Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
and then

CIA says Putin helped Trump win

734 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Paranormal Panther
18 hours ago, Merc14 said:

List of countries that tried to influence the election for Hillary complete with money amounts.  This is what public corruption looks like folks and it is a felony. 

clintonelection

That was the second story on Lester Holt's newscast. Oh, wait. It wasn't. The second story was about how Putin fixed and rigged the game to put his boyfriend in the White House.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther
14 hours ago, bee said:

.

It all reminds me so much of what's happening with Brexit -- 

Clinton Supporters in the US and Remain supporters in the UK are throwing accusations and doom and gloom
prophecies around - bewailing the damage a Trump presidency will have  and the UK leaving the EU will have -

but it is they themselves who are hellbent on causing as much damage as they can by undermining the democratic
decisions and fomenting as much division as they can which can only be detrimental to the countries as a whole -
and the economies - 

.

It's like condemning animal cruelty while you beat your pet. I gave Obama a chance, but it's obvious that they won't give the same courtesy to Trump.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther
13 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

You must be joking, right! I like Trump and what he stands for BUT seriously... Clinton was savaged by the FBI, CIA and the media.  

Fox News and alternative news outlets, as well as conservative news outlets, covered her very real problems and scandals. That's what journalists *should* do. Her surrogates, in the MSM, protected her at every turn as if they were her employees. Surely, you realize this.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella

giphy.gif.pagespeed.ce.9ExJgG_Cb3.gif

 

The overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced a CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election, three American officials said on Monday.

The position of the ODNI, which oversees the 17 agency-strong U.S. intelligence community, could give Trump fresh ammunition to dispute the CIA assessment, which he rejected as 'ridiculous' in weekend remarks, and press his assertion that no evidence implicates Russia in the cyber attacks.

 

 

/

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

We need to keep in mind that the CIA's Director John Brennen is a big time Obama supporter. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Truman show
18 hours ago, Lilly said:

Didn't you see the video where Trump (thinking it was a private conversation) told that Billy Bush guy how he liked to 'kiss and grab the 'P' word'? The majority of the media couldn't stand Trump.  According to most of the mainstream media Trump's a racist/sexist/bigot not even qualified to be dog catcher let alone President. Didn't you ever see that show "The View" or watch CNN? Hell, members of the media gave the debate questions (ahead of time) to Donna Brazil for goodness sakes!

Trump was most certainly subjected to media scrutiny...very negative media scrutiny.

The media coverage i saw was pro Trump. Hillary was much maligned in press and even by the FBI. Of course Trump was attacked but for someone that had bankruptcies and tax issues he certainly wasn't called up on any of them like the indiscretions of Clinton. And for the post of POTUS if you had a rating system for indiscretions unbecoming, 1 being a slight infraction of character and 10 being not able to assume office for having a scumbag past... then Trump would have rated a 8-9 and Clinton a 6-7 at most. Of course both candidates should have been disqualified.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Truman show
14 hours ago, Ellapennella said:

don't you think you need to look over this again? you must of overlooked something.

Both Trump and Clinton suck dead dogs... i just think that it wasn't a fair fight.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Truman show
2 hours ago, Lilly said:

We need to keep in mind that the CIA's Director John Brennen is a big time Obama supporter. 

Lol, if he was that big of a "friend" then he would have disclosed the Russian allegation a week out from the election like that other good mate of Trump's the "FBI director."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Truman show
6 hours ago, Paranormal Panther said:

Fox News and alternative news outlets, as well as conservative news outlets, covered her very real problems and scandals. That's what journalists *should* do. Her surrogates, in the MSM, protected her at every turn as if they were her employees. Surely, you realize this.

Am i the only one that thinks that someone that doesn't pay his tax and has bankrupted himself 3 times and cut corners at every turn shouldn't be eligible to run the country? So by that rational, John Gotti would make an excellent reserve bank chair...if he wasn't dead.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

Time for a little musical intermission ...

~

 

~

"What we have here ... is a failure ... to communicate ... "

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee
5 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

The media coverage i saw was pro Trump. Hillary was much maligned in press and even by the FBI. Of course Trump was attacked but for someone that had bankruptcies and tax issues he certainly wasn't called up on any of them like the indiscretions of Clinton. And for the post of POTUS if you had a rating system for indiscretions unbecoming, 1 being a slight infraction of character and 10 being not able to assume office for having a scumbag past... then Trump would have rated a 8-9 and Clinton a 6-7 at most. Of course both candidates should have been disqualified.  

.

re bolded ---

can you name the news outlets..?... because I reckon you must have been in a parallel universe to me in the election run up..

the news in the UK was vehemently anti Trump - and only near election day did they tentatively cut him a tiny bit of slack because
it was looking like he had quite a lot of support -- even though the polls and bookies were still indicating a definite Clinton win -
 

.

Edited by bee
added a word :)
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee
14 hours ago, aztek said:

Image may contain: text

.

that is so funny ---- :D......:tu:

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee
10 hours ago, lilspooky said:

Party over country, right guys? You should be ashamed of yourselves, traitors.

.

I don't get that...

traitors to who or what..?......:huh:

.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kurzweil
1 minute ago, bee said:

.

I don't get that...

traitors to who or what..?......:huh:

.

Yeah I couldn't make sense of that one either. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles
5 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

The media coverage i saw was pro Trump. Hillary was much maligned in press and even by the FBI. Of course Trump was attacked but for someone that had bankruptcies and tax issues he certainly wasn't called up on any of them like the indiscretions of Clinton. And for the post of POTUS if you had a rating system for indiscretions unbecoming, 1 being a slight infraction of character and 10 being not able to assume office for having a scumbag past... then Trump would have rated a 8-9 and Clinton a 6-7 at most. Of course both candidates should have been disqualified.  

I'm not sure what media outlets you were watching, but most of the main media outlets in the states were almost exclusively reporting anti Trump material.   

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles
5 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

Am i the only one that thinks that someone that doesn't pay his tax and has bankrupted himself 3 times and cut corners at every turn shouldn't be eligible to run the country? So by that rational, John Gotti would make an excellent reserve bank chair...if he wasn't dead.

Do you have proof that he did not pay taxes he was supposed to?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
38 minutes ago, Myles said:

I'm not sure what media outlets you were watching, but most of the main media outlets in the states were almost exclusively reporting anti Trump material.   

Mainstream media was very much pro-Clinton. Fox News (being conservative) was more pro-Trump but even there some didn't care much for him. Perhaps there's some far right (obscure) news outlet that was pro-Trump? That said, just about everything I saw on the news was very dismissive of Trump (some even laughed at him).

 

Here's what I'm talking about regarding being laughed at:

 

Edited by Lilly
addition
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

Back to the Russians hacking, let's say it actually was the Russians that hacked the DNC then gave the emails to WikiLeaks. Ok, now it has to be shown that this directly made people vote for Trump. And remember, these are the voters (in the central states) who have suffered the worst under the policies of the Obama administration. How are they going to prove these folks weren't motivated to vote Trump by unemployment, poor economy, social injustice, costly healthcare, rampant immigration vs anything put on WikiLeaks? How are they going to prove this?

IMO, this is just another political move designed to throw a wrench into the Trump Presidency.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xDominiel
On 11.12.2016 at 2:47 PM, bee said:

People seem to be addicted to insulting the man - what's that all about..?

Well, there's the bully mentality he has.. His awful narcissistic personality.. There's his shady dealings.. His seemingly complete lack of any real values.. His stance on torture.. Etc. Though my post wasn't meant as an "insult", I genuinely believe he wanted publicity and got in over his head.

Don't misinterpret this as "Hillary should have won". No. She's a shady hack too.~

Edited by xDominiel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

This morning there's a new story out that the CIA has new information that Putin was personally involved.  But the other question is that doesn't the release of the emails still show corruption on the part of the DNC?  Isn't that more important information than Russia hacking?  If the hacking did indeed affect the election, I'd say that Putin provided a service to preserve our form of government.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
2 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

This morning there's a new story out that the CIA has new information that Putin was personally involved.  But the other question is that doesn't the release of the emails still show corruption on the part of the DNC?  Isn't that more important information than Russia hacking?  If the hacking did indeed affect the election, I'd say that Putin provided a service to preserve our form of government.

Well, if true it still shows interference by a foreign government....not a good thing.

However, even if Vlad Putin himself was doing the hacking and personally sent it off to Julian Assange...it still doesn't prove that the voters went Trump for that reason vs the other reasons I listed.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
7 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

The media coverage i saw was pro Trump. Hillary was much maligned in press and even by the FBI. Of course Trump was attacked but for someone that had bankruptcies and tax issues he certainly wasn't called up on any of them like the indiscretions of Clinton. And for the post of POTUS if you had a rating system for indiscretions unbecoming, 1 being a slight infraction of character and 10 being not able to assume office for having a scumbag past... then Trump would have rated a 8-9 and Clinton a 6-7 at most. Of course both candidates should have been disqualified.  

You do realize that posting something as ridiculous as this means no one can take anything else you post seriously, right?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

Here's something to mull over; the calling for the re-counts (now dead in the water), the allegations that the Russians caused people to vote Trump, the push to get the Electoral College delegates to override their constituents and not vote Trump...do we see a pattern emerging here?

Ironically, this will only further serve to alienate those in the 'fly over' states who have rejected what the Democrats have been offering. Not too smart IMO.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles

I'm still not sure this is relevant at all.   Even if the Russians hacked and got this info with the hopes of swaying voters.   It's only the hacking part that bothers me.   

There were many government leaders that were throwing their support behind Hillary in order to sway voters.   Did every bit of dirt found on Trump come from domestic media sources?

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

The allegations come from the CIA which must be the Hillary Clinton Election Agency the way this political spin about hacking goes.

Evidence of hacking is evidence of fraud, no matter what the politics are that get played over this.   How many times have people here parroted and still keep parroting the line that "there's no evidence of fraud."   It's now become an addictive denial of reality.

Every election will be rife with politics.  Every election will have a winner and a loser, every election will have winner politics and loser politics. 

Did the leaks about Hillary Clinton in the final months of the election steer people away from voting for her?  I would hope so.  So Putin is a de facto whistleblower who could have been the difference between victory and defeat.   If he's going to be our new friend in the world, we shouldn't simultaneously want to keep Assange under house arrest, Snowden holed up in an undisclosed location and Manning attempting suicide in prison when we could have four new friends.

When Wikileaks goes after Trump, somehow I have to guess that won't be politically correct anymore and the spin here will go the other way and demonize Wikileaks again.

We also now know that Georgia has discovered that their systems were hacked too, by DHS.   So our own government is hacking our elections.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.