Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
Interestingly, Assange accuses Clinton of making a false statement, but doesn't actual deny her statement.
There's no need not to piss off the Russians if it helps win the election.
But Julian you're a pedophile and have financial links to the Russian government. We know because we're the ones who funded David Soloff and Premise Data Corporation to make it so.
So says the Clinton Camp.
FBI sources say with 99% accuracy that Hillary Clinton's server has been hacked by at least five foreign intelligence agencies, and that information had been taken from it.Oof
And Romney smiled.
I cannot believe Hillary has gotten away with this Russia/Putin business.Imagine when/if she's president, what she'll do to her political opponents.
What it really shows is that Dems will say anything. Russians good? Russians bad? It all depends on the who-whom. Even their foreign policy is entirely situational, based merely on domestic power considerations.
That lie really did jump the shark. They need to retool it and make Trump into a dupe for the KKK...no they already jumped that shark too, and besides the KKK was anti-communist when it existed.. Maybe he is a Mafia tool. No that was JFK.What about Trump being a a secret Nazi cloned from Hitler's DNA with Jurassic Park science. That's it. Send an email to our media accomplices to rig that story.
I'm kind of dumb but I'm having a hard time imagining some guy lurking in the shadows, behind a tree, near a park bench, in the town square, with a thick Russian accent going "Psssst, hey bud, . . . you vant have top secrets?"
There is a precedent for an American politician trying to get the Russians to help fix an American Presidential election. Ted Kennedy, in 1983, during the Cold War.What a filthy POS he was. There was really nothing too low for Ted Kennedy. I'll bet we don't know the half of it.
Hillary doesn't care about facts or truth or honesty. She deals in lies, and only lies.
Damage Control 101. When you can't refute the substance attack the source.
Earnest Barry just said that we don't deal in innuendo. Yet here we have Hillary and others like Joe Biden, plus all of the national media claiming that all these intelligence sources have confirmed that the Russians are behind the hacking.So far they have failed to present any credible evidence. Innuendo and suspicion is not proof.I've already said this reminds me of the WMD intelligence in 2002 Tenet told Bush it was a "slam dunk case." The intel community had no real proof, but they certainly had strong beliefs. They were wrong then and leftists continue to say that Bush, whose mistake was believing them, LIED!!!!!! about WMD's.Many state actors likely have Hillary's emails because she was so foolish. Whoever hacked Podesta is not known. Given the track record of the intel community and for the D's motives, we should be skeptical about what Hillary, Biden and the media supporters are saying.If the proof never comes I doubt we'll see Hillary LIED!!!!!!! stories like we still do with Bush.
BTW, this whole "Russian menace" narrative that we're suddenly hearing will be used by Democrats after the election to try to de-legitimize the coming Trump presidency.
I can't wait for 4 years of Hillary playing the victim card.
Well. Assuming that Assange is telling the truth, then the real culprit would be one of the five countries that did have the technical chops to access her server, as well as have a motive of tilting the election to the candidate that has explicitly stated that he would champion their interests.I'd say that country was I _ _ _ _ L.If the Israelis indeed leak that information to Assange, I can't believe that any reputable US gov't cybergeek would not know that, and put their reputation on the line by asserting that the Russians did it. That would mean that only political bureaucrats would dare state that accusation to the media. You'd also have to believe that the stenographers at the MSM wouldn't utilize their critical-thinking skills to push back on that assertion...Nah, what was I thinking. It was the Russians, after all!
Diane Rehm is pushing the idea that African-Americans' current lack of interest in Hillary Clinton is really the result of anti-black voter suppression.NPR as a whole is awash in KKK related stories intended to subliminally link Trump to racism.
The US Intelligence Community (USIC) comprises 17 intelligence agencies. The head agency is the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), who is authorized to speak for the entire USIC.Recently, the DNI and the Department of Homeland Security (one of the 17 agencies) issued a joint statement which says that the USIC "is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations".Since Hillary Clinton has said Donald Trump is ignoring an finding of 17 intelligence agencies, the DNI, James Clapper, should inform the American public about the following considerations:* Were all the 17 intelligence agencies asked to provide input and approval to this finding?* How many of the 17 intelligence agencies concurred?* Have any of the 17 intelligence agencies refrained from concurring?* Have any of the 17 intelligence agencies dissented?* Is the publication of this statement a usual or an unusual action?* If the publication is unusual, then who requested or initiated it and how was the decision made?I suspect that in this case Clapper has abused his authority to speak for the entire USIC for political purposes. He has taken a half-assed opinion of one agency, the Department of Homeland Security, and passed it off as something like a national intelligence estimate.
Obama/Hillary have been the best thing to happen to Russia in the last 50 years.Prior to 2008, their influence on the world stage was drastically reduced. Now, they are close to regaining their cold war status. All thanks to the stupidity of our "leading from behind" foreign policy. Way to go, Hillary.
Huh? This post makes no sense. It implies that someone took something that Hillary Clinton said seriously, as if she might have been telling the truth.Don't waste your time.
I remember Clapper.Director of National Intelligence Jim Clapper wasn’t lying when he wrongly told Congress in 2013 that the government does not “wittingly” collect information about millions of Americans, according to his top lawyer.He just forgot.“This was not an untruth or a falsehood. This was just a mistake on his part,” Robert Litt, the general counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, said during a panel discussion hosted by the Advisory Committee on Transparency on Friday.“We all make mistakes.”Maybe he's right this time but so far he's offered no proof.
NPR as a whole is awash in KKK related stories intended to subliminally link Trump to racism. Yeah, CNN and even Jake Tapper (whom I usually like) was dredging up the whole KKK thing yesterday. It's fine, I guess, some KKK newspaper that nobody reads endorsed Trump. Trump immediately disavowed them. I just think it's interesting the media doesn't see they are giving the white supremacists they attention they want when they attach themselves to the Republicans. As if Republican voters now all have to be tainted with some small group that we didn't ask for.Does Hillary get associated similarly? James O'Keefe has a big donor saying something awful about black republicans yesterday. Are all of her on-air supporters made to answer for it? No. Barack Obama wants the word out that Hillary needs the black vote, so CNN and NPR oblige.
Hillary flatly asserts that there is no evidence that anyone actually hacked her bathroom server. I've never seen anyone question that assertion, not even Trump during the debates. This seems very strange to me. Why would the Russians hack all these emails and ignore her bathroom server?.......Sinkhole or leaky septic tank. None of the possibilities elevate the human spirit.
Interestingly, Assange accuses Clinton of making a false statement, but doesn't actual deny her statementWow Henry. Are you going to next give us a discourse on the meaning of "is"? How awful it must be to have to deal with the stink of the Clintons as a supporter.“The Clinton camp has been able to project a neo-McCarthyist hysteria that Russia is responsible for everything. Hillary Clinton has stated multiple times, falsely, that 17 US intelligence agencies had assessed that Russia was the source of our publications. That’s false – we can say that the Russian government is not the source,”Most likely the source are peace activists who don't want a war-monger in the presidency.
Whenever somebody says that they are "confident" of something when you ask them if they know, remember that in that context the word means "I don't really know, but I think it is probably true, in my opinion."
@tim -- You think I care a lot more than I care. I'm just pointing out some interesting distinctions. HRC's second debate statement about 17 intelligence services is technically silly (only two actually looked at the issue), but the umbrella statement by Homeland Security Department and Office of the Director of National Intelligence did indicate confidence that Russia was behind the hacks.Assange is not saying that HRC falsely claimed 17 instead of 2. He's claiming that Russia is not the source of the hacks, which does counter the conclusions by U.S. intelligence.Of course this is immaterial to the fact that HRC has failed to deny the substance of the leaks, nor does Assange have any reason to.The result is a set of claims and counter-claims which are immaterial to the veracity of the actual leaks.
Post a Comment