• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Official Russian Election Interference Thread

Last edited:
At this point does anyone care what the NYT says? I doubt its dwindling circulation includes many people who aren't among the converted.
 
They're just Op-Ed pieces. The "Donald Trump and His Tainted Presidency" may as well go into the "How Did This Happen" thread.
 
WakeForestRanger said:
She only murdered 46 people?
Click to expand...

Ranger, that is by one count. By another it is at least 47 and then on another the Clinton's together have 90 suspicious deaths attributable to them. There could be at least 4 connected to the Clintons just from the Democratic National Convention. One never knows who the Clinton's have paid off with their riches from the Foundation and their vast political machine, but at least we know now we are rid of them as she has announced she will not run for any more offices again.

I can only imagine what she must have been like the week leading up to the election when she had to first, start by cancelling her huge fireworks celebration, then the celebration party at the Javits Convention Center. Then the "shock & awe" of it all as first Florida came in, then North Carolina, then Wisconsin, a state she didn't campaign in thinking it was in the bag came in as "too close to call!" Then Michigan. Then she could not even bear to face her faithful campaigners and followers so she sent down her minion, that little troll John Podesta at 2:15 to tell everybody to "Go Home" we will have more news tomorrow. Still not believing it, ABC, NBC & CBS would not make the call on Wisconsin, but Fox knew and at 2:25 Bret Baier made the all-important call--we have news, a call is IN--Pennsylvania has been called--Trump is the new President of the United States. He is over 270! Oh happy days--ding dong the Witch is dead! The wicked witch the wicked witch!
Dorothy Trump has poured water on her. She is meltingggggg.
 
No the NYT bias extends far beyond the editorial page. That is one reason it is increasingly irrelevant. The other reason is that print media in general is in a death spiral.
 
So she killed four people at the Democratic National Convention? Why so few? Surely that wouldn't have sated her bloodlust.
 
TheReff said:
Ranger, that is by one count. By another it is at least 47 and then on another the Clinton's together have 90 suspicious deaths attributable to them. There could be at least 4 connected to the Clintons just from the Democratic National Convention. One never knows who the Clinton's have paid off with their riches from the Foundation and their vast political machine, but at least we know now we are rid of them as she has announced she will not run for any more offices again.

I can only imagine what she must have been like the week leading up to the election when she had to first, start by cancelling her huge fireworks celebration, then the celebration party at the Javits Convention Center. Then the "shock & awe" of it all as first Florida came in, then North Carolina, then Wisconsin, a state she didn't campaign in thinking it was in the bag came in as "too close to call!" Then Michigan. Then she could not even bear to face her faithful campaigners and followers so she sent down her minion, that little troll John Podesta at 2:15 to tell everybody to "Go Home" we will have more news tomorrow. Still not believing it, ABC, NBC & CBS would not make the call on Wisconsin, but Fox knew and at 2:25 Bret Baier made the all-important call--we have news, a call is IN--Pennsylvania has been called--Trump is the new President of the United States. He is over 270! Oh happy days--ding dong the Witch is dead! The wicked witch the wicked witch!
Dorothy Trump has poured water on her. She is meltingggggg.
Click to expand...

Wrong thread, dude. Try here next time: http://www.ogboards.com/forums/showthread.php/13628-Facebook-Gold-from-Crazies
 
These must have been the quality of the #hottakes that TheReff was laying on keeper and friends that caused even them (crotchety old conservative Wake alums) to talk mad shit about him when he went to the head at WF Baseball Park.
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...b5164beba6b_story.html?utm_term=.2227fe8ad723

Eight years of weakness from Obama set the stage for this problem.

The Russia hacking report is an indictment of Obama, not Trump

Let’s be clear: Hillary Clinton did not lose the 2016 election because of Russian meddling or WikiLeaks. And here is the proof: WikiLeaks began publishing its trove of Democratic National Committee emails on July 22, 2016, three days before the Democratic National Convention. By then, Hillary Clinton was already in a deep hole with American voters.

Long before WikiLeaks, Americans had concluded that Clinton was a congenital liar. A CNN poll taken July 13-16 found that 65 percent of voters said Clinton was neither honest nor trustworthy and that 57 percent would not be proud to have her as president. A July 16 CBS News poll showed similar results — 67 percent of voters said Clinton was not honest or trustworthy. And little wonder. By then, Clinton had lied so often, for so many years, about so many things — her emails, the Clinton Foundation, Benghazi, arriving in Bosnia under sniper fire, Whitewater, the firing of White House travel aides, the Madison S&L — that most Americans no longer believed a word she said.

It’s no surprise, then, that long before WikiLeaks, her approval rating was underwater. The same pre-WikiLeaks CNN poll found that 55 percent of Americans viewed Clinton unfavorably, while just 41 percent viewed her favorably — the lowest favorable rating she had scored in CNN polling in 24 years, going all the way back to April 1992. Gallup had similar results in its poll taken July 16-23. “As the Democratic National Convention gets underway in Philadelphia,” Gallup reported at the time, “Hillary Clinton’s image is at its lowest point in the 24 years of her national career, with 38% of Americans viewing her favorably and 57% unfavorably.”
In other words, the WikiLeaks stories simply confirmed what Americans already knew: that Clinton was dishonest and corrupt.

Moreover, most of the stories that helped Americans reach those conclusions had nothing to do with Russia or WikiLeaks. It was the New York Times that broke the story that Clinton used a private server while she was secretary of state. It was The Post that revealed the Clinton Foundation had accepted millions of dollars in donations from foreign governments while Clinton was secretary of state. It was the Wall Street Journal that exposed the deal Clinton had cut with a Swiss bank to protect tax-dodging Americans while the bank gave $1.5 million in speaking fees to Bill Clinton and $600,000 to the Clinton Foundation. It was ABC News that revealed that the Clinton State Department gave special treatment to “FOBs” (friends of Bill) and “WJC VIPs” (William Jefferson Clinton VIPs) after the Haiti earthquake. It was NBC News that reported that the FBI had discovered emails that appeared to be germane to the Clinton email scandal on a computer seized during an investigation of disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner. And it was FBI Director James B. Comey who told the American people that Clinton had been “extremely careless” and the “definition of negligent” in handling classified information.

Clinton can’t blame Russian President Vladimir Putin or WikiLeaks for any of that.

Did Russia attempt to influence our election? Of course it did. That’s not shocking. As the declassified report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) pointed out, it has been trying to do so since the days of the Soviet Union. The report called the hacking effort “the most recent expression of Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order,” adding that “Russia, like its Soviet predecessor, has a history of conducting covert influence campaigns focused on US presidential elections.”

The difference today, the report concluded, was that Russia’s actions in 2016 represented “a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations.”

So why would Putin be so brazen? Simple. He knew that, under President Obama, there would be zero consequences for his actions.

After all, Putin watched as Obama drew his red line in Syria — warning that President Bashar al-Assad would face military action if he moved or used chemical weapons on his people — and then not only failed to enforce it but also turned to Putin to give him a face-saving way out.

Putin then invaded Ukraine, annexed Crimea and began to arm Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine with advanced surface-to-air missiles and watched as the Ukrainian government appealed to Obama for weapons to fight his neo-Soviet aggression — but instead of sending RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades), Obama agreed to send MREs (meals ready to eat).

Putin then set up Russian air bases in Syria and used them to bomb a secret base of operations for elite U.S. and British special operations forces, as well as a CIA outpost housing families of agency-backed Syrian fighters — again with no consequences.

After those and countless other embarrassing shows of American presidential weakness, Putin knew that Obama would not have the stomach to impose consequences on Russia for attempting to interfere in our elections. So on Obama’s watch he undertook the most audacious covert influence campaign focused on a U.S. election in Russo-Soviet history.

And Democrats are arguing that this somehow discredits Donald Trump’s presidency? Please. The only presidency it discredits is Obama’s — the commander in chief who projected such weakness in the world that Putin believed (correctly) that Russia could get away with it.

Which is why it is so puzzling the Trump team keeps trying to call into question the ODNI report’s conclusions that Russia was behind the DNC hacking effort. Trump should embrace those conclusions instead. He should point out that the report is a searing indictment not of him, but of Obama, and that Russia’s actions are a direct result of Obama’s weakness on the world stage. That would be a much smarter approach than questioning the integrity of the intelligence community he will have to lead in less than two weeks.

And it has the added benefit of being true.
 
"I predict that President Trump will want to make sure that our actions are proportionate to what occurred, based on what we know," she told Capital Download. She said the steps Obama took, including ejecting 35 alleged Russian spies, were harsher than those he ordered after reported hacking by China and North Korea and suggested the reason for the difference was political.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...russia-probe-congress-hacking-obama/96338952/
 
bobknightfan said:
[/COLOR][/B]Which is why it is so puzzling the Trump team keeps trying to call into question the ODNI report’s conclusions that Russia was behind the DNC hacking effort. Trump should embrace those conclusions instead. He should point out that the report is a searing indictment not of him, but of Obama, and that Russia’s actions are a direct result of Obama’s weakness on the world stage. That would be a much smarter approach than questioning the integrity of the intelligence community he will have to lead in less than two weeks.

And it has the added benefit of being true.
Click to expand...

And yet Trump denies that it even happened. #MAGA
 
bobknightfan said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...b5164beba6b_story.html?utm_term=.2227fe8ad723

Eight years of weakness from Obama set the stage for this problem.

The Russia hacking report is an indictment of Obama, not Trump

Let’s be clear: Hillary Clinton did not lose the 2016 election because of Russian meddling or WikiLeaks. And here is the proof: WikiLeaks began publishing its trove of Democratic National Committee emails on July 22, 2016, three days before the Democratic National Convention. By then, Hillary Clinton was already in a deep hole with American voters.

