.

Collusion didn't happen. Thats pretty plain to see. But we have intelligence intercepts showing that Russians were involved, and at high levels. I don't know what the big deal is with you admitting that? It doesn't delegitimize the presidency. It shows strength in recognizing that we have enemies, and that we are going to deal with it appropriately. Notice, Trump didn't remove sanctions on Russia when he came into office. Why is that? Is he took weak to make that decision? No. He intuitively knew that Russia was involved. Which is why he said:

“As far as hacking, I think it was Russia, Hacking’s bad, and it shouldn’t be done. But look at the things that were hacked, look at what was learned from that hacking."

"And I will give Reince Priebus credit, because when Reince saw what was happening in the world and with this country, he went out and went to various firms and ordered a very, very strong hacking defense. And they tried to hack the Republican National Committee and they were unable to break through."

"With that being said, I'll go along with Russia"

-------------------------------------

As I said, I trust Trump and his team on this.

You keep your head in the sand a bit longer. Maybe it was Seth Rich haha.

As I said, there is no debate. I'm done with this thread. You guys crack me up.

You know you seem like a reasonable guy to me. But why take things so personal when you clearly cannot back up what you're saying? I will take what the likes of those such as John Bolton, Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity, General Thomas McInerny, General Jack Keene, Jay Sekulow, and many many others have said on the matter. The evidence, past that which has been modestly outlined on here, does not exist.

And if your were around during the days of Ronald Reagan, then you surely have seen the degradation which has occurred among the ranks of the media. They do lie the suit their own political aspirations these days, and the Russian collusion story is just one example.

The Government's take on the events.

The Intelligence Community's Declassified Document on the Russian Meddling

The hacking and cyber communities take.

How Cyber Security Experts Found Russia Responsible

A Timeline of Events - CNN

Don't like CNN's view... Maybe you'll accept Fox New's version instead...

Fox News - Did the Russians intefere with the election? Absolutely.

The FBI contacted the DNC in Sept 2015 and told them the Russians had indeed attacked their systems, but were rebuffed and told that they couldn't find anything indicating that it had indeed happened. In November of the same year, they contacted them again and said one of their computers was actively transmitting its data back to Russia... A cyber security firm the DNC hired later posts a notice that it has detected Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear (the two hacking groups responsible) activity and hacking of the DNC. The CIA and FBI fully agreed that Russia was trying to interfere with the election, but disagreed on the intent. One thought it was to sway the election, the other that it was trying to undermine and cause loss of confidence in the system.

Julian Assange later says that the Russian Government didn't provide him with the emails. This is key because many believe that Julian Assange said the Russians weren't the hackers. Just that they weren't his source. As the Republican gold standard of news and opinions - National Review -- points out, there' three options, including that Moscow was and wasn't the source -- and regardless of the truth, Assange has a strong incentive to say that Moscow was NOT his source.

National Review -- Assange has the incentive to lie about his source.

I could go on all day long about this topic. I've heavily researched it, and compiled my opinion based upon all available and credible evidence. Including statements from Trump, and his closest associates, nearly every member of congress including those with the highest levels of clearance who have seen the classified intelligence, the chiefs of every major intelligence service from the FBI to the CIA, Attorney General to the National Security Adviser, Director of National Intelligence to the Army Cyber Command General, and nearly every reputable cyber security expert on the planet.

Don't confuse Russian interfering with the election with trump's team orchestrating or colluding with them. And don't let your judgement be clouded just because you feel that it discredit Trumps victory -- it doesn't. He won because people wanted him to win, not because Russia did. And trust that all of the above sources agree for a reason. Its real, and we must deal with it.

Just curious... how do you all read these posts with your head so deeply in the sand? hh:

ronald reagan Wrote:The Government's take on the events.

The Intelligence Community's Declassified Document on the Russian Meddling

The hacking and cyber communities take.

How Cyber Security Experts Found Russia Responsible

A Timeline of Events - CNN

Don't like CNN's view... Maybe you'll accept Fox New's version instead...

Fox News - Did the Russians intefere with the election? Absolutely.

The FBI contacted the DNC in Sept 2015 and told them the Russians had indeed attacked their systems, but were rebuffed and told that they couldn't find anything indicating that it had indeed happened. In November of the same year, they contacted them again and said one of their computers was actively transmitting its data back to Russia... A cyber security firm the DNC hired later posts a notice that it has detected Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear (the two hacking groups responsible) activity and hacking of the DNC. The CIA and FBI fully agreed that Russia was trying to interfere with the election, but disagreed on the intent. One thought it was to sway the election, the other that it was trying to undermine and cause loss of confidence in the system.

