Russia Hacking our Election Campaigns

[Hugo]

Oh Yeah! Larry Elder is a "statesman" we should all respect, and consider his opinons as fact, carefully thought-out, and facutal enough to influence us to chage our positons. 

OR NOT! 

Come on OL. Be part of the conversaton and stop cluttering up the pages with these rants. I respond to this ONLY because I'm betting (hoping) you have something FROM YOUR OWN MIND to contribute to the debate. 

This stuff gets old.

Which part of Mr. Elder's quote is not factual?

[orygunluvr]

Oh Yeah! Larry Elder is a "statesman" we should all respect, and consider his opinons as fact, carefully thought-out, and facutal enough to influence us to chage our positons. 

OR NOT! 

Come on OL. Be part of the conversaton and stop cluttering up the pages with these rants. I respond to this ONLY because I'm betting (hoping) you have something FROM YOUR OWN MIND to contribute to the debate. 

This stuff gets old.

There still isn't any proof the Russians hacked anything related to our government or the election, and we will never know if they hacked kkkillarys server because she hasn't turned it over for analyzing. What's sold is you can't get past the reality that your handlers want to keep your eye off of the real issues with kkkillary, corruption, the whole dnc and liberal media tampering with an election, fraud, and the demokkkratikkk voter fraud that turned up during the recounts. Climb out of the liberal box and think for yourself for once instead of reading some article written by some liberal hack and using that as your intelligence factor. You guys have been duped, again, by your handlers and your media. And you wonder why you guys are as useless as tits on a boar hog, lol!

[Wonky3]

Oh Yeah! Larry Elder is a "statesman" we should all respect, and consider his opinons as fact, carefully thought-out, and facutal enough to influence us to chage our positons. 

OR NOT! 

Come on OL. Be part of the conversaton and stop cluttering up the pages with these rants. I respond to this ONLY because I'm betting (hoping) you have something FROM YOUR OWN MIND to contribute to the debate. 

This stuff gets old.

Which part of Mr. Elder's quote is not factual?

It's a stupid comment, without any text to suppot it, and Elders is a mouthpiece without the ability to think.

[Wonky3]

Oh Yeah! Larry Elder is a "statesman" we should all respect, and consider his opinons as fact, carefully thought-out, and facutal enough to influence us to chage our positons. 

OR NOT! 

Come on OL. Be part of the conversaton and stop cluttering up the pages with these rants. I respond to this ONLY because I'm betting (hoping) you have something FROM YOUR OWN MIND to contribute to the debate. 

This stuff gets old.

There still isn't any proof the Russians hacked anything related to our government or the election, and we will never know if they hacked kkkillarys server because she hasn't turned it over for analyzing. What's sold is you can't get past the reality that your handlers want to keep your eye off of the real issues with kkkillary, corruption, the whole dnc and liberal media tampering with an election, fraud, and the demokkkratikkk voter fraud that turned up during the recounts. Climb out of the liberal box and think for yourself for once instead of reading some article written by some liberal hack and using that as your intelligence factor. You guys have been duped, again, by your handlers and your media. And you wonder why you guys are as useless as tits on a boar hog, lol!

More completely partisan ranting that doesnt' deserve a response. You are again parroting the rhetoric of a group who will never allow facts to interfer with the realitiy they have invented.

[Hugo]

Oh Yeah! Larry Elder is a "statesman" we should all respect, and consider his opinons as fact, carefully thought-out, and facutal enough to influence us to chage our positons. 

OR NOT! 

Come on OL. Be part of the conversaton and stop cluttering up the pages with these rants. I respond to this ONLY because I'm betting (hoping) you have something FROM YOUR OWN MIND to contribute to the debate. 

This stuff gets old.

Which part of Mr. Elder's quote is not factual?

It's a stupid comment, without any text to suppot it, and Elders is a mouthpiece without the ability to think.

Did Putin write any of the e-mails?
Did the content of the e-mails expose the DNC colluding to defeat Bernie, and by being exposed doesn't that mean they were "caught"?

Tell me again which part is not factual.

[Hugo]

Oh Yeah! Larry Elder is a "statesman" we should all respect, and consider his opinons as fact, carefully thought-out, and facutal enough to influence us to chage our positons. 

OR NOT! 

Come on OL. Be part of the conversaton and stop cluttering up the pages with these rants. I respond to this ONLY because I'm betting (hoping) you have something FROM YOUR OWN MIND to contribute to the debate. 

This stuff gets old.

