POTUS Press Conference Tomorrow 12.16.16

a reply to: angeldoll

It was a hypothetical discussion.

Pay attention.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Indigo5

Yes and destroyed the Russia argument being used.

But but but....they suck at everything EXCEPT cyberwar....LOL! Then they have the US beat.

No...they suck at cyber war too...

But they sure as # fed the ignorant in this country.

Thank goodness the majority of American patriots are smarter than that.

Gday ..

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: angeldoll

It was a hypothetical discussion.

Pay attention.

It was a stupid and ridiculous post.

More so from yourself, who has served and does not fight hypothetical wars.

You are better than that pxn

a reply to: Indigo5

I have never known a man that has been soo good at telling people what they want to hear, Obama is a smooth operator thats for sure, Bush was the lovable Idiot, and now you have a conglomerate with an Ego that wants to make its mark on this world. From Bill to George to Barrack you had a succession of presidents who were so unalike one another, yet nothing really changed. Things Will change this time because now you have a man that doesn't follow orders, a businessman who realises that most of the world is out of bounds for his business because they are at war, to poor, disputes here there and everywhere, it makes sense that Donald Trump would want to unite everyone because the guy that does that will be revered for eons not to mention he will have first dibs on every new foreign market out there, Boom.....

a reply to: Davg80

In the words of Lewis Black -
"What's the difference between a Democrat and a Republican? A Democrat sucks and a Republican blows."

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Jump to conclusions.. Like claiming Russia is behind the hacks when there is no evidence to support it. Or like them claiming Trump is linked to the hack without any evidence..

You mean jumping to conclusion like that?

There is plenty of evidence linking the Russians to the hacks. Whether you want to look at it or not is another matter, but claiming there is none is a lie.

Well how about 2 months before the election, there were hella threads here from wikileaks claiming that if Trump did win, they'd blame it on Russian Hacks.

I mean -- that's exactly what they are doing and we knew they would do it long before we knew who would win -- if that doesn't reveal the truth to you, nothing will.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Come on be realistic.

During this awkward phase of the election process it would be in appropriate for the government to take firm action on issues internal or external. It's about leaving he playing field open for the opinions of the new president. Typically the POUS elect would let the bureaucrats know which way they were leaning.

TOO bad Trump is not fulfilling his responsibilities by attending those briefing.

a reply to: Indigo5

My give a f level for your opinion of me is very low.

a reply to: yuppa

nor does it deny anything conclusively. It affirms they believe along the same lines as the FBI does.

As another stated the FBI agrees but for different reasons,

a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense

Xcathedra been around here a while. I don't recall seeing you here before now. Just a note....

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: ThingsThatDontMakeSense


As for the second part I explained numerous times what the White House / CIA is claiming and explained the DNI / FBI dont agree with their conclusion because there is no evidence to support it.

HI XCathdral
I see you are having a busy day with the argumentative people.

So ...It appears to me (after reading reading many posts) that :
1. the FBI agrees there was hacking.
2. The FBI felt they could not beyond a reasonable doubt conclude that the russians intentions were to influence the election.
#. The NSA agree there was hacking

I am asking for you you to clarify my point of view. I might ask questions but I will not bicker about semantics, fair?

Just hilarious the rampant speculation in this thread that was so completely thrashed.

I guess that's why it's been so quiet since the presser.

a reply to: SmilingROB

There are 4 points with regards to hacking (sorry for the long response).

1 - Election
There was suggestions Russia somehow interfered in the election process by "hacking" the systems and changing votes. This has been shut down completely by Obama and AG Lynch who said there is no evidence election systems were hacked. Prior to the election several states reported voter rolls were hacked and I have not seen an update other than several states reporting the hacks have determined it was coming from the Department of Homeland Security. Government comment was to blame a "rogue" agent.

2 - DNC Emails
3 - Clinton emails
4 - Podestas emails

The accusation is russia hacked into these systems and then fed wikieaks the info Russia wanted out. They are stating Russia was trying to get revenge on Clinton because of her comments about the Russian Presidential election and how corrupt it was and stating, essentially, Putin stole the election.

The DNC emails revealed corruption within the DNC, resulting in resignations of several top DNC people, including the DNC chair Debbie wassermanschulz. The DNC is claiming Russia hacked into the DNC.

Clinton emails were hacked because she was stupid and used a private server that was not authorized and stored classified info on it (sent / received). Supposedly a hacker named Gucifer (Romania) hacked in to it. The FBI later said Gucifer lied about that claim. The fall back is to blame Russia.

Podesta emails were hacked via a phishing scam email encouraging him to change his account password. He did that, giving access to the person / group who sent the email to him. They are blaming Russia.


The DNC, according to Assange, was not hacked by anyone and there was no Russia involvement. Assange has stated that info was leaked to them by a person / persons inside the DNC. Apparently the person was unhappy that Sanders got screwed via primary election tampering, resulting in Clinton getting the nomination. They were also sick of the corruption they were seeing. A former British Ambassador has also confirmed Russia was not involved and the info was leaked from within the DNC. (My and a lot of other peoples speculation was the DNC employee who was murdered in DC was the leak. Wikileaks has also offered a reward in exchange for info / arrest of the culprits).

The claims about the RNC hack are apparently groundless. Assange did say they received info on Trump, however it was only a few pages and the info was already in the public domain.

As for who gained access to the other info... I am not entirely sure however I doubt it was Russia. I am more inclined to believe people within our own intelligence services are behind it. People seem to forget that over the summer FBI and intelligence agents warned that if Clinton was allowed to walk / be protected they would start leaking information.

Thats is exactly what we saw when Comey decided to add the element of intent into the law which doesnt require it.

I believe Democrats / Clinton would rather blame Russia than be forced to admit that Clinton / Democrats were so corrupt that people within our own government felt she was such a danger that they went to the extent they did to expose it.

Never mind the fact the leaks exposed corruption and illegal activity. The fact Democrats arent seeing that / understanding that is concerning.

The FBI also already concluded that there is nothing that shows Russia tipped the scales of the election in Trumps favor.

What we are seeing is Democrats in damage control mode with a healthy fear of what is going to happen when we get an AG who wont protect people through politics. The kicker, and imo, Clinton is not pissed she lost. She is pissed at whom she lost to. When you acted as arrogant as Clinton did, calling people deplorables or people who live in their parents basement its going to turn people off. When you cant accept responsibility for your own actions it will turn people off. When you get caught having 2 different positions based on who you are talking to will turn people off.

Just to put this out there. I cant stand assange and dont agree with the way he does things. and the same holds for Putin (and people on this site can confirm my feelings towards those 2). In this case I am more inclined to believe Assange and Putin over the CIA / Hillary / Obama / Democrats. They have lied one to many times for my taste and simply cannot be trusted.

Clinton didnt want to work for the votes. She felt she was owed the Presidency and in the end it was her / Democrats undoing.

a reply to: Xcathdra

That's a VERY USEFUL response Xcathdra. You pulled it all together, and brought us up-to-date. Thank-you !!