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

[DocM]

2 minutes ago, TPreston said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html?_r=0

Stay Classy

Again, they're self contradicting vs their previous statements. That and it's a clear attempt to delegitimize the election now that the recounts have fizzed out; Michigan's was halted by the federal and state courts, Pennsylvanias is not going to happen for similar reasons and Trump has gained votes in Wisconsin. 

[FunkyMike]

A "Soft Coup" Attempt: Furious Trump Slams "Secret" CIA Report Russia Helped Him Win

 

Quote

 

Overnight the media propaganda wars escalated after the late Friday release of an article by the Washington Post (which last week admitted to using unverified, or fake, news in an attempt to smear other so-called "fake news" sites) according to which a secret CIA assessment found that Russia sought to tip last month’s U.S. presidential election in Donald Trump’s favor, a conclusion presented without any actual evidence, and which drew an extraordinary, and angry rebuke from the president-elect’s camp.

 

“These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,” Trump’s transition team said, launching a broadside against the spy agency. “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 Washington Post report comes after outgoing President Barack Obama ordered a review of all cyberattacks that took place during the 2016 election cycle, amid growing calls from Congress for more information on the extent of Russian interference in the campaign. The newspaper cited officials briefed on the matter as saying that individuals with connections to Moscow provided WikiLeaks with email hacked from the Democratic National Committee, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign chief and others.

 

....

 

And then the summary:

1. Announce "consensus" (not unanimous) "conclusion" based in circumstantial evidence now, before the Electoral College vote, then write a report with actual details due by Jan 20.
2. Put a proven liar in charge of writing the report on Russian hacking.
3. Fail to mention that not one of the leaked DNC or Podesta emails has been shown to be inauthentic. So the supposed Russian hacking simply revealed truth about Hillary, DNC, and MSM collusion and corruption.
4. Fail to mention that if hacking was done by or for US government to stop Hillary, blaming the Russians would be the most likely disinformation used by US agencies.
5. Expect every pro-Hillary lapdog journalist - which is virtually all of them - in America will hyperventilate (Twitter is currently on fire) about this latest fact-free, anti-Trump political stunt for the next nine days.

Or, as a reader put it, this is a soft coup attempt by leaders of Intel community and Obama Admin to influence the Electoral College vote, similar to the 1960s novel "Seven Days in May."

 

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-10/soft-coup-attempt-imminent-furious-trump-slams-secret-cia-report-russia-helped-him-w

[TPreston]

4 minutes ago, DocM said:

Again, they're self contradicting vs their previous statements. That and it's a clear attempt to delegitimize the election now that the recounts have fizzed out.

CIA != Press, This is an incredibly short sighted reaction to international hacking of not just the democrats but the republicans.

[DocM]

4 minutes ago, TPreston said:

CIA != Press, This is an incredibly short sighted reaction to international hacking.

CIA is hosted at Amazon, owned by Bezos', and he also owns WaPo...the pusher of the PropOrNot big lie fake news. His intelligence connections have been known for years. Both at WaPo and via his space company Blue Origin.

 

http://www.accuracy.org/release/cia-cloud-over-jeff-bezoss-washington-post/

[SierraSonic]

For any leader to not push for one investigation into this, but yet support more than 10 into the same type of investigations against Clinton, is wrong. Especially not one, or two, or even three sided with her, all of them did.

[TPreston]

2 minutes ago, DocM said:

CIA is hosted at Amazon, owned by Bezos', and he also owns WaPo...the pusher of the PropOrNot big lie fake news. His intelligence connections have been known for years. Both at WaPo and via his space company Blue Origin.

 

http://www.accuracy.org/release/cia-cloud-over-jeff-bezoss-washington-post/

So now the CIA is being blackmailed, That's some serious cognitive dissonance. Unfortunately for you they released their joint statement months ago not via WP.

[troysavary]

12 minutes ago, TPreston said:

 

Funny how his new masters only gave him the contents of the DNC not the RNC considering both were hacked.

Maybe there was nothing to see in the RNC e-mails?

[DocM]

7 minutes ago, TPreston said:

CIA != Press, This is an incredibly short sighted reaction to international hacking.

 

Just now, TPreston said:

So now the CIA is being blackmailed, That's some serious cognitive dissonance.

 

More like WaPo is being a mouthpiece.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/norman-solomon/why-the-washington-posts_b_4587927.html

[TPreston]

2 minutes ago, troysavary said:

Maybe there was nothing to see in the RNC e-mails?

 

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

50 minutes ago, Mirumir said:

@TPreston Did the Russian government or the hackers affiliated with them fabricate the contents of those emails?

 

48 minutes ago, TPreston said:

No 

What's the problem then?

 

Why is the hacking incident more important than the contents of those emails?

 

Quote

but thanks for admitting you believe this is the case. You do know this is a crime right ?

I haven't admitted anything actually  

 

And the U.S. laws only apply to the jurisdictions being under the U.S. patronage.

 

[TPreston]

4 minutes ago, DocM said:

 

 

More like WaPo is being a mouthpiece.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/norman-solomon/why-the-washington-posts_b_4587927.html

Well then eliminate them and go back to the joint statement.

 

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national

Just now, Mirumir said:

 

What's the problem then?

 

Why is the hacking incident is more important than the contents of those emails?

 

Thanks for giving everyone a green light to do the same to Russia.

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

14 minutes ago, TPreston said:

Thanks for giving everyone a green light to do the same to Russia.

LOL

 

"Been there, done that."

 

We've already lived thru much worse, 1917 is calling. So, go ahead, bring it.

[DocM]

34 minutes ago, TPreston said:

 

 

27 minutes ago, TPreston said:

 

 

 

21 minutes ago, TPreston said:

Well then eliminate them and go back to the joint statement.

 

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national

 

CIA is headed by an Obama appointee, not bipartisan, and how better to time bomb the incoming administration than start an investigation/study etc. with the intent of undermining it?  

 

The political news sites have documented many last minute administration actions and executive orders like this, and insiders say they'll keep going until the last day. 

 

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article119647358.html

Edited December 10, 2016 by DocM

[theyarecomingforyou]

2 hours ago, troysavary said:

Speaking of crazed conspiracy theories. The "evil Russians". Hillary lost because of the Russians, because of the alt-right, because of gamergate (yes, I actually saw people claiming that), because of Kek. Hillary supporters cannot accept that Hillary lost because of Hillary. They need to find something ridiculous to blame.

In other topics you regularly promote outlandish and unsubstantiated conspiracies, yet this claim has evidence to support it and you dismiss it out of hand. The US intelligence services concluded that Russia was behind the DNC hacks, which were used to inflict maximum harm just ahead of the election. Further, Russia media—which is state controlled—has acted as a propaganda mouthpiece for Trump - it's the reason that Trump has an 82% approval rating in Russia and Russia was the only country polled that supported him over Clinton.

 

Why is it that you refuse to accept any evidence contradicting your view point? If you refuse to accept the substantial and varied evidence supporting this claim then there cannot be a reasoned discussion about this matter.

[troysavary]

1 minute ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

In other topics you regularly promote outlandish and unsubstantiated conspiracies, yet this claim has evidence to support it and you dismiss it out of hand. The US intelligence services concluded that Russia was behind the DNC hacks, which were used to inflict maximum harm just ahead of the election. Further, Russia media—which is state controlled—has acted as a propaganda mouthpiece for Trump - it's the reason that Trump has an 82% approval rating in Russia and Russia was the only country polled that supported him over Clinton.

 

Why is it that you refuse to accept any evidence contradicting your view point? If you refuse to accept the substantial and varied evidence supporting this claim then there cannot be a reasoned discussion about this matter.

Last time I checked, Russians were not voting in the American election, so how is what Russian news said to Russians even relevant? None of this is evidence that Russia gave anything to WikiLeaks.

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

15 minutes ago, troysavary said:

Last time I checked, Russians were not voting in the American election

Nevertheless, millions of illegals voted for Mrs. Clinton.

[ctebah]

22 minutes ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

In other topics you regularly promote outlandish and unsubstantiated conspiracies, yet this claim has evidence to support it and you dismiss it out of hand. The US intelligence services concluded that Russia was behind the DNC hacks, which were used to inflict maximum harm just ahead of the election. Further, Russia media—which is state controlled—has acted as a propaganda mouthpiece for Trump - it's the reason that Trump has an 82% approval rating in Russia and Russia was the only country polled that supported him over Clinton.

 

Why is it that you refuse to accept any evidence contradicting your view point? If you refuse to accept the substantial and varied evidence supporting this claim then there cannot be a reasoned discussion about this matter.

Are you surprised?  Trump said he would work with Putin, of course the Russian people will prefer that over Hillary, who would likely start another war.

 

It seems that Russia, once again, showed the US how you can influence the elections in another country without bloodshed.  

[hagjohn]

If true, it would be treason, IMO.

[Emn1ty]

This is pretty much fake news based on the article's own words:

 

Quote

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.”

 

The White House and CIA officials declined to comment.

Basically, they are still trying to prove it happened and pretty much everyone they've found to be involved isn't actually Russian government. So... until then it's a non-story as the rest is assumption by the source.

 

From The Guardian:

 

Quote

The Kremlin has rejected the hacking accusations, while the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has previously said the DNC leaks were not linked to Russia. A second senior official cited by the Washington Post conceded that intelligence agencies did not have specific proof that the Kremlin was “directing” the hackers, who were said to be one step removed from the Russian government.

Quote

The Washington Post reported that US intelligence agencies were sceptical about the possibility that hackers would have been able to systematically manipulate the results of the election.

 

Yeah... I am not surprised someone would post this news and pretend it was true when pretty much every article concedes that there's yet to be a real link to the Russian Government. Once again, some fake news. Massive articles that defeat themselves with their own facts, but expect you not to notice they're leading you on.

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

1 hour ago, DocM said:

Obama appointee, not bipartisan

So by that logic, anyone that Trump appoints to a role is also unable to be unbiased?

[theyarecomingforyou]

57 minutes ago, troysavary said:

Last time I checked, Russians were not voting in the American election, so how is what Russian news said to Russians even relevant? None of this is evidence that Russia gave anything to WikiLeaks.

The relevance is that the Russian government controls the media and shapes how people perceive foreign politics. It means that Putin supports Trump, which is evidenced through public statements and the actions of state sanctioned Russian hackers. And the evidence that Russia was involved in the hacks is supported by countless US government intelligence agencies and independent security experts. Again, I have produced evidence to support my position and you have not.

 

39 minutes ago, ctebah said:

Are you surprised?  Trump said he would work with Putin, of course the Russian people will prefer that over Hillary, who would likely start another war.

 

It seems that Russia, once again, showed the US how you can influence the elections in another country without bloodshed.  

The issue is the involvement of foreign governments in US elections, something you even acknowledge happened in the recent US election. Even if you support the outcome you must by concerned about it, surely? And to have the FBI Director directly interfere in an election is outrageous, particularly when he is a known Republican.

 

The reality is that Clinton should have won the election - she was ahead in all the polls (factoring in the Electoral College) and won the popular vote. It was the interference of the Russian government and the FBI Director that swung it, something that people should be extremely concerned about. Trump stole the election.

[DocM]

8 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

>

Yeah... I am not surprised someone would post this news and pretend it was true when pretty much every article concedes that there's yet to be a real link to the Russian Government. Once again, some fake news. Massive articles that defeat themselves with their own facts, but expect you not to notice they're leading you on.

And most of it from the Washington Post, who had Clinton 12 points ahead just as Trump was passing her (huge Democrat oversample) and who has pushed the PropOrNot story to its own detriment. It and CNN have become near useless shills.

[Emn1ty]

Just now, theyarecomingforyou said:

The reality is that Clinton should have won the election - she was ahead in all the polls (factoring in the Electoral College) and won the popular vote. It was the interference of the Russian government and the FBI Director that swung it, something that people should be extremely concerned about. Trump stole the election.

Elections swing for many reasons, and in an increasingly global community and information set with the internet we're going to have to deal with global involvement in our elections.

However to state that Hillary should have won because of polls is just ignorant. Beyond the polls everyone was wrong, consistently about Trump. Even Trump was wrong about himself on election night. But I've yet to see anyone directly attribute Russia to anything other than them being supportive of a particular candidate. Can Russia not even do that? Do they have to be completely silent publicly to not interfere with the US? What about all those nations who publicly condemned Trump and effectively called him a joke? Were they not "interfering" with the election with their own propoganda?

Sheesh, if it's not in your favor then it's "interference" and nefarious apparently.

[troysavary]

8 minutes ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

The issue is the involvement of foreign governments in US elections, something you even acknowledge happened in the recent US election. Even if you support the outcome you must by concerned about it, surely? And to have the FBI Director directly interfere in an election is outrageous, particularly when he is a known Republican.

 

I'll save my outrage at foreign governments involvement in US elections until after the US stops interfering in foreign elections. 

[Dysphoria]

3 hours ago, Vandalsquad said:

Like all those WMD's the CIA told us where in Iraq right? 

 

Regardless of who leaked the emails they where the TRUTH, and not fabricated lies.

Thats the funny part....

Media is more concerned about the hacking part than about the truth uncovered in this emails... Investigative reporting at its best. But than again you don't bite the hand that feeds you.