world

Putin himself involved in U.S. election hack: NBC

72 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2016 AFP

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

72 Comments
Login to comment

So the CIA, whose job description generally includes lying and subverting elections where they don't approve of the winner, is to be trusted now? And this call to arms against Russia to being greeted by people we formerly referred to as liberal Democrats? Is it really worth going to war with Russian to get compliant candidate in the White House? Or would going to war with Russia be considered a bonus by these shadowy puppetmasters?

-7 ( +11 / -18 )

Quite interesting since the head of the ODNI, the man who oversees the CIA and NSA, just stated that he doesn't agree with their findings. "While I wont say they're wrong, they have NOT shown proof of intent and since we abide to the law that you are innocent until proven guilty, I won't support their claims unless future evidence is presented."

-4 ( +9 / -13 )

reasonably high degree of confidence

WMD deja vu anyone?

4 ( +17 / -13 )

And This coming from the same CIA who "found" weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, created ISIS and helped Hillary destroy Libya and wreck havoc in the Middle East?

Stop blaming the Russians with no proof. The Democrats lost the elections because their candidate was arrogant and lead a weak campaign with no real message. Own it and move on.

-1 ( +14 / -15 )

Talk about fake news!?

The establishment is playing a very dangerous game.

In other news, the State of Georgia has confirmed multiple hacks from none other than the Department of Homeland Security before and after the election.

NBC, you are unworthy to be called a news company.

-6 ( +11 / -17 )

NBC News? The same people who submitted stories to the DNC for approval before they were aired? The same people who for weeks up to Nov. 8th nearly nightly broadcast the biggest fake news story of the year about PE Trump's "narrow path to reach 270"?

You mean that NBC News?

-6 ( +9 / -15 )

Any one here work for the CIA, NSA, FBI, journalism in any sense or form? While I don't trust the MSM (all brands), I trust statements without facts by faceless others even below that. Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see. And that is only until you can verify it for yourself.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Interesting all the downvotes, yet none of the comments come to the defence of these accusations. Shadows supporting shadows.

-5 ( +10 / -15 )

Anybody left out there who believes the stuff mainstream " media is coming up with recently, gosh..?

-2 ( +8 / -10 )

Oh my...

CIA Trying To Cheat Trump and Give Clinton Presidency

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsguAc8S84k

-10 ( +4 / -14 )

And This coming from the same CIA who "found" weapons of mass destruction in Iraq...

Let's put this to bed (though that's unlikely - like herpes, it will return): Intelligence by its nature deals with uncertainties. In the runup to Bush's Iraq war, the CIA reported on what they thought: that there was no direct evidence that Iraq was seeking nuclear weapons or that it had an active WMD program, but that there were levels of uncertainty. Cheney took the improbables and made them a centerpiece ("yellowcake from Nigeria" and all).

Now the GOP is at it again, but in an opposite direction. There may be no direct evidence that Putin directed the operation, but there seems to be a preponderance of evidence - but the GOP is centering on the doubts. Mah, what can you expect from a party that refutes even basic tenets of science?

6 ( +11 / -5 )

Now the GOP is at it again, but in an opposite direction. There may be no direct evidence that Putin directed the operation, but there seems to be a preponderance of evidence - but the GOP is centering on the doubts. Mah, what can you expect from a party that refutes even basic tenets of science?

OR

Maybe this just fake news to keep the Sanders/progressive crowd from making the headlines that Hillary "hacked" the Dem primaries. No getting around that big peice of corruption, so next best thing, change the narrative.

-8 ( +5 / -13 )

Kennedy threatened to smash the CIA into a thousand pieces? That organization is notorious and until not too long ago it was de rigeur for trendy lefties to be suspicious of it. But now that its trump whos critical of the CIA its a different story!

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

@HonestDictator

I trust statements without facts by faceless others

OK, then here is a question: if you believe statements by faceless others from one side, then will you believe statements by faceless from another side? If a nameless official from the Russian security service says that they uncovered a massive US plot to influence Russian elections (without providing any proof, only saying "we are very shure"), will you believe him? If not, then why? Why one side is absolutely trustworthy for you and the other is not?

