Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House

[Ravensky]

11 hours ago, TPreston said:

The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.

 

Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, according to U.S. officials. Those officials described the individuals as actors known to the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and hurt Clinton’s chances.

 

“It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. senators. “That’s the consensus view.”

The Post's Ellen Nakashima goes over the events and discusses the hacker groups responsible. (Jhaan Elker/The Washington Post)

 

The Obama administration has been debating for months how to respond to the alleged Russian intrusions, with White House officials concerned about escalating tensions with Moscow and being accused of trying to boost Clinton’s campaign.

 

In September, during a secret briefing for congressional leaders, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) voiced doubts about the veracity of the intelligence, according to officials present.

The Trump transition team dismissed the findings in a short statement issued Friday evening. “These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It’s now time to move on and ‘Make America Great Again,’ ” the statement read.

 

Trump has consistently dismissed the intelligence community’s findings about Russian hacking.

 

“I don’t believe they interfered” in the election, he told Time magazine this week. The hacking, he said, “could be Russia. And it could be China. And it could be some guy in his home in New Jersey.”

 

The CIA shared its latest assessment with key senators in a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill last week, in which agency officials cited a growing body of intelligence from multiple sources. Agency briefers told the senators it was now “quite clear” that electing Trump was Russia’s goal, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.

 

For example, intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin “directing” the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second senior U.S. official said. Those actors, according to the official, were “one step” removed from the Russian government, rather than government employees. Moscow has in the past used middlemen to participate in sensitive intelligence operations so it has plausible deniability.

 

Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has said in a television interview that the “Russian government is not the source.”

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html

 

Yeah the Russian's made Hilary use the email server in her basement... mmmhmm....  more FUD!

[PGHammer]

3 hours ago, Ravensky said:

Yeah the Russian's made Hilary use the email server in her basement... mmmhmm....  more FUD!

On the one hand, the Democrats have - consistently - claimed that the intelligence agencies are "professionally paranoid" when it comes to the Russians (going back to Carter); however, the Russians make a VERY convenient scapegoat for the most embarrassing of drubbings in a Presidential election where the "electoral strategy" backfired massively (if not monstrously).

 

1.  No GOP hackery - who says?  There could be three reasons why the GOP did NOT squeal about being hacked; could they simply have had better security?  (The GOP got the same warnings the Democrats did - how much warning did the DNC pay to them?)  Maybe the Russians had no reason TO hack the GOP, as they weren't in control of the White House - and thus not the nukes?  The hackery originated somewhere OTHER than Russia? (The GOP did get hacked; however, the GOP refused to act like crybabies about it.)

2.  "Singing from the same pew" - Intelligence agencies are FAR from obtuse - they also have budgets to protect.  Terrorism is NOT a major consumer of STRATEGIC budgetary resources; however, it is a big short-term consumer of tactical intelligence budgetary resources.  The agency bureaucracies have all doubtless noticed that their heads are largely clueless about terrorism (especially President Obama's multiple "JV team" comments regarding ISIS); worse, the Democratic party as a whole is historically even MORE clueless about strategic threats; they DO remember Stansfield Turner and his red budget cleaver.  "Telling them what they want to hear" is age-old when it comes to bureaucracies - why would the IC be any different?  (Probably the one part of the IC that WOULD be different is the IC IG; which has a worse reputation than the IGs do in the rest of the Cabinet - because they actually take the job seriously.

[PGHammer]

10 hours ago, DocM said:

RNC is denying they were hacked, and say they were working with non-CIA intelligence agencies who confirmed it. They offered to show the data to the New York Times, but NYT refused and ran the story anyhow.

 

Listening to an interview, it sounds a lot like the RNC network is air-gapped.  This has been used to seal several US state election offices, and it's very tough to crack unless someone inside installs malware etc.

Most state election networks are air-gapped; same with state offices of both major political parties.  (Yes - I said BOTH major parties - that includes the DNC.  There is no wired connection at all between the Maryland Democratic party and the DNC; they run information in both directions via snail mail or courier.  What confuses the heck outta ME is why there was a non-airgapped connection between Hillary's campaign and the DNC - when there has NEVER been a non-airgapped connection between ANY GOP Presidential campaign and the RNC since Watergate.)  Sounds a lot like the GOP learned the lesson that the DNC should have.

[Vandalsquad]

13 hours ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

Russia was the only country polled that supported him over Clinton.

It's funny how there's a poll to fit everyone's priority, https://worldwide.vote/hillary-vs-trump/#/results/total With a much larger data pool than a liberal website. Everyone I know in Australia personally supported Trump.  

