Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Annee

His charity is actually fake. And that is documented.

To use your own words.....

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: neutronflux

NO - - not news stories.

Actual facts of wrong doing.

Or better, your personal on the ground investigation of Trump and questioning of witnesses?

Trump's charity is FAKE. That is fact.

That is not speculation.

Instead of collecting money people owed him, he had them donate it to his charity. Money laundering - - - he didn't pay taxes on it.

He used money from his charity to donate to a political campaign. He had to pay a fine because its illegal.

He is guilty of self-dealing. Buying stuff from his charity for his own gain. That is fact.

His charity was not legally registered. That is fact.

Of course, he can buy his way out of all that - - - just like he did Trump University.

And what proof do you have?

a reply to: Annee

Oh wait. Seems the Clinton Foundation threw a little money and same favors around. They bought their way to good watchdog graces again.

dailycaller.com...


Title: Clinton Foundation Doles Out Favors, Charity Rater Gives It Four Stars In Return

A non-profit group that has received favors from the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), including a free membership that entitled its officials to rub elbows with world leaders, issued its top rating Thursday for the Clinton Foundation.

Charity Navigator awarded the Clinton Foundation four-stars based on an rating algorithm that scored the controversial non-profit with a 97.5 on financial issues and 93 on accountability and transparency. The new rating represented a boost for the foundation, as Charity Navigator had previously put it on its watch list due to concerns about its finances and transparency.

But the four-star rating had hardly been announced before the Associated Press reported that Charity Navigator was a member of the CGI from 2012 to 2014. The CGI is one of the Clinton Foundation’s best-known programs, as it regularly convenes glittering gatherings of celebrities, government officials and philanthropic stars.

So? Trump just not paying for good ratings like the Clinton Foundation?

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Annee

His charity is actually fake. And that is documented.

To use your own words.....

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: neutronflux

NO - - not news stories.

Actual facts of wrong doing.

Or better, your personal on the ground investigation of Trump and questioning of witnesses?

Trump's charity is FAKE. That is fact.

That is not speculation.

Instead of collecting money people owed him, he had them donate it to his charity. Money laundering - - - he didn't pay taxes on it.

He used money from his charity to donate to a political campaign. He had to pay a fine because its illegal.

He is guilty of self-dealing. Buying stuff from his charity for his own gain. That is fact.

His charity was not legally registered. That is fact.

Of course, he can buy his way out of all that - - - just like he did Trump University.

And what proof do you have?

New York Attorney General: Trump Charitable Foundation Violated The Law

The office of New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman issued a "Notice of Violation" to the Donald J. Trump Foundation and ordered the foundation to cease and desist from soliciting contributions in New York. The notice states that the Trump Foundation failed to register with the Charities Bureau before soliciting contributions or engaging in fundraising activities. www.npr.org...

Trump camp says $25,000 charity contribution to Florida AG was a mistake

The donation to Bondi’s group by Trump’s foundation, a charity that the billionaire businessman created in the 1980s, was controversial because it came as Bondi was reviewing whether to investigate fraud allegations against Trump University, a real-estate-seminar business affiliated with the front-runner. www.washingtonpost.com... 4-11e5-a61f-e9c95c06edca_story.html?utm_term=.8fe17e211fe5

There's more.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: 3daysgone
He (Putin) is by far better for America than any of the one's running would have been.

Please enlighten us on your expertise of Putin.

lol. You put Putin in parenthesis. I didn't. Trump is the last name I mentioned and the one who I was talking about.

You shouldn't add things to other's posts. It kind of makes it look like you are being deceptive. You know, like Hillary.

And now we know why Democrats / Liberals are pushing the Russia bs as hard as they are -

Russian Interference Could Give Courts Legal Authority to Install Clinton

In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court let stand the ruling of a federal district judge in Pennsylvania that invalidated a state senate election and ordered the vacancy be filled by the losing opponent. The Pennsylvania state senate held a special election in November 1993 to fill a seat that had been left vacant by the death of the previous democratic Senator, and pitted Republican Bruce Marks against Democrat William G. Stinson for the spot. Stinson was named the winner, but massive fraud was later uncovered that resulted in litigation. Two of the elected officials who testified in the Pennsylvania case said under oath that they were aware of the fraud, had intentionally failed to enforce laws, and ...

Click link for entire article...

So Russia is behind hacking the DNC, Clinton and Podesta... with no evidence to support it.
Now Russia is behind hacking the elections, even though states have found no evidence to support it. Even Obama stated there was no hacking.

Now a 180 occurs and we are seeing articles saying the court system could install Clinton as President.

The current administration and Democrats are playing with fire.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: sycomix
a reply to: theantediluvian

Who cares? Satan would be better than clinton!

