The Hidden Mission Forum
Next President of the United Fates of America - Printable Version

+- The Hidden Mission Forum (
+-- Forum: Straight Talk on Anomalous Topics (
+--- Forum: Tell us about it... (
+--- Thread: Next President of the United Fates of America (/showthread.php?tid=6821)

RE: Next President of the United Fates of America - rhw007 - 12-11-2016

It wasn't the Russians, CIA or anyone else, Seth Rich was on his way to FBI Interview

He had all his PERSONAL belongings, but no 'briefcase', or folder of papers, to bring to the interview.

Looks like like another Vince Foster "suicide".

Bob... Ninja Alien2


The above is ANOTHER avenue that is not considered.  The CIA and DOD are BOTH at war against each other, neither are answering to Obama and CIA WANTS the Syrian War to Continue, and DOD does not, neither does the NSA.

Remember this:

[Image: clark-after-911-regime-change-7countries-5years.jpeg]

And WHERE are ALL the "Hot Spots" right now?  ALL of those mentioned based on "FAKE NEWS"
  Doh Assimilated

FAKE NEWS has ALWAYS been 'assimilated' by the CIA.


RE: Next President of the United Fates of America - Wook - 12-11-2016

[Image: 15327294_10155234760956686_2452526443270...e=58E8CDD1]

If ?
El Supremo or Hillary
had Any Flipping Evidence of Russia hacking DNC
we would already would be in a Full scale War with Russia .


This " Administration "
has been Full of Shit
since Day One .

RE: Next President of the United Fates of America - Wook - 12-12-2016

Saw this story many times last night .
Quote:Former UK ambassador Craig Murray is calling “bullsh*t” on claims that Russia hacked the DNC in an effort to help Donald Trump win the election, asserting that he met the DNC leaker and that he wasn’t Russian.

Despite the Washington Post admitting that there was no conclusive evidence the Kremlin directed the hacker who leaked the DNC emails and the subsequent Podesta emails, the mainstream media is going wild with the baseless conspiracy theory that Putin helped Trump defeat Clinton in a bid to de-legitimize Trump or even force another vote.

“I know who leaked them,” Murray told the Guardian. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider.”

Hillary Clinton and CIA are staging a coup against Donald Trump

Since election day, Democrats have engaged in a panicked attempt to leverage their last couple of weeks in control of the executive branch to delegitimize the Trump presidency.  Obama has even gone so far as to order a "full report" on Russian tampering in the 2016 election cycle to be completed before he leaves office (see "A "Soft Coup" Attempt: Furious Trump Slams "Secret" CIA Report Russia Helped Him Win").  Of course, we should simply ignore the fact that a true investigation of such allegations would take much longer than the one month that Obama has left in office because any delay could run the risk of a bipartisan/independent review and that's just not how the Obama administration plays the game.

But at least one investigative agency, the FBI, isn't buying the "fuzzy and ambiguous" assertions from the CIA that Russia "quite" clearly meddled in the U.S. elections on behalf of the Trump campaign.  Meanwhile, the FBI's unwillingness to play along is infuriating Democrats.  Per the BizPac Review

The FBI did not corroborate the CIA’s claim that Russia had a hand in the election of President-elect Donald Trump in a meeting with lawmakers last week.
A senior FBI counterintelligence official met with Republican and Democrat members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in order to give the bureau’s view of a recent CIA report. The official did not concur with the CIA, frustrating Democrats.
The CIA believes Russia “quite” clearly intended to send Trump to the White House. The claim is a bold one and concerned Democrats and some Republicans who are worried about Trump’s desire to mend relations with an increasingly aggressive Russia. The CIA report was “direct, bold and unqualified,” one of the officials at the meeting told The Washington Post Saturday.
The FBI official was much less convinced of the claims, providing “fuzzy” and “ambiguous” remarks.
The Washington Post compiled the following comments from the weekend talk show circuit highlighting where various DC players stand on the Russia allegations.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post also points out that the whole disagreement likely comes down to "cultural" differences between the FBI and CIA.  Apparently the FBI "wants facts and tangible evidence to prove something" while the CIA is "more comfortable drawing inferences." 

The competing messages, according to officials in attendance, also reflect cultural differences between the FBI and the CIA. The bureau, true to its law enforcement roots, wants facts and tangible evidence to prove something beyond all reasonable doubt. The CIA is more comfortable drawing inferences from behavior.
“The FBI briefers think in terms of criminal standards — can we prove this in court,” one of the officials said. “The CIA briefers weigh the preponderance of intelligence and then make judgment calls to help policymakers make informed decisions. High confidence for them means ‘we’re pretty damn sure.’ It doesn’t mean they can prove it in court.”
The FBI is not sold on the idea that Russia had a particular aim in its meddling. “There’s no question that [the Russians’] efforts went one way, but it’s not clear that they have a specific goal or mix of related goals,” said one U.S. official.

Well, that certainly seems reasonable...who needs "facts and tangible evidence" when the CIA can just "draw inferences"...they're supposedly really smart so we should probably just believe them.

RE: Next President of the United Fates of America - rhw007 - 12-12-2016

Hillary was FAKING the usual

Bob... Ninja Alien2

RE: Next President of the United Fates of America - Wook - 12-12-2016

The CIA , Press , and Hillary 
are a Team after Years of Political Hacks and Shills
and they know very well the Charges / Indictments that may come with a Trump President in Office

They don't want to Hang
and will do whatever it takes not to hang
on the other hand
if God is in Trump's corner
I like his chances .


Quote: Ninja    It's all those "White supremacists" from Russia Now .Lol !!!!!!!!!!!!

Jet Bond-Girl
Russians didn't write their emails, leak them, delete them, destroy them with hammers, or short-circuit. Who cares how they were exposed. What matters is that there's evil in the Democratic Party and they need to be held accountable. By the way, NO ONE has forgotten about the Weiner/Huma emails. It's simply a RED-HERRING.

James Bray
And when Trump takes office he is going to have an investigation of Mexico interfering in the election by flooding us with illegal aliens to vote in Saudi Arabia influencing the election by funding the Hillary campaign illegally and buying off the news media

RE: Next President of the United Fates of America - Wook - 12-13-2016

Quote:December 12, 2016
The CIA Never Ever Lies
by David Swanson

At moments like these, when every good responsible and enlightened liberal is recognizing the need to destroy the world in order to save it, by getting World War III started with Russia before Trump can move in and damage anything, I believe it is important to remember a few facts that will strengthen our resolve:

The oligarch who owns the Washington Post has CIA contracts worth at least twice what he paid to buy the Washington Post, thus making the Washington Post the most reliable authority on the CIA we have ever, ever had.

When the CIA concludes things in secret that are reported to the Washington Post by anonymous sources the reliability of the conclusions is heightened exponentially.

Phrases like “individuals with connections to the Russian government” are simply shorthand for “Vladimir Putin” because the Washington Post has too much good taste to actually print that name.

Claims to know extremely difficult things to know, like the motivations of said individuals, are essentially fact, given what we know of the CIA’s near perfect record over the decades.

Getting this wrong, much less questioning something or asking to see any evidence, would endanger us all and threaten innocent children with having false statements made about them in a Russian accent.

The fact that the group of people producing our information is referred to as “the Intelligence Community” means it is intelligent and communal, while the fact that people within that community refused to go along with its claims or allow them to become a so-called national intelligence estimate means that there are traitors right in the heart of our holy warriors’ sanctuary.

If you doubt that the CIA is always, always right you need only focus your attention on the fact that there are Republicans questioning these claims, including Republicans who are terrible people, on top of which Donald Trump is a racist, sexist pig.

Good people are loyal Democrats, and when the Democrats did the thing that we now know was revealed by Putin in order to make Trump president (namely cheating its politically and morally superior candidate out of its nomination) that was done as a generous sacrifice for us and our children.

Claims made without public evidence have never turned out to be false or exaggerated in the slightest in the past, certainly not in Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Vietnam, Nicaragua, or any other part of the earth.

When I looked into every past war and discovered that they were always preceded by lies, it was because I had secret psychic information that at some future date Vladimir would reward me. I should wait patiently for his payment and then report it to the CIA/Washington Post.

Join the debate on Facebook

David Swanson wants you to declare peace at  His new book isWar No More: The Case for Abolition.

RE: Next President of the United Fates of America - Wook - 12-13-2016

Game On.
[/url][Image: safe_image.php?d=AQC1HvOMKYIR1pPU&w=476&...640&sh=335]

It’s Official: Donald Trump Selects Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State

RE: Next President of the United Fates of America - Vianova - 12-13-2016

As I have said many times,
I for one believe that the the Russian govt. was the shadow behind the Hillary Clowndation hacks.
in my last post bottom of last page,
I somewhat echo the material in Wook's last post, 
as I demanded solid evidence and nothing less.

wook last post
Quote:When the CIA concludes things in secret that are reported to the Washington Post 
by anonymous sources
the reliability of the conclusions is heightened exponentially.

Phrases like “individuals with connections to the Russian government” 
are simply shorthand for “Vladimir Putin” 
because the Washington Post has too much good taste to actually print that name.

In addition, many of the Russian groups identified as the hackers,
are about as tangible for the public to understand as a TV show with sound problems and no video stream.

The CIA is only making things worse for themeselves with their vague accusations,
not backed by any concrete results.

Obama today states that the public should be more concerned about the Russian hacks.

Well excuse us,
we have to deal with hacks on a daily basis to keep our computers from being fried.

Perhaps our not so tearless leader Obama should have backed the true Democratic candidate:
Bernie Sanders,
instead of the cesspool of corruption in the Clinton Clowndation.

Clinton's nomination threw away a huge sector of the voting population who saw a wall of corruption,
and decided not to care about voting.
Obama shot himself in the foot,
and wants to blame the public for not being concerned about Russian hacks.

The reason there are so many HACKS Whip
in both government,
and in the public sector --- aka --- yours and mine ... computers,
is that the entire computer manufacturing technology by companies like MICROSOFT,
design the systems to be hacked by the NSA Whip

So you cannot just blame Putin,
your NSA inspired national public surveillance infrastructure,
is really the sole originated source of all our computer problems.

Clean up and clean out the corruption at Microsoft that designs back doors for the NSA,
and sells you computers designed to be hacked by the Surveillance State.

The problem is not with Russian hackers,
the problem is with ANY hacking of any computer systems public or private,
and the lack of protection,
built into the entire computer industry manufacturing creating a useless virus protection industry. 

Facebook is a national symbol of the S.urveillance S.tate,
and the ability of hackers to gain access into your computer via FB is appalling.

As a matter of fact,
the true nature of Yak Facebook 
is such that the management infrastructure at Facebook,
is probably behind a good portion of the hacks and blocking of people's freedom of speech,
so that they can offer:
the 200$ protection package --- to protect FB users from hacks.

In that regard, it is no surprise that the CIA has nothing better to say than:

Quote: “individuals with connections to the Russian government” 

... because they may also be behind some percentage of the hacks,
or played along with foreign government hacks as a venue of misdirection and control in later bullshit.

It is the NSA that is to blame in the long run for being ineffective at hacking controls,
by guaranteeing that system of computer hacking to be installed into all computer systems,
in collusion with computer software whore corporations like MICROSOFT,
and Russia simply said ... 
thank you, 
we can play that game too.

If the NSA and the US government wants to leave their pants down at their ankles,
somebody is going to look up their ass.

The NSA and the S.urveillance S.tate wants everybody's pants down at their ankles,
so that they can look up all our asses.

Until that mindset is changed,
nothing changes,
and in the long run it is the US public that continually gets fucked with HACKS,
all initiated by NSA and Microsoft collusion,
in creating the S.urveillance S.uper S.tate.

These NSA and CIA Nazis need their own SSS flag. 
Two S's ... SS ... aren't enough for the 21st century Surveillance State Nazi.

Pointing at Putin to cover up their inefficiencies caused by corruption and collusion,
with computer software companies like Microsoft,'
and surveillance venues like Facebook,
the public is fed up,
the public isn't stupid anymore,
and that is why the public doesn't vote in plausible numbers anymore,
lack of trust,
in the shadow government of national surveillance and their hypocrisy. 

They {CIA and NSA} only have themselves to blame for any Russian hacks,
which is why the CIA is trying to mouthwash their bad breath with the current bullshit.

Show us the Money,
Show us the true evidence,
or shut the fuck up, CIA Whip


RE: Next President of the United Fates of America - Wook - 12-13-2016

James Clapper's Office: CIA wrong on Russia and Clinton leaks

James Clapper's Office says CIA claim Russia behind DNC and Podesta leaks to…


RE: Next President of the United Fates of America - Wook - 12-13-2016

Quote:Unlike the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which is a domestic security service, CIA has no law enforcement function and is mainly focused on overseas intelligence gathering, with only limited domestic collection. Though it is not the only U.S. government agency specializing in HUMINT, CIA serves as the national manager for coordination and deconfliction of HUMINT activities across the entire intelligence community. Moreover, CIA is the only agency authorized by law to carry out and oversee covert action on behalf of the President, unless the President determines that another agency is better suited for carrying out such action.[6][7][8][9] It can, for example, exert foreign political influence through its tactical divisions, such as the Special Activities Division.[10]
CIA is out of line messing in a USA Election !

RE: Next President of the United Fates of America - Wook - 12-14-2016

LOL !!!!!

Establishment Media have lost their collective minds.
"Vanity Fair concludes that Donald Trump won because angry American white men fell in love with Vladimir Putin -- and Russian women."
[/url][Image: safe_image.php?d=AQC6BDETO8XIN9oT&w=476&...280&sh=670]

Vanity Fair: White Trump Voters Wanted 'Submissive' Russian Women

Tp Pennywise Tp

RE: Next President of the United Fates of America - Wook - 12-14-2016

This is on TV now

[Image: safe_image.php?d=AQCGbuQ6MCbM5WmC&w=476&...640&sh=335]
Mike Morell, Cited in ‘Russia Hacking’ Stories, Works for Longtime Clinton Aide Phillippe Reines

RE: Next President of the United Fates of America - Wook - 12-15-2016
Quote:The House Intelligence Committee abruptly canceled a briefing set for Thursday on alleged Russian interference in the U.S. election, after the CIA declined to provide a briefer for the session, Fox News is told.

Amid concerns about reports that conflict with details previously provided to the committee, Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., had requested a closed, classified briefing Thursday for committee Republican and Democratic members from the FBI, CIA, Office of the Director of National Intelligence and National Security Agency.

But Fox News is told the CIA declined citing its focus on the full review requested by President Obama, and the other agencies did not respond to the committee’s request, which is unusual given the panel is the most-senior committee with jurisdiction.

"It is unacceptable that the Intelligence Community directors would not fulfill the House Intelligence Committee’s request to be briefed tomorrow on the cyber-attacks that occurred during the presidential campaign," Nunes said in a statement. "The Committee is deeply concerned that intransigence in sharing intelligence with Congress can enable the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes."

Nunes also had given the agencies until Friday to address conflicts in the record.

In response to Fox News' initial report, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), which oversees all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies, issued a statement claiming that lawmakers from both parties have received "extensive, detailed classified and unclassified briefings ... since last summer and have continued to do so after Election Day."

"Last week, the President ordered a full Intelligence Community review of foreign efforts to influence recent Presidential elections – from 2008 to present," the statement added. "Once the review is complete in the coming weeks, the Intelligence Community stands ready to brief Congress—and will make those findings available to the public consistent with protecting intelligence sources and methods. We will not offer any comment until the review is complete."

A Washington Post report Friday, citing anonymous sources, said the CIA determined Russia interfered in the election with the purpose of helping Trump’s campaign. But, as Nunes first noted in a letter Monday, DNI James Clapper told their committee on Nov. 17 that the intelligence community lacked strong evidence connecting Russia to the WikiLeaks disclosures.

Nunes wrote, “According to new press reports, this is no longer the CIA’s position … I was dismayed that we did not learn earlier, from you directly about the reported conflicting assessments and the CIA’s reported revision of information previously conveyed to this Committee.”

Separately, Fox News has learned additional details about the “full review” President Obama ordered from his intelligence agencies regarding Russian interference.

The review is being led by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and is a multi-agency effort. Investigators plan to take existing intelligence and reconstruct what happened.

Fox News is told one focus is on whether there is new intelligence that substantiates analysis the interference was designed to ensure a Trump victory, or whether a review of the existing intelligence with “fresh eyes” leads to new conclusions.

Some lawmakers, on both sides of the aisle, have backed calls for a separate congressional investigation, voicing concern that Obama’s intelligence agencies might not be able to conduct a thorough review before he leaves office.
The White House has backed calls for a congressional review as well, while joining Democrats in reviving criticism of the Trump campaign’s alleged Russia connections.

Given statements from the White House, Fox News is told there is considerable pressure on the intelligence community to declassify as much of the findings as possible before Jan. 20, when Trump is set to take the oath of office.

Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Herridge joined FNC in 1996 as a London-based correspondent.

RE: Next President of the United Fates of America - rhw007 - 12-15-2016

It was the NSA that leaked the "hacks", so it wasn't really a "hack" as more like "PAYBACK" to Clinton and her Foundation for Libya, Syria, and likely 911 ... if they only would make a BIG dump but NOT to wikileaks, a zionist/cia front.

Put it all DVDs and send them to me, I'll make it ALL available for free.  Pre-paid until 2022.

Want to make a difference NSA, tell us about Aliens walking amoung us, TRB3, free electricity, start making Space Machines instead of WAR machines...much better economy and less fighting.

Trust'll work. Angel 

Bob... Ninja Alien2

RE: Next President of the United Fates of America - Mayito7777 - 12-15-2016


Judge Napolitano: Election Fraud in Detroit Looks 'Organized, and Government Involved'

Jill Stein's recount efforts in Michigan have uncovered what looks like systemic election fraud in Detroit, where roughly 95% of the votes cast were cast for Hillary Clinton. Sixty percent of precincts in Wayne County had to be disqualified from the statewide recount because of "irregularities." According to Fox News judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano, those irregularities look "organized" and "government involved."

County records prepared at the request of The Detroit News after ballot irregularities were discovered revealed that 37 percent of Detroit precincts registered more votes than voters during the election.

(I dont know this agency so I dont know if this is a true news or not, but if it is, I wonder how many other areas where Hellary won incurred in the same fraud)

RE: Next President of the United Fates of America - Wook - 12-15-2016

Georgia asks Trump to investigate ‘failed cyberattacks’


RE: Next President of the United Fates of America - EA - 12-15-2016

EXCLUSIVE: Ex-British ambassador who is now a WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Clinton emails - they were handed over to him at a D.C. park by an intermediary for 'disgusted' Democratic whistleblowers
  • Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and associate of Julian Assange, told the  he flew to Washington, D.C. for emails

  • He claims he had a clandestine hand-off in a wooded area near American University with one of the email sources 

  • The leakers' motivation was 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the  'tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders'

  • Murray says: 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks'

  • 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that,' Murray insists

  • Murray is a controversial figure who was relieved of his post as British ambassador amid allegations of misconduct but is close to Wikileaks
By Alana Goodman In Washington, Dc For
PUBLISHED: 20:33 GMT, 14 December 2016 UPDATED: 23:01 GMT, 14 December 2016
A Wikileaks envoy today claims he personally received Clinton campaign emails in Washington D.C. after they were leaked by 'disgusted' whisteblowers - and not hacked by Russia.

Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, told that he flew to Washington, D.C. for a clandestine hand-off with one of the email sources in September.

'Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,' said Murray in an interview with on Tuesday. 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.'

His account contradicts directly the version of how thousands of Democratic emails were published before the election being advanced by U.S. intelligence. 

[Image: 3B60B7B700000578-4034038-image-a-17_1481744093884.jpg]
[Image: 3B60B7E100000578-4034038-image-m-16_1481744071536.jpg]

Craig Murray (left), former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange (right), told the that he flew to Washington, D.C. for a clandestine hand-off with one of the email sources in September

Murray is a controversial figure who was removed from his post as a British ambassador amid allegations of misconduct. He was cleared of those but left the diplomatic service in acrimony. 

His links to Wikileaks are well known and while his account is likely to be seen as both unprovable and possibly biased, it is also the first intervention by Wikileaks since reports surfaced last week that the CIA believed Russia hacked the Clinton emails to help hand the election to Donald Trump.

Murray's claims about the origins of the Clinton campaign emails comes as U.S. intelligence officials are increasingly confident that Russian hackers infiltrated both the Democratic National Committee and the email account of top Clinton aide John Podesta. 

In Podesta's case, his account appeared to have been compromised through a basic 'phishing' scheme, the New York Times reported on Wednesday.

U.S. intelligence officials have reportedly told members of Congress during classified briefings that they believe Russians passed the documents on to Wikileaks as part of an influence operation to swing the election in favor of Donald Trump.

But Murray insisted that the DNC and Podesta emails published by Wikileaks did not come from the Russians, and were given to the whistleblowing group by Americans who had authorized access to the information.

'Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,'  Murray said. 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.'

He said the leakers were motivated by 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.'

Murray said he retrieved the package from a source during a clandestine meeting in a wooded area near American University, in northwest D.C. He said the individual he met with was not the original person who obtained the information, but an intermediary. 

[Image: 3B60B7C800000578-4034038-image-a-2_1481738125694.jpg]
Murray claims he met with the person who passed the emails over in a Washington, D.C. part near American University

His account cannot be independently verified but is in line with previous statements by Wikileaks - which was the organization that published the Podesta and DNC emails.

Wikileaks published the DNC messages in July and the Podesta messages in October. The messages revealed efforts by some DNC officials to undermine the presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders, who was running against Hillary Clinton. 

Others revealed that Clinton aides were concerned about potential conflicts and mismanagement at the Clinton Foundation.

Murray declined to say where the sources worked and how they had access to the information, to shield their identities. 

He suggested that Podesta's emails might be 'of legitimate interest to the security services' in the U.S., due to his communications with Saudi Arabia lobbyists and foreign officials.

Murray said he was speaking out due to claims from intelligence officials that Wikileaks was given the documents by Russian hackers as part of an effort to help Donald Trump win the U.S. presidential election.

'I don't understand why the CIA would say the information came from Russian hackers when they must know that isn't true,' he said. 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that.'

Murray was a vocal critic of human rights abuses in Uzbekistan while serving as ambassador between 2002 and 2004, a stance that pitted him against the UK Foreign Office. 

He describes himself as a 'close associate' of Julian Assange and has spoken out in support of the Wikileaks founder who has faced rape allegations and is currently confined to the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

Assange has similarly disputed that charges that Wikileaks received the leaked emails from Russian sources.

'The Clinton camp has been able to project a neo-McCarthyist hysteria that Russia is responsible for everything,' Assange told John Pilger during an interview in November. 

'Hillary Clinton has stated multiple times, falsely, that 17 US intelligence agencies had assessed that Russia was the source of our publications. That's false – we can say that the Russian government is not the source.'

[Image: 3B5B68F800000578-4034038-image-a-10_1481740039899.jpg]
Murray suggested that John Podesta's emails might be 'of legitimate interest to the security services' in the U.S., due to his communications with Saudi Arabia lobbyists and foreign officials

The Washington Post reported last Friday that U.S. intelligence agencies had 'identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails.'

The paper said U.S. senators were presented with information tying Russia to the leaks during a recent briefing by intelligence officials.

'It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia's goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,' a senior U.S. official familiar with the briefing told the Post. 'That's the consensus view.'

The paper said U.S. senators were presented with information tying Russia to the leaks during a recent briefing by intelligence officials.

'It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia's goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,' a senior U.S. official familiar with the briefing told the Post. 'That's the consensus view.
The Obama administration has been examining Russia's potential role in trying to influence the presidential election. Officials said Russians hacked the Republican National Committee, but did not release that information in a deliberate effort to damage Clinton and protect Donald Trump.
Several congressional committees are also looking into the suspected Russian interference.
While there is a consensus on Capitol Hill that Russia hacked U.S. political groups and officials, some Republicans say it's not clear whether the motive was to try to swing the election or just to collect intelligence.
'Now whether they intended to interfere to the degree that they were trying to elect a certain candidate, I think that's the subject of investigation,' said Sen. John McCain on CBS Face the Nation. 'But facts are stubborn things, they did hack into this campaign.'
President elect Donald Trump raised doubts about the reports and said this was an 'excuse' by Democrats to explain Clinton's November loss.
'It's just another excuse. I don't believe it,' said Trump on Fox News Sunday.

Read more: 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

RE: Next President of the United Fates of America - Wook - 12-15-2016
A Message for Electors to Unite For America


RE: Next President of the United Fates of America - Wook - 12-15-2016

Quote:Source: Moon of Alabama

  • There is an "elite" coup attempt underway against the U.S. President-elect Trump.
  • The coup is orchestrated by the camp of Hillary Clinton in association with the CIA and neoconservative powers in Congress.
  • The plan is to use the CIA's "Russia made Trump the winner" nonsense to swing the electoral college against him. The case would then be bumped up to Congress. Major neocon and warmonger parts of the Republicans could then move the presidency to Clinton or, if that fails, put Trump's vice president-elect Mike Pence onto the throne. The regular bipartisan war business, which a Trump presidency threatens to interrupt, could continue.
  • Should the coup succeed violent insurrections in the United States are likely to ensue with unpredictable consequences.
The above theses are thus far only a general outlay. No general plan has been published. The scheme though is pretty obvious by now.

The priority aim is to deny Trump the presidency. He is too independent and a danger for several power centers within the ruling U.S. power circles. These are:
  • The CIA which has become the Central Assassination Agency under the Bush and Obama administrations. Huge parts of its budgets depend on a continuation of the war on Syria and the drone assassination campaigns in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere. Trump's more isolationist policies would likely end these campaigns and the related budget troughs.
  • The weapons industry which could lose its enormous sales to its major customers in the Persian Gulf should a President Trump reduce U.S. interference in the Middle East and elsewhere.
  • The neoconservatives and Likudniks who want the U.S. as Israel's weapon to strong arm the Middle East to the Zionists benefit.
  • The general war hawks, military and "humanitarian interventionists" to whom any reduction of the U.S. role as primary power in the world is anathema to their believes.
The current CIA director Brennan, a leading figure of the CIA torture program and Obama consigliere, is in the Clinton/anti-Trump camp. The former CIA heads Hayden and Panetta are public Clinton supporters as is torturer king and former CIA deputy director Michael Morell.

It is thereby no wonder that the CIA is leading the anti-Russian campaign. Its task now is to implant the idea in the U.S. public that Russian intervention skewed the U.S. election towards Trump. The purpose is the delegitimization of the Trump victory in the eyes of the media and public but even more so in the eyes of the electors within the electoral college.

The CIA is heavily supported by the same mainstream media that pushed for Clinton during the election. (These are, not by chance, also the same media that pushed the CIA's earlier "Saddam's Weapon of Mass Destruction" campaign.)
The Democratic partisan and Harvard law Professor Lawrence Lessig is pushing the electors and offers them free personal legal support. He says the electoral college vote is now close.

Could 37 Republican electors, put there  by voters in their states to vote for Trump, be convinced to move from electing Trump to abstain or vote for someone else, Trump would miss the needed 270 votes. The whole election of the president would then by kicked over to the House of Representatives.

Should the electors vote for Trump there is still a possibility that members of the House and the Senate could officially question that vote and cause delays or Congressional probes and legal challenges.
Here are the detailed general proceedings and specifics for the electoral college as explained by the National Archives and Records Administration.

Though neoconservatives have no genuine support within the U.S. electorate they have a strong hold on significant parts of Congress and the relevant MSM commentariat. Many leading neoconservatives and war hawks like Robert Kagan, Max Boot and the Washington Post editorial board came out for Clinton during the campaign. Clinton even ran campaign advertisements with Republican Congress luminaries like Lindsay Graham, Sasse and Flake.

The House and the Senate majority may well be on the anti-Trump side if push comes to shove. But whatever the outcome there surely would be intense legal challenges and I expect the case to go up to the Supreme Court.

As an alternative to legal shenanigans Trump's inauguration could be delayed by Obama's order to the intelligence community to create a formal review of Russian intervention in the election by January 20.

By ordering a “full review” of allegations of Russian into the 2016 election process, President Barack Obama is essentially asking the IC to make an analytical judgment about the validity of the election that will place Trump in the Oval Office.
A compromise in Congress could be to wait for the Intelligence Communities analysis and then discuss it before certifying Trump as president. That would end up with no result as National Intelligence Estimates are notoriously vague. Meanwhile the Vice President-elect would sit in as acting President:

If the President-elect fails to qualify before inauguration, Section 3 of the 20th Amendment states that the Vice President-elect will act as President until such a time as a President has qualified.

If the congressional or legal process around the Trump election gets delayed, that may be a state for a long time. The ruling Washington blob or borg could well live with an acting President Pence while Trump would have no official say in any government business. (Could Clinton then become acting VP or qualify as the new president?)
The media intervention on the anti-Trump side is heavy.

But first keep in mind that there is no public evidence, ZERO, that Russia indeed had anything to do with the DNC or Podesta or other leaks and the publication of emails by various outlets like Wikileaks.

Craig Murray assures us that he knows that these were not hacks but insider leaks and that he knows the leaker(s). Former intelligence officials including the technically very knowledgeable former NSA official William Binney concur that the hacking story is false.

