Show of Hands

Apparently not, and being butt hurt isn't evidence.

Polster ... wait ... Mrs Clinton's "word" is now proof!?

You've GOT to be kidding!

Polster ... show your proof of the Wild allegation.

If you answered yes, please share your evidence.

Even if Russia is guilty of hacking the DNC, what are they really guilty of? Giving the American people more information than they would have had? Without people hacking into the DNC email, we would never have known about Hillary's public and private policy's. We would never have known that Hillary spoke disparagingly about Catholics or pay to play or colluded with the media or any of it. The left is just mad that there was too much transparency in this last election. I'm sorry that the people saw right through your candidate. It was exposed by someone that seems to care more about this country and democracy than the democrats. That's sad if it's the Russians instead of real journalists.

So far it looks like 7 democrats have voted and they all said yes. Despite a democrat insider saying that they leaked everything because of the way the Democrats handled their primary.

Polster ... your problem is that you -- as so many headless leftists -- have attempted to jump the shark. Unfortunate for your position, your fast talking doesn't validate your lies!

Conflating supposed Russian hacking with affecting the election fails on its face. You've shown. I connection that affected the outcome of the election.

⬆⬆⬆this⬆⬆⬆

Polster ... psst ... the election wasn't held until November.

It appears that you're in the cusp of admitting that MrO knew about supposed Russian hacking before the election and chose to do nothing about it.

Again, you've failed in your attempt to conflate supposed Russian hacking with election outcome.

They conspired to steal the nomination from sanders and democrats act like the American people didn't deserve to Learn about it. I don't care if it came from a hack or leak. They really did a number on sanders and his supporters.

Break ... exactly! If they're responsible (which Wikileaks denies), then they're only guilty of exposing the corruption of the left! Of course the left doesn't like that!

Did the Russians at least hack into the DNC? Yes. Did this make any difference in the outcome of the election? Impossible to say for sure.

This user is currently being ignored

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html?utm_source=InboxFirst&utm_medium=email&utm_content=subscriber_id:442057530&utm_campaign=(12/15%20Sponsorship%20Ad)%20Oxford%20Club

eaglerising.com/39238/top-u-s-intelligence-agency-doesnt-agree-with-cia-assessment-about-russia/

Misinformation? Those were emails those democrats actually wrote.

AKA ... didn't Mrs Clinton spend the Saudis ' hundreds of millions of dollars on propaganda? Ya, the Saudis bought influence and Mrs Clinton is their whore.

No, independent fact checkers have corroborated what she said in October. You didn't read the links, did you?

I haven't conflated the two. Obama did know about Russia's hacking before the election and did nothing.

How many times do I have to say that it is not known whether the Russian hacking had any impact on the election results?

Breck. You hit the nail on the head. The liberals are just angry because they were exposed.

Yes, the Russians hacked the Democratic Party and deliberately spread misinformation. The Saudis had no clear impact on the election, other than generating controversy by donating to the Clinton Foundation, which has nothing to do with the actual mechanisms of the campaign.

Polster ... many more times! How many times have you admitted that Saudi support of corrupt Mrs Clinton had a real impact in the election?

I'll trust the 17 US intelligence agencies that have implicated Russia in the hacking over some lousy tabloid article, thanks.

LITERALLY FROM YOUR OWN SOURCE:

"The overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced a CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election, three American officials said on Monday.

While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA’s analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named."

Polster ... you're a gnat, shooo!

lj74...Nowhere did I say that Russia influenced or even tried to influence the election. All I said was that Russia did, in fact, hack into the DNC. That's all.

Guy ... keep moving the goalposts, that's all the pathetic left has remaining. Over the past eight years you all have shown that Democrats can't govern, and so it's time to let the adults on the right clean up your mess.

I expect that the 100s of millions of dollars "invested" by the Saudis and other nefarious actors close to the corrupt Mrs Clinton swayed some feeble-minded voters.

There is absolutely no confirmed tie between the Russians and ANYTHING. It's all pathetic leftists who knowingly and dishonestly tried to influence the election.

Skin ... please share your sources of the lies.

Polsters ... my claim is totally valid. Are you attempting to suggest that we don't already have the proof that the Saudis contributed tens of millions of dollars to Mrs Clinton's campaign of deceit?

Polster ... do you trust those 17 agencies with their reports on WMDs in Iraq?

What's the FBI saying about Russian influence on the election?

Think...If you're not going to believe the experts, then who are you going to believe?

Polster ... answer the questions! Did the Saudis contribute to the corrupt Mrs Clinton's campaign? Do you have evidence that instead of propagandizing the country with her lies that Mrs Clinton used the Saudi money to give dying kids in Africa malaria shots?

Just stop the lies!

Polster ... who'd expect you to be honest and answer the question?

I specifically said in my first comment, if you had bothered to read it, that it's unknown whether the Russian hacking handed Mr. Trump the victory. All we know is that the hacking occurred.

@RussianThunder here is another video I hope makes you smile. It's a spoof of Oprah Winfrey and how she used to give free gifts to the audience and the women went crazy.
www.hulu.com/watch/284579

You're right of course. I didn't answer the question very well. In fact I don't even know what impact the Saudi's had on the election. I missed that news article

The Saudis are listed as Clinton Foundation donors.

That was funny. I had to look up who she was. I have never seen her show.

If the money had anything to do with the election and not just paying off her own personal assets which is also possible then it only influenced the primary election.
The sauds help put a moderate republican up as the democratic primary

Guy ... are you saying that the Russians changed the outcome of the election? If so, prove it.

None since there's no direct evidence of that.

Bernie sanders would probably be president right now if the saudis didn't fund that moderate Republican.

This user is currently being ignored

Teapublicans don't give a flying fart about links, truth or opinions. They just want to see Hillary in jail.

Think...The FBI has not commented on whether the DNC was hacked, but why don't believe the 17 US intelligence agencies that have said it was?

Sure thing.

www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/92514592/

Here's another source corroborating what Hillary Clinton said in October:

www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/19/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-blames-russia-putin-wikileaks-rele/

Here's the statement released on October 7th from the intelligence community proving that what she said was true:

www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement

Think loves the "argument from ignorance" fallacy. It's commonly used by conspiracy theorists. Basically, they say "you can't prove that what I said isn't true!!!!" Meanwhile, the conspiracy theorists usually have no evidence that what they say is, in fact, true.