There still isn't any proof the Russians hacked anything related to our government or the election, and we will never know if they hacked kkkillarys server because she hasn't turned it over for analyzing. What's sold is you can't get past the reality that your handlers want to keep your eye off of the real issues with kkkillary, corruption, the whole dnc and liberal media tampering with an election, fraud, and the demokkkratikkk voter fraud that turned up during the recounts. Climb out of the liberal box and think for yourself for once instead of reading some article written by some liberal hack and using that as your intelligence factor. You guys have been duped, again, by your handlers and your media. And you wonder why you guys are as useless as tits on a boar hog, lol!

More completely partisan ranting that doesnt' deserve a response. You are again parroting the rhetoric of a group who will never allow facts to interfer with the realitiy they have invented.

See my response above, as you keep alluding to the word "facts".

[Wonky3]

Oh Yeah! Larry Elder is a "statesman" we should all respect, and consider his opinons as fact, carefully thought-out, and facutal enough to influence us to chage our positons. 

OR NOT! 

Come on OL. Be part of the conversaton and stop cluttering up the pages with these rants. I respond to this ONLY because I'm betting (hoping) you have something FROM YOUR OWN MIND to contribute to the debate. 

This stuff gets old.

There still isn't any proof the Russians hacked anything related to our government or the election, and we will never know if they hacked kkkillarys server because she hasn't turned it over for analyzing. What's sold is you can't get past the reality that your handlers want to keep your eye off of the real issues with kkkillary, corruption, the whole dnc and liberal media tampering with an election, fraud, and the demokkkratikkk voter fraud that turned up during the recounts. Climb out of the liberal box and think for yourself for once instead of reading some article written by some liberal hack and using that as your intelligence factor. You guys have been duped, again, by your handlers and your media. And you wonder why you guys are as useless as tits on a boar hog, lol!

More completely partisan ranting that doesnt' deserve a response. You are again parroting the rhetoric of a group who will never allow facts to interfer with the realitiy they have invented.

See my response above, as you keep alluding to the word "facts".

Saw it. Read it. 
Just more of the same. 

[chuck white]

Not so much that somebody hacked the DNC and published e-mails.
But they also should have published the e-mails hacked from the Republicans.

But there is a saying, All is fair in love and politics.

[orygunluvr]

Oh Yeah! Larry Elder is a "statesman" we should all respect, and consider his opinons as fact, carefully thought-out, and facutal enough to influence us to chage our positons. 

OR NOT! 

Come on OL. Be part of the conversaton and stop cluttering up the pages with these rants. I respond to this ONLY because I'm betting (hoping) you have something FROM YOUR OWN MIND to contribute to the debate. 

This stuff gets old.

There still isn't any proof the Russians hacked anything related to our government or the election, and we will never know if they hacked kkkillarys server because she hasn't turned it over for analyzing. What's sold is you can't get past the reality that your handlers want to keep your eye off of the real issues with kkkillary, corruption, the whole dnc and liberal media tampering with an election, fraud, and the demokkkratikkk voter fraud that turned up during the recounts. Climb out of the liberal box and think for yourself for once instead of reading some article written by some liberal hack and using that as your intelligence factor. You guys have been duped, again, by your handlers and your media. And you wonder why you guys are as useless as tits on a boar hog, lol!

More completely partisan ranting that doesnt' deserve a response. You are again parroting the rhetoric of a group who will never allow facts to interfer with the realitiy they have invented.

See my response above, as you keep alluding to the word "facts".

Saw it. Read it. 
Just more of the same. 

Just like the demokkkratikkks like you, uninformed and complacent, I think they even mentioned stupid a few times. Yep, Jason Gruber lamented the fact that it was stupid voters that helped get Obamacare passed, that would be you.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/gruber.asp

TRUE: Jonathan Gruber said Obamacare only passed due to the "stupidity" of the American voter and a lack of "transparency.

[Hugo]

Not so much that somebody hacked the DNC and published  e-mails.
But they also should have published the e-mails hacked from the Republicans.

But there is a saying, All is fair in love and politics.

Julian Assange, when asked if they were able to get anything from the RNC, said "Yes, a few pages.  But they were already published somewhere else by the time we got them, so there was no reason publish them again since they were already public"  (paraphrasing)

The RNC was being.... what's that word?  Ah yes, transparent.

[Wonky3]

Not so much that somebody hacked the DNC and published  e-mails.
But they also should have published the e-mails hacked from the Republicans.

But there is a saying, All is fair in love and politics.

