"We can see that Trump is lying"

[Elixir]

...again.
BUT - and this is a YUUUUGE "but" - you'd have to read the report and compare what it says to what Trump said it said... Which no self-respecting trump chump will do.

[video]http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/trump-lies-about-intelligence-report-on-russia-easily-spotted-849590851652[/video]

 

[barbos]

Impeachment? ....... anyone?

 

[Kharakov]

Prior to being in office!!! That would be sweet, although the corrupt probably won't let go of power that easily...

 

[fromderinside]

Why not. He's countermanding the current president every day.

 

[Elixir]

Impeachment? ....... anyone?

Don the Con is too crafty for that - he has an insurance policy named Mike Pence.
I'm afraid the only hope is to respond in kind and hire a corrupt foreign leader to conduct a disinformation and cyber-hacking campaign. It should be a lot easier for the Dems to come up with material, since they wouldn't have to make shit up out of whole cloth as the republicans have done...

 

[credoconsolans]

Impeachment? ....... anyone?

Don the Con is too crafty for that - he has an insurance policy named Mike Pence.
I'm afraid the only hope is to respond in kind and hire a corrupt foreign leader to conduct a disinformation and cyber-hacking campaign. It should be a lot easier for the Dems to come up with material, since they wouldn't have to make shit up out of whole cloth as the republicans have done...

Same situation with Bush and Quayle. Anyone thinking of getting rid of Bush had to think of a way to get rid of Quayle as well.

 

[whichphilosophy]

...again.
BUT - and this is a YUUUUGE "but" - you'd have to read the report and compare what it says to what Trump said it said... Which no self-respecting trump chump will do.

[video]http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/trump-lies-about-intelligence-report-on-russia-easily-spotted-849590851652[/video]

There are ten million attacks on the US government each year.
Why was this issued to the Media before it reached the President Elect.
Apart from Rachel Maddew's hand waving she mentioned nothing.

Let us repeat the same question.

Since you reported this can you specify Where does the report provide proof that the Russian's hacking directly caused Clinton to lose the election.

Rachel is the left wing version of Ann Coulter.

Since I could find anything relating to Rachel Coulter's report here is what I found in the Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-us-election-interference-report-donald-trump

The report keeps classified any crucial technical data demonstrating Russian culpability, which means its release is unlikely to persuade skeptics that the intelligence agencies have definitively proven their case. Nor does the intelligence assessment claim that Russian interference was decisive in the election.

There is nothing to date.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Impeachment? ....... anyone?

Don the Con is too crafty for that - he has an insurance policy named Mike Pence.
I'm afraid the only hope is to respond in kind and hire a corrupt foreign leader to conduct a disinformation and cyber-hacking campaign. It should be a lot easier for the Dems to come up with material, since they wouldn't have to make shit up out of whole cloth as the republicans have done...

Wrong post

 

[Random Person]

I assume that Russia hacks every computer they can if it possibly contains any intel they can use.

Trump says there is no evidence that Russia affected the election which might lead people to believe the intelligence report said that. The truth is that it wasn't addressed. The intelligence report didn't say either way.

Both Trump and Maddow are dancing around the truth, but Maddow is on thinner ice.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I assume that Russia hacks every computer they can if it possibly contains any intel they can use.

Trump says there is no evidence that Russia affected the election which might lead people to believe the intelligence report said that. The truth is that it wasn't addressed. The intelligence report didn't say either way.

Both Trump and Maddow are dancing around the truth, but Maddow is on thinner ice.

This is correct. When seeing through the hype, there is no proof the Russians altered the course of the elections.

This may well backfire on the intelligence agencies unless they come up with some evidence and not just opinion.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I assume that Russia hacks every computer they can if it possibly contains any intel they can use.

Trump says there is no evidence that Russia affected the election which might lead people to believe the intelligence report said that. The truth is that it wasn't addressed. The intelligence report didn't say either way.

Both Trump and Maddow are dancing around the truth, but Maddow is on thinner ice.

This is correct. When seeing through the hype, there is no proof the Russians altered the course of the elections.

This may well backfire on the intelligence agencies unless they come up with some evidence and not just opinion.

They aren't going to compromise their sources and intel. Why is it so hard to believe that the Russia has an active hacking program that they use to help regimes that they like all across the world. This isn't really big news.

 

[fast]

I listened attentively to the video. I did not arrive at the same conclusion she did. Trump has not lied.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I listened attentively to the video. I did not arrive at the same conclusion she did. Trump has not lied.

The thread should read "We can't see that Trump is lying"

 

[Elixir]

I listened attentively to the video.

Did you read the report? It doesn't say what Trump says it says in one case, and it doesn't say what Trump implies in another. Call it lies, diversion, mild dementia or whatever you like.
I'll grant that Rachel is an entertainer foremost, not unlike the one she pillories.

 

[fast]

It doesn't say what Trump says it says in one case, and it doesn't say what Trump implies in another.

This is the problem. Trump does say something, and it's true that he said what he said after learning of the reports' contents, but what he had to say is being misconstrued as if what he had to say was somehow a conveyance of what the report said. The lady in the video is essentially saying the same thing you are: that Trump is purportedly saying what the report says, but the words he used, as quoted in the video, does not to my interpretation represent an intention to speak to what the report says. There is nothing in the report countering his message, so he continues to deliver his message.

If you believed as Trump does yet found nothing in the report to substantiate what you believe, you might refrain from speaking your mind and choose to convey what the report says, and even if Trump has not substantiated what he is in fact saying, that's no good reason to twist that fact (be it as it may) with this outlandish notion that he is somehow intending to convey what the report says, especially since it seems more likely per a critical review that it's what's not in the report that fuels his choice to continue claiming what he has all along.

To answer your question, no, I didn't read the report. If I had a good reason to compare what he says to what the report says, that would be one thing, but unlike you, I don't think he is in any way trying to communicate what the report says.

 

[Elixir]

It doesn't say what Trump says it says in one case, and it doesn't say what Trump implies in another.

This is the problem. Trump does say something, and it's true that he said what he said after learning of the reports' contents, but what he had to say is being misconstrued as if what he had to say was somehow a conveyance of what the report said.

Fair point. It would hold more weight if Trump had the self awareness to include some sort of clarifying disclaimer to that effect. I guess his only means of communication won't accommodate that though. Must be the Dems' fault...
Or perhaps it's normal that when a president-elect emerges from a meeting wherein he was briefed on the classified version of "Report X" on "Matter Y", and begins discussing "Matter Y", people assume he is discussing it in light of what he learned from "Report X".
By now I suppose we should know better, and assume that Trump is pulling stuff out of his ass to feed the press, as usual...

 

[funinspace]

Impeachment? ....... anyone?

Yeah, right...right after watching thousands cheer at the Kremlin after completion of the the Dum's hack job...saw it on YouTube.

Get used to 4 years of official baseless unapologetic bullshit....

 

[whichphilosophy]

This is correct. When seeing through the hype, there is no proof the Russians altered the course of the elections.

This may well backfire on the intelligence agencies unless they come up with some evidence and not just opinion.

They aren't going to compromise their sources and intel. Why is it so hard to believe that the Russia has an active hacking program that they use to help regimes that they like all across the world. This isn't really big news.

This isn't the point. The US government alone received 10m hacking attempts a year. The accusation is whether the Russians altered the outcome the results of the elections. Nothing has been produced to show this.

 

[Elixir]

They aren't going to compromise their sources and intel. Why is it so hard to believe that the Russia has an active hacking program that they use to help regimes that they like all across the world. This isn't really big news.

The accusation is whether the Russians altered the outcome the results of the elections.

What a load of shit. Alt-reality dictates that we focus on what the intelligence report DOESN'T ADDRESS.
Sorry pal, the fact is that Russia did everything they could to tear down HRC and pump the Trump. It doesn't matter how successful they were - they managed to sow doubt about the integrity of the electoral process, and laid the ground for discrediting the HRC presidency that they expected. They were successful in at least one of those areas, and even if that were not the case, the US has an OBLIGATION to fully investigate despite the fact that Don the Con doesn't want any more to come to light.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The accusation is whether the Russians altered the outcome the results of the elections.

What a load of shit. Alt-reality dictates that we focus on what the intelligence report DOESN'T ADDRESS.
Sorry pal, the fact is that Russia did everything they could to tear down HRC and pump the Trump. It doesn't matter how successful they were - they managed to sow doubt about the integrity of the electoral process, and laid the ground for discrediting the HRC presidency that they expected. They were successful in at least one of those areas, and even if that were not the case, the US has an OBLIGATION to fully investigate despite the fact that Don the Con doesn't want any more to come to light.

If Russia did, then what it did needs to be specified. Measuring if Russia was ''successful"is important because if there was no impact then they can't be held responsible.
I can't see a clear way the electoral process became doubtful. There has to be causation in this which the CIA and others involved need to provide.

Let them investigate because the CIA promised a report but there was nothing of substance

Meanwhile enjoy the Orange Orangutan for the next 4 years unless something happens.