CIA says Russia intervened to help Trump win White House
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by NancyBlueINOklahoma (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).
Source: Reuters
The CIA has concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help President-elect Donald Trump win the White House, and not just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, a senior U.S. official said on Friday.
U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that as the 2016 presidential campaign drew on, Russian government officials devoted increasing attention to assisting Donald Trump's effort to win the election, the U.S. official familiar with the finding told Reuters on Friday night on condition of anonymity.
Citing U.S. officials briefed on the matter, the Washington Post reported on Friday that intelligence agencies had identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including the chairman of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, to WikiLeaks.
Read more: http://linkis.com/BhV3F
It's True Folks!! All of it. Every last bit of what was suspected as been proven by the Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A.) of the United States of America.
What is the definition of Treason under 18 U.S. Code 2381:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Read More: link:https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381
The Electors of the Electoral College -- MUST Evoke The Federalist Papers #68 as Donald Trump cannot under the C.I.A. proven information, take the office of President of the United States:
[div class"excerpt"] "Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.
How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention.
They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment.
And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors.
Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it.
The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen (now 50) States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty."
Or more simply, take a listen to Keith Olbermann break all of this down:
Can you say, TREASON?
= new reply since forum marked as read
“I have here in my hands a list of names.”
If you apply the standards of serving on a jury trial, of evaluating actual evidence,
and deciding if that evidence is convincing beyond a *reasonable doubt*, we are not near that yet in this case.
I know people hate Trump and want to see him go down, any way possible.
Me too, I assure you.
But please use the jury trial standard as a guide.
Try to be "Juror #8" in "12 Angry Men" and really, REALLY look at the evidence presented,
even though most others seem already convinced.
No solid, unequivocal evidence has been presented yet, even though some hearts may yearn for it.
We are still at the "Aluminum tubes and yellowcake Uranium from Niger" stage.
Do you remember all that info and innuendo paraded as evidence?
It all turned out to be BS.
But because the masses followed their passions and stopped asking questions,
Cheney/Bush&Co got their war.
This situation deserves at least as much consideration, if not more.
That a hack occurred is unequivocal, and it is extremely serious.
That is why I
