Help fight the
liberal media

click title for home page
Be a subscriber

The stuff you won't see in the liberal media (click "Replies" for top stories)
Calendar Chat

  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 29      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next   »

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #26 

Bob Woodward agrees with Trump about "garbage" allegations from intelligence community

Cameron Cawthorne (WashingtonFreeBeacon) is reporting that the Washington Post's Bob Woodward defended Donald Trump on Fox News Sunday against the "garbage" allegations waged against the president-elect on his relationship with Russia.

"That [BuzzFeed dossier] was a garbage document. It never should have been presented as part of an intelligence briefing," Woodward said. "As you suggested, other channels have the White House counsel give it to Trump's incoming White House counsel."

Fox News host Chris Wallace asked Woodward his opinion of how the intelligence community handled the so-called Russian dossier against Trump.

Woodward said Trump's point of view on the issue is often underreported and then scolded the CIA for its criticism of the president-elect.

"When those former CIA people said these things about Trump that he was a recruited agent of the Russians," Woodward said.

"A useful fool," Wallace interjected.

"A useful fool. They started this. In Trump's mind, he knows the old adage, 'Once a CIA man, always a CIA man.' And no one came out and said those people shouldn't be saying things," Woodward said.

Woodward said he has been in the journalism world for 45 years and that journalists receive information where people make allegations.

Woodward said that Trump has the right to be upset with the allegations.

"Those intelligence chiefs were the best we've had were terrific and had done great work. [They] made a mistake here, and when people make mistake, they should apologize," Woodward said.

Trump addressed the reports at his press conference on Wednesday morning, calling them "disgraceful."

"As far as BuzzFeed, which is a failing pile of garbage, writing it, I think they are going to suffer the consequences. They already are," Trump said.

CNN's Jim Acosta tried to ask Trump a question at Wednesday's press conference, but the president-elect refused to answer his question and called CNN "fake news."

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #27 

The genius of Donald Trump?


Happy warrior?

Steven Hayward (PowerLine) says he doesn’t think we’ll ever quite get to the core of Donald Trump, but he sure is fun to watch. Has anything ever felt better than watching him thump on CNN yesterday in the most sublime moment of his press conference? After, take note, praising the New York Times for avoiding the scurrilous and surely fake “Company Intelligence Report”? Divide and conquer! Haywood is sure the NY Times editorial page got heartburn over Trump’s praise and will now work overtime, but having already gone to eleven on the “Trump the Nazi” scale, how can you turn it up any higher?

Meanwhile, the appropriately named CNN reporter Jim Acosta, who behaved so boorishly at the press conference, is already suing for peace:


De-escalate, you say? Heh. I say Trump should grind Acosta with his heel. I think, incidentally, that Trump really enjoys these press conferences. I’ll bet thumping the press and his enemies is a ton of fun for him, and we may well get lots of press conferences from him, but only at intervals that make sure they don’t become routine. The man knows show business.

Meanwhile, though, there’s another Trump story from this week that is getting lost in the shuffle: he met with the egregious Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to talk about the bogus vaccines-autism link. I know that Trump has trafficked in anti-vaxxer nonsense before, but there is no excuse to meet with the mountebank Kennedy, whom Trump might otherwise call “Little Bobby,” no? Instead, there’s talk Kennedy might be part of a Trump Administration commission to look into the matter.

But I wonder if this might be yet again part of Trump’s counterintuitive genius at work? Maybe by embracing Kennedy, Trump will discredit Kennedy once and for all with the left? This could be fun to watch. No wonder Trump looks happy in the photo above.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #28 

How 4Chan McFooled John McCain, Buzzfeed, and the CIA into believing Trump's golden showers


When you cut through all the bullshit, it was John McCain that handed the bogus "intelligence report" over to the FBI. From The Daily Mail:

The Arizona senator, 80, claimed he was simply acting as a concerned member of the public when he had his face-to-face meeting with the FBI Director

"That's why I gave it to the FBI. I don't know if it is credible or not but the information I thought deserved to be delivered to the FBI, the appropriate agency of government."

"It doesn't trouble me because I don't know if it is accurate or not. I have no way of corroborating that."

"The individual gave me the information. I looked at it. After receiving that information I took it to the FBI."

The_Real_Fly (ZeroHedge) says there is a lot to go through with this story, which is going to end up being one of the biggest embarrassments for Buzzfeed, the CIA, and old man McCain ever.

First let's go over what happened, in reference to the pesudo intelligence report aka 'dossier' published by the high level retards over at Buzzfeed.


I know this appears to be unbelievable, but it's all verifiable. The neocon shill of a reporter from Buzzfeed, Rick Wilson, was catfished by some autist from the Hitler loving 4chan message boards and made to believe Trump enjoyed getting urinated on and all sorts of outlandish stuff.

Here is the story that the CIA and idiots in the FAKE NEWS Media are pushing on America. Here's what they want us to believe. Let's recount:

 -- Obama has a meeting in Russia.
 -- Trump flies to Russia, finds out the hotel room Obama stayed in, and books it.
 -- Trump finds at least two hookers and invites them to Obama's former hotel suite.
 -- Trump instructs the hookers to PISS ON THE BED because he hates Obama so much.
 -- Little did Trump know Putin had the entire room outfitted with video cameras.
 -- The Russian government now has video proof of Trump watching hookers PISS on a bed.
 -- Russian government tells Trump they will release the video if he does not run for president.
 -- Trump runs for president and against all odds and WINS the White House.

And no one questioned this report?



Truly, this is incredible. Let me post some screen shots.

This guy has a ton of stuff showing how this fake news story was shopped to the media, click here and cursor down through the artifacts.

Jessica Toonkel (Reuters) is reporting that CNN, the news division of Time Warner Inc, said on Wednesday its decision to publish "carefully sourced reporting" on unverified intelligence documents concerning President-elect Donald Trump is "vastly different than BuzzFeed's decision to publish unsubstantiated memos."

CNN's statement came after Trump called the news outlet "fake news" and refused to take a CNN reporter's questions at his first formal news conference since his Nov. 8 electoral win.

BuzzFeed on Tuesday published a story about a dossier of documents it said were unverified and "potentially unverifiable" allegations of contact between Trump aides and Russian operatives.

Included in the documents were claims that Russian intelligence had compromising information about Trump.

BuzzFeed CEO Jonah Peretti in a memo to employees on Wednesday defended the decision to publish the dossier, referring to it as a "newsworthy document."

Throughout the news conference, Trump decried a CNN report on Tuesday that said U.S. intelligence officials had presented Trump with claims that Russian operatives said they had compromising personal and financial information about him.

CNN reporter, Jim Acosta, was in the front row of Trump's new conference yesterday and DEMANDED that Trump take his question and started shouting at the President elect.

And Acosta then started SCREAMING at Donald Trump! (Could you imagine a liberal reporter doing this to Obama?)

Trump refused to take his question calling CNN "fake news."

Your organization is terrible… No… I’m not going to give you a question. You are FAKE NEWS!“


Before the intelligence reports about the alleged Russian hacking were shared with President-Elect Donald Trump, someone from within the Obama administration shared the same reports with NBC News! Trump is now calling on the intelligence committees in Congress to investigate how the mainstream media got ahold of the top secret intelligence report.


The mainstream media loathes Trump’s tweeting habits because it takes them and their completely biased coverage right out of the equation, but I am so glad Trump chooses to speak to us directly.

