Just a note, still no evidence let alone proof Russia hacked DNC

So they say. Where's the evidence? CrowdStrike is not reliable. Even if they are not politically motivated, their methodology is suspect. What does Russia get for hacking DNC in June 2016? For what purpose? To find what? Russia has never interfered in a single election, be it city level or province level or nation level. Why would Russia do something so unprecedented to DNC in the 2016 election? It makes no sense. Personally, I don't believe Russia did it. Russians are very upright morally. They never do something so low. Russia's preferred candidates were Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul and Jill Stein and Gary Johnson, not Donald Trump who is hostile to Russia. Russia never did anything to help its preferred candidates, so why would Russia hack DNC? It makes no sense.

a reply to: allsee4eye

""Like with an Axe ?"

originally posted by: whyamIhere
""Like with an Axe ?"

Yeah, with an axe.

I still haven't seen one piece of photographic evidence showing Pooty Poot going to town on a voting machine like a crazed Russian lumberjack.

Dern tootin... No one in the FBI saw any of the DNC servers oversaw by dizzy Debbie. They just took the reliable word of crowd strike...hired by DD, and given the left typical pass by......Comer himself, supported by Lynchie....just peachy stuff here...

a reply to: allsee4eye

Not like the United States has never interfered in any foreign elections either.

I know, right Trump is pretty mean to Russia, so why would they help him, makes no sense to me.

a reply to: Informer1958 agreed, a superpower will spread it's influence, but Russia really changed little if anything. In retrospect, they were anti Hillary, not pro Trump...

Several top Intelligence officials have testified that Russia interfered in the U.S. election. They have nothing to gain at this point by lying.. and doing it under oath, do they?

a reply to: carewemust

Where's their evidence? CrowdStrike? Gimme a break.

a reply to: carewemust you don't think they may have an agenda? So far almost all of these top officials have have contradicted themselves... Some several times....Comey and his buddy both are knee deep in this $hit bucket...

a reply to: carewemust

They have nothing to gain at this point by lying.. and doing it under oath, do they?

As if there is no such thing as a conspiracy.

a reply to: carewemust

Several top Intelligence officials have testified that Russia interfered in the U.S. election. They have nothing to gain at this point by lying.. and doing it under oath, do they?

You're joking right?

I should just put what I'm about to say in my signature, so I won't have to keep repeating myself.

One person (James Clapper), from one agency (office of DNI) spoke for all 17 agencies, and then contradicted himself several times there after.

This notion that 17 intelligence agencies corroborated the witch hunt is just blatantly false.

originally posted by: carewemust
Several top Intelligence officials have testified that Russia interfered in the U.S. election. They have nothing to gain at this point by lying.. and doing it under oath, do they?

Right, because it's just that simple. Sure.

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: carewemust
Several top Intelligence officials have testified that Russia interfered in the U.S. election. They have nothing to gain at this point by lying.. and doing it under oath, do they?

Right, because it's just that simple. Sure.

BUT, on the other hand, we have the former Director of Homeland Security now stating..

""Former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson plans to testify Wednesday 6.21.2017, that he knows of no evidence that the Russian government altered vote counts in the 2016 presidential election.

"To my current knowledge, the Russian government did not through any cyber intrusion alter ballots, ballot counts or reporting of election results," Johnson plans to say in his prepared statement before the House Intelligence Committee.""

Source: thehill.com...

SOOO... some of these top people must be lying. It's too bad that those who have proof can't just pull out a piece of paper and show us. It's probably complicated tech gobble-gook.


Here's a new development that lends further credence to the fact that Russians did NOT influence our Presidential election. Today, the U.S. House blocked a bill that was designed to hit Russia with additional sanctions, for their "meddling" in the U.S. election.

Story: thehill.com...

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: carewemust

They have nothing to gain at this point by lying.. and doing it under oath, do they?

As if there is no such thing as a conspiracy.

If that's the case, those who lied under oath ("I swear to tell the truth, so help me God"), should all be brought up on perjury charges, after Hillary is wearing a striped pantsuit.

a reply to: carewemust

I know, right!

That was a good one. The democrats in Washington are now at the point of embarrassing themselves.

All we can do is look, and shake our heads in utter disbelief.

a reply to: allsee4eye


Unless you are part of the investigation you have no idea what is really going on.....Comey said we were hacked. The FBI does not deny it. The only ones who deny it are die hards...."Russia used sophisticated methods"

a reply to: kurthall

I don't take a man's words for granted. I need to see evidence.

I don't think the Russians hacked the DNC, it was an inside job. The DNC won't let the FBI investigate because they are covering up their little scam to blame it on the Russians. Too bad Seth Rich is no longer available to speak on the matter.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom

This notion that 17 intelligence agencies corroborated the witch hunt is just blatantly false.

NYT Finally Retracts Russia-gate Canard

The New York Times has finally admitted that one of the favorite Russia-gate canards – that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concurred on the assessment of Russian hacking of Democratic emails – is false.

On Thursday, the Times appended a correction to a June 25 article that had repeated the false claim, which has been used by Democrats and the mainstream media for months to brush aside any doubts about the foundation of the Russia-gate scandal and portray President Trump as delusional for doubting what all 17 intelligence agencies supposedly knew to be true.

In the Times’ White House Memo of June 25, correspondent Maggie Haberman mocked Trump for “still refus(ing) to acknowledge a basic fact agreed upon by 17 American intelligence agencies that he now oversees: Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help get him elected.”

However, on Thursday, the Times – while leaving most of Haberman’s ridicule of Trump in place – noted in a correction that the relevant intelligence “assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.”