Other than the CIA stating Russia undermined the Democratic campaign, sure, none.

1. No proof. And wikileaks has said they were not. 2. The "undermining" was providing truth to the American people so that they might make an informed decision in the voting booth, something that the press would be doing if they were actually journalists. So, pretending that Russia did the hacking, (Assange and people actually involved in wikileaks have also stated they didn't) their big crime was providing Americans with information about their leaders. That's not rigging an election unless now we're going to label changing voters minds based on truth and evidence "rigging".

Funny the Republicans were hacked and nothing was leaked eh? To think there would be nothing there to leak is naive beyond belief. "EMAILS EMAILS EMAILS EMAILS!! Foreign meddling? Pshaw"

[quote]Funny the Republicans were hacked and nothing was leaked eh?[/quote]Except there's no evidence that the Republicans were hacked, and no evidence that the DNC were necessarily hacked either. There've been statements made that the emails came from an inside leaker, like Snowden.[quote]"EMAILS EMAILS EMAILS EMAILS!! Foreign meddling? Pshaw"[/quote]Who are you quoting? Source? Was this an official?

[quote][quote]Funny the Republicans were hacked and nothing was leaked eh?[/quote]Except there's no evidence that the Republicans were hacked, and no evidence that the DNC were necessarily hacked either. There've been statements made that the emails came from an inside leaker, like Snowden.[quote]"EMAILS EMAILS EMAILS EMAILS!! Foreign meddling? Pshaw"[/quote]Who are you quoting? Source? Was this an official?[/quote] Other than the republicans themselves saying they were hacked, no, I guess not.

By all means provide a source on the GOP issuing a statement claiming they also had been hacked I'd genuinely love to see it.

Actually no, "Senior Administration Officials" I take that back. Regardless, both the FBI and CIA are pointing the finger. Do you really think they'd do that for shits n giggles?

Just to be clear though you're saying that no evidence exists that Republicans were hacked?

Just to be clear, you're insinuating that both US intelligence agencies randomly and baselessly accused a world power of something they had zero evidence of? Because thats what you are doing right now.

Answer my question first.

That does answer your question. But if you cant wrap your head around the implications, let me put it in laymans terms for you. I believe they have evidence, but what and how they know wont be made public knowledge. Unless, of course, you have some other explanation as to why both US Intelligence Agencies, one of which certainly has no love for the DNC at all, pointed their fingers at Russia?

[quote]That does answer your question. [/quote]Yes, indirectly, since I took your avoiding of a yes or no answer as a resounding yes. [quote]I believe they have evidence, but what and how they know wont be made public knowledge.[/quote]And on what do you base this belief? [quote]Unless, of course, you have some other explanation as to why[/quote]1. You're forming a blatant argument from ignorance when you begin with "Unless, of course, you have some other explanation..." You're arguing for the belief in this claim based not on its providing you with sound evidence for itself but only on your inability to conceive of or search out alternate explanations. You can see why this is not an effective argument. [quote]both US Intelligence Agencies pointed their fingers at Russia[/quote]2. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/12/12/reports-fbi-cia-not-on-the-same-page-about-russian-hacking-n2258469 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-intelligence-idUSKBN14204E https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-and-cia-give-differing-accounts-to-lawmakers-on-russias-motives-in-2016-hacks/2016/12/10/c6dfadfa-bef0-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.17a1db49e862 [b]https://www.rt.com/news/365164-assange-interview-wikileaks-russia/[/b] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html You can find more sources helpfully amalgamated here: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/48825-youtube-the-truth-about-fake-news-russia-hacked-us-election-for-donald-trump/ Including information on Seth Rich who was suspected to be the leaker, [i]however[/i] no hard evidence of that or statements have been directly laid out. [quote]one of which certainly has no love for the DNC at all[/quote]And yet Hillary Clinton and others within the DNC remain free. Oh and one last thing: http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-the-full-version-of-the-cias-2002-intelligence-assessment-on-wmd-in-iraq-2015-3 You're going to believe the CIA when they tell you a foreign power has some sinister intentions towards America when the entire career history of the CIA has been largely been saying anything necessary to attempt to justify armed conflict in foreign countries? Their job is not just intelligence, but counter-intelligence and deception, which does not just include towards other countries but also the American people, demonstrably.

I knew the Iraq thing was coming. That was to justify the whim of George Bush yes. What do you think has happened here? "Yo lets piss off the Russians for shits and giggles"? Are we going to completely disregard Russias track record both past and present for subterfuge and underhanded tactics? Oh yep thats right you're cosying up to them now arent you? It all links nicely. I guess the swamp filler and the murderer of political opponents are trustworthy bedfellows.

[quote]I knew the Iraq thing was coming[/quote]Bravo, surely your clairvoyance has afforded you ample time to arrange an excellent rebuttal to it then! [quote]That was to justify the whim of George Bush yes. What do you think has happened here? "Yo lets piss off the Russians for shits and giggles"?[/quote]Once again you seem to be resorting to a sort of argument from ignorance where because you can't possibly seem to conceive of an alternate explanation to your own it must be yours that is correct. I've demonstrated that it is historically the job of the CIA to justify aggression towards other countries in both the eyes of the American people and government. Leading up to the election we saw Hillary begin rhetoric about aggression towards Russia based on the unfounded cyber attacks, but more importantly over Syria, which is the current home of the new Cold War. It is in the interests of the CIA and the Democrats to engineer conflict in Syria with Russia and convince the American people that Russia is currently an enemy of the state. We have seen in the past that the CIA has falsely encouraged armed conflict with foreign powers in the middle east because it was in America's interests. [quote]Are we going to completely disregard Russias track record both past and present for subterfuge and underhanded tactics?[/quote]No. We're going to wait for evidence before believing accusations against anyone, even the country with a history of being as thuggish and underhanded as America. Just like we wouldn't believe Russia's baseless accusations against an American cyber attack, we won't believe America's against Russia. [quote]Oh yep thats right you're cosying up to them now arent you? It all links nicely. I guess the swamp filler and the murderer of political opponents are trustworthy bedfellows.[/quote]Not an argument. I notice as well that you've decided to ignore my nice list of sources which claim not only is there no sufficient evidence for the CIA's accusations against Russia, but Assange himself has said his source was not Russian in the first place. You seem rather bent on blaming Russia with no evidence to back your position and a considerable amount of evidence against it and I'm genuinely wondering what exactly is your investment in engineering tensions with Russia among Americans.

And arent Russia covering themselves in glory over in Syria? I'm so glad to see you support a dictator who uses chemical weapons and whose forces murder their own citizens in cold blood. Because Russia support that and you are eager to be besties with them. Smh.