Julian Assange later says that the Russian Government didn't provide him with the emails. This is key because many believe that Julian Assange said the Russians weren't the hackers. Just that they weren't his source. As the Republican gold standard of news and opinions - National Review -- points out, there' three options, including that Moscow was and wasn't the source -- and regardless of the truth, Assange has a strong incentive to say that Moscow was NOT his source.

National Review -- Assange has the incentive to lie about his source.

I could go on all day long about this topic. I've heavily researched it, and compiled my opinion based upon all available and credible evidence. Including statements from Trump, and his closest associates, nearly every member of congress including those with the highest levels of clearance who have seen the classified intelligence, the chiefs of every major intelligence service from the FBI to the CIA, Attorney General to the National Security Adviser, Director of National Intelligence to the Army Cyber Command General, and nearly every reputable cyber security expert on the planet.

Don't confuse Russian interfering with the election with trump's team orchestrating or colluding with them. And don't let your judgement be clouded just because you feel that it discredit Trumps victory -- it doesn't. He won because people wanted him to win, not because Russia did. And trust that all of the above sources agree for a reason. Its real, and we must deal with it.

Just curious... how do you all read these posts with your head so deeply in the sand? hh:

WHAT EVIDENCE? Lots of work there and still no evidence. Are you kin to Adam Schiff?nicker: And why would you want to go on all day about it when you HAVE. NO. EVIDENCE.:HitWall:

TheRealThing Wrote:You know you seem like a reasonable guy to me. But why take things so personal when you clearly cannot back up what you're saying? I will take what the likes of those such as John Bolton, Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity, General Thomas McInerny, General Jack Keene, Jay Sekulow, and many many others have said on the matter. The evidence, past that which has been modestly outlined on here, does not exist.

And if your were around during the days of Ronald Reagan, then you surely have seen the degradation which has occurred among the ranks of the media. They do lie the suit their own political aspirations these days, and the Russian collusion story is just one example.

Again, I am with you on the collusion. I have repeated this. Don't confuse collusion with interference and hacking.

Whats funny about your list of names you 'trust'... many are in total agreement that the Russian interfered with the election.

John Bolton: Agrees.
NewsMax -- Putin Lied to Trump and interfered in the Election

Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton said Friday that Russian President Vladimir Putin "looked Donald Trump directly in the eye and lied to him" when he denied Moscow's involvement in last year's election.

"That's the single most important takeaway coming out of the meeting," Bolton, who served under former President George W. Bush, told Laura Ingraham on Fox News.

"Vladimir Putin denied Russian interference of the election," he explained. "Everyone who has looked at the classified information says there's no doubt the Russians tried to affect the election.

"That's something that should be unacceptable to all Americans.

"Vladimir Putin looked Donald Trump directly in the eye and lied to him," he said, later adding: "You can't trust them at face value."

General Jack Keane: Agrees.

Fox Business -- General Keane: Russians launched a psychological war when they interfered with the election!

Retired four-star general Jack Keane believes Russia interfered in the 2016 election and has engaged in psychological warfare with the U.S. in the following months.

“Ever since that time [the election], they’re objective clearly was to undermine the Democratic process.

Jay Sekulow: He agrees that Russia interfered, but denies collusion.

Donald Trump himself: Stated on numerous occassions that inteference and hacking occurred. Left Sanctions in place on Russia. Pressed Putin Personally on his involvement multiple times. Signed the Russian Sanctions bill. Every advisor and releveant cabinet secretary is in agreement with the assessment. Just as recently as couple weeks ago said that "obama knew" of the interference but yet did nothing.


LTG McInerney: Jeesh... a man who believes MH370 was hijacked by terrorists and flown to Pakistan, and was the chief instigator of the massive downsizing of the military as the man in charge of "reinventing government", reporting directly to Al Gore during that disgraceful phase. He is still despised by the rank and file even today. He also believes WMD were in Iraq, but Russians moved them to Syria. He peddles the conspiracy theory that Obama was a mulism born in Africa. He even submitted a sworn affidavit submitted his affidavit on behalf of Army Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who refused to be deployed to Afghanistan because he didn’t believe Obama was born in the United States, supporting him for doing so. He also believes that radical Islamists were embedded in the Obama White House.

So.......

I feel kinda bad that I had to point this stuff out to you. I can only imagine the heartbreak that you feel when you read that your trusted sources believe Russia interfered. I remember when I found out that Ronald Reagan once signed the "therapuetic abortion act" and was an ardent support of the New Deal and liberal policies of FDR. And when George Bush got a DUI, and had a problem with nose candy.. booger sugar... white girl. Its tough to take in.

