CIA says Russia helped Donald Trump win the White House

[Thorgal]

I didn't know the CIA was running for President.

CIA members are also US citizens and they have the right to vote who fits in the White House every 4 years...

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-08-03/obama-s-cia-director-wants-to-stick-around-for-clinton


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, Thorgal said:

 

CIA members are also US citizens and they have the right to vote who fits in the White House every 4 years...

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-08-03/obama-s-cia-director-wants-to-stick-around-for-clinton


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

Clearly you need a reminder about what you wrote:

"So the ones who didn't win the US elections are blaming the Russian government of falsifying the votes. "

[Thorgal]

Clearly you need a reminder about what you wrote:

"So the ones who didn't win the US elections are blaming the Russian government of falsifying the votes. "

I didn't quote the CIA in my first post from which you've replied and I've provided a 'reputable' source which explains democrat party fidelity of actual CIA director to the Clinton clan.

Quote from OP :

"Democrats claim the hacks were a deliberate attempt to damage Hillary Clinton’s election campaign.

A CIA has not formally commented on the matter."

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, Thorgal said:

I didn't quote the CIA in my first post from which you've replied and I've provided a 'reputable' source which explains democrat party fidelity of actual CIA director to the Clinton clan.

Quote from OP :

"Democrats claim the hacks were a deliberate attempt to damage Hillary Clinton’s election campaign.

A CIA has not formally commented on the matter."

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

Except of course, that this proves nothing. It says Brennan wanted to stay if Clinton got re-elected. It offers no comment at all about the accuracy of the CIA assessment of Russian interference in the elections.

And it isn't just the CIA who has come to this conclusion.

On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security issued a joint statement saying that the U.S. Intelligence Community — which includes 16 member agencies — was “confident” that recent hacks into the email systems of the Democratic Party were directed by the Russian government.

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

[NeverSure]

So, the Democrats' Washington Post citing a "double secret" report unclaimed by anyone says that the Russians hacked Dems' emails to help Trump win. In unrelated news, Hillary claimed she came under sniper fire in Bosnia.

 

Russia denies the hacking. MY secret sources say that disgusted and disgruntled CIA operatives who are masters at misdirection provided the emails.

 

Speaking of misdirection, what the Democrats want you to forget is that they actually wrote these emails which prove how corrupt they are. The problem with the emails is the proof of corruption, not who provided them.

 

BTW did the Russians also hack Hillary's campaign schedule, assuring that she would vanish for two months and not even campaign in some of the states she "surprisingly" lost?

 

What a loser, coming up with yet another excuse for losing the election when it fact it was all about HER.

 

Cheers.

[ilostmypassword]

30 minutes ago, NeverSure said:

So, the Democrats' Washington Post citing a "double secret" report unclaimed by anyone says that the Russians hacked Dems' emails to help Trump win. In unrelated news, Hillary claimed she came under sniper fire in Bosnia.

 

Russia denies the hacking. MY secret sources say that disgusted and disgruntled CIA operatives who are masters at misdirection provided the emails.

 

Speaking of misdirection, what the Democrats want you to forget is that they actually wrote these emails which prove how corrupt they are. The problem with the emails is the proof of corruption, not who provided them.

 

BTW did the Russians also hack Hillary's campaign schedule, assuring that she would vanish for two months and not even campaign in some of the states she "surprisingly" lost?

 

What a loser, coming up with yet another excuse for losing the election when it fact it was all about HER.

 

Cheers.

What was there about the following link that proved too difficult for you to comprehend?

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

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed. 

[NeverSure]

47 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

What was there about the following link that proved too difficult for you to comprehend?

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

 

That proves nothing. It's all conjecture. No US government agency has commented. Those people who I can ID are Democrat operatives.

 

Factcheck is a left wing website.

 

WikiLeaks says it wasn't the Russians. Is that any better?

 

The real issue is still that the emails proved the corruption of Hillary and the Democrats. No one has denied that Hillary and the Democrats actually wrote those emails. That's what did the damage regardless of who provided them.

