If Russia caused Trump to win does that mean Americans are easily led?

[blastula]

Every time you try to whine or distract about Russian evidence you mischaracterize it too. At this point you have been corrected so many times I must insist that you are being deliberately deceptive. There is no conclusive evidence of Russian hacking to influence this most recent election. But there is plenty of actual, physical, concrete evidence of Russiaian hacking to influence this most recent election.

The Russians.US, British and others are spying on each other and at least trying to hack.

And yet you want to deny Russians tried to hack in this case. Get your story straight.

We heard Clapper claim to have a reliable source but admitted no actual proof.

No he didn't.

Mcafee and Assange claim it was not the Russians, either direct or indirectly.

Who cares what those two dipshits say? Especially McAfee. McAfee???

Snowdon claimed that if it was the Russians the NSA would know.

????? The NSA has said Russia did it.

There seems to be just politically driven speculation.

You are very drunk fake news.

 

[Ford]

Well they didn't "magically" influence the election, but the evidence is clear that they tried like hell to do so, and that the result was the one they were looking for.

I know that you and Will and Barbos and Tupac all think that Russia is our bestest buddy and would never do anything underhanded to try an undermine the US, but that's a pretty naive position to take. Russian espionage goes back as far as when we were actually allies in WWII if not further. Putin has been playing the long con since before he rode around with W in a pickup truck. The work that used to be done by Pravda is now being handled by bots and paid trolls, while the spy business has expanded to include hackers and useful idiots like Assange. And of course people who go out of their way to defend Putin free of charge on message boards and comment sections.

Sorry, but no amount of L Ron inspired bullshit is going to convince me that Vlad is just a misunderstood teddy bear.

B-a-a-a-h
Vlad is misunderstood. He doesn't get help from Hubbard since he is deceased.
The Americans, Russians and British all try to hack each other. It's an extension of spying. Look at all this ransom-ware. It was stolen from the NSA/

All the bleating doesn't detract from the fact that there is no concrete evidence to prove anything about Trump, Clinton anyone else.

Wow. A former devotee of Scientology implying other people are sheep. I believe that's called irony.

And no, Vlad doesn't get help from L Ron, but you learned your bullshit-craft from Hubbard's wacky "church." You missed that point when you were mustering your sheep argument.

You were so distracted that you inadvertently admitted that Russia hacks the US as a matter of course. All our intelligence agencies are certain that they attempted to influence the election. By extension that includes Trump and Clinton because the election was between Trump and Clinton. What you're claiming is like saying "we have video of two men in ski masks walking into the bank, and there's a lot of money missing, but let's not jump to conclusions and say the bank was actually robbed."

 

[untermensche]

Let's be clear.

Some Americans are easily led.

But more people voted against Trump than for him.

40% of Americans refused to even participate in the charade.

Trump's only president because of some outdated anti-democratic plan to pacify slave owners.

And the fact that violent Revolution is not possible anymore.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The Russians.US, British and others are spying on each other and at least trying to hack.

And yet you want to deny Russians tried to hack in this case. Get your story straight.

We heard Clapper claim to have a reliable source but admitted no actual proof.

No he didn't.

Mcafee and Assange claim it was not the Russians, either direct or indirectly.

Who cares what those two dipshits say? Especially McAfee. McAfee???

Snowdon claimed that if it was the Russians the NSA would know.

????? The NSA has said Russia did it.

There seems to be just politically driven speculation.

You are very drunk fake news.

The Russians.US, British and others are spying on each other and at least trying to hack as I said but there is no evidence to show it was hacking AND trying to influence the election as has been suggested.

Asage and McAfee Ad hom and opinion of them does not detract from the fact they are proven experts in this field and pointed causation has not been established. Any court judge can tell you claiming association with something does not constitute causation.

https://theintercept.com/2017/03/16...-to-expect-evidence-of-trumprussia-collusion/

Morell’s comments echo the categorical remarks by Obama’s top national security official, James Clapper, who told Meet the Press last week that during the time he was Obama’s DNI, he saw no evidence to support claims of a Trump/Russia conspiracy. “We had no evidence of such collusion,” Clapper stated unequivocally.

The NSA and others have not provided indefeasible case structure hence showing how this was done.
The investigation is still ongoing, thus the matter is not concluded.

It is political given the way it is presented.

 

[whichphilosophy]

B-a-a-a-h
Vlad is misunderstood. He doesn't get help from Hubbard since he is deceased.
The Americans, Russians and British all try to hack each other. It's an extension of spying. Look at all this ransom-ware. It was stolen from the NSA/

All the bleating doesn't detract from the fact that there is no concrete evidence to prove anything about Trump, Clinton anyone else.

Wow. A former devotee of Scientology implying other people are sheep. I believe that's called irony.

And no, Vlad doesn't get help from L Ron, but you learned your bullshit-craft from Hubbard's wacky "church." You missed that point when you were mustering your sheep argument.

You were so distracted that you inadvertently admitted that Russia hacks the US as a matter of course. All our intelligence agencies are certain that they attempted to influence the election. By extension that includes Trump and Clinton because the election was between Trump and Clinton. What you're claiming is like saying "we have video of two men in ski masks walking into the bank, and there's a lot of money missing, but let's not jump to conclusions and say the bank was actually robbed."

We don't even have evidence of the scenario of 2 men going to the bank. So we cannot say something b-a-a-a-hd happened.

- - - Updated - - -

Americans are indeed easily led. Remember Iraq WMD? No, how about Ronnie Raygun?

....and the purges in the 1950's against communism based on poor investigation.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I have repeatedly said I am not a Trump supporter, and the fact you never quote me saying as much indicates that you don't really care about what is true, ,

OR, cares, but goes by your actions rather than your protests.

He's making a point though if you read his whole post.

 

[Keith&Co.]

OR, cares, but goes by your actions rather than your protests.

He's making a point though if you read his whole post.

He's making a protest, but not a convincing one.

It is possible he doesn't really consider himself a trumpster, but then he's just accidentally playing into Trump's game.

 

[Opoponax]

But, my god!..how can we stop Russia controlling who ends up President of the USA. It seems people are powerless in the face of this mighty Russian threat!

Well, here's an idea, I know this is way the heck out on the wishful thinking limb here, but what say we have our political parties not try to rig our primaries? Then when inevitably somebody hacks their emails it won't be quite so embarrassing.

Okay, sure, that's never going to happen, fine; here's Plan B. If you're a party official whose role is supposed to be neutral but you're conspiring to undermine Bernie Sanders anyway, then, to heroically save America from Russia controlling who ends up President of the USA, how about you have the wit to do your conspiring over the phone instead of by email?

Bernie's not even a goddamn Democrat. Only for the short time when he knew he would need party funding did he become one. Hillary had been nearly a lifelong Democrat. First lady, Senator, Secretary of State, all as a Democrat. She'd raised hundreds of millions of dollars for the Democratic party, if not more. What is this fucking outrage over the fact that the Democratic Party favored one of its own???

And is Bernie a Democrat now?

NOPE.

So quit this horse shit of blaming the Democratic party for Trump. A carpet bagger, in the form of Bernie Sanders, came strolling in, made a splash, but lost because he couldn't get the votes.

If you voted for anyone but Hillary, you voted for Trump. Blame yourself.

 

[Ford]

We don't even have evidence of the scenario of 2 men going to the bank. So we cannot say something b-a-a-a-hd happened.

Yeah, the Russians never spied on us ever. Never tried to hack anything. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along and watch RT. They're the only source of real news.

 

[Bomb#20]

Bernie's not even a goddamn Democrat. ... outrage over the fact that the Democratic Party favored one of its own??? ... A carpet bagger, in the form of Bernie Sanders, came strolling in, made a splash, but lost because he couldn't get the votes.

Well, sure; but suggesting there's nothing wrong with the DNC tampering with an election is a pretty lame way to argue people into being outraged over Russians tampering with one. If running a tilted election to make sure "one of its own" wins is the Democratic Party's policy, you can hardly blame Sanders' supporters for feeling maybe the Democrats should have been up-front about that, instead of suckering them into a charade to make it appear his problem was "he couldn't get the votes".