 

Let's move on, Trump won. At the end of the day Hillary used a private email server for secret CLASSIFIED information. She should of been committed to jail and in no position to run for president. Why the media keeps talking about who did the leaks, and not what was within those leaks is absolutely mind blowing.

[PGHammer]

17 minutes ago, Vandalsquad said:

It's funny how there's a poll to fit everyone's priority, https://worldwide.vote/hillary-vs-trump/#/results/total With a much larger data pool than a liberal website. Everyone I know in Australia personally supported Trump.  

 

Let's move on, Trump won. At the end of the day Hillary used a private email server for secret CLASSIFIED information. She should of been committed to jail and in no position to run for president. Why the media keeps talking about who did the leaks, and not what was within those leaks is absolutely mind blowing.

Vandalsquad - the Democrats were the "wronged party" in Watergate - and they made the most of it.  (Never mind that the GOP was as horrified over Nixon's actions as the Democratic leadership was; the Democrats have been great at playing the victim - and Watergate really helped them sharpen up their acting skillz.)  Note how I phrased things, my former Democratic party colleagues.

 

[DocM]

1 hour ago, PGHammer said:

>

What confuses the heck outta ME is why there was a non-airgapped connection between Hillary's campaign and the DNC - when there has NEVER been a non-airgapped connection between ANY GOP Presidential campaign and the RNC since Watergate.)  Sounds a lot like the GOP learned the lesson that the DNC should have.

It likely wasn't between her campaign and DNC, but the fact Clinton was connecting to everywhere over unsecured, non air-gapped regular lines to her server. From there ISTM they could spider out to most anything it was communicating with using saved p/w's etc.

[PGHammer]

1 minute ago, DocM said:

It likely wasn't between her campaign and DNC, but the fact Clinton was connecting to everywhere over unsecured, non air-gapped regular lines to her server. From there ISTM they could spider out to most anything it was communicating with.

Why do you think I specified a non-airgapped connection, DocM?  Historically, NOBODY has a non-airgapped connection to the headquarters of a major political party - not even the POTUS (if he is of your party) - is it, in fact, any different outside the United States (Canada, for example)?  If you are important enough to warrant such, you would (or SHOULD) merit actual space in the building; Donald Trump, for example, would have merited such space post convention; same applies to Mike Pence.  That's why I'm whacking the DNC's CSO - it's not JUST Hillary to blame for that kerfuffle.

[DocM]

No, it's not just Hillary, and DNC has a lot of 'splaing to do. What riles me is that in no press report is air-gapping mentioned, who does it and who doesn't, and they just assume if someone can get into DNC they can get into RNC. Nope.

[starman3344]

Do it by paper again.

[starman3344]

20 minutes ago, DocM said:

No, it's not just Hillary, and DNC has a lot of 'splaing to do. What riles me is that in no press report is air-gapping mentioned, who does it and who doesn't, and they just assume if someone can get into DNC they can get into RNC. Nope.

Seems funny why they want to be friends all of a sudden, don't u think. Those voting patterns didn't seem real...

[PGHammer]

1 minute ago, starman3344 said:

Seems funny why they want to be friends all of a sudden, don't u think

starman - all I said is that if someone has a need to get into the network, they should have a physical space in the building (and such would certainly apply to Presidential candidates of their party), I simply used Donald Trump,  Mike Pence and the RNC HQ as examples (as opposed to the hacked DNC and Hillary Clinton - which did NOT follow the standard advice).  As far as Russia and the US, there IS that pesky war on terrorism (per no less than President Obama - PRIOR to Hillary's declaration, let alone that of Donald Trump).  I'm not saying that we will see eye to eye on EVERYTHING; we don't see eye to eye on everything with the UK, for that matter (and the UK is our second-closest ally) or Canada, either (closer to us than the UK); that is how "realpolitik" works.  So, it's not surprising one bit.  A lot of us are just used to the US and Russia being on opposing sides in a lot of areas; forgetting that even when things were at their chilliest, there were areas of common ground between the United States and - egad - the now-dead Soviet Union.  (While I like ice cream a LOT, I usually don't like it for breakfast.)

[+Zagadka Subscriber²]

This really shouldn't be concentrated so much on anything related to the election. It is, simply, a huge national security problem, and framing it with the election makes it political and cheap.

[PGHammer]

Preaching to the choir, zagadka.  However, I'm rather FORCIBLY reminded of notices that are STILL posted at or near ANY telephone in ANY government office building that predates the cell phone warning of the lines being monitored.  If our side is doing it (which the notices explicitly stated), why wouldn't the other side (or sides) find a way to do the same thing?  (I'm neither stupid enough - or VAIN enough - to assume that the United States would keep any edge in anything forever; and I was BORN in the US, and have never travelled outside it.  While I'm proud to be an American, edges in everything are fleeting at best; it always pays to assume that any edge nation X has is at the least being attempted to be countered by nation Y - if not nations T, U and V - and there are HOW many nations in the UN?)  That is why counter-espionage is a twenty-four-hour/seven-day-per-week/three-hundred-sixty-six-day-per-year job that doesn't rest - ever.  In or out of government.  Anywhere in the world.

