It apparently wasn't even a hack, but instead it was a leak from a DNC insider:

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk...-absence-conviction/


The CIA’s Absence of Conviction

I have watched incredulous as the CIA’s blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story – blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it. There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton’s corruption. Yes this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also.

A little simple logic demolishes the CIA’s claims. The CIA claim they “know the individuals” involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited, or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks. The anonymous source claims of “We know who it was, it was the Russians” are beneath contempt.

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. 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.

The continued ability of the mainstream media to claim the leaks lost Clinton the election because of “Russia”, while still never acknowledging the truths the leaks reveal, is Kafkaesque.

I had a call from a Guardian journalist this afternoon. The astonishing result was that for three hours, an article was accessible through the Guardian front page which actually included the truth among the CIA hype:

The Kremlin has rejected the hacking accusations, while the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has previously said the DNC leaks were not linked to Russia. A second senior official cited by the Washington Post conceded that intelligence agencies did not have specific proof that the Kremlin was “directing” the hackers, who were said to be one step removed from the Russian government.
Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims “bullshit”, adding: “They are absolutely making it up.”
“I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.
“If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA’s statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States.
“America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it’s not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever.”
But only three hours. While the article was not taken down, the home page links to it vanished and it was replaced by a ludicrous one repeating the mad CIA allegations against Russia and now claiming – incredibly – that the CIA believe the FBI is deliberately blocking the information on Russian collusion. Presumably this totally nutty theory, that Putin is somehow now controlling the FBI, is meant to answer my obvious objection that, if the CIA know who it is, why haven’t they arrested somebody. That bit of course would be the job of the FBI, who those desperate to annul the election now wish us to believe are the KGB.

It is terrible that the prime conduit for this paranoid nonsense is a once great newspaper, the Washington Post, which far from investigating executive power, now is a sounding board for totally evidence free anonymous source briefing of utter bullshit from the executive.

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.

The worst thing about all this is that it is aimed at promoting further conflict with Russia. This puts everyone in danger for the sake of more profits for the arms and security industries – including of course bigger budgets for the CIA. As thankfully the four year agony of Aleppo comes swiftly to a close today, the Saudi and US armed and trained ISIS forces counter by moving to retake Palmyra. This game kills people, on a massive scale, and goes on and on.

quote:

Originally posted by MitchbSC:
Russia wanted Trump because Trump will negotiate a better deal ... and probably won't cause a war. War is bad for business. Russia is under sanctions imposed after they did their thing in Crimea and Ukraine. Clinton was going to double-down and poke the bear even more because she damn sure was going to win her feud with Putin.

Yes, hadji and the hag were on track for more wars. The election of Trump put their plans in a tailspin, not that their plans would have succeeded in the first place.

From the link above:

quote:

The policy’s official launch was a flub: At a Geneva news conference in March 2009, Clinton presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov with a mounted red button emblazoned with the word “reset” in English and the Russian word “peregruzka” — a translation error by the U.S. team that left the bewildered Lavrov puzzling over a term meaning “overload.”

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
From the link above:

quote:

The policy’s official launch was a flub: At a Geneva news conference in March 2009, Clinton presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov with a mounted red button emblazoned with the word “reset” in English and the Russian word “peregruzka” — a translation error by the U.S. team that left the bewildered Lavrov puzzling over a term meaning “overload.”

If only our gov't had people who were fluent in Russian. Or, if there was this thing called the internet, where you could ask it to translate words for you...

quote:

Originally posted by Shaql:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
From the link above:

quote:

The policy’s official launch was a flub: At a Geneva news conference in March 2009, Clinton presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov with a mounted red button emblazoned with the word “reset” in English and the Russian word “peregruzka” — a translation error by the U.S. team that left the bewildered Lavrov puzzling over a term meaning “overload.”

If only our gov't had people who were fluent in Russian. Or, if there was this thing called the internet, where you could ask it to translate words for you...

That's probably what they did, used a machine translator and grabbed the first thing that popped up. The fact that we can do that is amazing, but we're not quite at universal translator yet.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
From the link above:

quote:

The policy’s official launch was a flub: At a Geneva news conference in March 2009, Clinton presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov with a mounted red button emblazoned with the word “reset” in English and the Russian word “peregruzka” — a translation error by the U.S. team that left the bewildered Lavrov puzzling over a term meaning “overload.”

The best part of that whole affair was that Lavrov didn't play along and wait until later to diplomatically tell Clinton about the error. He stood next to her at a joint press conference televised around the world and humiliated her - telling the world that that the mighty US State Department can't translate a simple Russian word. And she just stood there with that robotic grin that she plasters on her face, looking like a total ass.

So Trump has now officially named Chairman and CEO of ExxonMobil, Rex Tillerson as the nominee for Sec State.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...son-secretary-state/

“I am honored by President-elect Trump’s nomination and share his vision for restoring the credibility of the United States’ foreign relations and advancing our country’s national security,” Tillerson said. “We must focus on strengthening our alliances, pursuing shared national interests and enhancing the strength, security and sovereignty of the United States.”

Wisconsin recount complete. Trump picks up 162 votes!

quote:

The numbers barely budged in Wisconsin after nearly 3 million votes were recounted. Trump picked up a net 162 votes and still won by more than 22,000 votes. The final results changed just 0.06 percent.

link

Fake News Exposes Real Hypocrisy

The Left has coalesced around the "real reason" for Clinton's defeat.

The American Left’s determination to blame virtually anything other than their alienation of millions of working-class Americans for the defeat of Hillary Clinton is finally coalescing around a prevailing idea: “stupid” voters were conned by “fake news.”

If one likes a good fake news story, the high-profile Washington Post screed about the Russian-generated fake news propaganda campaign that ostensibly put Trump in the White House goes right to the top of the list. How fake? After its publication, the paper’s editor added a “clarifier” at the top of the story, disavowing a group of anonymous “experts” calling themselves PropOrNot, who had named several fake news sources in the original article. The Post’s editor subsequently decided the paper could no longer “vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings.”

Why? The New Yorker’s Adrian Chen reveals PropOrNot’s methodology for determining fake news was so flawed it “could include … nearly every news outlet in the world, including the Post itself.”

In short the Post’s story about fake news … was fake news.

Nonetheless, this weekend the Post, joined by other major Leftmedia outlets, doubled-down with both claiming “secret sources” within the CIA have come to a “consensus” view the Russians helped Trump win the election. Yet the Post was forced to admit a CIA presentation on the subject “fell short of a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17 intelligence agencies,” and some disagreement remains because “some questions remain unanswered.”

Despite those unanswered questions, The New York Times said American intelligence agencies concluded the Russians hacked both the DNC and RNC computers, but only released the DNC information to hand the election to Trump. The same agencies ostensibly concluded the Russians gave WikiLeaks the DNC documents.

That contradicts what Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Congress in November, when he admitted America’s intelligence agencies “don’t have good insight” about a direct link between WikiLeaks and the Russians.

Clapper is not alone. An unnamed senior FBI official questioned for two hours by both Democrats and Republicans during a secret meeting of the House Intelligence Committee refused to confirm the CIA’s assertion that Russia tried to help Trump.

In a dead giveaway, the Washington Post explains the “cultural differences” between the agencies. “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.”

In short, the Times and the Post have conflated inference with proof. It doesn’t get more fake than that.

Yet the leftist beat goes on, even as they remain immune to the breathtaking hypocrisy that animates it. Hillary Clinton led the way during an appearance at an event celebrating retiring Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-NV) career. She spoke about the “epidemic of malicious fake news and false propaganda that flooded social media over the past year,” and the “real world consequences” that attended it. “This isn’t about politics or partisanship,” she insisted. “Lives are at risk.”

At risk? Lives were lost in Benghazi. And to maintain Obama administration credibility toward the end of the 2012 presidential campaign, Clinton and Barack Obama perpetrated the most despicable fake news story of the decade, blaming the deaths of four Americans on an offensive video. Perhaps the hand wringers at the Times and the Post might ask themselves which is more egregious: an unproven fake news campaign disseminated by the Russians, or a thoroughly documented one disseminated by the Obama administration.

