The Manchurian Candidate

[Tiberius]

The hypothesis that Comey had a significant impact on the election conveniently ignores the fact that an ACA premium rate hike was announced three days prior to Comey's announcement.

no, the FBI investigation was obviously much bigger news, and only someone with severe brain damage would think otherwise

Because who gives a !@#$ about what Congress wants, anyways?

They don't have to report every single investigation to congress or to investigate everything single perv that texts a message. These were all deliberate political choices

[Ozymandius]

J Burton ‏@JBurtonXP 2h2 hours ago

One of the clearest indicators of Russian cyber-interference is that the vote didn't turn out the way you wanted it to.

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

Oh right! Anyone else would have been inducted, ya whatever

The only conclusion any reasonable person can come to given Comey's statements is that Clinton was either grossly incompetent, or that she was criminally negligent. I do not believe Hillary Clinton to be grossly incompetent. While not an adept campaigner, she is a policy wonk, is quite bright, and operates what may be the worlds largest criminal organization. This only leaves open one other possibility.

 

Comey chose not to recommend indictment, where he clearly could have, consistent with prior indictments for similar offenses.

 

If Comey wanted to damage Clinton, he could have. If you want to claim he announced the second round of investigations for political reasons, you'll first have to explain why he didn't do so with the initial investigations, and then explain why a public statement introducing the second investigation at the request of Congress was inappropriate.

Edited December 13, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker

[B-Man]

Reminder:

 

Oct 2016: These emails are a boring nothingburger which we shall ignore.

 

Dec 2016: These emails are the reason we lost, we need a re-vote!

 

 

The casual reader of newspaper headlines might well believe that the Russian government hacked into voting machines, or something of the sort, to influence the presidential election. But that is not the case.

 

 

If you read the Washington Post story, they are merely talking about the well-known hacks of Democratic National Committee and John Podesta emails.

 

The only news here is that someone at the CIA thinks the Russian government carried out the operation and did so in order to help Donald Trump win the election.

 

But the supporting information is very thin. The third-hand account in the Post admits that it wasn’t actually the Russian government that did the hacking:

 

ntelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin “directing” the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second senior U.S. official said. Those actors, according to the official, were “one step” removed from the Russian government, rather than government employees.

 

 

So is there any reason to think that the Russian government had anything to do with it? We don’t know. There are a great many software experts and sophisticated hackers in Russia. While it is possible that the Russian government directed these intrusions, the Post story contains no indication of what evidence supports this claim.

 

The Post’s sources are some combination of Democratic senators and Obama administration officials, conveying their impressions of what what unnamed representatives of the CIA told a bipartisan group of senators in a recent briefing. Someday, persuasive evidence supporting the Post’s headline may emerge, but it certainly hasn’t so far.

 

I suppose it is possible that Russia’s government hoped that Trump would win the election, but it is hard to see why. Such a desire would mean a change in Russian policy. The Russians enthusiastically welcomed Barack Obama’s election in 2008, and the then-head of that country’s Communist Party explained why the Russians don’t like Republicans:

 

 

All Republican presidents have always defended national interests, ignoring the interests of other countries of the world. The new US president [Obama] cannot but understand that it is impossible to seek and find answers to many global issues without the participation of such a great country as Russia.

 

The one thing we know for sure about Donald Trump is that he is pro-America–in the Russians’ eyes, a typical Republican.

 

Moreover, why would the Russians think that exposing emails from the likes of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and John Podesta would cause Trump to win the election? American newspapers like the Washington Post were saying that Hillary had the election virtually wrapped up. It would be embarrassing if Vladimir Putin has more insight into the U.S. electorate than such organs as the Washington Post and the New York Times.

 

Be that as it may, Donald Trump’s assessment of this kerfuffle is correct: it is just another silly attempt by the Democrats to excuse the fact that they lost the election. The Wikileaks revelations, while entertaining and often interesting, were inside baseball.

 

The voters who swung Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin into the GOP column didn’t do so because they were outraged by John Podesta’s emails, or by the fact that the DNC conspired against Bernie Sanders. For the Democrats to claim otherwise is delusional.

 

 

UPDATE: Also, remember when the Russians hacked into the White House’s and State Department’s computer systems in 2014?

 

 

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/12/russian-meddling-in-election-most-overblown-story-ever.php

Edited December 14, 2016 by B-Man

[Tiberius]

So the FBI put more effort to catching a sexting perv--who had indirect ties to Clinton-- than to efforts by Russia to break into the DNC computers? Says volumns

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

The only conclusion any reasonable person can come to given Comey's statements is that Clinton was either grossly incompetent, or that she was criminally negligent. I do not believe Hillary Clinton to be grossly incompetent. While not an adept campaigner, she is a policy wonk, is quite bright, and operates what may be the worlds largest criminal organization. This only leaves open one other possibility.

 

Comey chose not to recommend indictment, where he clearly could have, consistent with prior indictments for similar offenses.

 

If Comey wanted to damage Clinton, he could have. If you want to claim he announced the second round of investigations for political reasons, you'll first have to explain why he didn't do so with the initial investigations, and then explain why a public statement introducing the second investigation at the request of Congress was inappropriate.

There was no real case, that's why no indictment. It was all political, just like his work on whitewater

[TakeYouToTasker]

So the FBI put more effort to catching a sexting perv--who had indirect ties to Clinton-- than to efforts by Russia to break into the DNC computers? Says volumns

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

 

There was no real case, that's why no indictment. It was all political, just like his work on whitewater

Was Clinton grossly incompetent or was she criminally negligent?

[Wacka]

So the FBI put more effort to catching a sexting perv--who had indirect ties to Clinton-- than to efforts by Russia to break into the DNC computers? Says volumns

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

 

There was no real case, that's why no indictment. It was all political, just like his work on whitewater

Cocaine is a hell of a drug

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

DISCLAIMER: I'm not posting this as an endorsement of Pieczenik OR his testimony as both come with plenty of red flags. However his bonafides as a member of the intelligence community are unimpeachable.

 

The reason I am posting this is because it's evidence that there is an ongoing battle between intelligence agencies happening behind the scenes, even if his information is flawed or outright false.

 

He's clearly pushing an agenda -- one again I'm not asking you to believe or even supporting -- and speaking on behalf of a faction within the intelligence apparatus. This is clear from not just what he says but his resume. Why would someone like Pieczenik make this kind of statement three days out from the election? Even if you operate under the assumption that he's a fraud, there's little commercial benefit for a man of his position (despite his age) to release that kind of definitive statement, especially when it would be easy to disavow.

 

The only reason for Pieczenik to make such a public and bold claim would be that he believes it to be the truth. Pieczenik still holds TS clearances, he's got long standing connections to active intelligence officers in multiple branches of the community -- the likelihood of him publishing this information without being given clearance from someone at some level inside one of these agencies is remote.

 

So even if what he's saying is false, the very fact he's saying it tells us that some faction of the intelligence community wants to at the very least present the illusion of strife within the government itself.

That alone should give you pause to reconsider everything you're hearing from unnamed CIA 'sources' and journalists speaking in absolutes about evidence of Russian wrongdoing.

 

[Prickly Pete]

`

 

 

DISCLAIMER: I'm not posting this as an endorsement of Pieczenik OR his testimony as both come with plenty of red flags. However his bonafides as a member of the intelligence community are unimpeachable.

 

The reason I am posting this is because it's evidence that there is an ongoing battle between intelligence agencies happening behind the scenes, even if his information is flawed or outright false.

 

He's clearly pushing an agenda -- one again I'm not asking you to believe or even supporting -- and speaking on behalf of a faction within the intelligence apparatus. This is clear from not just what he says but his resume. Why would someone like Pieczenik make this kind of statement three days out from the election? Even if you operate under the assumption that he's a fraud, there's little commercial benefit for a man of his position (despite his age) to release that kind of definitive statement, especially when it would be easy to disavow.