Again.... I'm sorry.

And the cat's out of the bag!!! Idiot liberal alert!!!:rockon:nicker:

jetpilot Wrote:WHAT EVIDENCE? Lots of work there and still no evidence. Are you kin to Adam Schiff?nicker:

I just posted it in the quoted material you replied to. Read it.

Why do you think Trump, Pence, DNI, CIA, FBI, Attorney General, CyberCommand General, both republican and democratic members of congress, including the members of the permanent select committee on intelligence
Devin Nunes, California, Chair
Mike Conaway, Texas
Peter King, New York
Frank LoBiondo, New Jersey
Rick Crawford, Arkansas
Trey Gowdy, South Carolina
Tom Rooney, Florida
Will Hurd, Texas
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Florida
Mike Turner, Ohio
Brad Wenstrup, Ohio
Chris Stewart, Utah
Elise Stefanik, New York
Adam Schiff, California, Ranking Member
Jim Himes, Connecticut
Terri Sewell, Alabama
André Carson, Indiana
Jackie Speier, California
Mike Quigley, Illinois
Eric Swalwell, California
Joaquin Castro, Texas
Denny Heck, Washington,

And every reputable cyber security organization in the nation.

Why? Why do they all agree on this after seeing the intelligence, and evidence?

I've shown you compelling evidence, and you've shown me nothing to refute it. You my friend are what we call a cynic. Not a skeptic.

A skeptic is someone who refuses to believe something without any evidence.
A cynic continues to not believe, after being presented the evidence.

You are in a such a small minority of this nation. I'm grateful for that.

So lets put you on record....

Do you believe that Russians attempted to interfere with the election?
Do you believe they hacked the DNC?
Do you believe they colluded with Trump?

My answers are: yes, yes, and no.
I am in agreement with: Trump himself, Pence, McMaster, the CIA, the FBI, the DNI, the DIA, Cyber Command General, Congress, and Cyber Security Experts.

You.... agree with Putin. Not even the president that you are *attempting* to defend agrees with you. Why is that?

Why did Trump sign the Russia Sanctions bill for attempting to interfere in the election? Its either one of two reasons... he is incredibly weak and scared... and signed it out of fear of public backlash, or he believes what he has said, and the entire team that surrounds him and that he appointed to those positions. I'll let you decide. inglepar

jetpilot Wrote:Please explain what the evidence is or provide a link to something that explains what the evidence is. I'll be here all week.nicker:

I did. You chose not to read it, or your keyboard is stuck typing "no evidence" over and over. I'd bet on the former rather than the latter.

If you need more evidence from cyber security firms, intelligence chiefs, etc... you got it. But until you read the link that I posted -- The Intelligence Community declassified briefing they released detailing the evidence. STFU. :Thumbs:

And I've spent enough time showing your the facts.

I've got questions for you:

Why did Trump admit Russia did it?
Why did Pence?
Why did his CIA director?
His FBI director?
His Cyber Command General?
His DNI?
His DIA?
Every member of the Highly Classified Select Committee on Intelligence?
Every Reputable Cyber Security Firm?

-----

And when you answer those, please provide *evidence*.

Too easy.

ronald reagan Wrote:I just posted it in the quoted material you replied to. Read it.

Why do you think Trump, Pence, DNI, CIA, FBI, Attorney General, CyberCommand General, both republican and democratic members of congress, including the members of the permanent select committee on intelligence
Devin Nunes, California, Chair
Mike Conaway, Texas
Peter King, New York
Frank LoBiondo, New Jersey
Rick Crawford, Arkansas
Trey Gowdy, South Carolina
Tom Rooney, Florida
Will Hurd, Texas
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Florida
Mike Turner, Ohio
Brad Wenstrup, Ohio
Chris Stewart, Utah
Elise Stefanik, New York
Adam Schiff, California, Ranking Member
Jim Himes, Connecticut
Terri Sewell, Alabama
André Carson, Indiana
Jackie Speier, California
Mike Quigley, Illinois
Eric Swalwell, California
Joaquin Castro, Texas
Denny Heck, Washington,

And every reputable cyber security organization in the nation.

Why? Why do they all agree on this after seeing the intelligence, and evidence?

I've shown you compelling evidence, and you've shown me nothing to refute it. You my friend are what we call a cynic. Not a skeptic.

A skeptic is someone who refuses to believe something without any evidence.
A cynic continues to not believe, after being presented the evidence.