[theyarecomingforyou]

15 hours ago, troysavary said:

I didn't say Russia would make me furious at the EU. I was trying to explain that if I was the type to care what foreigner said about Trump, then I would be furious at EU leaders. But since I really don't give a flying fig what they think, I am not upset, Just as I wouldn't have cared if Russia had exposed something about Trump. If they had exposed his tax records, I bet it would have made not one bit of difference in the election. You seem to think you know me better than I know myself, since you are presuming to tell me what would upset me.

Again, you haven't provided a single quote from an EU leader that you claim interfered with the US election. You allege interference but haven't provided any evidence to support that position. And yet again you don't seem to care that foreign governments interfered in the US election, which is troubling.

 

15 hours ago, troysavary said:

Orchestrated campaign against one opponent? You mean like the network news in the US digging up everything that Trump has ever said that looks bad, but giving Clinton a free pass? If you are going to froth at the mouth about how Russian media supported Trump, you should be showing equal outrage at how the American media supported Clinton.

Clinton didn't get a free pass. There were countless critical articles about her, as I mentioned earlier. The reason that Trump received more negative coverage is because he made more outrageous and offensive statements. Candidates shouldn't be treated equally, they should be treated fairly - that was what happened. Trump was criticised more because his actions warranted it.

 

That's not to say there aren't issues with press independence. We saw that some members of the press were running their articles via the DNC before publication, which is outrageous. However, we see the same with Fox News on the right with reporters and Republican politicians sharing the same talking points so it's a widespread issue. Reporters who fail to maintain independence from politicians should be exposed and kicked out of the industry.

 

15 hours ago, troysavary said:

If you think EU leaders have not been making extremely negative statements about Trump, then you really need to start listening to news sources outside of American mainstream news

Again, provide evidence. Let's talk about it. If you're not willing to do that then we don't have a basis for a discussion.

 

15 hours ago, troysavary said:

I'm not trying to present evidence that Hillary's email server was hacked, it is you guys who are trying to say the Russians leaked her info. If, as she says, her server was never hacked, then the info came from an internal leak at one of the US law enforcement or intelligence agencies, not the Russians. If the info came from the Russians, then Hillary lied about her server never have been hacked. You really cannot have it both ways.

What on earth are you talking about? The emails that were leaked were from John Podesta and occurred due to a breach of his Gmail account by Fancy Bear, a Russian hacking group connected to Russian military intelligence. It has nothing to do with Clinton's private server. You're conflating two unrelated matters. Please, if you're not sure about something then just look it up - it saves us all a lot of time.

[JoseyWales]

You all need to quit confusing fact for innuendo. No facts have been presented, just speculation from the talking heads and their so called "experts". Funny how people throw that one out there too as all they are doing is painting a theory, unsubstantiated at that. Those so called experts are getting paid for their opinions and pander to the assignment, for or against..

[theyarecomingforyou]

1 hour ago, JoseyWales said:

You all need to quit confusing fact for innuendo. No facts have been presented, just speculation from the talking heads and their so called "experts".

If we're simply going to dismiss experts out-of-hand then there is no discussion. It's been a tactic of the right go after experts recently, telling people to trust their instincts over people who've spent decades researching their field. Michael Gove used the same tactic during the EU referendum with his 'people have had enough of experts' nonsense:

 

 

It's scary that we're in an era where evidence is ignored and people are told that their uninformed beliefs are more valid than those of experts. We're living in the Post-Trust Era™, where emotions and beliefs are all that matters.

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

TV/Radio news broadcasting is supposed to be a regulated and licensed activity.

 

Yet, the regulatory bodies turn a blind eye on instances of blatant mis- and disinformation because, supposedly, freedom of speech is more important and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. There are also political reasons there. So, we have a situation when news stations are protected and they are free to brainwash us.

 

If you want to rebuild trust, then you should start with journalists and news stations.

 

There should be a penalty for spreading "fake news", up to license revocation.

 

Journalism should be a licensed activity, similarly to a notary public for example.

 

In the age of information that we live in, there's too much at stake here.

[theyarecomingforyou]

12 minutes ago, Mirumir said:

TV/Radio news broadcasting is supposed to be a regulated and licensed activity.

 

Yet, the regulatory bodies turn a blind eye on instances of blatant mis- and disinformation because, supposedly, freedom of speech is more important and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. There are also political reasons there. So, we have a situation when news stations are protected and they are free to brainwash us.

