[Emphasis added.]

Jiggy said "hacking." Doesn't it depend on how we define hacking.

From your Sessions hearing quote:

"KING: Do you believe the Russians interfered with the 2016 elections?

SESSIONS: It appears so. The intelligence community seems to be united in that... " [Emphasis added.]

Interference could be simple propaganda. I don't know whether there is more, but interference does not necessarily mean hacking.

I think of hacking as changing the election poll results. From my read of the report you cited, I don't think the intelligence community is saying that happened.

I agree that there's a difference between the specific claim that Russia was involved in the DNC hack and the larger claim that Russia attempted to interfere with the election, and I'm sorry for conflating them, but the consensus in the intelligence community extends to the conclusion that Russians were involved in the DNC hack (see also here), which I think answers your objection. Up until the more recent leaks involving attempts to hack voting more directly, the claim of "interference" has almost always been made in direct reference to hacks including the DNC hack.

I guess there is a third definition of hacking. I read the npr article you cited, WN. They (NPR, not the intelligence community) are calling hacking emails to then release during the election cycle, hacking the election. I can understand that is a reasonable definition of hacking, but not the definition I think of when I hear hacking an election.

In the NPR article WN just linked? I looked at every instance of the word "election" and did not see that phrase used once, please cite?

It's in the title, but as you point out, not in the evidence.

Hence, NPR said it, not the intelligence community sources.

The "hacking" that JiggyMac said there was no evidence for was the hacking of the DNC specifically.

Oh, sorry if I missed that.

Funny that we have uncovered another issue though. NPR is spinning it just based on their title being misleading in my view (depending on which type of hacking we are talking about). C'est la vie.

No. Two things:
1. No, it's not. The title says "election hacking" in what is meant to be an intentionally brief summary of the article about hacking that took place during the election. It does not say "hacking the election", which not only is what you claimed they said (fake news!) but would be conveying something different.
2. You could try reading the article to see how they describe it if you're curious what they're trying to say about it; the phrase they use most often is "election interference" and they never even remotely suggest the election itself/actual votes/whatever were hacked.

OK, goofyballer, here is what my statement should have said.

Not a meaningful difference in my view, but I can see how you took it.

I did read the article. That is why I pointed out, above, the difference between hacking and interference.

The problem with just making stuff up is that you tie yourself in logical knots. Behold:

So it's well known that Crowdstrike is in bed with Democrats, yet almost every Republican in the senate accepts their conclusions? Doesn't add up.

Is Seth Rich a country now? I thought he was the source according to your brilliant theories? Or was he an agent of...Ireland...or something?

Or was it some country that wanted to hurt Russia and make sure Trump won the election. What country would that be?

And Republicans have almost unanimously fallen for this ruse?

So Seth Rich made the hack look like a Russian operation and at the same time he (or someone working for him) created the Guccifer 2.0 personality to...draw attention away from Russia as the source of the attacks?

Your theories contradict one another. Badly. You aren't good at this and should probably just stop.

Mueller's investigation now includes looking into whether Trump obstructed justice

"nothingburger" LOL

And here we have the actual analogous position to 9/11 truthers.

jiggy,

Did the US find WMD in Iraq?

From a guy who couldn't argue his way out of a wet paper bag...

RINOs gonna RINO. You think the Establishment is just limited to Democrats? The swamp fights back.

Comey was asked multiple times if the FBI had access to the servers, at certain points saying the DNC refused. http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/2254...russia-hack-2/

Private Citizen: "Our political opponents murdered a dude".
Law Enforcement: "Can we see the evidence."
Private Citizen" "Nah, just trust us. Our security guards said our political opponents murdered the dude."

Even Slate admits trusting CrowdStrike was a bad idea - http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_te...owdstrike.html

The left leaning CounterPunch even calls out previous erroneous CrowdStrike false flags:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/03...ng-in-ukraine/

What do you believe?

So I believe in facts and reality. Hope that answers it! You?

So there are only 2 real Republicans in the Senate?

Again, you are tying yourself in knots. The FBI is full of deep state Obama and Clinton cronies--but the DNC won't release the servers to their buddies?

And focusing on CrowdStrike seems weird when their conclusions have been confirmed by other cybersecurity firms:
Man, Seth Rich must have been the most amazing hacker ever if he hacked German Parliament just to really, really convince people that Russia was actually behind it.

