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

[Dysphoria]

1 hour ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

Are you kidding? Seriously, are you kidding?  That's the most ironic statement in this topic, which is saying something. Trump hijacked the RNC to further his own political ambitions - the entire party establishment was against him.

No, I am not kidding... seriously... I am not kidding

The part that you dont get it, why Trump won, explains your "Are you kidding " statement.

 

Believe it or not, people are sick of bureaucratic pencil pushers who their whole life have survived on the back of the people. Paid by the people, supported by the people.

National debt was doubled during Obama's presidency to $20 trillion... yes, I am not kidding, $20 trillion....

 

Guess what... its time to change a few things... 

Maybe this will get these bureaucratic leaches out of their comfort zone, and start actually working and performing vs collecting month to month paychecks.

They should worry about their job security just as the rest of us mortals...

[FunkyMike]

1 hour ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

That's an extremely biased article and clearly not from any respectable journalist. I wasn't familiar with ZeroHedge as a news source so I did a bit of research. Here's a quote from the Wikipedia article:

 

"Zero Hedge's content is conspiratorial, anti-establishment, and economically pessimistic, and has been criticized for presenting extreme and sometimes pro-Russian views."

"Dr. Craig Pirrong, professor at the Bauer College of Business writes that "I have frequently written that Zero Hedge has the MO of a Soviet agitprop operation, that it reliably peddles Russian propaganda: my first post on this, almost exactly three years ago, noted the parallels between Zero Hedge and Russia Today.""

 

It's not surprising that you'd resort to a fringe publication with no credibility.

You are getting desperate, your narrow world view and inability to comprehend let alone read an article shines through with the brightest of lights.

 

The original source is Washington Post. I agree with you that WaPo has lost a lot of credibility. ZH is merely conveying the article.

 

Read my reply in the NeoNazi thread for a better understanding of ZH. No point trusting Wikipedia entries edited by unknowns that share your "fake news" narrative.

 

When you are done reading the NeoNazi thread .. do let me know which group of "people" you place me in .. you still haven't answered me.

 

 

[Emn1ty]

3 hours ago, primortal said:

Really, so "one step removed" clears the Russia government of all wrong doing because they weren't directly doing the hacking themselves?  Good to know.

No, it means we don't have enough evidence to connect them to the Russian government, which means that saying it was Russia's government who directed the hacks/leaks is an leap of logic. Am I claiming Russia didn't do it? No. I'm claiming the evidence isn't there to say Russia did do it.

 

1 hour ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

As always the evidence has to be assessed and used to make an informed decision. Could it all be an amazing coincidence and the hackers are actually unrelated to the Russian government? Or could it all be an elaborate false flag operation? Absolutely. Is it likely? Not at all.

Under what basis do you make the assertion that it's not likely? I see lots of people here pointing fingers and blame when the evidence doesn't quite go that far, and when one points out that the evidence isn't there to jump to any conclusions the response is to just double down on things. We have contrary information coming from other sources, such as Assange saying it wasn't the Russian government. You're going so far to say that the Director of the FBI "interfered" with the election, when he had zero choice in the matter. In fact the political pressure on him was so great I'd say he went easy on Clinton.

I'm not really sure what qualifies as interfering here, or even directly. The FBI Director merely did his job, under immense political pressure, and because the election didn't turn out the way you wanted it to he's now guilty of directly interfering. Convenient, doesn't matter what his motives were at the time the hindsight bias shows there was a conspiracy to undermine the election by him! How do we know this? Well he's a Republican and that's all the evidence we need, right?

You want to talk about conspiracy theories, you're peddling them quite readily here.

[DocM]

The Wisconsin recount ends.

 

Trumps WI margin increased by 131 votes.

 

The Michigan and Pennsylvania results also stand.

 

The 4 courts that ruled, 3 on MI and 1 on PA, found no evidence of outside influence on the casting or counting of the votes.  3 of these were Federal courts including the 6th District which is one level below the SCOTUS, and 1 was the MI Supreme Court.

Edited December 12, 2016 by DocM

[theyarecomingforyou]

1 hour ago, FunkyMike said:

You are getting desperate, your narrow world view and inability to comprehend let alone read an article shines through with the brightest of lights.

Classic projection. You post links to an article with extreme bias on an obscure conspiracy website and then criticise me when I dare to hold a critical eye to it. You then attack me personally by saying I can't "comprehend let alone read an article". When you make it personal you lose the argument.

 

52 minutes ago, DocM said:

The Wisconsin recount ends.

 

Trumps WI margin increased by 131 votes.

 

The Michigan and Pennsylvania results also stand.

That's great. Nobody should be afraid of recounts, as they only serve to protect democracy. In this case Trump won those states and the recounts support that. I still maintain his election is illegitimate due to the meddling of foreign governments and the Director of the FBI, as well as the archaic and undemocratic electoral system, but Trump won under the system that exists (a system he himself criticised).

[theyarecomingforyou]

1 hour ago, Emn1ty said:

No, it means we don't have enough evidence to connect them to the Russian government, which means that saying it was Russia's government who directed the hacks/leaks is an leap of logic. Am I claiming Russia didn't do it? No. I'm claiming the evidence isn't there to say Russia did do it.

We also don't have every fossil record in the evolution of man yet the evidence supports the conclusion.

 

1 hour ago, Emn1ty said:

Under what basis do you make the assertion that it's not likely? I see lots of people here pointing fingers and blame when the evidence doesn't quite go that far, and when one points out that the evidence isn't there to jump to any conclusions the response is to just double down on things. We have contrary information coming from other sources, such as Assange saying it wasn't the Russian government.

As I mentioned earlier, all the evidence points to an organisation with direct ties to Russian military intelligence. Assange didn't reveal where he got the information from, so it's not evidence we can consider. Don't forget that he would still be accurate if he said it wasn't the Russian government if it came from hackers connected to the government.

 

1 hour ago, Emn1ty said:

You're going so far to say that the Director of the FBI "interfered" with the election, when he had zero choice in the matter. In fact the political pressure on him was so great I'd say he went easy on Clinton.

The Director of the FBI broke tradition by announcing an investigation into Clinton, which broke all established conventions. He didn't go easy on Clinton - the evidence supported the original assessment, which is that there is no case against her. By making such an announcement he damaged her prospects of winning the election. That is political interference and is actually illegal. He should face criminal charges.

[JoseyWales]

It's amazing just how far some of these guys can stick their heads up the DNC's ass.. They could say cows were chickens and we would see it defended vehemently. I can see the mayhem over @ Chick-fil-A already..

[Torolol]

yea, so why this are not in conspiracy thread? conspiracy room is that way --->

[Emn1ty]

47 minutes ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

We also don't have every fossil record in the evolution of man yet the evidence supports the conclusion.

Innocent until proven guilty, or does that only matter when it suits your needs and when it doesn't it can be explained away with a simple religious analogy?

 

48 minutes ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

As I mentioned earlier, all the evidence points to an organisation with direct ties to Russian military intelligence. Assange didn't reveal where he got the information from, so it's not evidence we can consider. Don't forget that he would still be accurate if he said it wasn't the Russian government if it came from hackers connected to the government.

All the evidence? So why does it seem that the FBI also questions the findings? Why are they demanding more concrete evidence? Oh right, it's a right wing plan to undermine the truth! More conspiracy. Just because Assange hasn't revealed his sources doesn't mean what he said is to be ignored. It's interesting that Assange (who we know often has fairly good and reliable information) is being put beneath news outlets who repeatedly get the story wrong (and who's sources are "intelligence officials"). If you're concerned about sources being cited, why does the Washington Post get a pass with their vague source? Wasn't it also that very same C.I.A. that told us there was WMD's in Iraq? Why are they now so irrefutably correct yet then so completely wrong?

I'm not going to blindly trust anything just because a bunch of "officials" from a government agency believe it. I'll wait to see the real evidence, not circumstantial evidence.

 

58 minutes ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

The Director of the FBI broke tradition by announcing an investigation into Clinton, which broke all established conventions. He didn't go easy on Clinton - the evidence supported the original assessment, which is that there is no case against her. By making such an announcement he damaged her prospects of winning the election. That is political interference and is actually illegal. He should face criminal charges.

Conventions are not laws, nor regulations. He did as he should, ignoring the political climate and doing his job. He brought information he felt was necessary to be disclosed to the public, just as the MSM did with Trump and all his past endeavors. Or would you rather that the media and the FBI sit silent and do nothing?

Please cite to me the provision or law that says the FBI Director cannot publicly disclose information regarding an active investigation into a presidential candidate. Do tell me where that is or in what way what he did was illegal.

[wakjak]

4 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

Innocent until proven guilty, or does that only matter when it suits your needs

That's REAL rich coming from you. Considering the pitch forking you were peddling for Clinton before the election.

Next.

[+Red King Subscriber²]

Can this be moved to the conspiracy section? Thanks.

[ensiform]

1 hour ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

That's great. Nobody should be afraid of recounts, as they only serve to protect democracy. In this case Trump won those states and the recounts support that. I still maintain his election is illegitimate due to the meddling of foreign governments and the Director of the FBI, as well as the archaic and undemocratic electoral system, but Trump won under the system that exists (a system he himself criticised).

It's not illegitimate on the basis of the system that is in place as you said, its a system that exists.  Nobody who wins by the system is going to complain about it after the fact.  And until we have the full evidence on whether "meddling" affected anything other than intercepting communications, I don't think we should assume anything is final.  And as you stated in a later post about it being tradition etc on the FBI Director, tradition is merely tradition and not law nor is there anything but a red herring to suggest it was to undermine Hillary's chances.

 

What is your bright plan to fix the system other than just sweep away Electoral College and go to the popular vote?  Do you believe its that simple and then everyone wins and its fixed?

[JoseyWales]

Quote

Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims “######”, adding: “They are absolutely making it up.”

“I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.

“If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA’s statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States.

“America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it’s not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever.”

The California Republican congressman Devin Nunes, chair of the House intelligence committee and a member of the Trump transition team, said: “I’ll be the first one to come out and point at Russia if there’s clear evidence, but there is no clear evidence – even now. There’s a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that’s it.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/10/cia-concludes-russia-interfered-to-help-trump-win-election-report?

[ctebah]

These agencies are clearly trying to pin this on the Russians in order to force Trump into doing something.  They know Trump wants to work with Putin, but if Russia isn't painted as an imaginary enemy, how do you justify enormous defense spending?  

Was Russian media favorable to Trump?  Absolutely.  Is there proof that the Russians did all this hacking?  None yet.

[Emn1ty]

34 minutes ago, wakjak said:

That's REAL rich coming from you. Considering the pitch forking you were peddling for Clinton before the election.

Next.

What pitchforking? If I recall, I accepted the conclusion of the FBI as it was and am content with it. That stands in stark contrast to how you're taking Trump's winning of the election.

 

 

Edited December 13, 2016 by Emn1ty
Updated with proof of my acceptance of their decision.

[wakjak]

1 minute ago, Emn1ty said:

What pitchforking?

You're going to pretend that people weren't calling for Hillary to be imprisoned? ok.

[Mr. Gibs]

3 hours ago, Euphoria said:

Believe it or not, people are sick of bureaucratic pencil pushers who their whole life have survived on the back of the people. Paid by the people, supported by the people.

National debt was doubled during Obama's presidency to $20 trillion... yes, I am not kidding, $20 trillion....

Kindoff funny how the only people who like to parrot the "national debt has hit X trillion" number are the ones who have never ever taken a basic economics or finance class in their entire life.

 

1. The debt you owe to a bank (say credit card, mortgage etc) and the national debt are two very different things. The vast majority of the US debt is owned by two major parts, the people of America and the government itself (some 40% of the national debt is literally just one part of the US government owing money to another part of the same government). When the US needs to borrow money it doesn't go to the "Worldwide bank of monies" and fill out an application for a loan, signs some papers in front of a banker who's gleefully rubbing his palms because of the commission he's going to get from this loan.

2. In both cases nobody cares about the amount of debt, just how well you are able to service that debt. If you want to look at it purely as amount of debt then 99% of people in America are broke ass mother######ers that have a significantly negative networth because of mortgages, car loans, student loans, credit cards etc. Same thing applies to the US and other countries. They can all continue to make payments on their debt without any real issue both now and well well well into the future.

3. That national debt is actually quite good for the US and it's citizens because a huge chunk of it is in the form of treasury notes which are extremely safe and really good parts of future investment portfolios. Less treasury notes means riskier investment portfolios. 

4. It doesn't take into account the recession and how much money the federal reserve had to pump into the economy and the amount of us governmental bonds it had to purchase to stop the US slipping into an even greater recession. That recession was not caused by Obama and a large part of it wasn't even caused by Bush...so sitting there and blaming him for spending X amount of money is ridiculous. If the feds and the federal reserve didn't pump trillions into the economy the recession we would have been in would have been even worse.

 

Does this mean that the US can sit comfortably at $100 trillion of debt and therefore should think about putting a $50 trillion bid on buying Jupiter? No, just right now the whole talk of the US going bankrupt and China owning the country is a load of horseshit.

Edited December 13, 2016 by -Razorfold

[Emn1ty]

57 minutes ago, wakjak said:

You're going to pretend that people weren't calling for Hillary to be imprisoned? ok.

No, but I'm not going to let you personally target me for doing something I didn't do. Your post was directed at me and no one else.

[Gone]

The Obama administration at work. Every federal agency has lost credibility in the past 8 years.

 

Now that the Democrats lost, they are clawing at anything to have a reason as to why they lost.

Never mind the stack of felonies that the Clinton's committed, now that is not the reason that she lost the election, it is the fact that we found out about it. Had we not known the felonies and treason she committed, she might have won!! Also, never mind the Democrat efforts to (successfully) steal the primary from Bernie Sanders.

[Gone]

1 hour ago, wakjak said:

You're going to pretend that people weren't calling for Hillary to be imprisoned? ok.

I was waiting for you to chip in. Clinton should be in prison, she would be right along side the recent NSA contractor and (had we caught) Edward Snowden, him.

 

I laugh every time you pretend to ignore the facts: Clinton has committed treason and has covered up her husbands rapes, screwed over the Haitians, and taken bribes from foreign governments to get power. No, she definitely shouldn't be in imprison.  

 

Please, refute this argument with facts.

[+Raze Subscriber²]

1 hour ago, SpeedyTheSnail said:

I was waiting for you to chip in. Clinton should be in prison, she would be right along side the recent NSA contractor and (had we caught) Edward Snowden, him.

 

I laugh every time you pretend to ignore the facts: Clinton has committed treason and has covered up her husbands rapes, screwed over the Haitians, and taken bribes from foreign governments to get power. No, she definitely shouldn't be in imprison.  

 

Please, refute this argument with facts.

Please provide sources for the alleged facts you stated.   Then maybe someone will counter with facts and the sources.

[DocM]

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence says,

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-intelligence-idUSKBN14204E?il=0

 

Top U.S. spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hacking - sources

The overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced a CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election, three American officials said on Monday.

While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named.

The position of the ODNI, which oversees the 17 agency-strong U.S. intelligence community, could give Trump fresh ammunition to dispute the CIA assessment, which he rejected as "ridiculous" in weekend remarks, and press his assertion that no evidence implicates Russia in the cyber attacks.

Trump's rejection of the CIA's judgment marks the latest in a string of disputes over Russia's international conduct that have erupted between the president-elect and the intelligence community he will soon command.

An ODNI spokesman declined to comment on the issue.

"ODNI is not arguing that the agency (CIA) is wrong, only that they can't prove intent," said one of the three U.S. officials. "Of course they can't, absent agents in on the decision-making in Moscow."

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose evidentiary standards require it to make cases that can stand up in court, declined to accept the CIA's analysis - a deductive assessment of the available intelligence - for the same reason, the three officials said.

The ODNI, headed by James Clapper, was established after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the recommendation of the commission that investigated the attacks. The commission, which identified major intelligence failures, recommended the office's creation to improve coordination among U.S. intelligence agencies.
>
The CIA assessed after the election that the attacks on political organizations were aimed at swaying the vote for Trump because the targeting of Republican organizations diminished toward the end of the summer and focused on Democratic groups, a senior U.S. official told Reuters on Friday.

Moreover, only materials filched from Democratic groups - such as emails stolen from John Podesta, the Clinton campaign chairman - were made public via WikiLeaks, the anti-secrecy organization, and other outlets, U.S. officials said.

"THIN REED"

The CIA conclusion was a "judgment based on the fact that Russian entities hacked both Democrats and Republicans and only the Democratic information was leaked," one of the three officials said on Monday.

"(It was) a thin reed upon which to base an analytical judgment," the official added.
>

[theyarecomingforyou]

7 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

Innocent until proven guilty, or does that only matter when it suits your needs and when it doesn't it can be explained away with a simple religious analogy?

That only applies to criminal justice. By that logic Hitler was innocent as he never faced trial for his actions.

 

Quote

All the evidence? So why does it seem that the FBI also questions the findings? Why are they demanding more concrete evidence? Oh right, it's a right wing plan to undermine the truth! More conspiracy. Just because Assange hasn't revealed his sources doesn't mean what he said is to be ignored. It's interesting that Assange (who we know often has fairly good and reliable information) is being put beneath news outlets who repeatedly get the story wrong (and who's sources are "intelligence officials"). If you're concerned about sources being cited, why does the Washington Post get a pass with their vague source? Wasn't it also that very same C.I.A. that told us there was WMD's in Iraq? Why are they now so irrefutably correct yet then so completely wrong?

I'm not going to blindly trust anything just because a bunch of "officials" from a government agency believe it. I'll wait to see the real evidence, not circumstantial evidence.

You act as if I'm unquestioningly accepting a leaked CIA assessment as the only evidence. One has to question anything that is leaked, especially when it's supposedly a 'secret' assessment. However, it fits with the evidence available. This isn't a partisan thing, as the evidence is also clear that Clinton covered up the deletion of her emails. Again, we don't have proof of that but it fits all the evidence available to us. Do we have conclusive proof? No, but we likely never will.

 

Quote

Conventions are not laws, nor regulations. He did as he should, ignoring the political climate and doing his job. He brought information he felt was necessary to be disclosed to the public, just as the MSM did with Trump and all his past endeavors. Or would you rather that the media and the FBI sit silent and do nothing?

Please cite to me the provision or law that says the FBI Director cannot publicly disclose information regarding an active investigation into a presidential candidate. Do tell me where that is or in what way what he did was illegal.

I'll start with this article on the Hatch Act, which prevents political interfering by government officials. If the FBI had enough evidence to press charges against her then I would have been all in favour of them doing so. However, this was merely about more evidence for an investigation that found nothing against Clinton and still found nothing after assessing the new evidence. It also broke tradition by announcing an active investigation into someone.

 

The FBI Director should be removed from his post and face criminal charges. You CANNOT have someone like him interfering with elections in such an overt manner.

 

6 hours ago, ensiform said:

What is your bright plan to fix the system other than just sweep away Electoral College and go to the popular vote?  Do you believe its that simple and then everyone wins and its fixed?

Actually, yes. Either move to a proportional representation system—which is never going to fly in the US—or move to a simple first-past-the-post system where the candidate with the most votes wins. Is it right that Clinton received nearly three million more votes but lost because of where those votes were? Of course not.

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

8 hours ago, ctebah said:

These agencies are clearly trying to pin this on the Russians in order to force Trump into doing something.  They know Trump wants to work with Putin, but if Russia isn't painted as an imaginary enemy, how do you justify enormous defense spending?  

The conflict of interests that has arisen at the top of the U.S. politics can be clearly seen.

 

One camp wants to paint Russia as a boogeyman so they could continue to enrich themselves by inflating the defense budget. They've been milking this cow for far too long and know nothing better to do.

 

They other camp wants to enrich themselves and to profit from Russia too, but by cooperating and trading with the country on equal terms instead. They represent "the new money", the business ties that have flourished between Russia and the U.S. since 1991. And they don't want to risk to see any type of WWIII scenario unfold because they'd rather be quietly watching their bank deposits grow and enjoy life.

 

The former belongs to the previous century. The latter is being pragmatic (realpolitik).

[DocM]

The problem with Liberal Interventionists (their term, we call them neocons and they're in both parties) is they need somewhere to intervene no matter how they do it. And they don't like losing.