Julian Assange, when asked if they were able to get anything from the RNC, said "Yes, a few pages.  But they were already published somewhere else by the time we got them, so there was no reason publish them again since they were already public"  (paraphrasing)

The RNC was being.... what's that word?  Ah yes, transparent.

First of all, I suspect anything Julian Assange says. 
And more importantly, the "smoking gun" emails were between Hillary Clinton and her aid. Nothing there, but the very fact of the reporting of them JUST PRIOR to the electon is telling. 

Every branch of our intelligence services have reported that the informaton released by the Russians had an impact on the vote. NOT that the voting machines, etc, were compromised, but the "vote" was. 
A fact, and will always be a fact.

[SFLiberal]

I watched about a hour of the Senate hearings this morning. Lots of chatter, because each and every senator on the committee wants "air time", but the testimony from the CIA heads was clear and complete: 


Mr. Trump will be briefed today. Wonder what he will tweet. 


Russia meddled in U.S. election, Clapper says, rejecting Trump’s view

Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper testified in a Senate hearing that Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election consisted of hacking and the spreading of traditional propaganda and “fake news.” The testimony comes as President-elect Donald Trump has repeatedly voiced skepticism that Russia interfered in the election.

Is this the James Clapper you are referring to?

From Wikipedia:

Play media
Excerpt of James Clapper's testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
On March 12, 2013, during a United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligencehearing, Senator Ron Wyden quoted the keynote speech at the 2012 DEF CON by the director of the NSA, Keith B. Alexander. Alexander had stated that "Our job is foreign intelligence" and that "Those who would want to weave the story that we have millions or hundreds of millions of dossiers on people, is absolutely false…From my perspective, this is absolute nonsense." Senator Wyden then asked Clapper, "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" He responded "No, sir." Wyden asked "It does not?" and Clapper said "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly."[31]
When Edward Snowden was asked during his January 26, 2014 TV interview in Moscow what the decisive moment was or why he blew the whistle, he replied: "Sort of the breaking point was seeing the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, directly lie under oath to Congress. … Seeing that really meant for me there was no going back"

[Wonky3]

I watched about a hour of the Senate hearings this morning. Lots of chatter, because each and every senator on the committee wants "air time", but the testimony from the CIA heads was clear and complete: 


Mr. Trump will be briefed today. Wonder what he will tweet. 


Russia meddled in U.S. election, Clapper says, rejecting Trump’s view

Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper testified in a Senate hearing that Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election consisted of hacking and the spreading of traditional propaganda and “fake news.” The testimony comes as President-elect Donald Trump has repeatedly voiced skepticism that Russia interfered in the election.

Is this the James Clapper you are referring to?

From Wikipedia:

Play media
Excerpt of James Clapper's testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
On March 12, 2013, during a United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligencehearing, Senator Ron Wyden quoted the keynote speech at the 2012 DEF CON by the director of the NSA, Keith B. Alexander. Alexander had stated that "Our job is foreign intelligence" and that "Those who would want to weave the story that we have millions or hundreds of millions of dossiers on people, is absolutely false…From my perspective, this is absolute nonsense." Senator Wyden then asked Clapper, "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" He responded "No, sir." Wyden asked "It does not?" and Clapper said "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly."[31]
When Edward Snowden was asked during his January 26, 2014 TV interview in Moscow what the decisive moment was or why he blew the whistle, he replied: "Sort of the breaking point was seeing the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, directly lie under oath to Congress. … Seeing that really meant for me there was no going back"

And so, he (Snowden) feels justified in "hacking" (downloading) millions of personal files.

Snowden was a "contract employee) and could have reported his fears up the chain of command. Short of that he could have been a "whistleblower" and reported it to congress, or as a last resort to the press. 

Whatever: The details of this thing are tedious, complicated, and involve far too much detail to be argued here.

[SFLiberal]

I watched about a hour of the Senate hearings this morning. Lots of chatter, because each and every senator on the committee wants "air time", but the testimony from the CIA heads was clear and complete: 


Mr. Trump will be briefed today. Wonder what he will tweet. 


Russia meddled in U.S. election, Clapper says, rejecting Trump’s view

Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper testified in a Senate hearing that Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election consisted of hacking and the spreading of traditional propaganda and “fake news.” The testimony comes as President-elect Donald Trump has repeatedly voiced skepticism that Russia interfered in the election.

Is this the James Clapper you are referring to?

