FBI backs CIA view that Russia intervened to help Trump win election

Of course these are three words - I've learned from the best, Joe Biden!

 

Nothing in this link backs up your claim that Assange was told what and when to publish by Russia. It does say, however:

So your citation only contradicts your claims. This is too easy.

 

did leave the possibility open that Guccifer 2.0’s leaks to the media were a Russian plot.


“Now, who is behind these, we don’t know,” he said. “These look very much like they’re from the Russians. But in some ways, they look very amateur, and almost look too much like the Russians.”
In the Hannity interview, Assange also claimed that WikiLeaks received three pages of information about Trump and the Republican National Convention. It chose not to reprint those documents because they had already been printed elsewhere.

 

Um, yep, that possibility was left open. Which still doesn't address your claim, so that's just a red herring.

But wait, your source also explains why Assange didn't publish RNC or Trump documents, and lo and behold, it was because they had already been made public. So, far from being one sided, Assange was just showing the other side that wasn't already known! Hahahaha, and since those documents had nothing juicy in them (as I had predicted), no one gave a (*)(*)(*)(*). Your flailings really are the gift that keeps on giving.

 

Actually that's proof that Assange decides what to publish and what not to publish and people here claim he publishes everything. Meanwhile he just said he doesn't.

 

Here is what Assange has on why he didn't release Trump stuff:

“I mean, it’s from a point of view of an investigative journalist organization like WikiLeaks, the problem with the Trump campaign is it’s actually hard for us to publish much more controversial material than what comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth every second day," Assange said.

So it boils down to the fact that Trump was saying much worse stuff publically. It would have done nothing.



Also, a bit ago you said the Russians were telling him what to publish and when, now you're saying Assange makes the choice? Could you be consistent?

 

So once again, you have refuted yourself. Your claim that Russia decides what to publish has been disproven, by your own admission and by your own doing. Your self-ownage is really starting to get funny.

 

Curious. Have you ever supplied proof/link to any of your opinions? Just to establish credibility?

- - - Updated - - -

Proof? What is that??. Says some RWers. Er binary thinkers.

 

Fake news?? Got something credible?

WASHINGTON —The FBI is now backing the CIA’s assessment that Russian hackers sought in part to tilt the election in favor of President-elect Donald Trump when they breached American political institutions resulting in the theft of a trove of sensitive communications, a U.S. official said Friday.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...agrees-cia-russia-hacked-help-trump/95528318/

 

Using your thread. Can you give a guesstimate? How many R's in your thread think Russia hacked vs not Russia?
I doubt it's most.
I saw many giving you a hard time.

 

That was 4 days ago.
How about today?

Two U.S. intelligence officials have confirmed to NBC News that FBI Director James Comey and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper agree with a CIA assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election in part to help Donald Trump win the presidency.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-agrees-cia-assessment-russia-wanted-help-trump-n697066

 

What difference at this point does it makes? Old news, no one cares, let's move along

 

Do you recall, couple of years ago the White House was hacked? No one cared, MSM were not besides themselves like today. Why?

Did not suit their agenda, that's why.

 

It confirms that Trump's election was illegitimate. Even Trump's buddy Comey has joined the chorus of complaint.

The exposure of Russian interference has delegitimized Trump.

 

Seems quite bizarre doesn't it? I wondered the same until I heard Hillary making all kinds of excuses as to why she lost to her donors. Now it makes sense. Why does it matter now?

Answer: Because millions of dollars of donor money is at stake.

Hillary spent ALOT of money to win so she could protect the status quo. Now that Trump won the status quo is being threatened. If the dems cannot produce a used car salesman type candidate to protect the status quo then the wealthy donors may move to another candidate or party that can.

That logic makes this situation believable. Otherwise it is really bizarre.

- - - Updated - - -

Seems quite bizarre doesn't it? I wondered the same until I heard Hillary making all kinds of excuses as to why she lost to her donors. Now it makes sense. Why does it matter now?

Answer: Because millions of dollars of donor money is at stake.

Hillary spent ALOT of money to win so she could protect the status quo. Now that Trump won the status quo is being threatened. If the dems cannot produce a used car salesman type candidate to protect the status quo then the wealthy donors may move to another candidate or party that can.

That logic makes this situation believable. Otherwise it is really bizarre.

- - - Updated - - -

Except there is zero evidence Trump is connected to it.

 

Ha ha ha

Whatever makes you happy, my friend.

 

If Comey was Trump's buddy, Hillary would have been indicted.

They are bringing this up for the globalists, like not bringing charges, so that they can make the case there's new info to screw Trump via the electoral college.

Him winning has made globalists open their eyes, and upon doing so, they realize this was their last election to be in charge. And if they're allowed to swap president elects, you all better believe we are going to get a blitz of neoliberal legislation that will make sure we never know sovereignty and genuine representation ever again.

The good news is, the move will be the death nail of their public consent to control.

If they pull the move, every citizen has to use word of mouth to put nationalists in EVERY position of power.

 

So Saudi Arabia can give Hillary 25 million dollars and it's ok but Wikileaks exposes the truth about her and it has to be Russia. Hillary lost because of Hillary and not Russia. Russia did not influence my vote at all. The criminal Hillary was the reason I chose not to vote for her. Trump won because Hillary was that bad. Is it that hard to understand?

 

Where is the evidence? Show me proof? Russia never influenced anybody to vote for her and she lost because she was that bad. If you don't like the results then next time don't have a criminal run for office.

The states that gave Trump the win were tired of losing jobs and Hillary gave them no reason to vote for her. Hillary was the biggest mistake this country has ever tried to put into office and most of America said "I don't think so". What is so hard to understand about that?

 

Whether or not Trump is personally implicated, he benefited from foreign interference in the POTUS election.

 

If the Russians did interfere I wish they would have stopped a lot of other people from getting elected.

 

So did Clinton. Only we know for a fact that she knowingly did so.

 

So what? Besides where is the proof of such interference? No one has connected to dots on that yet. But I see dems have to keep coming up with excuses as to why they lost. I hear the next excuse is this:



At this point anything is just as plausible.

 

The evidence I have seen so far has been highly circumstantial. I would like the CIA to release whatever evidence they claim to have.

 

We can only speculate why? Too many searching questions that would blow the subterfuge, I'd bet!