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

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

8 minutes ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

 then you acknowledged it's all propaganda

You are mistaken.

[ctebah]

9 minutes ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

It's amazing how your position changes as I refute your positions one by one. First you laughed at the idea that Russia lacked freedom of press, then you acknowledged it's all propaganda but argued it can be compared to Western media coverage to find out the truth. You argued that the media should be regulated and I tore apart that argument by pointing out how Russia uses the media for propaganda through draconian regulations and interference.

You got all that from "Even if you believe...."?

[JoseyWales]

12 minutes ago, ctebah said:

You got all that from "Even if you believe...."?

I found a place for him to go..

 

[theyarecomingforyou]

39 minutes ago, ctebah said:

You got all that from "Even if you believe...."?

No, I got it from "we can actually double-check our state propaganda". It was very clear that they acknowledged the Russian state's propaganda. And if not they really need to read the article I posted earlier detailing it.

[ctebah]

1 minute ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

No, I got it from "we can actually double-check our state propaganda". It was very clear that they acknowledged the Russian state's propaganda. And if not they really need to read the article I posted earlier detailing it.

No it wasn't.  

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

7 minutes ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

No, I got it from "we can actually double-check our state propaganda". It was very clear that they acknowledged the Russian state's propaganda. And if not they really need to read the article I posted earlier detailing it.

I've never denied that the Russian state propaganda didn't exist. It's there, everything is known, all their channels.

 

You just can't comprehend that the free Russian press can exist along side the Russian state propaganda and that the Russians get a plethora of options (both domestic and international) of where to get the news from.

[DocM]

I see little defense for the meme that the Russians tilted the outcome.

 

The solid red and blue states stayed red and blue.

 

The race was lost in the Great Lakes states and Pennsylvania based in 1) a 30+ year history of poor job creation there by both parties, aka "the establishment," and 2) by the Clinton emails fiasco.

 

The email issue was created and exacerbated by Clinton herself, and the released emails came from a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch and released as public records by a Federal judge. This had been dripping negative info about her for over a year, and like Chinese water torture it had a cumulative effect.

 

Most of the Wikileaks stuff, purportedly Russian but that case still isn't 100%, came in October and by then she was already toast in the Great Lakes and Pennsylvania.

 

Why? In this region old-school retail politicking is a very big deal; visiting the area, pressing the flesh, taking trips to small cities, visiting open venues where small donors can go, etc.  

 

Trump did all of those, which translates into votes 99 times out of 100. He visited auto plants and factories, and criticized the brass to their face for moving production to Mexico. The blue collars roared, and turned out to vote for him. He was drawing 20-50,000 people in stadiums and other venues. 

 

After the Democratic convention Clinton did none of this. She visited smaller closed venues, usually large donors only, or "safe" places like the NAACP convention in Detroit. She never visited Wisconsin, and only visited Michigan in the last week as things were slipping away and the MI Democratic party leaders were panicking. She gave up on Ohio in late September, and there were media reports of Pennsylvania Democrats changing there party registration to Republican and Trump signs appearing all over formerly Democratic turf.

 

By October and Wikileaks Ohio and Pennsylvania were already gone and the election was over.  Michigan and Wisconsin were sauce on the goose.

Edited December 11, 2016 by DocM

[PGHammer]

1 hour ago, DocM said:

I see little defense for the meme that the Russians tilted the outcome.

 

The solid red and blue states stayed red and blue.

 

The race was lost in the Great Lakes states and Pennsylvania based in 1) a 30+ year history of poor job creation there by both parties, aka "the establishment," and 2) by the Clinton emails fiasco.

 

The email issue was created and exacerbated by Clinton herself, and the released emails came from a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch and released as public records by a Federal judge. This had been dripping negative info about her for over a year, and like Chinese water torture it had a cumulative effect.

 

Most of the Wikileaks stuff, purportedly Russian but that case still isn't 100%, came in October and by then she was already toast in the Great Lakes and Pennsylvania.

 

Why? In this region old-school retail politicking is a very big deal; visiting the area, pressing the flesh, taking trips to small cities, visiting open venues where small donors can go, etc.  

 

Trump did all of those, which translates into votes 99 times out of 100. He visited auto plants and factories, and criticized the brass to their face for moving production to Mexico. The blue collars roared, and turned out to vote for him. He was drawing 20-50,000 people in stadiums and other venues. 

 

After the Democratic convention Clinton did none of this. She visited smaller closed venues, usually large donors only, or "safe" places like the NAACP convention in Detroit. She never visited Wisconsin, and only visited Michigan in the last week as things were slipping away and the MI Democratic party leaders were panicking. She gave up on Ohio in late September, and there were media reports of Pennsylvania Democrats changing there party registration to Republican and Trump signs appearing all over formerly Democratic turf.

 

By October and Wikileaks Ohio and Pennsylvania were already gone and the election was over.  Michigan and Wisconsin were sauce on the goose.

Michigan was a problem back in the primaries - remember, Sanders (not Clinton) won Michigan then.  If anything, Ohio on the GOP side was won by Trump (not the popular sitting governor); that should have been a warning flag regarding incumbency safety; a popular sitting governor should NOT lose his home state in a primary.  Wisconsin - you had the governor that beat back a recall vote AND won re-election in Trump's corner.

[theyarecomingforyou]

3 hours ago, ctebah said:

No it wasn't.  

3 hours ago, Mirumir said:

I've never denied that the Russian state propaganda didn't exist. It's there, everything is known, all their channels.

@ctebah - And yet the very next post from the OP says otherwise. Don't just argue with me for the sake of it, there's no point.

 

3 hours ago, Mirumir said:

You just can't comprehend that the free Russian press can exist along side the Russian state propaganda and that the Russians get a plethora of options (both domestic and international) of where to get the news from.

It's not a free press if media institutions get shut down or the government exerts influence over them any time they are critical of the government, which is exactly what happens (see the link I posted earlier). And it doesn't matter that Russians can find impartial and accurate news sources internationally, as the domestic press shapes public opinion. Russian doesn't have a free press, it is state controlled propaganda. But don't take my word for it, just look at the Press Freedom Index - Russia has one of the least free presses in the world, with even Pakistan and Myanmar ranking higher.

 

If you believe that Russia has a free press then the propaganda is working.

[troysavary]

13 hours ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

Again, you haven't provided a single quote from an EU leader that you claim interfered with the US election. You allege interference but haven't provided any evidence to support that position. And yet again you don't seem to care that foreign governments interfered in the US election, which is troubling.

 

Clinton didn't get a free pass. There were countless critical articles about her, as I mentioned earlier. The reason that Trump received more negative coverage is because he made more outrageous and offensive statements. Candidates shouldn't be treated equally, they should be treated fairly - that was what happened. Trump was criticised more because his actions warranted it.

 

That's not to say there aren't issues with press independence. We saw that some members of the press were running their articles via the DNC before publication, which is outrageous. However, we see the same with Fox News on the right with reporters and Republican politicians sharing the same talking points so it's a widespread issue. Reporters who fail to maintain independence from politicians should be exposed and kicked out of the industry.

 

Again, provide evidence. Let's talk about it. If you're not willing to do that then we don't have a basis for a discussion.

 

What on earth are you talking about? The emails that were leaked were from John Podesta and occurred due to a breach of his Gmail account by Fancy Bear, a Russian hacking group connected to Russian military intelligence. It has nothing to do with Clinton's private server. You're conflating two unrelated matters. Please, if you're not sure about something then just look it up - it saves us all a lot of time.

The so called critical articles against Clinton were lightweight fluff pieces saying things like "Well, she probably shouldn't have had a private e-mail server, but their were no smoking guns in the emails.". They totally bypassed any actual smoking guns in the emails, which were many. That is called deflection, not being critical.

 

You want examples of negative things about Trump from EU. How about Britain telling him he wouldn't be welcome in their country because he is racist? While the end result of the discussion was that he would not actually be banned, it was discussed in the British parliament, with prominent figures like the mayor of London calling for the ban, the parliament actually had a serious discussion on the subject. What is that about saving time and looking stuff up?

Edited December 12, 2016 by troysavary

[Hum]

I don't know how they influenced our election, why, or who they wanted to win.

 

Just glad Hillary will not be president.

[DocM]

Oh, boy.  Deputy Secretary of State Select John Bolton, a former UN Ambassador, is calling a possible false flag.

 

I was wondering "who else?" a while back....and came up with the Ukrainians. Other investigative reporters, especially a good article by The New Yorker, revealed Ukraine connections to PropOrNot, the "investigative" website involved in the Washington Post article about 200 Russian influenced websites which blew up in the WaPo's face.

 

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-propaganda-about-russian-propaganda

 

Quote

>
The Russian journalist Alexey Kovalev, who debunks Kremlin propaganda on his [Russian language] site, Noodleremover, floated the possibility that PropOrNot was Ukrainians waging a disinformation campaign against Russia. 
>
PropOrNot has said that the group includes Ukrainian-Americans, though the spokesman laughed at the suggestion that they were Ukrainian agents. 
>
Given PropOrNots shadowy nature and the shoddiness of its work, I was puzzled by the groups claim to have worked with Senator Ron Wyden's [D-Oregon] office. In an e-mail, Keith Chu, a spokesman for Wyden, told me that the PropOrNot team reached out to the office in late October."
>
This week, Wyden and six other senators sent a letter to the White House asking it to declassify information concerning the Russian Government and the U.S. election.
>

 

Then AlterNet weighed in

 

AlterNet....

 

Quote

The Anonymous Blacklist Promoted by the Washington Post Has Apparent Ties to Ukrainian Fascism and CIA Spying

Digging deeper into the PropOrNot controversy.
>

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/309897-bolton-questions-if-russian-hacks-were-false-flag#

 

Quote

Bolton questions if Russian hacks were false flag

John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who has been floated for a possible role in Donald Trumps State Department, questioned reports of Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election.

"It is not at all clear to me, just viewing this from the outside, that this hacking into the DNC and the RNC was not a false flag operation," he told Fox News Eric Shawn on Sunday.

When pressed about his use of the phrase false flag and whether he was accusing an entity in the U.S. of involvement, Bolton said, "We just don't know."

"But I believe that intelligence has been politicized in the Obama administration to a very significant degree."

The Washington Post reported Friday that the CIA concluded Russia intervened in the election to help Trump win the presidency.

Various people have been identified who helped the Russian government leak hacked documents from Democratic sources, including the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, to WikiLeaks, according to the report.

Trump assailed Democrats over the issue on Sunday, saying it was ridiculous to think Russia interfered in the election to help him get elected, even as a bipartisan group of senators called for an investigation.

"But, if you think the Russians did this, then why did they leave fingerprints? that led the CIA to its conclusion," Bolton questioned.

"We would want to know who else might want to influence the election and why they would leave fingerprints that point to the Russians. That's why I say until we know more about how the intelligence community came to this conclusion we dont know whether it is Russian inspired or a false flag."

[Nashy]

Of course it was Russia.  Everything that happens in the USA is blamed on Russia.

Never mind that Hillary Clinton was the cause of the loss.  Hell, they'd rather blame Russia than actual tackle the amount of evidence that she's just a right POS.

[DocM]

 

 

 

But...but...she was the annointed one, and...and...it was her turn!!

 

Nevermind she only campaigned in the blue 40% of the country, the other 40% being red and it was the purple 20% that bit her in the ass.

 

And.....

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/11/politics/russia-hacking-conclusions-donald-trump/index.html

Quote

Gap on Russia hacking conclusions between intelligence, FBI

 

(CNN)The disagreement between some Republicans and Democrats on Russia's intentions in hacking the election rests partially on the lack of agreement between intelligence agencies and the FBI about the conclusiveness of the evidence, officials explained this weekend.

The US intelligence community is increasingly confident that Russian meddling in the American election was intended to steer the election toward Donald Trump, multiple sources have said. That revelation, first reported by CNN a week ago, went beyond the October statement by the 17 intelligence agencies that only said that Russia was seeking to undermine the election, but did not go as far as to say it was to benefit Trump.

The New York Times reported this weekend that part of the reason for the change is that the CIA believes the Russians hacked not only Democratic organizations but Republican groups too, but that they only published documents from Democrats.

Motives unclear

The FBI hasn't concluded that the RNC itself was directly breached, a law enforcement official said Sunday. FBI investigators did find that a breach of a third-party entity that held data belonging to the RNC. But the data appears to have been outdated and of little value to the hackers. The FBI also found that some conservative groups and pundits were hacked. The FBI also hasn't found conclusive evidence to show that it was done to help Trump.

[NOTE: a "third party entity" is far from saying RNC was hacked, as CIA claimed]

"At this point, there appears to have been a combination of motivations," one US law enforcement official said. "They wanted to sow discord and undermine our systems. It's clear not even the Russians thought he would win."

Officials familiar with the briefings given to Congress say the CIA assessment wasn't as definitive as has been portrayed in news reports this weekend. The agency developed new information in recent weeks, based on intelligence sources, which prompted a new assessment of the Russian hack. That assessment "leans" toward the view that the Russians were trying to hurt Clinton and help Trump. But the CIA assessment wasn't definitive, the officials said.

Part of the issue is the nature of the CIA and FBI roles in the investigation. The CIA produces raw intelligence, the FBI moves more slowly to reach conclusions based on the intelligence and other investigative work.
>

 

Edited December 12, 2016 by DocM

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

15 hours ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

Russian doesn't have a free press, it is state controlled propaganda.

 

If you believe that Russia has a free press then the propaganda is working.

That sounds so funny in 2016.

 

Not only do the Russians who are fluent in foreign languages have unlimited access to the western periodics, but all of the western press is being translated to the Russian language on the daily basis for those Russians who don't speak any foreign languages.

 

http://inosmi.ru/

http://www.inopressa.ru/

 

Not only can we double-check our country's media narrative (which isn't homogeneous contrary to a popular belief) against the western one, but we can also double-check the Anglo-Saxon media (which is the worst offender these days) against the Spanish, the French, the Italian, the Portuguese, the Japanese, and the German media (the second worst offender).

 

Quote

just look at the Press Freedom Index 

That's just another biased, politically-motivated rating.

 

Somehow, it is the Russian media's reporting on the Arab Spring, Syria, and the Ukraine among other things that has been more truthful recently.

 

Cheers!

[T3X4S]

On 12/10/2016 at 8:09 AM, hagjohn said:

... Maybe we should have a truth commission to see who in our election process and in our gov't knew about this.

The "truth" is only a point of view - and when any gov't is involved, the "truth" is only what they see fit to let the public know.

[Son_Of_Dad]

No, the presidential election can't be hacked - Direct from Clintons biggest media fans, prior to the election naturally

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/19/politics/election-day-russia-hacking-explained/index.html

 

 

Who's "WHINING" now?

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

For what it's worth, but Mr. Trump, yesterday, dismissed the whole CIA report in question as being "ridiculous".

[TPreston]

11 minutes ago, Son_Of_Dad said:

No, the presidential election can't be hacked - Direct from Clintons biggest media fans, prior to the election naturally

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/19/politics/election-day-russia-hacking-explained/index.html

 

 

Who's "WHINING" now?

The cia did not claim the election had been hacked but the DNC and RNC.

 

The possibility for blackmail is what you should be worried about regardless of your political affiliation.

[DocM]

18 minutes ago, TPreston said:

The cia did not claim the election had been hacked but the DNC and RNC.

 

The possibility for blackmail is what you should be worried about regardless of your political affiliation.

CNN reported the FBI blew up that RNC had been hacked. It was a third party site with outdated data. They also noted CIA gets raw data, FBI investigates it. See upthread.

 

Also, RNC is air-gapped.

