Relevant:
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-12-09/giuliani-withdraws-as-candidate-for-trump-s-secretary-of-state

(((((((((Rizen))))))))) totally relevent and there are people working on it right now. to investigate the whole thing. good job for pointing it out. so much, empathy, same page thoughts.

i've been listening to R.E.M. and the whole time thinking of you - i listened to them the first time because you posted a song by them on here. i listen to them now because you brought them to me.
i haven't seen this live version until right now - Everybody hurts - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPZzWYkdS6Y

I think he's a dangerous nightmare

music helps me. this song helps me, the lyrics, dave himself
Times Like These
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w0JiLKQ3-o

It is very disturbing. We are in completely uncharted territory. It's just weird and frightening.

Knew this interference was occurring back in September, and while no Russians *voted*, there were certainly opinions changed/shaped by conveniently leaked information at convenient times. I personally, being half-Polish, wouldn't trust Russia under any circumstance. Politicizing the intel on this is ridiculous. Hacking and releasing informatoin is called cyber warfare. It doesn't matter if it changed results or not. It occurred. Like any other criminal act or attack, it has to be considered seriously. Putin is a dictator, Europe fears him for good reason, and seeing them as an ally is a great way to get the US on the wrong end of a global war (in trade or otherwise). History shows us what happens in these situations. And history *always* repeats.

A long-time BFF voted for the pres-elect. We're not staying friends. We can't. She's gone into realms of the mind and soul where I will not follow, and cannot say are "okay". The willful ignorance is *tragic*, particularly since it will cost so much for *everyone*, not merely the willfully ignorant.

*sigh*

((((((((((((((((((((((((hugs for being here for one another))))))))))))))))))))))))

Wait, is this forreal or is this an article written by the media?
I would like it to be true, but i hardly trust the media to tell me what is or is not true. Does that make sense???

oh, so agreed.
i'm sorry, i know so little, i feel too much.

The thing is, I would NOT be surprised if this was true and wouldn't put a move like that past him. But do they have proof that it is true or????

THe CIA released an assessment/analysis, which the FBI will not "endorse" (but doesn't need to), and the Director of National Intelligence in the US has not said "I agree" *OR* "I disagree" to, per Reuters news agency this morning. It's been in news sources outside the US for some time, but the rallies and spectacle of the election season drowned out the concerns. The CIA and other intel agencies have, in fact, worried this was a fact, but could not confirm until post-electoin, and so did not release their analysis until.... post-election.
I'll note that former personnel within tthe intel community are freaking the heck out at the incoming administration's Russian ties, intent to punish anyone who promoted scintific fact when working for the government, and that people are stockpiling data from US sources for fear it will all "disappear". ALl, again, per Reuters, which is relatively politically neutral (certainly moreso than CNN or Wall Street Journal).

Ignore television media. Read. Read more. And read organizations that tend to be respected. BBC World and Reuters are on my list among a couple others (Associated Press, a source of facts to be spun). BBC, incidentally, is frequently ranked among "most trusted to be unbiased" news sources in research conducted by nonpartisan institutions such as Pew. Globally, even Google news is considered less biased than CNN, etc.

OK, that's my spiel on finding news from more than one source, preferably international, with good preutation over time for being unbiased and trustworthy on fact.

Pag, proving conspiracy is virtually impossible. Proving hacking, and that it was intended (per CIA and other agencies' intel analysis) to release information damaging to Trump's opponent(s)? Can be done to some extent. The circumstantial evidence is pretty significant. Cabinet picks that favor war, oil, and Russia, not necessarily in that order; one member of the Cabinet has, in fact, been given a medal of friendship (wrong wording,s orry) by Putin of Russia; all are against China, which is a Russian rival on the world stage, and also btw holds a lot of US debt and is the source of cheap stuff for WalMart, so that's just asking for economic disaster IMHO, and there's no secret that Trump will be punitive aginast those who disagree with what he intends to push forward.

THat said? No hard evidence that Trump and Putin sat down and said, "Here's how we do it," partly b/c neither is quite that stupid, and partly b/c we've no idea what if any knowledge of it Trump has/had. Again, his admiration of Putin is public record. Putin's dislike of HRClinton is also public record. (He blamed her for anti-Putin protests in Russia a while back.) Russia's hackers going after various US databases is also public record. Various states had hack attempts on their voter registries, for example, months ago if not a year ago.

Enough to convict by law in a court of law, trial by jury, beyond reasonable doubt, per US Constitutional princniples? No. Enough to make me throw up in my mouth? Pretty much yes.

Oh yes, and BTW it was reported the RNC was hacked too, so Putin can play both sides, although I don't think anyone really knows What was hacked at the RNC!!! I also saw reports that the forensic people who know what to look for, saw evidence of Russian hacking back in Sept, a bi-partisian group was assembled to send a message, all Dems present agreed...Mitch Mcconnell/some other Repubs said No, and said if Obama spoke out Mcconnell would consider it partisan politics influencing the election, so nothing more was done. Power, Greed...and Mcconnell's wife got picked for the Trump cabinet...hmmmm! *Sigh*

Puke.

What you said, DW.