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

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

Clinton: "Russia will pay a price, China will pay a price, anyone who doesn't agree with me will pay a price."

Trump: "It would be great if we defeated ISIS together with Russia."

 

Who would you have preferred if you were Russian?   

 

It's a no-brainer.

 

[Dysphoria]

24 minutes ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

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.

Yes, the evidence... so thanks to these hacks we got evidence that Hillary sabotaged Bernie in the primaries, she cheated on the debates, she knowingly deleted emails and used here position to make money for the Clinton foundation... I would give these hackers an award and investigate Hillary and the DNC... but yet the Huff and CNN still crying over how Hillary loss is unjust...

Heh... the irony...

[theyarecomingforyou]

24 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

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?

The impact that the hacked emails and FBI Director's interference had were significant, especially given their timing. Can I say for certain she would have won without those occurring? No. However, it does seem very likely given the polling before and after. And as for Russia, we're not talking about mere comments - we're talking about targeted hacking of one of the major political parties in the US.

 

20 minutes ago, troysavary said:

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

What a ridiculous position. I oppose any government interfering in the election of another country. That means I absolutely oppose the way the US meddles in the affairs of other nations, as I do with Russia as well. It's convenient that you're willing to overlook it when the outcome suits you. Were the situation reversed I very much doubt you'd have nothing to say.

 

2 minutes ago, Euphoria said:

Yes, the evidence... so thanks to these hacks we got evidence that Hillary sabotaged Bernie in the primaries, she cheated on the debates, she knowingly deleted emails and used here position to make money for the Clinton foundation... I would give these hackers an award and investigate Hillary and the DNC... but yet the Huff and CNN still crying over how Hillary loss is unjust...

Heh... the irony...

Clinton was a terrible candidate and I absolutely agree that what she did should have been made public knowledge - the way she abused her power to shut out Sanders is unacceptable, especially as he would have been a lot better candidate. The issue is that Russia hacked the DNC and aired its dirty laundry whilst leaving the RNC alone. I'm sure just as much dirt could be found about Trump as well, if not a lot more. The timing was deliberate to influence the US election.

[ctebah]

42 minutes ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

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.

 

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.

Why would anyone be concerned about foreign governments influencing the US election?  The US has been doing this to other countries for decades.  What goes around, comes around.

[Emn1ty]

Just now, theyarecomingforyou said:

The impact that the hacked emails and FBI Director's interference had were significant, especially given their timing. Can I say for certain she would have won without those occurring? No. However, it does seem very likely given the polling before and after. And as for Russia, we're not talking about mere comments - we're talking about targeted hacking of one of the major political parties in the US.

If it was even a hack (which we have yet to prove). According to Assange it was a leak which is fundamentally different. Leaks are typically on-site affairs, which means someone within the DNC and other areas would have had to have leaked them in some fashion (be it intentionally or unintentionally). There is zero evidence that Russia hacked the party, yet it seems people are still operating under the false idea that they did. Again, read the article closely and you'll see that every iteration of the article concedes that they've not directly linked anyone to Russia's government or instructions from Russia's government. So until then, Russia didn't do anything more than any other nation until it can be proven it happened.

Unless we feel like risking a PR/cyber war with Russia. I mean... if it's all true it shouldn't really matter who leaked the information, because the decisions made were based on facts and not sources.

[troysavary]

15 minutes ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

 

 

What a ridiculous position. I oppose any government interfering in the election of another country. That means I absolutely oppose the way the US meddles in the affairs of other nations, as I do with Russia as well. It's convenient that you're willing to overlook it when the outcome suits you. Were the situation reversed I very much doubt you'd have nothing to say.

 

 

Actually, I wouldn't have cared had Russia been anti-Trump instead. If that was the case, I'd be furious at all the swipes at Trump that many EU leaders took. I really have no issue with either. Even if Russia were behind the leaks, whistle blowing is not a bad thing. The populace deserves to vote based on knowledge of what a candidate actually says and does, not what their public persona is. What Russia allegedly did is a far cry from the black ops used by the US to directly overthrow governments they don't like.

