The FBI Thursday released a statement confirming Trump’s claim.
“The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated," the agency said. "This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third party for information. These actions caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier."
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
sorry had to get the 3 roller out of the way first...
The FBI Thursday released a statement confirming Trump’s claim.
“The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated," the agency said. "This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third party for information. These actions caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier."
What many in here don't realize is that the Russians have been f$cking with us for years, going on a decade now. We had numerous opportunities to do something about it. But Obama was the most risk averse POTUS in US history. He only acted in the interest of his party and his legacey. Rarely in the US's interst.
There costs to every action, and not acting, is an action in itself. That carries a cost. See the middle east, and see the boldness of our enemies overseas.
0
What many in here don't realize is that the Russians have been f$cking with us for years, going on a decade now. We had numerous opportunities to do something about it. But Obama was the most risk averse POTUS in US history. He only acted in the interest of his party and his legacey. Rarely in the US's interst.
There costs to every action, and not acting, is an action in itself. That carries a cost. See the middle east, and see the boldness of our enemies overseas.
Bush administration was just as guilty. That was actually the main reason Ed Snowden resigned. He went back in because he thought things would be different under Obama. They weren't.
0
Bush administration was just as guilty. That was actually the main reason Ed Snowden resigned. He went back in because he thought things would be different under Obama. They weren't.
Yes, just like with Obamacare, very easy to cherry pick things apart. Especially when one (such as Tilt) doesn't have all the intel & doesn't have to weigh the options and consider all ramifications & make a decision. Just present a partisan view & make judgements on a gambling website.
With healthcare, the can was kicked down the road for decades. There had to be a starting place & the dems were the only ones who cared to do it. Is it perfect, no....have flaws? of course, but was a substantial improvement that could be built upon & made better. Obama always said this himself but were the repubs willing to participate in the possible refining of it...of course not. And after 8 years of being so vociferous about how bad it is & how it must be repealed, I find it interesting how the repubs don't seem to have a better comprehensive plan ready to rollout immediately.
0
Yes, just like with Obamacare, very easy to cherry pick things apart. Especially when one (such as Tilt) doesn't have all the intel & doesn't have to weigh the options and consider all ramifications & make a decision. Just present a partisan view & make judgements on a gambling website.
With healthcare, the can was kicked down the road for decades. There had to be a starting place & the dems were the only ones who cared to do it. Is it perfect, no....have flaws? of course, but was a substantial improvement that could be built upon & made better. Obama always said this himself but were the repubs willing to participate in the possible refining of it...of course not. And after 8 years of being so vociferous about how bad it is & how it must be repealed, I find it interesting how the repubs don't seem to have a better comprehensive plan ready to rollout immediately.
The DNC like to keep it's equipment to itself, except Bill Clinton of course. Can you believe the Banana Republic the U.S. gov has become under this clown we have? The DNC hires and "outside agency" that reports to the FBI and the "scandal-less administration, according to Valarie Jarrett" that the Russians did it and actually believes the American people are that stupid to buy this b.s. Of course they elected a complete fraud twice so I can see why she believes it...
0
The DNC like to keep it's equipment to itself, except Bill Clinton of course. Can you believe the Banana Republic the U.S. gov has become under this clown we have? The DNC hires and "outside agency" that reports to the FBI and the "scandal-less administration, according to Valarie Jarrett" that the Russians did it and actually believes the American people are that stupid to buy this b.s. Of course they elected a complete fraud twice so I can see why she believes it...
What many in here don't realize is that the Russians have been f$cking with us for years, going on a decade now. We had numerous opportunities to do something about it. But Obama was the most risk averse POTUS in US history. He only acted in the interest of his party and his legacey. Rarely in the US's interst.
There costs to every action, and not acting, is an action in itself. That carries a cost. See the middle east, and see the boldness of our enemies overseas.
I would describe Obama as pragmatic and Trump as impetuous, if I'm going off their emotional decisions, which is all I really have to judge them on since there are usually a lot of layers with different policies and sometimes even information that isn't disclosed to the public. My argument is that Trump is probably likely to act too quickly without considering the long-term ramifications. That could end up being costly.