Is this from your own personal investigation of Hillary?

Or from listening to anti-Hillary mouth pieces?

How about all of the criminal investigations into the Clintons, including Hillary, going all the way back to Arkansas. And before you try to pull the no criminal wrong doing mantra take time and actually research it. You will find she broke campaign finance laws and was found guilty and ordered to pay fines.

Absence of prosecution does not mean absence of a crime.

Satan would be a better choice than Clinton and no offense to Satan for comparing it to her.

a reply to: Annee

And your point is Trump doesn't have the political machine, the inside connections, and does not buy off people like the Clinton Foundation that only paid out about 9 million in 2013 from 140 million in donations.

That is what? 93 percent of the foundation costs go to administration of 2000 employees?

The Bondi thing was what. A four thousand dollar fine?

Wonder how much the Clinton's owed in back taxes after having to refile six years of taxes and willfully neglecting to report foreign donations.

The sad thing, can't say I trust Trump or am a huge fan.

Just saying I am not the one trying to justice my faith in a one of the most corrupt politicians.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Absent of a conviction in the USA means innocent period. Investigations do not mean those investigated are guilty. Hillary has been hounded by people since she wasn't the perfect image the GOP had for first ladies in Arkansas.

a reply to: Xcathdra

All this Russia crap is Hillary manufactured hoax in order to keep pushing her deranged fanatical dream of been a president, the woman is crazy, she is delusional and her dirty money along with her dirty minions are creating and pushing this fake news hoax.

Hillary supporters please, please tell the hag to stop her crazy madness for the white house, she lost and is not way in hell she is going to be the president she needs to be put in a mad house where the crazy woman belong.

The media is feeding her craziness to the masses that still think Hillary the crazy woman can still be president.

Read my lips she will never be president of this nation

a reply to: Xcathdra

And they were worried about Trump contesting the election?

The problem is, no fraud.

If Russia was behind the attcks? Remember, the people claiming hacking are the same people that blamed Benghazi on a video? Russia is only guilty as an over reaching investigative reporter, or whistleblower, exsposing corruption.

I rember when libs thought Wikileaks and people breaking the law like Snowden and Manning were awesome?

New thread dealing with the court conversation is here - www.abovetopsecret.com...

I dont want to derail this thread.

Sorry OP.

originally posted by: 3daysgone

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: 3daysgone
He (Putin) is by far better for America than any of the one's running would have been.

Please enlighten us on your expertise of Putin.

lol. You put Putin in parenthesis. I didn't. Trump is the last name I mentioned and the one who I was talking about.

Because you put him in the preceding sentence, which I didn't use.

a reply to: neutronflux

Well, this is pointless.

There are facts, cease and desist, and paid fines with Trump.

But, you just want to make it about Hillary.

a reply to: Annee

No, you made it about Hillary spinning a false narrative others were more corrupt than the Clinton's. Completely ignoring Bill's sexual harassment settlement. Hillary conspiring and belittling Bill's other victims into silence. Hillary having the audacity to make a public service commercial all victims have the right to be heard.

Ignoring Hillary is documented as illegally handling and allowing access to persons with no clearance to state secrets.

The overwhelming personal accounts of Clinton's play to pay.

And we have not even gotten into the mainstream media allowing the Clinton campaign editing access to their Clinton news stories to conspire to create propaganda to influence the outcome of the election?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Annee

No, you made it about Hillary spinging a false narrative others were more corrupt the the Clinton's.

NO, I didn't.

I responded to your list of accusations against Hillary - - and asked for proof.

So far, all you have is speculation.

Trump on the other hand - - - has factually been admonished. Had to pay fines. Cease and desist, etc.

Even though those facts are there in regards to Trump - - you refuse to accept them - - and keep reverting back to Hillary/

a reply to: Pyle

Re-read what I said. Absence of a prosecution does not mean absence of a crime. Believe it or not their is a huge difference in what I said and what you think I said.

By the way she was found guilty of campaign finance violations and was fined.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: 3daysgone

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: 3daysgone
He (Putin) is by far better for America than any of the one's running would have been.

Please enlighten us on your expertise of Putin.

lol. You put Putin in parenthesis. I didn't. Trump is the last name I mentioned and the one who I was talking about.

Because you put him in the preceding sentence, which I didn't use.

And you thought that me mentioning, someone, very famous, meant that I was an student of his habits?

Ok I will bite. I heard he was a bad man. You know. The kind that kills people who disagree with him. But then again, I have never met the man. Have you?

This isn't about how bad Hillary is. That's totally off-topic and a red herring.

This is about the CIA's assesment that the Russians intentionally hacked the USA, and sent Wikileaks docs through a third party.

Timeline of events:

1. Internet security firm Crowdstrke, who was doing the DNC's security witnessed the attack and traced it back to two Russian GRU (their version of our CIA) outfits.

2. GRU's "Fancybear" and "Cozybear" units hand off hacked documents to known intelligence assets not directly connected to GRU/FSB/Russia

3. These known Russian intelligence assets hand hacked documents over to Wikileaks to provide plausible deniability for all involved. By using a third party (similar to an internet proxy) they hoped to hide any direct Russian connection.

Now, if you throw in the fact that NYC's FBI field office has been compromised by Giuliani and his RNC/Trump buddies, and pushed Comey to pull that pre-election stunt...

It's no wonder that we didn't hear anything from the FBI prior to the election. Parts of the FBI were playing pro-RNC, pro-Trump (and unwittingly pro-Russian) politics.

It seems that now that the election is over, the CIA isn't playing games anymore.

originally posted by: Kettu
This isn't about how bad Hillary is. That's totally off-topic and a red herring.

This is about the CIA's assesment that the Russians intentionally hacked the USA, and sent Wikileaks docs through a third party.

Timeline of events:

1. Internet security firm Crowdstrke, who was doing the DNC's security witnessed the attack and traced it back to two Russian GRU (their version of our CIA) outfits.

2. GRU's "Fancybear" and "Cozybear" units hand off hacked documents to known intelligence assets not directly connected to GRU/FSB/Russia

3. These known Russian intelligence assets hand hacked documents over to Wikileaks to provide plausible deniability for all involved. By using a third party (similar to an internet proxy) they hoped to hide any direct Russian connection.

Now, if you throw in the fact that NYC's FBI field office has been compromised by Giuliani and his RNC/Trump buddies, and pushed Comey to pull that pre-election stunt...

It's no wonder that we didn't hear anything from the FBI prior to the election. Parts of the FBI were playing pro-RNC, pro-Trump (and unwittingly pro-Russian) politics.

It seems that now that the election is over, the CIA isn't playing games anymore.

Just like Trump said, These is the same Organization that said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. War started. Even if it is true. Should not it make Hillary unsecured server that much more of a crime? What else did they get. Wikileaks published some very nefarious acts. And if you don't like the thought of one country interfering with a government, what is your thoughts of what Obama and Hilary did in Lybia?

originally posted by: 3daysgone

originally posted by: Kettu
This isn't about how bad Hillary is. That's totally off-topic and a red herring.

This is about the CIA's assesment that the Russians intentionally hacked the USA, and sent Wikileaks docs through a third party.

Timeline of events:

1. Internet security firm Crowdstrke, who was doing the DNC's security witnessed the attack and traced it back to two Russian GRU (their version of our CIA) outfits.

2. GRU's "Fancybear" and "Cozybear" units hand off hacked documents to known intelligence assets not directly connected to GRU/FSB/Russia

3. These known Russian intelligence assets hand hacked documents over to Wikileaks to provide plausible deniability for all involved. By using a third party (similar to an internet proxy) they hoped to hide any direct Russian connection.

Now, if you throw in the fact that NYC's FBI field office has been compromised by Giuliani and his RNC/Trump buddies, and pushed Comey to pull that pre-election stunt...

It's no wonder that we didn't hear anything from the FBI prior to the election. Parts of the FBI were playing pro-RNC, pro-Trump (and unwittingly pro-Russian) politics.

It seems that now that the election is over, the CIA isn't playing games anymore.

Just like Trump said, These is the same Organization that said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. War started. Even if it is true. Should not it make Hillary unsecured server that much more of a crime? What else did they get. Wikileaks published some very nefarious acts. And if you don't like the thought of one country interfering with a government, what is your thoughts of what Obama and Hilary did in Lybia?

a reply to: 3daysgone

No it isn't.

That is a lie. The intelligence agencies said there were no WMD, but Cheny's own internal White House memo's said he didn't care, and wanted Secretary Rice to push the lie about WMD to congress anyway.

While Cheney and the gang issued repeated fear-mongering about “mushroom clouds,” the report stated: “We do not know the status of enrichment capabilities. We do not know with confidence the location of any nuclear-weapon-related facilities.”

Days before Bush claimed that Iraq was developing ballistic missiles that could hit Israel with WMD, the report had found: “We doubt all processes are in place to produce longer range missiles.”

The secret report was kept from the view of key players in the propaganda campaign, including Colin Powell who was made to look the fool. Just before the invasion, Powell said before the U.N. General Assembly: “My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.”

Link

Trump is tweeting lies, and so are his people.

Our US intelligence agencies knew Iraq did not have WMD.

Cheney and Bush didn't care, and let Powell and Rice lie to everyone.