NBC reported:

A senior U.S. intelligence official with knowledge of the preparation for the meeting with Trump told NBC News that the president-elect was not briefed on the so-called two-page addendum to the dossier originally generated as part of anti-Trump Republican opposition research.

Multiple officials say that the summary was included in the material prepared for the briefers, but the senior official told NBC News that the briefing was oral and no actual documents were handed to the Trump team.

Intel and law enforcement officials agree that "none of the investigations have found any conclusive or direct link between Trump and the Russian government period," the senior official said.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Posts: 101
Reply with quote  #29 
I'll be so glad when Trump is sworn in.  O is still trying to put info out to have grounds to invalidate the election and thereby stay in power or keep the Democrats in power. Wish we could fast forward to his being gone. Pray for Trump.

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #30 

Intel report on Russians "fails to provide critical evidence"

Start at item #690 today . . .


Bob Unruh (WND) is reporting that a privacy organization that has been pressing the Washington establishment for evidence supporting Democratic claims that Russia hacked their emails to influence the U.S. presidential election is ramping up the pressure with a Freedom of Information Act request to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

EPIC, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, is seeking the public release of the unredacted ODNI 2017 report "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections," noting the full report was directly referenced in the redacted version.

In its letter to the ODNI, EPIC points out that a number of claims are made, including that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to "undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process."

However, EPIC points out, no evidence has been presented.

Specifically, the "redacted report fails to provide critical technical evidence."

EPIC only weeks ago had submitted a FOIA request to the FBI on the same issue, and its new letter points out that the evidence "is urgently needed to resolve any outstanding questions about the accuracy of [intelligence community] assessments and the response of the FBI, and inform the public debate over imminent congressional act."

WND reported President Obama, claiming Russia tried to influence the U.S. presidential elections, ordered that dozens of Russian diplomats be expelled from the United States and two of Russia's compounds be closed down in retaliation.

Russian President Vladimir Putin responded to Obama's move by inviting the children of U.S. diplomats in Washington to a Christmas party.

Obama himself, however, was accused of meddling in the elections in Israel in 2015 and in the U.K. Brexit vote in June.

EPIC's earlier request, which went to the FBI, sought the details of Russia's alleged malicious interference in the U.S. election process.

"The U.S. intelligence community has officially attributed the attacks [on Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee] on the Russian government, yet questions have been raised about the failure of the FBI to investigate that attacks on the political parties of the United States," EPIC said then. "The FBI is entrusted with protecting the cybersecurity of the public and its institutions. The American public, thus has a great interest in understanding the nature of the FBI's response to the Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election."

A number of reports, including from the CIA and later from the FBI, have concluded that Russia hacked the American election through its political parties. Whether or not that happened, unanswered is whether it had any impact, but advocates for Hillary Clinton have claimed that it was Putin himself who directed the hacks to benefit Donald Trump and hurt her.

It hasn't been explained how it would help Russia to have Trump in office instead of Hillary Clinton, as she was part of the Obama administration that Russian analysts have called the weakest in generations. At the same time, the Russians have warned their own country that Trump will be calling the shots from a position of strength.

EPIC noted news reports claiming that the Russians hacked the email account of John Podesta, chairman of the Clinton campaign.

Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, which released the emails, has insisted, however, the Russians were not involved, a position also taken by the Russians.

Putin himself, according to CNN, has told the U.S. either to put up evidence of Russian involvement or shut up.

Presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov told CNN it was "indecent" for the U.S. to accuse Russia of being involved without having any grounds to do so.

"They should either stop talking about that or produce some proof at last. Otherwise it all beings to look unseemly," he said.

The demand for information already has been growing.

"We need to get to the bottom of this," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., "We need to find out exactly what was done and what the implications of the attacks were, especially if they had an effect on our election."

And Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, said: "I do believe the Russians hacked into the [DNC]. I do believe they hacked into Podesta's email account. They hacked into my campaign account. I believe that all the information released publicly hurt Clinton and didn't hurt Trump.

"I don't think the outcome of the election is in doubt. What we should do is not turn on each other but work as one people to push back on Russia."

A Daily Caller report pointed out that the code that the FBI identified as being used by Russian agents actually is an outdated malware developed by Ukrainians that is available online.

The Obama administration's formal indictment of the Russians came with a statement from the Department of Homeland Security: "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian government directed the recent compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from US political organizations."

Supporters of Trump have charged that the issue is nothing more than a campaign to delegitimize Trump's victory.

Obama has been briefed on the contents of the classified full report, but the Ars Technica technical website lamented that the government provided "almost none of the promised evidence linking [Russians] to breaches that the Obama administration claims were orchestrated in an attempt to interfere with the 2016 presidential election."

The government's unclassified version of the report "does little to end the debate. Instead of providing smoking guns that the Russian government was behind specific hacks, it largely restates previous private-sector claims without providing any support for their validity," the site criticizes.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #31 

Establishment tries to nuke Trump with unverified Russian opposition memos leak on hookers


Kristinn Taylor (GatewayPundit) is reporting that with just ten days to go before he is sworn in as America's forty-fifth president, the political establishment has gone nuclear on President-elect Donald Trump with a double-barreled blast of leaked intelligence reports by CNN and Buzzfeed that contain explosive, but unverified opposition research that alleges intel ties between Russia and Trump and also claims Russia holds sexual blackmail material over Trump.

One of the most outrageous unconfirmed allegations in the report is claims the Russians recorded Trump watching Russian prostitutes urinate on each other in a Moscow hotel room previously occupied by Barack and Michelle Obama.

CNN: Intel chiefs presented Trump with claims of Russian efforts to compromise him; By Evan Perez, Jim Sciutto, Jake Tapper and Carl Bernstein, CNN

Classified documents presented last week to Barack Obama and President-elect Trump included allegations that Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump, multiple US officials with direct knowledge of the briefings tell CNN.

The allegations were presented in a two-page synopsis that was appended to a report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. The allegations came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative, whose past work US intelligence officials consider credible. The FBI is investigating the credibility and accuracy of these allegations, which are based primarily on information from Russian sources, but has not confirmed many essential details in the memos about Mr. Trump.

The classified briefings last week were presented by four of the senior-most US intelligence chiefs — Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, and NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers.

…CNN has reviewed a 35-page compilation of the memos, from which the two-page synopsis was drawn. The memos originated as opposition research, first commissioned by anti-Trump Republicans, and later by Democrats. At this point, CNN is not reporting on details of the memos, as it has not independently corroborated the specific allegations. But, in preparing this story, CNN has spoken to multiple high ranking intelligence, administration, congressional and law enforcement officials, as well as foreign officials and others in the private sector with direct knowledge of the memos.

Some of the memos were circulating as far back as last summer. What has changed since then is that US intelligence agencies have now checked out the former British intelligence operative and his vast network throughout Europe and find him and his sources to be credible enough to include some of the information in the presentations to the President and President-elect a few days ago."

Read the complete CNN article here.

BUZZFEED: These Reports Allege Trump Has Deep Ties To Russia by Ken Bensinger, Miriam Elder and Mark Schoofs.

A dossier, compiled by a person who has claimed to be a former British intelligence official, alleges Russia has compromising information on Trump. The allegations are unverified, and the report contains errors.

A dossier making explosive -- but unverified -- allegations that the Russian government has been "cultivating, supporting and assisting" President-elect Donald Trump for years and gained compromising information about him has been circulating among elected officials, intelligence agents, and journalists for weeks.

The dossier, which is a collection of memos written over a period of months, includes specific, unverified, and potentially unverifiable allegations of contact between Trump aides and Russian operatives, and graphic claims of sexual acts documented by the Russians. CNN reported Tuesday that a two-page synopsis of the report was given to President Barack Obama and Trump.

Now BuzzFeed News is publishing the full document so that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government.

Read the complete Buzzfeed article here.

Direct link to link 35 page document file.


A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #32 

Intel chiefs inform Trump of Russian claims


CNN is reporting that classified documents presented last week to Barack Obama and President-elect Trump included allegations that Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump, multiple US officials with direct knowledge of the briefings tell CNN.

The allegations were presented in a two-page synopsis that was appended to a report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. The allegations came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative, whose past work US intelligence officials consider credible. The FBI is investigating the credibility and accuracy of these allegations, which are based primarily on information from Russian sources, but has not confirmed many essential details in the memos about Mr. Trump.

The classified briefings last week were presented by four of the senior-most US intelligence chiefs -- Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, and NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers.

One reason the nation's intelligence chiefs took the extraordinary step of including the synopsis in the briefing documents was to make the President-elect aware that such allegations involving him are circulating among intelligence agencies, senior members of Congress and other government officials in Washington, multiple sources tell CNN.

These senior intelligence officials also included the synopsis to demonstrate that Russia had compiled information potentially harmful to both political parties, but only released information damaging to Hillary Clinton and Democrats. This synopsis was not an official part of the report from the intelligence community case about Russian hacks, but some officials said it augmented the evidence that Moscow intended to harm Clinton's candidacy and help Trump's, several officials with knowledge of the briefings tell CNN.

The two-page synopsis also included allegations that there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government, according to two national security officials.

Sources tell CNN that these same allegations about communications between the Trump campaign and the Russians, mentioned in classified briefings for congressional leaders last year, prompted then-Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid to send a letter to FBI Director Comey in October, in which he wrote, "It has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government -- a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States."

CNN has confirmed that the synopsis was included in the documents that were presented to Mr. Trump but cannot confirm if it was discussed in his meeting with the intelligence chiefs.

The Trump transition team declined repeated requests for comment.

CNN has reviewed a 35-page compilation of the memos, from which the two-page synopsis was drawn. The memos originated as opposition research, first commissioned by anti-Trump Republicans, and later by Democrats. At this point, CNN is not reporting on details of the memos, as it has not independently corroborated the specific allegations. But, in preparing this story, CNN has spoken to multiple high ranking intelligence, administration, congressional and law enforcement officials, as well as foreign officials and others in the private sector with direct knowledge of the memos.

Some of the memos were circulating as far back as last summer. What has changed since then is that US intelligence agencies have now checked out the former British intelligence operative and his vast network throughout Europe and find him and his sources to be credible enough to include some of the information in the presentations to the President and President-elect a few days ago.

On the same day that the President-elect was briefed by the intelligence community, the top four Congressional leaders, and chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate intelligence committees -- the so-called "Gang of Eight" -- were also provided a summary of the memos regarding Mr. Trump, according to law enforcement, intelligence and administration sources.

The two-page summary was written without the detailed specifics and information about sources and methods included in the memos by the former British intelligence official. That said, the synopsis was considered so sensitive it was not included in the classified report about Russian hacking that was more widely distributed, but rather in an annex only shared at the most senior levels of the government: President Obama, the President-elect, and the eight Congressional leaders.

CNN has also learned that on December 9, Senator John McCain gave a full copy of the memos -- dated from June through December, 2016 -- to FBI Director James Comey. McCain became aware of the memos from a former British diplomat who had been posted in Moscow. But the FBI had already been given a set of the memos compiled up to August 2016, when the former MI6 agent presented them to an FBI official in Rome, according to national security officials.

The raw memos on which the synopsis is based were prepared by the former MI6 agent, who was posted in Russia in the 1990s and now runs a private intelligence gathering firm. His investigations related to Mr. Trump were initially funded by groups and donors supporting Republican opponents of Mr. Trump during the GOP primaries, multiple sources confirmed to CNN. Those sources also said that once Mr. Trump became the nominee, further investigation was funded by groups and donors supporting Hillary Clinton.

Spokespeople for the FBI and the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment. Officials who spoke to CNN declined to do so on the record given the classified nature of the material.

Some of the allegations were first reported publicly in Mother Jones one week before the election.

One high level administration official told CNN, "I have a sense the outgoing administration and intelligence community is setting down the pieces so this must be investigated seriously and run down. I think [the] concern was to be sure that whatever information was out there is put into the system so it is evaluated as it should be and acted upon as necessary."

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #33 

No one cared about hacking until we found out how corrupt progressives are


S. Noble (IndependentSentinel) is reporting that major U. S. government and military organizations are hacked all the time by endless numbers of foreign and domestic actors. Nothing was done to fix our cybersecurity. But let a privates organization like the DNC get hacked or careless John Podesta's emails get hacked and all hell breaks loose.

John Podesta left his smart phone in a cab, he fell for a phishing incident and his password was ‘passwØrd". Hillary put our state secrets on a personal server she kept in a bathroom. She and Huma left their phones on a bed in a hotel in China. Hillary sent her emails to all sorts of people without security clearance. Her maid printed out her classified documents.

If they were so important, why didn't the FBI bother to collect the information, the servers, the computers, the flash drives, even the drives held by the Clinton lawyers?

We are hacked routinely  by Iranians, North Koreans, Chinese, Russians, possibly ISIS, Internet joyriders, among others.

Since 2009, they have attacked the US electoral grid, Pentagon's Joint Strike Fighter Project, NASA, the Dept. of Energy, Federal Election Commisson, US postal service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin, White House, State Department, Dept of Defense, Internal Revenue Service, Office of Personnel Management.

Chinese hacked the OPM and obtained the personal information of over 21 million people in America.  The CIA breach was so serious, they had to move their offices.

These were dangerous breaches but there was no clamor and nothing was done. All the emails showed us was the corruption in the Democratic Party and the media but that gets attention.

No one cared until Hillary's emails were stolen and we found out Hillary was corrupt, the DNC is corrupt and the media is corrupt and acts as an arm of the Democrat Party.

Obama and Congress said little or nothing about dangerous security breaches, but let a liberal party lose emails, and they become incensed.

Hillary was asking to be hacked and so was Podesta. They knew the risks and didn't take precautions.

Wikileaks released operating procedures for US Army and detention camp at GITMO in 2007; classified US military video from 2007, helicopter attacks in Baghdad, US Afghanistan war logs, US Iraq war logs, US diplomatic cables in 2010; US GITMO files, US diplomatic cables in 2011; and Syrian government files in 2012.

McCain, chairman of the influential Senate Armed Services Committee, is making cyberwarfare a top priority after the emails were hacked. Where HAS HE BEEN FOR THE LAST 8 TO 10 YEARS?

The Director of National Intelligence James Clapper explained during the Senate hearing Thursday that the election was not hacked.

"They did not change any vote tallies, or anything of that sort," Clapper said. "We have no way of gauging -- certainly the intelligence can't gauge -- the impact it had on the choices the electorate made. There's no way for us to gauge to that. Whether or not that constitutes an act of war, I think is a very heavy policy call that I don't believe the intelligence community should make. But it certainly would carry, in my view, great gravity."

McCain said the U.S. has no strategy for cyber deterrence, but why didn't he and his friend Lindsey Graham do nothing about it before? The prior breaches were far more serious.

"What seems clear is that our adversaries have reached a common conclusion that the reward for attacking America in cyberspace outweighs the risk," McCain said. "For years, cyberattacks on our nation have been met with indecision and inaction. Our nation has no policy, and thus no strategy for cyber deterrence. This appearance of weakness has been provocative to our adversaries, who have attacked us again and again with growing severity. Unless we demonstrate that the costs of attacking the United States outweigh the perceived benefits, these cyberattacks will only grow."

Where were they when NASA, the electrical grid, the OPM were hacked? But we hear them now? All hell breaks loose when a private organization is hacked?

It only matters when Hillary and the DNC are hacked.

Russians hack us, every foreign country with a reason attempts to hack us and President Obama has not done a thing about it.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #34 

Intelligence report was based on Intel from 2012 Russian TV

Jim Hoft (GatewayPundit) is reporting that according to an article overnight from regarding the highly-anticipated declassified US intelligence report information included in the report was published in 2012.  The intelligence report was supposed to prove that Russia supported Donald Trump in the recent US election for President,

The annex in the [declassified] report contained so-called evidence from Russia Today (RT) that was compiled in December 2012, right after the reelection of Barack Obama.

The report focuses on television shows and interviews that took place four years before Trump was elected, and well before he was even a politician.

In Annex A of the report, intelligence agencies claim that "Kremlin's TV Seeks To Influence Politics, Fuel Discontent in US." Buried at the bottom of that page is a note stating, "This annex was originally published on 11 December 2012 by the Open Source Center, now the Open Source Enterprise."

Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections Intelligence Report the report notes that two RT shows, ‘Breaking the Set' and ‘Truthseeker' focused on criticism of US. The problem is, both of these shows were off air before the 2016 election season began.


US Intelligence under Obama is dishonest and political and it took Russia to point this out.  Drain the swamp….quickly.

Hat tip Mike Cernovich.


A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #35 

"What is going on?"


Prison Planet is reporting that President-elect Donald Trump took to Twitter late Thursday to address assertions that the DNC is withholding access to it's servers and refusing to fully cooperate with the FBI in the investigation into the leaked emails.

"If the FBI itself never examined DNC servers, Trump wrote, "how and why are they so sure about hacking"?

"What is going on?" Trump added.

While the DNC contends that the FBI has not requested access to its servers, a former senior FBI official told reporters Thursday that the FBI repeatedly asked for access "only to be rebuffed."

"The DNC had several meetings with representatives of the FBI's Cyber Division and its Washington (D.C.) Field Office, the Department of Justice's National Security Division, and U.S. Attorney's Offices," said DNC spokesman Eric Walker, adding, "the FBI never requested access to the DNC's computer servers."

However, Leo Taddeo, a former special agent in charge of the cyber division of the FBI's New York office noted "The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated."

"This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third party for information. These actions caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier." Taddeo told reporters at The Hill.

Taddeo noted that the FBI doesn't usually need direct access to email servers in investigations. However, the Bureau usually asks for access to 'logs and images.'

"It's extraordinarily rare for the FBI to get access to the victim's infrastructure because we could mess it up, "Taddeo said. "We usually ask for the logs and images, and 99 out of a hundred times, that's sufficient."

Taddeo noted that direct access is usually only sought by the FBI when there is "a reason to think the victim was going to alter the evidence in some way."

In further tweets, Trump also questioned why NBC News was able to get access to a top secret report on the matter that Obama was presented:

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #36 

"Too early to tell if Chicago beating was a hate crime"

On Wednesday, a group of African-American teenagers tortured a white man with special needs and streamed the horrific acts on Facebook.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest was asked if Barack Obama had any comment about the video:

"I haven't spoken to the President about it, but I am confidant he would be angered by the images that are depicted on that video," Earnest told the reporter.

The reporter asked Earnest if this rose to the level of a hate crime. Earnest told the reporter:

"I think it's too early to tell. I certainly don't want to predict where the investigation will lead. I wouldn't speculate at this point to what degree federal officials would get involved for considering those kinds of crimes."

The Associated Press described the event as such:

"Hate crime, battery charges filed against four black suspects accused in beating of white man streamed live on Facebook

Obama couldn't get out of this one.

He didn't go so far as to say the young, white, mentally-disabled Chicago torture victim could have been his son (you know, like Trayvon), but at least he seems to acknowledge, even if indirectly, that shouting "f**k white people!" while one actually tortures a white person just might constitute a hate crime.

Or at least it "appears" that way.

In an interview with ABC Chicago affiliate WLS, Obama referred to the horrific case of four young black adults who kidnapped and tortured a mentally disabled white man and broadcasted it live on Facebook for the world to see.


"I promise you, for the most part, race relations have gotten better," Obama said, trying not to sound ironic, "but, I think what we've seen over the last several years when it comes to tensions between politics and communities, the internet, the horrific hate crimes of the sort that we have appeared to have seen just recently on Facebook … it's terrible."

Well, at least Obama gets more credit than Don Lemon or that wacky CNN panelist, right?

Obama continues: "So part of what technology allows us to see now is the terrible toll that racism and discrimination and hate takes on families and communities. But that's part of how we learn and how we get better. We don't benefit from pretending that racism doesn't exist and hate doesn't exist. We don't benefit from not talking about it. The fact that these things are being surfaced means we can solve them."

Except, acknowledgment of hatred directed at white people seems to be worse than pulling teeth for the Left. Sure, they're "being surfaced," but only thanks to the alternative media. Oh, but let's not talk about that. And let's certainly not talk about the fact that, according to the International Business Times, "more than twice as many black-on-white homicides occurred compared with white-on-black homicides."

That wouldn't be politically correct.

Despite early on police hesitation, the four thugs have been officially charged with hate crimes and other felonies as of Thursday, and even the mainstream media, including CNN and MSNBC, have been forced to cover it.

And Obama has been forced to talk about it, if only for a sound byte.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #37 

Police avoid calling this a "hate crime" -- "F**k Donald Trump, F**k white people!"

Four "people" are in custody after they kidnapped and tortured a handicapped man live on Facebook because he supported Donald Trump.

Superintendent of police says, ""I think some of it is just stupidity."

Really? Stupidity?

And Facebook says this video of a white Trump supporter being kidnapped, beaten, cut, gagged and abused doesn’t violate Facebook's "Community Standards."

Fox News is reporting that Chicago investigators are questioning four African-Americans after a Facebook Live video shows a group of people torturing a white mentally disabled man while someone yelled "F*** Trump!" and "F*** white people!"

Chicago police were made aware of the video Tuesday afternoon. A young African American woman streamed the video live on Facebook showing at least four people holding the young white man hostage.

"The video is reprehensible," said police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi.

"It's sickening. You know it makes you wonder what would make individuals treat somebody like that," Police Supt. Eddie Johnson added.

Throughout the video, the victim is repeatedly kicked and hit, his scalp is cut, all while he is tied up with his mouth taped shut.

At one point, the victim is held at knife point and told to curse President-elect Donald Trump. The group also forces the victim to drink water from a toilet.

The suspects can be heard saying they want the video to go viral.

Detectives think the victim, who lives in the suburbs and appeared to be in his late teens or early 20s, met some acquaintances in northwest suburban Streamwood and they drove him to Chicago in a stolen vehicle, Guglielmi said.

The victim is then believed to have been held hostage and tortured in an apartment in the 3400 block of West Lexington on the West Side, Guglielmi said.

On Tuesday afternoon, police officers spotted the victim walking on a street on the West Side wearing shorts, Guglielmi said. Because it was unusual to see a man in shorts in the cold weather, the officers stopped to talk to the man, who appeared disoriented, and he was taken to a hospital to be treated for his injuries.

Toxicology tests were performed at the hospital to determine if the victim was under the influence of anything.

Police said the victim was a classmate of one of the suspects. He was held hostage for at least 24 hours and as long as 48 hours.

"It's quite a possibility that this is a kidnapping and that's certainly one of the charges we'll be seeking if it turns out to be that. But, he's traumatized by the incident and it's tough to communicate with him at this point," said Chicago Police Commander Kevin Duffin.

Community activist Andrew Holmes was made aware of the disturbing video, which he is calling a "hate crime."

Although President-elect Donald Trump was mentioned, Chicago Police do not believe the crime was politically motivated.

"I think some of it is just stupidity, people just ranting about something that they think might make a headline. I don't think that at this point we have anything concrete to really point us in that direction, but we'll keep investigating and we'll let the facts guide us on how this concludes," Supt. Johnson said.

Watch the Chicago Police attempt to minimize this horrific hate crime:

Charges are expected to be filed in the next 24 hours.

This is not just a "hate crime," but it is kidnapping and that's a federal crime.

How many here believe Obama's Civil Rights Division will file charges against these four savages before January 20th?

The entire video was removed from YouTube.

Mustn't let the People see the horrible atrocity.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #38 

Julian Assange says Obama is trying to "delegitimize" Trump with Russia hack claims


Chuck Ross (DailyCaller) is reporting that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange claims in an interview airing Tuesday that the Obama White House is "trying to delegitimize" Donald Trump's administration by claiming that the Russian government hacked Democrats' emails during the election. 

Assange, who was interviewed at the Ecuadorian embassy in London by Fox News' Sean Hannity, also reiterated his claim that the Kremlin was not the source of hacked emails published by WikiLeaks.

During the months leading up to the election, WikiLeaks published emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee and from Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. The Obama administration has insisted that it has strong enough evidence to conclude that Russian intelligence services orchestrated the cyber attacks, which began in late-2015.

But Assange told Hannity "with a thousand percent" confidence that the Russian government was not WikiLeaks' source for the emails.

"We can say, we have said, repeatedly that over the last two months that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party," Assange told Hannity, who traveled to London to interview the exiled Australian national in person.

A transcript of the interview provided by Fox News does not show whether Hannity asked Assange additional questions about the original hackers, such as whether he believes that WikiLeaks' source is also the hacker or whether they were working as a middleman for another entity.

Assange usually refuses to discuss sources of his group's material, but he has said he has made an exception in the case of the DNC and Podesta emails because of the vigorousness of the debate over the identity of the hackers.

Why has the Obama administration responded so strongly to the hacks, Hannity asked Assange.

"Our publications had wide uptake by the American people, they’re all true," Assange said. "But that’s not the allegation that’s being presented by the Obama White House. So, why such a dramatic response? Well, the reason is obvious. They’re trying to delegitimize the Trump administration as it goes into the White House. They are trying to say that President-elect Trump is not a legitimate President."

Hannity also asked Assange whether WikiLeaks' publication of emails changed the outcome of the election.

"Who knows, it's impossible to tell," Assange replied. "But if it did, the accusation is that the true statements of Hillary Clinton and her campaign manager, John Podesta, and the DNC head Debbie Wasserman Schultz, their true statements is what changed the election."

Related:  Tech company casts doubt on DHS/FBI Russian hacking report

Related:  Transparency group demands proof of Russian hacking in new lawsuit

If Russia was going to interfere with our election, their actions would have been directed at helping Hillary. She would have been easily manipulated by the Russian Bear.

Trump is an unknown quantity.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #39 

Experts weigh in -- Obama's hacking report is a "bunch of rubbish"

S. Noble (IndependentSentinel) is reporting that a former MI5 intelligence officer called the FBI-DHS report of Russian hacking of the U.S. electoral process a "bunch of rubbish.” The fact that there not standing by it, Annie Machon said when referring tot he disclaimer at the beginning of the report, to her shows "it's pure propaganda and they know it."

There "trying to blind people with signs." There is a more serious report but it's to be announced on January 20th, the date of Donald Trump's inauguration, Ms. Machon pointed out.

Barack Obama is having a massive temper tantrum. We have 19 more days of this counting Inauguration Day since we now know he's going to release an allegedly more serious report on the 20th.

This is exactly who he is. He has been raised to cheat and lie. His whole administration has been like that. Dear Leader is a propagandist intent of turning the country socialist.

It's amazing anyone in this country believes a thing he says.

If Obama bases his foreign policy on these types of reports, it's no wonder we lost Syria, Libya, Yemen, and the confidence of all our allies, especially Israel.

Senator John McCain is out ranting about Russian hacking being an "act of war." Has he seen the report? There's nothing in it and we've been told Congress hasn't seen any more evidence than we have. The aging senator probably wants us to go to war with nuclear Russia. He's insane!

On December 13th we were told that the intelligence community wasn't buying the Russian hacking of the election story due to lack of evidence. Why, suddenly, are people buying it?

Anti-virus expert John Macafee said it's a fallacy to say the Russians did it. If someone says it's them, it's definitely not them. These sophisticated intelligence agencies don't leave signatures. The fact is that Jim Comey said they don't leave signatures two months ago.

Did the Russians hack Hillary's rallies too?

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #40 

Something about this Russia story stinks


Matt Taibbi (RollingStone) Nearly a decade and a half after the Iraq-WMD faceplant, the American press is again asked to co-sign a dubious intelligence assessment.

In an extraordinary development Thursday, the Obama administration announced a series of sanctions against Russia. Thirty-five Russian nationals will be expelled from the country. President Obama issued a terse statement seeming to blame Russia for the hack of the Democratic National Committee emails.

"These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels of the Russian government," he wrote.

Russia at first pledged, darkly, to retaliate, then backed off. The Russian press today is even reporting that Vladimir Putin is inviting "the children of American diplomats" to "visit the Christmas tree in the Kremlin," as characteristically loathsome/menacing/sarcastic a Putin response as you'll find.

This dramatic story puts the news media in a jackpot. Absent independent verification, reporters will have to rely upon the secret assessments of intelligence agencies to cover the story at all.

Many reporters I know are quietly freaking out about having to go through that again. We all remember the WMD fiasco.

"It's déjà vu all over again" is how one friend put it.

You can see awkwardness reflected in the headlines that flew around the Internet Thursday. Some news agencies seemed split on whether to unequivocally declare that Russian hacking took place, or whether to hedge bets and put it all on the government to make that declaration, using "Obama says" formulations.

The New York Times was more aggressive, writing flatly, "Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking." It backed up its story with a link to a joint FBI/Homeland Security report that details how Russian civilian and military intelligence services (termed "RIS" in the report) twice breached the defenses of "a U.S. political party," presumably the Democrats.

This report is long on jargon but short on specifics. More than half of it is just a list of suggestions for preventive measures.

At one point we learn that the code name the U.S. intelligence community has given to Russian cyber shenanigans is GRIZZLY STEPPE, a sexy enough detail.

But we don't learn much at all about what led our government to determine a) that these hacks were directed by the Russian government, or b) they were undertaken with the aim of influencing the election, and in particular to help elect Donald Trump.

The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle of a highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the relevant actors are suspect. Nothing quite adds up.

If the American security agencies had smoking-gun evidence that the Russians had an organized campaign to derail the U.S. presidential election and deliver the White House to Trump, then expelling a few dozen diplomats after the election seems like an oddly weak and ill-timed response. Voices in both parties are saying this now.

Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham noted the "small price" Russia paid for its "brazen attack." The Democratic National Committee, meanwhile, said Thursday that taken alone, the Obama response is "insufficient" as a response to "attacks on the United States by a foreign power."

The "small price" is an eyebrow-raiser. Also, like the WMD story, there's an element of salesmanship the government is using to push the hacking narrative that should make reporters nervous. Take this line in Obama's statement about mistreatment of American diplomats in Moscow:

"Moreover, our diplomats have experienced an unacceptable level of harassment in Moscow by Russian security services and police over the last year."

This appears to refer to an incident this summer in which an American diplomat was beaten outside the diplomatic compound in Moscow. That followed a 2013 case in which a U.S. diplomat named Ryan Fogle was arrested in similar fashion.

Fogle was unequivocally described as a CIA agent in many Russian reports. Photos of Fogle's shpionsky rekvisit, or spy kit – including wigs and a city map that were allegedly on his person – became the source of many jokes in the Russian press and social media. Similar to this hacking story here in the states, ordinary Russians seemed split on what to believe.

If the Russians messed with an election, that's enough on its own to warrant a massive response – miles worse than heavy-handed responses to ordinary spying episodes. Obama mentioning these humdrum tradecraft skirmishes feels like he's throwing something in to bolster an otherwise thin case.

Adding to the problem is that in the last months of the campaign, and also in the time since the election, we've seen an epidemic of factually loose, clearly politically motivated reporting about Russia. Democrat-leaning pundits have been unnervingly quick to use phrases like "Russia hacked the election."

This has led to widespread confusion among news audiences over whether the Russians hacked the DNC emails (a story that has at least been backed by some evidence, even if it hasn't always been great evidence), or whether Russians hacked vote tallies in critical states (a far more outlandish tale backed by no credible evidence).

As noted in The Intercept and other outlets, an Economist/YouGov poll conducted this month shows that 50 percent of all Clinton voters believe the Russians hacked vote tallies.

This number is nearly as disturbing as the 62 percent of Trump voters who believe the preposterous, un-sourced Trump/Alex Jones contention that "millions" of undocumented immigrants voted in the election.

Ars Technica adds the US government's much-anticipated analysis of Russian-sponsored hacking operations provides almost none of the promised evidence linking them to breaches that the Obama administration claims were orchestrated in an attempt to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.

The 13-page report, which was jointly published Thursday by the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI, billed itself as an indictment of sorts that would finally lay out the intelligence community's case that Russian government operatives carried out hacks on the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Clinton Campaign Chief John Podesta and leaked much of the resulting material. While security companies in the private sector have said for months the hacking campaign was the work of people working for the Russian government, anonymous people tied to the leaks have claimed they are lone wolves. Many independent security experts said there was little way to know the true origins of the attacks.

Sadly, the JAR, as the Joint Analysis Report is called, does little to end the debate. Instead of providing smoking guns that the Russian government was behind specific hacks, it largely restates previous private-sector claims without providing any support for their validity. Even worse, it provides an effective bait and switch by promising newly declassified intelligence into Russian hackers' "tradecraft and techniques" and instead delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups.

Keep reading…

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #41 

Barack Obama releases ridiculous FBI report on "Russian malicious cyber activity"


Sundance (ConservativeTreehouse) is reporting that against the backdrop of a sanctions announcement, Obama's administration has released a Joint Analysis Report claiming to outline the details of Russia's involvement hacking into targeted political data base or computer systems during the election.

Except it doesn't. Not even a little.

The "Russian Malicious Cyber Activity -- Joint Analysis Report" (full pdf below) is pure nonsense.  It outlines nothing more than vague and disingenuous typical hacking activity that is no more substantive than any other hacking report on any other foreign actor.

This might as well be a report blaming Nigerian fraud phone solicitors for targeting U.S. phone numbers.  DUH!  Just because your grandma didn't actually win that Nigerian national lottery doesn't mean the Nigerian Mafioso are targeting your employer to hold you accountable for her portion of the bill.

This FBI report is, well, quite simply, pure horse-pucky.

However, what the report does well is using ridiculous technical terminology to describe innocuous common activity.  Example: "ATPT29" is Olaf, the round faced chubby guy probably working from his kitchen table; and "ATPT28" is his unemployed socially isolated buddy living in Mom's basement down the street.

This paragraph is priceless in it's humorous and disengenuous gobblespeak:

Both groups have historically targeted government organizations, think tanks, universities, and corporations around the world. APT29 has been observed crafting targeted spearphishing campaigns leveraging web links to a malicious dropper; once executed, the code delivers Remote Access Tools (RATs) and evades detection using a range of techniques.

APT28 is known for leveraging domains that closely mimic those of targeted organizations and tricking potential victims into entering legitimate credentials. APT28 actors relied heavily on shortened URLs in their spearphishing email campaigns. Once APT28 and APT29 have access to victims, both groups exfiltrate and analyze information to gain intelligence value.

These groups use this information to craft highly targeted spearphishing campaigns. These actors set up operational infrastructure to obfuscate their source infrastructure, host domains and malware for targeting organizations, establish command and control nodes, and harvest credentials and other valuable information from their targets.

(*note the emphasis I placed in the quote) All that nonsense is saying is a general explanation for how hacking, any hacking, is generally carried out.  This entire FBI report is nothing more than a generalized, albeit techno-worded, explanation for how Nigerians, Indians, or in this case Russians, attempt to gain your email passwords etc., nothing more.

Read the report!

What is alarming to consider is how far the various radical leftists are willing to go to create a straw man crisis for political benefit; and secondly how diminished the executive office of the U.S. presidency actually becomes amid this level of ridiculous propaganda.

There's no doubt the intended outcome is to create internal confusion amid the U.S. electorate, because there are millions of people who will buy into these fabrications.

Consider the earlier example from inside the Yahoo News article:

[…] The US intelligence community has concluded that a hack-and-release of Democratic Party and Clinton staff emails was designed to put Trump -- a political neophyte who has praised Putin -- into the Oval Office. (link)

There's still no evidence the DNC was "hacked" (WikiLeaks claims the information was an inside job of "leaking"), and even John Podesta admitted himself he was a victim of an ordinary "phishing" password change scam.

Does hacking exist, of course it does. Do hackers exist in every country connected by the internet, of course they do. Do state governments participate in hacking offense and defense, again -- yes, of course they do.   And yes, the FBI and U.S. intelligence community act purposefully against all participants they can catch.

But what does that intellectual truism have to do with the specific allegation that hostile Russian hackers attempted to gain entry into the DNC or John Podesta?  These are two entirely different issues which the Obama administration is attempting to conflate simply for political and ideological purposes.

Here is where we see Obama's intended conflated outcome.  Consider the Yahoo media paragraph above against the headline which accompanied the tweet at the top of this item:

"US sanctions Russia over vote hacking"

Even Obama said there is no proof Russians hacked the vote.

Russia's response?


A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #42 

"This election stands out in all of American history"


Greg Corombos (WND) is reporting that one of America's top political analysts says he and just about every other expert were wrong about the 2016 elections, noting Donald Trump is unlike any of his predecessors and his win promises to gut much of the Obama legacy.

Dr. Larry Sabato runs the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, where he teaches political science. He also heads up Sabato's Crystal Ball, which predicts presidential, Senate, House, and gubernatorial races. In more than 40 years of tracking presidential races, has he ever seen a campaign like this one?

"Never, and no one in my field has," said Sabato. "I've talked to a number of historians and people who focus on politics and political history. Everyone agrees that this election stands out in all of American history. Whether you liked the result or didn't like the result, it's just different," said Sabato.

He says the Trump's background is one of many things that distinguish him from previous presidents.

"Donald Trump is the only president-to-be who has not served in any political office or military office. He is an outsider complete and total. He's the richest president by far. There's just so many categories that make him unusual," said Sabato.

When 2016 dawned, Trump was the front-runner for the Republican nomination, and other than an opening loss in Iowa, was the clear favorite throughout the chase for 1,237 delegates. Sabato says Trump benefited from a crowded GOP field.

"During the competitive part of the primary … Trump only received about 38 percent of the vote. Sixty-two percent of Republicans voted for other candidates. The problem (for the other candidates) was there was so many of them. So 38 percent was more than enough to win the nomination," said Sabato.

All the supposed experts declared that Trump's style, persona, and policy positions couldn't possible win him the general election, but again Trump proved them all wrong. Sabato says it's always hard for a party to win three consecutive terms in the White House. He says the only exception in modern history is the transition from Ronald Reagan to George H.W. Bush.

Another big factor that Sabato says was overlooked was a massive enthusiasm gap between supporters of Trump and Hillary Clinton.

"The turnouts in small town America, in rural America among the blue collar workers and white working class were enormous. It was just enormous, whereas Clinton was unable to excite even solid Democratic groups like millennials and African-American voters," said Sabato.

He points out that Clinton won those groups handily but their turnout numbers were way down compared with 2012.

Sabato also notes that the media became fixated on Trump's negatives and failed to pay attention to Clinton's unpopularity.

"Hillary Clinton was more unacceptable than we realized. Yes, we knew she had high negatives. That was obscured by the fact that Trump had even higher negatives so we didn't focus on her negatives. But it turned out her negatives unenthused the Democratic base, to a much greater degree in the end, than Trump's negatives unenthused the Republican base," said Sabato.

While Democrats offer excuses for Clinton's defeat such as the influence of the Russians and the FBI to the existence of the Electoral College, Sabato says the real answers cut much closer to home.

"Hillary Clinton doesn't want to talk about her inability to generate a large turnout among Democratic groups. She doesn't want to talk about her inability to attract the white working class that got Bill Clinton elected in good part in 1992 and 1996. She never had a message that reached them," said Sabato.

"Her slogan, although technically it was 'Stronger Together' whatever that means, was really 'It's My Turn. It's My Turn.' Well, people rarely elect a candidate because it's their turn. They want to know what's in it for them," said Sabato.

But Clinton was not the only loser on election night. Sabato says Obama took one on the chin as well.

"It hurts him a great deal. Why did he campaign so hard for a woman who gave him such trouble in 2008 and very nearly won the nomination instead of him?" asked Sabato. "He understood, just as Ronald Reagan understood, that if you don't get a successor of your party elected to succeed you, much of what you've done is going to be reversed rather quickly and probably easily."

For Sabato, 2016 leaves him with two major takeaways about the state of American politics. First, he says we need to pay more attention to who the most motivated voters are.

"A constituency that is ignored and feels angry or abused is going to turn out in larger numbers. It may be African-Americans for Barack Obama in 2008 or it may be white working class, rural or small town voters for Donald Trump in 2016. Always ask yourself, where's the energy in the electorate," said Sabato.

However, for all the big wins Republicans enjoyed in 2016, they still have some demographic problems.

"Republicans still have some of the basic problems they had before Trump was elected. They still don't appeal to many minorities. They still don't appeal to millennials. They have to get a larger share of more groups in the electorate if they are to win not just the electoral vote but the popular vote in future elections," said Sabato.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #43 

And now a few words from Jackie Mason

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #44 

Putin has some advice for Democrats who look idiotic to the world


The Hill is reporting that the Russian President Vladimir Putin has some advice for Democrats -- they "need to learn to lose with dignity".

"Democrats are losing on every front and looking for people to blame everywhere," Putin said during his annual press conference in Moscow, according to The Washington Post. "They need to learn to lose with dignity."

Putin asked if the Republican wins in Congress were because of Russians too. He said Trump won because he understood the "mood of the people."

He also had this to say: "The most important thing is the gist of the information that hackers provided to the public," he said, according to Agence France Presse.

"What is the best evidence that the hackers unveiled true information?" he asked. "That after the hackers showed how public opinion is manipulated inside the Democratic Party … the chief of the Democratic National Committee quit."

Putin said that instead of apologizing after the email leaks, "they started to shout about who initiated the hack attacks.

"Does that really matter?" A spokesman for Putin called the allegations "absurd," according to a report by a Russian news agency on Thursday.

"It is absolutely absurd -- all those tales about cyberattacks by Russians, absolute tales," Putin's press secretary, Dmitry Peskov, said.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #45 

Obama was an experiment in inexperience -- Trump is the voters' answer


Fred Weinberg (WesternJournalism) says if the mainstream media and the ersatz leadership of the Democrat Party agree on one thing, it seems to be that average Americans -- people who have fallen to the bottom of Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables" -- are not smart enough to determine or to even have a say about their own futures.

In the election, 62,955,343 citizens of the United States of America in states representing 306 electoral votes voted for Donald Trump. According to the Electoral College, he is now the president-elect. That is the only exit poll that matters.

We're not stupid, deplorable, racist, xenophobic, homophobic or any of the other descriptors that some (not all) of President-elect Trump's opponent's supporters are labeling us.

We are, like the other voters in the election of 2016 (assuming we all voted legally), citizens of the United States. Some are rich, some are poor, most are in the middle of the bell curve, which is why most of us are called middle class.

And we do not deserve to be disparaged for our views -- by Mark Zuckerberg, Charlie Rose, Barack Obama, John Podesta or anybody else.

Conversely, it is vital to note, those who voted for Trump have no right to similarly disparage the political views of those who did NOT vote for Trump.

For the last eight years, America has experimented with what happens when you put a young man who speaks well but has no real experience in getting things done into a very powerful office.

Now, it appears the voters' answer to that experiment is to put an older man in that office who has a great deal of experience in getting things done.

Only the next four or eight years will answer some very hard questions.

But the battle needs to be played out on the field of ideas and implementation, not arguments over who are the smartest people in the room, or who is the legitimately elected president.

The hypocrisy on the part of the losers surrounding the aftermath of this election is stupefying.

Listening, as an example, to CBS talk about "fake news" as if it has never used anonymous sources to help a blatantly wrong story circulate. If there is any news organization that was busy creating fake news before that ever became an issue, one might remember his eminence, Dan Rather, virtually making up a story during the 2004 presidential election regarding George W. Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard.

And if you want to hear serious fake news, just watch CBS' morning news show try and delegitimize the election of Trump Monday through Friday.

You can just see it in the faces of Charlie Rose, Gayle King and Norah O'Donnell.

NBC is no better. The New York Times, The Washington Post and even The Wall Street Journal all seem to use sources named "people familiar with the matter."

The story of alleged Russian hacking is amazing in its intent to somehow try to convince the American people that it was really the Commies who caused Donald Trump to win.

What few have pointed out is that even if everything now being alleged by news outlets and the Obama administration were true, what was actually done was to reveal the truth -- that the Democrat Party was corrupt at its very top. It acted to screw Sen. Bernie Sanders, to hand the nomination to Clinton, and appeared to think it owned the very voters who gave the election to Trump. This from the campaign chair, the former head and the now acting head of the Democratic National Committee through their own emails, which nobody has denied for one second are authentic. Their argument appears to be, "Sure we're cretins, but you were never supposed to see the evidence that we're cretins."

If all the Russians did was to prove that the people at the top of a political party feel comfortable lying to the American public, God bless them. Few people in America care where the information came from, just that it is accurate.

And the one thing we have not heard from any Democrat is that the information is not accurate -- however we got it.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #46 

"We should be extremely skeptical"

Rachel Stoltzfoos (DailyCaller) is reporting that liberal journalist Glenn Greenwald questioned the narrative that Russia worked to help Trump win the election in an interview on Fox News, saying he's "skeptical" of reports from The Washington Post and New York Times on the CIA's conclusion.

"We should be extremely skeptical of it for multiple reasons," he said on "Tucker Carlson Tonight," referring to reports the CIA is confident Russia meddled in the election with the main goal of electing Trump. The reports are apparently based on second- and even third-hand accounts of intelligence briefings from Obama officials and sources that could even be Democrat Senate staffers. (RELATED: Anyone Who Reads About Russian Hacks And Trump Should Read This First)

"You have somebody whose identity is being shielded, describing what the CIA has supposedly concluded, laundering that through The Washington Post," Greenwald told Carlson. "These are assertions that are being made completely unaccompanied by any evidence whatsoever, let alone evidence that we can touch and rationally review."

"There's all kinds of reasons to suspect the CIA statements, including the fact that they're wrong all the time," he added. "They're programmed in a lot of cases to disseminate disinformation, and there's lots of reasons to view them as political actors, and I think we ought to be highly skeptical."

Greenwald attributed the narrative that has dominated post-election media coverage to desperate Democrats looking to score political points, saying it creates a "toxic" environment domestically and is reckless in terms of relations with Russia.

"All you do is ask for evidence before believing it, before embracing it as true," he said regarding reaction to people questioning media reports on Russia's interference. "And that alone subjects you to accusations that you might be disloyal, that you're somehow a tool of the Kremlin -- it's a really toxic environment that I think Democrats have created, a little bit out of desperation and out of political maneuvering as well. But it is quite dangerous."

"Why is Russia villain number one?" Carlson asked.

"It was really an election year political theme that the Democrats manufactured out of whole cloth -- that the Russians, that Putin pose some sort of existential threat to the United States, that they're our enemy, our entrenched enemy, and we all have the patriotic duty to resist it," he replied. "And it's not working. Americans don't wake up and worry about Vladimir Putin. But Democrats seem to be digging in further into this losing political attempt."

"To sit here and sort of suggest that Vladimir Putin lurks behind every American problem, to concoct these wild elaborate conspiracy theories, to try and convince Americans that Russia is this grave threat to the United States, that we all have to stand up -- I think it's incredibly dangerous," he added. "Not just because it creates a toxic environment domestically, but because it's very dangerous. It can put us on a path of almost unintentional confrontation with a country that can do a lot of damage.

Now that the Electoral College has elected Trump, I'm recommending the purchase of Maalox stock.

The liberals will be using plenty of the anti-acid medication over the next four years.

Cheers . . .

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #47 

Funnyman Rob Schneider nails it!


A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Posts: 884
Reply with quote  #48 
Go to Saudi Arabia beeyotch..... All those drugs these hippies have used is showing the effects.

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #49 

Crazed progressive woman snaps at Wisconsin electors

Start at item #672 today . . .

A woman lost control Monday afternoon when members of Wisconsin's electoral college delegation met to certify the results for Donald Trump.

"You sold out our country," the woman screamed at the electors, standing up. "Everyone of you, you’re pathetic. You don’t deserve to be in America."

The crowd responded by chanting: "Shame, shame, shame."

"This is my America." "This is my America," the woman yelled.

File under "liberalism is a mental disease."

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #50 

Electoral College votes to make Donald Trump president


Gabby Morrongiello (WashingtonExaminer) is reporting that nembers of the Electoral College cast the final votes in the 2016 presidential election on Monday, affirming Donald Trump as the 45th president of the United States.

Despite reports of GOP electors receiving harassing phone calls and emails for weeks leading up to Monday's vote, nearly all of the 538 men and women who were chosen by state parties to participate in the constitutional rite abided by the people's vote in their state.

Trump's victory was assured when Texas voted to put Trump over the 270-vote threshold. One Texas elector voted for Ron Paul and one for Ohio Gov. John Kasich. With the two defections, Trump received 304 of the 306 electoral votes he was granted by voters, well above the 270 needed to be elected. Clinton received 232 electoral votes in the general election but was on track Monday to receive a handful fewer from the Electoral College due to Democratic faithless electors.

At least seven Democratic electors across the country had signaled ahead of the official vote that they were willing to break from their party to support a Republican alternative to Trump, hoping enough of their GOP counterparts would join them and block the president-elect from taking office. But that didn't come close to happening.

Much like the talk of a convention coup that rattled Republicans earlier this summer, the speculation surrounding an anti-Trump uprising among faithless electors disappeared almost immediately once 23 states had cast their electoral votes and no GOP electors had defected.

Two Democratic electors -- one in Maine and one in Minnesota -- declined to vote according to their state's winner, though their "faithlessness" did not impact Trump. Both electors attempted to vote for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders instead of defeated Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, but were prevented from doing so due to state election laws.

Another trio of Democratic electors in Washington cast their ballots for Clinton's predecessor, former Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Not since 1972, when Roger MacBride, a Republican elector from Virginia, cast his votes for Libertarian candidates John Hospers and Tonie Nathan, has an elector defected to vote for the presidential and vice presidential candidates of a different party. Thus, those hoping to deny Trump the presidency by convincing 37 electors to go rogue and vote for a different candidate seemed doomed from the beginning.

What's more, a Politico/Morning Consult survey released early Monday morning found that a plurality of Americans -- 46 percent -- believe electors should be required to vote for whichever candidate won their state. Thirty-four percent of respondents said electors should be able to vote for whomever they want if they harbor concerns about the candidate they are supposed to vote for.

In several states that Trump won on Nov. 8, protesters gathered outside the capitol to urge electors not to cast their ballots for the incoming Republican president.

About 50 demonstrators, carrying signs that said "Electoral College: Do the Right Thing," showed up at the Wisconsin state Capitol in Madison just in time to watch all 10 electors vote for Trump. The billionaire businessman carried the Badger State by nearly 23,000 votes and gained 162 more in a recount of nearly 3 million ballots that concluded last week.

"Wisconsin's 10 Electoral Votes go for [Donald Trump] #MakeAmericaGreatAgain," the state GOP tweeted shortly after the vote took place at 1 p.m. ET.

Protesters gathered in Philadelphia in Richmond, Va., Lansing, Mich. and Salt Lake City.

Despite Monday's vote serving as confirmation that Trump will enter the Oval Office on Jan. 20, the results won't officially be tabulated until both congressional chambers convene during the first week of January. Vice President Joe Biden will preside over the counting of the electoral votes in Congress.

On Monday evening, Trump reacted by calling it an "historic electoral landslide victory in our nation's democracy."

"The official votes cast by the Electoral College exceeded the 270 required to secure the presidency by a very large margin, far greater than ever anticipated by the media," Trump said in a statement.

It is amazing! Trump has beat everybody and everything that came against him.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Previous Topic | Next Topic

Help fight the

The United States Library of Congress
has selected for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscriber

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2017
All rights reserved