I'm getting mixed signals from the Democrats on why they lost the election

www.google.com... 12/16/12f36250-c3be-11e6-8422-eac61c0ef74d_story.html?client=safari

So you're telling me that the CIA and FBI director are on the same page now? But last week Hillary blamed the letter James Comey sent to Congress as to why she didn't win in a effort to help Trump. Make up your dam minds. Was Comey Responsible or was it Russia? And when will we get real evidence to? And I'm not talking about unnamed sources.....

I don't think they even know anything for sure.

originally posted by: xuenchen
I don't think they even know anything for sure.

I was watching Fox News and the person giving the interview asked if we could see the evidence and he said no without hesitation Laughing out Loud

a reply to: Stevemagegod

It's not a "one thing or another."

As with any investigation, new material can change the results. If you have a weird noise in your car and you take it to a mechanic and he says "probably wheel bearings" before test driving it - and then hooks it up to the analyzer and gives you a different answer, it's not wrong.

If you have a fever and someone says "flu"... and then you break out in a rash and the diagnosis is changed to "measles" and then someone takes you to the doctor and the lab results say "Zika" that's not wrong.

So yes, as evidence comes in, the picture changes.

In religion, the answer doesn't change no matter what the results. In economics, politics, real life, people change the answers when new data shows up.

originally posted by: Stevemagegod

originally posted by: xuenchen
I don't think they even know anything for sure.

I was watching Fox News and the person giving the interview asked if we could see the evidence and he said no without hesitation Laughing out Loud

I dunno. Would you understand packet info if you saw it? Router analysis? Traces? Would it do any good to show most folks?

a reply to: xuenchen

They are in a very bad way in that what they say for sure today contradicts what they said yesterday . It just seems to be a big hole they are digging and no one can convince them to give up the shovel .They are really demolishing anything on the left .

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Stevemagegod

originally posted by: xuenchen
I don't think they even know anything for sure.

I was watching Fox News and the person giving the interview asked if we could see the evidence and he said no without hesitation Laughing out Loud

I dunno. Would you understand packet info if you saw it? Router analysis? Traces? Would it do any good to show most folks?

In addition to Criminal Justice Law Enforcement I studied advanced White Hat hacking in college. So Yes I do understand it.

a reply to: Stevemagegod

Perhaps this will help you. . . .

originally posted by: Stevemagegod

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Stevemagegod

originally posted by: xuenchen
I don't think they even know anything for sure.

I was watching Fox News and the person giving the interview asked if we could see the evidence and he said no without hesitation Laughing out Loud

I dunno. Would you understand packet info if you saw it? Router analysis? Traces? Would it do any good to show most folks?

In addition to Criminal Justice Law Enforcement I studied advanced White Hat hacking in college. So Yes I do understand it.

Excellent!

Sadly, most folks wouldn't... and that is at least one reason they wouldn't show it. And since you were in CJ, you probably have a good handle on why they wouldn't release it.

originally posted by: Stevemagegod

originally posted by: xuenchen
I don't think they even know anything for sure.

I was watching Fox News and the person giving the interview asked if we could see the evidence and he said no without hesitation Laughing out Loud

Well there's your problem, you're watching the TV for its "news," content.

What do you expect from paid actors and actresses?

Truth? Objectivity? Rationality?

Lololol

If it puts zero blame on them or Hillary, pick and choose whatever excuse you want. If, however, it puts any blame of any sort on Hillary or the Dems you are wrong. UNLESS it takes the form of them failing to account for how "ignorant, racist and sexist" the American people are.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Stevemagegod

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Stevemagegod

originally posted by: xuenchen
I don't think they even know anything for sure.

I was watching Fox News and the person giving the interview asked if we could see the evidence and he said no without hesitation Laughing out Loud

I dunno. Would you understand packet info if you saw it? Router analysis? Traces? Would it do any good to show most folks?

In addition to Criminal Justice Law Enforcement I studied advanced White Hat hacking in college. So Yes I do understand it.

Excellent!

Sadly, most folks wouldn't... and that is at least one reason they wouldn't show it. And since you were in CJ, you probably have a good handle on why they wouldn't release it.

I have a good handle on why they wouldn't release it. But then again I am also dumbfounded as to why the FBI Director never brought charges to her BEFORE she got the nomination. When his whole speech and Congressional Hearings called her out on all her BS LIES. #Lockherup

well obviously from the above posts, you know everything, so why ask any of us anything if you already know the answer

originally posted by: jimmyx
well obviously from the above posts, you know everything, so why ask any of us anything if you already know the answer

Because Fake News and Domestic propaganda(Obamas new buzz word for Fox.)

originally posted by: Stevemagegod

Okay, since you took CJ, you of all people should know how forensic evidence works, why the evidence can be hard to find, why you might not talk about an ongoing development, how new evidence causes the answers to change, about the struggle with media and the public wanting instant answers, and the difficulty of investigating a series of related crimes committed by a group rather than an individual.

And as someone who took WHHacking, you should be able to tell folks about why the information can be found but why it can be difficult to prove (in an understandable way) and why the hunt for confirmation can be rather time-consuming.

With your expertise, I'm not sure why you even asked the initial question. Isn't that sort of "first semester" stuff that you get in CJ?

You should be the one educating us about criminal procedures and investigation procedure and evidence verification, etc.

This is getting to be tiresome.

The reason that Hillary lost is because she is a liar. If she had nothing to hide, the Wiki leaks email dumps would have been uneventful.

If the Russians actually hacked those emails, which I have no reason to believe that they did, I would like to thank them for doing it.

The plug was pulled on Hillary, by the Demonic forces that rule this world, to increase hate and discord in a celebratory offering to Satan. The Anti-Christ is here, but who? Is it the one most obvious or is he behind the scenes? Is it a he even?

originally posted by: Byrd
originally posted by: Stevemagegod

Okay, since you took CJ, you of all people should know how forensic evidence works, why the evidence can be hard to find, why you might not talk about an ongoing development, how new evidence causes the answers to change, about the struggle with media and the public wanting instant answers, and the difficulty of investigating a series of related crimes committed by a group rather than an individual.

And as someone who took WHHacking, you should be able to tell folks about why the information can be found but why it can be difficult to prove (in an understandable way) and why the hunt for confirmation can be rather time-consuming.

With your expertise, I'm not sure why you even asked the initial question. Isn't that sort of "first semester" stuff that you get in CJ?

You should be the one educating us about criminal procedures and investigation procedure and evidence verification, etc.

I get your point I really do. But Hillary took direct shots at the head of the FBI James Comey for influencing the election. When he was doing his job. Investigating her. Letting her off the hook even calling her Extremely Careless in handling Top Secret information. As someone who studied CJ and WHHacking why is she above the law the rest of us have to follow? She purposely used a non secure email server to purposely and with intent to circumnavigate the Freedom of Information Requests.

They lost because...

Clinton was a liability.
Same-old, same-old.
Arrogance.

No change offered.

originally posted by: Stevemagegod

originally posted by: xuenchen
I don't think they even know anything for sure.

I was watching Fox News and the person giving the interview asked if we could see the evidence and he said no without hesitation Laughing out Loud

Next time your county/city indicts someone you should ask to see the evidence and see how they respond to you.