Donald Trump Backs Assange over Russian Hacking claims...

If Assange said that he didn't get the DNC-Podesta documents from the RUSSIAN Government, why not believe him? What's all this blathering about?

The DNC-Podesta e-mails are what Obama/Dems/Retarded Media are referring to when they say "Russian Hacking".

After all, we've hacked Russia and Russia has hacked America for decades. It's going on today 1.4.2017, and will continue indefinitely. No news in this regard.

A foggy area could be created by having the Russian government turn the information over to someone who could hand it over to WL.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Great. The very agencies he's going to need to help protect and defend our nation as his oath will require him to do and he's casting doubt on their capabilities not only to the American people but the entire world.

Hey guys this was what they were talking about when they said he was unfit to be president.

What happens when they give him info on a possible attack?

"Oh don't pay any attention to them....they were wrong once...we can't trust them. "

Tweeted of course.


And the world sits back and laughs as Putin's puppet takes office.

Just fabulous.

It's all a sideshow until after the inauguration. After Trump is in office they will all be saying some other cover story and be on Trump's side.. You just wait and see,..What Obama is doing right now is the same as when he used the IRS to target his political enemies.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: SlapMonkey

They have compelling evidence.

Time for some reading, then, so that you can educate yourself on this "compelling evidence" that point to Russia:

Tech Dirt (discusses why believing such propaganda, as you do, without proof sets up a really, really bad precedent and trend for how/why the government can respond to countries without the burden of proof)
Ian's Research Blog (which is very, very thorough as to how there's no way with what has been discussed as being the 'evidence' that it can be pinpointed to Russia)

For 8 years Congress has been criticizing the Obama administration of placing the spirit "diplomacy" over the harsh sanctions that they've been asking for.

Now that Obama has done that, and imposed sanctions of Russia after the election so as not to influence it, you are complaining about diplomacy? LOL

What Congress has done for eight years (maybe you mean six, since the Democrats had control for two years before America voted them out...) is irrelevant to what I'm saying, and citing that as if it means something is a logical fallacy and not worth considering.

And when did I complain about the diplomacy? I just said that the diplomacy was a smart move. Try to keep up...my complaint is on action without proof. I don't care which political party is doing it, as much as you try to push me into an ideological corner when we debate things.

Well then, let me make that clear to you now. I have no problem whatsoever with what our current president is doing to protect our nation and his legacy. I do have a problem with the president elect pretending that we have 2 presidents at one time, trying to railroad the one in office with his naïve interference in national security.

Okie dokie. And you have a right to have a problem with that.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: SlapMonkey
What misinformation and lies are you talking about? Our government has no obligation to divulge classified information to the general public for their approval before taking action.

So you're okay if the U.S. goes to war over, say, claims from the "intelligence" sector of the U.S. government that there are weapons of mass destruction in a certain country, but that claim ends up being false? I mean, they have no obligation to divulge that information or present proof of the claim--the claim is enough, right?

Give me a damn break.

Do(es) the MK Ultra experiment(s) done by the CIA mean anything to you? But I guess that was okay because they had no obligation to the American people to release the information on said experiment(s), even though they used unwitting (or unwilling) U.S. and Canadian citizenry during the experiments. Right? That's okay, because it was classified?

GTFO.

Do your own research on the lies and manipulations by the FBI, CIA, and federal government in general. I'm not going to continue to spoon feed you the information that you can easily find through a few minutes of an internet search or a trip to the local library.

a reply to: roadgravel

There are myriad "foggy area[s]" that can be presented as what-if scenarios. Quite honestly, the Russians-hacking-us narrative is exactly that--a what-if scenario that is not proven. But, since it's the Obama administration's official narrative, we are just supposed to believe it.

It's asinine, and it sets up a terrible precedent as to the standard of proof necessary before retaliating against another country, even if done in a pathetic, non-destructive way (like expelling Russian diplomats).

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Time for some reading, then, so that you can educate yourself on this "compelling evidence" that point to Russia:

No, I don't have to go study. These agencies have hired people who have innate talent and passion for such things and are much more highly educated than I could ever hope to be in the subject. I'm sure they're more educated and familiar with Russian hackers than Trump or you or even Julian Assange.

