- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Intelligence Directors All Testify to Russian Election Interfence
Posted on 1/5/17 at 10:34 am
Posted on 1/5/17 at 10:34 am
- said they did not hack voting machines or change vote totals
- said they cannot determine what kind of affect they had on choices Americans made
- said that Posesta and DNC hacks had clear Russian fingerprints on them. It was as though Russia wanted us to know.
- said that "fake news" is coming from Russian sources (not sure what they meant by this. Didn't elaborate).
- were all unanimous that Russia, as a state actor, was involved with interfering in our election process through the DNC hacks, releasing info, propoganda, fake news, etc.
- all said that Assange is not credible in his assertions
This was a Congressional hearing. Why would these guys all unanimously say this if it isn't true? Wouldn't there be a defector? Obama is on his way out and Trump is coming in. What do they have to gain?
Wouldn't there be an uprising in one of the 17 Intel agencies? Wouldn't some folks from the FBI leak that this was a ruse?
Instead they are unanimous and a joint report comes out next week.
I have no idea if they are right or are all lying to Congress under oath. I'm not making the case one way or the other. My question is, if they are all lying, along with all of their agencies, what do they have to gain? What is the end game here?
We have Trump, Assange, and Putin/Russia against the entire US intelligence community two weeks before inauguration. This is some high stakes stuff. Who is right? Who do you believe?
I'm in a wait and see mode to see how Trump responds to the briefing, see what he knows that he promised to tell us, and aee what the report next week says. However, I am inclined to believe US Intel over Assange/Putin. The jury is out on whether or not I think Trump is right or just uninformed.
- said they cannot determine what kind of affect they had on choices Americans made
- said that Posesta and DNC hacks had clear Russian fingerprints on them. It was as though Russia wanted us to know.
- said that "fake news" is coming from Russian sources (not sure what they meant by this. Didn't elaborate).
- were all unanimous that Russia, as a state actor, was involved with interfering in our election process through the DNC hacks, releasing info, propoganda, fake news, etc.
- all said that Assange is not credible in his assertions
This was a Congressional hearing. Why would these guys all unanimously say this if it isn't true? Wouldn't there be a defector? Obama is on his way out and Trump is coming in. What do they have to gain?
Wouldn't there be an uprising in one of the 17 Intel agencies? Wouldn't some folks from the FBI leak that this was a ruse?
Instead they are unanimous and a joint report comes out next week.
I have no idea if they are right or are all lying to Congress under oath. I'm not making the case one way or the other. My question is, if they are all lying, along with all of their agencies, what do they have to gain? What is the end game here?
We have Trump, Assange, and Putin/Russia against the entire US intelligence community two weeks before inauguration. This is some high stakes stuff. Who is right? Who do you believe?
I'm in a wait and see mode to see how Trump responds to the briefing, see what he knows that he promised to tell us, and aee what the report next week says. However, I am inclined to believe US Intel over Assange/Putin. The jury is out on whether or not I think Trump is right or just uninformed.
24
Posted on 1/5/17 at 10:35 am to AlaTiger
All I know is I'd rather listen to the Oprah before that fricking voice of Linsey gramnesty.
Posted on 1/5/17 at 10:36 am to AlaTiger
What is it going to take for the left to move on from this? Russia has been sanctioned and we kicked out their diplomats. Whether these allegations are true or not, it's been addressed.
Posted on 1/5/17 at 10:37 am to AlaTiger
quote:
- said that Posesta and DNC hacks had clear Russian fingerprints on them. It was as though Russia wanted us to know.
Proof it wasn't Russia
quote:
were all unanimous that Russia, as a state actor, was involved with interfering in our election process through the DNC hacks, releasing info, propoganda, fake news, etc.
Interfering or ATTEMPTED to interfere? Sizable difference
Posted on 1/5/17 at 10:38 am to AlaTiger
If I were a secret agent I would liquidate all my assets, transfer the cash to the most secure and anonymous bank account possible, and disappear before noon on Jan 20.
Bush outed *ONE* agent who was no longer in the field (that we know of at least). Imagine what the I'm-Like-A-Smart-Person-In-Chief-Elect will do when he takes over.
Bush outed *ONE* agent who was no longer in the field (that we know of at least). Imagine what the I'm-Like-A-Smart-Person-In-Chief-Elect will do when he takes over.
