big_dog

Washington Post: CIA Final Election Hack Investigation

2,122 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, kicker said:

Exactly.  See my first post in this thread.  We have anonymous leaks to the press of supposed classified material designed to sway public opinion, but it's cool because it questions the legitimacy of Trump's victory.  

Everyone on here (but a few) know better.  Which proves along with the DNC they didn't learn their less about "fake news" nor the SCM collusion with the DNC, but they are still trying to push the narrative.  One can only ascertain they are trying to sway their voters into believing the election was rigged and not just a failure on their party's part to get the message across.  Which as you can see by Hillary's message, there was no real policy message, just an attack Trump mode message.  Do you think they want their voters to believe what I just said?  No, that's why they are trying so hard to pawn this off on anyone but themselves.  

SacFalcFan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, big_dog said:

Skeptics of this damaging report: action.jpg

Same can be said for our media attempting to influence the election.  I will call BS on Russia significantly influencing the election.  

WhenFalconsWin likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sobeit said:

Same can be said for our media attempting to influence the election.  I will call BS on Russia significantly influencing the election.  

No doubt our SCM tried to sway this election.  We still have some on here citing that Trump got more positive air time than Hillary.  I'll take the Mike Singletary approach on that, I can't teach them, I can't coach the,, I just can't do it!  They are what they are.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

 

JFC...you respond to a Washington Post story about Russian influence that relies on CIA employees with an "article" from a website known for spreading hoaxes and falsehoods, an "article" that calls the WashPost story "fake news".  

You truly are astoundingly dumb.

Here is some of the better stuff from the "Free Thought Project", the source of your rebuttal:

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2015/06/12/right-wing-sites-snookered-fake-stories-about-splc-hate-group-designations

http://www.snopes.com/flint-water-crisis-cps/

http://www.snopes.com/judge-bans-vegetable-gardens/

big_dog likes this

Share this post


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

Y'all act like fake news is new.  Remember when Harry Reid sent a letter signed by a dozen other Senators to the CEO of Clear Channel Communications trying to get Rush Limbaugh fired based on a fake news story.  Good times.  

Harry Reid >>>

It certainly is not new.  What's disturbing is how widespread it's become on social media and the leader of one of the two major parties has spread the fake news to his supporters.   That's the new part of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

It certainly is not new.  What's disturbing is how widespread it's become on social media and the leader of one of the two major parties has spread the fake news to his supporters.   That's the new part of this.

Not disturbing when the leader of the Senate spreads fake news, though.  Ok.

SacFalcFan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kicker said:

Not disturbing when the leader of the Senate spreads fake news, though.  Ok.

Do you have a link or something that I could read about that?  I've not heard about it before.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, kicker said:

Not disturbing when the leader of the Senate spreads fake news, though.  Ok.

Nevermind, just found it.  Not anywhere near as dramatic and d*mning as you described it, though:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phony_soldiers_controversy

Reid also didn't demand that Limbaugh be fired, only that he apologize.  

And yes, Harry Reid is a lying a**hole.  But this isn't an example of Reid spreading "false news".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I lovee the left. They cannot seem  to hit the ball straight even off a T. The Fake News, IS THE LEFT. The entire MSM creates stories based on bashing conservatives and everything we stand for and propping up the Left with total BS. 

EARTH to Barack and the media. Hillary lost the election because she sucked....End of story...

Lts list a few Fake news by the MSM and the left. You've got the mantra - Trump will never win, cannot win - REALITY - Trump Won. As trout and the entire left wing cabal told us 8 months out, TRUMP CANNOT WIN and we heard countless reasons why, was that not fabricated news? Where was any evidence to that being a fact? Turns out, it was all a bunch of nonsense.

We had Barack Obama telling us all we could keep our doctors, keep our plans, healthcare was gonna be cheaper and the MSM prints, states that as if it were true. REALITY - It was a lie.....So, who is in the fake news business? The left.

