I want someone to provide evidence that it was Russia who hacked the DNC. I still haven't seen any evidence. No one in the intelligence community has even seen the DNC server. How can they conclude that it was Russia that hacked it? What evidence do they have? DNC refused to give the server to the FBI. FBI is just relying on as-paid-for-report ordered by the DNC. The company that supplied the report was caught lying about another supposed Russia hack. Are Russian hackers so bad that they leave digital footprints everywhere?
http://www.businessinsider.com/tele...have-been-infected-by-wannacry-malware-2017-5 A massive cyberattack using leaked NSA exploits has hit 99 countries, and it's still spreading
Fair? So Tsing has given the Clintons as much benefit of the doubt as he has given Trump? The Clintons, whose many and varied investigations into them have come to a close with the Republican instigators and their special prosecutors having nothing to show for it apart from Bill lying about having an ill-conceived affair? (And the Republicans now blocking the Democrats' request for a special prosecutor to properly pursue what evidence may exist connecting Trump and/or his cronies to Russian influence in the face of all manner of smoke emanating from the WH. Who would have thought that the Republicans -- the self-proclaimed Patriots on Steroids -- would choose to look the other way on this one?) If Tsing is as fair as you say, then he must give the Clintons at least the same benefit of the doubt (apart from the Lewinsky matter) in the absence of evidence as he does Trump. In fact, more so, because the investigations into the Clintons have concluded whereas the Trump investigations are still underway despite some Republicans trying to thwart them.
So I have a few questions for Trump supporters. Why is it that 1 yr is too long to investigate Trump and find him not guilty, but investigating Hillary over Benghazi for 7 years and millions of dollars is not long enough to find her not guilty? Why do you think it's acceptable for the DOJ to take shortcuts and compromise a hypothetical conviction? Would you be glad for Bernie Madoff to get off on procedural missteps instead of the government taking 2 yrs to get the guy? The fact that an investigation is taking so long does not mean the absence of evidence, in my mind it's quite the opposite. It could mean a much bigger deal than suspected, with many players involved and new evidence being found. Why got to Bernstein for more resources if not the case? Prosecutors hate to lose and generally end investigations quickly if there's nothing there. Lastly, the conservative party touted the support that Trump received from law enforcement; if anything, the FBI's political bias would be in support of the guy, so why stress over it if he will be found squeaky clean?
All in all, I think CNN should be indicted for providing debate questions to Clinton. Now, that is real criminal meddling in our election process.