djsunyc wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-taiwan-phone-call-was-weeks-in-the-planning-say-people-who-were-involved/2016/12/04/f8be4b0c-ba4e-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?postshare=3611480902304781&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.30a619b08509

Donald Trump’s protocol-breaking telephone call with Taiwan’s leader was an intentionally provocative move that establishes the incoming president as a break with the past, according to interviews with people involved in the planning.

The historic communication — the first between leaders of the United States and Taiwan since 1979 — was the product of months of quiet preparations and deliberations among Trump’s advisers about a new strategy for engagement with Taiwan that began even before he became the Republican presidential nominee, according to people involved in or briefed on the talks.

Wow, Jeff Bezos' newspaper and he gives no evidence. Amazon hurt by Trump policy and they use their arm "of the law" to try to influence things.
Welcome to how MSM operates. Very clear example. Washington Post has 20 people dedicated to Trumps life, it is a selfish Business decision.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump lashed out at Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos Thursday, claiming that the founder of Amazon.com was using the newspaper as a tool to influence corporate tax policy.

"Every hour we're getting calls from reporters from The Washington Post asking ridiculous questions," Trump told Fox News' Sean Hannity. "And I will tell you, this is owned as a toy by Jeff Bezos ... Amazon is getting away with murder, tax-wise. He's using The Washington Post for power so that the politicians in Washington don't tax Amazon like they should be taxed."

Watch the video below...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/13/trump-says-washington-post-owner-bezos-has-huge-antitrust-problem.html

holfresh wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/805538149157969924

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/805539770864693253

Trade war is on...Tech companies like Apple will feel the brunt of this...

Apple can afford to move factories and create jobs in America. Last year they had 203 Billion in cash, and you are worried about them??? http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/22/investing/apple-stock-cash-earnings/index.html

And what about all the Americans who lost jobs, or who are working two PT jobs to make ends meat, having Obama Care with a huge deductible, etc. What about them?

People first, America first, not companies.

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:CNN the Fake News Network caught in the act (again)

EMS, I'm going to ask you to stop posting stuff like this, it doesn't add anything to the conversation and is unsubstantiated at best. There is zero context here and can be reflective of a number of things.

If you want to argue a point of view, please do so.

Sure, the term "Fake News" is being used to mean, non MSM news. But CNN (and other "MSM" networks) have been caught putting out Fake news on a number of occasions.
That video simply showed one occasion and caught on tape.

This video doesn't show anything. Please explain to me what it shows. I see a clip of Hilary saying something. I hear a CNN announcer having said something offline. I hear a question and response.

Why is this Fake News?

I have no idea why you would characterize the term "Fake News" in the context of non MSM news. There has never been that sort of correlation. None.

Fake news is just that; **** that is made up or not real. Anyone can do it.

You just tried to do it by posting this video. A lot of your other posts have the same.

She whispers the answer to the person being asked the question and then that same person regurgitates it.
That was fake news. The news showed a person "answering a question" but gave the answer. That was a lie.

She definitely whispers something. I thought it was in regards to the coffee and donuts being served - "it's good" - cause that's what she had been previously talking about.

How did you come to your conclusion?

"Director switches to live poll too early and catches reporter whispering what to focus on to woman. She nods and starts her answer with that.
CNN should release the raw video for this focus group, to prove no coaching happened while off-air."

Better audio, give it a listen, short.

you just showed the same thing. Anchor says "American is great." This was right after she said "The coffee is great, the donuts are great. America is great."

What's your point?

BTW, the portion above where you put in quotes: "Director switches to live poll too early and catches reporter whispering what to focus on to woman. She nods and starts her answer with that.
CNN should release the raw video for this focus group, to prove no coaching happened while off-air."

That is what the poster of the video just put up a completely MADE UP editorialized comment. So it literally means nothing.

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

But you sound like the DNC. Instead of addressing the corruption, Quid Pro Quo, #Pizzagate allegations, etc., you are more concerned about who released the true information rather than the corruption and all that it states went on. My priorities are with a non corrupt government, not who hacked their server to show corruption, State actor or not.

LOL... Honestly...you're exposing yourself, bro...need some of that good "spirit cooking" to set you straight, I guess. I would be more insulting, but I don't want Martin banning me.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/RoigFranzia/status/805554695838306304

The restaurant’s owner and employees were threatened on social media in the days before the election after fake news stories circulated claiming that then-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and her campaign chief were running a child sex ring from the restaurant’s back rooms. Even Michael Flynn, a retired general who President-elect Trump has tapped to advise him on national security, shared the stories. None of them were true. But the fake stories and threats persisted, some even aimed at the employees’ children. The restaurant’s owner was forced to contact the FBI, local police, Facebook and other social media platforms in an effort to remove the articles.

James Alefantis, the owner of Comet Ping Pong, did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment Sunday.

Last month, citing its policy against posting the personal information of others, Reddit banned the “pizzagate” topic.

The connections and content are uncanny. But to do it justice, you have to read up on it. NOT just listen what MSM is saying.
Haven't you learned that by now? They can't be trusted. They are corporate bought and sold media. They have an agenda, that does not have our interests at heart.

Regarding Pizzagate - have you looked at the Podesta emails released by wikileaks? Look at the language Podesta uses in some of them, totally out of context, that involves (FBI) known pedophile language, disgusting "art", pictures of children taped down to a table - with money in mouth, etc. Just sick stuff. And the art work in that Pizza joint in question, too disgusting to mention here (and that pizza joint has kids evening beginning at 10pm at night with that sick art work in it. Needs to be looked into. Instead of focussing on some crazy guy with a gun at a pizza joint, look at the evidence and connections.

Dude, stop with this crap. Last time. I don't want this in our forums and this thread. At this point you are just making **** up

Martin, before you say something is crap, look into, research it. Posting an article is not research.
There is a HUGE ongoing global investigation going on now by people. It has struck a nerve in many people. There are forums all over researching this as a group, with thousands of people involved. I have not looked as deeply as others, because it is sickening. But I have looked deep enough to see too many connections, too much circumstantial evidence, etc.

It started with the Podesta emails and some people noticed the odd use of pedophilia words (code) in the emails. (They didn't know it at the time, but it stood out and they looked into it.)
That morphed into more connections involving prominent people, artists and the Pizzaria in question. The artwork alone is some of these peoples house, along with in the pizzaria has Pedophilia written all over it. But I'll let you search those images. They made me sick.

So, if you wish to censor this, state so now, unequivocally and I won't post about it. But when the case goes mainstream, before they are in jail, I will post and remind you of your call. And likewise if I'm wrong. There is definitely something here.