@Laguna

no direct evidence that Iraq was seeking nuclear weapons or that it had an active WMD program, but that there were levels of uncertainty

One thing is absolutely certain: the whole preraration for the Iraqi invasion was based on a lie, Bush / Cheney new it perfectly that Saddam had no active WMD program at all. They needed an excuse for aggression and they fabricated it (remember Colin Powell's infamous "proof" show at UN?). Even Blair, the favourite US pet, finally admitted that the whole Iraqi war was based on a lie from the very beginning.

Americans are funny. They destabilize other countries, mess with their internal affairs, try to influence elections in other countries, but get upset if somebody, may be (still no proof presented at all) tries to return the favour. They describe Russia as some weak regional power, then claim that it hacked into the US elections process, thus making Russia a some kind of tech superpower from a James Bond movie. Ridiculous.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Oh how the propaganda spin doctors are desperately trying to drum up support for anti Russian sentiment, and failing. The West needs to stop its war posturing and make trade deals with Russia. It was EU expansionism into Ukraine that provoked Russia and Putin has been exceptionally measured in his response to Western aggression.

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

Is it really worth going to war with Russian to get compliant candidate in the White House?

Russia is already going to have a compliant candidate in the White House.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Zed, correct.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

Putin forgot the number one rule for Russians wanting to keep something secret from the Americans, making sure you're facing away from Alaska before you talk. Turns out that not only can Sarah Palin see Russia from her porch, she can also lip read what is being said in Russia, too. Even more damning for Putin, she also saw him give the orders that Apollo 13 be sabotaged.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

And this call to arms against Russia to being greeted by people we formerly referred to as liberal Democrats? Is it really worth going to war with Russian to get compliant candidate in the White House? Or would going to war with Russia be considered a bonus by these shadowy puppetmasters?

No one has said anything about war with Russia apart from you.

But it is interesting that just before the election I was reading Kremlin insiders say that the mood in Moscow was that Hillary winning the election would lead to war with Russia (not evidence that Hillary actually wanted war with Russia, just that that was what Russians were afraid of), and immediately after we got the Trumpettes bleating that Hillary would start WWIII. Now Russia's obvious and documented involvement in our election is getting thrust into the spotlight and the lies about war are coming out again from the same dittoheads. Makes it pretty clear exactly who is calling the shots in the Alt-Right.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Serrano: "CIA Trying To Cheat Trump and Give Clinton Presidency"

Hahaha... well, the only thing Trump has been right about so far is that the election was indeed rigged. But not against him. It's not 'cheating' anyone of anything when they are the cheaters, my friend. Criminals are 'cheated' of their prizes when caught and arrested for their crimes, except in their demented minds.

Someone can't handle the truth -- oh my!

7 ( +11 / -4 )

They destabilize other countries, mess with their internal affairs, try to influence elections in other countries, but get upset if somebody, may be (still no proof presented at all) tries to return the favour.

Asakaze, I agree in part, meaning I acknowledge that the US does meddle often in other countries affairs - but that is what great powers do, Russia included. I disagree with the tone of your conclusion, though: the US is not so upset that Russia manipulated the election as it is that it allowed itself to be manipulated. In Russian society, parties can be banned, news outlets shut down, and politicians imprisoned or assassinated if needed, but that is not (at least yet) possible in the US. This is a serious question that requires serious thought: How can a very open democracy such as the US survive in this new world?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

No surprises at all here..Trump asked Russia for help in the first place they obliged.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Who would have known that Putin was also a computer geek on top of being a spy, he man and all round tyrant.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

A veritable festival of Trumpiness at large tonight, kids. It must be Hallowe'en under the Julian calendar!

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

It sin't over till the fat cosmonaut sings. It's gonna be a very bumpy four years.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Sore loser democrats to the nation: How dare American voters get a peek behind the curtain of the Democratic Party machine. It's just not fair!!!!!

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

How dare American voters get a peek behind the curtain of the Democratic Party machine. It's just not fair!!!!!

Yeah - does kinda suck that Putin has a peek under both curtains but has chosen only to grace us with one view. Not fair - I'd have loved to see the internal RNC communication as Trump surged.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

It's becoming difficult to separate the Trump supporters from the Putin supporters here.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

No one has said anything about war with Russia apart from you.

You haven't been paying attention then. Hillary was on the path to war even as she denied it. The propaganda is very much like the lead up to Iraq. No fly zones, the one-sided focus on Aleppo, the support for ISIS-like rebels, and the fact that Hillary never met a war she didn't like.

until not too long ago it was de rigeur for trendy lefties to be suspicious of it.

