Hijinx
Well-Known Member
For what she spent her appearances were very limited and she never met with the enemy. Her appearances were carefully scanned so no one against her were allowed.
She was afraid of opposition.
Session's Testimony.......
- Thread starter Bird Dog
- Start date
For what she spent her appearances were very limited and she never met with the enemy. Her appearances were carefully scanned so no one against her were allowed.
She was afraid of opposition.
philibusters
Active Member
That is true Her team tried to keep away from situations where she might have hostile interactions.
Reinforcing that, down the stretch, her team decided to focus on the base for turnout rather than campaigning in areas with a mix of Democrat and Republican voters and trying to persuade undecided.
PsyOps
Pixelated
Well, I said "state", not country.
I understand a certain loyalty (for lack of a better word) to one's home and roots. What I don't understand is keeping your family in poverty for that sake. I don't understand that it's more important to stay planted and live off of public assistance (other peoples' money) than to go out and earn your own.
The many places I have been in WV are quite deplorable - run down homes about to fall over, random trailer homes planted at the base of a mountain with dead cars sittings around the property... The neighbors across the street from my aunt has piles and piles of scrap metal that he scrounges and turns it in for money. His yard is one big junk pile.
I would never remain in places like this.
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
do you have a link to where holder refused to answer questions under oath because the president might claim privilege?
This_person
Well-Known Member
As I recall, he simply lied instead, and was found in contempt of Congress.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
I profoundly doubt that. Good hackers are invisible. Seriously. Any evidence of Russian tampering - in computer terms - is the equivalent of a sticky note saying "Putin was here".
The "evidence" is a joke.
I do believe that it was leaked by someone with access to it. No hacking required.
PRETTY sure Assange has said, nope, not the Russians. Not that he can be trusted, but why wouldn't he?
The damning part of it is - it's the truth. Seriously, hundreds, thousands of emails and most of them are dull and innocuous.
A few point out some uncomfortable facts that have been shown - to be true.
THIS was the Russian's strategy? Hack and release actual emails? And hope the American voter might make a decision based on - that?
A huge portion of the voters couldn't even name the VP on the ticket. A large number - STILL CAN'T.
The whole of their strategy was to - what - basically do what campaigns already do? Smear the opponent and hope it sticks?
So the Democrats were unable to do, with billions of dollars, what the "Russians" did with a handful of hackers?
Apparently no more than what is typical. And apparently, the previous administration seemed to know about it - but was either unconcerned or inept.
My guess is the former - because it is inconsequential.
I really don't think any minds were changed by the Wikileaks thing.
But what's the bad call? WHAT are they investigating? All that exists is hacked DNC. And they appear to be undone by *actual* emails.
Right now, it's pretty much, did Trump or his campaign do it? Answer after many months is - no. No. No.
So if we're trying to safeguard the republic, then look at computer security. Election processes. THAT sort of thing. Not about Trump and Flynn and Comey and Sessions.
The "investigation" doesn't seem to have anything to do with securing elections. It's to hurt the President and try to win an election in 2018.
Then what are they "investigating"? These are presumably smart people. If there's no collusion - or anything about "Russian interference" - they're grilling the wrong people.
Why are they putting Sessions out in front? What did Comey say that we didn't know already? Why are they going crazy over this?
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
that is a different issue, but as I remember he was found in contempt for not providing documents.
Again, if you are under oath to tell the whole truth you cant refuse to answer a question unless you can provide a legal reason not to. Pleading the fifth or invoking privilege of some sort would do the trick, but Sessions, Coats, and Rogers didn't do that. they all refused to answer despite the oath they took when they gained office and the one they took upon taking the stand that day.
philibusters
Active Member
Sometimes people surprise you. Sam Spade just surpised me. Basically what surprised me was that he said he "highly doubts there was Russian interference" and that the "evidence is a joke".
Sam is somebody is a lot more conservative than myself, but who I respect because he is thoughtful. I also have massive respect for Tilted who is also significantly more conservative than myself.
I don't know how you can say there was not Russian interference unless your bias completely distorts your view of the situation. It was known well before the election that Russian hacked. Intellgience agencies confirmed this before the election when everybody thought Hillary was going to win. Three intelligence agencies have investigated it and all concluded that with a very high level of confidence that Russian hacked the election. These are our professionals. They are the intelligence agencies. All of them have said there was Russian interference. Again these are the experts. By contrast no intelligence agency has said there was not Russian interference. None.
Further even the Republicans who have seen the evidence don't claim that there was interference.
And the statement that the "evidence" is a joke/ WHAT?! That is kind of what set me off because I respect Sam. Nobody except the intelligence agencies and certain congressmen have seen the evidence. That like saying a band sucked before you even go to the concert. You have no idea what the evidence is. The experts who have seen make an opposite conclusion than you, and then you say the evidence sucks. What are you basing that off of?!
I generally enjoy these forums, but today is kind of convincing me that its pointless to debate. People see what they want to see and no amount of evidence is going to change that. Even with reasonable people
Sam is somebody is a lot more conservative than myself, but who I respect because he is thoughtful. I also have massive respect for Tilted who is also significantly more conservative than myself.
I don't know how you can say there was not Russian interference unless your bias completely distorts your view of the situation. It was known well before the election that Russian hacked. Intellgience agencies confirmed this before the election when everybody thought Hillary was going to win. Three intelligence agencies have investigated it and all concluded that with a very high level of confidence that Russian hacked the election. These are our professionals. They are the intelligence agencies. All of them have said there was Russian interference. Again these are the experts. By contrast no intelligence agency has said there was not Russian interference. None.
Further even the Republicans who have seen the evidence don't claim that there was interference.
And the statement that the "evidence" is a joke/ WHAT?! That is kind of what set me off because I respect Sam. Nobody except the intelligence agencies and certain congressmen have seen the evidence. That like saying a band sucked before you even go to the concert. You have no idea what the evidence is. The experts who have seen make an opposite conclusion than you, and then you say the evidence sucks. What are you basing that off of?!
I generally enjoy these forums, but today is kind of convincing me that its pointless to debate. People see what they want to see and no amount of evidence is going to change that. Even with reasonable people
Ah... now we get to the crux of the biscuit (which by the way is the apostrophe). Do we trust what our intelligence agencies tell us? A good poll question.
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
don't forget Reality Winner being currently detained for leaking classified evidence that Russia did interfere with the election.
Then you have
Manafort being very close with the Russians
That skinny guy being close with the russinas
Flynn lying about his conversations with the Russians and having contacts/allegiances he didn't disclose
There might not be any evidence that Trump directed his people to do anything, but there appears to be evidence they did do some wrong. The tards at SOMD.com would certainly see the 'evidence' if the people involved had Ds after their names.
Links?
How so? Or are you conflating the stealing and exposure of sordid Hillary and/or DNC emails with "hacking the election"? Otherwise..how does one..anyone.."hack an election"???
philibusters
Active Member
Fair enough. I was talking about the release of the DNC and Podesta emails.
Grumpy
Well-Known Member
Exactly 'what' did they investigate?? I could be wrong but I believe Hillary stated in one debate that 17(?) govt intelligence agencies said the Russians were responsible for the DNC hack, but no government agency was allowed to investigate the DNC systems. A group(CrowdStrike?), hired by the DNC, said the Russians were responsible.
And just imagine, if you can, where we would be if the authors of those emails where not such scheming scum....if there has been nothing to see there.
Butchers thumb on the scale.
PsyOps
Pixelated
If I understand it, it was an attempted hack. It was done using 'spear fishing' where one person bit on to a link, then beaconed their machine back to the source. Then they (Russian hackers) had their way in. But, they weren't able to affect any votes.
I thought the whole thing was about how Trump somehow colluded with the Russians to make this happen. I mean, who thinks these things up - that a presidential nominee (a buffoon, a moron) was somehow able to collude with the Russians and no one saw it? Sessions somehow colluded with the Russian ambassador during a handshake at a dinner. Sen. Cotton said it best, that Hollywood doesn't even come up with this sort of scenario.
:shurg:
how exactly was 'The Election' hacked ?
the only thing I have see in the press - 'hacking came from Russian IP Addresses'
really you think the Russians FSB / GRU Smart enough to 'hack the election' would be dumb enough to use computers from their own home networks ....
do you know have IP Addressing Works ?
do you know how easy it is to compromise a computer on someone else's network and use that as a jumping off point ?
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
which doesn't amount to jack and sjhit
bwhahahaha
it amounted to enough for all three to get canned, and Flynn is looking like he may face charges. We will see. You wouldn't be calling it nothing if the people involved had Ds after their names.