Posted on 1/5/17 at 10:38 am to LSUGrrrl
quote:The only thing keeping it going is Trump.
What is it going to take for the left to move on from this? Russia has been sanctioned and we kicked out their diplomats. Whether these allegations are true or not, it's been addressed.
Posted on 1/5/17 at 10:38 am to AlaTiger
quote:Theyre all political appointees.
Why would these guys all unanimously say this if it isn't true?
quote:Favor with the next democrat administration
Obama is on his way out and Trump is coming in. What do they have to gain?
Posted on 1/5/17 at 10:39 am to AlaTiger
Really impressive that these agencies were able to perform a thorough investigation and reach this conclusion in such a short period of time. Especially where we've been told it would take years to go through Clinton's emails. Also, I seem to recall a story yesterday where it was noted that NO INTELLIGENCE AGENCY had actually analyzed/examined the DNC computers and servers.
They must all be fricking mediums, or something.
They must all be fricking mediums, or something.
Posted on 1/5/17 at 10:39 am to AlaTiger
Is every hack attempt originating from a country sponsored by that country's government?
Posted on 1/5/17 at 10:40 am to TaekwondoJesus
quote:
Bush outed *ONE* agent who was no longer in the field (that we know of at least). Imagine what the I'm-Like-A-Smart-Person-In-Chief-Elect will do when he takes over
Bush... Try again.
Posted on 1/5/17 at 10:43 am to AlaTiger
When you politicize angencies like the jackass in chief has, this is what you get. This comment from the WSJ tells me all I need to know about one of the agencies:
quote:
Current and former intelligence and law-enforcement officials have reacted with a mix of bafflement and outrage to Mr. Trump’s continuing series of jabs at U.S. spies.
“They are furious about it,” said one former senior intelligence official, adding that a retinue of senior officials who thought they would be staying on in a Hillary Clinton administration now are re-evaluating their plans following Mr. Trump’s election.
Posted on 1/5/17 at 10:44 am to AlaTiger
quote:
I have no idea if they are right or are all lying to Congress under oath. I'm not making the case one way or the other. My question is, if they are all lying, along with all of their agencies, what do they have to gain? What is the end game here?
I think you answered your question before you asked it.
Posted on 1/5/17 at 10:45 am to Wtodd
quote:
Interfering or ATTEMPTED to interfere? Sizable difference
They said that Russia definitely interfered. They do not believe they altered the outcome - or, rather, they cannot say what affect they might have had. They clearly said that that type of analysis is beyond the purview of the intelligence community. They aren't saying that they didn't alter it, they just can't speak to that.
Posted on 1/5/17 at 10:47 am to Andrew Rowan
quote:
Theyre all political appointees.
Even the military guys testifying in full uniform today?
Posted on 1/5/17 at 10:47 am to junkfunky
quote:
Is every hack attempt originating from a country sponsored
I don't know. But, they are saying that these are.
Posted on 1/5/17 at 10:49 am to udtiger
quote:
They must all be fricking mediums, or something
They all seem to be in agreement with no dissent. Why? If this is all a ruse, it is going to be revealed in a couple of weeks when Trump comes in. They will have perjured themselves. All of them.
What are they gaining here? Help me understand.
Posted on 1/5/17 at 10:50 am to AlaTiger
It's my understanding that an 8 year old who knows how to spell password could have,accessed the emails.
Posted on 1/5/17 at 10:50 am to AlaTiger
quote:
were all unanimous that Russia, as a state actor, was involved with interfering in our election process through the DNC hacks, releasing info, propoganda, fake news, etc.
- all said that Assange is not credible in his assertions
Well well well.
I guess all 17 agencies are lying? bullshite
The real question is why is Trump defending Putin?
Posted on 1/5/17 at 10:50 am to AlaTiger
quote:
Even the military guys testifying in full uniform today?
Probably the biggest liars in the room todayPosted on 1/5/17 at 10:52 am to AlaTiger
quote:Perjured themselves? According to your OP they haven't actually said anything. This is nothing but a dog and pony show for the media to have some ammunition to attack Trump. Nothing more.
They will have perjured themselves. All of them.
Page 1 of 4
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News