All we have heard or seen so far are hearsay rumors and allegations of evidence. To me as experienced IT professional the case is technically laughable just as Murray explains here. If the claimed hacks occurred at all the alleged methods were so common that anybody could have done these. There is not even one claimed fact yet that is halfway acceptable as evidence that "Russia did it".

But still the NYT runs a big package of pieces telling us that "Russia did it" based on the non-factual CIA rumors and unprofessional IT assertions by Crowdstrike, a self-promoting IT security company the DNC hired and paid. Before that the Washington Post published major claims of Russian interference by anonymous officials. NBC News now tops that with "intelligence officials" saying Putin himself ran the hacking campaign. Authors of the story are the long time insider hacks

Bill Arkin and Ken Dilanian known for clearing his stories with the CIA before publishing. The next story will tells us that Vladimir Valdimirovich himself was punching the keyboard.
Many news outlets and editorials follow these "leads".

Part of the scheme the Clinton campaign has worked out was explained by a former opposition research consultant to the Democratic National Council, the Ukrainian-American Alexandra (aka Andrea) Chalupa, in this thread:

Andrea Chalupa ‏@AndreaChalupa Dec 11
1.) Electoral College meets Dec. 19. If Electors ignore #StateOfEmergency we're in, & Trump gets elected, we can stop him Jan. 6 in Congress
2.) If any objections to Electoral College vote are made, they must be submitted in writing, signed by at least 1 House member & 1 Senator
3.) If objections are presented, House & Senate withdraw to their chambers to consider their merits under procedures set out in federal law.
Editorials and op-eds in the major papers are pushing the scheme along. Just for example from a long list A.J. Dionne in the Washington Post:

The CIA’s finding that Russia actively intervened in our election to make Trump president is an excellent reason for the electors to consider whether they should exercise their independent power. At the very least, they should be briefed on what the CIA knows, and in particular on whether there is any evidence that Trump or his lieutenants were engaged with Russia during the campaign

The New York Times editorial laments about Trump ridiculing the CIA fairy tales it promotes.

Many people who have voted for Trump would be disgusted and outraged if or when Trump will be denied his office. Many of them are armed and would protest. Violence is ensured should the coup succeed.

Trump selected four former generals to joins his cabinet and staff. Should the troubles escalate we might be roughly in for a scenario as laid out in the 1992 military paper: The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012 (pdf) by Charles J. Dunlap.

RE: Next President of the United Fates of America - Vianova - 12-16-2016

Only three personalities on the news today as the TV media saint or sinner du jour,
and two of them were vilified endlessly.
That would be Putin and Trump of course.

Obama clawed his way back on stage by priming tomorrow's speech for hacking retaliation on Russia.
Obama thought that Clinton would win the election anyways back when the hacks were apparent,
and they had a plan to let Hillary play the post election Putin apocalypse card,
but Trump stole the election. 

A roller coaster carnival ride in Babylon every day on CNN.

The sabotaging of the promantic bromance Whip
of the Trump - Putin ...
make peace and make money parade of movie monarch personality syndromes,
is in full swing tomorrow with Obama's speech.

Obama pretending to be a tough guy like he was with Assad and the Red Line of Nonsense,
is going to try and make up for all the lame dog and weak nig' attributions in the media against him,
and his lack of strength with Putin. 

Trump is trying to ride his tidal wave on the TV while squeezing in Cabinet picks,
while Putin relaxes in a heated swimming pool somewhere with a cool vodka drink that has an unbrella in it.

Putin and Obama's speech on Russian hacking.
Trump's twitter finger is already itchy. Lol

eye see you
[Image: 564cd3742e3e6.jpg]

Putin telling Obama a Chinese chicken joke
[Image: 1027532507.jpg]

McCain called him a killer the other day,
Putin posing in a 21st century art show.
[Image: putin-psycho1.jpg]

Obama has his speech ready
[Image: the-good-the-bad-and-the-dumbass.jpg?w=630&h=738]

Putin in the Kremlin Comedy Clown Hour on national TV
[Image: 6a00d83451af9f69e2019aff6e2fe5970b-500wi]

[Image: 6a00d8341c72e153ef01bb07a5009f970d-600wi]

[Image: aa8e1693-0efe-480d-9d00-e1e2db73df35.jpg]


RE: Next President of the United Fates of America - Wook - 12-16-2016

Insider: Democrats Intend To Overturn The Election


Loretta Lynch: We Didn't See Any "Technical Interference" From Russia In The Election

“Fortunately we didn’t see the sort of technical interference that I know people had concerns about, also, in terms of voting machines and the like,” Lynch said.

RE: Next President of the United Fates of America - Wook - 12-16-2016

What the CIA is really mad about is Trump put the agency on notice that they’re fired from being the sacred cow on intelligence gathering, and he’s not going to rely solely on the CIA for information

RE: Next President of the United Fates of America - Wook - 12-16-2016


RE: Next President of the United Fates of America - EA - 12-16-2016

[Image: michelle-obama-450x270.jpg?itok=A1t4l4sw][Image: michelle-obama-right-hand-300x196.jpg][Image: 5756683_f520.jpg]
Forensic technique reveals sex of prehistoric hand stencil artists
December 13, 2016

[Image: forensictech.jpg]
Credit: University of Liverpool
Prehistoric ancestors creating human hand stencils in caves 40,000 years ago can now be identified as male or female with more than 90% accuracy.

Read more at:

Forensic evidence largely not supported by sound science – now what?
December 7, 2016 by Jessica Gabel Cino, The Conversation

[Image: forensicevid.jpg]
Is this worth the tape it’s wrapped with? Credit: Bill Selak, CC BY-ND
Forensic science has become a mainstay of many a TV drama, and it's just as important in real-life criminal trials. Drawing on biology, chemistry, genetics, medicine and psychology, forensic evidence helps answer questions in the legal system. Often, forensics provides the "smoking gun" that links a perpetrator to the crime and ultimately puts the bad guy in jail.

Read more at:

Quote:Is any forensic science valid?

The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology recognized ongoing efforts to improve forensic science in the wake of the 2009 NAS report. Those efforts focused on policy, best practices and research around forensic science, but, as with any huge undertaking, there were gaps. As PCAST noted, forensic science has a validity problem that is in desperate need of attention.

See Yes Eye as my initial stance  LilD
Forensic evidence is hocus-pocus???
At least thatz how the MSM will focus.

CSI are my initials.  Naughty  chance.

Quote:Published on Dec 15, 2016

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio held a press conference where he laid out evidence that he says proves the Obama birth certificate is forged. 
Help us spread the word about the liberty movement, we're reaching millions help us reach millions more. Share the free live video feed link with your friends & family:
Shows like "CSI," "Forensic Files" and "NCIS" cause viewers to be more accepting of forensic evidence. As it's risen to ubiquitous celebrity status, forensic science has become shrouded in a cloak of infallibility and certainty in the public's imagination. It seems to provide definitive answers. Forensics feels scientific and impartial as a courtroom weighs a defendent's possible guilt – looking for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
But the faith the public and the criminal justice system place in forensic science far outpaces the amount of trust it deserves.
For decades, there have been concerns about how the legal system uses forensic science. A groundbreaking 2009 report from the National Academy of Sciences finally drew the curtain back to reveal that the wizardry of forensics was more art than science. The report assessed forensic science's methods and developed recommendations to increase validity and reliability among many of its disciplines.
These became the catalyst that finally forced the federal government to devote serious resources and dollars to an effort to more firmly ground forensic disciplines in science. After that, governmental agencies, forensic science committees and even the Department of Defense responded to the call. Research to this end now receives approximately US$13.4 million per year, but the money may not be enough to prevent bad science from finding its way into courtrooms.

This fall, the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) released its own report on forensic science. It's a more pronounced acknowledgment that the discipline has serious problems that require urgent attention. Some scientific and legal groups are outraged by or doubtful of its conclusions; others have praised them.
As someone who has taught forensic evidence for a decade and dedicated my legal career to working on cases involving forensic science (both good and bad), I read the report as a call to address foundational issues within forensic disciplines and add oversight to the way forensic science is ultimately employed by the end user: the criminal justice system.
Is any forensic science valid?
The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology recognized ongoing efforts to improve forensic science in the wake of the 2009 NAS report. Those efforts focused on policy, best practices and research around forensic science, but, as with any huge undertaking, there were gaps. As PCAST noted, forensic science has a validity problem that is in desperate need of attention.
[Image: 1-forensicevid.jpg]
What does a firing pin indentation on a bullet really tell us? Credit: Macroscopic Solutions, CC BY-NC
PCAST focused on what's colloquially termed "pattern identification evidence" – it requires an examiner to visually compare a crime scene sample to a known sample. PCAST's big question: Are DNA analysis, bite marks, latent fingerprints, firearms identification and footwear analysis supported by reproducible research, and thus, reliable evidence?
They were looking for two types of validity. According to PCAST, foundational validity means the forensic discipline is based on research and studies that are "repeatable, reproducible, and accurate," and therefore reliable. The next step is applied validity, meaning the method is "reliably applied in practice." In other words, for a forensic discipline to produce valid evidence for use in court, there must be (1) reproducible studies on its accuracy and (2) a method used by examiners that is reproducible and accurate.
Among the forensic science they assessed, PCAST found single-sourced DNA analysis to be the only discipline that was valid, both foundationally and as applied. They found DNA mixture evidence – when DNA from more than one person is in a sample, for instance from the victim and the perpetrator, multiple perpetrators or due to contamination – to be only foundationally valid. Same with fingerprint analysis.
Firearms identification had just the potential for foundational validity, but the research that could support it hasn't been done yet. Footwear analysis lacked studies even showing potential for foundational validity. And bite mark analysis has a low chance of achieving any validity; the PCAST report advised "against devoting significant resources" to it.
All these types of evidence are widely used in thousands of trials each year. Many additional cases never even go to trial because this supposedly definitive evidence seems damning and compels defendants to plead guilty. But the lack of reliable science supporting these disciplines undermines the evidence which, in turn, undermines criminal convictions.
Risks of lacking validity
When forensic methods are not validated but nevertheless perceived as reliable, wrongful convictions happen.
For example, the field of forensic odontology presumes that everyone has a unique bite mark. But there's no scientific basis for this assumption. A 2010 study of bite marks from known biters showed that skin deformations distort bite marks so severely that current methods of analysis could not accurately include or exclude a person based on the pattern left by their teeth.
In 1986, Bennie Starks was convicted of rape and other crimes after forensic odontology experts testified he was the source of a bite mark on the victim. In 2006, DNA test results showed Starks could not have been the perpetrator. Starks spent 20 years in prison for a crime he did not commit because of faulty evidence from an unreliable discipline. More recently, the Texas Forensic Science Commission recommended a flat-out ban on bite mark evidence.
[Image: 2-forensicevid.jpg]
What happens if the forensic evidence that convicted you is flimsy? Credit: West Midlands Police, CC BY-SA
Like in Starks' case, questionable forensic evidence plays a significant role in at least half of overturned convictions, according to the Innocence Project. Once a verdict comes in, it becomes a Sisyphean task to undo it – even if newly discovered evidence undermines the original conviction. It's next to impossible for people once convicted to get their cases reconsidered.
At the moment, only two states (Texas and California) permit a defendant to appeal a conviction if the scientific evidence or the expert who testified is later discredited. More laws like these are needed, but it's politically a hard sell to grant more rights and avenues of appeal to convicts. So even if the science is undermined or completely discredited, a prisoner is often at the mercy of a court as it decides whether to grant or deny an appeal.
What should be admissible?
The PCAST report recommended judges consider both the foundational and applied validity of the forensic discipline that produced any evidence before admitting expert testimony. This includes ensuring experts testify to the limitations of the analysis and evidence. For example, the justice system traditionally considers fingerprint evidence as an "identification" – for instance, the thumbprint recovered from the crime scene was made by the defendant's thumb. No one ever testifies that there are little scientific data establishing that fingerprints are unique to individuals. The same holds true for other types of pattern identification evidence such as firearms, toolmarks and tire treads.
The National District Attorneys Association (NDAA) was critical of the PCAST report. It countered that there actually is scientific data validating these forensic fields, but members of PCAST did not adequately consult subject-matter experts. The NADA also worried that if courts required stronger scientific validity before allowing evidence into court, it would hamstring the entire investigative process.
The NADA concluded that judges should continue to be the ones who decide what makes evidence reliable and thus admissible. It asserted that the stringent requirements to become expert witnesses, along with the ability to cross-examine them in court, are enough to guarantee reliable and admissible evidence.
But should the admissibility of scientific processes – which ought to be grounded in their proven ability to produce reliable evidence – be determined by people who lack scientific backgrounds? I would argue no.
Pattern identification evidence shouldn't be excluded from cases wholesale, but forensic evidence needs to be placed into context. When the human eye is the primary instrument of analysis, the court, the attorneys and the jury should be fully aware that certainty is unattainable, human error is possible, and subjectivity is inherent.
Reliance upon the adversary system to prevent wrongful convictions and weed out junk science requires a leap of faith that ultimately undermines the integrity of the criminal justice system. Counting on cross-examination as an effective substitute for scientific rigor and research can't be the answer (although it has been for more than a century).
The PCAST report is yet another wake-up call for the criminal justice system to correct the shortcomings of forensic science. We demand that guilt be proven beyond a reasonable doubt; we should also demand accurate and reliable forensics. Without improvement, we can't trust forensic science to promote justice.
[Image: 1x1.gif] Explore further: There are question marks over much of the forensic evidence used in our courts
Provided by: The Conversation

Read more at:[url=][/url]

RE: Next President of the United Fates of America - rhw007 - 12-17-2016

Another Obama Michelle homo relationship
Oh and another thing about Hillary being behind "birtherism" [url=]

Bob... Ninja Alien2

RE: Next President of the United Fates of America - Vianova - 12-17-2016

I listened to Obama's speech today.
In particular his assessment of his military policy in Syria.

He said that when summing up all the military advice and the political options,
he could see no way to address Syria militarily,
we were all in,
to take the entire country, .... and that it could not be done "on the cheap" .

Well that is exactly right,
exactly what I said needed to be done well over a year ago,
and unless you have the military will to do the job,
and occupy the country,
well ...
we see who has the military will to do the job thus far, 
and Putin is going all in,
and it will be a Russian - Iranian occupation..

Putin is very lucky that he has the US and western coalition air forces degrading ISIS.

US air strikes hit Palmyra today taking out the Russian missile air defense systems,
that ISIS had just captured,
which apparently the Russians didn't take care of on their own initiative.

A fairly large bipartisan agreement is underway on the Russian - Putin hacks,
regardless of true origin or intent.
Trump will have difficulty disregarding the mounting resistance to his support of Putin,
and the mounting calls for investigative exposure of the hacking and eventual retaliation.