Yes, I would say Obama is the kind of poker player who's willing to grind and play safe hands, really not bluffing all that often unless his bankroll is low enough to consider becoming aggressive. The U.S. is acting from a position of strength most of the time so in terms of foreign policy he never wanted to make bold moves.
I think the reason some people are concerned is that Trump doesn't trust the information he's receiving from the intelligence community and it's the best resource he's going to receive for anything remotely credible. I've also heard some members of the intelligence community are thinking about leaving. They can't quantify it yet, of course. Acting on his gut and intuition will not be better for America and I can guarantee that.
0
Quote Originally Posted by TILTOLOGIC:
What many in here don't realize is that the Russians have been f$cking with us for years, going on a decade now. We had numerous opportunities to do something about it. But Obama was the most risk averse POTUS in US history. He only acted in the interest of his party and his legacey. Rarely in the US's interst.
There costs to every action, and not acting, is an action in itself. That carries a cost. See the middle east, and see the boldness of our enemies overseas.
I would describe Obama as pragmatic and Trump as impetuous, if I'm going off their emotional decisions, which is all I really have to judge them on since there are usually a lot of layers with different policies and sometimes even information that isn't disclosed to the public. My argument is that Trump is probably likely to act too quickly without considering the long-term ramifications. That could end up being costly.
Yes, I would say Obama is the kind of poker player who's willing to grind and play safe hands, really not bluffing all that often unless his bankroll is low enough to consider becoming aggressive. The U.S. is acting from a position of strength most of the time so in terms of foreign policy he never wanted to make bold moves.
I think the reason some people are concerned is that Trump doesn't trust the information he's receiving from the intelligence community and it's the best resource he's going to receive for anything remotely credible. I've also heard some members of the intelligence community are thinking about leaving. They can't quantify it yet, of course. Acting on his gut and intuition will not be better for America and I can guarantee that.
The BIG public roll out of the "evidence" is that US Intelligence "believes" that the Russian government attempted to influence the election. We don't see any proof of this belief. We have to take it as a fact because the CIA and NSA would never lie to us about anything. Our political establishment is embarrassing itself. And they wonder why people would spite vote for Trump. This is going on all around the world with demagogic leaders gaining political power. When people don't see any hope, they turn to nationalism. Maybe one day they'll turn against their real enemies.
0
The BIG public roll out of the "evidence" is that US Intelligence "believes" that the Russian government attempted to influence the election. We don't see any proof of this belief. We have to take it as a fact because the CIA and NSA would never lie to us about anything. Our political establishment is embarrassing itself. And they wonder why people would spite vote for Trump. This is going on all around the world with demagogic leaders gaining political power. When people don't see any hope, they turn to nationalism. Maybe one day they'll turn against their real enemies.
The BIG public roll out of the "evidence" is that US Intelligence "believes" that the Russian government attempted to influence the election. We don't see any proof of this belief. We have to take it as a fact because the CIA and NSA would never lie to us about anything. Our political establishment is embarrassing itself. And they wonder why people would spite vote for Trump. This is going on all around the world with demagogic leaders gaining political power. When people don't see any hope, they turn to nationalism. Maybe one day they'll turn against their real enemies.
Are you serious ?
when you say "we"
who are you referring to ?
the public can't see what people in Congress and senate see because it would put "double" agents lives at risk
it will also reveal our intelligence community operates
do you even understand how espionage works ?
0
Quote Originally Posted by CreamCaramel:
The BIG public roll out of the "evidence" is that US Intelligence "believes" that the Russian government attempted to influence the election. We don't see any proof of this belief. We have to take it as a fact because the CIA and NSA would never lie to us about anything. Our political establishment is embarrassing itself. And they wonder why people would spite vote for Trump. This is going on all around the world with demagogic leaders gaining political power. When people don't see any hope, they turn to nationalism. Maybe one day they'll turn against their real enemies.
Are you serious ?
when you say "we"
who are you referring to ?
the public can't see what people in Congress and senate see because it would put "double" agents lives at risk
it will also reveal our intelligence community operates
the public can't see what people in Congress and senate see because it would put "double" agents lives at risk
it will also reveal our intelligence community operates
do you even understand how espionage works ?
