Does anyone doubt Russian interference now?

[middleview]

In break with Trump, top Intel, Homeland Security officials affirm Russia's election meddling

CIA Director Mike Pompeo, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly and White House Homeland and Counterterrorism adviser Thomas Bossert all said they backed the conclusion that Russia carried out a campaign of cyberattacks and fake news to influence the election in favor of Trump.

"There is a pretty clear and easy answer to that and that is yes,'' Bossert said Thursday, adding that there was no reason to doubt the findings.



http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/in-break-with-trump-top-intel-homeland-security-officials-affirm-russias-election-meddling/ar-AAowxSp?li=BBnbfcL

 

[Deleted member 21794]

Four spooks say so. That settles it!

 

[UPNYA2]

In break with Trump, top Intel, Homeland Security officials affirm Russia's election meddling

CIA Director Mike Pompeo, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly and White House Homeland and Counterterrorism adviser Thomas Bossert all said they backed the conclusion that Russia carried out a campaign of cyberattacks and fake news to influence the election in favor of Trump.

"There is a pretty clear and easy answer to that and that is yes,'' Bossert said Thursday, adding that there was no reason to doubt the findings.



http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/in-break-with-trump-top-intel-homeland-security-officials-affirm-russias-election-meddling/ar-AAowxSp?li=BBnbfcL

"..they backed the conclusion that Russia carried out a campaign of cyberattacks and fake news to influence the election in favor of Trump.

"There is a pretty clear and easy answer to that and that is yes,'' Bossert said Thursday, adding that there was no reason to doubt the findings."

If that is so wouldn't it ALSO meant there is no reason not to share those findings? Show everyone else why it is these guys all, "backed the conclusion" I mean.

Or, rather than observing evidence and reaching our own conclusions shall we all just believe anything anyone says the way you do here?

 

[Dawg]

So that's why all the Russians were seen at voting booths!

 

[Caroljo]

Ok...so, they got the dirt out in the open about Hillary! Damn them!! They proved what a dirty POS she is and people listened. Did the Russians tell Comey to announce the investigation on Hillary's emails was re-opened just before the election? No? People decided way before that who they wanted to elect, and nobody forced them to vote against her, they did it on their own. She lost the election by not being honest and making excuses for everything...people are smarter than that. She ran a very poor campaign because she was SO SURE she couldn't lose.

 

[Dawg]

Ok...so, they got the dirt out in the open about Hillary! Damn them!! They proved what a dirty POS she is and people listened. Did the Russians tell Comey to announce the investigation on Hillary's emails was re-opened just before the election? No? People decided way before that who they wanted to elect, and nobody forced them to vote against her, they did it on their own. She lost the election by not being honest and making excuses for everything...people are smarter than that. She ran a very poor campaign because she was SO SURE she couldn't lose.

Collusion is different when libs collude

http://rightalerts.com/how-bill-clinton-won-presidency-by-asking-russia-to-interfere-in-1996-election/

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/democrats-real-pervasive-collusion-with-russia-somehow-lost-in-medias-hysterical-anti-trump-campaign/

 

[middleview]

"..they backed the conclusion that Russia carried out a campaign of cyberattacks and fake news to influence the election in favor of Trump.

"There is a pretty clear and easy answer to that and that is yes,'' Bossert said Thursday, adding that there was no reason to doubt the findings."

If that is so wouldn't it ALSO meant there is no reason not to share those findings? Show everyone else why it is these guys all, "backed the conclusion" I mean.

Or, rather than observing evidence and reaching our own conclusions shall we all just believe anything anyone says the way you do here?

1. Up until now you guys are disputed what the intelligence agencies said because they were headed by Obama's appointees. Now they are Trump's people.

2. Clearly you believe what people like Alex Jones says...one of the least reliable media talking heads ever. I'm the one who is skeptical until I see proof. Anyone who takes what Trump says with less than a dump truck load of salt has nothing at all to criticize me for.

 

[UPNYA2]

In break with Trump, top Intel, Homeland Security officials affirm Russia's election meddling

CIA Director Mike Pompeo, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly and White House Homeland and Counterterrorism adviser Thomas Bossert all said they backed the conclusion that Russia carried out a campaign of cyberattacks and fake news to influence the election in favor of Trump.

"There is a pretty clear and easy answer to that and that is yes,'' Bossert said Thursday, adding that there was no reason to doubt the findings.



http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/in-break-with-trump-top-intel-homeland-security-officials-affirm-russias-election-meddling/ar-AAowxSp?li=BBnbfcL

Great!

Now, in related news, 3 bible experts all said they backed the conclusion that God in fact did create the heaven and earth in 7 days, just as many really, really believe.

"There is a pretty clear and easy answer to that and that is yes,'' one said Thursday, adding that there was no reason to doubt the findings.


So there we have it, huh?

Does anyone doubt God's work now? I mean, sh it fire, we have 3, count them now, THREE people who should be "in the know" telling us all that THEY back the conclusion, that there is "no reason to doubt the findings", you have no need to actually see what it is they used to reach their conclusion, just accept that they did and run repeat it so it becomes common "knowledge" and "fact" to the brain dead of our world, 'K?

Simple-sum-bitc hes..............

 

[middleview]

Ok...so, they got the dirt out in the open about Hillary! Damn them!! They proved what a dirty POS she is and people listened. Did the Russians tell Comey to announce the investigation on Hillary's emails was re-opened just before the election? No? People decided way before that who they wanted to elect, and nobody forced them to vote against her, they did it on their own. She lost the election by not being honest and making excuses for everything...people are smarter than that. She ran a very poor campaign because she was SO SURE she couldn't lose.