Trump is on his Thank You Tour telling good jokes,
but he won't be stopping in Moscow any time soon, 
to see Putin smiling in his Kremlin Klowndation.

Heartbreak Hillary is like shredded pant suit fabric on bloody barbed wire in a cold Russian winter,
while she blames everybody but her herself for her failure and miserable mood.

Bill Clinton is currently the very silent post election pussy Pimp hound.


RE: Next President of the United Fates of America - Wook - 12-17-2016

More states confirm suspected cyberattacks sourced to DHS

by: Aaron Diamant Updated: Dec 16, 2016 - 8:54 AM
Forensics investigation proves Barack Obama’s birth certificate is ‘fake’ (VIDEO)
Sergey Gladysh
Russia to Obama: Put up or Shut Up
Putin calls out the White House for not having any proof of interference

Dear Fellow Patriot,
With Barack Obama just launching an 11th hour dirty trick to ratify the U.N. "Small Arms Treaty" before leaving office, I need your help.
Along with the Treaty being put on the plate of the U.S. Senate, he also followed up with a letter demanding the treaty's ratification and full implementation.
11th hour dirty tricks like this are well known for passing some of the most controversial legislation.
That's why I must count on you to fight back NOW!
Please sign your petition to oppose the U.N. "Small Arms Treaty" right away.
If you can defeat Obama's last minute attempt, we may be able to defeat this anti-American treaty for GOOD.

For Freedom,
[Image: DWBsigBlue2.jpg]
Dudley Brown
National Association for Gun Rights

Petition to Oppose the U.N. "Small Arms Treaty"
To My United States Senators

WHEREAS: The United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment are the Supreme Law of the Land; and,
WHEREAS: Attempts by the United Nations to Subvert or Supersede our Constitutional Rights must be opposed; and,
WHEREAS: The so-called U.N. "Small Arms Treaty" demands International licensing requirements, an International gun registry database, and International ban on all private sales; and,
WHEREAS: Barack Obama recently sent the U.N. "Small Arms Treaty" to the United States Senate, along with a letter demanding its ratification and implementation before he leaves office;
THEREFORE: I urge my United States Senators to oppose and actively fight any ratification efforts, especially in the last few days of the legislative session.

RE: Next President of the United Fates of America - Wook - 12-17-2016
What's Missing From The Russian Hack Argument?
By Ron Paul

Without any proof or evidence being presented that Russia interfered with our election, we're just seeing political grandstanding at this point by both President Obama and Secretary Clinton. Have you noticed that there's never any mention or concern about Secretary Clinton having a private server in her home? If anything, that server would have made it much easier for Russia (or anyone else) to know what was going on with our government.

I discuss this, our CIA's shenanigans, and much more below:

RE: Next President of the United Fates of America - Vianova - 12-17-2016

Proof and pudding are two different things.

The pudding is what Obama is serving.

The implied proof is a consensus among the intelligence departments.

OK, yes the Russians did it,
but you can only eat so much pudding before it tastes like sweet bullshit. 

Like I said many times,
all this hacking is old hat and common place between the US and Russia.

Clinton left her pant suits down at her ankles,
and the Russians showed everybody her asshole.

Not a pretty sight was it?

The burden of proof has to be better than what we have been given.

In the case of something so important,
the proof is not in the pudding.

RE: Next President of the United Fates of America - Wook - 12-17-2016

Quote:The claims that the Russian government hacked US voting machines are absurd. Voting machines are not connected to the Internet. To hack a voting machine you have to be physically in proximity to the machine and use a hand held device. The machines can be programmed to throw the vote count to one candidate or the other, and there are other ways to interfere with elections. Possibly if a foreign power had server presence in the US, some precinct reports of results could be intercepted and altered, although a voice check over the telephone is an easy way to verify the electronic transmission. What is clear is that Russia cannot hack the voting machines.

What about the claims that Russia hacked Hillary’s emails and used a network of 200 Internet websites to convince the American people to vote for Trump? Wikileaks, which released the emails, said they were a leak, not a hack, and that they did not come from Russians. The FBI and the Director of National Intelligence do not support the CIA’s claims. Or should we say claims attributed to the CIA as apparently the source of the claims, like the source of PropOrNot, is unknown.

And look at the size of the alleged conspiracy—the Kremlin and 200 websites. Surely someone would have talked!

John McCain says he is sure Russia did something and we need a congressional investigation to find out what.
Why not start with an investigation of PropOrNot and what they are up to? We also need an investigation why Americans living in big cities on the NE and West coasts were immune to Russian fake news, whereas the geographical bulk of the country succumbed to the Russian fake news instead of to the presstitute fake news that conquered the NE and West coasts.

The FBI says that the claims attributed to the CIA would not stand up in court. So what are the claims all about? Who is behind them? Are there elements within the CIA committing treason by working against president-elect Trump? Are there elements in the US Congress committing treason by trying to sway electors with fake news resting on unattributed claims that the Russians, not the American people, elected Trump? Why these claims in the absence of proof?

What we are experiencing in the delegitimization of Donald Trump is an extraordinary rejection of democracy by elements in the government and by the presstitutes.

RE: Next President of the United Fates of America - Wook - 12-17-2016

Quote:It is odd that the very people who insisted, prior to the election, that Hillary Clinton’s email “mistake” was a non-scandal are now claiming hysterically that a Russian hacking effort tipped the 2016 presidential election to Donald Trump.

The kind of hacking that the White House, the Democratic Party, and much of the mainstream media are suddenly so deeply concerned about is exactly what Hillary Clinton risked by storing classified information on an illicit private email server.

Let us stipulate, for the purposes of discussion, that the Russians are constantly trying to hack both government and private email — as are the Chinese, whose hacking of the Office of Personnel Management in 2015 caused a major security breach.

There is no evidence — none — that Russian hacking affected the voting process. In fact, the recounts initiated by Green Party candidate Jill Stein only reaffirmed the final result in the upper Midwest states where Trump broke through the “Blue Wall.”

The two hacking episodes in question refer to the the Democratic National Committee (DNC) email server, and the hack of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta’s email account. (Wikileaks released both sets of emails, denying Russian involvement.)

Whether the Russians were involved or not, it is arguably true that both email hacks did affect on the election, although it is impossible to quantify exactly what that effect was.

Don’t Blame the Russians

The DNC hack resulted in a public relations crisis for the party on the eve of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. Supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) were enraged that the senior party leadership had evidently colluded with the Clinton campaign to ensure that she won the primary election. Other emails — such as an exchange discussing whether and how to make use of Sanders’ Jewish heritage, or his atheism — also hit the party hard. There were a wave of resignations, and disgruntled Sanders supporters staged a walkout at the convention.

The Podesta hack resulted in a series of daily scandals in the final weeks before the election, some of which implicated the campaign and some of which also tarnished the mainstream media. Trump referred repeatedly to Wikileaks in rally speeches on the campaign trail, and some Trump supporters began to regard Julian Assange as a national hero. (Assange’s role, just a few years ago, in leaking sensitive diplomatic communications — perhaps triggering the Arab Spring — was largely forgotten.)

Then, as now, the Clinton campaign blamed the Russians. But their response to the hacking was rather muted, both because the campaign did not want to give additional air time to the damaging revelations from the DNC and Podesta emails, and also because Democrats were doggedly insisting that Clinton’s email scandal was unimportant. It was, we were told, a mere lapse in judgment that had no national security implications whatsoever. The FBI, after all, said there had been no evidence of any successful hacking.

