CIA says Russia helped Donald Trump win the White House

[pgrahmm]

[craigt3365]

33 minutes ago, NeverSure said:

 

Investigating "alleged" and "potential"...

 

They don't know anything either other than what we know. The only entity that knows where those emails came from is Wikileaks and they say it wasn't Russia. My money is still on an inside job either from a Bernie lover in the DNC or from a Hillary hater in the CIA.

 

BTW you do know that the last big email dump came from John Podesta's phone which he lost getting out of a cab? LINK Those people were really sloppy with emails which should have at least had 256 bit encryption.

 

Cheers.

I can guarantee they know more than either you or I.  It's why they have security levels. 

[dick dasterdly]

Its always depressing when people attack the source of genuine, accurate information - rather than the person or entity that was proven to have done something very wrong .

 

I could only laugh when a "secret" CIA report was 'obtained' by the media stating that Russia was to blame for Trump being elected.  I mean, really ?! 

Edited December 12, 2016 by dick dasterdly

[craigt3365]

58 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Its always depressing when people attack the source of genuine, accurate information - rather than the person or entity that was proven to have done something very wrong .

 

I could only laugh when a "secret" CIA report was 'obtained' by the media stating that Russia was to blame for Trump being elected.  I mean, really ?! 

Where does any "credible" news report say Russia is to blame for Trump being elected?  I've yet to see this.

[Emster23]

On 12/11/2016 at 2:04 PM, PattayaBoy said:

 

There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.
There are 62 counties in New York State.
Trump won 46 of them.
Clinton won 16.
Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.
In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)
Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3, 797,000 square miles.
When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.
Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of our country.

Amen.
 

 This is idiotic that you would believe such patently absurd numbers. "it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election." What is ludicrous is that you can't do the math to see how, even without looking up the facts, it does not make any sort of sense. http://www.snopes.com/trump-won-3084-of-3141-counties-clinton-won-57/

[NeverSure]

Will we ever see any Democrat outrage about what Podesta actually said in those emails? Stupid question, I know.

 

One of the Democrats' biggest problems with leaked emails is they showed the American people how little the Democrats respect the American people.

[uptheos]

15 hours ago, Jingthing said:

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

 

Hillary never lied???

[Linzz]

On 12/11/2016 at 5:56 PM, ilostmypassword said:

 

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

 

 

 

You gotta love it, no proof just "high confidence" Which doesn't go down well with the FBI who need facts.

 

"The competing messages, according to officials in attendance, also reflect cultural differences between the FBI and the CIA. The bureau, true to its law enforcement roots, wants facts and tangible evidence to prove something beyond all reasonable doubt. The CIA is more comfortable drawing inferences from behavior."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-russian-election-tampering-cia-fbi-20161210-story.html

 

Like everything non factual in this election you can bet your bottom dollar it's political motivation and manipulation. Perhaps an attempt to prevent an inauguration.

[Rob13]

The CIA crying wolf  about WMD's in Iraq is coming back to haunt them. And Comey needs to step down from his FBI post and let someone with some with clean(er) hands do the job. 

Edited December 12, 2016 by Rob13

[boomerangutang]

On 12/11/2016 at 5:28 AM, Calach said:

A secret report that of course leaked.

I didn't imagine democrats were such bad losers, perhaps when they stop whining about how unfair it is they could start reflecting on how they managed to lose the unlosable.

 

Trump made claims for weeks prior to the election - that the election was rigged.   No proof.  But no matter, his sheeple believed him just like they believed his dozens of other lies - and just how many still believe Trump's claim that Obama is a Kenyan Muslim - even though their hero, Trump, told his brain-addled sheeple to no longer believe it.

 

Now, CIA backs what many of us have known for months: that Russkies were actively inserting damaging data (misleading and denigrating) to back Trump.  Trump and his sheeple conspiracty theorists don't want to believe it.  

 

Trump is like Thaksin's twin brother:  Every time they emphatically state something, you can assume the opposite is true.  

[Linzz]

37 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

 Every time they emphatically state something, you can assume the opposite is true.  

 

Lol Hey Boomer, you've swiped one of my lines...every time the left wing liberals state something, you can assume the opposite is true. This was well demonstrated leading up to the election esp. on TVF.  It wasn't IF Hillary won, it was by how much and how big the Republican trainwreck would be and how bottomless the stock market would crash. I'm sure you remember.

This also included much outrage on Putin, so perhaps the opposite is true

Edited December 12, 2016 by Linzz

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, Linzz said:

 

Lol Hey Boomer, you've swiped one of my lines...every time the left wing liberals state something, you can assume the opposite is true. This was well demonstrated leading up to the election esp. on TVF.  It wasn't IF Hillary won, it was by how much and how big the Republican trainwreck would be and how bottomless the stock market would crash. I'm sure you remember.

This also included much outrage on Putin, so perhaps the opposite is true

Like most of the right wingers posting here, you don't seem to be able to get the distinction between prognostication and fact. Let me make it as easy as I can for you. Let's say a horse racing website gives you the history of a certain horse and then follows it up with a prediction that the odds ar 10 to 1 in the horses favor. Well, the horse loses. Therefore are all the facts given about the horse false, too? Trump supporters seem to believe that because he won an election facts are now whatever they want to believe. Hence the nonsense like Hillary Clinton won only 57 counties in the U.S. election.

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, NeverSure said:

 

"They" have security levels so that they will blab to the NYT anonymously that Russia hacked emails? And just who are "they?" 

 

The dishonest NYT says "He said, she said" which is known as hearsay except that most hearsay names names. Then other "sources" quote the NYT as a source and they all parrot each other in a circle jerk.

 

No proof has been offered that Russia hacked emails.

 

Cheers.

No, proof has not been 100% shown yet.  They may never do this due to security concerns.  But guaranteed, Russia has hacked US computer systems.  And with so many in very high levels going after this, there's go to be something to it.  Again, they know way more about this than you or I.  Details sometimes get leaked. It's been happening forever. 

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, NeverSure said:

Will we ever see any Democrat outrage about what Podesta actually said in those emails? Stupid question, I know.

 

One of the Democrats' biggest problems with leaked emails is they showed the American people how little the Democrats respect the American people.

You think the republicans are any different? LOL  Both parties just care about winning.

[lannarebirth]

2 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

 

Trump is like Thaksin's twin brother:  Every time they emphatically state something, you can assume the opposite is true.  

 

I wish I could believe that there was a method to his madness, and maybe there is, but it's going to get away from him, and soon. I think he thrives in chaotic conditions, mostly of his own making, but it is not going to work at US govt. scale.

Edited December 12, 2016 by lannarebirth

[lannarebirth]

2 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

 

Trump is like Thaksin's twin brother:  Every time they emphatically state something, you can assume the opposite is true.  

 

I would liken him more to the Isaan bargirl some marry. Poorly educated, drives you to Hell and back with her borderline personality disorder and in the end she owns your house.

[Silurian]

I guess Russia is now "influencing" Comrade Donald to pick the Sec of State as well.

 

Kremlin praises Tillerson, tipped for Secretary of state job, as highly professional

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-tillerson-idUSKBN14114E

 

[Rob13]

3 minutes ago, NeverSure said:

Can anyone even imagine the outrage if the election results had been different and the Trump Team had tried to blame the Russians?

 

Yeah, all of trump's fanboys would be running riot in the streets.

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.   Please stay on topic.   The topic is about the CIA allegation of Russian involvement.  

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

6 hours ago, NeverSure said:

Unless you catch a hacker in the act, it's almost impossible to tell who did it. No one knows who did it. It could even be an inside job with someone simply copying them to a memory stick. We do know Podesta lost his phone getting out of a cab and it had thousands of emails on it, or so it is said.

 

Can anyone even imagine the outrage if the election results had been different and the Trump Team had tried to blame the Russians?  

No, but I can imagine Trump losing and blaming the Mexicans. Remember that he said he would accept the election results if he win. And he claimed after the election that he actually did win the popular vote but only lost it due to illegal voters.

[simple1]

6 hours ago, NeverSure said:

Unless you catch a hacker in the act, it's almost impossible to tell who did it.

 

A quote from Trump that has been immediately discredited. In addition I worked for an IT multinational one of whose services was online security etc the claim is nonsense

[lannarebirth]

11 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Now, CIA backs what many of us have known for months: that Russkies were actively inserting damaging data (misleading and denigrating) to back Trump.  Trump and his sheeple conspiracty theorists don't want to believe it.  

 

 

You may be right but I haven't seen it. What is the misleading information that backs Trump and what damaging data has been inserted against his opponent (besides that damaging data which is true)?

[Silurian]

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

 

You may be right but I haven't seen it. What is the misleading information that backs Trump and what damaging data has been inserted against his opponent (besides that damaging data which is true)?

 

Several of the emails contained information related to campaign strategy on how to run against your opponent. This campaign "play book" if leaked to the opponents team will let the opponent know ahead of time specifics of your campaign and they can prepare for them. This gives a distinct advantage to your opponent. Do you think sports teams would want their play books leaked? Do you think companies would want their strategic planning leaked?

 

Also, hidden personality traits can be gleamed from private emails. These traits which would not have been known can now be exploited. Some people communicate with emails under a different "mask" than they communicate with other means. This "mask" is sometimes personal and not meant for public consumption. It is not necessarily meant to be deceitful it just they way some people operate. I think very few people can say they have never sent an email that they would not want to be public.

[craigt3365]

3 minutes ago, Silurian said:

 

Several of the emails contained information related to campaign strategy on how to run against your opponent. This campaign "play book" if leaked to the opponents team will let the opponent know ahead of time specifics of your campaign and they can prepare for them. This gives a distinct advantage to your opponent. Do you think sports teams would want their play books leaked? Do you think companies would want their strategic planning leaked?

 

Also, hidden personality traits can be gleamed from private emails. These traits which would not have been known can now be exploited. Some people communicate with emails under a different "mask" than they communicate with other means. This "mask" is sometimes personal and not meant for public consumption. It is not necessarily meant to be deceitful it just they way some people operate. I think very few people can say they have never sent an email that they would not want to be public.

 

One reason the CIA has not released all the "facts" is because of these personality traits.  If they give away what they know, it might alert the hackers and they'll change their tactics. 

 

Great post!

 

 

[lannarebirth]

23 minutes ago, Silurian said:

 

Several of the emails contained information related to campaign strategy on how to run against your opponent. This campaign "play book" if leaked to the opponents team will let the opponent know ahead of time specifics of your campaign and they can prepare for them. This gives a distinct advantage to your opponent. Do you think sports teams would want their play books leaked? Do you think companies would want their strategic planning leaked?

 

Also, hidden personality traits can be gleamed from private emails. These traits which would not have been known can now be exploited. Some people communicate with emails under a different "mask" than they communicate with other means. This "mask" is sometimes personal and not meant for public consumption. It is not necessarily meant to be deceitful it just they way some people operate. I think very few people can say they have never sent an email that they would not want to be public.

 

I understand the importance of the right to privacy. I also understand that if laws have been broken, those who broke the law should be punished. I do not understand why this breach of privacy has any bearing on the election result or the electoral college, UNLESS someone can prove that the opposing party was complicit in the illegal acts. If someone has broken the law, arrest them and prosecute them.

[Linzz]

13 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Like most of the right wingers posting here, you don't seem to be able to get the distinction between prognostication and fact. Let me make it as easy as I can for you. Let's say a horse racing website gives you the history of a certain horse and then follows it up with a prediction that the odds ar 10 to 1 in the horses favor. Well, the horse loses. Therefore are all the facts given about the horse false, too? Trump supporters seem to believe that because he won an election facts are now whatever they want to believe. Hence the nonsense like Hillary Clinton won only 57 counties in the U.S. election.

 

Well thanks for making it easier for me, I now understand all "prognostications" were spoken from the horse's ass. All the "facts" given turned out to be false. Prognostications are prophesy, in this case from false prophets as proven. The interesting thing is the right mostly never made "prognostications" while the Left mostly did. That makes the Right wiser by a horses neck.

[Silurian]

1 minute ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I understand the importance of the right to privacy. I also understand that if laws have been broken, those who broke the law should be punished. I do not understand why this breach of privacy has any bearing on the election result or the electoral college, UNLESS someone can prove that the opposing party was complicit in the illegal acts. If someone has broken the law, arrest them and prosecute them.

 

Well one could say there isn't proof that it didn't sway the election. Can one say with all honesty that campaign strategies were not shifted? Can one say that since the emails were released there was no one at all swayed by them? Can one calculate the demoralizing nature of having private emails (even those not damaging) have on the campaign and the team? Can one say that the negative connotation of the act of being hacked doesn't reflect negatively on the candidate? Can one honestly believe that some voters can't separate the hacking of the DNC emails with the earlier emails from Hillary's server? They hear the word email and hacking and it all gets combined into one big negative.

[craigt3365]

24 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I understand the importance of the right to privacy. I also understand that if laws have been broken, those who broke the law should be punished. I do not understand why this breach of privacy has any bearing on the election result or the electoral college, UNLESS someone can prove that the opposing party was complicit in the illegal acts. If someone has broken the law, arrest them and prosecute them.

Here's one example of why this isn't right:

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-appears-to-have-read-an-email-doctored-by-russian-media-2016-10

Quote

Donald Trump appears to have read a leaked Clinton email doctored by Russian media

 

And yes, these leaks did have an impact on the election.  Not sure how much, but even a little is absolutely unacceptable.

http://time.com/4523749/hillary-clinton-wikileaks-leaked-emails-john-podesta/

Quote

 

“We are not going to confirm the authenticity of stolen documents released by Julian Assange who has made no secret of his desire to damage Hillary Clinton,” said spokesman Glen Caplin in a statement.

 

Former national security officials warned earlier a statement to Yahoo News that Russian hackers “release fake documents look the same.” Still, many of the emails included the authentic addresses of top-level campaign staffers and matched the dates of campaign events.

 

 

[Scott]

A post with altered quotes has been removed.   You cannot alter the quote of other members.  

[lannarebirth]

47 minutes ago, Silurian said:

 

Well one could say there isn't proof that it didn't sway the election. Can one say with all honesty that campaign strategies were not shifted? Can one say that since the emails were released there was no one at all swayed by them? Can one calculate the demoralizing nature of having private emails (even those not damaging) have on the campaign and the team? Can one say that the negative connotation of the act of being hacked doesn't reflect negatively on the candidate? Can one honestly believe that some voters can't separate the hacking of the DNC emails with the earlier emails from Hillary's server? They hear the word email and hacking and it all gets combined into one big negative.

 

 

Well one could say there isn't proof that it didn't sway the election. No, one can not say, but what difference does it make? I'm not sure it would make a difference if all the information that came to light was faked, but it wasn't faked was it? It was all truthful. Can one say with all honesty that campaign strategies were not shifted? Very Possibly, I don't know. Apparently not enough.  Can one say that since the emails were released there was no one at all swayed by them? I think people probably were but so what? For many others I think the emails only confirmed what they already suspected. Can one calculate the demoralizing nature of having private emails (even those not damaging) have on the campaign and the team? I can't calculate it and perhaps no one can, but maybe it is the price of practicing deception and being unethical. Can one say that the negative connotation of the act of being hacked doesn't reflect negatively on the candidate? Probably so, but it is a pretty poor candidate that finds the truth a negative reflection.  Can one honestly believe that some voters can't separate the hacking of the DNC emails with the earlier emails from Hillary's server? Speaking for myself I think the information that came to light about the unethical practices of the HRC campaign was much more damaging than the State Dept. email fiasco. They hear the word email and hacking and it all gets combined into one big negative. I don't think anyone thought HRC or her agents hacked anything if that is what you are alluding to.