From Wikipedia:

Play media
Excerpt of James Clapper's testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
On March 12, 2013, during a United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligencehearing, Senator Ron Wyden quoted the keynote speech at the 2012 DEF CON by the director of the NSA, Keith B. Alexander. Alexander had stated that "Our job is foreign intelligence" and that "Those who would want to weave the story that we have millions or hundreds of millions of dossiers on people, is absolutely false…From my perspective, this is absolute nonsense." Senator Wyden then asked Clapper, "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" He responded "No, sir." Wyden asked "It does not?" and Clapper said "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly."[31]
When Edward Snowden was asked during his January 26, 2014 TV interview in Moscow what the decisive moment was or why he blew the whistle, he replied: "Sort of the breaking point was seeing the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, directly lie under oath to Congress. … Seeing that really meant for me there was no going back"

And so, he (Snowden) feels justified in "hacking" (downloading) millions of personal files.

Snowden was a "contract employee) and could have reported his fears up the chain of command. Short of that he could have been a "whistleblower" and reported it to congress, or as a last resort to the press. 

Whatever: The details of this thing are tedious, complicated, and involve far too much detail to be argued here.

The point is Clapper lied to Congress.  If he had no problem lying then, why should we believe him now?

Continued from Wiki:

responsesEdit
On June 5, 2013, The Guardian published the first of the global surveillance documents leaked by Edward Snowden, including a top secret court order showing that the NSA had collected phone records from over 120 million Verizon subscribers.[33] The following day, Director Clapper released a statement admitting the NSA collects telephony metadata on millions of Americans' telephone calls.[34] This metadata information included originating and terminating telephone number, telephone calling card number, International Mobile Station Equipment Identity (IMEI) number, time, and duration of phone calls, but did not include the name, address or financial information of any subscriber.[35]
On June 7, 2013, Clapper was interviewed by Andrea Mitchell on NBC. Clapper said that "I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful manner by saying no" when he testified.[36]
On June 11, Sen. Wyden accused Clapper of not giving a "straight answer", noting that Clapper's office had been provided with the question a day in advance of the hearing and was given the opportunity following Clapper's testimony to amend his response.[37]
On June 12, 2013, United States House of Representatives member Justin Amash became the first Congressman to openly accuse Director Clapper of criminal perjury, calling for his resignation. In a series of tweets he stated: "It now appears clear that the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, lied under oath to Congress and the American people," and "Perjury is a serious crime ... [and] Clapper should resign immediately,"[38] Senator Rand Paul said "The director of national intelligence, in March, did directly lie to Congress, which is against the law."[39] Paul later suggested that Clapper might deserve prison time for his testimony.[40]
On June 27, 2013, a group of 26 senators sent him a complaint letter opposing the use of a "body of secret law".[41][42] On July 1, 2013, Clapper issued an apology, saying that "My response was clearly erroneous—for which I apologize."[43] On July 2, Clapper said that he had forgotten about the Patriot Act and therefore had given an "erroneous" answer.[44]
The journalist Glenn Greenwald accused the media in the U.S. of focusing on Edward Snowden instead of focusing on wrongdoing by Clapper and other U.S. officials.[45] Jody Westby of Forbes argued that due to the revelations, the American public should ask Clapper to resign from office, arguing that "Not only did Mr. Clapper give false testimony to Congress, even his June 6 statement was false. We now know—since the companies identified by the Washington Post have started fessing up—that lots more than telephony metadata has been collected and searched."[46] Fred Kaplan of Slate also advocated having Clapper fired, arguing "if President Obama really welcomes an open debate on this subject, James Clapper has disqualified himself from participation in it. He has to go."[47] Andy Greenberg of Forbes said that NSA officials along with Clapper, in the years 2012 and 2013 "publicly denied–often with carefully hedged words–participating in the kind of snooping on Americans that has since become nearly undeniable."[31] John Dean, former White House Counsel for President Nixon, has claimed that it is unlikely Clapper would be charged with the three principal criminal statutes that address false statements to Congress: perjury, obstruction of Congress, and making false statements.[48] David Sirota of Salon said that if the U.S. government fails to treat Clapper and Alexander in the same way as it did Roger Clemens, "the message from the government would be that lying to Congress about baseball is more of a felony than lying to Congress about Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights" and that the "message would declare that when it comes to brazen law-breaking, as long as you are personally connected to the president, you get protection rather than the prosecution you deserve."[49]
On December 19, 2013, seven Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee called on attorney general Eric Holder to investigate Clapper, saying that "witnesses cannot be allowed to lie to Congress."[50] In January 2014, Robert Litt, the general counsel to the Office of the DNI, stated that Clapper did not lie to Congress,[51] and in May 2015 clarified that Clapper "had absolutely forgotten the existence of" section 215 of the Patriot Act.[52]
In January 2014, six members of the House of Representatives wrote[53] to President Obama urging him to dismiss Clapper for lying to Congress,[54][55] but were rebuffed by the White House.[56] Caitlin Hayden, a White House spokesperson, said in an e-mailed statement that Obama has "full faith in Director Clapper’s leadership of the intelligence community. The Director has provided an explanation for his answers to Senator Wyden and made clear that he did not intend to mislead the Congress."[56]