Translation: "I don't mind it the Russians interfere in our elections as long as the guy I like gets elected"

In case you missed it...the Russians also hacked a company that makes election machines as well as the voter databases of several states. Hacking someone else's computer is against the law.

 

[marvin martian]

In break with Trump, top Intel, Homeland Security officials affirm Russia's election meddling

CIA Director Mike Pompeo, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly and White House Homeland and Counterterrorism adviser Thomas Bossert all said they backed the conclusion that Russia carried out a campaign of cyberattacks and fake news to influence the election in favor of Trump.

"There is a pretty clear and easy answer to that and that is yes,'' Bossert said Thursday, adding that there was no reason to doubt the findings.



http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/in-break-with-trump-top-intel-homeland-security-officials-affirm-russias-election-meddling/ar-AAowxSp?li=BBnbfcL

Is your/the DNC's contention that it happened, or that Trump was involved? Which is it, because your fake news stories are getting confusing, and Russia has interfered with all of our elections for the last 60 years.

 

[UPNYA2]

1. Up until now you guys are disputed what the intelligence agencies said because they were headed by Obama's appointees. Now they are Trump's people.

2. Clearly you believe what people like Alex Jones says...one of the least reliable media talking heads ever. I'm the one who is skeptical until I see proof. Anyone who takes what Trump says with less than a dump truck load of salt has nothing at all to criticize me for.

Pure horse sh it, sport.

"I'm the one who is skeptical until I see proof. "

If NOT horse sh it please shar the "proof" that you saw that allowed you to NOT be skeptical of a story about 3 men's OPINIONS.

I'll wait.........

And in this case I am NOT taking Trump's word for anything, merely not taking the word of others with no evidence presented either.

You would be wise to do the same in this instance. Just trying to help.

 

[UPNYA2]

Translation: "I don't mind it the Russians interfere in our elections as long as the guy I like gets elected"

In case you missed it...the Russians also hacked a company that makes election machines as well as the voter databases of several states. Hacking someone else's computer is against the law.

"Hacking someone else's computer is against the law."

Indeed it is.

As is slander and libel but that has zero effect on all of the dems out there, (you all KNOW who you are), who have been openly labeling Trump a criminal despite ANY actual crime having been charged, never mind proven, so are we REALLY gonna try to use THAT weak sh it to try to defend the out right hatred of our President you insist on presenting daily?

 

[Dawg]

Translation: "I don't mind it the Russians interfere in our elections as long as the guy I like gets elected"

In case you missed it...the Russians also hacked a company that makes election machines as well as the voter databases of several states. Hacking someone else's computer is against the law.

it's why you converted to Lib


http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/democrats-real-pervasive-collusion-with-russia-somehow-lost-in-medias-hysterical-anti-trump-campaign/

We know, that's different

 

[Dawg]

Is your/the DNC's contention that it happened, or that Trump was involved? Which is it, because your fake news stories are getting confusing, and Russia has interfered with all of our elections for the last 60 years.

as USA also

http://rightalerts.com/how-bill-clinton-won-presidency-by-asking-russia-to-interfere-in-1996-election/

 

[worldlymrb]

Yep! State owned RTTV.com influenced the election in favor of Trump.

So, do we go to war with Russia like Hillary promised? Oh yea, and should we also invade the U.K. and it's state owned BBC for influencing the election in favor of Hillary?

 

[middleview]

Four spooks say so. That settles it!

And what credible source says they are wrong? Putin?

 

[middleview]

"Hacking someone else's computer is against the law."

Indeed it is.

As is slander and libel but that has zero effect on all of the dems out there, (you all KNOW who you are), who have been openly labeling Trump a criminal despite ANY actual crime having been charged, never mind proven, so are we REALLY gonna try to use THAT weak sh it to try to defend the out right hatred of our President you insist on presenting daily?

Are you now saying that criticizing the president constitutes slander or libel? If you can find a post I wrote saying Trump is a criminal, please provide the link. Can you defend the hatred you expressed towards Obama for 8 years?

 

[middleview]

Pure horse sh it, sport.

"I'm the one who is skeptical until I see proof. "

If NOT horse sh it please shar the "proof" that you saw that allowed you to NOT be skeptical of a story about 3 men's OPINIONS.

I'll wait.........

And in this case I am NOT taking Trump's word for anything, merely not taking the word of others with no evidence presented either.

You would be wise to do the same in this instance. Just trying to help.

You can reduce the findings of three or four intelligence agencies to opinion if you like...but now you have the "opinions" of the people who ran those agencies under Obama and now they are the guys appointed by Trump. Those men are actually telling you what the professional analysts are telling them.

 

[UPNYA2]

And what credible source says they are wrong? Putin?

No one here needs a source, credible or otherwise, sport model.

I believe that here in the USA it is still the burden of the accusers to prove something, in this case that would be you and your 3 sources who are presenting their OPINIONS.

All we NEED is the actual evidence they used to reach their conclusions so we can make our own.

Well, that or an apology for presenting opinions as "facts" I suppose........

But we have a better chance of billery being President than we have of ever seeing a dem/lib apologize for lying so the evidence, that would suffice.

 

[middleview]

Is your/the DNC's contention that it happened, or that Trump was involved? Which is it, because your fake news stories are getting confusing, and Russia has interfered with all of our elections for the last 60 years.

It is my contention that the current heads of the agencies mentioned in the article I linked are now saying that it is not debatable that the Russians hacked the DNC and other systems for the purpose of getting Trump elected.