You are in a such a small minority of this nation. I'm grateful for that.

So lets put you on record....

Do you believe that Russians attempted to interfere with the election?
Do you believe they hacked the DNC?
Do you believe they colluded with Trump?

My answers are: yes, yes, and no.
I am in agreement with: Trump himself, Pence, McMaster, the CIA, the FBI, the DNI, the DIA, Cyber Command General, Congress, and Cyber Security Experts.

You.... agree with Putin. Not even the president that you are *attempting* to defend agrees with you. Why is that?

Why did Trump sign the Russia Sanctions bill for attempting to interfere in the election? Its either one of two reasons... he is incredibly weak and scared... and signed it out of fear of public backlash, or he believes what he has said, and the entire team that surrounds him and that he appointed to those positions. I'll let you decide. inglepar

Thanks for letting me decide.nicker: I have already decided that I will form my opinion based on EVIDENCE. I know you cannot grasp the concept of EVIDENCE. It's nice that you let politicians and "news" media tell you what to think like good sheeple should but for the fiftieth time I will wait for EVIDENCE. Now again, and for the last time, unless you provide me with one shred of one shred of one tiny scintilla of EVIDENCE you are wasting my time just like Adam Schiff is. And we all know you can't provide any EVIDENCE or cite anyone else that has provided any EVIDENCE.

ronald reagan Wrote:Again, I am with you on the collusion. I have repeated this. Don't confuse collusion with interference and hacking.

Whats funny about your list of names you 'trust'... many are in total agreement that the Russian interfered with the election.

John Bolton: Agrees.
NewsMax -- Putin Lied to Trump and interfered in the Election

Former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton said Friday that Russian President Vladimir Putin "looked Donald Trump directly in the eye and lied to him" when he denied Moscow's involvement in last year's election.

"That's the single most important takeaway coming out of the meeting," Bolton, who served under former President George W. Bush, told Laura Ingraham on Fox News.

"Vladimir Putin denied Russian interference of the election," he explained. "Everyone who has looked at the classified information says there's no doubt the Russians tried to affect the election.

"That's something that should be unacceptable to all Americans.

"Vladimir Putin looked Donald Trump directly in the eye and lied to him," he said, later adding: "You can't trust them at face value."

General Jack Keane: Agrees.

Fox Business -- General Keane: Russians launched a psychological war when they interfered with the election!

Retired four-star general Jack Keane believes Russia interfered in the 2016 election and has engaged in psychological warfare with the U.S. in the following months.

“Ever since that time [the election], they’re objective clearly was to undermine the Democratic process.

Jay Sekulow: He agrees that Russia interfered, but denies collusion.

Donald Trump himself: Stated on numerous occassions that inteference and hacking occurred. Left Sanctions in place on Russia. Pressed Putin Personally on his involvement multiple times. Signed the Russian Sanctions bill. Every advisor and releveant cabinet secretary is in agreement with the assessment. Just as recently as couple weeks ago said that "obama knew" of the interference but yet did nothing.


LTG McInerney: Jeesh... a man who believes MH370 was hijacked by terrorists and flown to Pakistan, and was the chief instigator of the massive downsizing of the military as the man in charge of "reinventing government", reporting directly to Al Gore during that disgraceful phase. He is still despised by the rank and file even today. He also believes WMD were in Iraq, but Russians moved them to Syria. He peddles the conspiracy theory that Obama was a mulism born in Africa. He even submitted a sworn affidavit submitted his affidavit on behalf of Army Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who refused to be deployed to Afghanistan because he didn’t believe Obama was born in the United States, supporting him for doing so. He also believes that radical Islamists were embedded in the Obama White House.

So.......

I feel kinda bad that I had to point this stuff out to you. I can only imagine the heartbreak that you feel when you read that your trusted sources believe Russia interfered. I remember when I found out that Ronald Reagan once signed the "therapuetic abortion act" and was an ardent support of the New Deal and liberal policies of FDR. And when George Bush got a DUI, and had a problem with nose candy.. booger sugar... white girl. Its tough to take in.

Again.... I'm sorry.

Oh the pain of it all!! Still though, not one scintilla of variance outside of the DNC hacking, of which I stipulated to from the very outset in any comment that I have made on the subject. There exists no revealed evidence outside the DNC hacking event. The obvious premise here was in reference to the empirical body of evidence which supports Russia's election interference in 2016. Not extrapolations of Russian intent, which of course are all classified. And not one of your quotes above in any way expand on that evidence, nor do they in any way support your assertion that more evidence exists. But I do agree that you are to some degree, sorry. :biggrin: