Exit Obama in a Cloud of Disillusion, Delusion and Deceit

[Ethereal]

Exit Obama in a Cloud of Disillusion, Delusion and Deceit (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/exit-obama-cloud-disillusion-delusion-deceit/)

31 Dec, 2016 in Uncategorized by craig

I had promised myself and my family that on this holiday I would do nothing but relax. However events have overtaken my good intentions. I find myself in the unusual position of having twice been in a position to know directly that governments were lying in globe-shaking events, firstly Iraqi WMD and now the “Russian hacks”.

Anybody who believes the latest report issued by Obama as “proof” provides anything of the sort is very easily impressed by some entirely meaningless diagrams. William Binney, who was Technical Director at the NSA and actually designed their surveillance capabilities, has advised me by email. It is plain from the report itself that the Russian groups discussed have been under targeted NSA surveillance for a period longer than the timeframe for the DNC and Podesta leaks. It is therefore inconceivable that the NSA would not have detected and traced those particular data flows and they would be saved. In other words, the NSA would have the actual hack on record, would be able to recognise the emails themselves and tell you exactly the second the transmission or transmissions took place and how they were routed. They would be able to give you date, time and IP addresses. In fact, not only do they produce no evidence of this kind, they do not even claim to have this kind of definite evidence.

Secondly, Bill points out that WikiLeaks is in itself a top priority target and any transmission to WikiLeaks or any of its major operatives would be tracked, captured and saved by NSA as a matter of routine. The exact route and date of the transmission or transmissions of the particular emails to WikiLeaks would be available. In fact, not only does the report not make this information available, it makes no claim at all to know anything about how the information was got to WikiLeaks.

...

Craig Murray of Wikileaks reiterates his belief that the Obama administration is recklessly lying about the alleged Russian hacks and employs former Technical Director of the NSA, William Binney, to examine the evidence (or lack thereof) being used to support this flimsy accusation.

And, of course, our resident Democrats will not bother to address any of the evidence or logic they put forth. Instead, they will merely reiterate their blind faith in anonymous government officials while tossing in a few insults about Putin puppets and Kremlin stooges.

[Common]

The obama admin, the hillary campaign, the media, has provided only allegations and not one iota of proof.
The CIA director Brennan made one statement and has provided no proof.

[stjames1_53]

Critical think plays no part when a alt-leftist speaks....they are powered by deceiving emotions, as we well know

[FindersKeepers]

Craig Murray of Wikileaks reiterates his belief that the Obama administration is recklessly lying about the alleged Russian hacks and employs former Technical Director of the NSA, William Binney, to examine the evidence (or lack thereof) being used to support this flimsy accusation.

And, of course, our resident Democrats will not bother to address any of the evidence or logic they put forth. Instead, they will merely reiterate their blind faith in anonymous government officials while tossing in a few insults about Putin puppets and Kremlin stooges.


I wonder if the same democrats, once Trump is in office, will be so quick to toe the government line.

I'm guessing not.

[MMC]

Yeah the leftness avoids the issue now.....so its onto some other excuse. The excuse that the Russians helped Trump beat Hillary. Has failed.....just like the recount, and then the failed attempt to get Electors to jump ship on Trump.

The Peep doesn't want to go digging to deep as then it would show he was complicit with Hillary and her people giving up breaches of National Security.

[Crepitus]

The sheer number of Putin fans here is frightening.

[Captain Obvious]

lol

[The Xl]

The sheer number of people here who buy unsubstantiated, low level propaganda is frightening.

[Captain Obvious]

The sheer number of people here who buy unsubstantiated, low level propaganda is frightening.

This

[Chris]

The sheer number of Putin fans here is frightening.

How does questioning Obama on this equate to being a Putin fan? Especially when the questioning says it was likely not hacking by Russians.

[Ethereal]

The sheer number of Putin fans here is frightening.
You probably think anyone with a different opinion is a Putin fan.

[The Xl]

You probably think anyone with a different opinion is a Putin fan.

Anyone who uses critical thinking and doesn't buy every piece of low level idiocy spouted from our ever so loving government is a Putin fan.

[Crepitus]

How does questioning Obama on this equate to being a Putin fan? Especially when the questioning says it was likely not hacking by Russians.

The willingness to believe anything, anyone, over our government because it fits your (not you specifically ) confirmation bias is sad.

[Crepitus]

You probably think anyone with a different opinion is a Putin fan.

Nope, wrong answer.

Thanks for playing though!

[MisterVeritis]

The willingness to believe anything, anyone, over our government because it fits your (not you specifically ) confirmation bias is sad.
Who briefed the House? When did the briefing take place? What was the nature of the evidence?

[Chris]

The willingness to believe anything, anyone, over our government because it fits your (not you specifically ) confirmation bias is sad.

So you've put Putin to the side then.

Dependency on government is sadder but that's another topic .

[Subdermal]

How does questioning Obama on this equate to being a Putin fan? Especially when the questioning says it was likely not hacking by Russians.
Well, because...

The sheer number of people here who buy unsubstantiated, low level propaganda is frightening.

[Crepitus]

So you've put Putin to the side then.

Dependency on government is saddled but that's another topic .

Chris, our government if far from perfect, and they have done many things I disagree with, but there are some folks here who believe everything bad they hear about the government without applying any critical thinking or even common sense. Look at the thread about fining people for heating their homes in Alaska of all places.

[Subdermal]

Chris, our government if far from perfect, and they have done many things I disagree with, but there are some folks here who believe everything bad they hear about the government without applying any critical thinking or even common sense. Look at the thread about fining people for heating their homes in Alaska of all places.


And what about that thread do you believe is a supporting example? The OP's article cites the NYTimes, explaining the fines.

But I'm all ears.

[ripmeister]

Who briefed the House? When did the briefing take place? What was the nature of the evidence?
This is pretty funny coming from you when in other threads you've argued for the need to not reveal "plans" or the MO for particular objective.

[Peter1469]

This is pretty funny coming from you when in other threads you've argued for the need to not reveal "plans" or the MO for particular objective.

Congress has oversight over federal agencies. Specific subcommittees in the House and Senate would be briefed if there was any evidence.

[MisterVeritis]

This is pretty funny coming from you when in other threads you've argued for the need to not reveal "plans" or the MO for particular objective.
Fine. If the intelligence agencies refuse Congressional oversight we can eliminate the intelligence agencies.

I suspect the Congressional leadership will be briefed on the plans for the destruction of ISIS. Is it exhausting working so hard at being wrong most of the time?

[ripmeister]

Fine. If the intelligence agencies refuse Congressional oversight we can eliminate the intelligence agencies.

I suspect the Congressional leadership will be briefed on the plans for the destruction of ISIS. Is it exhausting working so hard at being wrong most of the time?

Nothing wrong with what I wrote. I simply pointed out your duplicity when it comes to to whether you are arguing for something you want to see happen. And of course you close with the typical smarmy insult indicative of the smartest person in the room.

[MisterVeritis]

Nothing wrong with what I wrote. I simply pointed out your duplicity when it comes to to whether you are arguing for something you want to see happen. And of course you close with the typical smarmy insult indicative of the smartest person in the room.
If this is the room you refer to then clearly I am the smartest one in it.

We have Congressional oversight of executive branch agencies for a reason. The Congress has budget power and impeachment power. If an agency refuses oversight the Congress has many tools to coerce it. However, we elected a new Sheriff. He will take office in just a few weeks.

Meanwhile, don't worry your pretty little head over adult matters.

[AZ Jim]

Craig Murray of Wikileaks reiterates his belief that the Obama administration is recklessly lying about the alleged Russian hacks and employs former Technical Director of the NSA, William Binney, to examine the evidence (or lack thereof) being used to support this flimsy accusation.

And, of course, our resident Democrats will not bother to address any of the evidence or logic they put forth. Instead, they will merely reiterate their blind faith in anonymous government officials while tossing in a few insults about Putin puppets and Kremlin stooges.Your family is right, take a chill pill. Remember 17 total agencies has said the Russians DID hack and interfere in our election. It's not your favorite target, President saying it, he's only repeating what they say. McCain and Graham and others are promising a hearing on this.

[MisterVeritis]

Your family is right, take a chill pill. Remember 17 total agencies has said the Russians DID hack and interfere in our election. It's not your favorite target, President saying it, he's only repeating what they say. McCain and Graham and others are promising a hearing on this.
Who briefed the House? When did the briefing take place? What was the nature of the evidence?

[stjames1_53]

Your family is right, take a chill pill. Remember 17 total agencies has said the Russians DID hack and interfere in our election. It's not your favorite target, President saying it, he's only repeating what they say. McCain and Graham and others are promising a hearing on this.

did you believe it when it was said we landed on the moon?

[Chris]

Chris, our government if far from perfect, and they have done many things I disagree with, but there are some folks here who believe everything bad they hear about the government without applying any critical thinking or even common sense. Look at the thread about fining people for heating their homes in Alaska of all places.

What good do you think the government does?

[stjames1_53]

Who briefed the House? When did the briefing take place? What was the nature of the evidence?
there is none. WaPo has been lying all along:
Washington Post latest blunder proves fake news is fine... if it involves Russia
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/372475-washington-post-fake-news-russia/

Washington Post Forced To Retract Fake Story That Russia Hacked US Power Grid
http://www.activistpost.com/2017/01/washington-post-forced-retract-fake-story-russia-hacked-us-power-grid.html

and the snowflakes eat this up like candy. They really know better, but they just can't help it with the cartoons, meme's slurs, and insult.
If they lied about this, where does their credibility land?

[Don]

"Exit Obama in a Cloud of Disillusion, Delusion and Deceit"

In my opinion that's exactly the way Obama entered office.

[stjames1_53]

What good do you think the government does?

Government is the only man-made predator of men........... unknown

[stjames1_53]

Your family is right, take a chill pill. Remember 17 total agencies has said the Russians DID hack and interfere in our election. It's not your favorite target, President saying it, he's only repeating what they say. McCain and Graham and others are promising a hearing on this.
do you even have a list of those agencies? I cannot find that list.............

[Don]

The sheer number of people here who buy unsubstantiated, low level propaganda is frightening.

And to use the time proven communist tactic of trying to connect a person to someone or something and then playing the "guilt by association" card even if its not true. Smearing.

[MisterVeritis]

do you even have a list of those agencies? I cannot find that list.............
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Intelligence_Community

[stjames1_53]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Intelligence_Community
so there are 6 parent agencies and 16 listed agencies.......Coast Guard Intelligence, the 25th Air Force, That leaves 14 agencies that have signed off, if the count is right...so how in the hell does 17 =14 even if all intelligence agencies agree (and that would be a first)
No, it's another tale spin by the Socialist press.............you're lucky to get the CIA and FBI on board for a pit party

[MisterVeritis]

so there are 6 parent agencies and 16 listed agencies.......Coast Guard Intelligence, the 25th Air Force, That leaves 14 agencies that have signed off, if the count is right...so how in the hell does 17 =14 even if all intelligence agencies agree (and that would be a first)
No, it's another tale spin by the Socialist press.............you're lucky to get the CIA and FBI on board for a pit party
When I was in that community nearly all of the collectors (and analysts) were in the defense department. I no longer know. The national security agency is enormous. Each of the agencies specialized in their analysis areas. Of course there would always be overlap.

[stjames1_53]

When I was in that community nearly all of the collectors (and analysts) were in the defense department. I no longer know. The national security agency is enormous. Each of the agencies specialized in their analysis areas. Of course there would always be overlap.
that's why I pretty much want the list he's touting.....I think it's just another BS rumor

[Subdermal]

so there are 6 parent agencies and 16 listed agencies.......Coast Guard Intelligence, the 25th Air Force, That leaves 14 agencies that have signed off, if the count is right...so how in the hell does 17 =14 even if all intelligence agencies agree (and that would be a first)
No, it's another tale spin by the Socialist press.............you're lucky to get the CIA and FBI on board for a pit party
I think this is a good point. There's no way there is unanimity like this amongst '17' intel agencies. This is a contrived narrative, and observing this suspicious coincidence is just another way to fortify justifiable doubt of the veracity of the claim.

Beyond that, the actual intel would have been long since leaked. We're past 3 months of these baseless claims thus far.

[Crepitus]

What good do you think the government does?

Communications and transportation? Social security and medicaid?

Just to name a few.

[ripmeister]

Fine. If the intelligence agencies refuse Congressional oversight we can eliminate the intelligence agencies.

I suspect the Congressional leadership will be briefed on the plans for the destruction of ISIS. Is it exhausting working so hard at being wrong most of the time?
Not at all. I do this for fun. Its child's play

[stjames1_53]

When I was in that community nearly all of the collectors (and analysts) were in the defense department. I no longer know. The national security agency is enormous. Each of the agencies specialized in their analysis areas. Of course there would always be overlap.

a claim of this size and nature will come though the top of the food chain. Otherwise, if some low-level paper pusher says it, it can't possibly be relevent

[stjames1_53]

Communications and transportation? Social security and medicaid?

Just to name a few.

the government holds none of these things dear and dear to its heart...they are pirating SS and Medicaid and giving to the illegals.
Transportation has become the new heroin "do it or else."
Communications? Really??? have you been reading about how the US wants to control the internet? how about stingray, or warrantless searches of your devices......................

[stjames1_53]

I think this is a good point. There's no way there is unanimity like this amongst '17' intel agencies. This is a contrived narrative, and observing this suspicious coincidence is just another way to fortify justifiable doubt of the veracity of the claim.

Beyond that, the actual intel would have been long since leaked. We're past 3 months of these baseless claims thus far.
and still no list from the claimant............that's because there is no list...............

[Ethereal]

The willingness to believe anything, anyone, over our government because it fits your (not you specifically ) confirmation bias is sad.
Except we don't have to "believe" anything because we're not the ones making the claims. You are. Therefore, the onus is on you, not us, to substantiate those claims in some way. All we've done is make perfectly reasonable requests for evidence, which you mysteriously interpret as a belief in something.

[Ethereal]

Nope, wrong answer.

Thanks for playing though!

That's how you've been behaving ever since these unproven, anonymous allegations surfaced. Anyone who expresses skepticism or makes a perfectly reasonable request for evidence is automatically and strangely associated with Vladimir Putin, as if the only way you can express skepticism towards the US government's assertions and narratives is by being a fan of Putin. In reality, the default position of any reasonable person towards unproven claims is skepticism.

[Ethereal]

Chris, our government if far from perfect, and they have done many things I disagree with, but there are some folks here who believe everything bad they hear about the government without applying any critical thinking or even common sense. Look at the thread about fining people for heating their homes in Alaska of all places.
How many times does this need to be explained to you? You are the one expressing a belief, not us. We are merely questioning that belief and asking for evidence. For some strange reason, you have interpreted this perfectly reasonable position of skepticism as a belief in something. I have no idea why.

[Ethereal]

Your family is right, take a chill pill.

I have no idea what this is in reference to.


Remember 17 total agencies has said the Russians DID hack and interfere in our election.

Actually, it was James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, who said that, and he is a proven liar.


It's not your favorite target, President saying it, he's only repeating what they say. McCain and Graham and others are promising a hearing on this.

McCain and Graham are two of the least credible people in Washington DC, and that's saying something.

[MisterVeritis]

Is it exhausting working so hard at being wrong most of the time?

Not at all. I do this for fun. Its child's play
It is good to see you mastered it.

[MisterVeritis]

a claim of this size and nature will come through the top of the food chain. Otherwise, if some low-level paper pusher says it, it can't possibly be relevent
I do not discount Russian hacking into political party networks. Such is the nature of intelligence work. The House asked for a briefing. No briefing has occurred. To me, that implies this is more political.

It is not important. We will have new leadership at the tops of each organization sometime soon.

[ripmeister]

Is it exhausting working so hard at being wrong most of the time?

It is good to see you mastered it.
LOL. Good one!

[spunkloaf]

This is pretty funny coming from you when in other threads you've argued for the need to not reveal "plans" or the MO for particular objective.
I'm disturbed that I'm the only one thanking you for saying this. "MisterVeritis" gets three people to thank him for saying "Who briefed the House? When did the briefing take place? What was the nature of the evidence?" And now it's all he ever says to people, like it's his f*cking magnum opus.

[decedent]

The sheer number of Putin fans here is frightening.

The FBI unambiguously stated that the Russians were involved in the national election. The delusion from these Trumplings reminds me that Trumpism is a religion. Facts be damned... just find an emotional essay on the web and post it as evidence.

But Craig Murray from Wikileaks said the Russians aren't involved, so what does the FBI know.

[ripmeister]

I'm disturbed that I'm the only one thanking you for saying this. "MisterVeritis" gets three people to thank him for saying "Who briefed the House? When did the briefing take place? What was the nature of the evidence?" And now it's all he ever says to people, like it's his f*cking magnum opus.
That his MO

[spunkloaf]

"Exit Obama in a Cloud of Disillusion, Delusion and Deceit"

In my opinion that's exactly the way Obama entered office.

You likely shared the opinion with others that our country was doomed when he entered office, too. So how's your life been for the past 8 years?

[Subdermal]

This is pretty funny coming from you when in other threads you've argued for the need to not reveal "plans" or the MO for particular objective.

I'll help both you and @spunkloaf (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=11) out, to get past the tricky need for critical thinking.

There is a difference between publicizing sensitive documents/intel/evidence and allowing our elected representatives to see such information.

They, after all, hold clearances that the public does not. But this intel has not been shared with Congress, and that's what @MisterVeritis (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1287) has pointed out. Because it hasn't been shared - despite Congressional requests - it is not only legitimate to question its existence, but DEMAND to see it.

So sorry, @ripmeister (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=2035). Only those who aren't intellectually honest - or simply not intelligent - can see a conflict in the positions he's expressed on this topic.

[spunkloaf]

I'll help both you and @spunkloaf (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=11) out, to get past the tricky need for critical thinking.

There is a difference between publicizing sensitive documents/intel/evidence and allowing our elected representatives to see such information.

They, after all, hold clearances that the public does not. But this intel has not been shared with Congress, and that's what @MisterVeritis (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1287) has pointed out. Because it hasn't been shared - despite Congressional requests - it is not only legitimate to question its existence, but DEMAND to see it.

So sorry, @ripmeister (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=2035). Only those who aren't intellectually honest - or simply not intelligent - can see a conflict in the positions he's expressed on this topic.

Like I said to MisterVeritis...

You only observe the rules when it is convenient for you, but as soon as it is no longer convenient, the new precedent is that others have broken the rules, too.

[Subdermal]

Like I said to MisterVeritis...

You only observe the rules when it is convenient for you, but as soon as it is no longer convenient, the new precedent is that others have broken the rules, too.

I have no idea what you're talking about, and suspect that the reason that you don't directly address and refute my post is that you can't.

[spunkloaf]

I have no idea what you're talking about, and suspect that the reason that you don't directly address and refute my post is that you can't.

I can't refute your post in the same way that I can't refute a four year old's opinion that he enjoys the taste of his own feces.

So be it.

[Subdermal]

Like I said to MisterVeritis...

You only observe the rules when it is convenient for you, but as soon as it is no longer convenient, the new precedent is that others have broken the rules, too.


I can't refute your post in the same way that I can't refute a four year old's opinion that he enjoys the taste of his own feces.

So be it.

This is why you have no credibility. You are actually the one guilty of the accusations you direct at others.

Nothing more effectively draws out rank hypocrisy in leftists than to smack them in the face with an irrefutable argument.

Fact: demanding a Congressional Hearing does not pose a risk to our Intelligence Agencies, nor give any of our enemies any edge.

Your argument is stripped naked, and has frozen to death.

[Subdermal]

The FBI unambiguously stated that the Russians were involved in the national election. The delusion from these Trumplings reminds me that Trumpism is a religion. Facts be damned... just find an emotional essay on the web and post it as evidence.

But Craig Murray from Wikileaks said the Russians aren't involved, so what does the FBI know.

Another leftist who willingly abides weasel words like "involved". Involved? How? Did they slip a RussianBrides.com malware link onto an election commissioner's iPad?
"Involved" could literally mean anything - but the problem is that only very specific types of involvement grant your bankrupt arguments any cover at all.

And you don't have even the slightest idea of the nature of the "involvement".

[spunkloaf]

This is why you have no credibility. You are actually the one guilty of the accusations you direct at others.

Nothing more effectively draws out rank hypocrisy in leftists than to smack them in the face with an irrefutable argument.

Fact: demanding a Congressional Hearing does not pose a risk to our Intelligence Agencies, nor give any of our enemies any edge.

Your argument is stripped naked, and has frozen to death.

If you say so, genius. :rollseyes:

[Subdermal]

If you say so, genius. :rollseyes:

You should really cut down on the punting. You're going to hurt your foot.

[spunkloaf]

Another leftist who willingly abides weasel words like "involved". Involved? How? Did they slip a RussianBrides.com malware link onto an election commissioner's iPad?
"Involved" could literally mean anything - but the problem is that only very specific types of involvement grant your bankrupt arguments any cover at all.

And you don't have even the slightest idea of the nature of the "involvement".

This is why no amount of "credibility" will have any effect on you. Your mind is so made up and rock solid, and the only reason you believe the way you do is because it is the most convenient to you. Truth has nothing to do with it as far as you are concerned. Watch how the tables will turn after the inauguration. You're gonna flop like a fish, and the Trump administration will be the supreme law of the land according to you. There's nothing more American than disagreeing with a liberal, is there, genius? As long as you're on that side of the argument, you're on the winning side. Am I right?