 

Cheers.

 

PS.  Even the OP quotes "unnamed sources". IMHO any MSM article that includes that phrase is manufactured out of 100% BS. Even on this site when someone states a claim we expect a link to a real and credible source to back it up or we call BS.

 

Right now the MSM is running on innuendo and rumors which is why few people trust them now.

 

Cheers.

[Jingthing]

Many questions are raised by this --

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/12/10/moscow-rules/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-c%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.3f33e6b10ac0

Quote

 

This sounds like an over-the-top spy thriller. Unfortunately, this is all too real and raises numerous troubling questions:

Why did Russia want Trump to win?

Why does Trump disagree with our intelligence community? Who is telling him its conclusion is wrong?

Does the hacking have anything to do with the coterie of pro-Putin advisers around Trump? With Trump’s efforts to undermine NATO? With his desire to “get along” with Putin?

Has Trump reportedly chosen Rex Tillerson, chief executive of Exxon (who has no national security experience), for secretary of state because Tillerson is cozy with Putin and opposed sanctions?

What conversations, if any, went on between Trump’s campaign and Russians, and what was the substance of those?

Does Trump have financial interests (or liabilities) with Russian oligarchs — which he is concealing by refusing to release his tax returns?

Why did Republicans before the election refuse to stand up for the integrity of our electoral system?

 

 

[uptheos]

I wish the losers would stop blubbering, they're trying everything to stop the democratically elected President Elect running the country. It seems to me that Obama and his democrats have brought the country to ruin, so now with a fresh perspective on leadership, control of congress and the senate, it should be a great opportunity to overturn most of the damage done, with the stroke of a pen. The democrats are finished, who is going to be their leader, Biden, Pelosi, my oh my how the mighty have fallen. Please quit with the crying game and accept that there will not be a MADAME PRESIDENT and probably no more dems in the White House for a long time. Isn't it exciting to to see what the new president overturns in his first 100 days, any guesses? A lesson learned, complacency is never good.

[DogNo1]

craigt3365:  Jeesh!  You don't know about the long history of state-sponsored disinformation?  I could recommended a couple of books.  Incidentally, whether the leaks disclosing DNC communications were selectively leaked or not, they were not disavowed by anyone so they are apparently true and not made up.  True election interference comes when a foreign power releases disinformation -falsehoods - about political contests.  During the time period of the Posdesta leaks, the DNC was grubbing up every bit of defamatory information about Donald Trump that they could find and releasing it to the press.  So who cares whether the material was dug up by the DNC or a foreign government hacking operation.  All of the information seems to have been true.

[DogNo1]

Jingthing: Believe me, when the s---t from China hits the fan, Russia might make a pretty good ally.

[Jingthing]

5 minutes ago, DogNo1 said:

Jingthing: Believe me, when the s---t from China hits the fan, Russia might make a pretty good ally.

Believe me is a phrase the notorious con man trump says a lot. 

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.   Please stay on topic.  

[Andreas2]

 

16 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

16 hours ago, Usernames said:

 

16 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Except that it seems the Russians also hacked into the Republican emails but chose not to release that information.

 

Haven't seen that. Please provide a source so I can look it up.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html

 

 

RNC Chief Strategist and Communications Director Sean Spicer denies the NYT's claim, that the RNC was hacked! (YouTube video)

I have to give it to the CNN talking head that he tries really hard to spin the interview.

 

PS: It's quite brave to cite WaPo and NYT as sources... And tough to be a CNN talking head.

[Andreas2]

14 minutes ago, Andreas2 said:

 

RNC Chief Strategist and Communications Director Sean Spicer denies the NYT's claim, that the RNC was hacked! (YouTube video)

I have to give it to the CNN talking head that he tries really hard to spin the interview.

 

PS: It's quite brave to cite WaPo and NYT as sources... And tough to be a CNN talking head.

 

NBC News has also a hard time with Reince Priebus (YouTube) to follow their narrative.

Sweet, if it were not this evil and wrong.

[Thorgal]

Except of course, that this proves nothing. It says Brennan wanted to stay if Clinton got re-elected. It offers no comment at all about the accuracy of the CIA assessment of Russian interference in the elections.
And it isn't just the CIA who has come to this conclusion.
On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security issued a joint statement saying that the U.S. Intelligence Community — which includes 16 member agencies — was “confident” that recent hacks into the email systems of the Democratic Party were directed by the Russian government.
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/12/trump-russia-u-s-election/

In practice, US constitutional laws should apply habeas corpus under the suspension clause of article 1, section 9, clause 2 which defines : "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

In other words, you should have a state of emergency in the US by now if the actual president would apply the constitution whith this specific case of OP.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[NeverSure]

1 hour ago, Thorgal said:

-snip-

 

In other words, you should have a state of emergency in the US by now if the actual president would apply the constitution with this specific case of OP.


 

 

 

You'd have to have proof and factcheck ain't it. Do you notice that these "sources" are always unnamed? "Confident" isn't an admissible piece of evidence in court. Legal proof would be experts showing what they found and how they found it and how it can be connected with no other possibility to the Russians. No other possibility at all.

 

The law isn't there for political purposes. That's why we have civilian juries who are actually and literally under the law called "the finder of fact." A jury weighs all of the evidence and only the jury can declare what the facts are. Up until then anything that's admissible as evidence is still subject to the jury's fact finding.

 

Most of what I'm reading isn't admissible as evidence. It's rumor, speculation (even if professional speculation) hearsay and so on. That kind of junk can't even be mentioned in court. If the jury hears it you have a mistrial and have to start over with a new jury that didn't hear it.

 

There has been no evidence that would be admissible in a court of law presented by anyone in the MSM or other rumor mill that could lead to legal proof that Russians were the hackers.

 

What we do know is that wherever they came from, the emails are real and prove that the Democrats are corrupt to the core.

 

Cheers.

Edited December 12, 2016 by NeverSure

[selftaopath]

6 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

What was there about the following link that proved too difficult for you to comprehend?

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

It seems to me that most republican/Trump supporters are NOT interested in facts/accuracy/honesty/or truth. Did/do any of them fact check all/any of the ludicrous claims their leader made?  Have any acknowledged his lies? How a/b all the lol promises he's made. lol lol Just bluster for kleptocracy to thrive in U.S. and Trump family to mimic Putin. BTW a google search on Putin's wealth is very revealing. Perhaps Trumps admiration for the little dictator stems from his desire to be as wealthy as him. No one in the world has been as scrutinized as H.R.C..

[NeverSure]

3 minutes ago, selftaopath said:

It seems to me that most republican/Trump supporters are NOT interested in facts/accuracy/honesty/or truth. Did/do any of them fact check all/any of the ludicrous claims their leader made?  Have any acknowledged his lies? How a/b all the lol promises he's made. lol lol Just bluster for kleptocracy to thrive in U.S. and Trump family to mimic Putin. BTW a google search on Putin's wealth is very revealing. Perhaps Trumps admiration for the little dictator stems from his desire to be as wealthy as him. No one in the world has been as scrutinized as H.R.C..

 

I think you have the process confused. You make lots of statements but back nothing up with specifics or proof. If you're going to make the claims it's up to you to prove them.

 

"No one in the world has been as scrutinized as HRC" you say. That's true and she's been found to be corrupt to the core. Comey, the Director of Obama's FBI spent a good deal of time on national/international TV listing all of the crimes that HRC committed via the use of her email server and then shocked by saying he saw no reason to indict her. In the Democrat's corrupt system apparently the FBI director thinks that's his decision but it isn't. That decision falls to the Attorney General - the same person who met with Bill Clinton on an airplane in Arizona and talked about "grandchildren and golf" just as this was all going down.

 

Corrupt people.

 

Cheers.

[craigt3365]

2 hours ago, Andreas2 said:

 

 

RNC Chief Strategist and Communications Director Sean Spicer denies the NYT's claim, that the RNC was hacked! (YouTube video)

I have to give it to the CNN talking head that he tries really hard to spin the interview.

 

PS: It's quite brave to cite WaPo and NYT as sources... And tough to be a CNN talking head.

Sean Spicer looks like an insane man in his replies.  He gets taken apart several times by the CNN host.  He's working with Trump and trying to make sure this doesn't come back on him.  He's got a vested interest.

 

Watch at minute 7:30 and then again at 8:00. Sean loses it. And admits a "foreign hostile actor" hacked the DNC email server.  He admits it.  Just doesn't want to admit the hack may have had an effect on the election.  He's trying to protect his boss.  Biased person.

[craigt3365]

2 hours ago, Andreas2 said:

 

NBC News has also a hard time with Reince Priebus (YouTube) to follow their narrative.

Sweet, if it were not this evil and wrong.

Another extremely biased person.  He sounds like Trump.  They don't want to admit this may have had an impact on the elections.  This coming from Trump who said this:

41 minutes ago, NeverSure said:

 

You'd have to have proof and factcheck ain't it. Do you notice that these "sources" are always unnamed? "Confident" isn't an admissible piece of evidence in court. Legal proof would be experts showing what they found and how they found it and how it can be connected with no other possibility to the Russians. No other possibility at all.

 

The law isn't there for political purposes. That's why we have civilian juries who are actually and literally under the law called "the finder of fact." A jury weighs all of the evidence and only the jury can declare what the facts are. Up until then anything that's admissible as evidence is still subject to the jury's fact finding.

 

Most of what I'm reading isn't admissible as evidence. It's rumor, speculation (even if professional speculation) hearsay and so on. That kind of junk can't even be mentioned in court. If the jury hears it you have a mistrial and have to start over with a new jury that didn't hear it.

 

There has been no evidence that would be admissible in a court of law presented by anyone in the MSM or other rumor mill that could lead to legal proof that Russians were the hackers.

 

What we do know is that wherever they came from, the emails are real and prove that the Democrats are corrupt to the core.

 

Cheers.

We know the email was hacked by someone in a foreign country. 

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/28/13456368/how-john-podesta-email-got-hacked

Quote

On March 19, Podesta received an email from “[email protected]” — a user falsely posing as Google, notifying Podesta that his password had been compromised by someone in Ukraine. The email provided a bit.ly link to change the password.

 

And we can guarantee Russia has hacked into computer systems in the US.  Just like the US has hacked into theirs.  Impossible to deny this.  In this example, it was made public and involved an election.  A no no.

 

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a49791/russian-dnc-emails-hacked/

 

Quote

 

How Russia Pulled Off the Biggest Election Hack in U.S. History

 

Putin, Wikileaks, the NSA and the DNC email fiasco that gave Trump and Clinton another reason to be at odds.

 

 

[NeverSure]

51 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Sean Spicer looks like an insane man in his replies.  He gets taken apart several times by the CNN host.  He's working with Trump and trying to make sure this doesn't come back on him.  He's got a vested interest.

 

Watch at minute 7:30 and then again at 8:00. Sean loses it. And admits a "foreign hostile actor" hacked the DNC email server.  He admits it.  Just doesn't want to admit the hack may have had an effect on the election.  He's trying to protect his boss.  Biased person.

 

I believe the emails had an effect on the election. They proved how corrupt the DNC, Hillary and the MSM are. Who with any kind of moral compass would vote for such a person?

 

It doesn't matter who got those emails. There are several theories that on the surface have merit. What MATTERS is what was in those emails regardless of who hacked them. We wouldn't have known how Bernie got cheated and the head of the DNC Wasserman would still probably be there. We wouldn't know that CNN gave Hillary debate questions against Trump before one of the debates. How crooked is Hillary when she would accept them? We wouldn't know that some MSM was allowing Hillary to edit or nix stories before they were published. There are very good reasons that CNN has been nicknamed Clinton News Network.