You've got the lame brain Brian Williams reporting about fake news, and HE was the fake news along with Dan Rather. You've got the fake news of Man Made Global Warming, etc.

So, we now hear the CIA has proof that russia was effecting our election. Hmm, we can now go back to believing the CIA opposed to the same CIA who said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction? Which do we believe?

The left is unhinged and they will use any and all scape goats to keep their minions in check. Problem is, the Geni is already out of the bottle as the left crumbles to the floor like the witch in Oz. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, GEORGIAfan said:

Actually no.

 

Plus both campaigns have stated that the Comey letters had a major effect. 

You just have to look at the change in the polls to know that.  The letter...and frankly her strategy to not have a strong operation in certain states...did more than the fake news.  But the fake news DID amplify and exaggerate the Comey letter.  It created a lot of doubt and uncertainty that was filled with fake news.  So we'll probably never be able to determine which had the biggest effect on her campaign.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I have to admit South Americans are probably laughing themselves silly at the idea of foreign powers getting screwy with our election :ninja:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, atl falcon 89 said:

Although I have to admit South Americans are probably laughing themselves silly at the idea of foreign powers getting screwy with our election :ninja:

Speaking of.

 

“I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake.  And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win.”

HRC

 

SacFalcFan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GEORGIAfan said:

Actually no.

 

Plus both campaigns have stated that the Comey letters had a major effect

Nate, they call that an Electoral Landslide...She needed a lot of ifs...but I knew she wasn't going to win months ago...so there is that

"A little self-awareness would do for a team that is blaming everybody but themselves for this. It’s Bernie Sanders’ fault … It’s the alt-right’s fault," she said. "It’s … fake news’ fault. It’s Russian interference. It’s James Comey. ... How about you had no message?"

SacFalcFan, Sobeit and Jimsmusic™ like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of ties to Russia.

 

26. Hillary sold 20% of America’s uranium to Russia as SoS, Clinton 

      camp worried that the deal is being investigated

  • https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/286

  • Putting on all of your radars that Grassley sent a letter to AG Lynch (dated June 30th though we just saw it) asking questions about contributions to the Clinton Foundation and the Uranium One deal. Letter is attached. Craig is connecting with comms team to be sure they are aware as well.

  • https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/225

  • http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/29/firm-co-founded-by-hillarys-campaign-chair-lobbies-for-russias-uranium-one/

  • Chalk it up to a small world or to a tangled web, but Uranium One, the Russian-owned uranium mining company at the center of a recent scandal involving the Clintons and a close Canadian business partner, has lobbied the State Department through a firm co-founded by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign chairman.

    Senate records show that The Podesta Group has lobbied the State Department on behalf of Uranium One — once in 2012, when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, and once in 2015.

    Uranium One paid The Podesta Group $40,000 to lobby the State Department, the Senate, the National Park Service and the National Security Council for “international mining projects,” according to a July 20, 2012 filing.

    Clinton left the State Department on Feb. 1, 2013.

    And according to a disclosure filed April 20, Uranium One spent $20,000 lobbying the Senate and State Department on the same issue.

    The Podesta Group was founded in 1988 by brothers Tony and John Podesta. Tony Podesta now heads the group while John Podesta, who has not worked for the family business for years but has been involved in plenty of other projects, leads Hillary Clinton toward a Democratic nomination.

    Uranium One is significant because it fell under the corporate control of Rosatom, Russia’s atomic energy agency, through a series of transactions approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department. Rosatom’s acquisition of Uranium One effectively gave Russia control of 20 percent of uranium in the U.S.

    How all of that came to pass has fostered questions about how the Clintons operate their charity, the Clinton Foundation.

    The Uranium One story starts in 2005 when Canadian mining magnate Frank Giustra and several business partners came to own a small mining company called UrAsia Energy.

    Clinton flew with Giustra in September 2005 on a private jet to Kazakhstan. There, the mining tycoon negotiated with that nation’s mining agency, Kazataprom, for rights to three mines. After Clinton appeared publicly in support of Kazakhstan’s president, Nursultan Nazarbayev, who had just allegedly won an election with more than 90 percent of the vote, the mining deal was approved.

    Months later, Giustra donated $31 million to the Clinton Foundation with a pledge of $100 million more.

    In 2007, UrAsia Energy, with its access to Kazakhstan’s lucrative mines, merged with South Africa’s Uranium One in a $3.5 billion deal.

    Giustra sold his stake in the company soon after, pocketing a tidy profit. But other investors and executives with close ties to Giustra maintained their interests and donated millions more to the Clinton group.

    As money was flowing to the Clinton Foundation, the State Department, which came under the control of Hillary Clinton in January 2009, approved a series of transactions that allowed Russia’s Rosatom to buy up shares in Uranium One. By June 2009, Rosatom had a 51 percent stake in the company.

    With that majority hold, the Russian energy company effectively gained control of 20 percent of the uranium in the U.S.

    Rosatom has since taken complete control of Uranium One. And while there is little risk that the metal being pulled out of U.S. soil poses a direct threat to U.S. national security, it does give Russian President Vladimir Putin control of a major source of energy amid cooling diplomatic relations.

    Though Uranium One’s corporate progression has the appearance of pay-for-play, the Clintons and Giustra have denied doing anything wrong. In his capacity as Clinton’s campaign chair, John Podesta has gone on the offensive, dismissing the notion that the Clintons have done anything illegal or unethical as a conspiracy theory.

    But as evidence of just how complex the Clinton Foundation’s activities are, the website Vox.com published an exhaustive list of 181 Clinton Foundation donors who also lobbied the State Department during Hillary Clinton’s tenure there.

    Uranium One is not on the list. Neither is Giustra. Nor is Ian Telfer, one of Giustra’s Canadian associates who is the former chairman of Uranium One. He donated $2.35 million through his Fernwood Foundation to the Canadian wing of the Clinton Foundation, which is set up as a partnership with Giustra.

    After it was revealed that the Clinton Foundation had not disclosed some of its foreign donations — such as Telfer’s — the organization announced it would be refiling some of its tax forms.

  • "It's out there."

  • This isn’t a smoking gun leak (since the Grassley letter was posted publicly) but it shows the Clinton campaign's nervousness about this incredibly ****ing story being investigated.

  • ‘Uranium One’ explanation: As Secretary of State, Hillary approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to the Russian state-owned firm ‘Uranium One’, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.  She literally sold off a rare and prime material used in nukes to a country we are at odds with for cold hard cash.  John Podesta also has ties to Russia exposed through the WikiLeaks, owning 75,000 shares in a Putin-backed energy company.

  • 1-57a7f2581a.jpg

 

Go ahead and say this is 'fake news'

SacFalcFan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, FalconFanSince1969 said:

Speaking of.

 

“I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake.  And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win.”

HRC

 

Hill was all kinds of shady no doubt about that. It's certainly a comeuppance levels of irony if she's ever condoned interfering in in the democratic  processes of other nations only to have someone else render unto her (though sucks for the rest of us)

SacFalcFan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, FalconFanSince1969 said:

Speaking of ties to Russia.

 

26. Hillary sold 20% of America’s uranium to Russia as SoS, Clinton 

      camp worried that the deal is being investigated

 

  • https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/286

  • Putting on all of your radars that Grassley sent a letter to AG Lynch (dated June 30th though we just saw it) asking questions about contributions to the Clinton Foundation and the Uranium One deal. Letter is attached. Craig is connecting with comms team to be sure they are aware as well.

  • https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/225

  • http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/29/firm-co-founded-by-hillarys-campaign-chair-lobbies-for-russias-uranium-one/

  • Chalk it up to a small world or to a tangled web, but Uranium One, the Russian-owned uranium mining company at the center of a recent scandal involving the Clintons and a close Canadian business partner, has lobbied the State Department through a firm co-founded by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign chairman.

    Senate records show that The Podesta Group has lobbied the State Department on behalf of Uranium One — once in 2012, when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, and once in 2015.

    Uranium One paid The Podesta Group $40,000 to lobby the State Department, the Senate, the National Park Service and the National Security Council for “international mining projects,” according to a July 20, 2012 filing.

    Clinton left the State Department on Feb. 1, 2013.

    And according to a disclosure filed April 20, Uranium One spent $20,000 lobbying the Senate and State Department on the same issue.

    The Podesta Group was founded in 1988 by brothers Tony and John Podesta. Tony Podesta now heads the group while John Podesta, who has not worked for the family business for years but has been involved in plenty of other projects, leads Hillary Clinton toward a Democratic nomination.

    Uranium One is significant because it fell under the corporate control of Rosatom, Russia’s atomic energy agency, through a series of transactions approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department. Rosatom’s acquisition of Uranium One effectively gave Russia control of 20 percent of uranium in the U.S.

    How all of that came to pass has fostered questions about how the Clintons operate their charity, the Clinton Foundation.

    The Uranium One story starts in 2005 when Canadian mining magnate Frank Giustra and several business partners came to own a small mining company called UrAsia Energy.

    Clinton flew with Giustra in September 2005 on a private jet to Kazakhstan. There, the mining tycoon negotiated with that nation’s mining agency, Kazataprom, for rights to three mines. After Clinton appeared publicly in support of Kazakhstan’s president, Nursultan Nazarbayev, who had just allegedly won an election with more than 90 percent of the vote, the mining deal was approved.

    Months later, Giustra donated $31 million to the Clinton Foundation with a pledge of $100 million more.

    In 2007, UrAsia Energy, with its access to Kazakhstan’s lucrative mines, merged with South Africa’s Uranium One in a $3.5 billion deal.

    Giustra sold his stake in the company soon after, pocketing a tidy profit. But other investors and executives with close ties to Giustra maintained their interests and donated millions more to the Clinton group.

    As money was flowing to the Clinton Foundation, the State Department, which came under the control of Hillary Clinton in January 2009, approved a series of transactions that allowed Russia’s Rosatom to buy up shares in Uranium One. By June 2009, Rosatom had a 51 percent stake in the company.

    With that majority hold, the Russian energy company effectively gained control of 20 percent of the uranium in the U.S.

    Rosatom has since taken complete control of Uranium One. And while there is little risk that the metal being pulled out of U.S. soil poses a direct threat to U.S. national security, it does give Russian President Vladimir Putin control of a major source of energy amid cooling diplomatic relations.

    Though Uranium One’s corporate progression has the appearance of pay-for-play, the Clintons and Giustra have denied doing anything wrong. In his capacity as Clinton’s campaign chair, John Podesta has gone on the offensive, dismissing the notion that the Clintons have done anything illegal or unethical as a conspiracy theory.

    But as evidence of just how complex the Clinton Foundation’s activities are, the website Vox.com published an exhaustive list of 181 Clinton Foundation donors who also lobbied the State Department during Hillary Clinton’s tenure there.

    Uranium One is not on the list. Neither is Giustra. Nor is Ian Telfer, one of Giustra’s Canadian associates who is the former chairman of Uranium One. He donated $2.35 million through his Fernwood Foundation to the Canadian wing of the Clinton Foundation, which is set up as a partnership with Giustra.

    After it was revealed that the Clinton Foundation had not disclosed some of its foreign donations — such as Telfer’s — the organization announced it would be refiling some of its tax forms.

  • "It's out there."

 

  • This isn’t a smoking gun leak (since the Grassley letter was posted publicly) but it shows the Clinton campaign's nervousness about this incredibly ****ing story being investigated.

  • ‘Uranium One’ explanation: As Secretary of State, Hillary approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to the Russian state-owned firm ‘Uranium One’, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.  She literally sold off a rare and prime material used in nukes to a country we are at odds with for cold hard cash.  John Podesta also has ties to Russia exposed through the WikiLeaks, owning 75,000 shares in a Putin-backed energy company.

