Proof that Russia interfered in US election

[phylodog]

Here, let me help you sweetheart. Here is the title of the article linked in the OP:


"Ted Kennedy Made Secret Overtures to Russia to Prevent Ronald Reagan’s Re-Election" which would be an actual attempt at recruiting Russia to affect the outcome of a US election.

Then this was posted in response: " Just more proof that the Russians are willing to engage in just about anything; further strengthening the idea that they put their hands in the cookie jar this past election cycle" which is an attempt at accusing Russia of influencing the election, commonly referred to as hacking the election by the left. It is a distraction and an attempt at painting the democrats as victims in hopes it would convince electoral voters to jump ship. It failed as it should have but some aren't going to let go.

I'll be sure to run all of my posts by you in the future to make sure they won't upset your pretty little apple cart.

 

[lonehoosier]

 

[Jludo]

Here, let me help you sweetheart. Here is the title of the article linked in the OP:


"Ted Kennedy Made Secret Overtures to Russia to Prevent Ronald Reagan’s Re-Election" which would be an actual attempt at recruiting Russia to affect the outcome of a US election.

Then this was posted in response: " Just more proof that the Russians are willing to engage in just about anything; further strengthening the idea that they put their hands in the cookie jar this past election cycle" which is an attempt at accusing Russia of influencing the election, commonly referred to as hacking the election by the left. It is a distraction and an attempt at painting the democrats as victims in hopes it would convince electoral voters to jump ship. It failed as it should have but some aren't going to let go.

I'll be sure to run all of my posts by you in the future to make sure they won't upset your pretty little apple cart.

I'd appreciate that, sweetheart.

 

[phylodog]

 

[LPMan59]

I sense a budding bromance!

 

[jamil]

Lol, wut? Are you saying that our intelligence services made it up? But then again you're right. The evidence should be made public, because it would be desirable to let the Russians backtrack how they were caught. Classified protocols be damned. We need evidence, or else it's a lie!

The CIA is paid to deceive. Did they? I dunno. The WMD in Iraq justifying the invasion was a slam dunk until it wasn't.

 

[KG1]

Usually when "sweetheart" is used in that tone it's in the middle of a serious spat with the other half.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Usually when "sweetheart" is used in that tone it's in the middle of a serious spat with the other half.

i thought Indiana jones was the only one who still used it

 

[Woobie]

The CIA is paid to deceive. Did they? I dunno. The WMD in Iraq justifying the invasion was a slam dunk until it wasn't.

Oh they were there. The media spent so much time calling Bush a liar after they weren't found in the first 2 weeks that it wasn't worth the loss of credibility to explain what happened to them.

 

[jamil]

C'mon, guys. It's post-Christmas. Sweethearts should get along.

 

[jamil]

Oh they were there. The media spent so much time calling Bush a liar after they weren't found in the first 2 weeks that it wasn't worth the loss of credibility to explain what happened to them.

Did you read Bush's book? I remember reading some reports that some WMD were found, and also that many were sent to Syria. That news, of course, didn't gain much traction. But if that were really what they found, why did Bush not scream it from the mountaintops. If they were really there, why did the administration not push to reveal it? If they were really there, why did the intelligence communities openly admit that they were wrong about the intelligence that said they were. I'm not saying they weren't there, or that they didn't go to Syria--they probably did--but it seems like the administration and intelligence community did not want to be seen finding them. I have no idea why that would be. But either way, someone's lying.

 

[Woobie]

We need a mistletoe emoji

 

[HubertGummer]

Did you read Bush's book? I remember reading some reports that some WMD were found, and also that many were sent to Syria. That news, of course, didn't gain much traction. But if that were really what they found, why did Bush not scream it from the mountaintops. If they were really there, why did the administration not push to reveal it? If they were really there, why did the intelligence communities openly admit that they were wrong about the intelligence that said they were. I'm not saying they weren't there, or that they didn't go to Syria--they probably did--but it seems like the administration and intelligence community did not want to be seen finding them. I have no idea why that would be. But either way, someone's lying.

Because for some reason, Bush II thought he needed to be friends with the media. He let them run him over and he refused to bypass them in order to get info out.

 

[Woobie]

Did you read Bush's book? I remember reading some reports that some WMD were found, and also that many were sent to Syria. That news, of course, didn't gain much traction. But if that were really what they found, why did Bush not scream it from the mountaintops. If they were really there, why did the administration not push to reveal it? If they were really there, why did the intelligence communities openly admit that they were wrong about the intelligence that said they were. I'm not saying they weren't there, or that they didn't go to Syria--they probably did--but it seems like the administration and intelligence community did not want to be seen finding them. I have no idea why that would be. But either way, someone's lying.

No, I didn't read it. The idea that he could get royalty money from me is disgusting. I think he and a lot of other people were lying. I met one guy who actually was on a mission where they found WMD's. Assad has been using gas, and it isn't much of a stretch to think he might have gotten some from Iraq.

Some theories:

1)They were not there in the quantities that would justify the invasion, making any attempt to redirect the narrative look feeble.

2)The ones we found turned out to come from places the Bush administration would rather no one know.

3)They wound up going places the Bush administration would rather no one know.

And there are probably other explanations. But Bush had what he wanted at that point. We were in, and we weren't leaving. There was no need to dredge up an old fight with the media. He needed their help on other things.

 

[AtTheMurph]

I don't know what I'd call it, but it's impeachable. Just more proof that the Russians are willing to engage in just about anything; further strengthening the idea that they put their hands in the cookie jar this past election cycle.

Proof that the Russians are willing to engage in anything? LOL. It was Kennedy who contacted the Soviets with an offer. It has also been our own CIA which has been known to be involved is swaying elections across the globe.

There has been zero proof and zero evidence produced that Russia in any way tried to sway the election in the USA. In fact if the Russians did hack the DNC and John Podesta the NSA would already hold the proof as they collect all international web traffic. They would have the packet info from where the leaks happened and know exactly where they went.

Where is that NSA proof? We have only heard that the CIA suspects it was Russians because of how the leaks happened. Well if they know how they happened then they know where they went and they wouldn't suspect anything. They would know.

It is much more likely that the hacks were actually leaks perpetrated by disgruntled Dem insiders, probably Bernie fans. But that narrative doesn't help the Dems one bit does it. In fact, it is a sad admonishment of the dirty crap they pulled.

 

[AtTheMurph]

Did you read Bush's book? I remember reading some reports that some WMD were found, and also that many were sent to Syria. That news, of course, didn't gain much traction. But if that were really what they found, why did Bush not scream it from the mountaintops. If they were really there, why did the administration not push to reveal it? If they were really there, why did the intelligence communities openly admit that they were wrong about the intelligence that said they were. I'm not saying they weren't there, or that they didn't go to Syria--they probably did--but it seems like the administration and intelligence community did not want to be seen finding them. I have no idea why that would be. But either way, someone's lying.

The spooks thought the WMDs were there because Saddam never provided proof that he destroyed them. He didn't do that because he wanted the Iranians to believe he still had them as that was probably the only thing that kept the human waves from trying to take over his sand pit.

The Iranians tried it before and Saddam's only hope was gassing them again, or at least scaring them into thinking they would be gassed.

 

[Trigger Time]

So are democrats cured if this flaw if they become Republicans?

Like I've said before. Democrats are traitors

 

[Kutnupe14]

Like I've said before. Democrats are traitors

Lol, even to their own party!

 

[BugI02]

Lol, wut? Are you saying that our intelligence services made it up? But then again you're right. The evidence should be made public, because it would be desirable to let the Russians backtrack how they were caught. Classified protocols be damned. We need evidence, or else it's a lie!

We have some crucial evidence in this matter. We have a great deal of evidence our government has lied to us repeatedly. That is likely why the are having difficulty achieving traction.

It is just as easy to believe that .gov resists sharing the evidence of the Russian hack because there is none as it is to believe that releasing the information would compromise some national technical means. All I've seen are claims that the methodology used in the hack was consistent with methodology also attributed to the Russians by the same faceless/nameless 'background' sources

To quote another thread "Do guys who commit crime hacking sensitive information typically sign their names and the organizations they represent?"

 

[BugI02]

Too secret to brief a closed session of congress on, or too shaky and hyperbolic

23 days