A teeny tidbit that is easy to look at. This is a police sketch of the kidnappers from Madeleine McCann (2007). See the resemblance?

Click on it for a close up.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/JaredWyand/status/795493263398539265/photo/1

Bonn1997 wrote:EMS - Have you ever read a negative story about Clinton and thought that it probably wasn't true? Could you give a few examples? Or do you think everything you read on the internet about her is true?

For sure, there are exaggerations all over. I've focused on the Wikileaks and connected it with MSM stuff (and some alt articles). The puzzle is quite clear then.
Off the top of my head, nothing comes to mind. Really, it is the Wikileaks that stand out. From the horses mouth and those connections, it is enough for a major investigation
of the Clinton Foundation.

LOL, no, I don't think everything about her is true. Look, we have different opinions, I'm usually going to the Wikileaks (now) as a source. You are going to MSM, right? I think with reasonable certainty I can say MSM is biased, often FAKE and have a conflict of interests going. So, source material (Wikileaks) is the best. And we have YEARS of data to work with. And it is being looked
into by thousands all over the world.

So, don't make this about me, stick to the data.

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

But you sound like the DNC. Instead of addressing the corruption, Quid Pro Quo, #Pizzagate allegations, etc., you are more concerned about who released the true information rather than the corruption and all that it states went on. My priorities are with a non corrupt government, not who hacked their server to show corruption, State actor or not.

LOL... Honestly...you're exposing yourself, bro...need some of that good "spirit cooking" to set you straight, I guess. I would be more insulting, but I don't want Martin banning me.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/RoigFranzia/status/805554695838306304

The restaurant’s owner and employees were threatened on social media in the days before the election after fake news stories circulated claiming that then-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and her campaign chief were running a child sex ring from the restaurant’s back rooms. Even Michael Flynn, a retired general who President-elect Trump has tapped to advise him on national security, shared the stories. None of them were true. But the fake stories and threats persisted, some even aimed at the employees’ children. The restaurant’s owner was forced to contact the FBI, local police, Facebook and other social media platforms in an effort to remove the articles.

James Alefantis, the owner of Comet Ping Pong, did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment Sunday.

Last month, citing its policy against posting the personal information of others, Reddit banned the “pizzagate” topic.

The connections and content are uncanny. But to do it justice, you have to read up on it. NOT just listen what MSM is saying.
Haven't you learned that by now? They can't be trusted. They are corporate bought and sold media. They have an agenda, that does not have our interests at heart.

Regarding Pizzagate - have you looked at the Podesta emails released by wikileaks? Look at the language Podesta uses in some of them, totally out of context, that involves (FBI) known pedophile language, disgusting "art", pictures of children taped down to a table - with money in mouth, etc. Just sick stuff. And the art work in that Pizza joint in question, too disgusting to mention here (and that pizza joint has kids evening beginning at 10pm at night with that sick art work in it. Needs to be looked into. Instead of focussing on some crazy guy with a gun at a pizza joint, look at the evidence and connections.

Dude, stop with this crap. Last time. I don't want this in our forums and this thread. At this point you are just making **** up

Martin, before you say something is crap, look into, research it. Posting an article is not research.
There is a HUGE ongoing global investigation going on now by people. It has struck a nerve in many people. There are forums all over researching this as a group, with thousands of people involved. I have not looked as deeply as others, because it is sickening. But I have looked deep enough to see too many connections, too much circumstantial evidence, etc.

It started with the Podesta emails and some people noticed the odd use of pedophilia words (code) in the emails. (They didn't know it at the time, but it stood out and they looked into it.)
That morphed into more connections involving prominent people, artists and the Pizzaria in question. The artwork alone is some of these peoples house, along with in the pizzaria has Pedophilia written all over it. But I'll let you search those images. They made me sick.

So, if you wish to censor this, state so now, unequivocally and I won't post about it. But when the case goes mainstream, before they are in jail, I will post and remind you of your call. And likewise if I'm wrong. There is definitely something here.

A teeny tidbit that is easy to look at. This is a police sketch of the kidnappers from Madeleine McCann (2007). See the resemblance?

Click on it for a close up.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/JaredWyand/status/795493263398539265/photo/1

just stop your crap. For real. Linking someone to pedophilia is a very serious charge. And it needs to be substantial when done.

What you are posting, and continue to post is nothing. So stop.

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Walt, here is some Fake News straight from the horses mouth and verified. CNN of course, regarding Cincinatti protest. Original articles below. CNN lied, pretty cold to be dressed like that and someone caught it and found the original pic.

December 2nd
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/02/politics/donald-trump-rally-protest/
From November - Same picture.
http://www.vox.com/first-person/2016/11/14/13626404/trump-election-protest

http://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/propaganda/ron-paul-fake-news-comes-government/

The mainstream media and politicians peddling the line that there is a network of “fake news” sites spreading Russian disinformation and propaganda is just scapegoating to divert attention from the far worse job they have done objectively reporting the truth, Ron Paul told RT yesterday. He added:
"The fake news comes from our own government, when they tell us about why we have to go to war. …And that was probably the big issue of the campaign, and that’s why Trump did so well. [Americans have] lost confidence in the government."

Simple question...will tell us everything about where you are coming from...

Do you accept that during the election, WikiLeaks(Assange) was passing along stolen data that was hacked by Russians, designed to influence the election, and distributed to Assange with the go-ahead from former KGB operative Putin?

Personally, I don't think Russia was behind it. The US Government agrees. Actually, there is reason to believe that a US Intelligence Agency released the information as they saw the deep corruption and had to put an end to it. No proof of that theory, just like the Russian theory.

Clinton had her server hacked, probably by lots of people, not to mention State agencies, regardless of who did it, she got what she asked for. The law she broke was not only there so we can access that data via the FOIA, but also to protect her. Ironic.

But you sound like the DNC. Instead of addressing the corruption, Quid Pro Quo, #Pizzagate allegations, etc., you are more concerned about who released the true information rather than the corruption and all that it states went on. My priorities are with a non corrupt government, not who hacked their server to show corruption, State actor or not.

Tells me everything I need to know about you, and how you regard the "truth."

Your "priorities" are not having to deal with the fact that Assange was being used, or is complicity with Russia, because there has been a cult built up around him, to the point where your world view will suffer if he is found to be a tool of a government worse than any you complain about.

Take a good look at everything the next president did, over many years. You think he isn't corrupt. Are you that foolish...honestly?

With all the mistakes Clinton might have made, a Congress out to destroy her, could not do it, and an FBI complicit in getting Trump elected did not have enough to do anything.

Meanwhile Putin's boy used his foundation for self dealing, sexually abused women (I expect you believe them to be lying), had to pay millions for running a fraudulent scam university, had his buddy from the National Enquirer pay off a woman so her story about an affair with him could not come out, and ran a charity that gave hardly any money to people in need unless the recipient could help him in some ways.

Your "concern" with the truth is clearly limited, it would seem, as Trump was documented as the biggest liar amongst all the people who ran for President this year.

The fact that you are unable to admit that Assange was used is good enough for me to discount anything you would say on these topics- I was actually wondering what I would have to say if you came out and said that the Russians WERE the ones who did the hacking, but thankfully you proved a hypothesis I had about folks like you, the ones who see Assange as some kind of Robin Hood figure. You have a preconceived notion about him that prevents you from actually examining him as a person or as a conduit.

I will probably use some of this on Twitter at some point...you are about the 3rd Assangist who could not admit that he got his stuff from Russia. Posting a WikiLeaks denial is hilarious, by the way... not unlike Trump saying he did not molest those women who he sexually abused.

And where do you come off saying that the U.S. Gov does not see the Russians involved...reading more of that fake news? As I said, you are so busy swallowing what Asssange is giving you, that you have no sense of objectivity. But then, we are living in "post-truth" America, where you can throw out an opinion as some kind of confirmation that something is true.

Get real.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN10E09H?client=ms-android-att-us

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/russian-hackers-launch-targeted-cyberattacks-hours-after-trumps-win

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/how-hackers-broke-into-john-podesta-and-colin-powells-gmail-accounts

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a49791/russian-dnc-emails-hacked/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/dnc-hacker-guccifer-20-interview

I'm not going to get personal. You can judge me for my views but I won't judge you as I understand the country is divided and we all have our views. We shouldn't be hostile to others with differing views. I'll just let the evidence speak for itself, no reason for ad hominem. (from my perspective)

And before responding I'll say, that who did this is not so important to me. What is important are these actual emails showing corruption, Quid Pro Quo, possible pedophilia, etc. in our government. [b]Hillary broke the law by having a private server[/b], she paid for it, as are a host of other people. And before all is said and done, many will be in prison.

That said:

Re Reuters - "U.S officials suspected it was the target of a Russian government-backed cyber attack when agents first contacted the party last fall, three people with knowledge of the discussions told Reuters." Anonymous people saying US officials suspects it was Russian government backed is not proof.

Re Motherboard said "a group of hackers that is widely believed to be Russian" is no proof.

Re 2nd Motherboard article - It is possible, perhaps likely, a phishing attempt. You just can't connect it to Russia, just a server. And the destination server is distorted in a long list of compromised servers. It is too easy to cover this stuff up (coming from an ex IT expert). I need to see more, really. But an interesting article.

Re Esquire - It reads like a hit piece and spy novel. It has some interesting points, but again, this stuff can all be faked quite easily. No smoking gun. Was an interesting read though.

Re USA Today article - ZERO evidence given.

Re last Motherboard article - Hacker Guccifer says he wasn't working for Russia. And he is anonymous. Guccifer could be anyone, a group, etc. No way of certifying that.

Not at all impressed with those articles, though the 2nd motherboard and Esquire article were extremely interesting. If this were a court case, Russia would be found innocent.

My suggestion for you is to watch some documentaries, namely Cyberwar. They have been through similar stories, and hacking experts across the world agree that it is extremely easy to make a hack appear from anywhere, by anyone, etc. https://www.viceland.com/en_us/show/cyberwar S01E02 is a good place to start.
It is hard to get good evidence and easy to create it. Think about that, ironic, but true. High level hackers don't leave many clues unless they want to.

BTW - My theory is that the NSA hacked the emails to stop WWIII. But if Russia did do the hacks, we should take Obama's Nobel Peace Prize and give it to them as they would have actually earned it.

Peace Out,
EMS

For maybe the 4th time..No she didn't..

Rudy Giuliani: Hillary Broke The Law; "Gross Negligence Equals Extreme Carelessness"

Giuliani makes that case that when it comes to laws surrounding handling classified data, intent is irrelevant. "The definition of gross negligence under the law is extreme carelessness," he said. The FBI "clearly found a direct violation of 18 United States code section 793 which does not require intent -- it requires only gross negligence in the handling of anything relating to the national defense."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/05/rudy_giuliani_hillary_broke_the_law_gross_negligence_equals_extreme_carelessness.html#!

If she doesn't get charged for the server, she will for something else. Luckily, she didn't listen and had her own server (avoiding our right to access that data through FOIA, well, not now.)
I will take a prosecutors word over yours. But it doesn't matter, let's just see where she is in a year, ok?

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Walt, here is some Fake News straight from the horses mouth and verified. CNN of course, regarding Cincinatti protest. Original articles below. CNN lied, pretty cold to be dressed like that and someone caught it and found the original pic.

December 2nd
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/02/politics/donald-trump-rally-protest/
From November - Same picture.
http://www.vox.com/first-person/2016/11/14/13626404/trump-election-protest

http://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/propaganda/ron-paul-fake-news-comes-government/

The mainstream media and politicians peddling the line that there is a network of “fake news” sites spreading Russian disinformation and propaganda is just scapegoating to divert attention from the far worse job they have done objectively reporting the truth, Ron Paul told RT yesterday. He added:
"The fake news comes from our own government, when they tell us about why we have to go to war. …And that was probably the big issue of the campaign, and that’s why Trump did so well. [Americans have] lost confidence in the government."

Simple question...will tell us everything about where you are coming from...

Do you accept that during the election, WikiLeaks(Assange) was passing along stolen data that was hacked by Russians, designed to influence the election, and distributed to Assange with the go-ahead from former KGB operative Putin?

Personally, I don't think Russia was behind it. The US Government agrees. Actually, there is reason to believe that a US Intelligence Agency released the information as they saw the deep corruption and had to put an end to it. No proof of that theory, just like the Russian theory.

Clinton had her server hacked, probably by lots of people, not to mention State agencies, regardless of who did it, she got what she asked for. The law she broke was not only there so we can access that data via the FOIA, but also to protect her. Ironic.

But you sound like the DNC. Instead of addressing the corruption, Quid Pro Quo, #Pizzagate allegations, etc., you are more concerned about who released the true information rather than the corruption and all that it states went on. My priorities are with a non corrupt government, not who hacked their server to show corruption, State actor or not.

Tells me everything I need to know about you, and how you regard the "truth."

Your "priorities" are not having to deal with the fact that Assange was being used, or is complicity with Russia, because there has been a cult built up around him, to the point where your world view will suffer if he is found to be a tool of a government worse than any you complain about.