[theyarecomingforyou]

10 hours ago, troysavary said:

The so called critical articles against Clinton were lightweight fluff pieces saying things like "Well, she probably shouldn't have had a private e-mail server, but their were no smoking guns in the emails.". They totally bypassed any actual smoking guns in the emails, which were many. That is called deflection, not being critical.

If you're talking about PizzaGate then we have very different ideas as to what constitutes a 'smoking gun'.

 

10 hours ago, troysavary said:

You want examples of negative things about Trump from EU. How about Britain telling him he wouldn't be welcome in their country because he is racist? While the end result of the discussion was that he would not actually be banned, it was discussed in the British parliament, with prominent figures like the mayor of London calling for the ban, the parliament actually had a serious discussion on the subject.

You don't understand how parliament works. In the UK if a government petition reaches 100,000 signatures it has to have a response from the government and will be considered for debate by parliament. In this case there was a petition to block Donald Trump from entering the country and was signed by over half a million people, which parliament was therefore obliged to consider. During that debate Trump was criticised for his positions but it was determined he shouldn't be denied entry to the UK.

 

There's a major difference between Russia hacking DNC emails and leaking them to inflict maximum damage on Clinton versus the UK parliament responding to a petition from UK citizens. What you have to remember is that the UK has laws against hate speech and so what may be considered acceptable in the US may not be so in the UK.

 

So I ask again, please provide examples of EU leaders attacking Trump.

[troysavary]

5 minutes ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

If you're talking about PizzaGate then we have very different ideas as to what constitutes a 'smoking gun'.

 

You don't understand how parliament works. In the UK if a government petition reaches 100,000 signatures it has to have a response from the government and will be considered for debate by parliament. In this case there was a petition to block Donald Trump from entering the country and was signed by over half a million people, which parliament was therefore obliged to consider. During that debate Trump was criticised for his positions but it was determined he shouldn't be denied entry to the UK.

 

There's a major difference between Russia hacking DNC emails and leaking them to inflict maximum damage on Clinton versus the UK parliament responding to a petition from UK citizens. What you have to remember is that the UK has laws against hate speech and so what may be considered acceptable in the US may not be so in the UK.

 

So I ask again, please provide examples of EU leaders attacking Trump.

Not going to bother. No matter what examples I give, you will simply discount because they don't fit your preconceived notions. You can't see beyond the "Russia bad, Trump bad" talking points mainstream media feeds to you, so I am done with this conversation.

[theyarecomingforyou]

1 minute ago, troysavary said:

Not going to bother. No matter what examples I give, you will simply discount because they don't fit your preconceived notions. You can't see beyond the "Russia bad, Trump bad" talking points mainstream media feeds to you, so I am done with this conversation.

Classic projection. Every point I have made I have backed up with evidence, whilst you have made baseless accusations that I have been able to easily refute. You're ending this discussion because your positions don't stand up to scrutiny and you don't like that somebody is able to call you out on your falsehoods.

[TPreston]

Quote

Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, Charles E. Schumer (D-NY), Senate Democratic Leader-elect, and Jack Reed (D-RI), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services released the following joint statement today in response to news reports on the CIA’s analysis of Russian interference with the 2016 election:

“For years, foreign adversaries have directed cyberattacks at America’s physical, economic, and military infrastructure, while stealing our intellectual property. Now our democratic institutions have been targeted. Recent reports of Russian interference in our election should alarm every American.

“Congress’s national security committees have worked diligently to address the complex challenge of cybersecurity, but recent events show that more must be done.  While protecting classified material, we have an obligation to inform the public about recent cyberattacks that have cut to the heart of our free society. Democrats and Republicans must work together, and across the jurisdictional lines of the Congress, to examine these recent incidents thoroughly and devise comprehensive solutions to deter and defend against further cyberattacks.

“This cannot become a partisan issue. The stakes are too high for our country. We are committed to working in this bipartisan manner, and we will seek to unify our colleagues around the goal of investigating and stopping the grave threats that cyberattacks conducted by foreign governments pose to our national security.”

http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/press-releases/mccain-graham-schumer-reed-joint-statement-on-reports-that-russia-interfered-with-the-2016-election

 

[TPreston]