TexasCHLforum.com

Abraham wrote:I'm sure Putin's sees through the transparency of Obama's last gasp of: "I'm relevant, I'm relevant, I'm relevant!

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

hovercat wrote:Obama is keeping the Russian narrative alive. Trump will have to reverse this. When he does, the never-Trump people will hold it aloft as proof of collusion between Trump and Russia.
This was done with forethought.

I think this is exactly right.

Chas.

It also neatly sidesteps having to explain why their candidate really lost........and that if were not for 4 million votes in California, many of which were cast by people not eligible to vote (i.e. dead, illegal aliens, felons, etc.), Hillary's "Lord of the Flies" candidacy would have been flogged like a rented mule in the popular vote in addition to the whuppin' she took in the electoral college vote.

Reportedly, Putin's response to Obama’s eviction of 35 diplomats and is to invite the children of U.S. diplomats to the Kremlin for a holiday party. Who looks like the adult in the room now?

Abraham wrote:I'm sure Putin's sees through the transparency of Obama's last gasp of: "I'm relevant, I'm relevant, I'm relevant!

Got this from our hosting company this morning. Apparently the "evidence" isn't as definitive as they try to make it out to be.

https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2016/12/ ... dium=email

zmcgooga wrote:Got this from our hosting company this morning. Apparently the "evidence" isn't as definitive as they try to make it out to be.

https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2016/12/ ... dium=email

They're right - their "evidence" is absolutely horrendous. I performed better analyses when I was a teenager hacking in my parents' house than they did in that document. Everything about the official report was inconclusive, surface-level data that does not have a single shred of evidence of complicity. It would be laughable if so many didn't take it seriously. No hacker worth their salt is buying any of this garbage.

remanifest wrote:

zmcgooga wrote:Got this from our hosting company this morning. Apparently the "evidence" isn't as definitive as they try to make it out to be.

https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2016/12/ ... dium=email

They're right - their "evidence" is absolutely horrendous. I performed better analyses when I was a teenager hacking in my parents' house than they did in that document. Everything about the official report was inconclusive, surface-level data that does not have a single shred of evidence of complicity. It would be laughable if so many didn't take it seriously. No hacker worth their salt is buying any of this garbage.

interesting stuff

It seems to me that the "hacking" itself is irrelevant to the outcome of the election. It is WHAT the hacking revealed that may have changed the outcome. No one in the media addresses that point and no one mentions that there has been no denial or claim that the information revealed was false in any way. The proof of illegal actions on the part of Clinton and the DNC was the final straw that pushed many voters over the edge and switched them to Trump, even though they didn't like him. As long as the damaging information was TRUE...the voters don't care who was responsible for it being released. If it had been shown that a group of home grown computer whizzes had been responsible the result would have been the same. Just the DNC trying to spin it so we have a foreign villain to point at and lay the blame on. "Much ado about nothing"