They say that they have compelling evidence and the head of the CIA, along with 16 other agencies, say it's rock solid evidence. Who to believe/trust, the Russians or my own government? I'll take my own government. Assange has no idea where the information came from, only what the seller of the data told him.

So you're okay if the U.S. goes to war over, say, claims from the "intelligence" sector of the U.S. government that there are weapons of mass destruction in a certain country, but that claim ends up being false?

I was never okay with that. But that was 16 years ago, and it was the last Republican administration, their cabinet and their lies. There has been a new administration since then, with a new cabinet and a new agenda.

I prefer not to throw the baby out with the bath water. I believe in the integrity of our government and our intelligence agencies. Unlike Trump, I certainly trust them over Julian Assange and the Russian government.

Right? That's okay, because it was classified?

GTFO.

If you distrust and hate your country and it's government so much, maybe you should GTFO!

Oh, and here's a tip for you, Trump isn't going to beat or reform the Military Industrial Complex or prevent any of the black op projects from going on. AND....you're not ever going to be consulted on any of it!

a reply to: SlapMonkey

We'll never know the truth because is it being used in agendas for various reasons.

- It keeps WL in the spotlight
- A scapegoat for DNC problems
- An argument that other governments didn't meddle
- Anti Russian talk/red scare
- News vs fake news and repercussions / changes because of
- Hacking being moved to a high criminal status
- Hackers as an extension of government operations
- general distraction
- discredit officials and agencies
- yada, yada...

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: SlapMonkey

We'll never know the truth because is it being used in agendas for various reasons.

- It keeps WL in the spotlight
- A scapegoat for DNC problems
- An argument that other governments didn't meddle
- Anti Russian talk/red scare
- News vs fake news and repercussions / changes because of
- Hacking being moved to a high criminal status
- Hackers as an extension of government operations
- general distraction
- discredit officials and agencies
- yada, yada...

Well, there is one truth to know at this moment in time--our "intelligence" agencies really have no solid proof as to who left the signs of hacking, as the footprints are a hacking standard left by myriad different hackers, including countries like China and North Korea.

But at least you show an understanding some of the intricacies of the problem, here, and for that, kudos to you

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: SlapMonkey

No, I don't have to go study.

...

They say that they have compelling evidence and the head of the CIA, along with 16 other agencies, say it's rock solid evidence.

This is the problem in a nutshell.

'Why research more...my government tells me X, so it must be true.'

I was never okay with that. But that was 16 years ago, and it was the last Republican administration, their cabinet and their lies. There has been a new administration since then, with a new cabinet and a new agenda.

I prefer not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

And it seems that you fail to learn from history or see the larger picture about making claims with only claimed proof. I prefer to learn from history and remain skeptical of such claims, as I've seen what such dangerous manipulation and reactions can lead to. But, you know, that was a different party and administration--it would never happen during this current one or a future one...

To each their own, I guess.

If you distrust and hate your country and it's government so much, maybe you should GTFO!

Oh, so since I distrust the things being said and done by my government on this particular issue, suddenly I hate my country? Could you elevate your comments to a higher level of douchebaggery, please? I not sure that you've reached the pinnacle of ad hominem attacks based off of hyperbole just yet, but you're coming relatively close.

Oh, and here's a tip for you, Trump isn't going to beat or reform the Military Industrial Complex or prevent any of the black op projects from going on. AND....you're not ever going to be consulted on any of it!

1. That's not a tip.

2. I never argued that he would reform the MIC.

3. I don't expect to be consulted on it (but the topic at hand is not a black-ops mission being handled by the military--try to deflect, much?).

3a. Just because I'm not consulted on it doesn't mean that I shouldn't be concerned when claims from the government don't add up. Reality dictates quite the opposite, really.

originally posted by: carewemust
If Assange said that he didn't get the DNC-Podesta documents from the RUSSIAN Government, why not believe him? What's all this blathering about?

Because it doesn't create an easy scapegoat for the ideologically driven to use as a diversion to keep people forgetting that the information in the emails is factual things that have gone on in the DNC and other related organizations.

It's the classic magician distraction--look over here so that you forget what I'm doing with the other hand.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

And it seems that you fail to learn from history or see the larger picture about making claims with only claimed proof.

Proof and evidence are two different things. I don't require proof.

In this case, unlike the false claim of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, we have our government claiming that the DNC hacks were from Russian agents and the Russians saying "Not so." Who to believe? It's obvious to me that I need to trust my government over the Russians.

I also don't find it helpful that Trump continues to advocate that Americans trust Russia's word over US intelligence agencies. I find it disturbing evidence of Trump unfitness to be Commander in Chief of the USA.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: SlapMonkey


Proof and evidence are two different things. I don't require proof.

This is blatantly obvious, as I've handed you proof that we really have no proof that the Russians are behind the hack, and you both refused to look and it and outright disregarded it.

Having the background that I do (legal field, courtroom), proof is absolutely something to value. I have seen too many times that evidence pointed to something, yet ended up not being what actually happened. Proof matters. Evidence can be manipulated.

I think that I said this before, but I mean it this time (and I'll provide proof through action): I bid this discussion with you adieu.

a reply to: carewemust

Because our own intelligence, the men and women we depend on to keep the wolves from the door have said so.
These agencies of professional law enforcement and intelligence people who guard our nation have determined that it was the Russians. Probably a few hundred people at least. Or should we believe one lone hacker who makes his fame by exposing people's secrets and is running from the law because he's a sexual predator and hasn't seen the light of day in years because he will be arrested and deported if he does.

I have to question the motives of anyone who leans in his direction. Or who support his lies over the people of our own country. Really.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

No they won't. Unless he brings down the hammer on anyone who entertains a thought contrary to his own.
And he might do that.
Or try.
But no there is already an investigation going on and that will continue.
Or trump risks looking like a commie sympathizer.
Which he is of course.

a reply to: Sillyolme

When the top dog, Loretta Lynch, demonstrated that she had been compromised, every agency working under OBAMA could be corrupted and against Trump.. NSA, FBI, CIA... all of them.

Drain the current swamp.. replace with new trustworthy swamp creatures.. and then find out who leaked the DNC-Podesta e-mails to Wiki-leaks. It's a mystery that has a lot of us wondering.

a reply to: digital01anarchy

Seems he quoted history rather than computer science.and you are throwing in an education that doesn't mean anything to the conversation except to bolster your claim to be an expert at something.
However you don't know any more than this poster where Assange got his info and your degree doesn't get you anywhere in this argument. It's a rather lame attempt to win an argument.
Basically you are saying "I'm a computer expert therefore I know where Assange got his leaks from. "


???

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Cater to?

We're talking about U.S. Intelligence. The guys who's job it is to protect our country.
I don't understand this phrase cater to in this instance.
He should sit down with them and learn what they know at the very least.
He should not be tweeting that their skills are questionable. That undermines our country and is ...well a bastardley thing for a president to do and say about his own people and his own country.


Or should we remember his people are wealthy owners of corporations he's going to deregulate and billionaires like himself who he's going to lower taxes for so they to can pay as little as possible while the debt and payment of taxes sits on your shoulders and mine.
I know I'm not "His people".
As far as knee jerk reactions I'm pretty sure the actor in this case is trump and his shoot from the hip twittering.

Obama's response was after months and months of investigation and careful consideration. Hardly a knee jerk reaction.
If you believe that it was you just haven't really looked into all sides of this with a careful eye yourself.

a reply to: carewemust

Sorry but no. One mistake does not compromise every agency nor negate the abilities of the men and women dedicated to serving in that capacity.
They were sure smart enough to find bin Laden weren't they?
They have been vigilant enough to keep foreign enemies from attacking our shores again and have thwarted several attempts along the lines of 911.
Loretta does not run or control every intelligence agency within our government and this is a sophomoric argument to present as proof that they don't know their business.

a reply to: Sillyolme


I like russians, I like Syrian too and even the English an am Scottish, you see I like everybody until they convince me otherwise, you seem to be stuck in the cold war lol, its so funny. The governments of the world create fear, they all do it, its the way to rule. You support warmongers and that is nothing to shout about, the only way to get peace is to rock the establishment, and Trump could possibly do that, or maybe not. He's ruffled there feathers that's for sure, and that I like.

a reply to: digital01anarchy

utminers.utep.edu...


See number five.