[Hugo]

Not so much that somebody hacked the DNC and published  e-mails.
But they also should have published the e-mails hacked from the Republicans.

But there is a saying, All is fair in love and politics.

Julian Assange, when asked if they were able to get anything from the RNC, said "Yes, a few pages.  But they were already published somewhere else by the time we got them, so there was no reason publish them again since they were already public"  (paraphrasing)

The RNC was being.... what's that word?  Ah yes, transparent.

First of all, I suspect anything Julian Assange says. 
And more importantly, the "smoking gun" emails were between Hillary Clinton and her aid. Nothing there, but the very fact of the reporting of them JUST PRIOR to the electon is telling. 

Every branch of our intelligence services have reported that the informaton released by the Russians had an impact on the vote. NOT that the voting machines, etc, were compromised, but the "vote" was. 
A fact, and will always be a fact.

First of all, you never said that about Assange when he dished on Bush.

Second...  show me ANY intelligence agency report that identifies a single vote change traced to "the Russians".  You can't make up a "fact".

[orygunluvr]

Not so much that somebody hacked the DNC and published  e-mails.
But they also should have published the e-mails hacked from the Republicans.

But there is a saying, All is fair in love and politics.

Julian Assange, when asked if they were able to get anything from the RNC, said "Yes, a few pages.  But they were already published somewhere else by the time we got them, so there was no reason publish them again since they were already public"  (paraphrasing)

The RNC was being.... what's that word?  Ah yes, transparent.

First of all, I suspect anything Julian Assange says. 
And more importantly, the "smoking gun" emails were between Hillary Clinton and her aid. Nothing there, but the very fact of the reporting of them JUST PRIOR to the electon is telling. 

Every branch of our intelligence services have reported that the informaton released by the Russians had an impact on the vote. NOT that the voting machines, etc, were compromised, but the "vote" was. 
A fact, and will always be a fact.

Assange has never had to rescind on thing he has produced, ever. How about when China actually hacked our federal government and stole information on 23,000,000 people? By the current obozo approach to Russia over something that still hasn't been proved to happen and didn't include any actual government computers we should have nuked china, right?

[orygunluvr]

Not so much that somebody hacked the DNC and published  e-mails.
But they also should have published the e-mails hacked from the Republicans.

But there is a saying, All is fair in love and politics.

They have, you just haven't been told to believe it yet.

[orygunluvr]

Stupid, complacent, and uninformed, the mainstream liberal as described by gruber, podesta, and the rest of your handlers.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2017/01/10/c...sts-434101

Comey testifies FBI was DENIED access to hacked DNC servers despite ‘multiple requests’

Democrats continue to whine about Russia allegedly hacking into the Democratic National Committee’s computer servers and the impact that may have had on the election outcome, but they weren’t concerned enough to allow the FBI access to learn more about the intrusion.

That was the word Tuesday from FBI Director James Comey, who testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee in an open session on Russian interference in the U.S. election, according to The Hill.

[tvguy]

It it strange to anyone else that people refuse to post on FB groups because it's not the "same" or not as "personal" as here.

And then argue the same shit with the same people when you know for a fact they will NEVER EVER veer away from whatever the most popular conservative opinions are?

[Hugo]

It it strange to anyone else that people refuse to post on FB groups because it's not the "same" or not as "personal" as here.

And then argue the same shit with the same people when you know for a fact they will NEVER EVER veer away from whatever the most popular conservative opinions are?

Sorry it is strange to you that someone might just use facebook for family and friend contact.  Seems natural to me.  I don't REFUSE to, as if I am somehow holding back a tide of pressure to join.  I wouldn't even know they existed if not for hearing of them here.  Just don't care to use facebook that way.

It probably surprises you that in real life, I'm not all that argumentative.  I save it for here.