So we're just supposed to believe what the CIA says because they've been so right over the years? I think the situation in Syria and Iraq would paint a different picture. Or do you think that was a good call? You can call ruining millions of peoples' lives a "mistake", but I won't.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ilsp2003:
Are you serious ?
when you say "we"
who are you referring to ?
the public can't see what people in Congress and senate see because it would put "double" agents lives at risk
it will also reveal our intelligence community operates
do you even understand how espionage works ?
So we're just supposed to believe what the CIA says because they've been so right over the years? I think the situation in Syria and Iraq would paint a different picture. Or do you think that was a good call? You can call ruining millions of peoples' lives a "mistake", but I won't.
So we're just supposed to believe what the CIA says because they've been so right over the years? I think the situation in Syria and Iraq would paint a different picture. Or do you think that was a good call? You can call ruining millions of peoples' lives a "mistake", but I won't.
1) when you said "we"
who were you referring to ?
as stated in my previous post, the 17 intelligence agencies have sent their report to President Obama, President-Elect Trump, the House of Representatives and the Senate
I am not sure what clearance level is required to view all the info
but the Senate Intelligence Committee have seen the report
The blank pages contain sensitive/classified info, which may tell US enemies how US intelligence operates(CIA agents ..etc).
You can contact your congressman/congresswoman
2) The CIA never recommended to invade Iraq
The justification for going to war in Iraq thirteen years ago, was based on a 93-page classified document that allegedly contained “specific information” on former Iraqi leader President Saddam Hussein and the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs he was apparently running.
Now that document has been declassified and it reveals that there was virtually zero justification for the Iraq war. The document reveals that there was “no operational tie between Saddam and al Qaeda” and no WMD programs.
The report reveals that the intelligence community and the US Department of Energy did not think Saddam was pursuing any type of WMD program, and was instead developing rocket motors.
So we're just supposed to believe what the CIA says because they've been so right over the years? I think the situation in Syria and Iraq would paint a different picture. Or do you think that was a good call? You can call ruining millions of peoples' lives a "mistake", but I won't.
1) when you said "we"
who were you referring to ?
as stated in my previous post, the 17 intelligence agencies have sent their report to President Obama, President-Elect Trump, the House of Representatives and the Senate
I am not sure what clearance level is required to view all the info
but the Senate Intelligence Committee have seen the report
The blank pages contain sensitive/classified info, which may tell US enemies how US intelligence operates(CIA agents ..etc).
You can contact your congressman/congresswoman
2) The CIA never recommended to invade Iraq
The justification for going to war in Iraq thirteen years ago, was based on a 93-page classified document that allegedly contained “specific information” on former Iraqi leader President Saddam Hussein and the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs he was apparently running.
Now that document has been declassified and it reveals that there was virtually zero justification for the Iraq war. The document reveals that there was “no operational tie between Saddam and al Qaeda” and no WMD programs.
The report reveals that the intelligence community and the US Department of Energy did not think Saddam was pursuing any type of WMD program, and was instead developing rocket motors.
trump has an intelligence team, Military Intellegence, Kellogg, Mattis are very familiar with this unit in the pentagon, What ever spin made that document availible, does not deter the facts of Prime Minister sending english troops to Iraq to stop saddams wmd program.
but I guess
0
trump has an intelligence team, Military Intellegence, Kellogg, Mattis are very familiar with this unit in the pentagon, What ever spin made that document availible, does not deter the facts of Prime Minister sending english troops to Iraq to stop saddams wmd program.
And do you know how easy that will be? Billions are sent from the U.S. to Mexico from your immigrant friends. A "rake" can be instituted of 5%, call it the "Trump Wall Tax" if you'd like. There are so many ways to recoup the Wall money it's laughable that you can't comprehend it. Goods shipped from Mexico get a 3% "Trump Wall Tax". Trump will make the wall profitable. It's no different then every city charging hotel & rental car taxes to pay for stadiums. Mexico isn't going to write a check and never was expected to....