 

The only reason for Pieczenik to make such a public and bold claim would be that he believes it to be the truth. Pieczenik still holds TS clearances, he's got long standing connections to active intelligence officers in multiple branches of the community -- the likelihood of him publishing this information without being given clearance from someone at some level inside one of these agencies is remote.

 

So even if what he's saying is false, the very fact he's saying it tells us that some faction of the intelligence community wants to at the very least present the illusion of strife within the government itself.

That alone should give you pause to reconsider everything you're hearing from unnamed CIA 'sources' and journalists speaking in absolutes about evidence of Russian wrongdoing.

 

 

I have read things that have insinuated that the FBI asked Trump to run for President, because they felt they needed a high profile person outside the two parties, to take on the corrupt Clinton Machine. While I won't commit to that, it doesn't seem outrageous, considering the way these people play ball.

Edited December 14, 2016 by HoF Watkins

[Deranged Rhino]

 

I have read things that have insinuated that the FBI asked Trump to run for President, because they felt they needed a high profile person outside the two parties, to take on the corrupt Clinton Machine. While I won't commit to that, it doesn't seem outrageous, considering the way these people play ball.

 

I agree that it doesn't seem outrageous at all.

 

I'm also not committing to any conclusion at the moment other than it's clear there is vociferous infighting going on among our intelligence agencies whom are deploying various memes through the media to push their competing agendas. That infighting has to be factored into any analysis of current events.

 

And a lot of people in the intelligence community have a great distaste for HRC (and the Clintons by extension) for a long list of reasons. The most egregious, at least in the minds of the intelligence community, being her exposure of agency assets through her use of insecure servers. It got people killed. That a faction of this community would back an opposition candidate -- even if it's just out of spite -- wouldn't surprise me.

[CommonCents]

Where is Julian Assange!?

[/dev/null]

Where is Julian Assange!?

Chillin with Carmen San Diego?

[Joe Miner]

So have Russian Hackers entered Global Warning territory? There's nothing good or bad that Russian Hackers can't do?

 

 

Our is global warming so almighty that it caused Russian Hackers?

[Tiberius]

Was Clinton grossly incompetent or was she criminally negligent?

For using Google instead of the government server? Since the government's computers have been hacked time and again, including CIA and Homeland security, I'd say neither. I sure wish she had just handled this better. This is such a stupid witch hunt which was born out of the failed Benghazi witch hunt and then side tracked over to a perv sending dirty messages to someone he never met.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

For using Google instead of the government server? Since the government's computers have been hacked time and again, including CIA and Homeland security, I'd say neither. I sure wish she had just handled this better. This is such a stupid witch hunt which was born out of the failed Benghazi witch hunt and then side tracked over to a perv sending dirty messages to someone he never met.

 

Stupid witch hunt? *face on desk*

[Nanker]

 

Stupid witch hunt? *face on desk*

Well, to be fair, she IS a witch.

[Chef Jim]

For using Google instead of the government server? Since the government's computers have been hacked time and again, including CIA and Homeland security, I'd say neither. I sure wish she had just handled this better. This is such a stupid witch hunt which was born out of the failed Benghazi witch hunt and then side tracked over to a perv sending dirty messages to someone he never met.

I'll take Gator still doesn't know why his girl lost for $200 Alex.

[Deranged Rhino]

Where is Julian Assange!?

 

He was taken off the board before the election (around October 16th) and a few days before the PG controversy broke -- which many have rightly pointed out makes all PG related stuff highly dubious.

 

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/788099178832420865?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

 

Whether he's dead or in a dark hole somewhere we can't be sure. What is certain however is the two "proof of life" offered by Wikileaks after the 16th (a video interview and a radio interview) are both clearly edited and manipulated and offer little in the way of proof of life.

 

There's a chance he was taken off the board by a friendly ally (friendly to Assange) and is being hidden in protective custody, but he's not in the embassy.

Chillin with Carmen San Diego?

 

[Prickly Pete]

http://www.businessinsider.com/military-plane-manhattan-2016-12

[Deranged Rhino]

http://www.businessinsider.com/military-plane-manhattan-2016-12