Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims “bullshit”, adding: “They are absolutely making it up.”
“I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...lp-trump-win-election-report?CMP=share_btn_tw
I strongly suspect it was an internal leak. Assange & Wikileaks have been 100% accurate, Assange says it wasn't the Russians.
tbh I thought Assange didn't go around telling people his sources.
He doesn't, but he does say who it wasn't. Think about it, what has he got to lose?
So you take issue with a law prohibiting private organizations from choosing how to participate in the election process, but apparently have no problem with a law prohibiting private individuals from choosing to run in the primary process. Got it. Must be fun being a hack.
No law prohibits people from running in the primary process, it's a choice of private organizations.
It must be fun being an idiot.
I never said there was. You took issue with cubby's suggestion, which was really in response to Sunburn74's post advocating "laws regarding basic steps and screenings presidential candidates must undergo". Do you have any issue with such laws (beyond the requirements already present in the Constitution, of course)?
Sources. Where are the sources? Where are the official statements? Where is the proof? We're all going on like this is concrete proof but I've yet to see one single shred of evidence that isn't an 'anonymous official' or one single intelligence agency put out statement putting this on the record. Right now its a media narrative gone wild and has as much credibility as a steaming pile of bull crap.
People in this thread are borderline accusing the Republican party of treason without a single damn bit of proof. Its ridiculous.
So then why am I a supposed hack?
Agree with this. Lots of speculation but nothing concrete. Craig Murray's comments are interesting as well, don't know what to make of that.
Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims “bullshit”, adding: “They are absolutely making it up.”
“I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...lp-trump-win-election-report?CMP=share_btn_tw
I strongly suspect it was an internal leak. Assange & Wikileaks have been 100% accurate, Assange says it wasn't the Russians.
We already know how Podesta's emails got hacked though. I have to assume that they (the CIA) are referring to the DNC leak. However, the DNC leak was not nearly as damaging as Podesta's, the DNC leaks mostly revealed collaboration against Bernie Sanders by the DNC.
Podesta's emails themselves revealed how he got hacked. He responded to a phishing email telling him his gmail account was hacked and he needed to change his password, he asked his IT staff who told him to immediately change his password, so he did and it directed him to a server in Ukraine.
So that part is not news except to those who have ignored the emails.
Nobody has been able to point to an email that backs up those claims yet. Maybe you'll have better luck.Do tell.
There is always a casual observation about relational and higher-order database models that one could infer some contents of the information store if one only knows some parts of it.
This is probably similar to rules assessing what is necessary to issue warrants, subpoenas, file charges, arrest, remand, trial, conviction, sentencing and execution.
The standards may only be legal balances between various constitutional amendments and rights. A scientific view of it would be keen on probabilistic reasoning and inference.
Anyone who has ever had a canine friend understands their behaviors, which are near child-like. If they know they've done something wrong, they will cower in the corner, keep their distance and avoid eye-contact with the owner.
We have a President-elect who, if he took the position seriously, would be eager for all the intelligence briefings he's turned down. Last I heard, he only had some four briefings. His latest obscene pronouncement suggests that he's too smart, doesn't need daily briefings, has other things to do. Another sniveling excuse from the Traitor and Tyrant-to-be.
If I were guilty of some crime or thought I was, I wouldn't be eager to spend my time in a police station or precinct headquarters, either. I'd be concerned if detectives appeared on my doorstep just to collect donations for the local law-enforcers' association.
I wouldn't be dismissing the entire CIA otherwise considered to be one of the most essential agencies supporting presidential decision-making.
I would urge all responsible citizens to support further investigation to determine and document the Russians describing their intent to affect the elections. I would be looking at the data suggesting any US telephone, e-mail or other communications. I would be asking for a warrant to let NSA obtain dates, times, subscribers and as necessary -- content.
Following that short path, I'd make it an emergent priority to file charges and proceed as necessary, at whatever level in the Trump campaign it can be proven that there was foreknowledge, collaboration, coordination and even advice from the Russians, or discussions about hiding either the contact or the foreknowledge.
Impeach.
Convict.
Sentence.
Execute.
If we do not know precisely what had happened but we have some rather clear reasons to suspect it, people like Jeffrey Lord, Kellyann Conway, Sean Spicer -- even Reince Preibus -- could be guilty of obstruction. They are the most disgusting, low-life, low-lying, sycophantic, sniveling, duplicitous and amoral examples of human trash I've ever seen except in fiction.
If a lot of it could prove true, I might be interesting to see what level of civil disorder erupts if either the electoral college denies supporters' wishes for the Traitor's White-House installation, or Congress moves in some way toward impeachment and trial. I would also be interested whether any of the treasonous low-life lemmings can even decide that they made a very great mistake.
They are dead to me, though. They cannot expect from me emergency medical roadside assistance. I spit on their citizenship in my country.
WHICH REMINDS ME:
TRAITOR-TRUMP-ENALIA -- both for profit and inflammatory reaction. You cannot use the Trump brand name, but you could use a published photo. I intend to make Trump handkerchiefs, covered with his ugly disgusting face in full color.
Call it the TRUMP-FACE Hankey
It will always be an uplifting experience when out in public where people meet, to feel a sudden onslaught of allergies, sinusitis, COPD or whatever produces expectorate -- hold the hankie high like a magician demonstrating his silk scarf, and lay that blob of sputum on the hankie with the most forceful and disgusting sound.
I spit on your President-Traitor, Donald J. Trump. Arrest me. I have a dirty handkerchief.
It just doesn't get any better than this...
It just doesn't get any better than this...
So it may be that this was a false flag operation set up by the Obama administration?
http://thehill.com/homenews/309897-bolton-questions-if-russian-hacks-were-false-flag
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/john-bolton-russia-hack-a-false-flag-232490
"It is not at all clear to me just viewing this from the outside, that this hacking into the DNC and the RNC computers was not a false flag," Bolton said. "So the question has to be asked, why did the Russians run their smart intelligence service against Hillary's server, but their dumb intelligence service against the election?"
Shawn then asked Bolton — who has been mentioned as a possible Trump appointment — if he was accusing someone in "the administration or in the intelligence community of" the alleged false flag.
"We just don't know," Bolton said. "But I believe that the intelligence community has been politicized in the Obama administration to a very significant degree."
A "false flag" is a term for a cover-up or distraction orchestrated by the government or other powerful figures."
If your point was to highlight just how fucking crazy and bad of a pick Bolton would, then job well done! The guy's a whack job!
Funny you look to John Bolton considering he was one of the clowns of the Bush administration pushing the WMD story hard for Gulf War II.So it may be that this was a false flag operation set up by the Obama administration?
http://thehill.com/homenews/309897-bolton-questions-if-russian-hacks-were-false-flag
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/john-bolton-russia-hack-a-false-flag-232490
"It is not at all clear to me just viewing this from the outside, that this hacking into the DNC and the RNC computers was not a false flag," Bolton said. "So the question has to be asked, why did the Russians run their smart intelligence service against Hillary's server, but their dumb intelligence service against the election?"
Shawn then asked Bolton — who has been mentioned as a possible Trump appointment — if he was accusing someone in "the administration or in the intelligence community of" the alleged false flag.
"We just don't know," Bolton said. "But I believe that the intelligence community has been politicized in the Obama administration to a very significant degree."
A "false flag" is a term for a cover-up or distraction orchestrated by the government or other powerful figures."