[Subdermal]

This is why no amount of "credibility" will have any effect on you. Your mind is so made up and rock solid, and the only reason you believe the way you do is because it is the most convenient to you. Truth has nothing to do with it as far as you are concerned. Watch how the tables will turn after the inauguration. You're gonna flop like a fish, and the Trump administration will be the supreme law of the land according to you. There's nothing more American than disagreeing with a liberal, is there, genius? As long as you're on that side of the argument, you're on the winning side. Am I right?
Your deflections are meaningless prattle. Try to actually refute my point.

[spunkloaf]

Your deflections are meaningless prattle. Try to actually refute my point.

I would if you had actually made one worth refuting. You mean, to argue against why you think you're correct in disagreeing with my opinion that your opinion is bullshit? This is getting quite tiring. What point are you really trying to get me to refute?

[Subdermal]

I'll help both you and @spunkloaf (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=11) out, to get past the tricky need for critical thinking.

There is a difference between publicizing sensitive documents/intel/evidence and allowing our elected representatives to see such information.

They, after all, hold clearances that the public does not. But this intel has not been shared with Congress, and that's what @MisterVeritis (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1287) has pointed out. Because it hasn't been shared - despite Congressional requests - it is not only legitimate to question its existence, but DEMAND to see it.

So sorry, @ripmeister (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=2035). Only those who aren't intellectually honest - or simply not intelligent - can see a conflict in the positions he's expressed on this topic.

After this, you couldn't refute my point. Instead, you deflected:

Like I said to MisterVeritis...

You only observe the rules when it is convenient for you, but as soon as it is no longer convenient, the new precedent is that others have broken the rules, too.
You immediately followed this post with a rank demonstration of hypocrisy, doing exactly what you just whined that I did...and then spent several more posts with non-answers.

I would if you had actually made one worth refuting. You mean, to argue against why you think you're correct in disagreeing with my opinion that your opinion is bullshit? This is getting quite tiring. What point are you really trying to get me to refute?


You chose to 'like' rip's attempt to find hypocrisy in @MisterVeritis (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1287) past proclamations that sensitive "plans" shouldn't be made public, but that our Intel Agencies should be required to present their evidence to Congress.

That's why I drew you into a forced defense of ripmeister's claim. I clearly pointed out that there is no hypocrisy: publically revealing future plans to the US people is not synonymous with requiring Senate or House Hearings - to politicians with security clearances expressly granted for this reason - in order to determine how credible these vague claims are.

Your mistake was choosing to 'like' a sentiment which cannot be defended.

[Peter1469]

That his MO


I posted months ago that the Russians were going to be involved. Pay attention.

[stjames1_53]

This is why no amount of "credibility" will have any effect on you. Your mind is so made up and rock solid, and the only reason you believe the way you do is because it is the most convenient to you. Truth has nothing to do with it as far as you are concerned. Watch how the tables will turn after the inauguration. You're gonna flop like a fish, and the Trump administration will be the supreme law of the land according to you. There's nothing more American than disagreeing with a liberal, is there, genius? As long as you're on that side of the argument, you're on the winning side. Am I right?

well, your welfare queen did lose...no once, not twice, but three times....guess that makes the dems three times losers...............jes sayin'
so, yes, WE ARE the WINNERS........................and so are you. Trump is not pandering to special interest groups. He has no obligations to repay when he takes office. That's what makes us WINNERS............HUZZAH!!!!!!!

[donttread]

Craig Murray of Wikileaks reiterates his belief that the Obama administration is recklessly lying about the alleged Russian hacks and employs former Technical Director of the NSA, William Binney, to examine the evidence (or lack thereof) being used to support this flimsy accusation.

And, of course, our resident Democrats will not bother to address any of the evidence or logic they put forth. Instead, they will merely reiterate their blind faith in anonymous government officials while tossing in a few insults about Putin puppets and Kremlin stooges.

I never had much respect for Obama and he is spending his last days in office proving me me right. I wouldn't believe him right now if he said it was raining unless I stepped outside to see and feel the rain myself.

[MisterVeritis]

LOL. Good one!
I am reading a book about Madison and Jefferson. I have been like Jefferson, combative, desiring to crush my opponents. I shall strive to be more like Madison.

[Cigar]

http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/BenneC/2017/BenneC20170104_low.jpg

[MisterVeritis]

I'm disturbed that I'm the only one thanking you for saying this. "MisterVeritis" gets three people to thank him for saying "Who briefed the House? When did the briefing take place? What was the nature of the evidence?" And now it's all he ever says to people, like it's his f*cking magnum opus.
The House and Senate intelligence committees are the appropriate places to brief our representatives. The House asked for the briefing. The Obama Regime refused. I am sorry you are unable to understand something that seems so simple to me.

[MisterVeritis]

The FBI unambiguously stated that the Russians were involved in the national election. The delusion from these Trumplings reminds me that Trumpism is a religion. Facts be damned... just find an emotional essay on the web and post it as evidence.
But Craig Murray from Wikileaks said the Russians aren't involved, so what does the FBI know.
Who briefed the House of Representatives? When did the briefing take place? What was the nature of the evidence? If the case is as certain as the political statements made by the FBI and DHS why hasn't there been a briefing in the House?

The fact that there has not been a briefing, despite the request for one indicates to me the intelligence is not that solid.

[Cigar]

The House and Senate intelligence committees are the appropriate places to brief our representatives. The House asked for the briefing. The Obama Regime refused. I am sorry you are unable to understand something that seems so simple to me.

