The Obama Administration is using Perry Mason's courtroom adversary to prosecute its case against WikiLeaks.



Just as it happens in the old Perry Mason TV show, the prosecutor is basing his case on circumstantial evidence, not on hard evidence.

That is the gist of the U.S. intelligence community's assessment Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections.



Three statements in the assessment are particularly interesting.

Page i of the Scope and Sourcing section says, "We did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election. The US Intelligence Community is charged with monitoring and assessing the intentions, capabilities, and actions of foreign actors; it does not analyze US political processes or US public opinion." In other words, the U.S. intelligence community can't say that Russia definitely influenced American voters.

Page iii of the Key Judgments section says, "DHS assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying." In other words, Russia didn't tamper with actual voting.

Page 3 of the assessment says, "Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries." In other words, the information released by Wikileaks is true.

The Hill quotes WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange as saying, "Did [WikiLeaks] change the outcome of the election? Who knows, it's impossible to tell. But if it did, the accusation is that the true statements of Hillary Clinton and her campaign manager, John Podesta, and the DNC head Debbie Wasserman Schultz, their true statements is what changed the election." In other words, Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign was allegedly sunk by true statements made by Democrats.

Now, did Vladimir Putin make those Democrats say what they said?



Still, the U.S. intelligence community is certain that Russia gave information to WikiLeaks, just as in 2003 the U.S. intelligence community was certain that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

http://igeek.com/4454

The alternate reality is that the Russians hacked the DNC, gave the info to Julian Assange (Wikileaks) to interfere with our election because they hated Hillary and were friends of Trump, and thus they manipulated the election.

But none of that makes any sense to those that pay attention the logical consistency:

(a) we have no good evidence provided by any government agency that the Russians hacked the DNC
At first it was anonymous sources in the CIA — but the FBI and ODNI and NSA sources disagreed. As did a lot of other intelligence agency veterans.
Then because the CIA isn’t supposed to be investigating domestic issues, suddenly the DHS/FBI investigation agreed with the CIA now, and they release a document with no evidence and a lot of distractions to support it
Then it comes out that the FBI was never given access to the Democrat servers, and thus the FBI was taking the word of a private security concern? Really.
WaPo was saying it was a sophisticated hack, only doable by state actors — while security analysis say it was childish stuff that could have been done by 14 year olds
So the ONI was forced to release another document, that said they were confident it was a Russian influence campaign to undermine Hillary and the Democratic process, and they were the source of the Wikileaks material. But again the sum of the evidence offered are abstracts like, RT (Russian Television) was more favorable to Trump than Hillary, they stopped being as Anti-America immediately after the election, and Guccifer 2.0 might have been more than one person (so they think it was a coordinated effort). Which is pretty thin evidence if they want to convince anyone with an ounce of skepticism (critical thinking skills). So it’ll be good enough for the Democrats and Media.
lots more at the Link!

You are jumping on the ASSUMPTIONS that most support your own prejudices/desires about this. Not using rational judgment. Because you WANT to believe, either that Trump is magically knowledgeable about hacking, as he claims, or you enjoy pretending that the opposition is grasping at straws in the wind over their election loss, you are ready to believe that the entire American Intelligence system is entirely incompetent on this one issue.

Assange gave an interview, where in he claimed that the Russian Government did not "give" him the stuff that he made available online. A lot of people who want to pretend that Putin is a WONDERFUL fellow, who would never even THINK of behaving badly, have used Assange's incredible naivety to pretend that Russia is an entirely honest international partner.

This all shows that the ignorant and false understanding of how Intelligence gathering and use works, hasn't improved one iota since the Bush administration decided to use what was actually fairly good intelligence, to interpret their way into a false reason to go to war.

Quite simply, just because the person who sent Assange his data didn't sign their emails "Russian Government Propaganda Arm," does NOT mean that it wasn't the Russians who arranged for the "leaks" to occur.

If it's Russia that is allowing the American voters make an informed decision when it comes to voting, that reflects the communism we are now living in. The liberal media still upset we made an informed decision? Why don't they do their job and inform Americans about the truth. Either way, thanks Russia!

You really do like koolaid, don't you. You have here, directly approved espionage by a foreign power, against Americans, and invited more, simply because you like some of the results.

Now tell us how you'd pat the back of any burglar who broke into your house, as long as they find your missing TV remote for you.

Still grasping at anything much?

I wouldn't thank Russia for any hacking.
I want all hacking to stop no matter who is guilty of doing it.

Also, I have never claimed that the end justifies the means.

So what if Russia or WikiLeaks exposed the truth?

Yes, Clinton's dirty laundry was revealed.

Yes, Democrats should be asking why the dirty laundry existed in the first place.

Yes, the added transparency may or may not have influenced a few voters.

Yes, American voters elected Trump, not Russia.

Still, a crime is a crime.

Anyway, the argument here isn't that no Russian hacking took place.
The argument is that there is no hard evidence that Russia gave any hacked information to WikiLeaks.

Christopher Jay Campbell
Democrats can't even write a good conspiracy theory. I can:

Clearly, Democrats needed something else to embarrass Donald Trump and put them over the top in the elections. A November

surprise that couldn't be refuted.

So George Soros met with Russian officials and promised investment in Russian oil and more access to American uranium if

the Russians would do something to embarrass Trump. The Russians hacked DNC computers and released the incriminating

contents to Wikileaks, making sure they would get caught in the process. They also let slip some rumors that these hacks

were ordered by Putin to 'help' Donald Trump. The computers that were supposed to be hacked by the Russians were some

dummy servers that contained emails that could be easily disproven as fake.

Unfortunately, the hackers accidentally got into the real servers and released actual DNC emails that incriminated Hillary

and the DNC far more than they embarrassed Trump. The Democrats lost the election and now all they have is trying to

undermine Trump's presidency with a conspiracy theory that they themselves created

Then Dodo came out the woods and danced. Then went back into the woods.



No one knows why.

wasn't it reported that only the DNC servers were hacked? how would that effect the election outcome?

it just shows the libs have something to hide, and now they (want) to have an excuse...

Soooo...I am struggling with why having a good relationship with Russia is a bad thing...?...Obama loves his Muslim brotherhood the U N screwed Israel...Hillary loves Saudi money...but Trump speaks with Mr P and everyone freaks out...I keep reading assumptions..no facts..but if Russia did influence the election..it seems as the intention was to get rid of a corrupt leadership..why are we still at odds with Russia..? What's wrong with working together to create a better world...?

if the liberals wanted a better world, then they wouldn't be giving trump such a hard time...

That implies there is evidence...it's just not "hard."
Whatever that means.


Is there "hard" evidence of that?


Sometimes circumstantial is all that is available.


Not particularly.
Statement 1 is basic boilerplate.
Statement 2 was never really a question.
Statement 3 doesn't mean much.


Great.
When you run for president I'm going to leak "true" and "hard" evidence that you have to wear diapers so might have Alzheimer's, and are violent towards women and are a misogynist.
Of course the documents I leak are going to be cherry picked.
Like from when you were 1, in diapers, and your doctor refers to your incontinence, released along with documents regarding some family members with Alzheimer's, or when you were 8 and you bit a girl for trying to steal your cookies, or when you were 12 and kicked a girl in the shin because you liked her, or when you were playing a video game on xbox live and said "Take that! I'm going to kill all of you btches!"


There's no guarantee that's the entirety of what they said.
You have no idea the agenda of the "leaker."
They can "hack" information, then pick and choose whatever they want to release depending on what they want you to think.
You can't trust leaked information.
You can't really trust "official" information.
But when proven "wrong" you can generally hold people accountable.
"Hackers" and "leakers" you can't really hold them accountable, and you can't go for any kind of FOIA to see what they aren't telling you.


So you're saying the intelligence community might only have been "wrong" twice in 13 years?
...That's not that bad of a record.
I mean private companies have to adjust their projections for quarterly and yearly earnings almost constantly, meaning they're constantly and consistently wrong.
...Wrong twice in 13 years, nope, not bad at all.
Thanks for opening my eyes to how wonderful and accurate the U.S. government information is, at least compared to everyone else.
Good job.

In what is being hailed as Hillary Clinton's most honest interview to date, WWN visits the former secretary of state's home in Chappaqua, New York.

Greeted at the front gates by her husband and former president Bill Clinton, this reporter was immediately patted down by him personally and told to leave my car outside the property.

"Don't worry pal, you won't get a ticket here, " he said, winking, before pressing his brittle index finger against his right nostril and hocking out mucus onto the ground.

© Snopes
Barn-livin' runs deep fer Hilly 'n Billy.
As we walked up to the converted farmhouse, Bill pointed to a barn to the side.

"I wrote my book in there," he pointed out, as if giving an important history lesson, "and that's not all I get up to in there, if ya know what I mean," now gyrating his pelvis in and out, mimicking a sex noise.

Mr. Clinton led me into the house, but stopped at the entrance.

"This is as far as I'm allowed go," he said, with a deep sadness in his eyes.

With that he skipped off towards the barn while I rang the doorbell.

An African American butler by the name of Hos answered and led me into a large living area where a rather frail Hillary Clinton egged me in.

"C'mon now, don't be shy," she said, coaxing me over with her wide, pale-blue eyes, "I hope you didn't leave that Bill in".

"No," I replied.

"Good! I don't have the energy to be chasing him out - some of the staff here are female, and we also have pets, some of them in heat, so you know yourself"

Before I could take out my pen and notepad, the 69-year-old stopped me in my tracks, stating that the interview will be short and sweet, as she just wanted to 'get a few things off her chest'.

"I lost because hackers showed everyone what a complete lunatic I am," she spurted out, grimacing with the pain of truth, "They got me real good.... there, I've said it!"

Startled by her honesty, I asked her if she really believed the Russians helped Donald Trump win the election.

"It doesn't matter who hacked our emails. The horrendous content contained in them is still the same. I'm actually a horrible person that instigated several civil wars around the world. I'm also responsible for the loss of countless innocent lives while I was secretary of state.

"We tried to blame the Russians for my losing, but the real truth is I lost because I'm a terrible human being, okay?"

"So what about this anti fake news concept you've been lobbying?" I asked.

"Fake news ha-ha, yeah, that was Bill's idea. We were desperate and a bit sore after losing, so we started blaming everyone but ourselves. Like, all the news you get these days is questionable. It's all ********, even the presidency is a load of bollocks; to think any elected president in the Whitehouse has any control over corporate America is just delusional. Bill learned that quickly; we just wanted to make more money for our foundation and ourselves, is all".

With that, Hillary stood up abruptly and ushered me to the front door, where a dead bird lay on the doormat.

"Oh, Bill. God loves a trier," she exclaimed, kicking the carcass away.

"Look, you must go now and tell the world what I just said to you. Tell them from now on I'm just going to tell the truth. We have a presidential race to run in 3 years. Time is of the essence".

Leaving the Clinton residence, I could not help but wonder if I was just another pawn in a Clinton game. Was she playing me?

I hesitated to write this article, but I took a journalistic oath to report what I see and hear, so here it is, laid bare before your very eyes.

1) If circumstantial evidence is enough to prosecute someone, then the U.S. Justice Department should be prosecuting Hillary Clinton for committing a felony while she was the U.S. Secretary of State.

2) People can be certain that they are correct and still be wrong.

3) According the aforementioned U.S. government report, WikiLeaks did not give out fake information about the Clinton campaign. So, shouldn't Democrats be fussing about what the information revealed?

This could be a learning moment........nah!