CIA says Russia helped Donald Trump win the White House

[Andreas2]

Update by other "officials" who decline to be named...

Exclusive: Top U.S. spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hacking - sources

While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named.

 

Ha, ha, so let's enthusiastically continue our discussion, entirely based on secret documents leaked by anonymous "officials"...

Or did I miss something?

Edited December 13, 2016 by Andreas2

[craigt3365]

4 minutes ago, Andreas2 said:

Update by another "official" who declines to be named...

Exclusive: Top U.S. spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hacking - sources

While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named.

 

Ha, ha, so let's continue our enthusiastic discussion entirely based on secret documents leaked by anonymous "officials"...

Or did I miss something?

That article does say they don't dispute that the Russian's did the hacking.  Just saying they've got no evidence they did it to help Trump.  Pretty conclusive proof the Russian's did it.  Thanks for the link.  Also from that link:

 

Quote

"ODNI is not arguing that the agency (CIA) is wrong, only that they can't prove intent," said one of the three U.S. officials. "Of course they can't, absent agents in on the decision-making in Moscow."

 

 

[rabas]

1 hour 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.

 

Could be. On the other hand,  how many might be swayed the other way?  Mean cons! Hacking  Hillary's party, releasing secrets about Bernie, dirty right wing politics, repubs up to their Nixonics again. Would not hacking reflect negatively on the opponent, as it is now, very badly?  The only thing that would really sway the election would be the negative actions of the DNC, not who released them, WikiLeaks, not who hacked them, whoever.

 

I take no sides, I don't like anyone very much, but to me the problems are in the Washington swamp, not in Moscow, not the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. The politicians want to distract our attention. I will not let them distract me.

Edited December 13, 2016 by rabas

[Andreas2]

1 minute ago, craigt3365 said:

That article does say they don't dispute that the Russian's did the hacking.  Just saying they've got no evidence they did it to help Trump.  Pretty conclusive proof the Russian's did it.  Thanks for the link.  ...

 

You obviously missed my entire point: ...secret documents leaked by anonymous "officials"...

Or, again, did I miss something?

[craigt3365]

Just now, Andreas2 said:

 

You obviously missed my entire point: ...secret documents leaked by anonymous "officials"...

Or, again, did I miss something?

You're reading too much into this.  "Secret" documents are leaked by "anonymous" officials all the time.  Part of the game.

[Andreas2]

4 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

 

6 minutes ago, Andreas2 said:

You obviously missed my entire point: ...secret documents leaked by anonymous "officials"...

Or, again, did I miss something?

You're reading too much into this.  "Secret" documents are leaked by "anonymous" officials all the time.  Part of the game.

 

Yes I agree. Accepted.

Do you then see any difference between the "Corporate Fake News Networks" and the "Alt-Right Media"?

I always get stoned if I occasionally refer to articles on InfoWars, Breitbart, ... I mean, that's also part of the game , right?

[craigt3365]

4 minutes ago, Andreas2 said:

 

Yes I agree. Accepted.

Do you then see any difference between the "Corporate Fake News Networks" and the "Alt-Right Media"?

I always get stoned if I occasionally refer to articles on InfoWars, Breitbart, ... I mean, that's also part of the game , right?

No, that's mis-information. InfoWars is terrible.  Breitbart is sensationalist journalism at it's worst.  Just feeds the conspiracy theorists.  Click bait.

 

IMHO!

 

 

[lannarebirth]

41 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

That article does say they don't dispute that the Russian's did the hacking.  Just saying they've got no evidence they did it to help Trump.  Pretty conclusive proof the Russian's did it.  Thanks for the link.  Also from that link:

 

 

 

 

I have no reason to believe the Russians weren't behind this. Nor do I doubt that they did it to help Trump/hurt Hillary. My question is "so what"? Yeah, it's a big national security screw up. Yeah, it is illegal and those guilty should be prosecuted and punished with retribution towards the Russians if possible, but as far as the election goes, "so what"? Even if the information they had released was false, how does that differ from all the false news that is disseminated daily by all of the respectable and unrespectable media? People need to sort it out. Even if it is true  it is subject  to the same media spin machine whereby people need to sort out what is true or not.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think it did have an effect on the election, but only to this extent; it merely confirmed what most people suspected already. I doubt it caused even one of her true believers to vote against her, but it may have caused some who didn't like her already but might have voted for her anyway, to stay home.

Edited December 13, 2016 by lannarebirth

[craigt3365]

29 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I have no reason to believe the Russians weren't behind this. Nor do I doubt that they did it to help Trump/hurt Hillary. My question is "so what"? Yeah, it's a big national security screw up. Yeah, it is illegal and those guilty should be prosecuted and punished with retribution towards the Russians if possible, but as far as the election goes, "so what"? Even if the information they had released was false, how does that differ from all the false news that is disseminated daily by all of the respectable and unrespectable media? People need to sort it out. Even if it is true  it is subject  to the same media spin machine whereby people need to sort out what is true or not.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think it did have an effect on the election, but only to this extent; it merely confirmed what most people suspected already. I doubt it caused even one of her true believers to vote against her, but it may have caused some who didn't like her already but might have voted for her anyway, to stay home.

With respect, it's a big deal with a hostile foreign country hacks internal systems with a potential intent to impact the election.  Proven or not, it's right up there with treason. False news is a big deal, and seems to be getting worse by the day.  I read a report where it did impact the Italian elections recently.  Not good.  Sadly, many don't take the effort to determine if it is true.  They take what they read as the truth and act upon it.

 

Stuff like this can't continue.  It undermines the credibility of the entire election process.  A terrible thing.

[lannarebirth]

1 minute ago, craigt3365 said:

With respect, it's a big deal with a hostile foreign country hacks internal systems with a potential intent to impact the election.  Proven or not, it's right up there with treason. False news is a big deal, and seems to be getting worse by the day.  I read a report where it did impact the Italian elections recently.  Not good.  Sadly, many don't take the effort to determine if it is true.  They take what they read as the truth and act upon it.

 

Stuff like this can't continue.  It undermines the credibility of the entire election process.  A terrible thing.

 

I'm with you 100%. IT IS a big deal and a national security issue, maybe even a crisis. It is intolerable, especially by foreign actors. That said I don't think it has any bearing on whether the elections results stand or not.

 

As an aside, I'm a big advocate of the right to privacy. Clearly, that right can be and is usurped arbitrarily and maliciously by skilled perpetrators, including our own government against its own citizens. I am coming around to the idea that privacy will not last for anyone or any entity in the future and that the only path forward is extreme transparency by all. Where everything is known. A lot of messiness and conflict in the meantime.

[craigt3365]

Some here questioned if the RNC was hacked.  Well, I guess it was.  A link to this was supplied by another member.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-illinois-republican-party-email-hack-met-1212-20161211-story.html

 

 

Quote

 

FBI told state GOP in June its emails had been hacked

The FBI notified the Illinois Republican Party in June that some of its email accounts may have been hacked, but party officials were not told that it was part of a wide-ranging federal investigation of Russian activity in the nation's political system, the state GOP's executive director said Sunday.

 

 

 

[ttthailand]

Yes, one country has maybe or maybe not helped Trump during the election where as the remaining other countries on the planet were helping Clinton. All industries, news channels, left and right parties, etc etc ... were doing everything possible including providing debate questions to Clinton, fixing the polls, covering up for Clinton illnesses, etc etc ... Clinton lost despite more backing than any one has ever had. She also spent over a billion dollars, wow !
Stop crying and respect the President Elect Donald Trump !!!



Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[lannarebirth]

2 minutes ago, ttthailand said:

Yes, one country has maybe or maybe not helped Trump during the election where as the remaining other countries on the planet were helping Clinton. All industries, news channels, left and right parties, etc etc ... were doing everything possible including providing debate questions to Clinton, fixing the polls, covering up for Clinton illnesses, etc etc ... Clinton lost despite more backing than any one has ever had. She also spent over a billion dollars, wow !
Stop crying and respect the President Elect Donald Trump !!!



Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

 

Not only that, she couldn't beat THE WORST PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN US HISTORY! I don't think she can hang that on Putin.

[craigt3365]

2 minutes ago, ttthailand said:

Yes, one country has maybe or maybe not helped Trump during the election where as the remaining other countries on the planet were helping Clinton. All industries, news channels, left and right parties, etc etc ... were doing everything possible including providing debate questions to Clinton, fixing the polls, covering up for Clinton illnesses, etc etc ... Clinton lost despite more backing than any one has ever had. She also spent over a billion dollars, wow !
Stop crying and respect the President Elect Donald Trump !!!

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

Wow. Quite the conspiracy theory.  So the entire world except Russia was supporting Clinton's campaign? LOL

 

Get your facts straight.  One person, aligned with Clinton, passed some info to her.  She quit before CNN could fire her.  And they've acknowledged it was extremely improper.  One person's actions can't discredit an entire organization like CNN.

 

Fixing the polls?  Really?  Credible links only for that, please.

[craigt3365]

Just now, lannarebirth said:

 

Not only that, she couldn't beat THE WORST PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN US HISTORY! I don't think she can hang that on Putin.

Wow.  What a sad epitaph for Clinton.

[ilostmypassword]

15 minutes ago, ttthailand said:

Yes, one country has maybe or maybe not helped Trump during the election where as the remaining other countries on the planet were helping Clinton. All industries, news channels, left and right parties, etc etc ... were doing everything possible including providing debate questions to Clinton, fixing the polls, covering up for Clinton illnesses, etc etc ... Clinton lost despite more backing than any one has ever had. She also spent over a billion dollars, wow !
Stop crying and respect the President Elect Donald Trump !!!



Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

Fixing the polls?  Nate Silver, who is the leading poll aggregator, had Clinton with a national lead of 2% on the eve of the election. How much did Clinton win the national vote by?  2 %.  Unless, of course, you subscribe to Trump's allegation that millions of votes were illegally cast for Clinton and he really won the popular vote.  Why would anyone respect a person who makes ridiculous and unfounded claims like that.  If Trump wants to be respected, then he should act respectably.

[rabas]

Reuters Exclusive:

Top U.S. spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hacking - sources.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-intelligence-idUSKBN14204E

 

Seems that many ntelligence agencies are standing down form the CIA 'claim'  that Putin intended help Trump. No intelligence agency in their collective right mind would ever make claims about what is in someone's heart. Only a politician would phrase such a thing, one that has executive control of the CIA. More politics, same, same. 

[Johnniey]

Why shouldn't another country meddle with US affairs? The USA are constantly meddling with other countries affairs that are none of their business.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

9 hours ago, simple1 said:

 

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

 

The original post was removed so no-one can reply further but it is interesting that a self-professed IT professional (and 'banker') now just repeats any old thing that Trump tweets from the crapper at 5am.

 

We now have to Iive in the world where these fools believe their own Trump inspired BS.

[Sule9]

Its admission by CIA that they are incompetent

[thaibeachlovers]

19 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

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. 

So, what you are saying is that the Russians absolutely hacked HRC's server and know everything that the US was doing while she was Sec. State. I seem to remember her claiming her server had NOT been hacked. A lie?

[deathmule]

If the Russians hacked the voting machines or whatever (lol) then why didn't Jill Stein use the Russian CIA report as evidence that they hacked the election?

 

Just take a moment and think about it. If there was evidence and you could use it this would make it very easy for the recount to happen.

[thaibeachlovers]

I love threads like this where all the posters that said absolutely, definitely, without a doubt, that Trump could never win, are trying to prove that he won by nefarious means, because they can't admit that she lost because she just didn't appeal to the people living everywhere except California and New York.

[thaibeachlovers]

Just now, deathmule said:

If the Russians hacked the voting machines or whatever (lol) then why didn't Jill Stein use the Russian CIA report as evidence that they hacked the election?

 

Just take a moment and think about it. If there was evidence and you could use it this would make it very easy for the recount to happen.

Not only is there no evidence of any hacking of election machines, the Greens have admitted they have no actual evidence of any rigging at all.

[stevenl]

15 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

So, what you are saying is that the Russians absolutely hacked HRC's server and know everything that the US was doing while she was Sec. State. I seem to remember her claiming her server had NOT been hacked. A lie?

Please stop making up things to prove your point.

 

What you're claiming here was never said.

[Linzz]

3 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Fixing the polls?  Nate Silver, who is the leading poll aggregator, had Clinton with a national lead of 2% on the eve of the election. How much did Clinton win the national vote by?  2 %.  Unless, of course, you subscribe to Trump's allegation that millions of votes were illegally cast for Clinton and he really won the popular vote.  Why would anyone respect a person who makes ridiculous and unfounded claims like that.  If Trump wants to be respected, then he should act respectably.

 

As far as I know he did win the popular vote  except for California. Which is how the  Electoral College  prevents one state from deciding for the other 49

 

[Jingthing]

I know we have Russian members that post here.

I'm curious about the Russian man on the street opinion about this credible charge that Russia backed trump in an active way.

My guess is that the typical Russian man on the street:

-- Believes Russia was involved (regardless of denials by Putin ... what else would he say ...)

-- Agrees that Russia backed trump and shares that bias

-- Is happy that trump won, as he's perceived as a friend of Russia and someone that buys into most of Putin's propaganda (which Russians may not see as propaganda, but same difference)

 

Strong confirming evidence -- trump's pick for Secretary of State, without a doubt a very strong friend of Putin.

 

 

-- Is PROUD that the Russian nation under Putin is now so powerful that it could do this, and get away with it

Russians ... are my guesses spot on?

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-assembling-an-anti-government-did-russia-help-get-him-here/2016/12/12/65a45aec-c0a1-11e6-897f-918837dae0ae_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-d%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.f19feb4b0841

 

Quote

 

Trump is assembling an anti-government. Did Russia help get him here?

To that end, the Russian government directed the hacking of emails to and from Democratic Party organizations and Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, and then selectively disseminated this material through WikiLeaks and other outlets. The Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence reached that conclusion months ago and said so in a public statement on Oct. 7.

The only real question is whether Russia’s aim went beyond creating confusion to actually helping elect a specific candidate: Trump.

The CIA says yes. The FBI is reportedly unconvinced.

 

 

Edited December 13, 2016 by Jingthing

[Linzz]

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I know we have Russian members that post here.

 

Oh my, Senator McCarthy reincarnated. Reds under the bed and all that.

[Jingthing]

5 minutes ago, Linzz said:

 

Oh my, Senator McCarthy reincarnated. Reds under the bed and all that.

I didn't say anything about reds.

Anyway, it's well documented that Russia pays people to post pro Putin comments posing as westerners internationally.

It would be very surprising if we don't have some of those working here.

But I'm not even talking about that!

I'm talking about OPENLY Russian people that are not stealth Russians responding to my guesses about the typical Russian attitude towards this trump thing, and the charges that Russian was involved actively in helping trump win.

Of course when such people are posting here, they would be reasonably fluent in English, so perhaps not so representative of Russia's man on the street, but I'm still curious to hear from such people.

 

Ironic as well to refer to Senator McCarthy on a trump topic. An incredibly influential mentor to trump in his early days, was the American VILLAIN Roy Cohn, a notorious close associate of McCarthy. 

 

Edited December 13, 2016 by Jingthing

[ilostmypassword]

17 minutes ago, Linzz said:

 

As far as I know he did win the popular vote  except for California. Which is how the  Electoral College  prevents one state from deciding for the other 49

 

Or he would have lost the popular vote by a lot more if not for the Deep South.  This kind of arithmetic is so self-serving. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and by a lot. Get over it.