Trump acknowledges Putin's hand in email hacks

[smilesammich 10,727]

way way way off there nb. way off.

[OriZ 3,157]

53 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

 

Well, technically it's not a lie. Bush doesn't count because he was not the true elected president so I guess the inauguration was just a figment of our imagination. Hence, it is in essence the first one he misses.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

So Russia leaks US documents, and everyone loses their minds.

 

But what did Obama just do with that mental pervert Chelsea Manning?  Forgave him for leaking secret documents.

 

Just... Wow.

[yuna628 9,527]

14 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

So Russia leaks US documents, and everyone loses their minds.

 

But what did Obama just do with that mental pervert Chelsea Manning?  Forgave him for leaking secret documents.

 

Just... Wow.

A pervert? Now that's an interesting choice of word to use. Seems like Republicans these days though just love Assange though... an actual pervert who is actually the one who took those documents from Manning, and published them. Too bad Assange changed his mind was lying again when he said he would give himself up should Manning be let go.

 

If you have issues with the ability of a President to pardon someone granted under the Constitution, perhaps haranguing your elected officials to make a change for that might in order, since some are suddenly in favor of also limited terms of elected officials, and are upset about executive orders. There have been a lot of ghastly pardons over the years. It's been a controversial addition ever since it was put in. It's always amusing when people are outraged about a particular pardon, but never so outraged enough to do something about it, when advantage might be taken of by a President of a different party. I'm sure Trump will have a thrilling time with it.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Some of the sentences Obama commuted made sense.  Not Manning's.  Manning is a traitor to the USA, plain and simple.  If you cannot see that... well then there is not much else to say.

[OriZ 3,157]

6 hours ago, IDWAF said:

Some of the sentences Obama commuted made sense.  Not Manning's.  Manning is a traitor to the USA, plain and simple.  If you cannot see that... well then there is not much else to say.

 

I believe even Obama would agree with you on that. The question is, was 35 years overkill? I believe it was. I remember similar cases in Israel where they would get between 3-5 years. The worst one which was a nuclear spy got released after 18 years. Maybe 7 years is a little too soon but I don't agree with 35 years, either.

[Dashinka 23,199]

Read this article and thought it was appropriate for this thread.  The most interesting part was "Intelligence officials and the FBI concluded that there never any hacks into voting machines during the election but that hackers were able to penetrate the Democratic National Committee emails as well as Clinton campaign chair John Podesta’s emails. The DNC didn’t allow the FBI to check their servers to double check on what happened."  If the Russians were guilty, then why won't the DNC let the FBI forensic teams analyze their systems?  Do they want to keep some sort of false narrative alive?  There was some discussion before the Russian narrative took over, that some of the wounded Bernie supporters may have been behind the release of the damaging DNC material.  Of course this was brushed aside since we know that a Democrat would never do any harm to another Democrat (unless their name starts with an H and ends with an N), so it must have been those mean Russians. 

 

Here is the article where I saw this.

 

http://ijr.com/2017/01/779126-conservative-black-chick-asks-rep-john-lewis-what-have-you-done-since-selma/

 

 

[bcking 3,157]

8 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Read this article and thought it was appropriate for this thread.  The most interesting part was "Intelligence officials and the FBI concluded that there never any hacks into voting machines during the election but that hackers were able to penetrate the Democratic National Committee emails as well as Clinton campaign chair John Podesta’s emails. The DNC didn’t allow the FBI to check their servers to double check on what happened."  If the Russians were guilty, then why won't the DNC let the FBI forensic teams analyze their systems?  Do they want to keep some sort of false narrative alive?  There was some discussion before the Russian narrative took over, that some of the wounded Bernie supporters may have been behind the release of the damaging DNC material.  Of course this was brushed aside since we know that a Democrat would never do any harm to another Democrat (unless their name starts with an H and ends with an N), so it must have been those mean Russians. 

 

Here is the article where I saw this.

 

http://ijr.com/2017/01/779126-conservative-black-chick-asks-rep-john-lewis-what-have-you-done-since-selma/

 

 

While I can't think of why they wouldn't want the FBI to look at their servers, the FBI/NSA/CIA must have some other credible information to point at Russia for them to publish the report they did. While it would be nice to "confirm" by looking at the DNC side of things, I doubt it would change things that drastically. While obviously we don't really know what they have that points to Russia, but whatever it is I'm guessing it would be hard to confuse "Russia" with "Wounded Bernie Supporter" unless that Bernie Supporter was a mastermind and trying to make it look like Russia to cover his/her tracks. If that were the case, I smell a movie in 10 years time.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

10 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Read this article and thought it was appropriate for this thread.  The most interesting part was "Intelligence officials and the FBI concluded that there never any hacks into voting machines during the election but that hackers were able to penetrate the Democratic National Committee emails as well as Clinton campaign chair John Podesta’s emails. The DNC didn’t allow the FBI to check their servers to double check on what happened."  If the Russians were guilty, then why won't the DNC let the FBI forensic teams analyze their systems?  Do they want to keep some sort of false narrative alive?  There was some discussion before the Russian narrative took over, that some of the wounded Bernie supporters may have been behind the release of the damaging DNC material.  Of course this was brushed aside since we know that a Democrat would never do any harm to another Democrat (unless their name starts with an H and ends with an N), so it must have been those mean Russians. 

 

Here is the article where I saw this.

 

http://ijr.com/2017/01/779126-conservative-black-chick-asks-rep-john-lewis-what-have-you-done-since-selma/

 

 

"Russia never hacking voting machines" has been central to all of the reporting I have seen. Not really the issue and only exciting news if you have only been following very shoddy reporting.

 

What is of interest and the issue at hand is the reports Russia hacked not just the DNC but also the RNC but only released the DNC hacks to WL.

[Dakine10 5,452]

On 1/18/2017 at 7:19 AM, OriZ said:

 

Well, technically it's not a lie. Bush doesn't count because he was not the true elected president so I guess the inauguration was just a figment of our imagination. Hence, it is in essence the first one he misses.

 

   We have a president in Trump who, according to Politifact, has told over 4x more "pants on fire" rated lies than he's told truths. I'm not sure now is a good time for the right to be making an issue over telling lies. 

 

   http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/