Counterpunch is left-wing, but on the conspiratorial side of things. They publish Paul Craig Roberts, who is a Sandy Hook denier. You might actually like them.

That article cites James Clapper. He's the guy who so boldly and plainly lied to congress, before Obama promoted him. Wikileaks says Russia was not behind the hacks. Wikileaks tells the truth. There has been no hard evidence presented/vetted supporting the claims against Russia. Furthermore, I don't understand why someone would think pointing out "the intelligence community believes" would bolsters the credibility of a claim given what we have seen since 2001.

I am asking what exactly is being alleged, like how it went down.

It was alleged that O.J. killed his wife. That crime made sense, both the motive and how it could have happened. Do you see a difference between that and the grasping attempts to tie Trump to something that Russia allegedly did?

This claim is laughable. Even if Wikileaks had never pushed the pizzagate and spiritcooking smears, how could you argue that they are incapable of lying?

In any case, Wikileaks could simply be wrong. Maybe they honestly believe that the source of the leaks was a Romanian hacker who can't speak Romanian.

There are no specific allegations. There is no case being brought against anyone at this point.

What do you expect - that in order to begin an investigation that they need to have enough evidence to convict for a specific crime?

I don't think Trump stands against the globalists. I don't think he is very principled at all, and so far I think he has continued on the democrat tradition of privatization and government by Goldman Sachs. I oppose those policies and that corruption. But no matter what criticisms of Trump I level you will ignore that and respond as though I were some fan of his. You do that because you're a frothing partisan who wants to make everything about who is on who's side. But just because I am not on your side doesn't mean I'm on Trump's side.

I stand corrected. You don't believe everything the government says. I should have said you believe everything the democratic party says. Almost invariably the democratic party believes what the government says, regarding facts and basic inferences, if not all the conclusions exactly. So I admit that, in scenarios where the utterly dysfunctional scumbags who control the democrat party (and your mind) mess up to the point that someone as bad as Trump gets elected, then you don't always agree with the government. You simply tune in to Rachel Maddow for your daily mind meld. If she says disagree, then that's what you do. Evidence? What's that?

Who said incapable of lying? What I will say is that their record is impeccable, beyond reproach.

Something to consider, in case you weren't aware, is that they received and vetted the hacked materials. So they, in addition to having an impeccable reputation, have quite an advantage here in knowing how the information was obtained.

On the other hand, you have, in the intelligence community, a pack of liars who are terrified that Trump's network is going to permanently steal their places at the trough. The deep state (we can use that term now that it went mainstream, right?) would not be above lying to sharpen the appearance of impropriety. They see this period as facing an existential crisis. Plus they can afford to get caught lying because weak people like you will tolerate any amount of it. James Clapper lies to congress. You don't care. James Clapper the liar is promoted. You don't care. James Clapper the liar tells you something contradictory to what an honest person says. You believe Clapper (the liar). And if you find out he is lying here then no problem- you will happily believe the next thing he says.

If Wikileaks was proved wrong their reputation would be ruined (not that their being honest has done anything in the eyes of the sheeple).

Is that what you don't understand here, potential motive? It doesn't make sense to you that, potentially, Trump wanted to be president and asked Russia to help and promised them favorable treatment if they did?

I mean, maybe Russia did all this to help Trump out of the goodness of their heart - and that's not being snarky, their goal could easily just be destabilizing American democracy as an end in itself. But, maybe it's not.

And while that's just a theory, that's kind of the point of having an investigation, and that's why nobody's on trial yet. To your O.J. analogy, nobody's found the bloody glove, there's just a dead body on the night of June 12, 1994; police suspect O.J. might have had something to do with it but have yet to start collecting evidence.

Clinton was a major adversary of Putin, and Trump is a business man who made deals in Russia. So the motive is obvious to get the more favorable administration. How close these election ties are is not obvious, whether it's decentralized hackers, decentralized hackers working with plausibly deniable incentives from higher-ups, or what have you. Trump doesn't need to be directly connected though. There apparently was not enough evidence to open up an investigation on Trump, and without taking that step, obstruction of justice seems unlikely to stick, at least as long as the ties are investigated with the next director.