... and now the Truth!

The Intelligence Community (IC) is refusing to provide the House Intelligence Committee with a requested Thursday briefing on Russian interference with the U.S. election, citing an ongoing review of the matter requested by President Obama.

According to a statement, the IC will not be offering comment to Congress until it completes that review, which will cover foreign interference in the electoral process since 2008.

"Once the review is complete in the coming weeks, the Intelligence Community stands ready to brief Congress — and will make those findings available to the public consistent with protecting intelligence sources and methods," the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) said in a statement.

The Obama review is scheduled to be completed by the time Donald Trump (http://thehill.com/people/donald-trump) takes office on Jan. 20.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/310495-intel-head-ic-agencies-refused-to-brief-committee-on-russian-hacking

[MisterVeritis]

Like I said to MisterVeritis...
You only observe the rules when it is convenient for you, but as soon as it is no longer convenient, the new precedent is that others have broken the rules, too.
This makes no sense to me. Help me understand why you believe the intelligence agencies pushing the claim that Russia "hacked our elections" do not have the obligation to brief the House Intelligence Committee. This has been the rule for as long as I have been alive. What is different today?

[ripmeister]

I'll help both you and @spunkloaf (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=11) out, to get past the tricky need for critical thinking.

There is a difference between publicizing sensitive documents/intel/evidence and allowing our elected representatives to see such information.

They, after all, hold clearances that the public does not. But this intel has not been shared with Congress, and that's what @MisterVeritis (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1287) has pointed out. Because it hasn't been shared - despite Congressional requests - it is not only legitimate to question its existence, but DEMAND to see it.

So sorry, @ripmeister (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=2035). Only those who aren't intellectually honest - or simply not intelligent - can see a conflict in the positions he's expressed on this topic.
So I take this to mean that once the appropriate committees are informed that if they corroborate what the intelligence community is saying that you will accept it?

[Subdermal]

So I take this to mean that once the appropriate committees are informed that if they corroborate what the intelligence community is saying that you will accept it?
Accept what?

[ripmeister]

I posted months ago that the Russians were going to be involved. Pay attention.
Not sure why you direct this at me. My comment was about Mr. V

[ripmeister]

I am reading a book about Madison and Jefferson. I have been like Jefferson, combative, desiring to crush my opponents. I shall strive to be more like Madison.

Sounds good. I'm reading Hillbilly Elegy. Very interesting.

[ripmeister]

Who briefed the House of Representatives? When did the briefing take place? What was the nature of the evidence? If the case is as certain as the political statements made by the FBI and DHS why hasn't there been a briefing in the House?

The fact that there has not been a briefing, despite the request for one indicates to me the intelligence is not that solid.
Your first two questions are legitimate although I seem to remember that the chairs of those committees have been briefed but I may be wrong about that.

The he third question was the reason for my earlier query about the revelation of our intelligence communities abilities so relative to earlier positions you have taken I would assume that you wouldn't want such revealed.

That at brings me to the question I posed above that assuming the committees once informed agree with the assessment will you accept it then?

[Subdermal]

Your first two questions are legitimate although I seem to remember that the chairs of those committees have been briefed but I may be wrong about that.

You are. There have been zero briefings.


The third question was the reason for my earlier query about the revelation of our intelligence communities abilities so relative to earlier positions you have taken I would assume that you wouldn't want such revealed.

Past incidences are not nearly as critical as future plans, for starters. More importantly, however, is the fact that MV has never demanded that this information be released to the public. He's demanded that House and Senate Intelligence committees - every member of whom carries the necessary clearance - be briefed.


They haven't been. Still.


That at brings me to the question I posed above that assuming the committees once informed agree with the assessment will you accept it then?


Far too general. The information itself will have to be digested. I will accept that they briefed a bipartisan committee, and then - absent being privy to the information myself - will take into consideration the credibility of the members of that committee, and their comments on it.

[ripmeister]

Accept what?
That the IC has determined that the Russians hacked our political process.

[ripmeister]

You are. There have been zero briefings.



Past incidences are not nearly as critical as future plans, for starters. More importantly, however, is the fact that MV has never demanded that this information be released to the public. He's demanded that House and Senate Intelligence committees - every member of whom carries the necessary clearance - be briefed.


They haven't been. Still.




Far too general. The information itself will have to be digested. I will accept that they briefed a bipartisan committee, and then - absent being privy to the information myself - will take into consideration the credibility of the members of that committee, and their comments on it.

As I suspected. You are moving the goal post.

[Subdermal]

That the IC has determined that the Russians hacked our political process.


Don't you think that the nature of the hack - the extent and specifics - aren't really really important?

Hacking is nothing new. So far, the most credible thing I've heard on the extent and nature of leaked info has come from the NSA whistleblower, and that doesn't support that narrative AT ALL.

[jimmyz]

I have my Whisky ready for Jan 20 2016. Somehow Dems have condoms at the ready. I think my shots will be more acceptable and wanted. Condoms filled with Whiskey flowing down Dern throats as a bonus. Happy inauguration losers!!!!!!!

[Subdermal]

As I suspected. You are moving the goal post.

No, I'm certainly not. In fact, you have never established any ground that held any goal post with which to begin. There has been only extremely vague - and thus far totally unsubstantiated - allegations of "Russian involvement".

The problem is that the Russians have always been involved. I'm willing to bet with you that absolutely NOTHING will be revealed that hasn't been going on since there have been systems to hack, and absolutely nothing will be revealed that any effect on the raw vote count.

[Crepitus]

You are. There have been zero briefings.
Past incidences are not nearly as critical as future plans, for starters. More importantly, however, is the fact that MV has never demanded that this information be released to the public. He's demanded that House and Senate Intelligence committees - every member of whom carries the necessary clearance - be briefed.
They haven't been. Still.
Far too general. The information itself will have to be digested. I will accept that they briefed a bipartisan committee, and then - absent being privy to the information myself - will take into consideration the credibility of the members of that committee, and their comments on it.
In other words "no".

[ripmeister]

Don't you think that the nature of the hack - the extent and specifics - aren't really really important?

Hacking is nothing new. So far, the most credible thing I've heard on the extent and nature of leaked info has come from the NSA whistleblower, and that doesn't support that narrative AT ALL.
They seem to be important to the incoming POTUS to the extent that he has totally dissed the IC. It's one thing to vigorously question the IC but what he has done is beyond the pale IMO to such an extent that he seems to favor Putin and Assange. This does not bode well for the future of that relationship.

[Crepitus]

They seem to be important to the incoming POTUS to the extent that he has totally dissed the IC. It's one thing to vigorously question the IC but what he has done is beyond the pale IMO to such an extent that he seems to favor Putin and Assange. This does not bode well for the future of that relationship.

But things are looking up for Vladimir and Julian!

[Subdermal]

In other words "no".

If I had meant no, I would have said no.

[Crepitus]

If I had meant no, I would have said no.

Oh come on. It's transparently obvious you are setting up your "out" so you can continue to deny.

[ripmeister]

No, I'm certainly not. In fact, you have never established any ground that held any goal post with which to begin. There has been only extremely vague - and thus far totally unsubstantiated - allegations of "Russian involvement".

The problem is that the Russians have always been involved. I'm willing to bet with you that absolutely NOTHING will be revealed that hasn't been going on since there have been systems to hack, and absolutely nothing will be revealed that any effect on the raw vote count.
First off lets get the election off the table. The Russian alleged transgressions had very little if any effect on the outcome IMO. I'm not in that camp.

As ive understood it you and Mr. V's objections have been that the IC has not met with the appropriate committees to validate their claims. You've also claimed that IC abilities and tactics need not be revealed because of the oaths so taken

i then asked if your wants are fulfilled and the committees validate the IC's claims would you accept it. Your response to that was, it depends.

I call that moving the goal post.

[stjames1_53]

That the IC has determined that the Russians hacked our political process.
so far, as of this morning, no evidence has been forthcoming.................. just what is it they were supposed to have done? Altered a bunch of votes? That's the ONLY way they could have affected the outcome. ......otherwise, Hillary lost your election. and she'll loose again here in a few days.

[stjames1_53]

First off lets get the election off the table. The Russian alleged transgressions had very little if any effect on the outcome IMO. I'm not in that camp.

As ive understood it you and Mr. V's objections have been that the IC has not met with the appropriate committees to validate their claims. You've also claimed that IC abilities and tactics need not be revealed because of the oaths so taken

i then asked if your wants are fulfilled and the committees validate the IC's claims would you accept it. Your response to that was, it depends.

I call that moving the goal post.

well, since you accepted that they didn't affect the outcome, what other thing or things did they do that changed people's minds abou t Hillary?
Maybe they exposed the truth about her and the DNC....but we already knew she was corrupt BEFORE the election. You just can't come to terms with it, like so many snowflakes.

[MisterVeritis]

I can't refute your post in the same way that I can't refute a four year old's opinion that he enjoys the taste of his own feces.
So be it.
You are a disgusting human being.

[MisterVeritis]

The FBI unambiguously stated that the Russians were involved in the national election. The delusion from these Trumplings reminds me that Trumpism is a religion. Facts be damned... just find an emotional essay on the web and post it as evidence.
But Craig Murray from Wikileaks said the Russians aren't involved, so what does the FBI know.
The Left media were also involved in the election. Wikileaks did their work for them. You should thank them.

When the DNI and his minions brief the Congress to the Congress' satisfaction I will be satisfied. For now the claims are political, not necessarily factual.

[MisterVeritis]

"MisterVeritis" gets three people to thank him for saying "Who briefed the House? When did the briefing take place? What was the nature of the evidence?" And now it's all he ever says to people, like it's his f*cking magnum opus.

That his MO
'tis true. I do want the political leadership of the intelligence agencies held to account. Not everyone cares.

[MisterVeritis]

I posted months ago that the Russians were going to be involved. Pay attention.
Every nation spies on every other nation, to the limits of their resources and needs.

[MisterVeritis]

... and now the Truth!

The Intelligence Community (IC) is refusing to provide the House Intelligence Committee with a requested Thursday briefing on Russian interference with the U.S. election, citing an ongoing review of the matter requested by President Obama.

According to a statement, the IC will not be offering comment to Congress until it completes that review, which will cover foreign interference in the electoral process since 2008.

"Once the review is complete in the coming weeks, the Intelligence Community stands ready to brief Congress — and will make those findings available to the public consistent with protecting intelligence sources and methods," the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) said in a statement.

The Obama review is scheduled to be completed by the time Donald Trump (http://thehill.com/people/donald-trump) takes office on Jan. 20.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/310495-intel-head-ic-agencies-refused-to-brief-committee-on-russian-hacking


Given your so-called truth, the Obama Regime should not have been claiming the evidence is ironclad. You do not recognize a stall tactic, do you?

