So let me get this straight. Both Hillary and the DNC are complaining that the Russians hacked the DNC's emails and by releasing their contents to the press, it cost Hillary the election. Perhaps the Democrats should be more concerned about what was being said, rather than the fact that they were caught. Boy, this reminds me of Nixon and Watergate. And to top it off our President tells the press that back in September he told Putin to "knock it off". Hummm - I think this may give new meaning to the term "Putin's Pussy".

Some people insist on calling this "hacking the election". Nothing about the election was hacked. The balloting was not hacked. The counting of the ballots was not hacked.

Huma and her pervert husband , Putin ...... Comey , Wikileaks , Putin  

Yes, the Russians are guilty of hacking into the DNC computers and it's hilarious to watch hypocritical Republicans twist themselves into pretzels to keep from blaming Putin.
BUT, did it amount to "hacking the election?"  NO.  Did it throw the election to Trump?  I seriously doubt it.  Trump won because he tapped into a powerful anger among many voters about the direction of the country and our economy.  Many Blacks who voted for Obama last time didn't feel comfortable with Clinton and stayed home.  And blue-collar voters who'd been traditionally Democrat switched sides. Clinton herself, as I've said many times, was a seriously flawed candidate.
NONE of the above has anything to do with Putin's hacking.
Now let's see how Trump handles the Russians.  Personally, I expect he'll become known as "Putin's Poodle," but time will tell.

Ok the Russians hacked H, and the DNC emails, and that in of it self cost her the election? WTF, that does not add up.

NBC played the same card with the Trump tape that whoever played with the leaked Hillary emails.

When I was actively campaigning for a Trump presidency I found no shortage of ammo supplied by Hillary to ensure her inevitable landslide electoral  loss.  
   
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=271191&boardID=39&page=#271191

But again, we don't know for sure who "the Russians" are in this case and we don't know if Putin was involved. My educated guess says you are correct however.

Just like Faux News is really "Fair and Balanced," LOL.
The rest of your post is sheer speculation.  Of COURSE, Assange "is telling anyone who (sic) listen the Russians were NOT the source." It's in his own best interest. Not to mention his total lack of credibility.  And the fact that the DNC has not disputed the accuracy of the material has ZERO to do with your point.
As for why Trump is "cozying up to the Russians," ISIS is already on the ropes.  They are about to lose Mosul and Raqqa will fall soon after that, so they'll be stateless again albeit still dangerous.  But the Turks have sealed the border and ISIS is cut off from getting more than a trickle of recruits.  They are also starting to look like losers so fewer will want to join up anyway.  They have cut salaries and their sources of "sex slaves" have dried up.  So things are hardly looking like we need Trump and Putin to save the day.
And please don't tell us about how Putin has kicked ISIS's ass already.  He's done nearly nothing against them and has focused on the more moderate rebel elements we support (weakly, it's true).  But his purpose has always been to prop up Assad, hence his heavy involvement in Aleppo.  Nice to see Trump wants to cozy up to The Butcher of Aleppo, eh?
As for the Chinks, Trump will have his hands full.  Just look what they're doing now to send him a message after his ill-conceived embrace of Taiwan.  Putin's Poodle is about to get schooled.  I just hope we all survive it.

I want some white meat that's finger licking good.  
Some long time vet told us that in the good old days, Rgirls dominated the scene exactly as Kgirls do today. We've got to get back some East-West balance.

Hasn't everything he has released been factual? If it hasn't, I have not seen the Dems contest ANY of it so I take that as their capitulation to the facts so of course it matters, and strengthens, my point.

... Trump is going to be President.

Jack-O, this may be your most disingenuous effort in quite some time.
1) You have totally evaded my first and main point: Assange, credible or not, has no upside in admitting he got anything from the Russians.  That should be obvious to anyone with a brain.  No one has accused him of being stupid, and if he said, "Yep! Boris spilled the beans to me!" then the Russians would deny it, disown him and probably figure out a way to have him killed.  They've done that in London before, you know.  So, no, his denial has no credibility.  And the fact that the documents were for real has zero to do with that.  Or are you now unable or unwilling to deal with two aspects of a situation at the same time?
And, while you're at it, tell me what Schulz and Brazile have to with whether we should believe Assange?  Total red herring.
2) I said ZERO about the mistakes that led to ISIS's rise to control Raqqa and Mosul.  It should have been clear to any fair-minded person I was talking about the situation TODAY and responding to your point about Trump getting Putin to help destroy ISIS.  So if I rebut your point you simply respond by dredging up something outside the topic.  Again: red herring.
3) Thanks for your gross over-simplification of the rise of ISIS.  I'm not going to go into details on how it actually happened but simply refer you to numerous reports pointing out that ISIS formed during Bush's term and spread because of the inept and corrupt "leadership" not of Obama but of al-Maliki.
4) The truth would "help me to sleep at night," were it not for our feckless and inept PEOTUS. The guy isn't even Prez yet but he's already blundering around like a bull in a China shop.

You said this: "Not to mention his total lack of credibility."  

And just to be clear, Assange is NOT credible in general even though I was talking about his denial of Russian complicity in particular.  So you can chop logic all you want but you have utterly failed to address the question you yourself raised:
Is Assange's denial of Russian complicity in the leak of DNC documents credible or not? You raised the issue.  Now answer it.
I re-assert it's not credible for the reasons I cited.
We are waiting for you to finally respond to that.
PS: No, I don't find Assange himself to be generally credible either.  He does occasionally get some useful documents.  But I assume you would not find credible his denial of the Swedish rape charges.  Or do you?  So is he credible?  It depends.  Not much of a track record for credibility.
PPS: I rarely use Ambien.  I prefer alcohol.

Yes, Jake for the umpteenth time, I find Assange credible re: Russian involvement.  

a female one making Barack Putin's bitch

So you were only off by 54.  For you that's an improvement, so congrats.
But I am glad you find a fugitive alleged rapist credible, though it proves you're pretty naive.  And since when is  
"evidence" required in Jack's Court of Law?  It's blatantly obvious to anyone with half a brain that Assange would never, ever admit to having gotten anything from the Russians.  Do you also believe in the Tooth Fairy?  He does seem like your type