Anonymous wrote: Could be Russia. Could be China.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you pooh-poohing this story, please consider that 6 months ago, there was no hack and no manipulation. As the investigators are getting into it, they have now discovered that yes, there have been hacks, but no evidence of manipulation. If we give it more time, the story may not change, or it may. But the idea that this isn't of high concern is really galling.

Any reasonable person would agree that it's of concern. Trying to link it with "collusion" and all that is a bit attenuated though. Not unllke the Benghazi mess, expensive and pointless ultimately.

Anonymous wrote:For those of you pooh-poohing this story, please consider that 6 months ago, there was no hack and no manipulation. As the investigators are getting into it, they have now discovered that yes, there have been hacks, but no evidence of manipulation. If we give it more time, the story may not change, or it may. But the idea that this isn't of high concern is really galling.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama’s WH used a back channel? Well, go figure............

These are what I call 'articles of convenience'. They come out every time the left's theories begin to come apart.

So you are saying the NSA is wrong? If this is not true, why prosecute Reality for leaking documents stating what the OP is saying?

I think that the media is taking information that we already know about - that Russia, like always, has tried to hack our election - and is putting it out in such as way as to cast doubt on Trump's electoral win.

Was the NSA document that was leaked showing the Russian breach fake? Yes or no?

What does breach mean? Attempt or success? The Russians always try. This story was planted to make it seem as if they succeeded in changing votes. So did they actually change votes? Yes or no?

Why don't you read the article?

When they succeed to change votes, it will already be too late. And if you know how hacking works, they will eventually succeed. It's not a matter of "if"

I also find it laughable that you are so unconcerned because they are now helping your party. Comey was right. Putin is not a Republican. He does not give a crap about Republicans. He will turn right back around and turn that weapon on your side. And then you will be outraged. Except it will be too late.

So, what is your recommendation for preventing them from doing this? What should the US do?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama’s WH used a back channel? Well, go figure............

He didn't use the Russian embassy out of the IC eye to do it. Go figure.

Anonymous wrote:Obama’s WH used a back channel? Well, go figure............

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama’s WH used a back channel? Well, go figure............

These are what I call 'articles of convenience'. They come out every time the left's theories begin to come apart.

So you are saying the NSA is wrong? If this is not true, why prosecute Reality for leaking documents stating what the OP is saying?

I think that the media is taking information that we already know about - that Russia, like always, has tried to hack our election - and is putting it out in such as way as to cast doubt on Trump's electoral win.

Was the NSA document that was leaked showing the Russian breach fake? Yes or no?

What does breach mean? Attempt or success? The Russians always try. This story was planted to make it seem as if they succeeded in changing votes. So did they actually change votes? Yes or no?

Why don't you read the article?

When they succeed to change votes, it will already be too late. And if you know how hacking works, they will eventually succeed. It's not a matter of "if"

I also find it laughable that you are so unconcerned because they are now helping your party. Comey was right. Putin is not a Republican. He does not give a crap about Republicans. He will turn right back around and turn that weapon on your side. And then you will be outraged. Except it will be too late.

Anonymous wrote:Obama’s WH used a back channel? Well, go figure............

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama’s WH used a back channel? Well, go figure............

These are what I call 'articles of convenience'. They come out every time the left's theories begin to come apart.

So you are saying the NSA is wrong? If this is not true, why prosecute Reality for leaking documents stating what the OP is saying?

I think that the media is taking information that we already know about - that Russia, like always, has tried to hack our election - and is putting it out in such as way as to cast doubt on Trump's electoral win.

Was the NSA document that was leaked showing the Russian breach fake? Yes or no?

What does breach mean? Attempt or success? The Russians always try. This story was planted to make it seem as if they succeeded in changing votes. So did they actually change votes? Yes or no?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama’s WH used a back channel? Well, go figure............

These are what I call 'articles of convenience'. They come out every time the left's theories begin to come apart.

So you are saying the NSA is wrong? If this is not true, why prosecute Reality for leaking documents stating what the OP is saying?

I think that the media is taking information that we already know about - that Russia, like always, has tried to hack our election - and is putting it out in such as way as to cast doubt on Trump's electoral win.

Was the NSA document that was leaked showing the Russian breach fake? Yes or no?

What does breach mean? Attempt or success? The Russians always try. This story was planted to make it seem as if they succeeded in changing votes. So did they actually change votes? Yes or no?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama’s WH used a back channel? Well, go figure............

These are what I call 'articles of convenience'. They come out every time the left's theories begin to come apart.

So you are saying the NSA is wrong? If this is not true, why prosecute Reality for leaking documents stating what the OP is saying?

I think that the media is taking information that we already know about - that Russia, like always, has tried to hack our election - and is putting it out in such as way as to cast doubt on Trump's electoral win.

Was the NSA document that was leaked showing the Russian breach fake? Yes or no?

We don’t know. It could be. Or, they could have been trying to identify a leaker within the agency, so they created a “false flag” to catch the leaker.

Did anyone in the government say that? Anyone at all?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama’s WH used a back channel? Well, go figure............

These are what I call 'articles of convenience'. They come out every time the left's theories begin to come apart.

So you are saying the NSA is wrong? If this is not true, why prosecute Reality for leaking documents stating what the OP is saying?

I think that the media is taking information that we already know about - that Russia, like always, has tried to hack our election - and is putting it out in such as way as to cast doubt on Trump's electoral win.

Was the NSA document that was leaked showing the Russian breach fake? Yes or no?