Quoted Text

John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who has been floated for a possible role in Donald Trump’s State Department, questioned reports of Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election.


“It is not at all clear to me, just viewing this from the outside, that this hacking into the DNC and the RNC was not a false flag operation,” he told Fox News’ Eric Shawn on Sunday.
When pressed about his use of the phrase “false flag” and whether he was accusing an entity in the U.S. of involvement, Bolton said, “We just don’t know.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/309897-bolton-questions-if-russian-hacks-were-false-flag

Quoted Text

But, “if you think the Russians did this, then why did they leave fingerprints?” that led the CIA to its conclusion, Bolton questioned.

“We would want to know who else might want to influence the election and why they would leave fingerprints that point to the Russians.
That’s why I say until we know more about how the intelligence community came to this conclusion we don’t know whether it is Russian inspired or a false flag."

Quoted from joebxr

Gee, could it be that our tech nerds have a more sophisticated program that can detect the
fingerprints...is it possible our techies are more advanced???? DUH!!!!

Quoted from CICERO

Just not sophisticated or advanced enough to prevent the alleged hack?  

Quoted from joebxr

Ah, my personal troll has jumped in.  Do you even understand
how hacking is done?  You can put up all the firewalls and blocks and encryption you want,
but there's always someone spending the time to circumvent all your security measures.
When that happens, you identify the source, identify the holes and close them until the next
hacker finds the next hole! The most common way is through email, and many of the hacks are
successful that way

Quoted from CICERO

Ok...so the CIA is making sure that a hacker can never hack into a data base and expose that a US political party is rigging their primary elections by colluding with corporate media to get the desired outcome of an election?  Shouldn't the FBI be investigating into the Democrat Party's manipulating and collusion with the MSM and insuring open and fair elections?

Quoted from bumblethru

BRILLIANT!!

Quoted Text

CONFUSION: WH spokesman claims ‘China’ hacked election
DECEMBER 12, 2016
BY KYLE OLSON

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/confusion-wh-spokesman-claims-china-hacked-election/

Quoted from joebxr

A statement filled with unsubstantiated flawed non-factual data....figures you think it's brilliant!

Quoted from joebxr

Gee, could it be that our tech nerds have a more sophisticated program that can detect the
fingerprints...is it possible our techies are more advanced???? DUH!!!!

Quoted Text

On Sunday, a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, said he has met the person who gave the DNC emails and it was not the Russians.

Quoted Text

“As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two,” he wrote. “And it should be said again and again, that if Hillary Clinton had not connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie, if she had not received advance notice of live debate questions to use against Bernie, if she had not accepted massive donations to the Clinton foundation and family members in return for foreign policy influence, if she had not failed to distance herself from some very weird and troubling people, then none of this would have happened.”

Quoted Text

In the UK, one single article sums up the total abnegation of all journalistic standards. The truly execrable Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian writes “Few credible sources doubt that Russia was behind the hacking of internal Democratic party emails, whose release by Julian Assange was timed to cause maximum pain to Hillary Clinton and pleasure for Trump.” Does he produce any evidence at all for this assertion? No, none whatsoever. What does a journalist mean by a “credible source”? Well, any journalist worth their salt in considering the credibility of a source will first consider access. Do they credibly have access to the information they claim to have?

Now both Julian Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia. Do we credibly have access? Yes, very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access to the source of the leak. The people saying it is not Russia are those who do have access. After access, you consider truthfulness. Do Julian Assange and I have a reputation for truthfulness? Well in 10 years not one of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks has released has had its authenticity successfully challenged. As for me, I have a reputation for inconvenient truth-telling.

Contrast this to the “credible sources” Freedland relies on. What access do they have to the whistleblower? Zero. They have not the faintest idea who the whistleblower is. Otherwise they would have arrested them. What reputation do they have for truthfulness? It’s the Clinton gang and the US government, for goodness sake.

In fact, the sources any serious journalist would view as “credible” give the opposite answer to the one Freedland wants. But in what passes for Freedland’s mind, “credible” is 100% synonymous with “establishment”. When he says “credible sources” he means “establishment sources”. That is the truth of the “fake news” meme. You are not to read anything unless it is officially approved by the elite and their disgusting, crawling whores of stenographers like Freedland.

Quoted from CICERO

Actually...Quote below is filled with "unsubstantiated flawed non-factual data"...aka - conspiracy theory.