Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
What the heck were these 500 expendable individuals doing in Russia???

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While generally I hate Trump, I find this kind of funny. I assume it is a joke.

No, it was not. He repeated it three times.

Also, do you find diplomatic tensions hilarious?

DP. Oh shut up. You want it both ways? You want to accuse them without evidence of hacking our election, disenfranchise our POTUS and then get pissed when we don't have any diplomats in Russia? FFS? This is the cake you baked, Democrats. Oh - the stock market is down also. Short-sighted, pathetic Democrats created this and are crippled.

If you truly believe at this point in time that there is no evidence of hacking, you are half baked. Don't put this on the Dems. You wanted the antithesis of Obama now you have it. It's your cake. Eat it.

There isn't a shred of evidence Russia 'hacked' anything. There's lot of conjecture about Russia by parties that are not dis-interested. Point me to any firm evidence that suggests otherwise.

There is an active investigation. There are statements by the intelligence agencies that it absolutely happened. Your denial won't change the facts, PP.

The IC, a not disinterested party, offered judgements, aka opinions, without providing any factual support. Get back to me with some facts and I promise to stop laughing at your gullibility.

The IC is, of course, disinterested. It is Trump who is trying to politicize its findings, not the other way around. Trump can't stand it when any one or any organization reports items that don't please him or aggrandize him. The IC does not make "judgments," it makes assessments. The analysis in such assessments is based on facts that come from protected sources and methods. You will not get that "factual support" from the IC. It's the IC's job to make sure those facts never become public because that could burn the source. That makes the IC an easy target to attack with nonsense as posted above. It will not respond. Nor should it. It's not in the game of politics. It exists to assess threats and it has served the nation well, with all of its successes secret, and all of its failures public.

Laugh all you want. The joke's on you.

The problem with saying the IC is disinterested is that it's massively naive. This is DC, everyone is about turf, clout, reputation, and most importantly $$$. If you mess with folks' bailiwicks, like say, questioning the policies vis-a-vis Russia or MENA, the IC will not just roll over, I'm sorry. Trump shut down the ridiculous CIA effort to train 'moderate rebels' (who in the unvarnished estimation of many the SOF who were once involved with it, jihadis in disguise) in Syria. That's pissing on IC folks world. And there was a lot more for the IC to fear as well.

And if the IC makes assessments about the integrity of our democratic elections and then refuses to provide factual evidence for them, they're not a jokers, they're a cancer.

Pssst. The CIA works for the president. It only does what he authorizes it do. The CIA is not some rogue actor off doing it's own thing. That's some Alex Jones, Hannity, FoxNews level BS right there.

The IC has provided the sources for its assessments to those with clearance and access. You don't have a clearance to see them. That's how it is. The originators may release that information in the future if necessary, perhaps at trial.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While generally I hate Trump, I find this kind of funny. I assume it is a joke.

No, it was not. He repeated it three times.

Also, do you find diplomatic tensions hilarious?

DP. Oh shut up. You want it both ways? You want to accuse them without evidence of hacking our election, disenfranchise our POTUS and then get pissed when we don't have any diplomats in Russia? FFS? This is the cake you baked, Democrats. Oh - the stock market is down also. Short-sighted, pathetic Democrats created this and are crippled.

If you truly believe at this point in time that there is no evidence of hacking, you are half baked. Don't put this on the Dems. You wanted the antithesis of Obama now you have it. It's your cake. Eat it.

There isn't a shred of evidence Russia 'hacked' anything. There's lot of conjecture about Russia by parties that are not dis-interested. Point me to any firm evidence that suggests otherwise.

There is an active investigation. There are statements by the intelligence agencies that it absolutely happened. Your denial won't change the facts, PP.

The IC, a not disinterested party, offered judgements, aka opinions, without providing any factual support. Get back to me with some facts and I promise to stop laughing at your gullibility.

The IC is, of course, disinterested. It is Trump who is trying to politicize its findings, not the other way around. Trump can't stand it when any one or any organization reports items that don't please him or aggrandize him. The IC does not make "judgments," it makes assessments. The analysis in such assessments is based on facts that come from protected sources and methods. You will not get that "factual support" from the IC. It's the IC's job to make sure those facts never become public because that could burn the source. That makes the IC an easy target to attack with nonsense as posted above. It will not respond. Nor should it. It's not in the game of politics. It exists to assess threats and it has served the nation well, with all of its successes secret, and all of its failures public.