And then there’s Reid himself who penned a New York Times piece insisting “the responsibility for separating what is real and what is fake will fall on Democrats.” One is left to wonder if such Democrats include Reid himself, who not only used the floor of the Senate to make an unsubstantiated claim about Mitt Romney’s failure to pay taxes for 10 years, but subsequently bragged that his lying helped to defeat Romney.

As for Democrats tasked with separating “what is real and what is fake,” what could be phonier than celebrating the career of perhaps the most ethically challenged person to ever sit in the Senate?

Former NBC anchor Brian Williams gets in on the action as well, declaring that “fake news played a role in the election and continues to find a wide audience.” That’s the same Brian Williams given a six month suspension by NBC for perpetrating fake news stories, especially the whopper about being nearly shot down during a helicopter flight over Iraq. Ironically, Williams won the 2009 Walter Cronkite Award for Excellence in Journalism and was praised by Cronkite, who called Williams a “fastidious newsman.” That’s the same “Uncle Walter” Cronkite never held sufficiently accountable for his lie about America losing the Tet Offensive in Vietnam. A lie that prolonged a conflict ultimately costing 54,000 Americans their lives.

“Fake news is hardly a new phenomenon,” Greta Von Susteren aptly asserts. “For decades, Americans have had an appetite for fringe stories, from grassy knoll conspiracy theories surrounding the Kennedy assassination to the alien secrets of Area 51 and the baseless notion that 9/11 was an inside job.”

Von Susteren lays the blame for fake news squarely where it belongs. “Part of the reason fake news is so easy to believe is that fringe stories no longer read or sound all that different from too many of the real stories. Too often, both have little or no sourcing; they lack context and they get disseminated with almost no fact-checking.”

Maybe that’s because the Left’s determination to embrace the moral and cultural relativism that appeals to emotion in lieu of objectivity — makes fact-checking subservient.

Subservient to what? The Narrative, in all its “hands up don’t shoot” reality-twisting, divisiveness-inducing and ratings-generating glory.

Add calculated errors of omission to the mix, along with the fact these major media players have a reach that dwarfs that of the fake news purveyors they rail about, and it becomes clear who the most egregious disseminators of fake news are — and whose agenda they are determined to serve, at the price of journalistic integrity.

“Recall that the Times and its co-conspirators created a fictional Trump held aloft by goose-stepping brownshirts and toothless bigots rising from the swamps,” columnist Michael Goodwin explains. “They aimed to scare the country into supporting Clinton by turning their front pages into editorial pages, where ‘straight news’ became an oxymoron.”

Turning straight news into an oxymoron is an integral part of a progressive ideology and their “never let a crisis go to waste,” “win by any means necessary” worldview. The worldview animated by the disciples of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” who include our current president and Hillary Clinton. Fortunately, their Alinsky-advocated vision to “fundamentally transform the United States of America” just got steamrolled by a trash-talking, Twitter-posting political neophyte whose own bona fides — or lack thereof — have yet to be established.

Regardless, Donald Trump has already done the nation an enormous favor: In the course of winning the election, he exposed millions of self-professed “tolerant” leftists as the hateful hysterics they truly are. Better still, it is an “emperor has no clothes” revelation that cannot be walked back in the foreseeable future — all the fake news in the world notwithstanding.

https://patriotpost.us/articles/46396

Sitting in a hotel lobby watching CNN. Good grief. Will
these people ever bleed out? I have not heard a single positive thing in the past :30 minutes. As an added bonus, I got to listen to some unknown ignorant twatwaffle tell me how foreign diplomacy works. She must have read it in a book. Plus...who's the snarky butch lesbian co-host in the sport coat? She needs a haircut. Sally something...

I need to find all those bars with Fox News on like Zero says there are.

I wondered what George Will is saying these days. Guess what? It's more of the same. Saving those Carrier jobs was, according to George Will, "socialism". And this guy is supposed to be so freaking smart? No, O'Reilly has it right- this is personal animus and nothing more. George Will is attempting to rationalize to us his personal dislike of the President-elect. Just who do you think you're fooling, George? The only people who are buying this bullshit from you are the ones who already hate the President-elect.

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...personal_animus.html

I think it's hilarious that you've done this to yourself- made yourself a virtual outsider- and all because you, Braniac, couldn't keep your emotions from overriding your reason.
Y'know something, George? You're not nearly as smart as you try to make yourself out to be.

quote:

"That's not socialism, that's hard ball economics," O'Reilly said. "Socialism, as George Will should know, is the government actually running the economy, telling Carrier what they can charge for their products or what wages they have to pay their workers. That's socialism."

"Trump is simply saying to every American company, we expect you to help the USA by finding a way to keep and create jobs here," he added.

"Memo to George Will: Drop the personal stuff. Tell the truth," O'Reilly advised.

You'd better find a way to fit in for the next 4 - 8 years, George, or you're gonna have a tough row to hoe, Oppenheimer.

You're not one of them and you're not one of us. In terms of the American political scene these days, that makes you a nobody, Mister Will. Figure it out.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
I wondered what George Will is saying these days. Guess what? It's more of the same....

I once had so much respect for that man. My respect began to drop several years ago. If there was any left, it disappeared in the last year with his position on Trump.



.

Oh, those pesky contradictions:

http://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/...like-only-yesterday/

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Oh, those pesky contradictions:

http://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/...like-only-yesterday/

No trust once red now lily white woman, she speaks with forked tongue, again.

oh, and to continue:


Elizabeth Warren Condemns the Wrong Man

Senator Elizabeth Warren, furious about President-elect Donald J. Trump’s appointments of finance industry insiders, took to Facebook a little over a week ago to fire off a message to her nearly 2.5 million followers.

She took aim at an individual she described as a “hedge fund billionaire” who is “thrilled by Donald Trump’s economic team of Wall Street insiders.”

The hedge fund manager she condemned was Whitney Tilson, who runs Kase Capital. Ms. Warren — the fiery Massachusetts Democrat who is known for her stern mistrust of Wall Street — called him out by saying, “Tilson knows that, despite all the stunts and rhetoric, Donald Trump isn’t going to change the economic system.” Then she added, “The next four years are going to be a bonanza for the Whitney Tilsons of the world.”

There’s one rather glaring problem with Ms. Warren’s attack: Mr. Tilson happens to be one of the few financial executives who publicly fought Mr. Trump’s election and supported Hillary Clinton. A lifelong Democrat who was involved in helping to start Teach for America, Mr. Tilson also happened to be one of the rare Wall Street executives who had donated to Ms. Warren and actively sought new regulations for the industry. Recently, he gave Mrs. Clinton $1,000 so he could see Ms. Warren speak at a campaign fund-raiser. (He’s also far, far from a billionaire.)

“I’ve donated money to her, attended her events, and did everything in my power to stop Donald Trump,” Mr. Tilson told me, talking about Ms. Warren and expressing dismay that he somehow became the target of her derision. “In addition, I agree with her 100 percent that large swaths of the financial industry have run amok and prey on vulnerable Americans, and thus strong regulation, including a muscular Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, is sorely needed,” he said.

Ms. Warren appears to be suffering from the same affliction that Mr. Trump’s critics accuse of him: a knee-jerk, fact-free reaction to something she had read in the news.

In this case, Ms. Warren seems to have come across a Bloomberg News article that includes some quotations from Mr. Tilson. But she didn’t read to the bottom or dismissed it before firing off her zingers.

In the article, Mr. Tilson had said, “I think Donald Trump conned them,” in reference to voters. “I worried that he was going to do crazy things that would blow the system up. So the fact that he’s appointing people from within the system is a good thing.” (He even said he took “glee” in voters’ anger over that.)

The part Ms. Warren may have missed toward the bottom was this: “I’m a fan of Dodd-Frank, I think banking should be boring,” he was quoted as saying, where he was also identified as a Clinton supporter. “I worry about Wall Street returning to being a casino.”

In fairness, depending on how you look at the situation, it is possible some readers and supporters of Ms. Warren will give her kudos for criticizing one of her own well-heeled donors. “She can’t be bought,” might be a generous way to consider the situation. But even a quick Google search of Mr. Tilson’s involvement in the recent political discourse over financial reform would reveal what he clearly meant by his quotation: that he was nervous about Mr. Trump appointing reckless and uninformed people to guide financial policy and that he was heartened that he had not.

As Ms. Warren has made clear, she abhors the idea of anyone who has worked in the financial industry working in government on policy that could affect the economy and Wall Street. This column has covered what I’ve described as her misguided view.

That’s not to say any administration wouldn’t benefit from bringing in some outsiders who could offer new and different perspectives, but that can’t be a qualifying measure. The next time you need heart surgery, do you want to go to a heart surgeon or a psychologist?

In fairness, Ms. Warren’s ambitious efforts to overhaul financial regulation are not without merit: There are large parts of the Dodd-Frank Act that have done a ton of good to protect the American public. She played a hugely important role recently in grilling the chief executive of Wells Fargo about his bank’s sham-accounts scandal, and her questioning appears to have helped bring about his resignation. And at a time when one party is in power — in this case, the Republicans — Ms. Warren’s position is even more important to help hold our leaders accountable.

However, her ad hominem attack on Mr. Tilson only serves to undermine her credibility and some of the good work she wants to achieve.

To make matters worse, Mr. Tilson’s wife, Susan Blackman Tilson, was one of the students in the first Harvard Law School bankruptcy class that Ms. Warren taught, in fall 1992. The student has remained loyal to her professor; Mrs. Tilson wrote in a letter to Ms. Warren last week that she had been “cheering from the sidelines as you rose to national attention for your excellent work on behalf of consumers.”

Both of the Tilsons sent letters to Ms. Warren last week, which they shared with me, seeking to set the record straight and asking her to remove her Facebook post.

The response? An aide emailed them: “She asked me to relay to you that she is removing the word ‘billionaire’ from the post, as you have indicated that is factually inaccurate. The senator has decided, however, not to remove the overall post.”

A spokesman for Ms. Warren declined to comment on the exchange.

When I spoke to Mr. Tilson on Monday, he said he felt that the senator had let him down in two ways: “Personally, I feel betrayed,” he said. “In recent years, I’ve really stuck my neck out by very publicly supporting her, the C.F.P.B., and a tough regulatory approach to banks — none of which wins me many friends — and this is how she repays me.”

Mr. Tilson added: “By engaging in factually incorrect, ad hominem attacks, she’s getting down into the gutter with Trump. This is misguided and counterproductive.”

Despite all of that, he said, “I still support her because I share her belief that banking should be boring.”

Naturally enough, he added, her Facebook post, coupled with her response, “certainly reduces my enthusiasm for her.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12...iness&smtyp=cur&_r=0

Can Ginsberg just die already? You know she'll never retire while Trump is President.[/QUOTE]
I think she died some time ago. She looks like they soaked her in some taxidermy products and employed Disney engineers with access to used Pirates of the Caribbean animatronics to make her appear lifelike.
.[/QUOTE]

Laughed myself to sleep last night on reading this claim. So true....

Ginsburg? In three months, she'll be 84. She's not going to make it through Trumps first term.

This is her, almost two years ago at President Pantywaist's SOTU. It won't get any better for her.

Do the math. She's gone soon, whether she likes it or not. The vile bitch disqualified herself last summer with her highly inappropriate remarks about Trump and the election. She has no chance of giving even the appearance of objectivity about our new POTUS, so how can her rulings be taken seriously? Gone, and soon.

Just do what you said, hag, and fucking move to New Zealand. They can bury you there- hopefully, before the Spring of next year.

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
I wondered what George Will is saying these days. Guess what? It's more of the same....

I once had so much respect for that man. My respect began to drop several years ago. If there was any left, it disappeared in the last year with his position on Trump.



.

Just goes to show that "Highly Educated" does NOT = "Highly Intelligent."

and then there's THIS:

"Obama Crushes Conspiracy: No Evidence that Russia Tampered with Votes in Election"

Can we believe the source?

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-...ered-votes-election/