Art Of The Deal

[Tsing Tao]

Supposedly, Hillary has said she thinks Putin despises her because she called BS on the Russian elections. There, like here, she couldn't accept the results of voting. The CIA and various government slush funds had poured a lot resources into humiliating Putin and instead, he walked all over them. It's ok for us to meddle in elections all over the world. If Putin does it, suddenly it's a big problem. The thing is, no one who voted for Trump gave a crap if the Russians hacked her or not. Non story except for republican senators who see opportunities to clip Trump's wings and get on TV.

There's no question Russian elections are completely and totally rigged.

 

[Tom B]

is achilles baron?

creates a thread controversy bails out out let rest of us to battle it out

Are you jimmie barton?

 

[Tsing Tao]

Are you jimmie barton?

Big arrow, my guess. Could be Jimmie.

 

[fhl]

 

[Tom B]

Big arrow, my guess. Could be Jimmie.

Interesting. Big Arrow used to post a lot.

 

[WeToddDid2]

Now you're being obtuse. It just means that Assange cannot be taken at his word. Did I really have to explain that to you? The intelligence community's evidence of Putin's involvement doesn't appear to have anything to do with Assange. Assange just disseminated what Putin's tag team acquired.

The CIA also had evidence of Saddam's continued WMD programs. The CIA said so and even produced a document. Do you still believe Saddam had WMDs? Since you clearly believe we need to believe in our intelligence agencies, I assume you do not fault Bush for believing Saddam had WMDs.

For you reading pleasure:

Both Assange and Putin have specific axes to grind against Hillary Clinton. I will assume you know why. US intelligence ties the hacks to the highest levels of Russian government (Putin). That Assange is just Russia's front man only serves to validate their conclusion.

You know what? I'm really not getting much stimulation from this water-is-wet "debate." For now, it's just a matter of picking sides when it comes to credibility. I'll go with accepting the agreed-upon conclusion of the collective US intelligence community while you accept Assange's (and, by extension, Putin's) word at face and assume Putin's innocence in the whole matter. Why don't we just wait and see what evidence will be presented in due for your amusement and entertainment?

Exactly.....wait for the evidence.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Interesting. Big Arrow used to post a lot.

All lowercase, too.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

So what if the Russians did hack them? The impact did not come from the hacking but from the sordid content of the documents. Suddenly liberals hate whistleblowers?

Suddenly conservatives acquiesce to foreign powers interfering with US elections?

 

[Frederick Foresight]

The CIA also had evidence of Saddam's continued WMD programs.

Not initially. W kept sending them back to look for "more intel" in support of a preferred conclusion. Know your history.

So now, because they got it wrong 15 years ago, they no longer hold any sway for you? Should the agency be discontinued?

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Putin didn't type the damning emails, Clinton did. So even if they were hacked, they're still a good indication of her character - and that is why she lost the election.

Could you please give me an example of such a hacked e-mail written by Hillary Clinton that reflected so negatively on her character?