Take a good look at everything the next president did, over many years. You think he isn't corrupt. Are you that foolish...honestly?

With all the mistakes Clinton might have made, a Congress out to destroy her, could not do it, and an FBI complicit in getting Trump elected did not have enough to do anything.

Meanwhile Putin's boy used his foundation for self dealing, sexually abused women (I expect you believe them to be lying), had to pay millions for running a fraudulent scam university, had his buddy from the National Enquirer pay off a woman so her story about an affair with him could not come out, and ran a charity that gave hardly any money to people in need unless the recipient could help him in some ways.

Your "concern" with the truth is clearly limited, it would seem, as Trump was documented as the biggest liar amongst all the people who ran for President this year.

The fact that you are unable to admit that Assange was used is good enough for me to discount anything you would say on these topics- I was actually wondering what I would have to say if you came out and said that the Russians WERE the ones who did the hacking, but thankfully you proved a hypothesis I had about folks like you, the ones who see Assange as some kind of Robin Hood figure. You have a preconceived notion about him that prevents you from actually examining him as a person or as a conduit.

I will probably use some of this on Twitter at some point...you are about the 3rd Assangist who could not admit that he got his stuff from Russia. Posting a WikiLeaks denial is hilarious, by the way... not unlike Trump saying he did not molest those women who he sexually abused.

And where do you come off saying that the U.S. Gov does not see the Russians involved...reading more of that fake news? As I said, you are so busy swallowing what Asssange is giving you, that you have no sense of objectivity. But then, we are living in "post-truth" America, where you can throw out an opinion as some kind of confirmation that something is true.

Get real.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN10E09H?client=ms-android-att-us

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/russian-hackers-launch-targeted-cyberattacks-hours-after-trumps-win

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/how-hackers-broke-into-john-podesta-and-colin-powells-gmail-accounts

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a49791/russian-dnc-emails-hacked/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/dnc-hacker-guccifer-20-interview

I'm not going to get personal. You can judge me for my views but I won't judge you as I understand the country is divided and we all have our views. We shouldn't be hostile to others with differing views. I'll just let the evidence speak for itself, no reason for ad hominem. (from my perspective)

And before responding I'll say, that who did this is not so important to me. What is important are these actual emails showing corruption, Quid Pro Quo, possible pedophilia, etc. in our government. [b]Hillary broke the law by having a private server[/b], she paid for it, as are a host of other people. And before all is said and done, many will be in prison.

That said:

Re Reuters - "U.S officials suspected it was the target of a Russian government-backed cyber attack when agents first contacted the party last fall, three people with knowledge of the discussions told Reuters." Anonymous people saying US officials suspects it was Russian government backed is not proof.

Re Motherboard said "a group of hackers that is widely believed to be Russian" is no proof.

Re 2nd Motherboard article - It is possible, perhaps likely, a phishing attempt. You just can't connect it to Russia, just a server. And the destination server is distorted in a long list of compromised servers. It is too easy to cover this stuff up (coming from an ex IT expert). I need to see more, really. But an interesting article.

Re Esquire - It reads like a hit piece and spy novel. It has some interesting points, but again, this stuff can all be faked quite easily. No smoking gun. Was an interesting read though.

Re USA Today article - ZERO evidence given.

Re last Motherboard article - Hacker Guccifer says he wasn't working for Russia. And he is anonymous. Guccifer could be anyone, a group, etc. No way of certifying that.

Not at all impressed with those articles, though the 2nd motherboard and Esquire article were extremely interesting. If this were a court case, Russia would be found innocent.

My suggestion for you is to watch some documentaries, namely Cyberwar. They have been through similar stories, and hacking experts across the world agree that it is extremely easy to make a hack appear from anywhere, by anyone, etc. https://www.viceland.com/en_us/show/cyberwar S01E02 is a good place to start.
It is hard to get good evidence and easy to create it. Think about that, ironic, but true. High level hackers don't leave many clues unless they want to.

BTW - My theory is that the NSA hacked the emails to stop WWIII. But if Russia did do the hacks, we should take Obama's Nobel Peace Prize and give it to them as they would have actually earned it.

Peace Out,
EMS

For maybe the 4th time..No she didn't..

Rudy Giuliani: Hillary Broke The Law; "Gross Negligence Equals Extreme Carelessness"

Giuliani makes that case that when it comes to laws surrounding handling classified data, intent is irrelevant. "The definition of gross negligence under the law is extreme carelessness," he said. The FBI "clearly found a direct violation of 18 United States code section 793 which does not require intent -- it requires only gross negligence in the handling of anything relating to the national defense."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/05/rudy_giuliani_hillary_broke_the_law_gross_negligence_equals_extreme_carelessness.html#!

If she doesn't get charged for the server, she will for something else. Luckily, she didn't listen and had her own server (avoiding our right to access that data through FOIA, well, not now.)
I will take a prosecutors word over yours. But it doesn't matter, let's just see where she is in a year, ok?

DID YOU READ IT???
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793#
What section or letter of the law do you think she was guilty of???
Because there is intent and conspire all over it...

She also used Bleach Bit to wipe the servers clean, no law against that though...

Yeah, I read it and this caught my eye:

Giuliani makes that case that when it comes to laws surrounding handling classified data, intent is irrelevant. "The definition of gross negligence under the law is extreme carelessness," he said. The FBI "clearly found a direct violation of 18 United States code section 793 which does not require intent -- it requires only gross negligence in the handling of anything relating to the national defense."

"It's the first definition that comes up in the law dictionary," he said. "It's the definition the judges give to juries when they charge injuries on gross negligence. Negligence equals carelessness. Gross negligence equals extreme carelessness. So that is a clear absolutely unassailable violation of 18 United States Code, section 793, which is not a minor statute, it carries ten years in prison."

And there is this:

Giuliani makes that case that when it comes to laws surrounding handling classified data, intent is irrelevant. "The definition of gross negligence under the law is extreme carelessness," he said. The FBI "clearly found a direct violation of 18 United States code section 793 which does not require intent -- it requires only gross negligence in the handling of anything relating to the national defense."

"It's the first definition that comes up in the law dictionary," he said. "It's the definition the judges give to juries when they charge injuries on gross negligence. Negligence equals carelessness. Gross negligence equals extreme carelessness. So that is a clear absolutely unassailable violation of 18 United States Code, section 793, which is not a minor statute, it carries ten years in prison."

NY Post thinks she broke the law
http://nypost.com/2015/09/27/yes-hillary-clinton-broke-the-law/

And there is more, I can go on...

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Walt, here is some Fake News straight from the horses mouth and verified. CNN of course, regarding Cincinatti protest. Original articles below. CNN lied, pretty cold to be dressed like that and someone caught it and found the original pic.

December 2nd
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/02/politics/donald-trump-rally-protest/
From November - Same picture.
http://www.vox.com/first-person/2016/11/14/13626404/trump-election-protest

http://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/propaganda/ron-paul-fake-news-comes-government/

The mainstream media and politicians peddling the line that there is a network of “fake news” sites spreading Russian disinformation and propaganda is just scapegoating to divert attention from the far worse job they have done objectively reporting the truth, Ron Paul told RT yesterday. He added:
"The fake news comes from our own government, when they tell us about why we have to go to war. …And that was probably the big issue of the campaign, and that’s why Trump did so well. [Americans have] lost confidence in the government."

Simple question...will tell us everything about where you are coming from...

Do you accept that during the election, WikiLeaks(Assange) was passing along stolen data that was hacked by Russians, designed to influence the election, and distributed to Assange with the go-ahead from former KGB operative Putin?

Personally, I don't think Russia was behind it. The US Government agrees. Actually, there is reason to believe that a US Intelligence Agency released the information as they saw the deep corruption and had to put an end to it. No proof of that theory, just like the Russian theory.

Clinton had her server hacked, probably by lots of people, not to mention State agencies, regardless of who did it, she got what she asked for. The law she broke was not only there so we can access that data via the FOIA, but also to protect her. Ironic.

But you sound like the DNC. Instead of addressing the corruption, Quid Pro Quo, #Pizzagate allegations, etc., you are more concerned about who released the true information rather than the corruption and all that it states went on. My priorities are with a non corrupt government, not who hacked their server to show corruption, State actor or not.

Tells me everything I need to know about you, and how you regard the "truth."

Your "priorities" are not having to deal with the fact that Assange was being used, or is complicity with Russia, because there has been a cult built up around him, to the point where your world view will suffer if he is found to be a tool of a government worse than any you complain about.

Take a good look at everything the next president did, over many years. You think he isn't corrupt. Are you that foolish...honestly?

With all the mistakes Clinton might have made, a Congress out to destroy her, could not do it, and an FBI complicit in getting Trump elected did not have enough to do anything.

Meanwhile Putin's boy used his foundation for self dealing, sexually abused women (I expect you believe them to be lying), had to pay millions for running a fraudulent scam university, had his buddy from the National Enquirer pay off a woman so her story about an affair with him could not come out, and ran a charity that gave hardly any money to people in need unless the recipient could help him in some ways.

Your "concern" with the truth is clearly limited, it would seem, as Trump was documented as the biggest liar amongst all the people who ran for President this year.

The fact that you are unable to admit that Assange was used is good enough for me to discount anything you would say on these topics- I was actually wondering what I would have to say if you came out and said that the Russians WERE the ones who did the hacking, but thankfully you proved a hypothesis I had about folks like you, the ones who see Assange as some kind of Robin Hood figure. You have a preconceived notion about him that prevents you from actually examining him as a person or as a conduit.

I will probably use some of this on Twitter at some point...you are about the 3rd Assangist who could not admit that he got his stuff from Russia. Posting a WikiLeaks denial is hilarious, by the way... not unlike Trump saying he did not molest those women who he sexually abused.

And where do you come off saying that the U.S. Gov does not see the Russians involved...reading more of that fake news? As I said, you are so busy swallowing what Asssange is giving you, that you have no sense of objectivity. But then, we are living in "post-truth" America, where you can throw out an opinion as some kind of confirmation that something is true.

Get real.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN10E09H?client=ms-android-att-us

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/russian-hackers-launch-targeted-cyberattacks-hours-after-trumps-win

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/how-hackers-broke-into-john-podesta-and-colin-powells-gmail-accounts

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a49791/russian-dnc-emails-hacked/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/dnc-hacker-guccifer-20-interview

I'm not going to get personal. You can judge me for my views but I won't judge you as I understand the country is divided and we all have our views. We shouldn't be hostile to others with differing views. I'll just let the evidence speak for itself, no reason for ad hominem. (from my perspective)

And before responding I'll say, that who did this is not so important to me. What is important are these actual emails showing corruption, Quid Pro Quo, possible pedophilia, etc. in our government. [b]Hillary broke the law by having a private server[/b], she paid for it, as are a host of other people. And before all is said and done, many will be in prison.

That said:

Re Reuters - "U.S officials suspected it was the target of a Russian government-backed cyber attack when agents first contacted the party last fall, three people with knowledge of the discussions told Reuters." Anonymous people saying US officials suspects it was Russian government backed is not proof.

Re Motherboard said "a group of hackers that is widely believed to be Russian" is no proof.

Re 2nd Motherboard article - It is possible, perhaps likely, a phishing attempt. You just can't connect it to Russia, just a server. And the destination server is distorted in a long list of compromised servers. It is too easy to cover this stuff up (coming from an ex IT expert). I need to see more, really. But an interesting article.

Re Esquire - It reads like a hit piece and spy novel. It has some interesting points, but again, this stuff can all be faked quite easily. No smoking gun. Was an interesting read though.

Re USA Today article - ZERO evidence given.

Re last Motherboard article - Hacker Guccifer says he wasn't working for Russia. And he is anonymous. Guccifer could be anyone, a group, etc. No way of certifying that.

Not at all impressed with those articles, though the 2nd motherboard and Esquire article were extremely interesting. If this were a court case, Russia would be found innocent.

My suggestion for you is to watch some documentaries, namely Cyberwar. They have been through similar stories, and hacking experts across the world agree that it is extremely easy to make a hack appear from anywhere, by anyone, etc. https://www.viceland.com/en_us/show/cyberwar S01E02 is a good place to start.
It is hard to get good evidence and easy to create it. Think about that, ironic, but true. High level hackers don't leave many clues unless they want to.

BTW - My theory is that the NSA hacked the emails to stop WWIII. But if Russia did do the hacks, we should take Obama's Nobel Peace Prize and give it to them as they would have actually earned it.

Peace Out,
EMS

For maybe the 4th time..No she didn't..

Rudy Giuliani: Hillary Broke The Law; "Gross Negligence Equals Extreme Carelessness"

Giuliani makes that case that when it comes to laws surrounding handling classified data, intent is irrelevant. "The definition of gross negligence under the law is extreme carelessness," he said. The FBI "clearly found a direct violation of 18 United States code section 793 which does not require intent -- it requires only gross negligence in the handling of anything relating to the national defense."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/05/rudy_giuliani_hillary_broke_the_law_gross_negligence_equals_extreme_carelessness.html#!

