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

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

11 minutes ago, DocM said:

Liberal Interventionists 

"Hey, the bombs of democracy we are dropping on you are for your own liberty."

 

rofl

[DocM]

Liberal inventionism/internationalism/neoconservatism. Distinctions without a difference.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_internationalism

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

12 minutes ago, DocM said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_internationalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Russia_Intervention

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War

 

Which is why Russia lost WWI after having fought on the side of the victors - a fluke of history that ensured and cemented the distrust for the next 100 years.

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

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

 

Top US spy agency abstains on CIA assessment of Russian hack of 2016 election

[DocM]

That would be the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which oversees all 17 US intelligence agencies.

[KingCracker]

Sorry to tell you but Hillary Clinton helped Trump win the white house.  Maybe if she wasn't such a liar and a piece of scum should of won. 

[Emn1ty]

6 hours ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

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

Sidestepping the actual point again. This isn't about a legal concept, but a logical one. Proving a negative is a fallacy, you're asking me and Russia to prove they didn't do something. Well, no you have to prove they did something beyond reasonable doubt. And I believe there is reasonable doubt that they did it. We can disagree on what qualifies as reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence isn't enough, it's like saying your kid stole from the cookie jar merely because he was next to it when you noticed it was missing some cookies (and the child has a history of stealing cookies). That is good reason to believe he did it, but not evidence that he did in fact do it.

 

6 hours ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

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.

Interesting, you're already jumping to conclusions just like so many other people did before the investigation closed with Clinton. That he should be fired and locked up because you believe he did something. The irony is amazing. As I did with Clinton, I'll wait for the results of the investigation if there is in fact an investigation into this. If he did something criminal, then he'll face the consequences. If he didn't... well. We'll see how you take it and how analogous it is with the way many of the anti-Clinton group took her not being charged for her emails .

 

6 hours ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

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.

Actually it's perfectly fair that she lost the way she did because that's the way the system works and has worked. You play by the rules set out for you at the start, and only sore losers complain about the rules they agreed to play by after the fact. However, if we don't like those rules we can always change them with 3/4's of Congress and 2/3rds of the States (you know... those States which would be voting to lose power in the election by taking away the Electoral College).

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

6 hours ago, DocM said:

That would be the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which oversees all 17 US intelligence agencies.

Should've named it the Office of the Director of the Intelligence of the Nation because ODIN is a much cooler abbreviation compared to ODNI. 

 

 

[Clirion]

On ‎12‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 11:00 AM, theyarecomingforyou said:

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.

So I looked at the articles linked.  While I am not sure what Criminal Charges you are talking about.  (Violations of the Hatch Act are not Criminal Offenses), I do want to note one thing. 

The letter went to congress in regards to data found that needed to be looked at. The warrant covered Anthony Weiner's and Huma Abedin's data itself.  If the FBI had looked at the data without a warrant that would cover it, (That was the biggest issue), it would not have been admissible if anything came from it. So a warrant was going to be applied for as not just anyone at the FBI can look at data that may be from the Sec of State due to security clearance.

 

The debate happens,  do I inform Congress we found things we need to look at and we are getting a warrant for, or, do I get the warrant and then when that gets out, allow all the speculation to happen?

No matter what happed, the results were going to be, the FBI requested a warrant to look at emails on Huma account on her husbands laptop. 

 

This was a touch more involved.

[theyarecomingforyou]

4 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

Sidestepping the actual point again. This isn't about a legal concept, but a logical one. Proving a negative is a fallacy, you're asking me and Russia to prove they didn't do something. Well, no you have to prove they did something beyond reasonable doubt. And I believe there is reasonable doubt that they did it. We can disagree on what qualifies as reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence isn't enough, it's like saying your kid stole from the cookie jar merely because he was next to it when you noticed it was missing some cookies (and the child has a history of stealing cookies). That is good reason to believe he did it, but not evidence that he did in fact do it.

I didn't ask you to prove a negative, that would be ridiculous. I pointed out that we'll likely never have proof that Putin ordered the hacking because those sorts of orders are highly classified. Therefore it's about assessing the evidence we do have and using that to make an informed conclusion. As I said, it's very probable Russia did interfere in the US election but I can't prove that beyond all reasonable doubt. That's exactly what the CIA assessment concluded as well. The FBI disagreed not because it believed Russia wasn't involved but because the evidence was not beyond reasonable doubt, which it never will be in situations like this.

 

4 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

Interesting, you're already jumping to conclusions just like so many other people did before the investigation closed with Clinton. That he should be fired and locked up because you believe he did something. The irony is amazing. As I did with Clinton, I'll wait for the results of the investigation if there is in fact an investigation into this. If he did something criminal, then he'll face the consequences. If he didn't... well. We'll see how you take it and how analogous it is with the way many of the anti-Clinton group took her not being charged for her emails .

I'm not claiming that either would stand up in a criminal court, where the evidence must be beyond all reasonable doubt. I'm simply making an informed opinion based upon the evidence available. Did Clinton likely cover up the email scandal? Yes. Can I prove it? No. That's all anyone can do, as we don't have access to all the evidence. Did Russia like interfere in the US election to favour Trump? Absolutely. Can I prove it? No.

 

If you disagree with that assessment then provide an alternative. For instance, if it was a false flag operation then who was responsible? Did Democrats deliberately undermine their own candidate in order to allow Trump to win? That doesn't make much sense. Did Republicans try to implicate Russia when it was they who were really responsible? Seems implausible and again, who sanctions it - the GOP, an individual senator, a GOP donor? Was it Russian hackers operating independently of the government? That's a possibility, but the hacking group has known ties to Russian military intelligence and it followed the pattern of previous attacks attributed to Russia.

 

I don't speak in absolutes. I believe, based on the evidence available, that Russia interfered with the US election to further its own political aims. If compelling evidence to the contrary emerges them I'm happy to entertain it.

 

4 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

Actually it's perfectly fair that she lost the way she did because that's the way the system works and has worked. You play by the rules set out for you at the start, and only sore losers complain about the rules they agreed to play by after the fact. However, if we don't like those rules we can always change them with 3/4's of Congress and 2/3rds of the States (you know... those States which would be voting to lose power in the election by taking away the Electoral College).

You're conflating several issues there:

 

1) The system as it stands is flawed and should be replaced. However, that was the system used and everyone was aware of its problems so I'm not calling for the election to be re-run because I don't like the result. I'm simply arguing the electoral college system should be abolished for future elections.

2) The election was interfered with by the Russian government and the Director of the FBI, both acting in a partisan manner to influence the outcome of the election. That is unacceptable and undermines the very nature of democracy in the US. That's why Republicans and Democrats are calling for a bipartisan probe into the election in order to determine the influence that Russia had and to prevent something similar occurring again in the future.

 

I think a lot of people are on the same page here and we're really debating nuances. With the exception of a few people who refuse to accept Russia can do any wrong I think most people believe Russia was involved but dispute the degree to which it influenced the outcome.

[xrobwx71]

"a secret assessment" bwwwuhahahahaha. Secret... Say that word 5 times. Roll it around the tongue. Ponder on it a few. 

 

Nevermind the fact that the "leaks" revealed truths that are now not being discussed. It doesn't really matter who revealed these truths nor does it make them any less true. Or are we calling them "leaks" because they are fake? If that's true it would simply be fake news not leaks.

[troysavary]

So, according to the FBI, the only evidence that the CIA had that this was a deliberate attempt by the Russian government to elect Trump was that the Russians did not release info from a hack of the RNC. Well, since the RNC says they were not hacked, perhaps that could be the reason nothing was released on the RNC. Now Podesta is calling for the CIA to brief the electoral college before the vote. It is becoming more and more obvious this is just another ploy by the Democrats to steal the election after the recounts failed to do so. This is even more obvious when you note that one of the co-founders of the PR firm working with the faithless electors to try to sway the other electors worked on Obama's campaign and the other co-founder was Obama's green jobs czar.

[Emn1ty]

1 hour ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

I didn't ask you to prove a negative, that would be ridiculous. I pointed out that we'll likely never have proof that Putin ordered the hacking because those sorts of orders are highly classified. Therefore it's about assessing the evidence we do have and using that to make an informed conclusion. As I said, it's very probable Russia did interfere in the US election but I can't prove that beyond all reasonable doubt. That's exactly what the CIA assessment concluded as well. The FBI disagreed not because it believed Russia wasn't involved but because the evidence was not beyond reasonable doubt, which it never will be in situations like this.

Or we can not make a conclusion without conclusive evidence. You don't always have to decide something. The problem is we have the media plugging this like it's a definitive conclusion when it's not.

 

1 hour ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

I'm not claiming that either would stand up in a criminal court, where the evidence must be beyond all reasonable doubt. I'm simply making an informed opinion based upon the evidence available. Did Clinton likely cover up the email scandal? Yes. Can I prove it? No. That's all anyone can do, as we don't have access to all the evidence. Did Russia like interfere in the US election to favour Trump? Absolutely. Can I prove it? No.

 

If you disagree with that assessment then provide an alternative. For instance, if it was a false flag operation then who was responsible? Did Democrats deliberately undermine their own candidate in order to allow Trump to win? That doesn't make much sense. Did Republicans try to implicate Russia when it was they who were really responsible? Seems implausible and again, who sanctions it - the GOP, an individual senator, a GOP donor? Was it Russian hackers operating independently of the government? That's a possibility, but the hacking group has known ties to Russian military intelligence and it followed the pattern of previous attacks attributed to Russia.

 

I don't speak in absolutes. I believe, based on the evidence available, that Russia interfered with the US election to further its own political aims. If compelling evidence to the contrary emerges them I'm happy to entertain it.

I do not need to provide an alternative to question a conclusion based on circumstantial evidence. This is like asking an Atheist to provide an alternative to God before he can question the existence of God (or the basis of faith in God). I mean, it's evident that you already believe the conclusion to be true by stating their involvement is an absolute likelihood (which is almost an oxymoron).

 

Again, I'll wait for any investigative findings and base my conclusion on that. And if I don't think there's enough evidence, then I won't come to a conclusion other than "we don't know". And not knowing is not justification for assuming any particular thing happened.

You've stated an absolute when you said Comey should be fired and face charges. You've stated he did interfere with the election. These are absolute statements (contrary to you saying you don't speak in absolutes... though perhaps you meant write ). And given you're so absolute in your conviction that these things have happened, I think your view of the evidence has been colored by the fact Trump won and not Clinton.

 

1 hour ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

You're conflating several issues there:

 

1) The system as it stands is flawed and should be replaced. However, that was the system used and everyone was aware of its problems so I'm not calling for the election to be re-run because I don't like the result. I'm simply arguing the electoral college system should be abolished for future elections.

2) The election was interfered with by the Russian government and the Director of the FBI, both acting in a partisan manner to influence the outcome of the election. That is unacceptable and undermines the very nature of democracy in the US. That's why Republicans and Democrats are calling for a bipartisan probe into the election in order to determine the influence that Russia had and to prevent something similar occurring again in the future.

 

I think a lot of people are on the same page here and we're really debating nuances. With the exception of a few people who refuse to accept Russia can do any wrong I think most people believe Russia was involved but dispute the degree to which it influenced the outcome.

1) Every system will have its flaws, so the question is which system has the least flaws and is the most fair. Could there be a system that's more fair than the EC? Maybe. But flat popular vote won't necessarily change anything other than how campaigns are run and who gets the attention from the candidates. Instead of battleground states you'll see campaigns in all the big cities instead. Would that change things? Maybe and maybe not. The only thing that would really be clear to have changed is smaller states would almost entirely lose their say in the President relative to the big states which can also be argued as unfair.

 

2) I thought you didn't speak in absolutes?

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

We all live on the same planet. Of course, we influence each other.

 

There are two types of influences there: for the good and for the worse.

 

If you are pro-peace, then you should rejoice that another Clinton didn't take the office.

 

[troysavary]

On ‎2016‎-‎12‎-‎12 at 0:00 PM, 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, 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.

 

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.

You keep saying the FBI director directly influenced the election, but what evidence do you have to back that up? He reopened the investigation because new evidence came up. It had nothing to do with politics. Huma an Anthony are the reasons the investigation was reopened. If anything, director Comey favoured Hillary. When he was reading the litany of illegal things she did with  her e-mail server, it sounded like an indictment was coming, so when he ended that with the bombshell that they would not be pursuing an indictment, it was obvious that it was for political reasons.

[deadonthefloor]

Wow.

Eight pages of discussion and nobody mentioned the source of the DNC leaks.  It was a man by the name of Seth Rich.  He's dead now.

 

The CIA is the expert in regime change having decimated any socialist nation unwilling to work with the US/UK/partners.  For them to come out and say Russia did this is highly suspect.  
 

Also, this is a friggen tech site.  WE should all know how easy it is to spoof and route through foreign entities, etc.

 

Anyone with a computer science background who believes the CIA isn't worth their degree.

 

So, there were three "hacks" against Democrats.  The first hack was of the DCCC, was done by someone in Italy, calling themselves Guccifer 2.0.  We got to see the donors.

The second was the DNC leaks, which were offered up to wikileaks by Seth Rich.  We got to see the thumb on the scales, Like Donna Brazille leaking debate questions to Her campaign ahead of time.

The third leak, was even more suspect as to the origin.

John Podesta once left an unsecured blackberry in a cab.  Maybe the cabbie was russian?

John Podesta fell for a phishing scam, giving his credentials to an unknown entity.

John Podesta emailed his userid / passw0rd in plain text in an unencrypted email to his tech support team.   We got to see how they use access as a carrot to get 'investigative journalists' on the right messaging.

 

The ONLY investigative journalist this year has been Jordan Chariton of TYT Politics.  He got Donna Brazille fired from CNN.  He is paid for by TYT members.

 

 

I laugh at the lot of you playing the political aspects of all of this to choose a side, when in reality you can use your intellect and reasoning to see how laughable the claims are.

[DocM]

And as to the "hacking," emails, Wikileaks etc. changing the outcome, that was addressed in a public forum by the campaign staffs and real-time observers.

 

What actually made the public mood and polls turn was the "D-word" and ticked off, unemployed or underemployed Midwestern voters.

 

As to the D-word,

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/04/politics/clinton-deplorables-apology/index.html

 

Quote

 

On a special assignment from the Clinton campaign, Diane Hessan studied how undecided voters were responding to the campaign.

>
Clinton sparked controversy at a September fundraiser in New York when she maligned "half" of Trump's supporters, going as far as to say that they are "irredeemable."

"To just be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables," Clinton said. "Right? Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it."
>

>
"There was one moment when I saw more undecided voters shift to Trump than any other, when it all changed, when voters began to speak differently about their choice," she wrote. "It wasn't FBI Director James Comey, Part One or Part Two; it wasn't Benghazi or the e-mails or Bill Clinton's visit with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the tarmac. No, the conversation shifted the most during the weekend of Sept. 9, after Clinton said, 'You can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.'"

"All hell broke lose," she added.

Conway pointed out that Clinton didn't actually apologize for the use of the term "deplorables" as Mook described.

"She didn't say that really. She said she regretted putting a number on it," she said.
 

Mook conceded, "She regretted her choice of words, but Donald Trump never apologized."

"Look, you're talking about one instance where Hillary Clinton said one thing. She immediately explained that she regretted," Mook added. 

Conway responded, "I think she regretted getting caught," she said.

 

 

 

Edited December 14, 2016 by DocM

[wakjak]

7 minutes ago, DocM said:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/04/politics/clinton-deplorables-apology/index.html

Fake news. You right wingers coined it. Own it. Fake news.

 

Or is it only "fake news" when it doesn't fit your agenda? *like the previous call out of your use of links for your agenda, to which you were previously against. i'm assuming there'll be crickets here as well*

[DocM]

24 minutes ago, wakjak said:

Fake news. You right wingers coined it. Own it. Fake news.

 

There's nothing fake about the Harvard University post-election forum, which is where those quotes happened. You talk about climate denial while exhibiting a large smount of political denial yourself. 

[wakjak]

11 minutes ago, DocM said:

There's nothing fake about the Harvard University post-election forum, which is where those quotes happened. You talk about climate denial while exhibiting a large smount of political denial yourself. 

Liberal univeristy + fake news. Try again to convince me that you are not a hypocrite.

[DocM]

If that's all you've got then it's clear facts are irrelevant.

 

...no man delights in the bearer of bad news...

Sophocles, Antigone

[wakjak]

12 minutes ago, DocM said:

it's clear facts are irrelevant.

to most on the right right wing, that statement is 100% accurate.

 

Fake news is the right wings new thing, own it. It's yours now for 4 years. Every time you want to post anything from any website that had hillary in the lead(which was 99% of them), then you want to call them out for being fake news. Well here's your wake up call. You want to call them fake news, then every time you post them as a source, you will get called out for it.

[DocM]

Funny, I see far more left wing sites and the MSM using "fake news" than anyone else. As for the forum, all the other stuff you're posting is just a distraction from it.

 

What Diane Hessan said wasn't contradicted by the Clinton campaign people, and their defense of the D-word statement was weakened by the fact she withdrew it so quickly - a sign of guilt/oops!

 

A giant case of foot in mouth disease, as in up to her hip, and it bit her in the ass.

Edited December 15, 2016 by DocM

[Hum]

Hum was trying to help Trump win White House, too

[TPreston]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-officials-putin-personally-involved-u-s-election-hack-n696146