[Dysphoria]

18 minutes ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

Clinton was a terrible candidate and I absolutely agree that what she did should have been made public knowledge - the way she abused her power to shut out Sanders is unacceptable, especially as he would have been a lot better candidate. The issue is that Russia hacked the DNC and aired its dirty laundry whilst leaving the RNC alone. I'm sure just as much dirt could be found about Trump as well, if not a lot more. The timing was deliberate to influence the US election.

Yes, that is part of Trump's appeal... it's common knowledge that he wasn't greatly approved and supported by the RNC.

He took everyone by surprise.

One of the big reason for his appeal was/is that he is not a politician and a bureaucrat.

Both DNC and RNC have quite a few skeletons in their closets... at the end people chose... not racists, not homophones, but regular people, hardworking and sick of where the country is headed.

[DocM]

RNC is denying they were hacked, and say they were working with non-CIA intelligence agencies who confirmed it. They offered to show the data to the New York Times, but NYT refused and ran the story anyhow.

 

Listening to an interview, it sounds a lot like the RNC network is air-gapped.  This has been used to seal several US state election offices, and it's very tough to crack unless someone inside installs malware etc.

[troysavary]

We are supposed to believe Clinton when she claims no one hacked her private email server, but then believe her when she claims Russia hacked the DNC?

[hagjohn]

If true.....

 

Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist Papers: No. 68:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office.

 

No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.

 

[theyarecomingforyou]

2 hours ago, ctebah said:

Why would anyone be concerned about foreign governments influencing the US election?  The US has been doing this to other countries for decades.  What goes around, comes around.

What an absurd position. So you're happy for foreign governments to influence the outcome of the US election? If not then people should be concerned, regardless of the fact that the US has been meddling in the affairs of other countries for decades. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

2 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

If it was even a hack (which we have yet to prove). According to Assange it was a leak which is fundamentally different. Leaks are typically on-site affairs, which means someone within the DNC and other areas would have had to have leaked them in some fashion (be it intentionally or unintentionally). There is zero evidence that Russia hacked the party, yet it seems people are still operating under the false idea that they did. Again, read the article closely and you'll see that every iteration of the article concedes that they've not directly linked anyone to Russia's government or instructions from Russia's government. So until then, Russia didn't do anything more than any other nation until it can be proven it happened.

There are countless articles providing evidence from cyber security experts of Russia government involvement in hacks on the DNC, in addition to statements from US intelligence agencies.

 

1 hour ago, troysavary said:

Actually, I wouldn't have cared had Russia been anti-Trump instead. If that was the case, I'd be furious at all the swipes at Trump that many EU leaders took. I really have no issue with either.

So if Russia had been anti-Trump you'd have been furious at the EU? Well, I really don't follow that logic. And please, let's have a look at all the quotes from EU leaders attacking Trump - please share them so we can have a discussion about EU influence on the US election. You can't just make an assertion without any evidence to back it up.

 

1 hour ago, troysavary said:

Even if Russia were behind the leaks, whistle blowing is not a bad thing. The populace deserves to vote based on knowledge of what a candidate actually says and does, not what their public persona is. What Russia allegedly did is a far cry from the black ops used by the US to directly overthrow governments they don't like.

So you'd be fine if Russia had exposed Trump's tax records and other documents and cost him the election? I'm all for the shady dealings of both sides being exposed but I take serious issue with an orchestrated campaign against one candidate to influence the outcome of an election. If you don't consider that an issue I find that frankly bizarre and an indefensible position.

 

1 hour ago, Euphoria said:

Yes, that is part of Trump's appeal... it's common knowledge that he wasn't greatly approved and supported by the RNC.

He took everyone by surprise.

One of the big reason for his appeal was/is that he is not a politician and a bureaucrat.

Both DNC and RNC have quite a few skeletons in their closets... at the end people chose... not racists, not homophones, but regular people, hardworking and sick of where the country is headed.

Clinton received over 2,700,000 more votes than Trump, yet lost because of the archaic electoral system. And Trump only got elected through outright lies, the interference of foreign governments and unprecedented meddling by the Director of the FBI.

 

1 hour ago, troysavary said:

We are supposed to believe Clinton when she claims no one hacked her private email server, but then believe her when she claims Russia hacked the DNC?

Is there evidence her private email server was hacked? Because the FBI concluded there wasn't any such evidence. There's evidence an unrelated account was hacked but that's it. Yet again you're making assertions without any evidence to support your position.

[ctebah]

1 minute ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

What an absurd position. So you're happy for foreign governments to influence the outcome of the US election? If not then people should be concerned, regardless of the fact that the US has been meddling in the affairs of other countries for decades. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Nobody is happy, it's just that, maybe it's about time the American people feel what others around the world have been feeling for decades.  It doesn't make it right, but it sure is karma.

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

2 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

Unless we feel like risking a PR/cyber war with Russia. 

We are already there, have been since about 2003-2004 in the recent history, but you are still correct  

[theyarecomingforyou]

2 minutes ago, ctebah said:

Nobody is happy, it's just that, maybe it's about time the American people feel what others around the world have been feeling for decades.  It doesn't make it right, but it sure is karma.

It is pretty hilarious. Trump campaigned on how he wasn't part of the establishment and how he couldn't be lobbied by big business, then appoints a cabinet full of establishment politicians and big business executives. Working class people voted against their own best interests and convinced themselves they were 'sticking it to the man'.

 

As a non-American I'm actually fine with Trump winning, as I believe he will considerably reduce the influence of the US internationally by crashing the US economy with his drastic tax cuts and increased military spending, as well as his belligerent personality. He's following the pattern of George W Bush, who cemented international opinion against the US. He will make the lives of working class people so much worse that it will lead to a resurgence of the left under someone like Sanders or Warren.

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

18 minutes ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

countless articles

Esquire? Really? Why not Cosmo for Men?

 

LOL

 

They should stick to fashion/art topics.

[theyarecomingforyou]

3 minutes ago, Mirumir said:

Esquire? Really? Why not Cosmo for Men?

 

LOL

 

They should stick to fashion/art topics.

Classic. Rather than critique the article you simply dismiss it out of hand. Did you even read it?

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

Just now, theyarecomingforyou said:

Classic. Rather than critique the article you simply dismiss it out of hand. Did you even read it?

I've had good teachers and I skimmed through it.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Just now, Mirumir said:

I've had good teachers...

Irrelevant.

 

Just now, Mirumir said:

and I skimmed through it.

And yet you haven't offered any opinion on it. Please, do tell us where the article is wrong.

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

13 minutes ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

Irrelevant.

 

And yet you haven't offered any opinion on it. Please, do tell us where the article is wrong.

The author has proven that he can type words on a computer. That's all.

 

He hasn't revealed any new info that Rueters/WaPo/Bloomberg/NYT didn't write about before.

 

p.s. The author is legit. He's authored the Rise of the Machines (Terminator 3)  which should indicate that he has no problems with his imagination  

[Nerd Rage]

People are mad that the truth came out......whether Russians or someone else, I'm glad the truth was "leaked" so people could make informed decisions at the polls.  My guess is the leaks just came as a way to counter the media that was heavily one-sided. 

[theyarecomingforyou]

6 minutes ago, Mirumir said:

The author has proven that he can type words on a computer. That's all.

 

He hasn't revealed any new info that Rueters/WaPo/Bloomberg/NYT didn't write about before.

If you're not going to refute anything from the article I fail to see why you even mentioned it. You're not contributing anything to the discussion. The point remains that countless articles have detailed evidence from intelligence agencies and cyber security experts pointing towards Russian involvement in the hack on the DNC. It's no secret that Putin wanted Trump to be elected and he used his influence to achieve that.

 

2 minutes ago, Nerd Rage said:

People are mad that the truth came out......whether Russians or someone else, I'm glad the true was "leaked" so people could make informed decisions at the polls.  My guess is the leaks just came as a way to counter the media that was heavily one-sided. 

Trump made numerous sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic and bigoted statements, which the media called him out on. The media can't simply make up negative things about Clinton to balance it out. There was plenty of media coverage critical of Clinton - over her health, the email controversy, the attacks against Sanders, her links to big business, accounting issues at the Clinton Foundation, etc.

 

Most people are for the information being made public, as Clinton has definitely engaged in wrongdoing to further her political aspirations - she was a terrible candidate. The issue is the way the FBI Director and Russian government directly interfered with the US election. That should concern everyone.

[troysavary]

40 minutes ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

 

So if Russia had been anti-Trump you'd have been furious at the EU? Well, I really don't follow that logic. And please, let's have a look at all the quotes from EU leaders attacking Trump - please share them so we can have a discussion about EU influence on the US election. You can't just make an assertion without any evidence to back it up.

 

So you'd be fine if Russia had exposed Trump's tax records and other documents and cost him the election? I'm all for the shady dealings of both sides being exposed but I take serious issue with an orchestrated campaign against one candidate to influence the outcome of an election. If you don't consider that an issue I find that frankly bizarre and an indefensible position.

 

Is there evidence her private email server was hacked? Because the FBI concluded there wasn't any such evidence. There's evidence an unrelated account was hacked but that's it. Yet again you're making assertions without any evidence to support your position.

OK, I'll explain this like I am explaining to a 5 year old. Follow closely. I didn't say Russia would make me furious at the EU. I was trying to explain that if I was the type to care what foreigner said about Trump, then I would be furious at EU leaders. But since I really don't give a flying fig what they think, I am not upset, Just as I wouldn't have cared if Russia had exposed something about Trump. If they had exposed his tax records, I bet it would have made not one bit of difference in the election. You seem to think you know me better than I know myself, since you are presuming to tell me what would upset me.

 

Orchestrated campaign against one opponent? You mean like the network news in the US digging up everything that Trump has ever said that looks bad, but giving Clinton a free pass? If you are going to froth at the mouth about how Russian media supported Trump, you should be showing equal outrage at how the American media supported Clinton.

 

 If you think EU leaders have not been making extremely negative statements about Trump, then you really need to start listening to news sources outside of American mainstream news

 

I'm not trying to present evidence that Hillary's email server was hacked, it is you guys who are trying to say the Russians leaked her info. If, as she says, her server was never hacked, then the info came from an internal leak at one of the US law enforcement or intelligence agencies, not the Russians. If the info came from the Russians, then Hillary lied about her server never have been hacked. You really cannot have it both ways.

[+Eternal Tempest MVC]

I believe Russia did try to influence the election in Trump favor INDEPENDENT of Trump for their own reasons.

I also think Trumps push back against this is because it bruises his ego, not that he was involved with Russia in anyway. 

[Rippleman]

Watching forums, facebook, and other platforms, the crazy stuff people believe makes ones mind numb. 

[DocM]

http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/10/rnc-spokesman-slams-wp-nyt-report-the-russians-never-hacked-us-video/

 

Quote

 

“The intelligence is wrong,” Spicer told Smerconish. “It didn’t happen. We offered the New York Times conclusive proof that it didn’t happen. They ignored it. They refused to look at it because it didn’t fit the narrative.”

 

“The bottom line is the intelligence is wrong,” he continued. “They are writing that the conclusion they came to was based in part on the fact the RNC was hacked. It wasn’t hacked. We have intelligence agencies that we worked with that are willing to sort this out.”

 

Spicer also criticized the media — and Smerconish personally — for accusing him of lying, when he’s “just trying to get the facts out there.”

 

“Michael, the New York Times in their story said that they based their conclusion on the fact that the RNC was hacked. If the RNC was not hacked, that casts doubt on their conclusions. I don’t understand why this is that difficult to understand.”