Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
To: E. Pluribus Unum
Total FAKE news with not a centilla of evidence.
2 posted on
12/11/2016 7:37:07 PM PST by
WENDLE
To: E. Pluribus Unum
3 posted on
12/11/2016 7:38:27 PM PST by
combat_boots
(God bless Israel and all who protect and defend her! And please, God, bless the USA again.)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
It’s fake since the CIA isn’t even confirming the rumor much less laying out some evidence. The CIA has never been a nexus of Truth.
4 posted on
12/11/2016 7:38:52 PM PST by
Paladin2
(No spellcheck. It's too much work to undo the auto wrong word substitution on mobile devices.)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
What evidence?
Where?
When?
5 posted on
12/11/2016 7:38:59 PM PST by
left that other site
(You shall know the Truth, and The Truth Shall Set You Free.)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
Ok let’s see some of that there swell if evidence...
6 posted on
12/11/2016 7:39:16 PM PST by
ez
("Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is..." - Milton)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
8 posted on
12/11/2016 7:39:31 PM PST by
Fiddlstix
(Warning! This Is A Subliminal Tagline! Read it at your own risk!(Presented by TagLines R US))
To: E. Pluribus Unum
Why doesn’t anyone in the Marx Stream Media publish some of this evidence?
9 posted on
12/11/2016 7:40:06 PM PST by
TigersEye
(Congratulations, President Donald J. Trump! - Let's MAGA!!!)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
Last week, [outgoing] Central Intelligence Agency officials presented lawmakers with a stunning new judgment...
12 posted on
12/11/2016 7:41:40 PM PST by
mrsmith
(Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat/RINO Party!)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
Former UK Ambassador Blasts "CIA's Blatant Lies", Shows "A Little Simple Logic Destroys Their Claims" Authored by Craig Murray, a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, and was the Rector of the University of Dundee
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-11/former-uk-ambassador-blasts-cias-blatant-lies-shows-little-simple-logic-destroys-the
Tyler Durden
Dec 11, 2016 7:25 PM
Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims bullshit, adding: They are absolutely making it up.
I know who leaked them, Murray said. Ive met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and its an insider. Its a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.
13 posted on
12/11/2016 7:43:26 PM PST by
ForYourChildren
(Christian Education [ RomanRoadsMedia.com - Classical Christian Approach to Homeschool ])
To: E. Pluribus Unum
The left are trying to implicate Trump in working with a foreign country to affect the election. That would be a serious crime.
They have their goal to postpone the Inauguration so that an investigation to clear up these serious charges can be done.
That is their current strategy to keep Trump out.
As far as this piffle. What does the Muslim CIA chief say? Did he go on record?
And why would these same people who didn’t believe the CIA about Iraq and WMD now believe them?
14 posted on
12/11/2016 7:44:51 PM PST by
ifinnegan
(Democrats kill babies and harvest their organs to sell)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
But at least we know Hillary’s emails were never hacked.
17 posted on
12/11/2016 7:46:39 PM PST by
dgbrown
To: E. Pluribus Unum
However, the FBI disagrees. This is all a political Obama dirty trick.
18 posted on
12/11/2016 7:47:34 PM PST by
Sasparilla
(I 'm Not Tired Of Winning)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
Let’s just wade into the fever swamp for a minute and present that it’s true, that Russians somehow intervened despite voting machines and vote tallying processes that are not accessible via internet.
So, is this a new thing? I suspect it isn’t. Security has been far worse in the not too distant past. Leftists of the world have been overt in their desire for leftist Presidents in the past, also (ahem, cough, cough, George Soros).
Funny how it’s suddenly become some sort of bad thing, when they’ve never had a problem with it before.
To: E. Pluribus Unum
It’s exhausting to dissect all the misdirection in this article. No new evidence. Circumstantial evidence. Russians “got their desired result” as if they controlled the American voter. It’s obviously political bs.
21 posted on
12/11/2016 7:48:38 PM PST by
Williams
(Trump You Magnificent Bastard!)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
“It is unclear why the C.I.A. did not produce this formal assessment before the election, although several officials said that parts of it had been made available to President Obama in the presidential daily briefing in the weeks before the vote.”
So if 0bama had this info before the election, why didn’t he release it? 0bama could have leaked to anyone he wanted. So does the NYT think that 0bama was covering for Trump?
LOL! What BS fake news!
23 posted on
12/11/2016 7:53:09 PM PST by
grumpygresh
(We don't have Democrats and Republicans, we have the Faustian uni-party)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
Bunk. What we have is only is the speculation of agencies controlled by an administration which supported the losing candidate. There is no proof that has come forward to implicate Russia in the Wikileaks disclosures.
None. This is nothing but an agenda-driven administration spinning yarns.
24 posted on
12/11/2016 7:53:33 PM PST by
Sgt_Schultze
(If a border fence isn't effective, why is there a border fence around the White House?)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
It is unclear why the C.I.A. did not produce this formal assessment before the election, although several officials said that parts of it had been made available to President Obama in the presidential daily briefing in the weeks before the vote.Thereby explaining why nobody had seen it until after the election.
25 posted on
12/11/2016 7:54:08 PM PST by
Dr.Deth
To: E. Pluribus Unum
NEVER MIND the freakin “Russian hacks”
Let’s concentrate on the real problem:
RAT hacks...exposed...trying to steal an election.
29 posted on
12/11/2016 7:55:54 PM PST by
ROCKLOBSTER
(The fear of stark justice sends hot urine down their thighs.)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
overwhelming circumstantial evidence Wow. No words for this garbage. Fake in a court of law, or in a newspaper.
To: E. Pluribus Unum
Yeah, Russia would really want Trump as president over a confirmed sociopathic grifter that they could buy off at will.
35 posted on
12/11/2016 8:08:00 PM PST by
headstamp 2
(Fear is the mind killer.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson