CIA says Russia helped Donald Trump win the White House

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed.   Please get back on topic and stay on it.  

 

[Linzz]

5 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Agreed.  But he's 100% positive it was Russia who did the hack.  From your article:

 

 

The question you posted pertains to Russia potentially giving the info to Wikileaks.  Which I guess has yet to be proven?

 

Why has Clapper playing politics and refused Republican's requests for full briefings? Should he not brief the nation to show that indeed the DNC was hacked by Russia? Is it because  it was just an expose' of the collusion between the media and the DNC and nothing to do with hacking polling booths?

"It is disappointing that the CIA would provide information on this issue to the Washington Post and NBC but will not provide information to elected members of Congress," Johnson said in a statement on Friday."

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-congress-idUSKBN1452E1

[Morch]

6 hours ago, impulse said:

 

Their press is controlled by the government.  Ours is controlled dominated by a few white haired billionaires and their advertisers- who also control the purse strings of government.  Potato, potato.  Neither one of us get the truth- unless we go outside the mainstream press.  And even then, it's tough to tell with so much faux reporting nowadays.

 

Edit:  Fixed it...  It's subtle, though.

 

No, it isn't the same level of control. Not even close. There's nothing on US media (even if just referencing corporate) which approaches the unity of message appearing on Russian state controlled media.

[Morch]

22 minutes ago, Linzz said:

 

Why has Clapper playing politics and refused Republican's requests for full briefings? Should he not brief the nation to show that indeed the DNC was hacked by Russia? Is it because  it was just an expose' of the collusion between the media and the DNC and nothing to do with hacking polling booths?

"It is disappointing that the CIA would provide information on this issue to the Washington Post and NBC but will not provide information to elected members of Congress," Johnson said in a statement on Friday."

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-congress-idUSKBN1452E1

 

From the link above:

 

Quote

Three U.S. government sources, who all asked for anonymity to discuss classified information, told Reuters that while the full congressional committees have not been briefed, the congressional leadership has, which is the standard procedure for briefing Congress on sensitive intelligence.

 

[impulse]

26 minutes ago, Morch said:

No, it isn't the same level of control. Not even close. There's nothing on US media (even if just referencing corporate) which approaches the unity of message appearing on Russian state controlled media.

 

But that makes it worse.  For hundreds of years, Russkies have made jokes about the reliability of media propaganda.  They know it's tripe.

 

In the USA, we suffer the delusion that we're getting the truth when we listen to the talking heads.  And every once in a while, we do.  But that's just to perpetuate the deceit.

[Morch]

19 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

But that makes it worse.  For hundreds of years, Russkies have made jokes about the reliability of media propaganda.  They know it's tripe.

 

In the USA, we suffer the delusion that we're getting the truth when we listen to the talking heads.  And every once in a while, we do.  But that's just to perpetuate the deceit.

 

Sometimes we also make a couple of blanket generalizations masquerading as a reasonable argument.

[iReason]

6 hours ago, Linzz said:

 

The Washington Post is still campaigning for Hillary. James Clapper said there was no basis and that  US Intelligence  community does not have strong evidence that there has been any connection between WikiLeaks and Russia when testifying before the House Intelligence committee on Nov 17th. Now suddenly the Russians hacked the DNC. Either he lied before or is lying now, in which case he should be charged with perjury, then he would sing like a canary and the real truth would come out.

 

A Classic example of a Trumpeteer who doesn't even bother to read the article.

But more than ready to blindly flail away at the messenger.

Pointless. 

 

"The positions of Comey and Clapper were revealed in a message that CIA Director John Brennan sent to the agency’s workforce Friday."

 

“Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI [Director] James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election,” Brennan said, according to U.S. officials who have seen the message."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-blames-putins-personal-grudge-against-her-for-election-interference/2016/12/16/12f36250-c3be-11e6-8422-eac61c0ef74d_story.html?utm_term=.eb735ffca2bb

 

[craigt3365]

16 hours ago, Linzz said:

 

Why has Clapper playing politics and refused Republican's requests for full briefings? Should he not brief the nation to show that indeed the DNC was hacked by Russia? Is it because  it was just an expose' of the collusion between the media and the DNC and nothing to do with hacking polling booths?

"It is disappointing that the CIA would provide information on this issue to the Washington Post and NBC but will not provide information to elected members of Congress," Johnson said in a statement on Friday."

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-congress-idUSKBN1452E1

 

Could be because they don't trust Trumps transition team:

Quote

Nevertheless, Representative Devin Nunes, the California Republican who chairs the House Intelligence Committee and is a member of President-elect Trump's transition team as well as the Gang of Eight, has called for a briefing for his entire committee on the CIA assessment.

 

Quote

U.S. government officials said the leaders of Congress and the chairmen of the two intelligence committees, known as the "Gang of Eight," have been briefed on the Central Intelligence Agency's conclusion.

 

Here's a good reason why.  This guy twists the truth and won't answer questions.  No wonder they don't want him involved. 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/dec/11/reince-priebus/priebus-falsely-claims-no-conclusive-report-whethe/

Quote

Reince Priebus falsely claims no conclusive report whether Russia tried to influence election

 

 

This video was put up by many dodgy websites as proof there was no Russian hacking.  We know there was.  Dodgy politics.

[craigt3365]

16 hours ago, impulse said:

 

But that makes it worse.  For hundreds of years, Russkies have made jokes about the reliability of media propaganda.  They know it's tripe.

 

In the USA, we suffer the delusion that we're getting the truth when we listen to the talking heads.  And every once in a while, we do.  But that's just to perpetuate the deceit.

To say a majority of the news reports in the US are not true is incorrect.  Every outlet has a bias.  Some spin more than others.  But it's not all false, far from it.  Too many outlets to keep them honest for it all to be lies.

[Morch]

On 12/18/2016 at 9:24 AM, Nilats said:

 

Really people still buy newspapers and watch television? I think main media in Russia is the social media at the moment - it really is huge. I don't know anybody who doesn't know how to google information, use youtube, periscope, vk, facebook and so on. There's no information blockade in Russia at all as some Western Sources continuously try to imply. If people choose to read local newspapers or watch only domestic news channels - that's their choice, nobody is forcing them.

 

There's no information blockade in Russia at all

 

Putin brings China's Great Firewall to Russia in cybersecurity pact

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/29/putin-china-internet-great-firewall-russia-cybersecurity-pact

 

 

 

 

[Nilats]

15 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

There's no information blockade in Russia at all

 

Putin brings China's Great Firewall to Russia in cybersecurity pact

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/29/putin-china-internet-great-firewall-russia-cybersecurity-pact

 

 

 

 

 

If they were serious about creating an information blockade - they would start with websites like facebook, twitter, youtube, etc... I assume you must be bored and having nothing else to talk about? :) Linkdein failed to comply with the Russian Law regulations about their data storage. If they transfer all the data to local servers located in Russia, linkedin should be unblocked... Linkdein did this in China, it stores all data on Chinese servers. So it could be a deliberate act of non-compliance with the Russian law on behalf of Linkedin, since regulations such as these are not something they are not familiar with, and they follow these regulations in other countries.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Nilats said:

 

If they were serious about creating an information blockade - they would start with websites like facebook, twitter, youtube, etc... I assume you must be bored and having nothing else to talk about? :) Linkdein failed to comply with the Russian Law regulations about their data storage. If they transfer all the data to local servers located in Russia, linkedin should be unblocked... Linkdein did this in China, it stores all data on Chinese servers. So it could be a deliberate act of non-compliance with the Russian law on behalf of Linkedin, since regulations such as these are not something they are not familiar with, and they follow these regulations in other countries.

 

I assume you must present Russia in a positive light...and that must be boring. Russia is nowhere near the US, or any other Western country when it comes to freedom of information. There are also more restrictions overt and otherwise on what may or may not be said. That's freedom. There's no requirement that these things be similar in all countries, but claiming that Russia is a totally open is nonsense at best, propaganda more like.

[Nilats]

9 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I assume you must present Russia in a positive light...and that must be boring. Russia is nowhere near the US, or any other Western country when it comes to freedom of information. There are also more restrictions overt and otherwise on what may or may not be said. That's freedom. There's no requirement that these things be similar in all countries, but claiming that Russia is a totally open is nonsense at best, propaganda more like.

 

I'm not saying it's totally open, but I think it's better than most western countries. If you want to discuss freedom of information - you should start with yourselves. Russia doesn't yet have a total snooping operation on all internet and mobile users around the world like US and UK have - as was revealed by the wanted fugitive and former NSA operative Edward Snowden - that's why he's wanted because he officially revealed it. And all the "official" media in the west is corporate owned and runs on corporate or government agenda. And now they are also censoring political websites with a legitimate and genuine opposition as "fake news" for some reason... In the light of this Russia is still better... they are not labeling any sites of internet as "fake news" yet, but rather their censorship  is limited to the sites with links to the UN listed and known terrorist organizations. Maybe you should clean up your own house first before you criticize others? :)

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, Nilats said:

 

I'm not saying it's totally open, but I think it's better than most western countries. If you want to discuss freedom of information - you should start with yourselves. Russia doesn't yet have a total snooping operation on all internet and mobile users around the world like US and UK have - as was revealed by the wanted fugitive and former NSA operative Edward Snowden - that's why he's wanted because he officially revealed it. And all the "official" media in the west is corporate owned and runs on corporate or government agenda. And now they are also censoring political websites with a legitimate and genuine opposition as "fake news" for some reason... In the light of this Russia is still better... they are not labeling any sites of internet as "fake news" yet, but rather their censorship  is limited to the sites with links to the UN listed and known terrorist organizations. Maybe you should clean up your own house first before you criticize others? :)

 

How would you know if Russia does or does not have such an operation? How did this snooping limit freedom of information or freedom of speech in the West? An invasion of privacy, sure - but that's another can or worms when it comes to Russia, I think.

 

Media being Corporate owned does not mean government control, certainly nothing on par with Russia. Fake news websites are not fake, in the sense that their existence is real. I think (correct this, know) that the picture you present with regard to allowed public dissent in Russia is fake as well.

[rabas]

28 minutes ago, Nilats said:

 

I'm not saying it's totally open, but I think it's better than most western countries. If you want to discuss freedom of information - you should start with yourselves. Russia doesn't yet have a total snooping operation on all internet and mobile users around the world like US and UK have - as was revealed by the wanted fugitive and former NSA operative Edward Snowden - that's why he's wanted because he officially revealed it. And all the "official" media in the west is corporate owned and runs on corporate or government agenda. And now they are also censoring political websites with a legitimate and genuine opposition as "fake news" for some reason... In the light of this Russia is still better... they are not labeling any sites of internet as "fake news" yet, but rather their censorship  is limited to the sites with links to the UN listed and known terrorist organizations. Maybe you should clean up your own house first before you criticize others? :)

Who is censoring political websites for 'fake' news? The US government is not allowed to. I think there in lies the difference between Western and say Russian media. A lot of our news is biased, too much so today.  Anyone who owns news media or is willing to pay for news is free to do so. You might say we have freedom to control the news as we want. It is sometimes a nightmare, but vastly better than letting a government control information. The only advantage Russians may have is they have always known their news is not reliable. This is hard for some Westerners to learn.

[Scott]

Some troll posts and replies removed.   The topic is about what the CIA says about Russia.   Stay on topic.  

[Boon Mee]

On 12/11/2016 at 7:59 AM, RickBradford said:

 

Doesn't seem to be that secret if they're handing it out to their favorite media outlets.....

 

As for "damaging" Hillary Clinton's campaign, she didn't need any help with that.

We still haven't seen any authoritative statement from the CIA citing specific examples? 

Edited December 20, 2016 by Boon Mee

[Morch]

7 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

We still haven't seen any authoritative statement from the CIA citing specific examples? 

 

"We"? The general public? Stuff like this does not usually get such level of detailed exposure.

Edited December 21, 2016 by Morch

[iReason]

3 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

We still haven't seen any authoritative statement from the CIA citing specific examples? 

 

Moot point.

 

Please feel free to list anything of that nature that the CIA has taken that approach to.

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements

[Ulysses G.]

12 hours ago, Morch said:

 

"We"? The general public? Stuff like this does not usually get such level of detailed exposure.

 

Stuff like this is not usually being used as political fodder - leaked by an agency already under a lot of suspicion.

[Scott]

Troll post removed.  

 

[NeverSure]

13 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Stuff like this is not usually being used as political fodder - leaked by an agency already under a lot of suspicion.

 

Leaked by an agency that works for and reports directly to Obama who has made it clear he didn't want Trump.

 

While I agree that the details of how the CIA discovered something might be classified, it is "claimed" that they said the hacking and leaking by Russia happened.

 

I have scoured the news in the US and can't find a single example of anything other than an "unnamed source at the CIA" who it is claimed made these statements about Russian hacking. OTOH Wikileaks and Julian Assange who would know where they got the leaked documents swear it wasn't Russia. They claim it was an inside job. Not once has Wikileaks ever reported something that was later proved to be false or untrue.

 

In short, I haven't seen a single thing that proves the CIA said this and to the contrary have heard only rebuttals of it.

 

Cheers.

[simple1]

11 minutes ago, NeverSure said:

 

Leaked by an agency that works for and reports directly to Obama who has made it clear he didn't want Trump.

 

While I agree that the details of how the CIA discovered something might be classified, it is "claimed" that they said the hacking and leaking by Russia happened.

 

I have scoured the news in the US and can't find a single example of anything other than an "unnamed source at the CIA" who it is claimed made these statements about Russian hacking. OTOH Wikileaks and Julian Assange who would know where they got the leaked documents swear it wasn't Russia. They claim it was an inside job. Not once has Wikileaks ever reported something that was later proved to be false or untrue.

 

In short, I haven't seen a single thing that proves the CIA said this and to the contrary have heard only rebuttals of it.

 

Cheers.

 

FBI Director James B. Comey and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. are in agreement with a CIA assessment (Note classified SECRET assessment) that Russia intervened in the 2016 election in part to help Donald Trump win the White House

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-blames-putins-personal-grudge-against-her-for-election-interference/2016/12/16/12f36250-c3be-11e6-8422-eac61c0ef74d_story.html?utm_term=.0abe43cfbdb6

Edited December 21, 2016 by simple1

[iReason]

Just now, NeverSure said:

Leaked by an agency that works for and reports directly to Obama who has made it clear he didn't want Trump.

 

Leaked? You and Ulysses G. are just making stuff up again and stating it as if it were fact.

 

And you insinuate the CIA and the President of the United States are mired deep in some sort of conspiracy that you have concocted in your mind?

 

Just now, NeverSure said:

I have scoured the news in the US and can't find a single example of anything other than an "unnamed source at the CIA" who it is claimed made these statements about Russian hacking.

In short, I haven't seen a single thing that proves the CIA said this and to the contrary have heard only rebuttals of it.

 

You need to scour better:

 

"The positions of Comey and Clapper were revealed in a message that CIA Director John Brennan sent to the agency’s workforce Friday."

 

“Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI [Director] James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election,” Brennan said, according to U.S. officials who have seen the message."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-blames-putins-personal-grudge-against-her-for-election-interference/2016/12/16/12f36250-c3be-11e6-8422-eac61c0ef74d_story.html?utm_term=.eb735ffca2bb

[iReason]

Just now, Ulysses G. said:

 

Stuff like this is not usually being used as political fodder - leaked by an agency already under a lot of suspicion.

 

Pure erroneous, unsubstantiated gibberish presented as if were facts.

 

Shameful.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 12/14/2016 at 10:55 AM, Jingthing said:

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. 

While I usually have you on ignore, this one is so classic I can't help respond.

While HRC could probably not be installed by Obama while the SCOTUS is still not completely subverted by the liberal element ( though I am sure he has people working on every possible scenario to achieve that ) does anyone think that the "basket of deplorables" that filled stadiums all over middle America would passively accept Trump being eliminated?

That would lead to a real backlash on congress and all elements that could even remotely be associated with his removal.

Given that Trump has been busily recruiting the pillars of American society to his government, would congress ( ie the GOP ) even attempt to substitute another for him?

 

If I were an elector planning to vote the Donald out, I'd be registering for witness protection already.

[thaibeachlovers]

This entire scenario is sooooo obviously political in nature. Even if the Russians leaked the information to wikileaks, so what? It was not denied by the Dems, so must have been correct. In that case, the Russians and WL were only doing what the mainstream ( pro Clinton ) media would not do, but should have done.

The Billy tape proves that even the most outrageous situation did not prevent millions from voting for the Donald, so, ergo, the WL exposures would not have prevented anyone for voting for her if they already wanted to. As said many times by the pro HRC mob, more people voted for her than him. Unfortunately for her, they were mostly in only two states.

IMO, she is so despicable anyway that she would have lost even without the WL contribution.

That government departments are being used politically to try and delegitimise an elected politician is, IMO, the most horrifying thing about this entire situation.

[thaibeachlovers]

48 minutes ago, iReason said:

 

Leaked? You and Ulysses G. are just making stuff up again and stating it as if it were fact.

 

And you insinuate the CIA and the President of the United States are mired deep in some sort of conspiracy that you have concocted in your mind?

 

 

You need to scour better:

 

"The positions of Comey and Clapper were revealed in a message that CIA Director John Brennan sent to the agency’s workforce Friday."

 

“Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI [Director] James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election,” Brennan said, according to U.S. officials who have seen the message."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-blames-putins-personal-grudge-against-her-for-election-interference/2016/12/16/12f36250-c3be-11e6-8422-eac61c0ef74d_story.html?utm_term=.eb735ffca2bb

Unless they can somehow prove that the "leaks" influenced the election, this is chaff in the wind. All they can say so far, and without doubt ever, is that the Russians released the truth to the American public.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 12/19/2016 at 1:01 PM, craigt3365 said:

To say a majority of the news reports in the US are not true is incorrect.  Every outlet has a bias.  Some spin more than others.  But it's not all false, far from it.  Too many outlets to keep them honest for it all to be lies.

Even the truth can be used to present a false narrative. The main one being used to beat Donald is that he is "racist' because he said that "Mexican immigrants are bad people" but when the speech is heard in its entirety it is obvious he was only talking about the criminals, rapists and drug traffickers. The anti Trump media has  become very skilled at presenting the news in such a way that the "truth" becomes a "non truth".

Same goes for him being a misogynist because he said nasty things about a particular woman. He is obviously not a misogynist, but the sheeple believe the "News", even presented by obviously biased so called journalists.

[Ulysses G.]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Even the truth can be used to present a false narrative. The main one being used to beat Donald is that he is "racist' because he said that "Mexican immigrants are bad people" but when the speech is heard in its entirety it is obvious he was only talking about the criminals, rapists and drug traffickers. The anti Trump media has  become very skilled at presenting the news in such a way that the "truth" becomes a "non truth".

Same goes for him being a misogynist because he said nasty things about a particular woman. He is obviously not a misogynist, but the sheeple believe the "News", even presented by obviously biased so called journalists.

 

Good point and the "anti Trump media" is most of the MSM. They also tried to claim that he is an anti-Semite, even though his favorite daughter and her family are Jewish. Why would anyone believe the constant dishonest hype?