Um...who is this tool?
"All the Russia stuff is fake news, I mean, is it really news that Russia's been trying to hack into our election?" .... That means you are admitting it's REAL news, just not new or surprising news. Verifying or debunking expectations is what the news is for, in part.

No direct link proven in the publicly released report (we don't know what's in the classified report) is not the same as no evidence. Multiple intelligence agencies, not democrats, issued an unprecedented joint report saying exactly what the title says they did. Note, he won't tell you what the middle of the story is...only points out two seemingly contradictory (if you don't read them closely) sentences (omitting the rest of the report).

Do you know that Trump didn't even let the FBI look at his servers, international contracts, business contacts, international contractual obligations and holdings, or even let the USA look at his taxes, and now says he won't ever release them even though he promised he would. Why do you think that is?

jimmy dore is from the young turks.

while you may disagree with his delivery,you cannot deny that historically the intelligence community has been used as a battering ram to perpetrate some fucked up,and sometimes,illegal shit.

multiple intelligence agencies also swore that saddam hussein had WMD's and was collaborating with al qeada.

multiple intelligence agencies swore that the conflict in vietnam needed to be expanded,and use sect of defense robert mcnamara to sell it to president johnson.

mcnamara later recanted and displayed deep regret for the lies he sold not only the president,but the american people.colin powell ended up doing the very same thing,for the EXACT same reasons.

in my opinion,CNN has slowly become a propaganda arm for the state.so it is NO surprise that they reference these "multiple intelligence sources" as a means to increase tensions between US and russia.

and while i am positive that russia,along with the US and pretty much every advanced nation on this planet engages in cyber spying,until i see actual PROOF that putin directed russian intelligence to actively hack our elections in order to put trump in power...i am going to remain skeptical.

because i have seen "multiple intelligence sources' as an excuse to engage in some pretty despicable activities by my government.

i live by a very simple axiom:
governments lie.

No, I don't deny that intelligence reports have been misused repeatedly by dems and reps historically, and horrifically.

No sir...the Bush administration edited multiple reports to lie about what the intelligence community had reported.

I know little about the lies about Vietnam, but would not be surprised to find the same MO by different parties. Please keep in mind that the appointed leaders of these organizations are often at odds with the politically diverse communities they oversee, and often rewrite official reports to reflect their bias...which I gather is what is being implied with this report without seeing the full classified version that allegedly contains the missing proof. It's a bit odd to make that conclusion, though, considering how firmly right wing the head of the FBI has proven himself to be, you would think he would not sign off if it weren't undeniable.

Well, the public report was compiled from 17 different agencies without dissent, and made clear that there is classified evidence to back up their assertions. That sure sounds like "multiple intelligence sources".

What does "actively hacked our election" mean? Only hacking voting machines and counting machines? It seems they tried, but failed or decided against it. If hacking the DNC and Clinton counts, it's not certain beyond doubt, but is certain beyond reasonable doubt with zero evidence to the contrary, imo.

Yes, but have we seen such public statements from so many agencies combined without dissent? Governments lie, intelligence reports lie, news lies, pundits lie, but usually not en masse with such consistency.

I think Obama acting on Russian interference is enough to know there was at least something there; We'll see what comes out of the committee that's investigating... I hope it takes out the molester in chief because I think he's dangerous for this country and is going to push back civil rights advancements a good 30 years

@Fairbs
i agree that trump is dangerous.i am reading david cay johnstons "the making of donald trump"...and boy oh boy...

i viewed trump as a used car salesman,a circus barker but he is worse..far worse.

as for obama acting on russian interference,and the fact that nobody is pointing out the obvious...is just depressing to me.

the ability for a president to do that never existed until GW and his merry band of neo-cons.

but thanks to addington and woo,the president has the power to do,what previously took approval from congress.

as i told newt,IF the russians DID hack and therefore influence our elections,then this would equate to two things:
1.this is an act of war.
2.the election would be considered compromised,and trumps presidency would be illegitimate.

i am confident that there was cyber-spying going on.all nations engage in this tactic,and as dore points out,we even spy on our allies.we can safely assume that along with the spying,there was hacking,again...all nation states participate in this tactic.

but as of now there is NO evidence that putin directed russian intelligence to hack the 2017 election in order to put in his muppet trump.

so until such time as they provide such evidence.
i will remain skeptical.
would not be the first time intelligence reports have been manipulated to politicize a cause.

see:iraq
see:vietnam
see:korean war
see:panama

shall i continue?

Whatever Russia has or hasn't done it pales in comparison to what the democratic leadership did. They got in to bed with the big corporations at the expense of the everyday American people they are supposed to represent. Bernie could have pulled them back from the brink but they didn't want to hear it. It had to be their woman Hilary, and so they went and lost against Donald freaking Trump.

This guy is right, the whole hacking thing is a convenient distraction so the Democratic leadership doesn't have to face up to what they have done.

Maybe. We don't know the full story yet. I do agree that on appearances alone, you're spot on.
I don't think it's pure distraction, but I do think they'll milk it for all the distraction and excuse they can squeeze out.

You're half right. My feeling is 60 and I see it already where I live.

I'm reading the Bernie Sanders book which provides a good roadmap for building a progressive movement similar to his own. I don't think I could handle reading an entire book on trump.
To clarify one of your other points are you saying you think that trump is putins puppet regardless if there is evidence (ie he admires putin to the point of chumming up with him and ignoring our NATO allies)? It has to be impeachment if the bipartisan investigation finds direct links, I would think and that means pence becomes president right? Also, what do you think about Obama having the opportunity to appoint a special investigator, but passing on it?

@Fairbs

i think it would go much farther than impeachment don't you think?
if there is actual,tangible evidence,and not mere speculation,that putin directed russian intelligence to hack the election,this would be:
1.an act of war
2.the election of trump would be illegitimate,and therefore the entire process would have to be a giant "do-over".this has never happened in american history,so to handle it the same way as if a standing president dies,or resigns (nixon),or use the standards of impeachment,in my opinion,should not apply.

if our election was truly manipulated to favor trump,this would be unprecedented,and there simply is no system in place to deal with such a breach.

and let's be honest.
a "do-over" might be time consuming,and bring some delays legislatively speaking.

but considering that this election cycle has been a stroll down surreal lane and we were subjected to not one,but TWO shit candidates.

i wouldn't mind a do-over.
how about you?

Again, you confuse things for me with the statement "hack the election"....which seems to mean hacked the vote, not just hacked the Democrats. Hacking a private party is not an act of war, hacking voting machines would be. Hacking the election could mean either.

What's funny is, without meaning to, Trump claimed the election is illegitimate by claiming there were up to 5000000 illegal votes cast and counted. That would delegitimize the election by itself.
I'm standing behind his claim, there were a significant number of illegal votes cast....do over.