Until just about a month ago in fact. I knew they were rudderless, but even I was surprised at just how completely many on the left would flip on their most basic tenets without any sense of irony or inconsistency. It really has been educational for me. And rather frightening.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

I don't think many people put much stock in the "Clinton will start WWIII" talk beyond those trying to force it in to the conversation. The whole thing came across as a silly internet talking point to most.

But it is interesting to see the alignment of Trump and Putin supporters. I never thought I'd see Texas, Serrano, and bass take a "hands off" approach to our Russian friends who must feel pretty excited to be able to post here unchallenged. Yet here we are.

You can see how their characteristics are starting to align with the rejection of the Fourth Estate, which is being replaced with the talking points of the undemocratically elected leaders. Notice how everything is a conspiracy now? Thats right out of Russia's playbook. CIA intelligence reports? All false, can't be trusted. Millions of illegals voted for Clinton. Trump doesn't need to be transparent in his business dealings because he will make our country great again. Challenge Trump and he will go after you and his followers will fall on their swords.

Is this the Russianization of the American right? If so Democrats have our hands full trying to keep them both in check. Not easy, but if Republicans cheer along with Putin supporters, we will have a heck of a mountain to climb.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

But it is interesting to see the alignment of Trump and Putin supporters.

"Putin supporters" is a moniker given to people in lieu of a reasonable counter-argument. Questioning the assumption of Putin's guilt does not make one a Putin supporter. It may just mean that someone is interested in the truth, not the lies.

Even if one accepted every bizarre accusation made by Hillary and her cronies, all it would mean is that the Putin "hacked" the election by revealing the truth to the American people. For shame.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

Some wonderful entertainment here. Do wanna see Keith Olbermann on crack?

The establishment must have paid this guy a cool mill to lie with so much "passion". He's not even questioning the veracity of the "story", just excepting as fact. Yes ladies and gentlemen, this is your corporate establishment MSM on drugs. Unfortunately, and as we can see on here as well, the loony tunes soak it up like a dried sponge. Time to run to safe space, Putin has taken over America!! The MSM is a joke, anyone who believes them at this point needs serious help.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAFxPXGDH4E

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

I don't think many people put much stock in the "Clinton will start WWIII" talk beyond those trying to force it in to the conversation. The whole thing came across as a silly internet talking point to most.

It's an irrelevant point now. We can't know what she would have ended up actually doing, nor what the consequences would have been of that action. So it's irrelevant speculation.

What we do know however is that Trump is tweaking China's nose, which could very likely lead to war. So anyone who was complaining about Clinton potentially starting a war, yet isn't complaining about Trump who is actually provoking one now, is simply showing that they had a problem with Clinton, not with war.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

commanteerDEC. 15, 2016 - 09:34PM JST "Putin supporters" is a moniker given to people in lieu of a reasonable counter-argument.

You're absolutely right.

I mean until you turn around and repeat the lie that Hillary would have started a war without giving a shred of real evidence. When you start taking your propaganda straight from Sputnik, it's kinda hard to give the benefit of the doubt.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Thats how it works. The CIA has a report? All lies. But 3 million illegals voted for Trump. And here's my YouTube video.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

commanteer: ""Putin supporters" is a moniker given to people in lieu of a reasonable counter-argument. "

Says the guy whose response to supporting Putin/Trump is to claim that Clinton is STILL somehow leading the US down the path to war (as Trump angers everyone BUT their new buddy Putin).

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Let's see, what is coming up next week that NBC might be trying to have an effect on?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Asakaze that's a typo that I didn't catch sadly. I don't trust statements by faceless others.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, that would explain why Putin and Trump have been so BFF lately. I already couldn't stand Trump, but the fact that he would be in cahoots with a brutal dictator like Putin, is more reason for me to despise him. Trump is not even president yet, and we already can see the writing on the wall: Say goodbye to social security and Medicare. Say goodbye to free speech. Say goodbye to democracy. Say goodbye to unity.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Instead of throwing hissy fits at the possibility of the Russians leaking the DNC's dirty laundry, the radical alt left should be questioning why the leaders of their party of "tolerance" was saying what was revealed behind closed doors in the first place.

The truth is, they aren't mad about the racist content what was being said, they are upset the DNC was exposed saying it.

Heh, talk about priorities. . . .

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Hillary was on the path to war even as she denied it.

That sounds like the perfect example of unwarranted hysterical lies that the right enjoys doling out to its sheep. After all, weren't the hysterical right claiming that Obama was going to take away all their guns?

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Texas Aggie: "The truth is, they aren't mad about the racist content what was being said, they are upset the DNC was exposed saying it."

Says a guy who supports "Hail Trump" and the Alt-right. There is no Alt-left movement despite your "I'm rubber your glue..." attempt at retort, by the way.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

smith: "Someone ( me ) can't handle the truth -- oh my!"

Oh my, smith, can you handle this truth?:

CIA INFLUENCING ELECTORAL COLLEGE: Clinton Urges Electors to Read CIA Report Linking Trump to Russia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkNFZv2L32A

And, oh my...

NEW CLINTON EMAIL SCANDAL: CIA Knows Hillary Clinton's Unencrypted Server Hacked By Global Hackers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xx6OmZ-m10&t=2s

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

smithinjapanDEC. 15, 2016 - 11:19PM JST There is no Alt-left movement

I had no idea there was a way to convey putting your fingers in your ears and yelling La la la in text form, but there it is. Outstanding.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Oh my...

Ingraham blasts Obama's hypocrisy over Russia hacking claims

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y0lfCvAtqo

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Amerikan liberals will believe anything, and media outlets know it. Liberal citizenry and leadership have yet to awaken from the hypnosis they volunteered during the election. What are they so afraid of?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

The convergence of pro-Putin and pro-Trump posts is a remarkable demonstration of the effectiveness of the Breitbart / RT media approach. I honestly can't tell who's a Trump-cheering Putinista, and who's a Putin cheering Trumpista; but my question is directed to the latter: prior to being told this year by Trump that Putin is awesome, surely you would have been appalled at the idea of US president getting into bed with Putin. No?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

That sounds like the perfect example of unwarranted hysterical lies that the right enjoys doling out to its sheep.

Yeah, kind of like:

Say goodbye to social security and Medicare. Say goodbye to free speech. Say goodbye to democracy. Say goodbye to unity.

Repetitive regurgitation at its best.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Now, back when part of my job included listening to sobering up drunks 'justify' their drinking, I'd occasionally hear one of them blame the guy who sat down next to them at the bar. They'd explain how they'd only intended to 'have a few beers' (6-12) but as they were finishing what was absolutely the last one of the night, this stranger insisted on buying them a beer, and then another, and then another... And that's basically what the US is saying, that the election was normal and under control, the fake news, the 'revelations' about dirty business being done by the parties behind the scenes, and the suddenly appearing, well organized 'concerned citizens' groups having no effect on the electorate, then Putin walked into the bar, and started offering them 'just one more...' and the next thing they know they've pounded back so many that they just couldn't be held responsible anymore.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Should I stop asking the anti-MSM crowd where they get their news from? No one wants to answer. Its like they are keeping their true and unbiased sources secret, then blasting people for not relying on them.

So please, help me. Release me from the burden of CNN and Fox News and invite me in to the group.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Should I stop asking the anti-MSM crowd where they get their news from? No one wants to answer. Its like they are keeping their true and unbiased sources secret, then blasting people for not relying on them.

I think for many of them, their eyes gloss over your questions, because they don't want to admit that the 'news' sources they use are actually less ethical than the ones they condemn. And the rest get their news from quacks on youtube.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

I think it's because the MSM whatever is some kind of fuzzy, undefined catchphrase they throw out when they don't agree with you. And they probably research via confirmation bias, so when "Jim the Confederate Patriots" Twitter account conflicts with CNN, they will tell you that you are blind, but they aren't really following the guy as a news source, he was just a one time fix to get what they need, then they move on. So in that sense they don't have consistent sources per se.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

SuperLibDEC. 16, 2016 - 05:19AM JST I think it's because the MSM whatever is some kind of fuzzy, undefined catchphrase they throw out when they don't agree with you.

Generally speaking, right-wingers are interested in inherent virtue while left-wingers are interested in idealized, self-correcting processes. When left-wingers see a news story they don't agree with, they assume that the reporting process (which to be fair, the left-winger may not actually understand) hasn't been followed. Look at the Daily Show with Jon Stewart: it ran for years on the premise of just making fun of the absurd things news organizations come up with when they don't follow an objective, quality-information driven process. You can see it in the relationship between Stewart and Bill O'Reilly... Stewart would attack O'Reilly's news segments time and time again but whenever they interviewed in person you almost got the impression that though they hated what the other did, Stewart at least liked O'Reilly as a person.

Whereas generally speaking right-wingers are more interested in their inherent moral quality, especially in how it compares to others. Certain people are just inherently better than others in right-wing thinking, and naturally no one who believes this is ever going to think they aren't one of the inherently good. So when they encounter news that they don't like, the assumption isn't that the proper journalistic process wasn't followed, but rather that the person who wrote it is an inherently bad person with an inherently bad agenda. Go through that experience enough (perhaps because one's beliefs are delusional so no news source will ever corroborate them) and eventually one can only arrive at the conclusion that every news organization out there is united in a massive conspiracy to destroy civilization itself.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Instead of throwing hissy fits at the possibility of the Russians leaking the DNC's dirty laundry WTF!? thats not their problem, its that a foreign governement may have involvement in the outcome of the US elections, meaning the true voice of the American people may have been corrupted in favour of a foreign governments will. If the Trumps supporters are blinded by their hatred of Clinton over the possible involvement of Putin in the election of their saviour, then Im sorry America has truely sunk into the abyss

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Repetitive regurgitation at its best. funny you should say that, Trump basically used the same tactic, with his limited vocabulary mixed with a good serving of hate, racism misogynism. End result was 46% of Americans agreed with him and elected him POTUS. With this as his ideological base Trump will make America great again. That alone just shows how sad America has become.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

A compelling argument that the hack was actually a leak:

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/12/12/us-intel-vets-dispute-russia-hacking-claims/

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

What we do know however is that Trump is tweaking China's nose, which could very likely lead to war.

So tweaking China's nose could likely lead to war, but shooting down Russian planes (which is what a no fly zone requires) would not?

So I guess tweaking Russia's nose is quite safe. What you are saying suggests that Russians are pussycats, and the Chinese are ready to go to war on the flimsiest of excuses. Just want to be sure we are clear on that.

Shooting down Russian planes and hacking their infrastructure: No problem Taking a congratulatory call from Taiwan, who we sell billions in weapons to already: War

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

To answer where I get my news from - as many sources as possible, from the mainstream propaganda channels like CNN to Al Jazeera, the Hindu Times, Mother Jones, etc etc. Just watching CNN is news in itself because the bias is a reflection of something sick in the news industry. Independent sources are very important. eg, one gets the impression from CNN the majority if "migrants" during the "migrant crisis" were old women and young children but watching unedited film showed the truth. you wont find that truth on CNN however. Just for example.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Hillary was far ahead in the polls, if the Russians were reading her mail they were likely looking for things to use against her once she was in office. I haven't heard anyone claim they rewrote the emails, so the dirty dealing and mendacious attitudes they exposed were useful to voters. This story is also without attribution, "sources" are the way to write fake news.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@HonestDictator

that's a typo that I didn't catch sadly. I don't trust statements by faceless others.

Oops, then I revoke my comment. I hope we entertain the same notion that any serious claim should be backed by facts, proof, and not by empty wording. Unlike that:

@katsu78

Russia's obvious and documented involvement in our election

Please, show the world these documents!!!!

More reliable information about who did what:

<http://so-l.ru/news/show/former_uk_ambassador_says_source_of_clinton_emails

@Laguna

I acknowledge that the US does meddle often in other countries affairs

Then don`t be surprised if others would like to return the favor.

In Russian society, parties can be banned

Name even one, please.

news outlets shut down

Name even one, please.

Colin Powell`s "show-and-tell" continues?

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Putin himself involved in U.S. election hack: NBC

Dan Rather came out of retirement for NBC and has reported that he has documents written by Trump asking Putin to hack Hillary's highly insecure email system in order to throw the election his way. Strangely the font from the document appears to be from an 1960's vintage Smith Corona Coronet Automatic 12 Electric Typewriter. NBC is always the first to get the story.

Meanwhile the FBI says the Russians have nothing to do with it.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

So tweaking China's nose could likely lead to war, but shooting down Russian planes (which is what a no fly zone requires) would not?