Experts were skeptical about that claim, and more evidence later emerged of foreign hacking attempts. Regardless, Clinton’s email server exposed crucial classified information to potential hacking by foreign intelligence.

The correct response for Democrats was not to declare, as Sen. Sanders did, that “the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn e-mails,” but to regard Hillary Clinton’s actions — and, more importantly, her lies — as disqualifying.

President-elect Trump has suggested that he might not, after all, pursue the various Clinton scandals once he takes office. That has been a disappointment to some supporters. But the Democrats, who ought to be seizing the opportunity to avoid further embarrassment, are doing their best to make the case for continuing the case by talking up Russian hacking conspiracy theories.

The DNC and Podesta hacks did not involve classified information or national security. Clinton’s email scandal did.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named one of the “most influential” people in news media in 2016. His new book, See No Evil: 19 Hard Truths the Left Can’t Handle, is available from Regnery through Amazon.

Russian Reporter: Does Obama Feel 'Any Responsibility' for US-Russia Relations, Racial Tension, Election Rejection...
By Susan Jones | December 16, 2016 | 7:11 AM EST

( - A Russian reporter named Andre challenged President Obama's leadership Thursday, running down a list of problems that have worsened on Obama's watch, including relations with Russia and racial tensions in America. "Does he feel any responsibility for all this?" the reporter asked.

The answer to Andre's question was predictable. But the question itself was remarkable:

"I've always thought that President Obama is an extremely intelligent and decent person, well-meaning person, OK?" Andre told White House spokesman Josh Earnest

"So my question come if he wanted the U.S.-Russian relations to be a win-win on both sides, we are now in a situation obviously where it is a lose-lose? No matter how we spin it, it's a lose-lose for both of us.

"But this is not the only one. America, in all the eight years, did not have one day where it was completely at peace. There was one war or another, and not all of those wars were inherited by President Obama. And he's a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

"Then, he -- he's like the first African-American president. But the race relations in this country have become worse. Not better, worse. It's also, I -- you know, you say some things are facts. Those are allegations. But I cannot say that it's a fact. It's an impression I get, that they are worse. But many people share this -- this impression.

"Then hacking. America is all of a sudden vulnerable to hacking, after eight years of Obama leadership. How come?

"And of course, the biggest of all is the -- is out of the election. The leadership has been rejected. The preferred candidate has been rejected. So, my question -- to come to the question -- is who's at fault? Who is? Is it Russia that performed all that? Is it because of Russia that the voters in the U.S. rejected the leadership and the legacy?"

RE: Next President of the United Fates of America - Wook - 12-17-2016

Quote:Threatening Electors Violates Federal Law. So Why Isn't Loretta Lynch Doing Anything About It?
By Hans A. von Spakovsky

Manager, Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow
Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies

Before Donald Trump’s stunning victory on November 8, liberals called for acceptance of election results. But since the election didn’t go as they’d planned, some have taken to harassing and intimidating electors in an attempt to change the election results. Some of these threats may violate federal law, yet the Justice Department acts strangely uninterested in investigating.

Following the election, a coalition of liberal activist groups launched #NotMyPresident Alliance, an organization dedicated to fighting the inauguration of President-elect Trump. As part of that effort, #NotMyPresident distributed personal contact information — including telephone numbers and addresses — of electors in states that voted Republican.

According to Buzzfeed, Maddie Deming, a strategist for the group, said they wanted to put electors in the spotlight and “to hold them accountable for their decision.” Whatever the intent, the initiative has produced a deluge of threats.

Electors across the country report receiving not only a flood of emails and phone calls to change their vote to Hillary Clinton but death threats as well. Alex Kim, a Texas Republican elector, reported that he and other electors had “receiv[ed] thousands of emails a day” urging them to vote for Clinton, including threats of harm and death. Arizona’s electors have reported harassment as well.

Michael Banerian, a Michigan GOP elector, received some of the most extreme threats according to The Detroit News. One email, Banerian said, talked about “shoving a gun in my mouth and blowing my brains out.” Another told him to “do society a favor and throw yourself in front of a bus.”

In Georgia and Idaho, the threats have been so extreme that the secretaries of state both released statements calling for the harassment to end. But the federal law enforcement agency that should be acting to stop these threats — the U.S. Department of Justice — has not done a thing.

Section 11b of the Voting Rights Act (52 U.S.C. §10307) makes it a crime for anyone to “intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote.” While this has been applied in the past to ordinary, everyday voters in federal elections, the language does not limit it only to such voters. Electors who are casting their votes for president and vice president are also protected by Section 11b since the Electoral College is an essential part of the federal voting process. This is supported by Section 14© of the VRA, which says that “voting” includes “all action necessary to make a vote effective in any primary, special, or general election.” Obviously, the votes cast by Americans on Nov. 8 will not be effective if the electors they chose are intimidated from casting their votes in the Electoral College.

Federal law (3 U.S.C. §7) requires electors to cast their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday of December, which this year is Dec. 19. These are recorded as “certificates of vote,” signed, sealed, and delivered by December 28 to the president of the Senate and the archivist of the United States (3 U.S.C. §11). Congress is required to meet on Jan. 6, 2017 in joint session to count the Electoral College votes (3 U.S.C. §15).

The Dec. 19 deadline for the electors to cast their votes is less than three weeks away, which makes it essential that the Justice Department act immediately — and very publicly — to deter and stop these threats and this intimidation. Yet the website of the Justice Department’s Office of Public Affairs contains no announcement of an investigation into these threats. Moreover, we can be pretty certain that if investigators had actually contacted any of the threatened electors, it would have been reported in the press by now. The obvious conclusion is that the Justice Department has done nothing to enforce Section 11b against those who have tried to intimidate and who have threatened electors with bodily harm if they vote for Donald Trump.

The U.S. Justice Department, which is charged with protecting all voters, should act to quash this outrage immediately.

Unfortunately, that’s not surprising. After nearly eight years of operation, the Obama administration has yet to file a single Section 11b case. Indeed, shortly after Mr. Obama entered the Oval Office, his Justice Department essentially dismissed almost all of a pending, high-profile Section 11b case concerning voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia.  Under Attorney General Eric Holder, the Civil Rights Division had the open-and-shut case dismissed because its “progressive” new leaders did not believe the Voting Rights Act should be used against black defendants to protect white voters. This radical position ignores the fact that the law is race-neutral and protects all voters.

Seriously, if Hillary Clinton had won and Donald Trump supporters were threatening Clinton electors with bodily injury, does anyone doubt that the Justice Department would have acted immediately to enforce Section 11b?

Making threats and attempting to intimidate electors is as anti-democratic as it gets. The U.S. Justice Department, which is charged with protecting all voters, should act to quash this outrage immediately. Failure to do so will just be further evidence that this Justice Department does not believe in equal protection under the law.
About the Author

Hans A. von SpakovskyManager, Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow
Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies

Related Issues: Elections, Rule of Law

[Image: %2521z%2BHillary-arrest-768x763%2B%252883%2529.jpg]

RE: Next President of the United Fates of America - Wook - 12-17-2016

Donald Trump Will Ruthlessly Decimate the CIA for Turning on Him

NBC and CIA have exceeded all bounds in their attacks on Donald Trump and the Americans who freely elected him their president. They clearly have no idea who they are dealing with

That would be My bet .

Quote:CIA director director John Brennan said “(e)arlier this week, I met separately with FBI (Director) James Comey and DNI Jim

Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election” - even though there was none.