I have little concern for all the BS thrown around during elections, especially when it isn't root sourced.
Do you have proof it is so?
Link please.
He can't take a phone call from Taiwan without being threatened with WW3, yet we can drag Russia thru the for months on end and nary a fear.
Just shows ta go ya.
And that in the WH, and that 's coward wife. You are both on your way. And there ain't one thing you can do it about. Buh, bye.
NSA CHIEF: A nation-state made a 'conscious effort' to sway the US presidential election
Nov. 16, 2016, 1:16 PM
The leader of the National Security Agency says there shouldn't be "any doubt in anybody's mind" that there was "a conscious effort by a nation-state" to sway the result of the 2016 presidential election.
Adm. Michael Rogers, who leads both the NSA and US Cyber Command, made the comments during a conference presented by The Wall Street Journal in response to a question about WikiLeaks' release of nearly 20,000 internal emails from the Democratic National Committee.
"There shouldn't be any doubt in anybody's mind,"
Rogers said. "This was not something that was done casually. This was not something that was done by chance. This was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily.
This was a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect."
Rogers did not specify the nation-state or the specific effect, though US intelligence officials say
they suspect Russia provided the emails to WikiLeaks after hackers stole them from DNC servers and the personal email account of Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta.
At least two different hacker groups associated with the Russian government
were found inside the networks of the DNC over the past year reading emails, chats, and downloading private do ents. Many of those files were later released by WikiLeaks.
http://www.businessinsider.com/nsa-c...ection-2016-11
I have seen all kinds of remarks implying it was Russia, but none from legitimate sources explicitly saying it was Russia.
The pundits however then claim an assumption as fact.
You know who the idiots are when they believe facts not in evidence.
bouts, runnin' just as fast as he can.
tee, hee.
Hopefully you find more honorable employment, like maybe selling crack or giving out handjobs.
That is not fact when even in your link it explicitly says: "The CIA believes that Russia intentionally meddled in the US election specifically to help Donald Trump win."
Hopefully we get to Jan 20th before Obama starts war with Russia with these bogus accusations.
I think Putin will ask Obama to be his court jester.
Putin isn't going to go to war over such stupid nonsense.
You called out the SFGate for being a liberal rag and asked for a source.
This is the source. You don't believe this is worth the media's time to investigate?
‘He’s trying to undercut’ US intel: WaPo reporter hits Trump Team’s response on Russian interference
Washington Post political reporter Philip Bump Friday hit the Donald Trump transition team’s response to reports that Russia interfered with the U.S. election in an effort to help him win the presidency, arguing Trump is attempting “to undercut the validity of the sourcing” for those reports.
A Post article released Friday revealed that
the consensus among intelligence agency officials is that Russia’s interference wasn’t simply to stoke distrust in the US electoral process, but to actively try and get Trump elected.
Trump has repeatedly shrugged off reports of Russian interference, suggesting the reports are a partisan attempt to muddy his win in the electoral college.
Friday evening, the Trump transition team released a statement, dismissing the intelligence reports and insisting, it’s time to “move on.”
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/hes-...e+Raw+Story%29
That is it for a source?
Well...
How many things do I believe, turn out to be fact, in your opinion?
& the in the WH is even totin' up Isis kills. LOL. Over 50,000!
Couldn't get him to own up to even 1 till Trump kicked his ass.
It may or may not turn out to be fact. That's why the media is reaching out to involved parties to ask questions. This is how things work.
The factuality ratio of your beliefs is irrelevant.
AGW?you're totally DESTROYED by AGW FACTS.
you career vets have real problems with cognition? PTSD? other brain damage?
Last edited by boutons_deux; 12-10-2016 at 12:53 AM.
Well, once the media got involved, the facts will never be found. Or at least are very unlikely. Whomever did hack them has likely crawled back into the shadows. Leaking the information was a bad move for someone wanting to find the truth, so apparently, the propaganda was more important than the fact finding.
So would you agree that if it was a fact, that they wouldn't have used the word "believe?"AGW?
you careet vets have real problems with cognition? PTSD? other brain damage?
I read 50 billion were killed. No body count but them's the estimates by people on the front lines like Amanpour.
in certain cases sure, some not so much.
Russia withheld hacked RNC emails to help Trump’s campaign: report
A report affirming the intelligence community’s consensus that Russia hacked the U.S. election in an attempt to sway the results in favor of Donald Trump was bolstered Friday by a conclusion that Russians hacked the Republican National Committee—then sat on the information.
“We now have high confidence that they hacked the D.N.C. and the R.N.C., and con uously released no do ents” from the RNC, one senior administration official told the Times.
The Times writes:
“In briefings to the White House and Congress, intelligence officials, including those from the C.I.A. and the National Security Agency, have identified individual Russian officials they believe were responsible. But none have been publicly penalized.”
A report released Friday by the Washington Post revealed a CIA assessment concluded Russia’s interference in the election was prompted not by a desire to undermine the U.S. electoral system, but to specifically elevate Trump to the presidency.
Despite the evidence, Trump—along with other Republican leaders—insist there is no evidence supporting the conclusion that the Russians hacked the election in order to help elect Trump.
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/russ...e+Raw+Story%29
Not necessarily. It can be a fact and be unproven. It depends on how you approach epistemology. If you don't know it to be fact, you shouldn't call it a fact, but it could still be a fact if you don't consider facts to be known truths.
Sure it could be fact. I doubt it, but it could be. Don't you think it's irresponsible to make such accusations?
It depends on the goal. It would be irresponsible to not make them if the goal included misleading folks.
It's so much easier to understand things if you don't put yourself in the picture.
Gotta love fake news.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote