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

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

13 minutes ago, TPreston said:

 

"We just don't know, but I believe the intelligence has been very politicized under the Obama administration."

 

/thread

[MDboyz]

... com'on stop being cry babies and take it like a man ... it is not like that we have never tried to influence elections from other Countries ...

 

[alpha2beta]

On 12/10/2016 at 8:00 AM, hagjohn said:

Not surprised at all that Russia was behind these leaks and for getting Comrade Trump elected. Anyone who has 1/2 a brain could have figured out the leaks were only one sided and were meant to hurt Hillary. I can't believe the amount of so-called patriotic people who don't seem to have a problem with this.

 

And, no, I did not vote for Hillary. I voted for Evan McMullin.

The extreme left corrupted liberal government and media are doing everything they possibly can to throw this election. Even though they have no evidence.

[Dysphoria]

Here is one for the liberals:

 

[theyarecomingforyou]

32 minutes ago, TPreston said:

 

That's classic of the right-wing, to throw out a conspiracy theory whilst constantly saying 'we don't know' any time they are asked to back it up. It's ludicrous, but then John Bolton was an embarrassment through his role as US ambassador to the UN under George W Bush, using his position to defend Israel from criticism over its war crimes and human rights abuses. He even encouraged Israel to invade Iran. He's a fringe extremist.

 

12 minutes ago, alpha2beta said:

The extreme left corrupted liberal government and media are doing everything they possibly can to throw this election. Even though they have no evidence.

So Russia and the FBI Director directly interfere with the US elections and yet it's the 'extreme left' that's to blame? How convenient. And to call the US media or the Obama administration 'extreme left' is utterly laughable - even the Affordable Care Act was conservative legislation designed to provide more customers to healthcare corporations. To be 'extreme left' you'd have to be talking about the end of private property, the abolition of private healthcare providers, nationalisation of core infrastructure, the dismantling of large corporations, etc - none of that has ever been proposed.

 

You're just spouting buzz words you've heard other people using and repeating them without any understanding.

[Emn1ty]

7 minutes ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

So Russia and the FBI Director directly interfere with the US elections and yet it's the 'extreme left' that's to blame? How convenient. And to call the US media or the Obama administration 'extreme left' is utterly laughable - even the Affordable Care Act was conservative legislation designed to provide more customers to healthcare corporations. To be 'extreme left' you'd have to be talking about the end of private property, the abolition of private healthcare providers, nationalisation of core infrastructure, the dismantling of large corporations, etc - none of that has ever been proposed.

 

You're just spouting buzz words you've heard other people using and repeating them without any understanding.

Russia has not directly interfered, there is no evidence of direct interference so could you please stop speaking as if there was? You're undermining every statement you make by playing into the propaganda of these articles and not reading the fine print of them.

[+primortal Subscriber²]

1 minute ago, Emn1ty said:

Russia has not directly interfered, there is no evidence of direct interference so could you please stop speaking as if there was?

So you unequivocally have proof they didn't interfere?  I didn't know you worked for the government

[DocM]

18 minutes ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

That's classic of the right-wing, to throw out a conspiracy theory whilst constantly saying 'we don't know' any time they are asked to back it up. It's ludicrous,

Except that left, often far left, looks at this are also seeing problems with the meme; New Yorker, AlterNet etc. 

 

Is it so hard to accept the notion that pro-Ukraine people planted that false flag? Or that the "liberal interventionists" (aka neocons, in both parties) who opposed Trump and a Russia reset would try to scuttle it? 

 

Nope, it's easier to believe that serious, Kremlin based Russian hackers just forgot how to mask their IP addresses 

[benplace]

If the DNC wasn't doing illegal things and e-mailing about them in the first place this would all be mute...

Lets clean up the dirty politics of the democratic party first.

[theyarecomingforyou]

1 hour ago, Emn1ty said:

Russia has not directly interfered, there is no evidence of direct interference so could you please stop speaking as if there was? You're undermining every statement you make by playing into the propaganda of these articles and not reading the fine print of them.

This entire discussion has been about the evidence regarding Russian interference. I've posted numerous links supporting my position and pointing out the evidence. If you want to refute the evidence I've posted throughout this topic then please go ahead but you can't simply dismiss the evidence out of hand and then claim there isn't any.

 

1 hour ago, DocM said:

Is it so hard to accept the notion that pro-Ukraine people planted that false flag? Or that the "liberal interventionists" (aka neocons, in both parties) who opposed Trump and a Russia reset would try to scuttle it? 

 

Nope, it's easier to believe that serious, Kremlin based Russian hackers just forgot how to mask their IP addresses 

If you're claiming it's a false flag then you need to provide evidence supporting that. And the evidence isn't Russian IP addresses - it's known affiliations, previous targets, methods of attack, time of day (i.e. they're not working during Russian holidays), etc. There's a wide variety of evidence that has led to US intelligence agencies and independent cyber security experts to conclude that Russia was involved. But sure, just dismiss any evidence that runs contrary to your viewpoint.

 

It's bizarre that you'd immediately jump to the 'false flag' angle without any evidence whilst ignoring the credible angle that's evidenced.

 

18 minutes ago, benplace said:

If the DNC wasn't doing illegal things and e-mailing about them in the first place this would all be mute...

Lets clean up the dirty politics of the democratic party first.

I'm all for exposing the criminality and wrongdoing of politicians in both the DNC and RNC. But you can't have foreign powers meddling in US elections, influencing the outcomes. You can't say 'let's clean up politics' and then only target one of the parties responsible - the entire system needs overhauling.

[+Warwagon MVC]

The Russians can't stand Hillary either

[hagjohn]

32 minutes ago, benplace said:

If the DNC wasn't doing illegal things and e-mailing about them in the first place this would all be mute...

Lets clean up the dirty politics of the democratic party first.

Do you really think the same things don't happen in the GOP... or in the Green or other parties?

[Dysphoria]

14 minutes ago, hagjohn said:

Do you really think the same things don't happen in the GOP... or in the Green or other parties?

So that is your justification!?

Look, it's clear that media was biased and pro Hilary, she had more support than Trump could ever dream to get, and yet she lost.

 

If they hacked the RNC, what we would have seen was probably bitching and moaning about how Ted Cruz lost to Trump.

Trump surely wasn't the primary pick of the RNC, but yet it is highly unlikely that the RNC sabotaged the primaries the way the DNC did to push Hilary for president.

 

So instead of evaluating all the wrongdoings and question their action and choices they made that cost them the elections, the Democrats are resolving to making excuses, as always.

Lets just blame the Russians, because if it weren't for the hacks and leaked emails, people would have never figured out how corrupt and messed up the Democratic Party is.... and with the help of media, Hollywood and hundreds of millions of dollars they spent on brainwashing people, they would have surely won...

 

After-all they need to justify the loss to their investors and assure them that their money will be well spend on the next elections as they would fix/correct this security issue.

 

It is just amazing that people are still supporting all this bull.... talk and don't focus on the days ahead...

[Dysphoria]

23 minutes ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

I'm all for exposing the criminality and wrongdoing of politicians in both the DNC and RNC. But you can't have foreign powers meddling in US elections, influencing the outcomes. You can't say 'let's clean up politics' and then only target one of the parties responsible - the entire system needs overhauling.

Right... you sure are.... so what would be the political wrong doing of RNC in regards to Trump?

Trump is not a politician and he clearly wasn't their primary pick.

Stop making excuses and justifications... He won, she lost... get over it!

Although if I am a Democrat I would evaluate the party and the DNC and ask what happened to representing the people and when this turned into a business for supporting a single person's ambitions vs what is best for the people and the party.

[TPreston]

 

 

 

 

[TPreston]

 

[DocM]

1 hour ago, hagjohn said:

Do you really think the same things don't happen in the GOP... or in the Green or other parties?

AIUI the GOP systems are air-gapped, meaning you can't hack them from the outside unless malware had been installed from the inside or someone inside is reading EMF coming off system(s) with a mobile device. Depends on the type of air-gap.

 

The larger problem is that there's no consistency as regards air-gapping or network protection for election related groups. Most are not are part of of Critical Infrastructure Protection monitoring set up by DHS. That needs to change.

 

Many states, like here in Michigan, have an air-gap down to the precinct level where our optical ballot scanners etc. are not networked. The count is read off manually with a paper printout as a backup record, and a manual log book is kept of who and how many voted. 

 

It works well - we saw very few errors in the MI recount until the federal and state courts stopped it, and those errors pretty much balanced between Trump and Clinton. We may have seen a statewide difference of 100 votes. Wisconsin was seeing a Clinton gain of +25 votes as of yesterday out of a 22,000 Trump advantage, with their recount ending today or tomorrow.

 

.

 

Edited December 12, 2016 by DocM

[hagjohn]

37 minutes ago, Euphoria said:

So that is your justification!?

Look, it's clear that media was biased and pro Hilary, she had more support than Trump could ever dream to get, and yet she lost.

 

If they hacked the RNC, what we would have seen was probably bitching and moaning about how Ted Cruz lost to Trump.

Trump surely wasn't the primary pick of the RNC, but yet it is highly unlikely that the RNC sabotaged the primaries the way the DNC did to push Hilary for president.

 

So instead of evaluating all the wrongdoings and question their action and choices they made that cost them the elections, the Democrats are resolving to making excuses, as always.

Lets just blame the Russians, because if it weren't for the hacks and leaked emails, people would have never figured out how corrupt and messed up the Democratic Party is.... and with the help of media, Hollywood and hundreds of millions of dollars they spent on brainwashing people, they would have surely won...

 

After-all they need to justify the loss to their investors and assure them that their money will be well spend on the next elections as they would fix/correct this security issue.

 

It is just amazing that people are still supporting all this bull.... talk and don't focus on the days ahead...

I didn't say it was justification and I'm not sure what you think I was justifying. I'm a registered independent and I did not vote for Hillary. I was only asking a question about dirty political parties.

[Emn1ty]

2 hours ago, primortal said:

So you unequivocally have proof they didn't interfere?  I didn't know you worked for the government

You're asking me to prove a negative. All the articles state that those involved from Russia are "one step removed" from the government. Maybe you should read them again or go read my previous posts in this topic.

 

59 minutes ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

This entire discussion has been about the evidence regarding Russian interference. I've posted numerous links supporting my position and pointing out the evidence. If you want to refute the evidence I've posted throughout this topic then please go ahead but you can't simply dismiss the evidence out of hand and then claim there isn't any.

Key word is "direct" and every article states there's no direct connection to Russian government. Again, go read those articles.

[+primortal Subscriber²]

11 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

You're asking me to prove a negative. All the articles state that those involved from Russia are "one step removed" from the government.

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.

From the article,

Quote

Moscow has in the past used middlemen to participate in sensitive intelligence operations so it has plausible deniability.

 

 

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

Shoulda just financed the Texan secessionists, armed them, captured the capital city, and installed who ever we liked so we didn't have to deal with these groundless hacking accusations now  

 

JUST KIDDING!!!

[FunkyMike]

FBI Disputes CIA's "Fuzzy And Ambiguous" Claims That Russia Sought To Influence Presidential Election

 

Since election day, Democrats have engaged in a panicked attempt to leverage their last couple of weeks in control of the executive branch to delegitimize the Trump presidency.  Obama has even gone so far as to order a "full report" on Russian tampering in the 2016 election cycle to be completed before he leaves office (see "A "Soft Coup" Attempt: Furious Trump Slams "Secret" CIA Report Russia Helped Him Win").  Of course, we should simply ignore the fact that a true investigation of such allegations would take much longer than the one month that Obama has left in office because any delay could run the risk of a bipartisan/independent review and that's just not how the Obama administration plays the game.

 

But at least one investigative agency, the FBI, isn't buying the "fuzzy and ambiguous" assertions from the CIA that Russia "quite" clearly meddled in the U.S. elections on behalf of the Trump campaign.  Meanwhile, the FBI's unwillingness to play along is infuriating Democrats.  Per the BizPac Review:

 

Quote

The FBI did not corroborate the CIA’s claim that Russia had a hand in the election of President-elect Donald Trump in a meeting with lawmakers last week.

 

A senior FBI counterintelligence official met with Republican and Democrat members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in order to give the bureau’s view of a recent CIA report. The official did not concur with the CIA, frustrating Democrats.

 

The CIA believes Russia “quite” clearly intended to send Trump to the White House. The claim is a bold one and concerned Democrats and some Republicans who are worried about Trump’s desire to mend relations with an increasingly aggressive Russia. The CIA report was “direct, bold and unqualified,” one of the officials at the meeting told The Washington Post Saturday.

 

The FBI official was much less convinced of the claims, providing “fuzzy” and “ambiguous” remarks.

The Washington Post compiled the following comments from the weekend talk show circuit highlighting where various DC players stand on the Russia allegations.

..

Meanwhile, the Washington Post also points out that the whole disagreement likely comes down to "cultural" differences between the FBI and CIA.  Apparently the FBI "wants facts and tangible evidence to prove something" while the CIA is "more comfortable drawing inferences." 

 

Quote

The competing messages, according to officials in attendance, also reflect cultural differences between the FBI and the CIA. The bureau, true to its law enforcement roots, wants facts and tangible evidence to prove something beyond all reasonable doubt. The CIA is more comfortable drawing inferences from behavior.

 

“The FBI briefers think in terms of criminal standards — can we prove this in court,” one of the officials said. “The CIA briefers weigh the preponderance of intelligence and then make judgment calls to help policymakers make informed decisions. High confidence for them means ‘we’re pretty damn sure.’ It doesn’t mean they can prove it in court.”

 

The FBI is not sold on the idea that Russia had a particular aim in its meddling. “There’s no question that [the Russians’] efforts went one way, but it’s not clear that they have a specific goal or mix of related goals,”said one U.S. official.

Well, that certainly seems reasonable...who needs "facts and tangible evidence" when the CIA can just "draw inferences"...they're supposedly really smart so we should probably just believe them.

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-12/fbi-disputes-cias-fuzzy-and-ambiguous-claims-russia-sought-influence-presidential-el

[theyarecomingforyou]

2 hours ago, Euphoria said:

Right... you sure are.... so what would be the political wrong doing of RNC in regards to Trump?

Trump is not a politician and he clearly wasn't their primary pick.

Stop making excuses and justifications... He won, she lost... get over it!

So the Russian government and Director of the FBI—a known Republican—interfered in the US election and people are just supposed to 'get over it'? The RNC, like the DNC and really any major political party, is involved in countless shady dealings that if exposed would seriously damage the electability of the party. The difference is that the RNC wasn't targeted, it was the DNC and it was done to influence the election.

 

2 hours ago, Euphoria said:

Although if I am a Democrat I would evaluate the party and the DNC and ask what happened to representing the people and when this turned into a business for supporting a single person's ambitions vs what is best for the people and the party.

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.

 

1 hour ago, Emn1ty said:

Key word is "direct" and every article states there's no direct connection to Russian government. Again, go read those articles.

What a preposterous argument. The hackers have a known association with Russian military intelligence and worked to directly further the ambitions of the Russian government; one doesn't have to be a savant to piece together the equation. If all it takes is an intermediary to avoid any blame that's pretty ludicrous. That's like excusing US war crimes in Iraq by simply saying they were military contractors.

 

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.

[theyarecomingforyou]

8 minutes ago, FunkyMike said:

Since election day, Democrats have engaged in a panicked attempt to leverage their last couple of weeks in control of the executive branch to delegitimize the Trump presidency.  Obama has even gone so far as to order a "full report" on Russian tampering in the 2016 election cycle to be completed before he leaves office (see "A "Soft Coup" Attempt: Furious Trump Slams "Secret" CIA Report Russia Helped Him Win").  Of course, we should simply ignore the fact that a true investigation of such allegations would take much longer than the one month that Obama has left in office because any delay could run the risk of a bipartisan/independent review and that's just not how the Obama administration plays the game.

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.

 

8 minutes ago, FunkyMike said:

Meanwhile, the Washington Post also points out that the whole disagreement likely comes down to "cultural" differences between the FBI and CIA.  Apparently the FBI "wants facts and tangible evidence to prove something" while the CIA is "more comfortable drawing inferences." 

So the FBI—which directly interfered in the US election to the detriment of Clinton—happens to disagree? Quelle surprise. I'm sure Putin will email over the order he signed authorising the hacking and makes things easy for the FBI.

 

Intelligence is about assessing the available information and making an informed decision. It's about looking for patterns, assessing previous attacks, the tools used, the time of day the groups are active, political motivations, etc. That's something cyber security experts and the CIA did to determine Russian involvement. The question that has to be asked then is if it wasn't Russia then who was responsible? That's something the FBI hasn't provided any answer to. In fact the FBI hasn't said Russia wasn't involved - it's just saying the evidence it has seen is not beyond all reasonable doubt.

[Dysphoria]

1 hour ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

So the Russian government and Director of the FBI—a known Republican—interfered in the US election and people are just supposed to 'get over it'? The RNC, like the DNC and really any major political party, is involved in countless shady dealings that if exposed would seriously damage the electability of the party. The difference is that the RNC wasn't targeted, it was the DNC and it was done to influence the election.

 likely? Not at all.