CIA says Russia helped Donald Trump win the White House

[craigt3365]

2 hours 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.

I saw some of those speeches.  He said some really nasty stuff.  You don't have to spin anything with regards to Trump.  Don't blame the media for this, blame Trump. 

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/07/donald_trump_is_unfit_to_be_president_here_are_141_reasons_why.html

 

https://www.indy100.com/article/the-11-worst-things-donald-trump-has-said-about-women-7352406

 

Quote

 

You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it, you can do anything.

Grab them by the p***y, you can do anything.

 

 

[Morch]

19 hours 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.

 

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.

 

They know who they got it from, perhaps. I doubt that they can assert with any certainty the issue of Russian involvement, regardless of who handed over the material. That they swear it wasn't Russia means less than little - they would have zero interest in admitting it was Russia.

[Morch]

18 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

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.

 

You are conflating between Russia's involvement and Russia's success. Even if the latter is answered negatively, it still leaves the former. Unless you believe that the Russian were doing it because of their reverent respect for truth, I'd say the above is just the usual disingenuous partisan nonsense.

[Morch]

18 hours 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.

 

Even the truth can be used to present a false narrative.

 

And that does not apply to the Wikileaks material?

[Ulysses G.]

16 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

I saw some of those speeches.  He said some really nasty stuff.  You don't have to spin anything with regards to Trump.  Don't blame the media for this, blame Trump. 

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/07/donald_trump_is_unfit_to_be_president_here_are_141_reasons_why.html

 

https://www.indy100.com/article/the-11-worst-things-donald-trump-has-said-about-women-7352406

 

 

 

I blame both. He has said plenty of stupid things, but the media is also responsible for distorting some statements and blowing others way out of proportion. Slate is a pretty good example of that. The same thing can be said about certain members of this forum. It is why so many people just tune them out.

Edited December 22, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[rabas]

53 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

18 hours 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.

 

Even the truth can be used to present a false narrative.

 

And that does not apply to the Wikileaks material?

 

 

Actually no, because Wikileaks is careful to release raw information without added analyze or conclusions. 'Racist' was a false narrative that was added to an innocent and reasonable suggestion to monitor and control who enters the country, which is the law anyway.

 

 

[Rhys]

.....so your fired....

[beechguy]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

You are conflating between Russia's involvement and Russia's success. Even if the latter is answered negatively, it still leaves the former. Unless you believe that the Russian were doing it because of their reverent respect for truth, I'd say the above is just the usual disingenuous partisan nonsense.

 

I doubt Russia's success, they didn't release anything, that everyone didn't already know about Hillary, the DNC etc. However, this is happening under Obama's watch, why isn't one complaining about his administration, not doing anything about it.

 

I got a notice a couple of years ago, that my Security Clearance/Deployment records had been hacked. It's been well known that we have IT security issues.

Edited December 22, 2016 by beechguy

[craigt3365]

7 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

I blame both. He has said plenty of stupid things, but the media is also responsible for distorting some statements and blowing others way out of proportion. Slate is a pretty good example of that. The same thing can be said about certain members of this forum. It is why so many people just tune them out.

The course of events started when Trump opened his mouth.  An easy target for the media.  Super easy! LOL  He threw them a softball and they ran with it.  Don't say stupid and mean things and they won't get reported.

[craigt3365]

7 hours ago, rabas said:

 

Actually no, because Wikileaks is careful to release raw information without added analyze or conclusions. 'Racist' was a false narrative that was added to an innocent and reasonable suggestion to monitor and control who enters the country, which is the law anyway.

 

Wikileaks releases masses of info with NO vetting.  A terrible thing to do.  You are aware of their release of women's private details in Turkey after a hack?  Absolutely terrible thing to do.  Yet, many ignore this and continue to praise them. 

[rabas]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

9 hours ago, rabas said:

 

Actually no, because Wikileaks is careful to release raw information without added analyze or conclusions. 'Racist' was a false narrative that was added to an innocent and reasonable suggestion to monitor and control who enters the country, which is the law anyway.

 

Wikileaks releases masses of info with NO vetting.  A terrible thing to do.  You are aware of their release of women's private details in Turkey after a hack?  Absolutely terrible thing to do.  Yet, many ignore this and continue to praise them. 

 

So my point stands that Wikileaks does not produce false narrative (lies) as was suggested. Actually they can't, they fight lies and hidden truth. It's what they do. I for one do not praise them, but they are a necessary evil, as long as we live in a world dripping with lies and insidious half truth.

 

[Silurian]

How about an security firm's analysis linking the Russian military to the DNC hacks? But I am sure Putin has absolutely no link to the Russian military...right.

 

Report: Russian military unit linked to DNC hacks

http://www.techrepublic.com/article/report-russian-military-unit-linked-to-dnc-hacks/

 

[craigt3365]

2 hours ago, rabas said:

 

So my point stands that Wikileaks does not produce false narrative (lies) as was suggested. Actually they can't, they fight lies and hidden truth. It's what they do. I for one do not praise them, but they are a necessary evil, as long as we live in a world dripping with lies and insidious half truth.

 

How do you know?  The info is stolen.  Illegally obtained.  And recently, perhaps published by Russia, and for sure some doctored info is in there.  But impossible for anybody to know if they are really the truth.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/oct/23/are-clinton-wikileaks-emails-doctored-or-are-they-/

Quote

 

It’s possible to verify the legitimacy of some, but not all, of the emails, cybersecurity experts said. So we can’t definitively say none of the thousands of leaked emails, which came from campaign chair John Podesta's account, have been doctored.

 

Experts told PolitiFact that there is precedent to support Kaine’s claim. While most of the emails are probably unaltered, they said there is a chance that at least a few have been tampered with in some way.

 

"I've looked at a lot of document dumps provided by hacker groups over the years, and in almost every case you can find a few altered or entirely falsified documents," said Jeffrey Carr, CEO of cybersecurity firm Taia Global. "But only a few. The vast majority were genuine. I believe that's the case with the Podesta emails, as well."

 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, Morch said:

 

You are conflating between Russia's involvement and Russia's success. Even if the latter is answered negatively, it still leaves the former. Unless you believe that the Russian were doing it because of their reverent respect for truth, I'd say the above is just the usual disingenuous partisan nonsense.

I don't believe the Russians did it anyway, and if you read my post properly I didn't say they did. No definite proof has been published so far. Far more likely to be a sensible American person that didn't want HRC elected. No person posting on here knows the truth as to the Russians doing it or not, but every anti Trumper hopes they did. If the Russians can be blamed it removes the need to accept that she lost because she was a very bad candidate.

The CIA are not in the habit of releasing information that would aid the enemy, and this spin is just political malarkey by Obama stooges, IMO.

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Even the truth can be used to present a false narrative.

 

And that does not apply to the Wikileaks material?

No. They release the entire documents, not part of them like the main stream media does with his speeches.

[rabas]

50 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

How do you know?  The info is stolen.  Illegally obtained.  And recently, perhaps published by Russia, and for sure some doctored info is in there.  But impossible for anybody to know if they are really the truth.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/oct/23/are-clinton-wikileaks-emails-doctored-or-are-they-/

 

 

 

Considering the near infinite sea of false or biased information we live in today, simply pasting more links to more biased/one sided information doesn't  resolve much or help people come to common understanding (which is badly needed today). A logical analysis with even a few reasonably reliable facts or observations is a far better way to search for truth. Even Buddha says this very clearly.

 

To wit! the quoted politifact article is about Tim Kaine saying the one email about him was a "flat out lie". (what would a politician say on TV during an election?). Politifact then writes a few fuzzy, fact hungry paragraphs to suggest to readers  "maybe he is right!", saying some expert said some fuzzy stuff to them about something vaguely related.

 

After posting their article, then some real experts contacted Politifact  with digital proof the email about Tim Kaine was real and unaltered. LOL.

 

So back to you Craig, how do you know? :)

[Morch]

13 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

I blame both. He has said plenty of stupid things, but the media is also responsible for distorting some statements and blowing others way out of proportion. Slate is a pretty good example of that. The same thing can be said about certain members of this forum. It is why so many people just tune them out.

 

I cannot, offhand, recall much criticism directed at Trump from your end, or from those saying that they aren't-really-fans.

[craigt3365]

16 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

Considering the near infinite sea of false or biased information we live in today, simply pasting more links to more biased/one sided information doesn't  resolve much or help people come to common understanding (which is badly needed today). A logical analysis with even a few reasonably reliable facts or observations is a far better way to search for truth. Even Buddha says this very clearly.

 

To wit! the quoted politifact article is about Tim Kaine saying the one email about him was a "flat out lie". (what would a politician say on TV during an election?). Politifact then writes a few fuzzy, fact hungry paragraphs to suggest to readers  "maybe he is right!", saying some expert said some fuzzy stuff to them about something vaguely related.

 

After posting their article, then some real experts contacted Politifact  with digital proof the email about Tim Kaine was real and unaltered. LOL.

 

So back to you Craig, how do you know? :)

Politifact is a source being used by Facebook, and now Thaivisa, for vetting info.  It's not biased.  Unless you don't like reading what they have to say.

 

http://tech.thaivisa.com/facebook-gets-serious-about-fighting-fake-news/19020/

Quote

Five fact-checking and news organizations are working with Facebook on this: ABC News, The Associated Press, FactCheck.org, Politifact and Snopes. Facebook says this group is likely to expand.

 

[Morch]

14 hours ago, rabas said:

 

Actually no, because Wikileaks is careful to release raw information without added analyze or conclusions. 'Racist' was a false narrative that was added to an innocent and reasonable suggestion to monitor and control who enters the country, which is the law anyway.

 

 

 

3 hours ago, rabas said:

 

So my point stands that Wikileaks does not produce false narrative (lies) as was suggested. Actually they can't, they fight lies and hidden truth. It's what they do. I for one do not praise them, but they are a necessary evil, as long as we live in a world dripping with lies and insidious half truth.

 

 

40 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

No. They release the entire documents, not part of them like the main stream media does with his speeches.

 

A narrative can be manipulated by what material is released. Other than Wikileaks says so, you do not know if they have other materials, or if something was omitted from the materials released. The same can be said about the timing of released materials, which was openly about manipulating a narrative.

 

If Wikileaks is about "fighting lies", they are rather selective when it comes to the issues exposed. Considering that the materials they release tend to focus on Western countries and especially the US,  while generally giving a free pass to such pedestals of truth as the PRC and Russia takes away from their presumed credibility.

[thaibeachlovers]

8 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I cannot, offhand, recall much criticism directed at Trump from your end, or from those saying that they aren't-really-fans.

I submitted plenty of unfavourable comments about Trump, so you can't have read those posts I made. Don't expect me to find them for you though, as I'm just not that interested in pre election stuff.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

 

 

A narrative can be manipulated by what material is released. Other than Wikileaks says so, you do not know if they have other materials, or if something was omitted from the materials released. The same can be said about the timing of released materials, which was openly about manipulating a narrative.

 

If Wikileaks is about "fighting lies", they are rather selective when it comes to the issues exposed. Considering that the materials they release tend to focus on Western countries and especially the US,  while generally giving a free pass to such pedestals of truth as the PRC and Russia takes away from their presumed credibility.

LOL. While no one other than the WL staff know if they have released everything, Podesta et al have not released anything to contradict the WL material.

On the other hand, we know for a fact that the main stream media have omitted anything favourable to Trump, and have distorted everything to make him appear worse than he is.

Given a choice between WL material and the main stream media, WL is obviously a better source to believe.

The alternative is to believe nothing.

[Morch]

13 hours ago, beechguy said:

 

I doubt Russia's success, they didn't release anything, that everyone didn't already know about Hillary, the DNC etc. However, this is happening under Obama's watch, why isn't one complaining about his administration, not doing anything about it.

 

I got a notice a couple of years ago, that my Security Clearance/Deployment records had been hacked. It's been well known that we have IT security issues.

 

The indications are that there was a Russian involvement in the related hacking cases, which constituted the core of the information released by Wikileaks. So in that sense, the Russians are the source, and no, it wouldn't be out in the open otherwise.

 

The DNC is not a government agency, and I don't think POTUS has the authority to "do something" about their server security issues. When it comes to government facilities and regulations, you are correct - there are many issues and problems that need to be dealt with, but that's hardly news (been brought up by quite a few posters, like yourself). That goes beyond the outgoing administrations though, seems it been like that for ages.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I don't believe the Russians did it anyway, and if you read my post properly I didn't say they did. No definite proof has been published so far. Far more likely to be a sensible American person that didn't want HRC elected. No person posting on here knows the truth as to the Russians doing it or not, but every anti Trumper hopes they did. If the Russians can be blamed it removes the need to accept that she lost because she was a very bad candidate.

The CIA are not in the habit of releasing information that would aid the enemy, and this spin is just political malarkey by Obama stooges, IMO.

 

That you do not believe it means less than little. As previous posts show, even when things are proved, the defaults will be "don't care", "he won", "she lost" or any other meaningless nonsense.What you describe as "far more likely" does not have much support, as opposed to the view presented in the OP.

 

...every anti Trumper hopes they did. If the Russians can be blamed it removes the need to accept that she lost because she was a very bad candidate.

 

What a load....I'm pretty much anti-Trump, and most of my posts on this got little to do with the faux motivation and sentiment attributed.

 

Your last line is the usual logical wreck - first complaining about no evidence exposed to the public then explaining why it wouldn't be released, ending in a non-sequitur . 

[Morch]

21 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I submitted plenty of unfavourable comments about Trump, so you can't have read those posts I made. Don't expect me to find them for you though, as I'm just not that interested in pre election stuff.

 

You had a short Sanders phase, if that's what you mean. But past that, my comment stands - pre or post elections.

[Morch]

26 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. While no one other than the WL staff know if they have released everything, Podesta et al have not released anything to contradict the WL material.

On the other hand, we know for a fact that the main stream media have omitted anything favourable to Trump, and have distorted everything to make him appear worse than he is.

Given a choice between WL material and the main stream media, WL is obviously a better source to believe.

The alternative is to believe nothing.

 

Got to wonder about what passes for reasoning when it comes to some posters.

 

What does Wikileaks possibly withholding information got to do with Podesta and others not denying information released? To make it clearer -  If, for the sake of argument, Wikileaks withheld similar information regarding the GOP (or Trump himself), what would denials by the DNC would have to do with it? Again, a hypothetical example, not a description of things as happened.

 

On the other hand, we know for a fact that the main stream media have omitted anything favourable to Trump, and have distorted everything to make him appear worse than he is.

 

We? I don't know this for a fact, and I doubt it is a fact. Certainly not with the blanket "anything" and "everything" applied.

 

The choice you describe is your choice, nothing more. Same goes for the faux alternative.

Edited December 23, 2016 by Morch

[JetsetBkk]

8 hours ago, Morch said:

On the other hand, we know for a fact that the main stream media have omitted anything favourable to Trump, and have distorted everything to make him appear worse than he is.

 

We? I don't know this for a fact, and I doubt it is a fact. Certainly not with the blanket "anything" and "everything" applied.

 

You doubt it is a fact? Maybe you should keep up-to-date with the real news, instead of watching MSM:

 

 

Quote

ABC, NBC Ignore More Electors Defecting From Clinton Than Trump:

 

CBS’ Major Garrett opened his report stating matter-of-factly that Donald Trump "suffered fewer defections than Hillary Clinton." This one line was the only acknowledgement of that fact from all three networks.

Over on ABC, correspondent Cecilia Vega oddly noted that protesters’ “one last attempt to get electors to change their votes” actually worked, while trying to make it appear as if more electors somehow tried to stop Trump over Clinton.

NBC’s Kristen Welker on Today also ignored Clinton’s loss, only noting that, electoral college voters “essentially gave Mr. Trump the 270 votes need today win, despite protesters trying to stop it.

 

 

 

So both ABC and NBC ignored the fact that Clinton lost 5 electoral votes, but were happy to report that Trump lost 2. Perhaps they thought their listeners would need to find a safe place and have a cry if they were told the full truth.

 

And these are the news outlets that so many left-wing liberals rely on for their news? No wonder they are so out of touch.

 

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/kristine-marsh/2016/12/20/abc-nbc-ignore-more-electors-defecting-clinton-trump

 

Edited December 23, 2016 by JetsetBkk
Added link

[Ulysses G.]

56 minutes ago, JetsetBkk said:

 

You doubt it is a fact? Maybe you should keep up-to-date with the real news, instead of watching MSM:

 

 

 

 

So both ABC and NBC ignored the fact that Clinton lost 5 electoral votes, but were happy to report that Trump lost 2. Perhaps they thought their listeners would need to find a safe place and have a cry if they were told the full truth.

 

And these are the news outlets that so many left-wing liberals rely on for their news? No wonder they are so out of touch.

 

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/kristine-marsh/2016/12/20/abc-nbc-ignore-more-electors-defecting-clinton-trump

 

 

I think his point is that you exaggerated a little bit (but not too much) to make a valid point.

[The Old Bull]

The CIA needs villans to keep the cash flowing, making friends with Putin would be bad for business. So I tend to believe this is bullshit.

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, Morch said:

 

That you do not believe it means less than little. As previous posts show, even when things are proved, the defaults will be "don't care", "he won", "she lost" or any other meaningless nonsense.What you describe as "far more likely" does not have much support, as opposed to the view presented in the OP.

 

...every anti Trumper hopes they did. If the Russians can be blamed it removes the need to accept that she lost because she was a very bad candidate.

 

What a load....I'm pretty much anti-Trump, and most of my posts on this got little to do with the faux motivation and sentiment attributed.

 

Your last line is the usual logical wreck - first complaining about no evidence exposed to the public then explaining why it wouldn't be released, ending in a non-sequitur . 

You continue to make this a personal crusade against me. I strongly suggest you cease with personal comments like "That you do not believe it means less than little", "Got to wonder about what passes for reasoning when it comes to some posters", "or any other meaningless nonsense" and "Your last line is the usual logical wreck" and stick to replying to what I actually said rather than denigrating me for saying them.

Once again, this thread isn't about me.

Edited December 24, 2016 by thaibeachlovers

[boomerangutang]

5 hours ago, The Old Bull said:

The CIA needs villans to keep the cash flowing, making friends with Putin would be bad for business. So I tend to believe this is bullshit.

 

What a silly assessment.  The CIA get paid no matter what happens.  They're career employees.  The US is friendly with most countries worldwide, and it's usually win-win.  Putin and Russia are a unique situation.  There's no pay-back for the CIA to issue a finding that the Russians aided Trump in getting elected.  99% of what the CIA does is gather and analyse data.  They did their job.  Trump doesn't like the finding, so he naturally disputes it.  Plus, if there's evidence Trump broke the election law, then that's added incentive for Trump to try and bury the CIA's findings.

 

In order for it to be a crime, Trump would have had to have known, during the campaign season, that the Russkies were tangibly aiding his campaign, .....and said/done nothing about it authorities.  That's what happened.  I won't be surprised if one of the first orders of Congress for 2017 will be to investigate this - and if evidence exists, ....to instigate impeachment proceedings.  Unfortunately, even if successful, the US is stuck with Pence.