If she doesn't get charged for the server, she will for something else. Luckily, she didn't listen and had her own server (avoiding our right to access that data through FOIA, well, not now.)
I will take a prosecutors word over yours. But it doesn't matter, let's just see where she is in a year, ok?

DID YOU READ IT???
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793#
What section or letter of the law do you think she was guilty of???
Because there is intent and conspire all over it...

She also used Bleach Bit to wipe the servers clean, no law against that though...

Yeah, I read it and this caught my eye:

Giuliani makes that case that when it comes to laws surrounding handling classified data, intent is irrelevant. "The definition of gross negligence under the law is extreme carelessness," he said. The FBI "clearly found a direct violation of 18 United States code section 793 which does not require intent -- it requires only gross negligence in the handling of anything relating to the national defense."

"It's the first definition that comes up in the law dictionary," he said. "It's the definition the judges give to juries when they charge injuries on gross negligence. Negligence equals carelessness. Gross negligence equals extreme carelessness. So that is a clear absolutely unassailable violation of 18 United States Code, section 793, which is not a minor statute, it carries ten years in prison."

And there is this:

Giuliani makes that case that when it comes to laws surrounding handling classified data, intent is irrelevant. "The definition of gross negligence under the law is extreme carelessness," he said. The FBI "clearly found a direct violation of 18 United States code section 793 which does not require intent -- it requires only gross negligence in the handling of anything relating to the national defense."

"It's the first definition that comes up in the law dictionary," he said. "It's the definition the judges give to juries when they charge injuries on gross negligence. Negligence equals carelessness. Gross negligence equals extreme carelessness. So that is a clear absolutely unassailable violation of 18 United States Code, section 793, which is not a minor statute, it carries ten years in prison."

http://truthfeed.com/rudy-giuliani-abundantly-clear-that-hillary-acted-intentionally-and-with-criminal-intent/21470/

NY Post thinks she broke the law
http://nypost.com/2015/09/27/yes-hillary-clinton-broke-the-law/

And there is more, I can go on...

You are giving me other people's interpretation of the law and I'm giving you the law to read for yourself..Don't you trust your own interpretation???

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Walt, here is some Fake News straight from the horses mouth and verified. CNN of course, regarding Cincinatti protest. Original articles below. CNN lied, pretty cold to be dressed like that and someone caught it and found the original pic.

December 2nd
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/02/politics/donald-trump-rally-protest/
From November - Same picture.
http://www.vox.com/first-person/2016/11/14/13626404/trump-election-protest

http://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/propaganda/ron-paul-fake-news-comes-government/

The mainstream media and politicians peddling the line that there is a network of “fake news” sites spreading Russian disinformation and propaganda is just scapegoating to divert attention from the far worse job they have done objectively reporting the truth, Ron Paul told RT yesterday. He added:
"The fake news comes from our own government, when they tell us about why we have to go to war. …And that was probably the big issue of the campaign, and that’s why Trump did so well. [Americans have] lost confidence in the government."

Simple question...will tell us everything about where you are coming from...

Do you accept that during the election, WikiLeaks(Assange) was passing along stolen data that was hacked by Russians, designed to influence the election, and distributed to Assange with the go-ahead from former KGB operative Putin?

Personally, I don't think Russia was behind it. The US Government agrees. Actually, there is reason to believe that a US Intelligence Agency released the information as they saw the deep corruption and had to put an end to it. No proof of that theory, just like the Russian theory.

Clinton had her server hacked, probably by lots of people, not to mention State agencies, regardless of who did it, she got what she asked for. The law she broke was not only there so we can access that data via the FOIA, but also to protect her. Ironic.

But you sound like the DNC. Instead of addressing the corruption, Quid Pro Quo, #Pizzagate allegations, etc., you are more concerned about who released the true information rather than the corruption and all that it states went on. My priorities are with a non corrupt government, not who hacked their server to show corruption, State actor or not.

Tells me everything I need to know about you, and how you regard the "truth."

Your "priorities" are not having to deal with the fact that Assange was being used, or is complicity with Russia, because there has been a cult built up around him, to the point where your world view will suffer if he is found to be a tool of a government worse than any you complain about.

Take a good look at everything the next president did, over many years. You think he isn't corrupt. Are you that foolish...honestly?

With all the mistakes Clinton might have made, a Congress out to destroy her, could not do it, and an FBI complicit in getting Trump elected did not have enough to do anything.

Meanwhile Putin's boy used his foundation for self dealing, sexually abused women (I expect you believe them to be lying), had to pay millions for running a fraudulent scam university, had his buddy from the National Enquirer pay off a woman so her story about an affair with him could not come out, and ran a charity that gave hardly any money to people in need unless the recipient could help him in some ways.

Your "concern" with the truth is clearly limited, it would seem, as Trump was documented as the biggest liar amongst all the people who ran for President this year.

The fact that you are unable to admit that Assange was used is good enough for me to discount anything you would say on these topics- I was actually wondering what I would have to say if you came out and said that the Russians WERE the ones who did the hacking, but thankfully you proved a hypothesis I had about folks like you, the ones who see Assange as some kind of Robin Hood figure. You have a preconceived notion about him that prevents you from actually examining him as a person or as a conduit.

I will probably use some of this on Twitter at some point...you are about the 3rd Assangist who could not admit that he got his stuff from Russia. Posting a WikiLeaks denial is hilarious, by the way... not unlike Trump saying he did not molest those women who he sexually abused.

And where do you come off saying that the U.S. Gov does not see the Russians involved...reading more of that fake news? As I said, you are so busy swallowing what Asssange is giving you, that you have no sense of objectivity. But then, we are living in "post-truth" America, where you can throw out an opinion as some kind of confirmation that something is true.

Get real.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN10E09H?client=ms-android-att-us

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/russian-hackers-launch-targeted-cyberattacks-hours-after-trumps-win

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/how-hackers-broke-into-john-podesta-and-colin-powells-gmail-accounts

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a49791/russian-dnc-emails-hacked/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/dnc-hacker-guccifer-20-interview

I'm not going to get personal. You can judge me for my views but I won't judge you as I understand the country is divided and we all have our views. We shouldn't be hostile to others with differing views. I'll just let the evidence speak for itself, no reason for ad hominem. (from my perspective)

And before responding I'll say, that who did this is not so important to me. What is important are these actual emails showing corruption, Quid Pro Quo, possible pedophilia, etc. in our government. [b]Hillary broke the law by having a private server[/b], she paid for it, as are a host of other people. And before all is said and done, many will be in prison.

That said:

Re Reuters - "U.S officials suspected it was the target of a Russian government-backed cyber attack when agents first contacted the party last fall, three people with knowledge of the discussions told Reuters." Anonymous people saying US officials suspects it was Russian government backed is not proof.

