The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

Because a group backs an opponent of combover hair boy doesn't necessarily mean they're in agreement with said opponent. I'd view it as more of an indictment of bore man.

(11-02-2016 10:26 AM)Moomba Wrote:  Because a group backs an opponent of combover hair boy doesn't necessarily mean they're in agreement with said opponent. I'd view it as more of an indictment of bore man.

Here's the People's World, which was the product of the Communist Party USA's West and East Coast Newspapers merged.

http://www.peoplesworld.org

Quote:Comey finds no evidence of intent to disclose. Nothing criminal.

Since when is "determining intent" part of the job description of a law enforcement agent?

Quote:Later the wiki leaks stuff. Stolen info by Russian hackers hoping to get a favorable election result, and entirely possible the material has been altered before release.

"The Russians". The democrats, the neocons, and the MSM keep pushing this narrative.

Maybe it's true. If yes, it would be convenient for all of them.

It's also true that Assange considers HRC a warmonger and he dislikes her intensely:

The "peace candidate"

Has ANYONE produced ANY EVIDENCE proving the Russians are responsible for Wikileaks content?

If yes, wouldn't that be an act of war? Interfering with our elective process would constitute an attack (cyber) on our sovereignty. No?

And if yes, why the tepid response from the highest levels of our government?

Enquiring minds....

Assange is an anarchist and likes the idea of combover bore man in office to bring the system down.

Read the article "FAKE OCTOBER SURPRISE: How doctored propaganda ended up in Donald Trump's hands and mouth" in 10.28.2016 issue of NEWSWEEK and you will find out about Russia's attempts to influence election.

Then, judge for yourself.

(11-02-2016 05:27 PM)MajorHoople Wrote:  Read the article "FAKE OCTOBER SURPRISE: How doctored propaganda ended up in Donald Trump's hands and mouth" in 10.28.2016 issue of NEWSWEEK and you will find out about Russia's attempts to influence election.

Then, judge for yourself.

I read through the article (perhaps too quickly).

There was no mention of ANY connection between the Russians and Assange or Wikileaks.

Did I miss something?

(11-02-2016 05:54 PM)ESSSS Wrote:  Did I miss something?

Apparently so.

The article is not about connections between Assange, Wikileaks, and Trump campaign.

Try again.

(11-02-2016 06:14 PM)MajorHoople Wrote:  The article is not about connections between Assange, Wikileaks, and Trump campaign.

Try again.

Well

This is what I commented on.

Quote:Later the wiki leaks stuff. Stolen info by Russian hackers hoping to get a favorable election result, and entirely possible the material has been altered before release.

And Moomba stayed on topic.

Thanks for the article reference, though.

(11-02-2016 06:33 PM)ESSSS Wrote:  Thanks for the article reference, though.

You're welcome.

Perhaps others who read it slower with a more discerning eye will "get" the point of the article, regardless of their political persuasion.

(11-02-2016 07:01 PM)MajorHoople Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 06:33 PM)ESSSS Wrote:  Thanks for the article reference, though.

You're welcome.

Perhaps others who read it slower with a more discerning eye will "get" the point of the article, regardless of their political persuasion.

So....I'll try again

Has anyone here seen evidence establishing that the Russians are responsible for the Wikileaks material?

Well, Peter Bair reported earlier tonight that there is evidence that some foreign entities hacked Hillary's email servers. Sources say with about a 99% accuracy that the server had been hacked by at least 5 foreign intelligence agencies and they (the sources) believe that things have been taken from the server.



Also an article on the same from Breitbart from back in September. - http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...attackers/

Has anyone established that the Wikileaks from that glorified phisher who fancies himself a hacker are legit?! Why would you trust a thief?!

(11-02-2016 08:45 PM)Moomba Wrote:  Has anyone established that the Wikileaks from that glorified phisher who fancies himself a hacker are legit?! Why would you trust a thief?!

The over-arching issue is that she legally shouldnt have operated an email server outside of the one she was given inside the governments protected network. Thus opening herself up for hackers that didn't need to overcome the hurdles inside that network... thus the presence of that serve alone presented a breach in national security... again... presence alone. And that's already been proven.

The Reports of over 600,000 emails on that laptop is almost unfathomable
.

(11-02-2016 08:45 PM)Moomba Wrote:  Has anyone established that the Wikileaks from that glorified phisher who fancies himself a hacker are legit?! Why would you trust a thief?!

It seems like that would be easy to do for those involved.

Doesn't it ?

I guess Donna Brazile tried for awhile, until CNN (of all people) fired her....LOL.

Wouldn't Podesta and others STRONGLY make that case if it were true? Instead all anyone wants to do is make vague accusations directed toward "those evil Russians".

Without providing ANY evidence.

As for this board, much like when I asked about Hillary's most substantive accomplishments

Crickets.....

(11-03-2016 04:45 AM)ESSSS Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 08:45 PM)Moomba Wrote:  Has anyone established that the Wikileaks from that glorified phisher who fancies himself a hacker are legit?! Why would you trust a thief?!

It seems like that would be easy to do for those involved.

Doesn't it ?

I guess Donna Brazile tried for awhile, until CNN (of all people) fired her....LOL.

Wouldn't Podesta and others STRONGLY make that case if it were true? Instead all anyone wants to do is make vague accusations directed toward "those evil Russians".

Without providing ANY evidence.

As for this board, much like when I asked about Hillary's most substantive accomplishments

Crickets.....

Clinton's most substantive "accomplishment" is not being Donald Trump.

(11-03-2016 04:45 AM)ESSSS Wrote:  

(11-02-2016 08:45 PM)Moomba Wrote:  Has anyone established that the Wikileaks from that glorified phisher who fancies himself a hacker are legit?! Why would you trust a thief?!

It seems like that would be easy to do for those involved.

Doesn't it ?

I guess Donna Brazile tried for awhile, until CNN (of all people) fired her....LOL.

Wouldn't Podesta and others STRONGLY make that case if it were true? Instead all anyone wants to do is make vague accusations directed toward "those evil Russians".

Without providing ANY evidence.

As for this board, much like when I asked about Hillary's most substantive accomplishments

Crickets.....

"Prove I'm not lying". Really now?!

Isn't the burden of proof on the guy doing the "leaking"? I could mock up emails and conversations and dupe the audience in a matter of hours.

Persrod duped you guys here for over two years.

If you had read "THE FAKE OCTOBER SURPRISE: How doctored propaganda ended up in Donald Trumps hands and mouth" you would know the answer(s) to your question.

Seems you choose to ignore it though.

You could mock up 600,000 emails in a matter of seconds?

(11-03-2016 10:54 AM)Nacho Wrote:  You could mock up 600,000 emails in a matter of seconds?

Read much?