If you voted for anyone but Hillary, you voted for Trump. Blame yourself.

Not quite following your reasoning there. If I hadn't voted for anyone but Hillary then she'd have beaten Trump by one more vote than she did; I'm not seeing how my failure to give her that extra margin of victory helped Trump, even infinitesimally. In determining that I should blame myself because I supposedly "voted for Trump", approximately how many more Clinton votes in California are you calculating it would have taken to turn the election in her favor?

There are more center and left of center people in the U.S. than there are conservatives. The numbers don't lie. But because conservatives vote in lockstep; no matter who the guy with "R" next to his name is, that's who they vote for. Therefore, they generally don't have to worry about votes being siphoned off by third parties to the extent Democrats do. Look no further than this:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...-smaller-margin-than-stein-votes-in-all-three

The bottom line in the article is that the number of votes received by Jill Stein in the states that won the election for Trump, was larger than Trump's margin of victory.

Um, according to your link, even if everyone who voted for Stein had voted for Clinton, Trump would still have won with 280 electoral votes. The bottom line in the article is that the number of votes received by Jill Stein in the states that won the election for Trump was larger than Trump's margin of victory only in Michigan and Wisconsin, but not in Pennsylvania. So don't blame Jill Stein voters; blame the Democrats who stayed home.

 

[whichphilosophy]

We don't even have evidence of the scenario of 2 men going to the bank. So we cannot say something b-a-a-a-hd happened.

Yeah, the Russians never spied on us ever. Never tried to hack anything. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along and watch RT. They're the only source of real news.

Spying in itself? Of course they have and continue to do so 24/7. The West does the same. The Russians must be flattered if they are being credited with causing the result of the last election.

The Russians can be associated with just about any espionage as so can the US. However no one has established how such activities including hacking determined the election results.

Thus Association does not mean Causation exists.

 

[blastula]

And yet you want to deny Russians tried to hack in this case. Get your story straight.

We heard Clapper claim to have a reliable source but admitted no actual proof.

No he didn't.

Mcafee and Assange claim it was not the Russians, either direct or indirectly.

Who cares what those two dipshits say? Especially McAfee. McAfee???

Snowdon claimed that if it was the Russians the NSA would know.

????? The NSA has said Russia did it.

There seems to be just politically driven speculation.

You are very drunk fake news.

The Russians.US, British and others are spying on each other and at least trying to hack as I said but there is no evidence to show it was hacking AND trying to influence the election as has been suggested.

Yeah, you keep saying this and continue to be wrong about it. It's a fact that the FBI has determined Russia did the hack.

Asage and McAfee Ad hom and opinion of them does not detract from the fact they are proven experts in this field and pointed causation has not been established. Any court judge can tell you claiming association with something does not constitute causation.

Experts??? :laughing-smiley-014 I thought you only cared about evidence that would conclusively hold up in court. Assange is an interested party, his word is worthless on this. He's the leaker conduit and he has shown a pro-Russia bias, strangely for someone who claims to care about government abuse of power. How would he even know if it were the Russians if they didn't advertise it to him? If he is colluding with them, then his word means nothing.

McAfee is a paranoid nutjob and he's only given an opinion with no facts to substantiate it. McAfee?????

https://theintercept.com/2017/03/16...-to-expect-evidence-of-trumprussia-collusion/

Morell’s comments echo the categorical remarks by Obama’s top national security official, James Clapper, who told Meet the Press last week that during the time he was Obama’s DNI, he saw no evidence to support claims of a Trump/Russia conspiracy. “We had no evidence of such collusion,” Clapper stated unequivocally.

Learn how to read for once or put down the bottle. We were talking about who did the hack, Clapper is talking about collusion. Those are not the same thing. On the point we were discussing, you must have missed that Clapper said the evidence was "overwhelming" that Russia did the hack.

And Clapper didn't say he knows there was no collusion, just that he wasn't aware of any convincing evidence. He also wasn't aware of the FBI investigation until this March. He doesn't know what the FBI has.

Pro tip: stop getting your talking points from Trump.

The NSA and others have not provided indefeasible case structure hence showing how this was done.
The investigation is still ongoing, thus the matter is not concluded.

No shit, it's ongoing, that's what everyone keeps trying to tell you. Stop pretending there is no case or no evidence because you personally haven't seen it. The investigation could take years to complete. Watergate was publicly investigated for over a year before Nixon resigned.

 

[blastula]

But, my god!..how can we stop Russia controlling who ends up President of the USA. It seems people are powerless in the face of this mighty Russian threat!

Well, here's an idea, I know this is way the heck out on the wishful thinking limb here, but what say we have our political parties not try to rig our primaries? Then when inevitably somebody hacks their emails it won't be quite so embarrassing.

Okay, sure, that's never going to happen, fine; here's Plan B. If you're a party official whose role is supposed to be neutral but you're conspiring to undermine Bernie Sanders anyway, then, to heroically save America from Russia controlling who ends up President of the USA, how about you have the wit to do your conspiring over the phone instead of by email?

Oh brother, the primaries were not rigged against Sanders. The only thing that the DNC did that could have been intended to help Clinton was to cut down on debates, but if anything that probably hurt Clinton since she did good in the debates. Sanders lost fairly.

 

[whichphilosophy]

And yet you want to deny Russians tried to hack in this case. Get your story straight.

We heard Clapper claim to have a reliable source but admitted no actual proof.

No he didn't.

Mcafee and Assange claim it was not the Russians, either direct or indirectly.

Who cares what those two dipshits say? Especially McAfee. McAfee???

Snowdon claimed that if it was the Russians the NSA would know.

????? The NSA has said Russia did it.

There seems to be just politically driven speculation.

You are very drunk fake news.

The Russians.US, British and others are spying on each other and at least trying to hack as I said but there is no evidence to show it was hacking AND trying to influence the election as has been suggested.

Yeah, you keep saying this and continue to be wrong about it. It's a fact that the FBI has determined Russia did the hack.

Asage and McAfee Ad hom and opinion of them does not detract from the fact they are proven experts in this field and pointed causation has not been established. Any court judge can tell you claiming association with something does not constitute causation.

Experts??? :laughing-smiley-014 I thought you only cared about evidence that would conclusively hold up in court. Assange is an interested party, his word is worthless on this. He's the leaker conduit and he has shown a pro-Russia bias, strangely for someone who claims to care about government abuse of power. How would he even know if it were the Russians if they didn't advertise it to him? If he is colluding with them, then his word means nothing.

McAfee is a paranoid nutjob and he's only given an opinion with no facts to substantiate it. McAfee?????

https://theintercept.com/2017/03/16...-to-expect-evidence-of-trumprussia-collusion/

Morell’s comments echo the categorical remarks by Obama’s top national security official, James Clapper, who told Meet the Press last week that during the time he was Obama’s DNI, he saw no evidence to support claims of a Trump/Russia conspiracy. “We had no evidence of such collusion,” Clapper stated unequivocally.

Learn how to read for once or put down the bottle. We were talking about who did the hack, Clapper is talking about collusion. Those are not the same thing. On the point we were discussing, you must have missed that Clapper said the evidence was "overwhelming" that Russia did the hack.

And Clapper didn't say he knows there was no collusion, just that he wasn't aware of any convincing evidence. He also wasn't aware of the FBI investigation until this March. He doesn't know what the FBI has.

Pro tip: stop getting your talking points from Trump.

The NSA and others have not provided indefeasible case structure hence showing how this was done.
The investigation is still ongoing, thus the matter is not concluded.

No shit, it's ongoing, that's what everyone keeps trying to tell you. Stop pretending there is no case or no evidence because you personally haven't seen it. The investigation could take years to complete. Watergate was publicly investigated for over a year before Nixon resigned.

The FBI can pre-determine all it wants but it cannot produce anything that would hold water under scrutiny. This is why the investigation is going on.

In the US evidence that would hold up in a court (or during an impeachment) is the only evidence used to establish something. That's why we don't see lynch mobs anymore.

We don't even know for sure who did this particular hack. Wiki-leaks didn't get this from the Russians, so it says, nor (so it says) did it receive anything from someone who they can determine received this from the Russians.

Pro-Russia has nothing to do with anything if Russia is not identified as the source.

As we know and repeat, the Russians and the USA are always trying to spy on each other and gain access to each others secrets but associating this alone is meaningless since in legal terms the FBI has not established Causation.

From a legal perspective, association with something does not automatically constitute Causation.

This is why the investigation is in progress not concluded.

 

[blastula]

You still can't read. The investigation into the source of the hack has concluded. The investigation into collusion and other related issues has not. The FBI has not predetermined anything. And, you again hypocritically cited Assange as proof the Russians didn't hack and then talked about the need for court established evidence, after I just pointed out that you did this.

Also note that you failed to admit your error in citing Clapper as evidence that Russia did not hack.

Here's another of your falsehoods,

In the US evidence that would hold up in a court (or during an impeachment) is the only evidence used to establish something. That's why we don't see lynch mobs anymore.

Court evidence is not the only way something is established as fact. That's ludicrous. And during an impeachment, court standards of evidence are not required. You have been explained this multiple times by multiple people and yet repeated it again.

You don't acknowledge your many errors and falsehoods. Great role model for the Scientologists' idea of ethics.

 

[braces_for_impact]

And yet you want to deny Russians tried to hack in this case. Get your story straight.

We heard Clapper claim to have a reliable source but admitted no actual proof.

No he didn't.

Mcafee and Assange claim it was not the Russians, either direct or indirectly.

Who cares what those two dipshits say? Especially McAfee. McAfee???

Snowdon claimed that if it was the Russians the NSA would know.

????? The NSA has said Russia did it.

There seems to be just politically driven speculation.

You are very drunk fake news.

The Russians.US, British and others are spying on each other and at least trying to hack as I said but there is no evidence to show it was hacking AND trying to influence the election as has been suggested.

Yeah, you keep saying this and continue to be wrong about it. It's a fact that the FBI has determined Russia did the hack.

Asage and McAfee Ad hom and opinion of them does not detract from the fact they are proven experts in this field and pointed causation has not been established. Any court judge can tell you claiming association with something does not constitute causation.

Experts??? :laughing-smiley-014 I thought you only cared about evidence that would conclusively hold up in court. Assange is an interested party, his word is worthless on this. He's the leaker conduit and he has shown a pro-Russia bias, strangely for someone who claims to care about government abuse of power. How would he even know if it were the Russians if they didn't advertise it to him? If he is colluding with them, then his word means nothing.

McAfee is a paranoid nutjob and he's only given an opinion with no facts to substantiate it. McAfee?????

https://theintercept.com/2017/03/16...-to-expect-evidence-of-trumprussia-collusion/

Morell’s comments echo the categorical remarks by Obama’s top national security official, James Clapper, who told Meet the Press last week that during the time he was Obama’s DNI, he saw no evidence to support claims of a Trump/Russia conspiracy. “We had no evidence of such collusion,” Clapper stated unequivocally.

Learn how to read for once or put down the bottle. We were talking about who did the hack, Clapper is talking about collusion. Those are not the same thing. On the point we were discussing, you must have missed that Clapper said the evidence was "overwhelming" that Russia did the hack.

And Clapper didn't say he knows there was no collusion, just that he wasn't aware of any convincing evidence. He also wasn't aware of the FBI investigation until this March. He doesn't know what the FBI has.

Pro tip: stop getting your talking points from Trump.

The NSA and others have not provided indefeasible case structure hence showing how this was done.
The investigation is still ongoing, thus the matter is not concluded.

No shit, it's ongoing, that's what everyone keeps trying to tell you. Stop pretending there is no case or no evidence because you personally haven't seen it. The investigation could take years to complete. Watergate was publicly investigated for over a year before Nixon resigned.

The FBI can pre-determine all it wants but it cannot produce anything that would hold water under scrutiny. This is why the investigation is going on.

In the US evidence that would hold up in a court (or during an impeachment) is the only evidence used to establish something. That's why we don't see lynch mobs anymore.

We don't even know for sure who did this particular hack. Wiki-leaks didn't get this from the Russians, so it says, nor (so it says) did it receive anything from someone who they can determine received this from the Russians.

Pro-Russia has nothing to do with anything if Russia is not identified as the source.

As we know and repeat, the Russians and the USA are always trying to spy on each other and gain access to each others secrets but associating this alone is meaningless since in legal terms the FBI has not established Causation.

From a legal perspective, association with something does not automatically constitute Causation.

This is why the investigation is in progress not concluded.

Despite your protestations, the fact that the Russians did this is pretty well established. Despite your retreat into your odd legal maneuvering in order to relieve your own cognitive dissonance, the investigations you mention are looking for collusion, not to establish the perpetrators, which is already known. Besides the consensus of all major intelligence services in the US, AND several other western nations, which you can so easily dismiss simply because you haven't personally seen their data -never mind you've seen no data at all- you forget there are others that are experts in this domain, which you most assuredly are not. These include several well known and established cyber security firms, that are familiar with this territory. These firms include ThreatConnect , CrowdStrike, Mandiant and Fidelis. Secureworks was also involved in finding the method of attack used against the DNC. All of this is publicly available should you decide to disrobe from your barrister outfit, sit in front of a computer and verify this. OR, you can claim massive super duper conspiracy theory like most Trumpies do. Which is what I expect since you've been corrected on this point numerous times. So in a word, fuck your "legal perspective", which you pulled out of your ass, which means nothing from any actual legal standpoint, but which you think seems to be your get out of jail free card.

 

[barbos]

And yet you want to deny Russians tried to hack in this case. Get your story straight.

We heard Clapper claim to have a reliable source but admitted no actual proof.

No he didn't.

Mcafee and Assange claim it was not the Russians, either direct or indirectly.

Who cares what those two dipshits say? Especially McAfee. McAfee???

Snowdon claimed that if it was the Russians the NSA would know.

????? The NSA has said Russia did it.

There seems to be just politically driven speculation.

You are very drunk fake news.

The Russians.US, British and others are spying on each other and at least trying to hack as I said but there is no evidence to show it was hacking AND trying to influence the election as has been suggested.

Yeah, you keep saying this and continue to be wrong about it. It's a fact that the FBI has determined Russia did the hack.

Asage and McAfee Ad hom and opinion of them does not detract from the fact they are proven experts in this field and pointed causation has not been established. Any court judge can tell you claiming association with something does not constitute causation.

Experts??? :laughing-smiley-014 I thought you only cared about evidence that would conclusively hold up in court. Assange is an interested party, his word is worthless on this. He's the leaker conduit and he has shown a pro-Russia bias, strangely for someone who claims to care about government abuse of power. How would he even know if it were the Russians if they didn't advertise it to him? If he is colluding with them, then his word means nothing.

McAfee is a paranoid nutjob and he's only given an opinion with no facts to substantiate it. McAfee?????

https://theintercept.com/2017/03/16...-to-expect-evidence-of-trumprussia-collusion/

Morell’s comments echo the categorical remarks by Obama’s top national security official, James Clapper, who told Meet the Press last week that during the time he was Obama’s DNI, he saw no evidence to support claims of a Trump/Russia conspiracy. “We had no evidence of such collusion,” Clapper stated unequivocally.

Learn how to read for once or put down the bottle. We were talking about who did the hack, Clapper is talking about collusion. Those are not the same thing. On the point we were discussing, you must have missed that Clapper said the evidence was "overwhelming" that Russia did the hack.

And Clapper didn't say he knows there was no collusion, just that he wasn't aware of any convincing evidence. He also wasn't aware of the FBI investigation until this March. He doesn't know what the FBI has.

Pro tip: stop getting your talking points from Trump.

The NSA and others have not provided indefeasible case structure hence showing how this was done.
The investigation is still ongoing, thus the matter is not concluded.

No shit, it's ongoing, that's what everyone keeps trying to tell you. Stop pretending there is no case or no evidence because you personally haven't seen it. The investigation could take years to complete. Watergate was publicly investigated for over a year before Nixon resigned.

The FBI can pre-determine all it wants but it cannot produce anything that would hold water under scrutiny. This is why the investigation is going on.

In the US evidence that would hold up in a court (or during an impeachment) is the only evidence used to establish something. That's why we don't see lynch mobs anymore.

We don't even know for sure who did this particular hack. Wiki-leaks didn't get this from the Russians, so it says, nor (so it says) did it receive anything from someone who they can determine received this from the Russians.

Pro-Russia has nothing to do with anything if Russia is not identified as the source.

As we know and repeat, the Russians and the USA are always trying to spy on each other and gain access to each others secrets but associating this alone is meaningless since in legal terms the FBI has not established Causation.

From a legal perspective, association with something does not automatically constitute Causation.

This is why the investigation is in progress not concluded.

Despite your protestations, the fact that the Russians did this is pretty well established. Despite your retreat into your odd legal maneuvering in order to relieve your own cognitive dissonance, the investigations you mention are looking for collusion, not to establish the perpetrators, which is already known. Besides the consensus of all major intelligence services in the US, AND several other western nations, which you can so easily dismiss simply because you haven't personally seen their data -never mind you've seen no data at all- you forget there are others that are experts in this domain, which you most assuredly are not. These include several well known and established cyber security firms, that are familiar with this territory. These firms include ThreatConnect , CrowdStrike, Mandiant and Fidelis. Secureworks was also involved in finding the method of attack used against the DNC. All of this is publicly available should you decide to disrobe from your barrister outfit, sit in front of a computer and verify this. OR, you can claim massive super duper conspiracy theory like most Trumpies do. Which is what I expect since you've been corrected on this point numerous times. So in a word, fuck your "legal perspective", which you pulled out of your ass, which means nothing from any actual legal standpoint, but which you think seems to be your get out of jail free card.

LOL CrowdStrike, LOL. You should hire that CrowdStrike fella to search for WMD in Iraq, I am sure he would find it. Yeah, and which one of these scary sounding firms investigated Russian bank email links to Trump, cause I sure don't want them to investigate anything.

 

[LordKiran]

If you voted for anyone but Hillary, you voted for Trump. Blame yourself.

I resent this notion. If I voted for anybody but Hillary, I voted for someone other than Hillary. That is NOT the same as voting for Trump, even if it leads to the same outcome. Again, your candidate is not and was never entitled to support from the electorate if the electorate does not consider her worthy of such support. That simple. Blame your candidate for not being good enough, perhaps?

 

[untermensche]

If you voted for anyone but Hillary, you voted for Trump. Blame yourself.

I resent this notion. If I voted for anybody but Hillary, I voted for someone other than Hillary. That is NOT the same as voting for Trump, even if it leads to the same outcome. Again, your candidate is not and was never entitled to support from the electorate if the electorate does not consider her worthy of such support. That simple. Blame your candidate for not being good enough, perhaps?

It is possible to vote strategically.

We are not helpless children.

It is possible to vote for a bad candidate to prevent the election of a worse candidate.

By not voting for the bad candidate you are in fact giving the worse candidate a better chance to win.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If you voted for anyone but Hillary, you voted for Trump. Blame yourself.

I resent this notion. If I voted for anybody but Hillary, I voted for someone other than Hillary. That is NOT the same as voting for Trump, even if it leads to the same outcome. Again, your candidate is not and was never entitled to support from the electorate if the electorate does not consider her worthy of such support. That simple. Blame your candidate for not being good enough, perhaps?

Yeah, a political candidate with dubious business dealings, bad general approval ratings, with a somewhat limited level of experience in elected government. Wait... who are we talking about?

The issue was that Trump was wholly incapable of holding the office... as we have seen. Hillary Clinton could do the job. A vote for anyone but Clinton was a vote for a man that had no business being in the White House as a visitor, forget about being in charge of the building. He violated the Constitution within one month of being in charge by asking the FBI Director to stop the Flynn investigation (of which we now know about the Kuschner/Flynn meeting with the Russian Ambassador... and of which Comey must have known as well).

So don't give us this self-righteous bullshit. If you didn't vote for Clinton, you allowed this reckless person to become President. You were wrong, we told you so, fucking man up about it!