Re Motherboard said "a group of hackers that is widely believed to be Russian" is no proof.

Re 2nd Motherboard article - It is possible, perhaps likely, a phishing attempt. You just can't connect it to Russia, just a server. And the destination server is distorted in a long list of compromised servers. It is too easy to cover this stuff up (coming from an ex IT expert). I need to see more, really. But an interesting article.

Re Esquire - It reads like a hit piece and spy novel. It has some interesting points, but again, this stuff can all be faked quite easily. No smoking gun. Was an interesting read though.

Re USA Today article - ZERO evidence given.

Re last Motherboard article - Hacker Guccifer says he wasn't working for Russia. And he is anonymous. Guccifer could be anyone, a group, etc. No way of certifying that.

Not at all impressed with those articles, though the 2nd motherboard and Esquire article were extremely interesting. If this were a court case, Russia would be found innocent.

My suggestion for you is to watch some documentaries, namely Cyberwar. They have been through similar stories, and hacking experts across the world agree that it is extremely easy to make a hack appear from anywhere, by anyone, etc. https://www.viceland.com/en_us/show/cyberwar S01E02 is a good place to start.
It is hard to get good evidence and easy to create it. Think about that, ironic, but true. High level hackers don't leave many clues unless they want to.

BTW - My theory is that the NSA hacked the emails to stop WWIII. But if Russia did do the hacks, we should take Obama's Nobel Peace Prize and give it to them as they would have actually earned it.

Peace Out,
EMS

For maybe the 4th time..No she didn't..

Rudy Giuliani: Hillary Broke The Law; "Gross Negligence Equals Extreme Carelessness"

Giuliani makes that case that when it comes to laws surrounding handling classified data, intent is irrelevant. "The definition of gross negligence under the law is extreme carelessness," he said. The FBI "clearly found a direct violation of 18 United States code section 793 which does not require intent -- it requires only gross negligence in the handling of anything relating to the national defense."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/05/rudy_giuliani_hillary_broke_the_law_gross_negligence_equals_extreme_carelessness.html#!

If she doesn't get charged for the server, she will for something else. Luckily, she didn't listen and had her own server (avoiding our right to access that data through FOIA, well, not now.)
I will take a prosecutors word over yours. But it doesn't matter, let's just see where she is in a year, ok?

DID YOU READ IT???
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793#
What section or letter of the law do you think she was guilty of???
Because there is intent and conspire all over it...

She also used Bleach Bit to wipe the servers clean, no law against that though...

Yeah, I read it and this caught my eye:

Giuliani makes that case that when it comes to laws surrounding handling classified data, intent is irrelevant. "The definition of gross negligence under the law is extreme carelessness," he said. The FBI "clearly found a direct violation of 18 United States code section 793 which does not require intent -- it requires only gross negligence in the handling of anything relating to the national defense."

"It's the first definition that comes up in the law dictionary," he said. "It's the definition the judges give to juries when they charge injuries on gross negligence. Negligence equals carelessness. Gross negligence equals extreme carelessness. So that is a clear absolutely unassailable violation of 18 United States Code, section 793, which is not a minor statute, it carries ten years in prison."

And there is this:

Giuliani makes that case that when it comes to laws surrounding handling classified data, intent is irrelevant. "The definition of gross negligence under the law is extreme carelessness," he said. The FBI "clearly found a direct violation of 18 United States code section 793 which does not require intent -- it requires only gross negligence in the handling of anything relating to the national defense."

"It's the first definition that comes up in the law dictionary," he said. "It's the definition the judges give to juries when they charge injuries on gross negligence. Negligence equals carelessness. Gross negligence equals extreme carelessness. So that is a clear absolutely unassailable violation of 18 United States Code, section 793, which is not a minor statute, it carries ten years in prison."

http://truthfeed.com/rudy-giuliani-abundantly-clear-that-hillary-acted-intentionally-and-with-criminal-intent/21470/

NY Post thinks she broke the law
http://nypost.com/2015/09/27/yes-hillary-clinton-broke-the-law/

And there is more, I can go on...

You are giving me other people's interpretation of the law and I'm giving you the law to read for yourself..Don't you trust your own interpretation???

I am not a legal expert. I will go with one over my interpretation. Most should do the same, unless they are legal experts.

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

WaltLongmire wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Walt, here is some Fake News straight from the horses mouth and verified. CNN of course, regarding Cincinatti protest. Original articles below. CNN lied, pretty cold to be dressed like that and someone caught it and found the original pic.

December 2nd
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/02/politics/donald-trump-rally-protest/
From November - Same picture.
http://www.vox.com/first-person/2016/11/14/13626404/trump-election-protest

http://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/propaganda/ron-paul-fake-news-comes-government/

The mainstream media and politicians peddling the line that there is a network of “fake news” sites spreading Russian disinformation and propaganda is just scapegoating to divert attention from the far worse job they have done objectively reporting the truth, Ron Paul told RT yesterday. He added:
"The fake news comes from our own government, when they tell us about why we have to go to war. …And that was probably the big issue of the campaign, and that’s why Trump did so well. [Americans have] lost confidence in the government."

Simple question...will tell us everything about where you are coming from...

Do you accept that during the election, WikiLeaks(Assange) was passing along stolen data that was hacked by Russians, designed to influence the election, and distributed to Assange with the go-ahead from former KGB operative Putin?

Personally, I don't think Russia was behind it. The US Government agrees. Actually, there is reason to believe that a US Intelligence Agency released the information as they saw the deep corruption and had to put an end to it. No proof of that theory, just like the Russian theory.

Clinton had her server hacked, probably by lots of people, not to mention State agencies, regardless of who did it, she got what she asked for. The law she broke was not only there so we can access that data via the FOIA, but also to protect her. Ironic.

But you sound like the DNC. Instead of addressing the corruption, Quid Pro Quo, #Pizzagate allegations, etc., you are more concerned about who released the true information rather than the corruption and all that it states went on. My priorities are with a non corrupt government, not who hacked their server to show corruption, State actor or not.

Tells me everything I need to know about you, and how you regard the "truth."

Your "priorities" are not having to deal with the fact that Assange was being used, or is complicity with Russia, because there has been a cult built up around him, to the point where your world view will suffer if he is found to be a tool of a government worse than any you complain about.

Take a good look at everything the next president did, over many years. You think he isn't corrupt. Are you that foolish...honestly?

With all the mistakes Clinton might have made, a Congress out to destroy her, could not do it, and an FBI complicit in getting Trump elected did not have enough to do anything.

Meanwhile Putin's boy used his foundation for self dealing, sexually abused women (I expect you believe them to be lying), had to pay millions for running a fraudulent scam university, had his buddy from the National Enquirer pay off a woman so her story about an affair with him could not come out, and ran a charity that gave hardly any money to people in need unless the recipient could help him in some ways.

Your "concern" with the truth is clearly limited, it would seem, as Trump was documented as the biggest liar amongst all the people who ran for President this year.

The fact that you are unable to admit that Assange was used is good enough for me to discount anything you would say on these topics- I was actually wondering what I would have to say if you came out and said that the Russians WERE the ones who did the hacking, but thankfully you proved a hypothesis I had about folks like you, the ones who see Assange as some kind of Robin Hood figure. You have a preconceived notion about him that prevents you from actually examining him as a person or as a conduit.

I will probably use some of this on Twitter at some point...you are about the 3rd Assangist who could not admit that he got his stuff from Russia. Posting a WikiLeaks denial is hilarious, by the way... not unlike Trump saying he did not molest those women who he sexually abused.

And where do you come off saying that the U.S. Gov does not see the Russians involved...reading more of that fake news? As I said, you are so busy swallowing what Asssange is giving you, that you have no sense of objectivity. But then, we are living in "post-truth" America, where you can throw out an opinion as some kind of confirmation that something is true.

Get real.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN10E09H?client=ms-android-att-us

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/russian-hackers-launch-targeted-cyberattacks-hours-after-trumps-win

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/how-hackers-broke-into-john-podesta-and-colin-powells-gmail-accounts

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a49791/russian-dnc-emails-hacked/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/dnc-hacker-guccifer-20-interview

I'm not going to get personal. You can judge me for my views but I won't judge you as I understand the country is divided and we all have our views. We shouldn't be hostile to others with differing views. I'll just let the evidence speak for itself, no reason for ad hominem. (from my perspective)

And before responding I'll say, that who did this is not so important to me. What is important are these actual emails showing corruption, Quid Pro Quo, possible pedophilia, etc. in our government. [b]Hillary broke the law by having a private server[/b], she paid for it, as are a host of other people. And before all is said and done, many will be in prison.

That said:

Re Reuters - "U.S officials suspected it was the target of a Russian government-backed cyber attack when agents first contacted the party last fall, three people with knowledge of the discussions told Reuters." Anonymous people saying US officials suspects it was Russian government backed is not proof.

Re Motherboard said "a group of hackers that is widely believed to be Russian" is no proof.

Re 2nd Motherboard article - It is possible, perhaps likely, a phishing attempt. You just can't connect it to Russia, just a server. And the destination server is distorted in a long list of compromised servers. It is too easy to cover this stuff up (coming from an ex IT expert). I need to see more, really. But an interesting article.

Re Esquire - It reads like a hit piece and spy novel. It has some interesting points, but again, this stuff can all be faked quite easily. No smoking gun. Was an interesting read though.

Re USA Today article - ZERO evidence given.

Re last Motherboard article - Hacker Guccifer says he wasn't working for Russia. And he is anonymous. Guccifer could be anyone, a group, etc. No way of certifying that.

Not at all impressed with those articles, though the 2nd motherboard and Esquire article were extremely interesting. If this were a court case, Russia would be found innocent.

My suggestion for you is to watch some documentaries, namely Cyberwar. They have been through similar stories, and hacking experts across the world agree that it is extremely easy to make a hack appear from anywhere, by anyone, etc. https://www.viceland.com/en_us/show/cyberwar S01E02 is a good place to start.
It is hard to get good evidence and easy to create it. Think about that, ironic, but true. High level hackers don't leave many clues unless they want to.

BTW - My theory is that the NSA hacked the emails to stop WWIII. But if Russia did do the hacks, we should take Obama's Nobel Peace Prize and give it to them as they would have actually earned it.

Peace Out,
EMS

For maybe the 4th time..No she didn't..

Rudy Giuliani: Hillary Broke The Law; "Gross Negligence Equals Extreme Carelessness"

Giuliani makes that case that when it comes to laws surrounding handling classified data, intent is irrelevant. "The definition of gross negligence under the law is extreme carelessness," he said. The FBI "clearly found a direct violation of 18 United States code section 793 which does not require intent -- it requires only gross negligence in the handling of anything relating to the national defense."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/05/rudy_giuliani_hillary_broke_the_law_gross_negligence_equals_extreme_carelessness.html#!

If she doesn't get charged for the server, she will for something else. Luckily, she didn't listen and had her own server (avoiding our right to access that data through FOIA, well, not now.)
I will take a prosecutors word over yours. But it doesn't matter, let's just see where she is in a year, ok?

DID YOU READ IT???
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793#
What section or letter of the law do you think she was guilty of???
Because there is intent and conspire all over it...

She also used Bleach Bit to wipe the servers clean, no law against that though...

Yeah, I read it and this caught my eye:

Giuliani makes that case that when it comes to laws surrounding handling classified data, intent is irrelevant. "The definition of gross negligence under the law is extreme carelessness," he said. The FBI "clearly found a direct violation of 18 United States code section 793 which does not require intent -- it requires only gross negligence in the handling of anything relating to the national defense."

"It's the first definition that comes up in the law dictionary," he said. "It's the definition the judges give to juries when they charge injuries on gross negligence. Negligence equals carelessness. Gross negligence equals extreme carelessness. So that is a clear absolutely unassailable violation of 18 United States Code, section 793, which is not a minor statute, it carries ten years in prison."

And there is this:

Giuliani makes that case that when it comes to laws surrounding handling classified data, intent is irrelevant. "The definition of gross negligence under the law is extreme carelessness," he said. The FBI "clearly found a direct violation of 18 United States code section 793 which does not require intent -- it requires only gross negligence in the handling of anything relating to the national defense."

"It's the first definition that comes up in the law dictionary," he said. "It's the definition the judges give to juries when they charge injuries on gross negligence. Negligence equals carelessness. Gross negligence equals extreme carelessness. So that is a clear absolutely unassailable violation of 18 United States Code, section 793, which is not a minor statute, it carries ten years in prison."

http://truthfeed.com/rudy-giuliani-abundantly-clear-that-hillary-acted-intentionally-and-with-criminal-intent/21470/

NY Post thinks she broke the law
http://nypost.com/2015/09/27/yes-hillary-clinton-broke-the-law/

And there is more, I can go on...

You are giving me other people's interpretation of the law and I'm giving you the law to read for yourself..Don't you trust your own interpretation???

I am not a legal expert. I will go with one over my interpretation. Most should do the same, unless they are legal experts.