Who knows if she would have shot down Russian planes, or if it would have led to war. It's all speculation that cannot be proved, so if I say 'no it wouldn't' and you say 'yes it would', both of our speculations are equally valid, and equally useless, since we cannot know.

All we can know is what actually happened and is happening, and that is that Trump is provoking China, which could very well lead to war.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

outrider: To answer where I get my news from - as many sources as possible, from the mainstream propaganda channels like CNN to Al Jazeera, the Hindu Times, Mother Jones, etc etc. Just watching CNN is news in itself because the bias is a reflection of something sick in the news industry. Independent sources are very important. eg, one gets the impression from CNN the majority if "migrants" during the "migrant crisis" were old women and young children but watching unedited film showed the truth. you wont find that truth on CNN however. Just for example.

Thanks for answering. The important thing to know the type of site you are on. When I go to Fox News I know it's the right's positions and Slate will show the left's. And despite completely different coverages you will always pick up a nugget of info the others didn't report on. One common thing that really creates the differences are the little nuggets of info the others left out.

But here's the deal. A lot of times things happen for completely logical reasons, and it really is as boring and innocuous as that. I think the CIA genuinely believes they have credible information because....well....why the hell wouldn't I? Where is the failure in my logic that requires me to insert a narrative about lying when there is just no evidence of that?

I use that example because the response is typically that I'm being duped by the MSM. And I still have no idea what that means. I could change my mind tomorrow and that's evidence that I changed all of my sources?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Who knows if she would have shot down Russian planes, or if it would have led to war. It's all speculation that cannot be proved... All we can know is what actually happened and is happening, and that is that Trump is provoking China, which could very well lead to war.

You say it's all just speculation. Fair enough, even though I think shooting down a plane is in a different league from nose-tweaking. But then you conclude with "what actually happened and is happening," and that is a repeat of your speculation that Trump is leading to war with China.

So we are back to speculation. Nothing Trump has done so far comes anywhere close to provoking war from China. Its just negotiation tactics, plus the refusal to bow down to Chinese demands to ignore Taiwan. That's a good thing in my book. China should have no say in who the USA talks to.

Meanwhile, Obama is suggesting retribution against Russia for their supposed crimes. So we are not out of the woods yet.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Obama suggesting retribution against Russia is the height of hypocrisy. Obama's tainted legacy will accompany him into ignominy.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Obama's tainted legacy will accompany him into ignominy.

As one of the best presidents of modern times, who got so much done even with a useless hyper-partisan congress, I don't think he has to worry about his legacy. It will show him for his awesomeness.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I think the CIA genuinely believes they have credible information because....well....why the hell wouldn't I?

Because the CIA is virtually synonymous with lying, and with subverting elections. It's practically a job description there.

Because they lied about weapons of mass destruction to goad the country into war in Iraq.

Because there is no evidence presented.

Because Trump may work to weaken the agency, while Hillary is fully on board.

Because of the timing in which the CIA has made these announcements. Each one stronger than the previous, perhaps because the earlier announcement wasn't convincing enough. Yet still with zero evidence presented.

Because the CIA has been engaged in a proxy war with Russia in Syria. Russia backing the odious regime of Assad. The USA backing rebels who make Assad look like an enlightened teddy ebar.

The real question is why on earth would yo take anything the CIA says at face value, especially with the present situation?

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Tainted, and blood-stained.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

comenteer: because the CIA is virtually synonymous with lying, and with subverting elections. It's practically a job description there

OK, so your evidence is vague stereotypes. I don't really have a response for that.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Russia backing the odious regime of Assad. The USA backing rebels who make Assad look like an enlightened teddy ebar.

Is that a reference to ISIS, who the CIA clearly is not backing? Or do you mean the other rebel groups? Presumably the latter - so how do they make Assad look a teddy bear? Got any evidence showing they've killed more civilians than he has? I doubt it - you've just chosen the propaganda you wish to believe.

The real question is why on earth would yo take anything the CIA says at face value, especially with the present situation?

A good question, but why would you take anything that Trump, Breitbart, or mos of all Putin and the FSA say at face value?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Texas - Har!

Oh my...

Tucker Carlson interviews Nigel Farage over claims that Russia fixed Brexit vote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmw59R5vKr8

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

CIA should've just named China as the culprit. Then everyone and his dog would follow along.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites