Everything everyone knows about Trump is wrong: — Hanover

Hanover, but do you agree, or disagree, with the idea that US intelligence agencies are more reliable than the private sector pollsters?

Because those polls are what had most of us anti-Trumpers laughing (including those TV hosts).

There is a key point to be made here, IMO.

I posted this before, but in my drunken state I accidentally deleted it while fixing a quote I attributed to Michael (sorry, I'm new here). Luckily it was still open in Notepad++.



What about George Papadopolous (member of Trump campaign) bragging to an Australian diplomat in a bar that Russia had dirt on Hillary Clinton, then the hacked e-mails were released via Wikileaks, then that Australian diplomat called the FBI?

Do you really think that is not evidence of collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of your response to Michael - Michael stated:

I'm reporting what the various intelligence agencies and investigations have officially confirmed (that Russia hacked the DNC and influenced the election to help Trump) — Michael

Your response was:

Without any presentation of evidence. — raza

The document I linked you to said:

"We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US
presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process,
denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess
Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We
have high confidence in these judgments."

The evidence they present:

Starting in March 2016, Russian Government–
linked actors began openly supporting
President-elect Trump’s candidacy in media
aimed at English-speaking audiences. RT and
Sputnik—another government-funded outlet
producing pro-Kremlin radio and online
content in a variety of languages for
international audiences—consistently cast
President-elect Trump as the target of unfair
coverage from traditional US media outlets
that they claimed were subservient to a corrupt
political establishment.

Russian media hailed President-elect Trump’s
victory as a vindication of Putin’s advocacy of
global populist movements—the theme of
Putin’s annual conference for Western
academics in October 2016—and the latest
example of Western liberalism’s collapse.

Putin’s chief propagandist Dmitriy Kiselev used
his flagship weekly newsmagazine program
this fall to cast President-elect Trump as an
outsider victimized by a corrupt political
establishment and faulty democratic election
process that aimed to prevent his election
because of his desire to work with Moscow.

Pro-Kremlin proxy Vladimir Zhirinovskiy, leader
of the nationalist Liberal Democratic Party of
Russia, proclaimed just before the election that
if President-elect Trump won, Russia would
“drink champagne” in anticipation of being
able to advance its positions on Syria and
Ukraine.

RT’s coverage of Secretary Clinton throughout the
US presidential campaign was consistently negative
and focused on her leaked e-mails and accused her
of corruption, poor physical and mental health, and
ties to Islamic extremism. Some Russian officials
echoed Russian lines for the influence campaign
that Secretary Clinton’s election could lead to a war
between the United States and Russia.

In August, Kremlin-linked political analysts
suggested avenging negative Western reports
on Putin by airing segments devoted to
Secretary Clinton’s alleged health problems.

On 6 August, RT published an Englishlanguage
video called “Julian Assange Special:
Do WikiLeaks Have the E-mail That’ll Put
Clinton in Prison?” and an exclusive interview
with Assange entitled “Clinton and ISIS Funded
by the Same Money.” RT’s most popular video
on Secretary Clinton, “How 100% of the
Clintons’ ‘Charity’ Went to…Themselves,” had
more than 9 million views on social media
platforms. RT’s most popular English language
video about the President-elect, called “Trump
Will Not Be Permitted To Win,” featured
Assange and had 2.2 million views.

For more on Russia’s past media efforts—
including portraying the 2012 US electoral
process as undemocratic—please see Annex A:
Russia—Kremlin's TV Seeks To Influence
Politics, Fuel Discontent in US.
Russia used trolls as well as RT as part of its
influence efforts to denigrate Secretary Clinton.
This effort amplified stories on scandals about
Secretary Clinton and the role of WikiLeaks in the
election campaign.

The likely financier of the so-called Internet
Research Agency of professional trolls located
in Saint Petersburg is a close Putin ally with ties
to Russian intelligence.

A journalist who is a leading expert on the
Internet Research Agency claimed that some
social media accounts that appear to be tied to
Russia’s professional trolls—because they
previously were devoted to supporting Russian
actions in Ukraine—started to advocate for
President-elect Trump as early as December
2015"

And much, much, MUCH, more (but I won't clog up the forum by pasting in literally 15 more pages of evidence. What I pasted in was only 2 pages).

Raza, do you still maintain that the following quote by Michael:

I'm reporting what the various intelligence agencies and investigations have officially confirmed (that Russia hacked the DNC and influenced the election to help Trump) — Michael

Was made:

Without any presentation of evidence. — raza

?

Without any presentation of evidence. — raza

Do you mean Michael did not present any evidence in his post, or that the intelligence agencies didn't present any evidence to support their claims that it was Russia who hacked and then leaked the DNC's e-mails?

Because the claim that intelligence agencies didn't put forth any evidence to back up their assertion would be a flat-out false claim.

From the Feds themselves: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf