CIA says Russia helped Donald Trump win the White House

[thaibeachlovers]

I am somewhat puzzled by all the piss and wind on this.

let's say just for the sake of the argument that it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Russia did hack the DNC etc and gave the hacks to WikiLeaks.

There is ZERO way to prove that it influenced the election as it would be impossible to ask every voter and get a true answer as to whether or not it influenced them.

Soooooo, what then?

It can't be just given to her.

Obama is gone in January, so no time to hold another election before then.

If it went to congress they would put Trump in.

 

So, what the <deleted> is the point of it all?

[simple1]

58 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I am somewhat puzzled by all the piss and wind on this.

let's say just for the sake of the argument that it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Russia did hack the DNC etc and gave the hacks to WikiLeaks.

There is ZERO way to prove that it influenced the election as it would be impossible to ask every voter and get a true answer as to whether or not it influenced them.

Soooooo, what then?

It can't be just given to her.

Obama is gone in January, so no time to hold another election before then.

If it went to congress they would put Trump in.

 

So, what the <deleted> is the point of it all?

Other than hot air from 'commentators'.is there any meaningful attempt to nullify the recent election outcome. Moving along...

 

Right now there would be an ongoing process by way of IT audit of software and infrastructure to identify exposure to security breaches whether foreign or domestic and identify resolution to any issues. Aside from possible domestic players, foreign relations has a part to play as any attempt by a foreign power to interfere with domestic politics (successful or not) would normally be treated as a hostile act with diplomatic implications.

 

Some more background...

 

Joint Statement, Oct. 7: The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process.

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/12/trump-russia-u-s-election/

Edited December 13, 2016 by simple1

[thaibeachlovers]

7 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Other than hot air from 'commentators'.is there any meaningful attempt to nullify the recent election outcome. Moving along...

 

Right now there would be an ongoing process by way of IT audit of software and infrastructure to identify exposure to security breaches whether foreign or domestic and identify resolution to any issues. Aside from possible domestic players, foreign relations has a part to play as any attempt by a foreign power to interfere with domestic politics (successful or not) would normally be treated as a hostile act with diplomatic implications.

 

Some more background...

 

Joint Statement, Oct. 7: The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process.

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/12/trump-russia-u-s-election/

If it's not an attempt to nullify the election, what is the point of making a fuss about it now? Wait till after Trump is sworn in, and then carry out a proper investigation, not Obama's rush job.

So long as it's having to be done before Obama stands down makes me suspect the intention is very much to cast doubt on Trump's legitimacy.

[Linzz]

11 hours ago, stevenl said:

You make a nonsense claim, and this is all you have?

 

The other agencies are not in agreement. Since you ask, the CIA does not always get it right. Remember the weapons of mass destruction? Oh yes suddenly the Dems are in love with the CIA and you have to ask yourself why. The CIA has become politicized. It's a rock bottom last desperate attempt  to delegitimize the election result and sow seeds of doubt to get electors to switch their vote. 

 

Even i it was proven (which it is not) that  Russia was behind the hacking, so what? How could you prove that it had a bearing on the result? All Wikileaks did was to reveal the cheating and corruption of the DNC, none of the revelations were denied because they couldn't.

 

Watch out, Obama could call the election fraudulent because of interference from a foreign power in order to preserve his legacy. This could start a civil war. And if Hillary is installed expect confrontations and the shaping up of a war with Russia. Already this administration is arming Al Nusra (El Qaeda) indirectly to bring down Assad. All because they want a pipeline to Europe but Putin got there first. Has  this Administration forgotten 9/11 already? The corruption of Hillary et al knows no bounds.

[Jingthing]

Linzz, don't be ridiculous.

Nobody is suggesting it's possible for Hillary to win this election.

What is still possible, though very very unlikely is for their to be enough rebel electors to take the contest to congress. In that case, Pence could become president.

As far as a civil war, we're kind of there already in a soft way. Witness the Time Magazine cover. 

Edited December 13, 2016 by Jingthing

[stevenl]

 
The other agencies are not in agreement. Since you ask, the CIA does not always get it right. Remember the weapons of mass destruction? Oh yes suddenly the Dems are in love with the CIA and you have to ask yourself why. The CIA has become politicized. It's a rock bottom last desperate attempt  to delegitimize the election result and sow seeds of doubt to get electors to switch their vote. 
 
Even i it was proven (which it is not) that  Russia was behind the hacking, so what? How could you prove that it had a bearing on the result? All Wikileaks did was to reveal the cheating and corruption of the DNC, none of the revelations were denied because they couldn't.
 
Watch out, Obama could call the election fraudulent because of interference from a foreign power in order to preserve his legacy. This could start a civil war. And if Hillary is installed expect confrontations and the shaping up of a war with Russia. Already this administration is arming Al Nusra (El Qaeda) indirectly to bring down Assad. All because they want a pipeline to Europe but Putin got there first. Has  this Administration forgotten 9/11 already? The corruption of Hillary et al knows no bounds.

If that is what you picked up from the media and this discussion so far, [emoji20] .

Sent from my ROBBY using Thaivisa Connect mobile app

[craigt3365]

11 hours ago, Global Guy said:

I did see the "evidence" and it wasn't valid at all. BTW, I'm trained by the same three letter agency you quoted (among others), I know a little about how they operate. Since you are such a google fan, search for "Fusion Center" for a tiny, tiny tidbit about my background. You don't have to tell me about US govt fabrications, been there and done that. If that's who you are believing, you are lost from step one.

 

Next thing you'll be citing is CNN or BBC. Hahahahaha.....

If you are truly trained by an intelligence agency, then you know why you'll never see all the "evidence".  I've worked on many secret projects.  I didn't have a high level of clearance, but those on my team did.  Crazy stuff.  And it was fun! LOL

 

If the power guys are going after this, there's a reason why.  US govt fabrications?  Sometimes, yes.  Like every government.  But for this one, no way.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/12/08/republicans-ready-to-launch-wide-ranging-probe-of-russia-despite-trumps-stance/?utm_term=.77f7e37b755c&wpisrc=nl_rainbow&wpmm=1

Quote

 

“I’m going after Russia in every way you can go after Russia. I think they’re one of the most destabilizing influences on the world stage. I think they did interfere with our elections, and I want Putin personally to pay the price,” Graham said in an interview with CNN on Wednesday.

 

McCain said his Armed Services Committee will launch a probe in the 115th Congress into Russia’s cyber-capabilities against the U.S. military and weapons systems, “because the real threat is cyber,” he explained.

 

 

[tifino]

 

CIA simply doesn't want Julian Assange/Wikileaks being given the Credit for exposing HRC

 

In saying as such, the CIA still wants JA to burn.and not be The Don's hero.

 

CIA brainstrust are like a big Chess game:

 

[derator01]

Many posts have been removed from view.  Please, NO conspiracy theories as that is considered trolling.  And please, show respect to other members.  This is against forum rules and will not be tolerated.  Apologies to the members who had their appropriate replies removed.

 

Please stay on topic and abide by forum rules.

[Silurian]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If it's not an attempt to nullify the election, what is the point of making a fuss about it now? Wait till after Trump is sworn in, and then carry out a proper investigation, not Obama's rush job.

So long as it's having to be done before Obama stands down makes me suspect the intention is very much to cast doubt on Trump's legitimacy.

 

Sure, wait until Comrade Donald is in office so the investigation can be buried and forgotten. Once he is in office no need for any more inconvenient and unnecessary investigations to muck up his "legitimate" POTUS position.

 

[Silurian]

A little bit tongue in check opinion article...but has some grains of truth.

 

Opinion: Top 10 signs that a U.S. president is a Russian agent

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/top-10-signs-that-a-us-president-is-a-russian-spy-2016-12-13

 

[craigt3365]

10 minutes ago, Silurian said:

A little bit tongue in check opinion article...but has some grains of truth.

 

Opinion: Top 10 signs that a U.S. president is a Russian agent

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/top-10-signs-that-a-us-president-is-a-russian-spy-2016-12-13

 

Some serious grains of truth!  Scary....

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, Silurian said:

A little bit tongue in check opinion article...but has some grains of truth.

 

"but has some grains of truth."

 

This is how things get spun so out of control. Those pesky "grains of truth".

 

Take those "grains", add in a whole bunch of conjecture, misdirection, spin, media motivation for "clicks & views" and you get a headline like the one in the OP. 

[Silurian]

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

This is how things get spun so out of control. Those pesky "grains of truth".

 

Take those "grains", add in a whole bunch of conjecture, misdirection, spin, media motivation for "clicks & views" and you get a headline like the one in the OP. 

 

Huh, sounds like some Comrade Donald's campaign speeches. Some grains of truth, some spin, some conjecture...

[rabas]

30 minutes ago, Silurian said:

A little bit tongue in check opinion article...but has some grains of truth.

 

Opinion: Top 10 signs that a U.S. president is a Russian agent

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/top-10-signs-that-a-us-president-is-a-russian-spy-2016-12-13

 

 

This is NOT considered conspiracy theory?

[craigt3365]

4 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

This is NOT considered conspiracy theory?

He's said it was tongue in check, with some grains of truth.  He's not saying this is actually true.  Huge difference.  But yes, it's right on the edge of a conspiracy theory, and the article states that.  From the article, they even admit it.

 

Quote

It sounds like the stuff of conspiracy theorists and the tinfoil brigade.

 

[Strange]

15 minutes ago, Silurian said:

Huh, sounds like some Comrade Donald's campaign speeches. Some grains of truth, some spin, some conjecture...

 

Lawd, if I could only post some of HRC's real gems. 

 

Campaign speeches are one thing.

 

"Russia helped Trump win the White House" is entirely another. 

[Jingthing]

Do you think that's what typical Russians think?

Because I think what you think is ridiculous.

The motivations that Putin had to get revenge on Hillary Clinton (Ukraine) are well known and the ties that trump has to Russia are more secret (because he refused to show his taxes) but it's pretty obvious he has them. 

From the typical American POV, Putin is an authoritarian dictator that totally controls the Russian media. trump (bizarrely) admires that kind of leader. 

Sadly, enough Americans were conned into putting a kind of American Putin in power. 

The good news is that Americans still have effective tools of resistance (at least for now) that Russians have largely lost. 

Edited December 14, 2016 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

More on how Putin messed with the USA elections. 

Patriotic Americans of all political persuasions should be extremely ANGRY at Russia now, and supporting retaliation. 

 

 

Quote

 

The Perfect Weapon: How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the U.S.

While there’s no way to be certain of the ultimate impact of the hack, this much is clear: A low-cost, high-impact weapon that Russia had test-fired in elections from Ukraine to Europe was trained on the United States, with devastating effectiveness. For Russia, with an enfeebled economy and a nuclear arsenal it cannot use short of all-out war, cyberpower proved the perfect weapon: cheap, hard to see coming, hard to trace.

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html?_r=1

 

But sadly, they are not. The trumpinistas (SIC) simply DON'T CARE!

Quote

WHY ANGRY WHITE AMERICA FELL FOR PUTIN

Anti-globalization has gone global, too.

 

Donald Trump’s choice of female partners reflects the yearnings and inclinations of these angry, white men—many of whom, one imagines, now comprise his base. Two of his three wives come from Slavic, ex-Communist countries. His shortest marriage was to an American. When Trump praises Putin, it’s probably not just because he wants to build a hotel in St. Petersburg or has an ex-campaign manager who allegedly made a bundle in Ukraine. It’s probably because Trump thinks, like many of his supporters may think, that the Russians get it.

All of which sheds some light on why so many Trump supporters are not that put off by news of the F.S.B. or Russian military intelligence tampering with the U.S. elections. (If they were, every Republican in Congress would be joining Lindsey Graham and John McCain in their call for an investigation.) Maybe the Russians hacked into the Democratic National Committee or spread some fake news. Whatever. We don’t know anything for sure, and even we did, who cares? They’re on our side, the thinking goes.

 

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/12/why-angry-white-america-fell-for-putin?mbid=synd_digg

Edited December 14, 2016 by Jingthing

[Strange]

"Vanity Fair"

 

[craigt3365]

Seems things are heating up.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38336272

Quote

The White House has suggested Russian President Vladimir Putin was directly involved in a hacking operation aimed at interfering with the US election.

 

Edited December 16, 2016 by craigt3365

[Andreas2]

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Seems things are heating up.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38336272

Quote

The White House has suggested Russian President Vladimir Putin was directly involved in a hacking operation aimed at interfering with the US election.

 

 

You are right, more suggestions and speculations by the day. After one week, the whole story is still based on two articles referring to "secret documents" cited by "anonymous officials".

What more do "news" need nowadays, to stay relevant, as long as they are initiated by two verifiably unbiased, most respected newspapers. It must be the immense trust in these pillars of journalistic integrity, that keeps their message alive. No further facts or evidences needed - Even after one week.

Imagine the storm, if this story was against HRC and was broken by media outlets whose names must not mentioned here...
 

Anyway, the story has only to be kept alive until Monday to provide some electors with a sorry excuse - even if it's based on a rumor - to break their pledge and flip their votes.

Don't be surprised after Monday, if the whole story goes down the memory hole.

 

Question: Did the actual occupant of the White House also read about these hacks in the NYT for the first time? Again? Seems so, as the White House seems to have nothing substantial to add to this story, except some useless suggestions, of course.

[craigt3365]

17 minutes ago, Andreas2 said:

 

You are right, more suggestions and speculations by the day. After one week, the whole story is still based on two articles referring to "secret documents" cited by "anonymous officials".

What more do "news" need nowadays, to stay relevant, as long as they are initiated by two verifiably unbiased, most respected newspapers. It must be the immense trust in these pillars of journalistic integrity, that keeps their message alive. No further facts or evidences needed - Even after one week.