Long before WikiLeaks, Americans had concluded that Clinton was a congenital liar. A CNN poll taken July 13-16 found that 65 percent of voters said Clinton was neither honest nor trustworthy and that 57 percent would not be proud to have her as president. A July 16 CBS News poll showed similar results — 67 percent of voters said Clinton was not honest or trustworthy. And little wonder. By then, Clinton had lied so often, for so many years, about so many things — her emails, the Clinton Foundation, Benghazi, arriving in Bosnia under sniper fire, Whitewater, the firing of White House travel aides, the Madison S&L — that most Americans no longer believed a word she said.

It’s no surprise, then, that long before WikiLeaks, her approval rating was underwater. The same pre-WikiLeaks CNN poll found that 55 percent of Americans viewed Clinton unfavorably, while just 41 percent viewed her favorably — the lowest favorable rating she had scored in CNN polling in 24 years, going all the way back to April 1992. Gallup had similar results in its poll taken July 16-23. “As the Democratic National Convention gets underway in Philadelphia,” Gallup reported at the time, “Hillary Clinton’s image is at its lowest point in the 24 years of her national career, with 38% of Americans viewing her favorably and 57% unfavorably.”
In other words, the WikiLeaks stories simply confirmed what Americans already knew: that Clinton was dishonest and corrupt.

Moreover, most of the stories that helped Americans reach those conclusions had nothing to do with Russia or WikiLeaks. It was the New York Times that broke the story that Clinton used a private server while she was secretary of state. It was The Post that revealed the Clinton Foundation had accepted millions of dollars in donations from foreign governments while Clinton was secretary of state. It was the Wall Street Journal that exposed the deal Clinton had cut with a Swiss bank to protect tax-dodging Americans while the bank gave $1.5 million in speaking fees to Bill Clinton and $600,000 to the Clinton Foundation. It was ABC News that revealed that the Clinton State Department gave special treatment to “FOBs” (friends of Bill) and “WJC VIPs” (William Jefferson Clinton VIPs) after the Haiti earthquake. It was NBC News that reported that the FBI had discovered emails that appeared to be germane to the Clinton email scandal on a computer seized during an investigation of disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner. And it was FBI Director James B. Comey who told the American people that Clinton had been “extremely careless” and the “definition of negligent” in handling classified information.

Clinton can’t blame Russian President Vladimir Putin or WikiLeaks for any of that.

Did Russia attempt to influence our election? Of course it did. That’s not shocking. As the declassified report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) pointed out, it has been trying to do so since the days of the Soviet Union. The report called the hacking effort “the most recent expression of Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order,” adding that “Russia, like its Soviet predecessor, has a history of conducting covert influence campaigns focused on US presidential elections.”

The difference today, the report concluded, was that Russia’s actions in 2016 represented “a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations.”

So why would Putin be so brazen? Simple. He knew that, under President Obama, there would be zero consequences for his actions.

After all, Putin watched as Obama drew his red line in Syria — warning that President Bashar al-Assad would face military action if he moved or used chemical weapons on his people — and then not only failed to enforce it but also turned to Putin to give him a face-saving way out.

Putin then invaded Ukraine, annexed Crimea and began to arm Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine with advanced surface-to-air missiles and watched as the Ukrainian government appealed to Obama for weapons to fight his neo-Soviet aggression — but instead of sending RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades), Obama agreed to send MREs (meals ready to eat).

Putin then set up Russian air bases in Syria and used them to bomb a secret base of operations for elite U.S. and British special operations forces, as well as a CIA outpost housing families of agency-backed Syrian fighters — again with no consequences.

After those and countless other embarrassing shows of American presidential weakness, Putin knew that Obama would not have the stomach to impose consequences on Russia for attempting to interfere in our elections. So on Obama’s watch he undertook the most audacious covert influence campaign focused on a U.S. election in Russo-Soviet history.

And Democrats are arguing that this somehow discredits Donald Trump’s presidency? Please. The only presidency it discredits is Obama’s — the commander in chief who projected such weakness in the world that Putin believed (correctly) that Russia could get away with it.

Which is why it is so puzzling the Trump team keeps trying to call into question the ODNI report’s conclusions that Russia was behind the DNC hacking effort. Trump should embrace those conclusions instead. He should point out that the report is a searing indictment not of him, but of Obama, and that Russia’s actions are a direct result of Obama’s weakness on the world stage. That would be a much smarter approach than questioning the integrity of the intelligence community he will have to lead in less than two weeks.

And it has the added benefit of being true.
Click to expand...

The guy who wrote this article was the speechwriter for Donald Rumsfeld while he was lying us into the Iraq War. What a shock that he would blame Obama!!!

What's next Trump will say Obama is from Kenya?
 
This has been hinted at for nearly a year by various IC, journalists and operatives. People are starting to put the pieces together.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/index.html

2vrtoo3.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top