Laugh all you want. The joke's on you.

The problem with saying the IC is disinterested is that it's massively naive. This is DC, everyone is about turf, clout, reputation, and most importantly $$$. If you mess with folks' bailiwicks, like say, questioning the policies vis-a-vis Russia or MENA, the IC will not just roll over, I'm sorry. Trump shut down the ridiculous CIA effort to train 'moderate rebels' (who in the unvarnished estimation of many the SOF who were once involved with it, jihadis in disguise) in Syria. That's pissing on IC folks world. And there was a lot more for the IC to fear as well.

And if the IC makes assessments about the integrity of our democratic elections and then refuses to provide factual evidence for them, they're not a jokers, they're a cancer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While generally I hate Trump, I find this kind of funny. I assume it is a joke.

No, it was not. He repeated it three times.

Also, do you find diplomatic tensions hilarious?

DP. Oh shut up. You want it both ways? You want to accuse them without evidence of hacking our election, disenfranchise our POTUS and then get pissed when we don't have any diplomats in Russia? FFS? This is the cake you baked, Democrats. Oh - the stock market is down also. Short-sighted, pathetic Democrats created this and are crippled.

If you truly believe at this point in time that there is no evidence of hacking, you are half baked. Don't put this on the Dems. You wanted the antithesis of Obama now you have it. It's your cake. Eat it.

There isn't a shred of evidence Russia 'hacked' anything. There's lot of conjecture about Russia by parties that are not dis-interested. Point me to any firm evidence that suggests otherwise.

There is an active investigation. There are statements by the intelligence agencies that it absolutely happened. Your denial won't change the facts, PP.

The IC, a not disinterested party, offered judgements, aka opinions, without providing any factual support. Get back to me with some facts and I promise to stop laughing at your gullibility.

The IC is, of course, disinterested. It is Trump who is trying to politicize its findings, not the other way around. Trump can't stand it when any one or any organization reports items that don't please him or aggrandize him. The IC does not make "judgments," it makes assessments. The analysis in such assessments is based on facts that come from protected sources and methods. You will not get that "factual support" from the IC. It's the IC's job to make sure those facts never become public because that could burn the source. That makes the IC an easy target to attack with nonsense as posted above. It will not respond. Nor should it. It's not in the game of politics. It exists to assess threats and it has served the nation well, with all of its successes secret, and all of its failures public.

Laugh all you want. The joke's on you.

The problem with saying the IC is disinterested is that it's massively naive. This is DC, everyone is about turf, clout, reputation, and most importantly $$$. If you mess with folks' bailiwicks, like say, questioning the policies vis-a-vis Russia or MENA, the IC will not just roll over, I'm sorry. Trump shut down the ridiculous CIA effort to train 'moderate rebels' (who in the unvarnished estimation of many the SOF who were once involved with it, jihadis in disguise) in Syria. That's pissing on IC folks world. And there was a lot more for the IC to fear as well.

And if the IC makes assessments about the integrity of our democratic elections and then refuses to provide factual evidence for them, they're not a jokers, they're a cancer.

The evidence will come when if the prosecutors prosecute. That is their role. The IC's role is assessment, which it assessed. If you don't want to concur with that assessment, that is your business, but to dismiss it would be in error.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While generally I hate Trump, I find this kind of funny. I assume it is a joke.

No, it was not. He repeated it three times.

Also, do you find diplomatic tensions hilarious?

DP. Oh shut up. You want it both ways? You want to accuse them without evidence of hacking our election, disenfranchise our POTUS and then get pissed when we don't have any diplomats in Russia? FFS? This is the cake you baked, Democrats. Oh - the stock market is down also. Short-sighted, pathetic Democrats created this and are crippled.

If you truly believe at this point in time that there is no evidence of hacking, you are half baked. Don't put this on the Dems. You wanted the antithesis of Obama now you have it. It's your cake. Eat it.

There isn't a shred of evidence Russia 'hacked' anything. There's lot of conjecture about Russia by parties that are not dis-interested. Point me to any firm evidence that suggests otherwise.

