• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sources: 99 percent chance foreign intel agencies breached Clinton server

American

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,116
Reaction score
33,462
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Sources: 99 percent chance foreign intel agencies breached Clinton server | Fox News
Authorities now believe there is about a 99 percent chance that up to five foreign intelligence agencies may have accessed and taken emails from Hillary Clinton’s private server, two separate sources with intimate knowledge of the FBI investigations told Fox News.
The revelation led House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul to describe Clinton’s handling of her email system during her tenure as secretary of state as “treason.”
“She exposed [information] to our enemies,” McCaul said on “Fox & Friends” Thursday morning. “Our adversaries have this very sensitive information. … In my opinion, quite frankly, it’s treason.”
McCaul, R-Texas, said that FBI Director James Comey told him previously that foreign adversaries likely had gotten into her server. When Comey publicly discussed the Clinton email case back in July, he also said that while there was no evidence hostile actors breached the server, it was “possible” they had gained access.
Click to expand...
I said all along that she exposed classified data to our adversaries. So Comey is playing coy about the server being breached or foreigners gained access; so WTF is the difference?
 
Anyone that thinks it wasn't hacked is extremely naïve.

Assange is now saying he didn't get the hacked information from the Russians.
 
Gill said:
Anyone that thinks it wasn't hacked is extremely naïve.

Assange is now saying he didn't get the hacked information from the Russians.
Click to expand...

He probably looked it up on Google.
 
Glad the word "treason" is being used, because that's exactly what it is.

Benedict Hillary.

And then there's the pay-to-play Clinton Foundation to launder all that money.

Most corrupt person to ever run for president.
 
American said:
Sources: 99 percent chance foreign intel agencies breached Clinton server | Fox News

I said all along that she exposed classified data to our adversaries. So Comey is playing coy about the server being breached or foreigners gained access; so WTF is the difference?
Click to expand...

99%? OK why is it not 100%? Because they don't have any evidence of a breech. Comey has already said that
What exactly did our "adversaries" learn? Did she out a CIA agent? Oh wait that was GW Bush.
 
Gill said:
Anyone that thinks it wasn't hacked is extremely naïve.

Assange is now saying he didn't get the hacked information from the Russians.
Click to expand...

And that makes it true? LOL
 
Gill said:
Anyone that thinks it wasn't hacked is extremely naïve.

Assange is now saying he didn't get the hacked information from the Russians.
Click to expand...

And as we all know Assange is just the most honest guy and he would NEVER lie right?
 
iguanaman said:
99%? OK why is it not 100%? Because they don't have any evidence of a breech. Comey has already said that
What exactly did our "adversaries" learn? Did she out a CIA agent? Oh wait that was GW Bush.
Click to expand...

Because Loretta Lynch is just as corrupt as Hillary.
 
American said:
Sources: 99 percent chance foreign intel agencies breached Clinton server | Fox News

I said all along that she exposed classified data to our adversaries. So Comey is playing coy about the server being breached or foreigners gained access; so WTF is the difference?
Click to expand...

I have been reading stuff on Wikileaks that is just nuts. It is going to get YUGELY better. It makes the Donna Brazile stuff look like a non issue. I am seeing a lot of chatter about a must see dump on the 5th. I am skeptical but the sources have been right so far. The content is what makes me skeptical.
 
iguanaman said:
99%? OK why is it not 100%? Because they don't have any evidence of a breech. Comey has already said that
What exactly did our "adversaries" learn? Did she out a CIA agent? Oh wait that was GW Bush.
Click to expand...

Deflect! Deflect! Deflect! WARNING WARNING, DANGER WILL ROBINSON!!!!! :hitsfan::lamo
 
TheGoverness said:
I'll wait till' they are 100% certain. Or rather, until I see the evidence that foreign intel breached Hillary's server.
Click to expand...

I'm with you sister. Imma wait til they're 110% certain.

But in the mean time.....:lamo
 
iguanaman said:
99%? OK why is it not 100%? Because they don't have any evidence of a breech. Comey has already said that
What exactly did our "adversaries" learn? Did she out a CIA agent? Oh wait that was GW Bush.
Click to expand...

Lol...so because they didn't say 100% they don't have any evidence? That's an interesting take on that. Anyways, professional intelligence analysts don't deal in absolutes like 100% and don't even use % at all. What probably happened was they said something like "very likely" or "almost certain" and then whoever they briefed either forced them to put a % on it or just did it themselves.
 
countryboy said:
Deflect! Deflect! Deflect! WARNING WARNING, DANGER WILL ROBINSON!!!!! :hitsfan::lamo
Click to expand...

He's right, why not 98% why not 86%, oh yeah, because they just pulled that out of their asses. 99% leaves a 1% so when it's found out to be BS, they just go "Well we told you it wasn't 100%". Gimme a break, anonymous sources, FBI won't confirm what it says, this thing smells of desperation by right wing nutjobs.
 
Fishking said:
Lol...so because they didn't say 100% they don't have any evidence? That's an interesting take on that. Anyways, professional intelligence analysts don't deal in absolutes like 100% and don't even use % at all. What probably happened was they said something like "very likely" or "almost certain" and then whoever they briefed either forced them to put a % on it or just did it themselves.
Click to expand...

Comey said there was no evidence and the 99% is a OPINION by an anonymous (but biased) source. It is meaningless partisan drivel. Just your cup of tea.
 
iguanaman said:
Comey said there was no evidence and the 99% is a OPINION by an anonymous (but biased) source. It is meaningless partisan drivel. Just your cup of tea.
Click to expand...

Is that what he said? No evidence of what?
 
Praxas said:
He's right, why not 98% why not 86%, oh yeah, because they just pulled that out of their asses. 99% leaves a 1% so when it's found out to be BS, they just go "Well we told you it wasn't 100%". Gimme a break, anonymous sources, FBI won't confirm what it says, this thing smells of desperation by right wing nutjobs.
Click to expand...

You're the one desperate to convince people that "there's nothing to see here folks, no lies or corruption" and we all know why.
 
Blue_State said:
Prepare for...well that isn't a 100%. This is just speculation.
Click to expand...

Sure, because everyone is always 100% for they believe something or make a decision on something. :roll:
 
TheGoverness said:
I'll wait till' they are 100% certain. Or rather, until I see the evidence that foreign intel breached Hillary's server.
Click to expand...
While I appreciate the skepticism and wanting more information than is currently being made public. I would also point out that even DNA results are not 100%.


I don't know for sure with way. But examining the evidence available if I had to place a bet I would go with the server being hacked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom