It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Hillary: "17 intel agencies say Putin hacked us."

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

4 posts.

Tons of rambling

Nothing to a point (not even to the thread)

Hillarys wording was correct. The content is pretty far off the mark and the proof is within this thread




posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
If it is the Russians....

THANK YOU RUSSIA!

For real!


Scary stuff... I remember the days where the party of Reagan would have ostracized that kind of comment. Your party would label you a traitor heck any party would......

But now, since its trump support, you're ok cheering the Russians on for interfering in our election? Asinine.
edit on 20-10-2016 by bknapple32 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: southbeach
a reply to: Drawsoho

If Hillary Clintons toast is burnt "it was the Russians!"



And to Donald the toaster is rigged.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

I know more than you simple.
And rambling. No
I don't think so. The truth seems to be a trigger to you.
edit on 10202016 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)

edit on 10202016 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: bknapple32



But now, since its trump support, you're ok cheering the Russians on for interfering in our election? Asinine.

No.
I am cheering on truth.
I do not support corruption in government.

A vote for Hillary does.

I am not a Trump supporter.

One good thing that Trump did was that he showed some Republicans what the Republican elites really are.... no different than the Democratic Party elites.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 09:19 AM
link   

edit on 20-10-2016 by coop039 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: JinMI

I know more than you simple.
And rambling. No
I don't think so. The truth seems to be a trigger to you.


6 consecutive posts. Yes..I'm the one triggered!


Do go on to flaunt this intelligence of yours by addressing something (anything) to do with the thread.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 09:22 AM
link   
You all are just pissed because he lost three times in a row in the debates. He gets a quad come November eighth.
He's a loser. He's a loser. He's a loser and he's a loser again.

Hillary moved more Ohio undecideds last night. She's going to win by states not just votes but entire states.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: bknapple32



But now, since its trump support, you're ok cheering the Russians on for interfering in our election? Asinine.

No.
I am cheering on truth.
I do not support corruption in government.

A vote for Hillary does.

I am not a Trump supporter.

One good thing that Trump did was that he showed some Republicans what the Republican elites really are.... no different than the Democratic Party elites.


It comes from someone weve been in cold and proxy wars with for over 6 decades now. And you just....trust the info?

You dont for a second say to yourself... " Gee this is from the Russians; If this were against trump, would I blindly support it or wonder if maybe they doctored some of the emails" ???



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Ha ha. I can type faster than you too.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: bknapple32

originally posted by: nobunaga
the response to wikileaks will continue to be the russians did it to try and villify trump as a putin cronie.

truth is, theres no way they will ever find out who exactly did it. its too hard to trace that kind of thing now adays.

these were gmail accounts, not highly secured government issued email addresses.

i have sources telling me that this was hackers involved with searching for info on aliens. and if i was a ufo researcher, podesta would be one of the first people id like to hack. he has been one of the people actively pursuing the truth to the ET conspiracy.

www.infowars.com...[/ url]

[url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/16/john-podesta-emails-encourage-ufo-buffs-seeking-de/]/

therealstrategy.com...

www.morningnewsusa.com...

theres 1 person i would wanna hack if i wanted the real story on ufos and podesta is one of them.



Nooo.. the truth is you hate the fact that its Russia behind it ( according to 17 agencies that know more than you or I). Because then you have to be a patriot again. Instead of only caring about taking down Hillary. Its hard to argue this one isnt it? Cause if Russia IS doing it, youre in essence supporting them interfering with our election. the rub is, its helping your side, so its like "ahhhhhhh what do i do". I get it.

My advice? Dont compromise the entire conservative platform by trading in your patriotism for Donald Trump and Alex Jones.



What is the interference if the russians did it, anyway? The truth is interfering?

Aren't illegal voters interfering even worse?

Paid goons at an opposition rally is not interfering?

The in her pocket media?

Who trusts these guys with the truth after what the FBI and DOJ ad State dept has done for her. Even the WH and the obama's themselves.

So booo frickin hooo about some scary "russians"

The Valachi Papers ring a bell?













posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: bknapple32

I thought that for awhile. I also thought that if there was a question to the validity of the emails being leaked that the owners would be promptly pointing that out as it would completely discredit Wikileaks.

All of their integrity is on the line. 1 source of proof that something has been tampered with and they are done.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

It all had to do with the thread until you came along.
The thread is the Russians hacked the USA.
I say they have been advised in security briefings both of them. He knows it's the Russians. If he doesn't trust his security advisors how could he ever hope to function as president.

look I know I'm the only dem in the thread and you're inclined to bite. Try to pull yourself together.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Content aside for the moment they are hacking the U.S. government.
I'm so glad you support that.
Ketchup?
edit on 10202016 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

No Silly, I am not inclined to bite you.

Were you a part of those security briefings or privy to what they entailed?

I think your building an argument upon a hill of beach sand.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Consider that Trump had ADVANCED KNOWLEDGE of the leaks. The leaks are from Russia. And Trump had advanced knowledge. That tells me Trumps camp is working with wikileaks and thus the Russians..


Podesta has also alleged that Donald Trump ally Roger Stone — and therefore the GOP nominee’s campaign — must have had advance notice of the contents of the WikiLeaks dump. In August, Stone had tweeted, “Trust me, it will soon the Podesta's time in the barrel.” Also in August, in an appearance on Alex Jones’ Infowars, Stone said he had made contact with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange about its then-upcoming release on Clinton and that his computer had subsequently been hacked.
Source



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

With all the rhetoric and accusations that Russia is indeed this heavily involved, I am wondering why there hasn't been a briefing in the press room with slides pointing out to the American people how the Russians may have done it / proof that shows said emails were tampered with?

The implications go much further than whether we have a rich white dude or rich white woman in the oval office come next year.

Also, based on my own experience and that of some close family members, the idea that all of these intel agencies agreed on details and efficiently shared such information is pretty laughable.

Why do we have 17 intel offices anyways?



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: bknapple32

Yes, I read that and I also read the thread Theantedalluvian did on it. I was not convinced that that was advanced knowledge.

My feelings on it don't matter however. If it were impacting, there would be a massive stink in the public eye. I'm not inclined to shoot the messenger just yet.



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Content aside for the moment they are hacking the U.S. government.
I'm so glad you support that.
Ketchup?



Sounds like the govt has a problem don't it.

I'm not glad you support morons.

Secret sauce?

lol!!

Awwww, you edited 1/4 pounder out. Not fair!

edit on 10 20 2016 by burgerbuddy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2016 @ 09:40 AM
link   


"We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election."


It's a misleading statement, I'm disappointed to see PolitiFacts give it an unqualified true rating. Wording the statement the way it was insinuates that all 17 agencies have examined the facts and conducted there own investigation independently, which is highly unlikely. Absent independent investigations by all 17 members of the U.S. intelligence agencies it would have been more accurate/honest to say that the DNI is confident based on investigation(s) conducted by whatever agency(s) . . . that is of course if accuracy and honesty were the goal.

Are the Russian's responsible for hacking and providing WikiLeaks with "the emails"? I don't know.

But the statement is an appeal to authority and it suggests more authority than is warranted. I don't see 17 legitimate authorities conducting independent investigations and coming independently to the same conclusion, which is implied in the statement, rather I only see one.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join