 

If you want to rebuild trust, then you should start with journalists and news stations.

 

There should be a penalty for spreading "fake news", up to license revocation.

 

Journalism should be a licensed activity, similarly to a notary public for example.

 

In the age of information that we live in, there's too much at stake here.

Countries like China and Russia regulate the media as you suggest and the result is always the same: a mouthpiece for the establishment. I understand the sentiment but it's very difficult to walk that line. The real issue is that the majority of voters are uninformed and unaware of bias, not analysing the news that is being presented to them. The biggest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

3 minutes ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

a mouthpiece for the establishment. 

It's just like in the west then.

 

 

 

[theyarecomingforyou]

1 hour ago, Mirumir said:

It's just like in the west then.

No, Western media is a mouthpiece for businesses and wealthy individuals. Journalists still do investigative journalism into the government, as we saw with revelations regarding the NSA monitoring programme and the documents leaked by Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange.

[JoseyWales]

2 hours ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

If we're simply going to dismiss experts out-of-hand then there is no discussion. It's been a tactic of the right go after experts recently, telling people to trust their instincts over people who've spent decades researching their field. Michael Gove used the same tactic during the EU referendum with his 'people have had enough of experts' nonsense:

 

 

It's scary that we're in an era where evidence is ignored and people are told that their uninformed beliefs are more valid than those of experts. We're living in the Post-Trust Era™, where emotions and beliefs are all that matters.

Evidence.. right.. If you say so. Just like them, it's all about what they think "might" be going on, "trust us, we are the experts!". If the other side put things out like what we have been seeing lately they would be labeled as conspiracy theorists but let's believe everything the left says because they are the so called enlightened ones with experts to back them up.. Yeah, ok.. Why should any of of what the paid for "experts" or "contributors" have to say be believed right now. It's all been pandering to one side or the other and gets worse year after year.

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

21 minutes ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

No, Western media is a mouthpiece for businesses and wealthy individuals. Journalists still do investigative journalism into the government, as we saw with revelations regarding the NSA monitoring programme and the documents leaked by Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange.

Quote

In total, there are 93,000 media outlets in Russia, including 27,000 newspapers and magazines and 330 television channels

If you think all the aforementioned stations operating in Russia are controlled by the government, I don't know what to tell you.

[theyarecomingforyou]

28 minutes ago, Mirumir said:

If you think all the aforementioned stations operating in Russia are controlled by the government, I don't know what to tell you.

You really need to read up on it. Here's a good article: How's Russia's independent media was dismantled piece by piece. It doesn't matter how many newspapers, magazines or TV channels there are if they're either too afraid to post anything critical of the government or they are shutdown when they do.

 

31 minutes ago, JoseyWales said:

Evidence.. right.. If you say so. Just like them, it's all about what they think "might" be going on, "trust us, we are the experts!". If the other side put things out like what we have been seeing lately they would be labeled as conspiracy theorists but let's believe everything the left says because they are the so called enlightened ones with experts to back them up.. Yeah, ok.. Why should any of of what the paid for "experts" or "contributors" have to say be believed right now. It's all been pandering to one side or the other and gets worse year after year.

There's plenty of evidence. In fact some articles even go into the specifics, like this one. It shouldn't be about left vs right, it should be about the evidence. However, what you find is that the right believes in faith over evidence - we see that in religion, climate change denial, conspiracy theories, xenophobia, etc. It's impossible to have a rational discussion when evidence is dismissed out of hand and hunches and beliefs are preached as if fact.

 

I highly recommend watching this video produced by the US military back in 1947 about the dangers of fascism, something that is extremely relevant with the election of Trump: 

 

 

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

7 minutes ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

You really need to read up on it. Here's a good article: How's Russia's independent media was dismantled piece by piece. It doesn't matter how many newspapers, magazines or TV channels there are if they're either too afraid to post anything critical of the government or they are shutdown when they do.

Even if you believe that all of the Russian media is rigged, who says the Russians only have the access to the Russian media?

 

We can actually double-check our state propaganda vs the western media's coverage of events and make up our own mind.

[theyarecomingforyou]

7 minutes ago, Mirumir said:

Even if you believe that all of the Russian media is rigged, who says the Russians only have the access to the Russian media?

 

We can actually double-check our state propaganda vs the western media's coverage of events and make up our own mind.

It's amazing how your position changes as I refute your positions one by one. First you laughed at the idea that Russia lacked freedom of press, then you acknowledged it's all propaganda but argued it can be compared to Western media coverage to find out the truth. You argued that the media should be regulated and I tore apart that argument by pointing out how Russia uses the media for propaganda through draconian regulations and interference.