U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Michael Bennet
50%
50%
50%
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) Brian Mason
60%↑
30%↑
20%↓
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%↑
30%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
January 03, 2017 07:37 AM UTC
36 Comments
So, the first act of House Republicans was to kill their #1 enemy….not Obamacare, but the Independent Ethics Office.
I guess that gives us a bit of insight as to their priorities….
Without advanced notice, and without any public hearings or public vote. Cockroaches always scurry away when you turn the lights on.
President Trump saves the Ethics Office from those waskely Wepublicans. I always knew Donald was a smart guy.
My blog on this. Please call your Member of Congress.
It wasn't Russia? Say it ain't so.
Latest Dem reality deniers lies debunked.
HANNITY: Can you say to the American people, unequivocally, that you did not get this information about the DNC, John Podesta's emails, can you tell the American people 1,000 percent that you did not get it from Russia or anybody associated with Russia?
JULIAN ASSANGE: Yes. We can say, we have said, repeatedly that over the last two months that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party.
Oh my.
Your Putin poster is on the way!
And the sound of the rACist is heard in the land. Still think it's funny to call the president of the United States "boy" klan klown?
V, the bigot
Still makin' stuff up because his brain ain't too powerful.
You callled Obama "boy" time after time, rACist klan klown.
If that were true, which it is not, you would be able to show that by cutting and pasting what I said.
It is down there many times. You like to pretend that because you called him "pajama boy" you weren't racist. Actually, that's worse, blending the stereo type of the lazy shiftless black man with "boy." That's like me calling your mother a " crack whore" and saying it's not an insult because it's two words. Klan klown, I can't cut and paste from the fire but I bet I can talley at least a dozen racist boy or pajama boy insults from you at the president. At least we now know what the AC in rACist means. Lie all you want, klan klown, you can't hide your vicious racism.
AC-yes you did. You're a lying racist
Andrew Carnegie says:
December 30, 2016 at 3:52 PM MST
I call him Pajama boy.
Hey, rACist, you lying sack of shit, how about that as an example of you calling the president of the United States "boy." Like Trump, you think you can just lie your way out of your vicious posts. You wrote it, many times, Klan Klown and you own it.
You are not only a racist and a lying racist but a stupid lying racist who denies calling the President of the United States a "boy" but then tries to lie your way out of that by daring me to cut and paste it. Did you think I wouldn't, hijo de la gran puta? No, I can't cut and paste from the fire. but from my mac it's easy.
Boy are you dumb!
Pfft. One pussy grabber looking out for another pussy grabber.
Probably depends on what Assange means by "source." How tough would it be for the Russian government or its "state party" to find someone willing to be a cut out and send things on?
Julian Assange has no credibility. And is Hannity really a credible journalist or a muck-raker paid entertainer?
only a guttersnipe rACist like AC would think a communist/anarchist like Assange could be trusted to tell the truth.
Much as it pains me to agree with AC, any evidence of Russian hacking during the election is at best circumstantial. Russian-speakers may have done it. That doesn’t mean the Russian government was involved. The technical (i.e., computer) evidence indicates the use of common phishing scams and malware readily available to anyone with the desire to buy them. Not to mention the facts that email isn’t exactly a secure means of communication anyway, that most people are woefully ignorant of even basic security precautions, and that corporations and other entities don’t seem concerned enough to educate their employees not to open suspicious emails (which is what happened with Podesta’s account–his assistant was fooled by the phishing scam and forwarded it on to Podesta).
And no, it isn’t a false-flag operation. Quoting “unnamed government sources” is not a credible way to support the belief that Teh Rooshins were involved in hacking. This whole nothingburger is the 2016 equivalent of the claims that Iraq had WMDs. And we all know how that worked out.
17 intelligence agencies say theRussians hacked us. Julian Assange says he didn't. Who to believe?
Which admittedly raises the question: why do we have17 intelligence agencies?
Are those the only authorities? Is that like 4 out of 5 dentists saying you should chew Trident gum?
Why are we so quick to blame the Russians for everything?
Because it is consistent with their past behavior.
It’s not like that’s all out of the blue either.
We here in the States tend to forget that there are other countries out there with their own interests and sense of dignity who aren’t exactly thrilled with our casual, even arrogant projections of power. To pretend the Russians don’t have legitimate interests in parts of the world where we don’t is inviting the kind of behavior we’ve been seeing. They aren’t always the bad guys.
No doubt. I don't think anyone on our side of the divide is denying these actions are anything but common in other parts of the world or are in anyway unique. What we are saying is that it is uncommon for these type of actions to be perpetrated against the United States….and that there is enough evidence out there that our intelligence community is convinced that the Russians are behind the hacks.
What is unusual is the willingness of those who support Trump to set aside any concerns about this orchestrated attack on the integrity of our electoral process which was apparently perpetrated by a foreign power….simply because they like the fact that the former KGB head sided with their preferred candidate.
Ronald Reagan is spinning in his grave at the state of his Republican Party.
I agree more or less, but it’s still not clear to me that a foreign government was involved. The clues are too sloppy and amateurish to be able to say for certain.
Evan McMullin, independent candidate for President, said in an interview 1/2/17 on All In with Chris Hayes, that the pattern is that authoritarians do this. They won't accept co-equal branches of government or contradictory opinions. (I'm paraphrasing McMullin's words – you can see it for yourself, below). Trump is challenging the evidence of the FBI, CIA, because they are other sources of power which contradict his will. Now that is fricking scary.
When the DOD purchases bio jet fuel at two – three times the cost of regular jet fuel: when the DOD worries about how war fighting operations impact climate change, it indicates the degree of politicalization that the Obama administration has achieved. Americans are wise not to believe what comes from this administration.
Biofuel is bought as an on-going experiment, realizing that petroleum based jet fuel won't always be this inexpensive and having an alternate is a reasonable idea.
DoD has been exploring the impact of global warming / climate change since at least 2004. That isn't "politicalization" — it is military professionals considering a range of possibilities.
I don't know whether you're a Trump supporter or not but the disinformation from Mr. Trump and his supporters has been amazing. If he has other sources that contradict U.S. intelligence agencies, then he should state his sources and the information he received from them. I can't understand why he isn't forthcoming with the us on this issue. Don't you agree?
In this instance I believe the U.S, intelligence agencies. They all appear to be on the same page and the members of House and Senate who have seen the evidence all agree that the Russian government was responsible for these hacks.
How do you know this is the equivalent to the WMD's?
Mr. Trump knows things that others don't. Why wouldn't you accept a known con artist's word R36? What's wrong with you??
Putin loves puppies! What more could you want?
I don’t know whether you’re a Trump supporter or not
Hell no. I preferred Sanders but had to vote for Clinton.
As for the rest of the comment, I have studied Russia and Russian affairs for nearly 40 years. Particularly over the last 25 years I have refused to accept what we are told by the government or the media at face value. Case in point: The Washington Post. Their editorial position on Russia has long been notorious for its inside-the-Beltway bias, and its reporting seems to have been influenced by people who regret the end of the Cold War. Their most recent reporting fiasco, on the alleged hacking of an electric utility in Vermont, is a disgrace. The linked article amounts to a not very clear retraction of a story they published over the weekend and kept editing without telling their readers.
Do you really want to accept what you are being fed by the same intelligence agencies that want to spy on us?
Here’s a fairly clear summary of the “hacking” evidence by someone who knows what he’s talking about.
Russia may well have done the hacking. They're certainly capable enough and have a leader for whom this sort of thing is firmly in his wheelhouse.
That doesn't mean that any/enough evidence has been provided to the press or members of the public to come to this conclusion. What's been provided so far doesn't come close. What we have are reports naming anonymous officials who refuse to go on the record. The papers stating these claims as fact, perhaps most notably the Washington Post, are engaging in the worst sort of journalism, which is of a kind with that which occurred in the run-up to the Iraq War. One should note that then, as now, it is not the intelligence assessments that we're reading and seeing reported on, but statements by administration officials and unnamed sources validating an assessment that has not-insignificant political implications.
This hysteria is particularly evident at the Post who published a story claiming that hundreds of blogs on the left and right, including, for example, Naked Capitalism, whom the Post felt free to slander based on the designation of the site as Putin-supporting by a shadowy organization that popped up in the last few months and refused to divulge its membership to the paper, who in turn felt free to take its word as gospel. In fact, only days ago, the Post came out with a terrifying story of Russian hacking of Vermont's power grid, only for it to turn into bullshit and dust days later.
Accepting the word of these organizations who have repeatedly lied to us, on a topic which is highly political, and for which many folks are ready to strike out at anyone who might be to blame based solely on their word is foolish. I'm entirely ready to believe this was a state sponsored act of aggression by the Russians. I'm also not going to until I see proof. And I'm tired of that "sources and methods" nonsense, too. If this was a coordinated attack on the United States by Russia, demonstrating evidence of that is more important than being sure no method of gathering intelligence is compromised.
I would tend to believe it was Israel who hacked the Democrats. They have far more at stake than Russia.
Israel has unquestionably spied on America, as the Jonathan Pollard case proved. But I don't think they would have hacked us.
Iraq did have those weapons. We knew because we sold them and had the receipts to prove it. The part Georgie and the boys skipped over was that Iraq used them all on our (at the time, mutual) mortal enemy, Iran. But they did once have them.
It's not all circumstantial. There are IP addresses and ways of tracing where the malware and remote control commands came from. Obama is saying the classified evidence will be released before he leaves office.
Here's another piece: Ukranian artillery and power grid were hacked by the same methods and traced to the same hackers. Russia and the Ukraine are adversaries.
http://www.bankinfosecurity.com/russian-dnc-hackers-tied-to-ukrainian-artillery-app-hack-a-9602
Honestly, if I saw the classified evidence, I wouldn't be able to understand it anyway. But some of you would. If it were just one intelligence agency, or one partisan person, I might have some doubts about the veracity of the Russian hacking claims. But the FBI and the CIA and the Dept of Homeland Security, plus those other 14 agencies, in consensus leads me to think the claim is legit.
Look at the last link I posted. It gives a pretty good summary of the technical evidence. Most if not all the IP addresses trace back to public companies and the like. The possibility of spoofing is there, but it is very small. It’s also worth considering that some of the sources of the information about hacking (including Ukraine) have axes to grind and rely on the fact that the people they are providing information to are probably not going to be aware of their agendas. As for Ukraine, if anything I would be more skeptical of things they say than what Russia says.
Those of us who have dealt with Russia for many years are skeptical of any consensus regarding it. The 17-agency consensus is, to say the least, suspicious. It was arrived at rather too hastily, and what evidence has been released has been–at best–flimsy. I don’t have much confidence in the information Obama promises to release in the next couple weeks.
And once again, given these agencies’ rather dismal record of intelligence failures over the past 30 years or more, as well as their intrusions into the privacy of the citizens they are supposed to protect, I am naturally skeptical of anything they claim without tangible, solid evidence.