Imagine the storm, if this story was against HRC and was broken by media outlets whose names must not mentioned here...
 

Anyway, the story has only to be kept alive until Monday to provide some electors with a sorry excuse - even if it's based on a rumor - to break their pledge and flip their votes.

Don't be surprised after Monday, if the whole story goes down the memory hole.

 

Question: Did the actual occupant of the White House also read about these hacks in the NYT for the first time? Again? Seems so, as the White House seems to have nothing substantial to add to this story, except some useless suggestions, of course.

What happens on Monday?

[Jingthing]

Monday the electors meet and officially elect donald j. trump as the U.S. president.

 

God help us! 

[craigt3365]

18 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Monday the electors meet and officially elect donald j. trump as the U.S. president.

 

God help us! 

But don't believe anybody can "flip" their votes now.  Too late! LOL

[Jingthing]

5 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

But don't believe anybody can "flip" their votes now.  Too late! LOL

If it was two or three votes, maybe. But there are too many so I agree, almost impossible now. 

[CaptHaddock]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

If it was two or three votes, maybe. But there are too many so I agree, almost impossible now. 

 

After the election a Harvard Law School professor,  Lawrence Lessig, offered free legal advice to any electors who were considering casting their votes "faithlessly," i.e. not for the candidate who won the most votes in their state.  Recently Lessig reported that 20 such electors had asked for his advice.  Although voting faithlessly is against the law in some states, no one has ever been prosecuted for doing so and even if an elector breaks the law by doing so the vote he casts remains valid.  There is no process under the Constitution to overturn the results of the Electoral College whether by Congress or the Supreme Court.

 

Trump has 306 EVs and needs 270.  So, if at least 37 faithless electors refrained from voting for Trump, he would not become President on Monday.  If HRC also failed to get 270 votes the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives.  The Republicans dominate the House, of course, but in the special balloting conducted in the House, each state has one vote and can cast it for anyone who has received at least one EV.  So, that means if there were faithless Republican electors who were not willing to vote for either Trump or Clinton, those electors could vote for any other American meeting the minimum qualifications for the office of president, i.e. natural born citizen at least 35 years old.  For instance, Mitt Romney.  Even if Romney got only one EV when the House casts its ballots he could become president.  Such an outcome would be more likely than it may seem at first.  What could happen is the Nancy Pelosi, the minority leader of the Democrats in the House, could approach the Republicans members who are known to despise Trump of whom there are many.  She could offer to throw the support of all of the Democrat states together with the NeverTrump Republicans who might together outnumber the Trump Republicans.  In that case someone like Romney or even Pence could become President.

 

It's a long shot.  However, at least one Republican elector has already announced his intention to cast his vote faithlessly for Evan McMullin, an anti-Trump candidate who got on the ballot in a few states.  It is just barely possible that other anti-Trump electors are even now taking heart from hearing about the 20 who are mulling it over.

[Berkshire]

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Monday the electors meet and officially elect donald j. trump as the U.S. president.

 

God help us! 

 

I'm in the camp that believes it's pretty much a done deal...Trump will be President.  But....

 

[Fifty-five members of the Electoral College were demanding Wednesday a classified intelligence briefing on the Russian government’s involvement in cyber attacks that may have swayed the 2016 presidential election in favor of President-elect Donald Trump.]

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/least-55-electors-demand-briefing-180735382.html

 

[Berkshire]

On 12/14/2016 at 9:47 AM, Silurian said:

A little bit tongue in check opinion article...but has some grains of truth.

 

Opinion: Top 10 signs that a U.S. president is a Russian agent

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/top-10-signs-that-a-us-president-is-a-russian-spy-2016-12-13

 

 

Interesting.  Although written somewhat tongue-in-cheek, it's much more believable (and makes more sense) than most of the nonsense that came out against Clinton.

[CaptHaddock]

On 12/14/2016 at 1:26 PM, Jingthing said:

More on how Putin messed with the USA elections. 

Patriotic Americans of all political persuasions should be extremely ANGRY at Russia now, and supporting retaliation. 

 

 

 

It's entirely possible that the Russians interfered with the US election as alleged, after all the US has been interfering with elections in other countries for decades.  But the problem is that there is no conceivable evidence that could be presented to prove the case.  What would evidence of hacking look like to us average citizens?  So, then it comes down to believing the CIA or other intelligence agencies, which in the past gave us the phoney Gulf of Tonkin incident to launch the Vietnam War and the phoney WMDs to launch the last Iraq War.  Why anyone would believe anything the CIA claimed is beyond me.

Edited December 16, 2016 by CaptHaddock