[hanger4]

... and now the Truth!

The Intelligence Community (IC) is refusing to provide the House Intelligence Committee with a requested Thursday briefing on Russian interference with the U.S. election, citing an ongoing review of the matter requested by President Obama.

According to a statement, the IC will not be offering comment to Congress until it completes that review, which will cover foreign interference in the electoral process since 2008.

"Once the review is complete in the coming weeks, the Intelligence Community stands ready to brief Congress — and will make those findings available to the public consistent with protecting intelligence sources and methods," the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) said in a statement.

The Obama review is scheduled to be completed by the time Donald Trump (http://thehill.com/people/donald-trump) takes office on Jan. 20.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/310495-intel-head-ic-agencies-refused-to-brief-committee-on-russian-hacking





Amazing. So it's not OK to brief the appropriate oversight committee's without a complete review, but it is OK to leak via anonymous sources to WaPo and the NYT's without a complete review.

To use FK's words, FASCINATING !!

[MisterVeritis]

Who briefed the House of Representatives? When did the briefing take place? What was the nature of the evidence? If the case is as certain as the political statements made by the FBI and DHS why hasn't there been a briefing in the House?

The fact that there has not been a briefing, despite the request for one indicates to me the intelligence is not that solid.

Your first two questions are legitimate although I seem to remember that the chairs of those committees have been briefed but I may be wrong about that.
Early on I read a brief comment that a few members of the Senate were told...

The House permanent select intelligence committee requested a briefing. The Obama regime declined.
The third question was the reason for my earlier query about the revelation of our intelligence communities abilities so relative to earlier positions you have taken I would assume that you wouldn't want such revealed.
The Oversight committee's spokesman can tell us what we need to know. The nature of the evidence runs to the veracity of the claims. Is the source believable? Is the source reliable? What assumptions did the analysts begin with? What do we know we know? What do we know we do not know? The Committees responsible for oversight can make a prudent determination. And they should. Nothing I have asked requires any intelligence agency to reveal its sources and methods to the public.

That at brings me to the question I posed above that assuming the committees once informed agree with the assessment will you accept it then?
That depends on what you mean. I will accept the judgment of the oversight committee. They may, or may not agree with the politicization of Russian spying efforts. Political intelligence is always a prime collection target for any country. The Russians and many others spend a great deal of time and effort to penetrate our networks. Having penetrated them why would the Russians reveal their success?

I believe the Russians believed Crooked was going to win. I doubt they were the source of the Wikileaks.

[MisterVeritis]

That the IC has determined that the Russians hacked our political process.
On its face this statement is untrue.

[MisterVeritis]

They seem to be important to the incoming POTUS to the extent that he has totally dissed the IC. It's one thing to vigorously question the IC but what he has done is beyond the pale IMO to such an extent that he seems to favor Putin and Assange. This does not bode well for the future of that relationship.
Prepare for a major housecleaning. It is necessary.

[donttread]

I am reading a book about Madison and Jefferson. I have been like Jefferson, combative, desiring to crush my opponents. I shall strive to be more like Madison.

We must all realize that the minute we get too sarcastic or just plain nasty we lose all hope of making our point with someone else or learning from their points. Please remind me I said that when Ransom and I get going. LOL

[donttread]

I am reading a book about Madison and Jefferson. I have been like Jefferson, combative, desiring to crush my opponents. I shall strive to be more like Madison.

We must all realize that the minute we get too sarcastic or just plain nasty we lose all hope of making our point with someone else or learning from their points. Please remind me I said that when Ransom and I get going. LOL

[exotix]

Hail Trumpf !

[ripmeister]

well, since you accepted that they didn't affect the outcome, what other thing or things did they do that changed people's minds abou t Hillary?
Maybe they exposed the truth about her and the DNC....but we already knew she was corrupt BEFORE the election. You just can't come to terms with it, like so many snowflakes.
I stipulated that it didn't have an effect on the actual voting, ie: hacking voting machines or something. Trump won the election fair and square IMO, so there is nothing in regard to that for me to come to terms with. That doesn't change the fact that the Russians appear to have hacked and interfered with our election process. If that's the case and we should soon find out, don't you have a problem with that?

[ripmeister]

On its face this statement is untrue.
How so? Actually forget it. It appears that you and people like subdermal have learned from Bush senior about plausible deniability.

[MisterVeritis]

You: That the IC has determined that the Russians hacked our political process.
Me: On its face this statement is untrue.

How so? Actually forget it. It appears that you and people like subdermal have learned from Bush senior about plausible deniability.
How does one hack a process?
A DNC server was compromised.
Podesta's email account was phished.

You err when you go beyond the facts.

[ripmeister]

You: That the IC has determined that the Russians hacked our political process.
Me: On its face this statement is untrue.

How does one hack a process?
A DNC server was compromised.
Podesta's email account was phished.

You err when you go beyond the facts.

If you want to parse that's fine. I think you know what I meant. We'll just have to wait to see what is revealed to the committees and what their take is on it.

[Ransom]

We must all realize that the minute we get too sarcastic or just plain nasty we lose all hope of making our point with someone else or learning from their points. Please remind me I said that when @Ransom (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=724) and I get going. LOL
There isn't the slightest possibility of all hope being lost concerning making any point, @donttread (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=922)

It's on top of your head.

Please. Quit your whining and crying.

[donttread]

Hail Trumpf !


Inspired , meaningful post Eo, at least by your stadards. BTW did you steal True Blue's paid poster job?