Top-Secret NSA Report Details Russian Hacking Effort Days Before 2016 Election

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

More dishonesty.

Can't comment on what the dishonest have to say, except that they are dishonest.

It directly answers your question, which you have now asked 4 times.
No need to answer it again so will just link you back.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

Still, at least we can turn attention to a leaker being arrested.

The leaker would not of been arrested if they did not leak a real document.

Unless the whole episode is a clever psy-ops.

Using a conspiracy as a political crutch is not clever.

Try harder, Fox.

Your not clever, you're insulting our intelligence.

And right on cue ...

Mom Shocked at Daughter's Arrest for Leaking Secrets

Who cares what mom has to say?

Do you?

I doubt it.

More deflections.

a reply to: introvert

Hello? Remember all the state by state full and partial vote recounts after the 2016 election that found no voter fraud by cyberattacks?

Green Party U.S. election recount bid comes to a close
www.mobile.reuters.com...

In a 31-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond in Philadelphia said it "borders on the irrational" to suspect hacking occurred in Pennsylvania. He noted that the deadline to certify the state's electoral votes is Tuesday, making it impossible to hold a recount in time.

See this for more news on 2016 voter fraud...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: xuenchen

Which is why that phrase "You can't make this # up" is so popular.
Irony happens Xue.

The Obama administration, CIA and the MSM makes plenty of s#it up...Quite often.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: xuenchen

First thing I always do when reading a new to me news site is to hit the homepage to get a feel for their other articles. And when I see the invite to "join their newsroom of journalists" I tend to see all I need to know about the site.

A good example would be a short story I wrote a few years ago that was the diary of a rebellion leader that ended up being the newly elected Obama. Not that great of writing on my part and only a half-baked idea of some fiction; but less scrupulous websites would have placed that in some political forum instead of short stories/fiction where it belonged.

Maybe I should think up a good half-baked Trump short story.

It doesn't matter what they said, what matters is that the DoJ actually arrested the woman.

Go ahead and make any half-baked thing you want...but until the DoJ arrests you for it, speaking for myself, I wont give a damn.

originally posted by: UKTruth
The document is trivial, providing nothing new and certainly no evidence linking Russia to anything.

No it's really not, and yes there is...your inability to interpret it should not limit anyone else's understanding of it.

Even CNN's anonymous sources are saying that this is no change to the January document..

Flip-flop much? Today you trust anonymous sources, yesterday you didn't, the day before who knows.....make up your mind.

so you must believe it's not new.

The report is dated May 5th.... I guess you don't think there's much of a difference between May and January....Cinco de Enero FTW

originally posted by: IAMTAT
The Obama administration, CIA and the MSM makes plenty of s#it up...Quite often.

Hmmm....is there still an Obama administration that no one knows about?

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

More dishonesty.

Can't comment on what the dishonest have to say, except that they are dishonest.

It directly answers your question, which you have now asked 4 times.
No need to answer it again so will just link you back.

Indeed. Because you are dishonest. You made a claim that was easily proven false and now you twist around like a drunk fat chick in a pair of high heals in order to save face, hoping we don't notice your stumble and fall.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: xuenchen

Which is why that phrase "You can't make this # up" is so popular.
Irony happens Xue.

The same "parts" that make this a perfect psy-ops.

a reply to: neutronflux

That post has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

More dishonesty.

Can't comment on what the dishonest have to say, except that they are dishonest.

It directly answers your question, which you have now asked 4 times.
No need to answer it again so will just link you back.

Indeed. Because you are dishonest. You made a claim that was easily proven false and now you twist around like a drunk fat chick in a pair of high heals in order to save face, hoping we don't notice your stumble and fall.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: RickyD

That's what I was thinking. One district in Brookyn had issues during the New York primaries and it was a big deal in the news. I didn't hear about any significant amounts of lost voter information which people would have definitely been loud about given the atmosphere of the election. So if they have evidence of an attempt it doesn't seem like they were as effective as they'd hoped.

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: UKTruth
The document is trivial, providing nothing new and certainly no evidence linking Russia to anything.

No it's really not, and yes there is...your inability to interpret it should not limit anyone else's understanding of it.

Even CNN's anonymous sources are saying that this is no change to the January document..

Flip-flop much? Today you trust anonymous sources, yesterday you didn't, the day before who knows.....make up your mind.

so you must believe it's not new.

The report is dated May 5th.... I guess you don't think there's much of a difference between May and January....Cinco de Enero FTW

By jove you are right! The date is new.
I can see you missed the irony of the CNN comment... oh well.

So perhaps you can update on the new evidence in the document that shows us Russia did it. I must have missed it

a reply to: Sillyolme

I would think it's pretty tough to report on the number of people it influenced. How does one collect that information exactly? By asking every American "Did you really mean to vote for them?"

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

More dishonesty.

Can't comment on what the dishonest have to say, except that they are dishonest.

It directly answers your question, which you have now asked 4 times.
No need to answer it again so will just link you back.

Indeed. Because you are dishonest. You made a claim that was easily proven false and now you twist around like a drunk fat chick in a pair of high heals in order to save face, hoping we don't notice your stumble and fall.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Dishonest and lazy.

Thanks for letting us know. At least we now know what we are dealing with, going forward.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

More dishonesty.

Can't comment on what the dishonest have to say, except that they are dishonest.

It directly answers your question, which you have now asked 4 times.
No need to answer it again so will just link you back.

Indeed. Because you are dishonest. You made a claim that was easily proven false and now you twist around like a drunk fat chick in a pair of high heals in order to save face, hoping we don't notice your stumble and fall.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Dishonest and lazy.

Thanks for letting us know. At least we now know what we are dealing with, going forward.

Is that what you think going forward from now, or since the last time you said going forward I was [insert angry insult], or the time before that you said going forward i was [insert angry insult]...? Can;t keep up with your going forward this, and going forward that.

a reply to: introvert

There was a major effort after the 2016 election to find voter fraud and evidence of cyberattacks by the Green Party funded via the DNC. The recounts and investigations resulted in no evidence of cyberattacks that changed the vote.

The NSA reports vs actual recounts by states that found no evidence of successful voter fraud?

I guess people have a short memory that the cyberattack angle was tried and failed.

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: carewemust


If I had to guess? It may be because you share the same holster that President Trump does when replying to almost anything.

Thank-you AlphaBetOne! Kind words are always appreciated.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: xuenchen

Which is why that phrase "You can't make this # up" is so popular.
Irony happens Xue.

The same "parts" that make this a perfect psy-ops.

Wow?

Hook line and sinker too!

Go fish 🐟

What are you arguing about?

a reply to: IAMTAT

Because this doesn't directly say that actual votes were effected. Only voter information which apparently wasn't very wide spread or we'd have heard the social uprising back in November.
Was there any stories of people who were kept from voting in any broad scale way? I remember a very few and funny enough they were blamed on the democrats meddling with registration records.
Obama was trying to counter trumps constant cry of the election being rigged and his claim on tv that he would not accept the results of the election...unless he won.
( gee the only time he was actually telling the truth in the whole campaign)
So you have to put these words in context with what was actually going on when Obama said them and why.
They were not uttered in a vacuum.