 

The Democrats and the MSM are trying to change the subject and deflect from the corruption by focusing on "who" hacked them. They don't have enough shame to be concerned with the corruption that was exposed.

 

What would be really shocking is if all of that and so much more DIDN'T affect the election.

 

Cheers.

Edited December 12, 2016 by NeverSure

[craigt3365]

6 minutes ago, NeverSure said:

 

I believe the emails had an effect on the election. They proved how corrupt the DNC, Hillary and the MSM are. Who with any kind of moral compass would vote for such a person?

 

It doesn't matter who got those emails. There are several theories that on the surface have merit. What MATTERS is what was in those emails regardless of who hacked them. We wouldn't have known how Bernie got cheated and the head of the DNC Wasserman would still probably be there. We wouldn't know that CNN gave Hillary debate questions against Trump before one of the debates. How crooked is Hillary when she would accept them? We wouldn't know that some MSM was allowing Hillary to edit or nix stories before they were published. There are very good reasons that CNN has been nicknamed Clinton News Network.

 

The Democrats and the MSM are trying to change the subject and deflect from the corruption by focusing on "who" hacked them. They don't have enough shame to be concerned with the corruption that was exposed.

 

What would be really shocking is if all of that and so much more DIDN'T affect the election.

 

Cheers.

Political issues aside, the crux of this matter is that a foreign country hacked the election system of the US.  This needs to be addressed.  And yes, it did have an impact on the election.  Thus, Trump is against this being investigated. 

[lannarebirth]

14 minutes ago, NeverSure said:

 

I believe the emails had an effect on the election. They proved how corrupt the DNC, Hillary and the MSM are. Who with any kind of moral compass would vote for such a person?

 

It doesn't matter who got those emails. There are several theories that on the surface have merit. What MATTERS is what was in those emails regardless of who hacked them. We wouldn't have known how Bernie got cheated and the head of the DNC Wasserman would still probably be there. We wouldn't know that CNN gave Hillary debate questions against Trump before one of the debates. How crooked is Hillary when she would accept them? We wouldn't know that some MSM was allowing Hillary to edit or nix stories before they were published. There are very good reasons that CNN has been nicknamed Clinton News Network.

 

The Democrats and the MSM are trying to change the subject and deflect from the corruption by focusing on "who" hacked them. They don't have enough shame to be concerned with the corruption that was exposed.

 

What would be really shocking is if all of that and so much more DIDN'T affect the election.

 

Cheers.

 

I agree with you in every regard, but none of that diminishes the government's intelligence and law enforcement authorities responsibility to investigate, put a halt to and where possible treating punitively those who carried out these actions. It is not acceptable.

[lannarebirth]

7 minutes ago, NeverSure said:

^^^ I don't believe that a foreign government hacked the DNC so we're on different pages. I think it was an inside job.

 

Cheers.   

 

I hope you turn out to be right. Wow!

[craigt3365]

2 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I hope you turn out to be right. Wow!

I smell a conspiracy theory brewing! LOL

[lannarebirth]

10 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

I smell a conspiracy theory brewing! LOL

 

The fact that Oliver Stone agrees does nothing to diminish it as a conspiracy theory. Frankly, I'd feel a lot better if it was not a foreign government.

[NeverSure]

Putin, upon hearing that Russian hacking is the Democrats' latest excuse for losing.

 

 

 

[rabas]

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Political issues aside, the crux of this matter is that a foreign country hacked the election system of the US.  This needs to be addressed.  And yes, it did have an impact on the election.  Thus, Trump is against this being investigated. 

The presiding issue is that the corrupt nature of HRC and the DNC was exposed for all to see during the election. This may well have affected the election, as it should have. Even many democrats said the party had lost its way.

 

The ultimate issue and threat to our system is why do voters need to rely on Wiki-leaks to find even shreds of truth?What has happened to our once independent news media?

The details are many but the answer is simple, corrupt politics.

Edited December 12, 2016 by rabas