0
Quote Originally Posted by ilsp2003:
Mexico will pay US back for wall - Trump
And do you know how easy that will be? Billions are sent from the U.S. to Mexico from your immigrant friends. A "rake" can be instituted of 5%, call it the "Trump Wall Tax" if you'd like. There are so many ways to recoup the Wall money it's laughable that you can't comprehend it. Goods shipped from Mexico get a 3% "Trump Wall Tax". Trump will make the wall profitable. It's no different then every city charging hotel & rental car taxes to pay for stadiums. Mexico isn't going to write a check and never was expected to....
And do you know how easy that will be? Billions are sent from the U.S. to Mexico from your immigrant friends. A "rake" can be instituted of 5%, call it the "Trump Wall Tax" if you'd like. There are so many ways to recoup the Wall money it's laughable that you can't comprehend it. Goods shipped from Mexico get a 3% "Trump Wall Tax". Trump will make the wall profitable. It's no different then every city charging hotel & rental car taxes to pay for stadiums. Mexico isn't going to write a check and never was expected to....
Dude , stop embarrassing yourself
0
Quote Originally Posted by Killer_B:
And do you know how easy that will be? Billions are sent from the U.S. to Mexico from your immigrant friends. A "rake" can be instituted of 5%, call it the "Trump Wall Tax" if you'd like. There are so many ways to recoup the Wall money it's laughable that you can't comprehend it. Goods shipped from Mexico get a 3% "Trump Wall Tax". Trump will make the wall profitable. It's no different then every city charging hotel & rental car taxes to pay for stadiums. Mexico isn't going to write a check and never was expected to....
killer, trump hasn't even started yet, he might be good, no one can say for sure right now, everything is just speculation. but, this wall business and mexico paying for it is f*cking nonsense. i'd let that go.
0
killer, trump hasn't even started yet, he might be good, no one can say for sure right now, everything is just speculation. but, this wall business and mexico paying for it is f*cking nonsense. i'd let that go.
killer, trump hasn't even started yet, he might be good, no one can say for sure right now, everything is just speculation. but, this wall business and mexico paying for it is f*cking nonsense. i'd let that go.
Let's hope he is good for the sake of the US.
Republicans wanted Obama to fail
Trump has set the bar so high that he needs to exceed expectations
Trump also needs to stop posting on Twitter
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
killer, trump hasn't even started yet, he might be good, no one can say for sure right now, everything is just speculation. but, this wall business and mexico paying for it is f*cking nonsense. i'd let that go.
Let's hope he is good for the sake of the US.
Republicans wanted Obama to fail
Trump has set the bar so high that he needs to exceed expectations
Wow, the ratings are in and Arnold Schwarzenegger got "swamped" (or destroyed) by comparison to the ratings machine, DJT. So much for....
7:34 AM - 6 Jan 2017
8,6718,671 Retweets 33,709
Hmm
7:34AM in the morning .
The "president-elect" had an appointment later that day with the Intelligence chief (Clapper)
Schwarzenegger quickly responded to Trump's tweets, writing, "There's nothing more important than the people's work, @realDonaldTrump ... I wish you the best of luck and I hope you'll work for ALL of the American people as aggressively as you worked for your ratings." He then embedded a video of him reading part of Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural address, which he first shared in a tweet after the election, in a seeming appeal to the better angels of Trump's nature.
0
Donald J. Trump ?@realDonaldTrump
Wow, the ratings are in and Arnold Schwarzenegger got "swamped" (or destroyed) by comparison to the ratings machine, DJT. So much for....
7:34 AM - 6 Jan 2017
8,6718,671 Retweets 33,709
Hmm
7:34AM in the morning .
The "president-elect" had an appointment later that day with the Intelligence chief (Clapper)
Schwarzenegger quickly responded to Trump's tweets, writing, "There's nothing more important than the people's work, @realDonaldTrump ... I wish you the best of luck and I hope you'll work for ALL of the American people as aggressively as you worked for your ratings." He then embedded a video of him reading part of Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural address, which he first shared in a tweet after the election, in a seeming appeal to the better angels of Trump's nature.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Mexico will pay US back for wall - Trump 
Hot Forum Topics
