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

[Son_Of_Dad]

CNN have just blown the lid off it!!

[DocM]

Below the red box is as important as what's in it....

 

Quote

"We don't have Putin's fingerprints on anything or a piece of paper that shows the order...."

That said, I've posted DNC was being hacked in 2013 and FBI tried to get DNC engaged but they didn't take it seriously until late in 2015 (source: Wired) and that this was dumb. It still is.  Was it Russia? Likely, but as the report says, there's no direct evidence.  

 

Whatever, the US and Russia have been doing this dance since forever, old news.

 

It's also true that the post election autopsy at Harvard University showed that it wasn't the Wikileaks articles which moved independent and undecided voters to Trump, so if Russia was trying to use those to influence the election it misfired - lots of noise, no results. Ditto Comey I and II, and the server emails which were released by a US Federal judge. Was he a Russian agent? 

 

What moved this election wasn't the noise produced by a Russian (?) hack or the other things above. It was moved by,

 

1) Hillary being an impersonal, aloof, unwilling to press the flesh retail politics candidate who largely ignored the Great Lakes states and PA, the exact states who swung the election, even after Bill Clinton told her and her advisors she should put in more effort there. Terrible, stupid even.

 

2) a great many people in 1) swung to Trump in the primaries because of the jobs lost to free trade and poor response to same by both parties. They wanted to throw a hand grenade at DC, and did they ever.

 

Many articles of Democrats switching their voter registrations to Republican, so many it was speculated Dems were trying to mess with the Republican primaries.  100,000 in PA alone as early as June...

 

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016/10/12/nearly-100000-pennsylvania-voters-switch-from-democrat-to-republican/

 

They weren't kidding, and the Clinton campaign, pollsters, analysts and a bunch of Neowinians missed its importance. Now they want to blame Russia, but the real problem is closer to home.

 

3) loose lips: calling 2) "deplorables," racist etc. isn't the way to get their votes. It also royally ticked off independent and undecided voters who saw it as being divisive, more so than the salty talk by Trump. See Harvard autopsy.

 

Game over by mid September.

 

Dems need to look hard at the guy in the mirror.

Edited December 17, 2016 by DocM

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

Ron Paul: "I think they're just agitating, because they lost the election. They're throwing out accusations and they have no proof..."

 

"the anti-Russian narrative was being promulgated in order to “amplify the arguments between Republicans and Democrats.”

 

https://www.rt.com/usa/370596-ron-paul-cia-russia-fake-news/

 

 

 

[DocM]

There are two reasons for this Russia-gasm,

 

1) there are serious divisions in the Democratic party after this debacle and because of their state level losses over the last 8 years; almost 950 state level legislators, most of the governorships, state Supreme Court justices, and other state officers like Attorney's General and Secretaries of State.  They've been descimated, meaning they've lost their farm system, the state officers who would run for federal officers in 2020+.  The divisions are between the true believer progressives, center left, and the globalists.

 

2) to prevent this from becoming a civil war Democrats need a Boogeyman or Boogeymen to redirect their anger.

 

First there was Trump; delegitimize him.

 

Second was the useless and silly recount battle by proxy (Stein) etc.

 

The recount failure necessitated the next step: play the Russia card, and attach it to delegitimizing Trump. Otherwise they have a long 4 years and 2020 will be the least of their problems.

 

There are already large Democratic party donors saying no more, they'll spend their money on charity unless they get a deep internal autopsy and not these post-election diversion games.  They aren't buying it, and some big donors aren't even taking calls from party officials.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/hillary-clinton-campaign-donors-post-mortem-232715

Edited December 17, 2016 by DocM

[LittleFroggy]

13 hours ago, Raze said:

They didn't? 

 

 

the Republicans you speak of are the RINOS.  Trump's win will essentially change the face of the GOP party. there are REAL GOP'ers and fake. McCain is a RINO as a good example. He professes as a GOP member but votes and leans Democrat. He's a part of the GOP party that's second string Democrats really.

[+Raze Subscriber²]

2 minutes ago, LittleFroggy said:

the Republicans you speak of are the RINOS.  Trump's win will essentially change the face of the GOP party. there are REAL GOP'ers and fake. McCain is a RINO as a good example. He professes as a GOP member but votes and leans Democrat. He's a part of the GOP party that's second string Democrats really.

If it walks, talks and claims to be Republican, it is.    IMO

[Gone]

On 12/12/2016 at 11:43 PM, Raze said:

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

Google it yourself. Anytime somebody in this forum says "provide the sources for the alleged facts you stated" has no integrity. You know how to search the internet, and if you haven't been living under a rock for the past two years then you certainly have heard the news.

[+Raze Subscriber²]

Just now, SpeedyTheSnail said:

Google it yourself. Anytime somebody in this forum says "provide the sources for the alleged facts you stated" has no integrity. You know how to search the internet, and if you haven't been living under a rock for the past two years then you certainly have heard the news.

No the person making the claim is responsible for backing that claim.  If they won't, than it is their integrity that is questionable.  Or is it you that doesn't know how to search the internet?

[DocM]

1 hour ago, Raze said:

If it walks, talks and claims to be Republican, it is.    IMO

No, too simplistic because there are paleorepublicans (old school), a minority of TEA Republicans, Libertarian Republicans and the globalist/neoconservative Republicans - which started in the Democratic party neoconservative movement of the late 1940's to the 1990's.  

 

Neoconservative are liberal to moderate socially, fiscally conservative to moderate, and are more aggressive internationally up to the intervention in other states to achieve "liberal" goals like regieme change or nation building. Sound familiar?

 

Neoconservative exist in both parties, which is why you hear of RINO's (Republican In Name Only) and the Wall Street wing of the Democratic party (DINO's.) Hillary and Bill are at their core neoconservatives but they prefer the term Liberal Internationalists, aka Liberal Interventionists. Distinctions with little difference but PR and they are converging.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/hillary-foreign-policy_b_10338608.html

Edited December 17, 2016 by DocM

[+Raze Subscriber²]

2 minutes ago, DocM said:

No, too simple!istic because there are paleorepublicans (old school), a minority of TEA Republicans, Libertarian Republicans and the globalist/neoconservative Republicans - which started in the Democratic party neoconservative movement of the late 1940's to the 1990's.  

 

Neoconservative exist in both parties, which is why you hear of RINO's (Republican In Name Only) and the Wall Street wing of the Democratic party (DINO's.) Hillary and Bill are at their core neoconservatives but they prefer the term Liberal Internationalists, aka Liberal Interventionists. Distinctions with little difference but PR and they are converging.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/hillary-foreign-policy_b_10338608.html

Ah but they all have one thing in common, the term republican.   Yes, I am quite aware of the differences.  But thanks for the unsolicited lecture.

[DocM]

4 minutes ago, Raze said:

Ah but they all have one thing in common, the term republican.   Yes, I am quite aware of the differences.  But thanks for the unsolicited lecture.

Ignoring the distinctions brings on the issues Democrats are facing after November. They're different factions, need to be addressed differently, and a new populist faction may be forming. 

 

Bundling them makes no more sense than putting Bernie Sanders and Joe Manchin in the same fishbowl.

[+Raze Subscriber²]

Just now, DocM said:

Ignoring the distinctions brings on the issues Democrats are facing after November. They're different factions, and need to be addressed differently, and a new populist faction may be forming.

I never said a word about ignoring anything.  Yes changes are coming (hopefully) and both parties need to address their own problems that have been alienating them from the voters.

[ensiform]

So how exactly do we prove Russian influenced the election since the officials are not actually saying they hacked it directly?  A mass psychological test for everyone?

[DocM]

Obama said Friday that the vote and count were not hacked, which pretty much removes this as an election issue and puts into the State Dept, DNI and DoD boxes (DoD because of Cyber Command.) 

 

The DNI has already said it'll be months for the report to surface, not all of it public because of Sources & Methods, and that the Electors will not be briefed as Pelosi's daughter had wanted. Not enough time to do security clearances for them given they vote on Monday, and the date will not be changed.  

[Son_Of_Dad]

Media seems to have gone quiet on this. Still no proven link to big Vlad and no sources that aren't anonymous?

[Erikas]

On 12/10/2016 at 4:13 PM, Mirumir said:

... where were you when the U.S. was interfering with the internal affairs of the former Soviet States and all the other countries out there?

You sound like another Russian sad to have lost the former Soviet states that by right of course belong to Russia because they were the first to invade and annex them

[DocM]

1 hour ago, Son_Of_Dad said:

Media seems to have gone quiet on this. Still no proven link to big Vlad and no sources that aren't anonymous?

Obama's statement somewhat let the air out of "the Russian hack is why Trump won!" meme, and surveys of the intentions of Republican Electors also gave them no joy.  

 

Netroots types will picket the voting sites, but I'd not recommend getting in the Electors faces after all the death, family and other threats, thousands of emails a day (many by campaign bots) and hardcore late night calls they've been receiving from progressive activists and the loony left. They may be a bit twitchy.

Edited December 18, 2016 by DocM

[Pishaw]

I had no idea we as a nation were this effing stupid. I can't wait for the Chinese to start running this country.

 

I hope they at least lock the tards up. Y'all have been breeding long enough.

[Pam14160]

Just when did the United States become a third world nation. . .just wondering. . .

[DocM]

There's one Michigan Republican Elector who has received 10+ death threats, among other threats. The Michigan State Police is on it, and that's as bad as having the Feds after you. MSP don't play games, have no sense of humor, and they have a cybercrime unit.

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

6 hours ago, Erikas said:

You sound like another Russian sad to have lost the former Soviet states that by right of course belong to Russia because they were the first to invade and annex them

The first to invade?

 

You must have confused Russia with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and their failed attempt to conquer Moscovia. Or, you simply don't know your history.

[wakjak]

2 hours ago, Pishaw said:

I had no idea we as a nation were this effing stupid. I can't wait for the Chinese to start running this country.

 

I hope they at least lock the tards up. Y'all have been breeding long enough.

Won't take long with tweets like this. 

 

 

You've elected a god Damn moron for highest office in the land. You deserve what happens. 

[TPreston]

16 minutes ago, wakjak said:

Won't take long with tweets like this. 

 

 

You've elected a god Damn moron for highest office in the land. You deserve what happens. 

That was an unpresidented attack there wakjak

 

 

[wakjak]

1 minute ago, TPreston said:

That was an unpresidented attack there wacjack

Maybe he should tell Jyna himself. He is the next president after all. 

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]