Donald Trump Backs Assange over Russian Hacking claims...

Just FYI...

The swamp extends well into the CIA and NSA and all other 'intelligence' agencies.

These days, the only purpose of these intelligence agencies is to support the existence of the swamp.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: SlapMonkey

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.

You're right. Silly ol' me, I haven't looked into anything except a one-sided view on this subject matter. I'm grateful to you for setting me on the right path. It never, ever occurred to me that there may be more than one angle from which to view this issue.

I'm so proud of our president who took action against Russia for things that still have yet to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they were done by Russia. There's zero reason to show concern there. I'll move on and just fall in line with the official story.

[/sarc]

If you like your 1980's USSR foreign policy you can keep your 1980's USSR foreign policy?

Not going to comment other than this....

rare.us...

When WikiLeaks became a thing in 2010, leaking classified U.S. documents, conservatives wanted Julian Assange dead. Literally. Mike Huckabee said he should be executed. Others wanted to execute leaker Bradley Manning. Sarah Palin said that Assange was an “anti-American operative with blood on his hands.” Sean Hannity accused Assange of “waging war against the U.S.”

Now, Sean Hannity loves Julian Assange. “I do hope you get free one day and wish you the best,” Hannity told Assange during an interview on Fox News last month.

Assange has become popular on the right. Why? Because he’s going after Hillary Clinton. It’s not about Assange or WikiLeaks anymore—the focus is Clinton and how much conservatives loathe her. When your team does it, that means it’s not illegal.

How times change, eh?

I wonder if what supposed ex-CIA Steve Pieczenik is saying is true about there having been some sort of coup in the Deep State and whether Trump was part of that coup.

a reply to: neformore



Yep! I'll just leave this:

Trump in 2010: WikiLeaks 'disgraceful,' there 'should be like death penalty or something'

originally posted by: Sillyolme
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.

Right.. More of your expert opinions and reassurances like Hillary simply won't lose and would be the next president...

I also think a lot of this "switcheroo" of conservatives way back when Assange first leaked big dox is a mixture of buffoons on both sides and half buffoons running America when they should be all locked away for national security. And some of them were simply dumbed down at the time by their peers to take that route and condemn Wikileaks and other leakers. Some of them may have come to their senses and some have switched only to fit in with the bandwagon.

We will have to wait and see if real liberty and freedom wins for the long haul. We know it surely would not have under a known felon criminal like Hillary.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

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.

You handed me proof that you haven't seen "proof". Nothing more. You outright disregard the intelligence agencies' report.

Having the background that I do (legal field, courtroom), proof is absolutely something to value.

Just stop! If you work in the legal system, then you know that there really is no "proof" offered, just evidence.

Clearly, you've chosen the Putin and Russian government's word over your own. I find that disturbing and un-American.

a reply to: Sillyolme

The agencies have become selectively politicized. They work, but their distribution to our leadership is bent to serve the political archipelago. I'll be more inclined to have faith when they clear an FOIA.

Hmm.. so someone speaking out against Clinton and against Russian hacking is on Trump's side.. and he backs them.. and this is news or surprising.. how?

Of course he backs him. Shouldn't... and shows how shallow Trump is, and easily manipulated. Putin is going to have a field day with Trump.

What you Trump Haters really need to ask yourselves is if he was heading the democrats and not the republicans, would you support him, now i know you will lie to yourselves and say "NO". but you would because you have already chosen your sides, do you not see how wrong that is, in reality you should look into what each side is promoting and decide who you are going with, but the majority of you have already picked your side and you are sticking with it, in most case you will always pick the same side that your family and friends, peers etc have chosen, do you people not see how wrong that is..... of course you dont because many of yous only look at things from the one angle, either through red or blue tinted glasses.

a reply to: neformore

While that is true, Does it change anything regarding the facts?

I realize that when/if Assange comes out with leaks that make the right look bad, he will be demonized by them/us, But if he did so with provable facts, what would you be saying? Still hating on Assange, or would he be a hero to the left again?

The sun don't shine on one dogs ass forever.

The idea that Assange has dirt on the president and both parties makes me feel sick. I feel nothing but pain and hope this is not real. I pray there are still patriots in our wounded democracy, somewhere.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: SlapMonkey

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.

You're right. Silly ol' me, I haven't looked into anything except a one-sided view on this subject matter. I'm grateful to you for setting me on the right path. ( glad to do it )It never, ever occurred to me that there may be more than one angle from which to view this issue.

I'm so proud of our president who took action against Russia for things that still have yet to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they were done by Russia. There's zero reason to show concern there. I'll move on and just fall in line with the official story.

[/sarc]

It's been proven . Acceptance of their findings is another matter all together.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
originally posted by: windword

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.

While I meant that, I must call out your ignorance:

If you work in the legal system, then you know that there really is no "proof" offered, just evidence.

Justia.com
HG.org
lectlaw.com
wikipedia.org

Not that I expect that you'll read them and then be willing to realize that evidence is a necessary step to establishing proof and that they're not synonymous with each other, but you know, whatevs.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to go to my pro-Putin, pro-Russia party where we trample on printouts of the logos of all of the U.S. intelligence agency logos and then spend the afternoon painting some Matryoshka dolls while sippin' on some Smirnov vodka and watching Dolf Lundgren's training scenes in Rocky IV. (we give the fact that he's Swedish a pass) We'll end the evening burning an effigy of Sean Connery for his role in "Hunt For Red October." Tom Cruise can suck it for flipping off a MIG-28 in "Top Gun," too.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
It's been proven . Acceptance of their findings is another matter all together.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

As to courts, proof is rarely, if ever established. Preponderance of evidence that leads to a certain conclusion is not necessarily "proof" of that conclusion's truth. Evidence can be planted, forged, manufactured or include undisclosed errors and half truths, missing facts. We can only make a determination on what we have been presented. In the court of public opinion, there's more leeway for speculation in the formula.

"Proof" is a concept, an opinion or viewpoint based on evidence, at best. You have not seen the evidence that the 17 intelligence agencies deem to be proof that Russia was behind the DNC hacks. For me, the preponderance of the evidence that is available to me, combined with my own common sense and life experiences, rests with my own government's word. Much like the way you give lean to a police officer's testimony in court over a bystander or friend of the victim.

Is anyone watching the congressional hearings today?
I am. It's been on for about an hour and a half.

Pretty much they're saying Mr trump needs to listen up.


They're providing:
Chain of russian actors operating within these Russian organizations
Apt 28 and 29 and the GRU.

Sorry trying to take notes while listening and it's getting ahead of me

a reply to: Sillyolme

Thanks for relating the highlights, SillyOlMe. I'll stay tuned to this thread for updates. No tv now.