There is an active investigation. There are statements by the intelligence agencies that it absolutely happened. Your denial won't change the facts, PP.

The IC, a not disinterested party, offered judgements, aka opinions, without providing any factual support. Get back to me with some facts and I promise to stop laughing at your gullibility.

The IC is, of course, disinterested. It is Trump who is trying to politicize its findings, not the other way around. Trump can't stand it when any one or any organization reports items that don't please him or aggrandize him. The IC does not make "judgments," it makes assessments. The analysis in such assessments is based on facts that come from protected sources and methods. You will not get that "factual support" from the IC. It's the IC's job to make sure those facts never become public because that could burn the source. That makes the IC an easy target to attack with nonsense as posted above. It will not respond. Nor should it. It's not in the game of politics. It exists to assess threats and it has served the nation well, with all of its successes secret, and all of its failures public.

Laugh all you want. The joke's on you.

The problem with saying the IC is disinterested is that it's massively naive. This is DC, everyone is about turf, clout, reputation, and most importantly $$$. If you mess with folks' bailiwicks, like say, questioning the policies vis-a-vis Russia or MENA, the IC will not just roll over, I'm sorry. Trump shut down the ridiculous CIA effort to train 'moderate rebels' (who in the unvarnished estimation of many the SOF who were once involved with it, jihadis in disguise) in Syria. That's pissing on IC folks world. And there was a lot more for the IC to fear as well.

And if the IC makes assessments about the integrity of our democratic elections and then refuses to provide factual evidence for them, they're not a jokers, they're a cancer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While generally I hate Trump, I find this kind of funny. I assume it is a joke.

No, it was not. He repeated it three times.

Also, do you find diplomatic tensions hilarious?

DP. Oh shut up. You want it both ways? You want to accuse them without evidence of hacking our election, disenfranchise our POTUS and then get pissed when we don't have any diplomats in Russia? FFS? This is the cake you baked, Democrats. Oh - the stock market is down also. Short-sighted, pathetic Democrats created this and are crippled.

If you truly believe at this point in time that there is no evidence of hacking, you are half baked. Don't put this on the Dems. You wanted the antithesis of Obama now you have it. It's your cake. Eat it.

There isn't a shred of evidence Russia 'hacked' anything. There's lot of conjecture about Russia by parties that are not dis-interested. Point me to any firm evidence that suggests otherwise.

There is an active investigation. There are statements by the intelligence agencies that it absolutely happened. Your denial won't change the facts, PP.

The IC, a not disinterested party, offered judgements, aka opinions, without providing any factual support. Get back to me with some facts and I promise to stop laughing at your gullibility.

The IC is, of course, disinterested. It is Trump who is trying to politicize its findings, not the other way around. Trump can't stand it when any one or any organization reports items that don't please him or aggrandize him. The IC does not make "judgments," it makes assessments. The analysis in such assessments is based on facts that come from protected sources and methods. You will not get that "factual support" from the IC. It's the IC's job to make sure those facts never become public because that could burn the source. That makes the IC an easy target to attack with nonsense as posted above. It will not respond. Nor should it. It's not in the game of politics. It exists to assess threats and it has served the nation well, with all of its successes secret, and all of its failures public.

Laugh all you want. The joke's on you.

Anonymous wrote:Wait, why does Trump want to stop US intelligence gathering in Russia? How does that benefit him?

Anonymous wrote:Wait, why does Trump want to stop US intelligence gathering in Russia? How does that benefit him?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Y'all do realize that half the people being expelled by Putin are the U.S.'s own spies from the CIA/NSA/etc, right? They enter the country as "diplomats." The Russians do the same when they send their folks to their DC embassy.

We are literally losing a massive part of our intelligence infrastructure in Russia, plus the confidential sources these brave Americans have cultivated.

#WINNING

NP. I do realize that, and that is exactly why Trump is happy about this..

Anonymous wrote:Y'all do realize that half the people being expelled by Putin are the U.S.'s own spies from the CIA/NSA/etc, right? They enter the country as "diplomats." The Russians do the same when they send their folks to their DC embassy.

We are literally losing a massive part of our intelligence infrastructure in Russia, plus the confidential sources these brave Americans have cultivated.

#WINNING