Wait for it -- we'll be hearing that he's not credible because ... well, because he's saying things the Hillary Fan Club would rather not hear.
Thomas Walkom (Star) - Forget the Moscow conspiracy theory. Donald Trump won
- Thread starter Moviefan-2
- Start date
S
**Sophie**
This piece by Andrew C. McCarthy in National Review Online is excellent and also worth a read:
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...e-vladimir-putin-influence-american-elections
Too many great points to try to summarize here (read the article), but a key takeaway is this: Unless there is evidence that the Russians actually tampered with the official vote count -- and there isn't -- the rest of the complaints are nothing more than a scheme by the Democrats to try to rationalize a do-over that is completely unwarranted.
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...e-vladimir-putin-influence-american-elections
Too many great points to try to summarize here (read the article), but a key takeaway is this: Unless there is evidence that the Russians actually tampered with the official vote count -- and there isn't -- the rest of the complaints are nothing more than a scheme by the Democrats to try to rationalize a do-over that is completely unwarranted.
S
**Sophie**
Should also point out the feeble attempt at trying to sway the electors by using this Russian conspiracy to sway to votes.
In the news article, "Murray says: 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks'"
Podesta's email accounts are podesta@law.georgetown.edu & john.podesta@gmail.com so would question how someone could have legal access to these 2 email accounts.
Lots of speculation, but would be interesting to know if the FBI/CIA has any real proof of who provided the emails to Wikileaks.
The CIA/FBI and democrats have all reported that Podesta was hit by a phishing attack, an email for him to reset his google password.
Very stupid that he would fall for it, but that's most definitely a hack, not a leak.
The leak theory is backed by only one person right now.
If true, I'm sure the Democrats felt that was an annoying thing for them to have done.
Regrettably for the Dems, however, it completely fails the test of rigging the election. Unless someone produces evidence of actual vote tampering, there is no justification for any result other than an electoral college confirmation of Trump's victory.
S
**Sophie**
Now you are just making things up, like usual. A second hand anonymous source through WaPo isn't proof. Show me a recent statement from the CIA & the DNI please and thank you
Why would the CIA refuse to report these alleged findings to Congress, as they are required to do?
https://youtu.be/JebHe3049aA
https://youtu.be/JebHe3049aA
You have less credibility then the cupcakes you post in your signature, although they are more entertaining.
Her server were hacked before she was even a candidate. The FBI did not need to announce they were reopening the investigation at that strategic time. They could easily have review the emails without making any announcement about ANYTHING. In fact that is what the Attorney General suggested as the correct course. The announcement was a deliberate manipulation.
It's worth remembering that as we approached the end of October, the pollsters and the pundits were predicting a massive blowout victory for Hillary.
http://www.torontosun.com/2016/10/2...-one-of-the-largest-margins-in-recent-history
The details in the emails were all well known at that time. Wherever they came from, the emails were clearly not a significant factor in the outcome of the election.
Also noteworthy is this comment that Jim Warren made in the linked article.
http://www.torontosun.com/2016/10/2...-one-of-the-largest-margins-in-recent-history
The details in the emails were all well known at that time. Wherever they came from, the emails were clearly not a significant factor in the outcome of the election.
Also noteworthy is this comment that Jim Warren made in the linked article.
Indeed.
So did NBC when they dug up and released an 11 year old off camera tape.
And the traitorous Woodward and Berstein fellows who used the original Wikileaks named Deepthroat too.
It ain't wrong if it's the truth being released. It's democracy at its finest.
Which is why you're so vehement about Snowden being a hero and Manning deserving a pardon.
I am actually conflicted on this one. I suppose the difference is whether or not the release of state secrets would have or did result in the death or harm of soldiers and operatives. This vs truthful information about a politician.
There does in my mind seem to be a definite line there. It doesn't matter to me the affiliation of the politician. The truth is more important.
But when it comes to identifying people in dangerous situations, sometimes the public does not need to know.
To add further to my thoughts the release of Iran/Contra was a good thing.
Since the Americans are among the few nations in the world still using the same FPTP electoral system (made infinitely worse when used to elect Electors) that we do, I can't imagine why they'd consider ours idiosyncratic. Or why you'd imagine it especially Canadian arrogance to highlight flaws in the outdated, undemocratic system we share. But at least we're attempting to fix ours.
a) Trump's apologists keep energetically trying (without any proof) to invalidate the popular vote they claim is irrelevant. Definitely mistrusting their own claim and leaving unexplained why the people were asked to vote at all. Makes them apologists (a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial) in my book.
b) If the winner by the system he says was rigged and polluted by millions of illegal votes wants to continue it rather than fix it, we can clearly see how unworthy of the office he is. But it is the duty of all to ensure that their claim of being a democracy is justified. The meits of any particular solution are always debatable, and none will be perfect. The spectacle of the man claiming he won fairly by a system he continues to call rigged and corrupt is shameful in the extreme.
c) Of course he will. Sad to see even his apologists think so little of him. Does that "…make you smart"? Bigly?
Last edited:
Clinton has most likely been a target for Putin since she helped interfere in his elections.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/clinton-putin-226153
Certainly they have a history.
So far what we've had reported is thus:
Trump claims the election results were off by 3 million votes.
The CIA and US intel claims that Putin personally had a hand in Trump's election through the hacking scandal.