  • 1-57a7f2581a.jpg

 

Go ahead and say this is 'fake news'

God Bless WikiLeaks.  Not that she would've won, but it let the truth be known how wicked the DNC and our bias corrupt news orgs really are.  

SacFalcFan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

55. John Podesta’s password was p@ssw0rd

  • https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/22335

  • “Though CAP is still having issues with my email and computer, yours is good to go. jpodesta p@ssw0rd”

  • I warn you, the Windows 8 system is VERY different from what we had back at the WH. Might require a tutorial. It's an operating system that is best with touch screens, which we obviously don't have. If you need tech's help, they're at x5683. Otherwise, I can show you some tricks when I get in. I have it on my home computer, and it took a while to get used to completely. Second thing, because of the snow day, my makeup passport appt is tomorrow at 8 am nearby State. No clue how long this takes. If you haven't seen it, earlier I sent you your schedule in an attachment. First thing is Roger Altman at 10:45 am. I'll have my phone the whole time and will check email often.

  • Why is this important? The media is lying to us. They are saying the "Russians are feeding Wikileaks" and that they are hacking us. Their passwords are literally password. Some security. They only blame Russia so it can take our focus away from what is actually in the emails, which they do not deny it's validity. As mentioned in the info section, Wikileaks has a 10 year, 100% accuracy rating. Not one leak has ever been disproven.

  • Not only that... but Podesta LOST his cellphone! Extremely dangerous since he illegally had access to top secret documents.

  • Julian Assange has already strongly suggested that the source of the leaks are insiders, including ex-DNC staffer Seth Rich, who was killed right around the time of the DNC leaks.

  • John Podesta's password was p@ssw0rd and the White House is trying to claim only a foreign state organization could have been savvy enough to hack these servers.

 

 

People actually wanted these morons in charge of nation security secrets? Any idiot could have hacked these fools. Password is password?????? Could have literally brute forced his emails.

silentbob1272 and SacFalcFan like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FalconFanSince1969 said:

55. John Podesta’s password was p@ssw0rd

 

  • https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/22335

  • “Though CAP is still having issues with my email and computer, yours is good to go. jpodesta p@ssw0rd”

  • I warn you, the Windows 8 system is VERY different from what we had back at the WH. Might require a tutorial. It's an operating system that is best with touch screens, which we obviously don't have. If you need tech's help, they're at x5683. Otherwise, I can show you some tricks when I get in. I have it on my home computer, and it took a while to get used to completely. Second thing, because of the snow day, my makeup passport appt is tomorrow at 8 am nearby State. No clue how long this takes. If you haven't seen it, earlier I sent you your schedule in an attachment. First thing is Roger Altman at 10:45 am. I'll have my phone the whole time and will check email often.

 

  • Why is this important? The media is lying to us. They are saying the "Russians are feeding Wikileaks" and that they are hacking us. Their passwords are literally password. Some security. They only blame Russia so it can take our focus away from what is actually in the emails, which they do not deny it's validity. As mentioned in the info section, Wikileaks has a 10 year, 100% accuracy rating. Not one leak has ever been disproven.

  • Not only that... but Podesta LOST his cellphone! Extremely dangerous since he illegally had access to top secret documents.

  • Julian Assange has already strongly suggested that the source of the leaks are insiders, including ex-DNC staffer Seth Rich, who was killed right around the time of the DNC leaks.

  • John Podesta's password was p@ssw0rd and the White House is trying to claim only a foreign state organization could have been savvy enough to hack these servers.

 

 

People actually wanted these morons in charge of nation security secrets? Any idiot could have hacked these fools. Password is password?????? Could have literally brute forced his emails.

Someone said it earlier today in one of these threads, but now we'll have the adults in charge again and these guys can go back to the kiddie table.  Heck, maybe I said it.  :D

SacFalcFan likes this

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