Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump

[AnotherExit]

Ronald Reagan is turning over in his grave. If this doesn't scare the hell out of you, then you aren't human. The entire election was a total fraud. From the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.bb89298a0a6e

And of course Trump's response was filled with easily refuted lies:

"These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction," the Trump transition team said in a statement. "The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It’s now time to move on and 'Make America Great Again.'"

"...biggest Electoral College victories in history"???? WTF? Clearly he thinks we are all STUPID.


When right-wing zealot, and rabid Trump supporter, Joe Walsh tweets this, you know MAJOR trouble is brewing:

[drjohncarpenter]

Ronald Reagan is turning over in his grave. If this doesn't scare the hell out of you, then you aren't human. The entire election was a total fraud. From the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html

And of course Trump's response was filled with easily refuted lies:

"These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction," the Trump transition team said in a statement. "The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It’s now time to move on and 'Make America Great Again.'"

"...biggest Electoral College victories in history"???? WTF? Clearly he thinks we are all STUPID.


When right-wing zealot, and rabid Trump supporter, Joe Walsh tweets this, you know MAJOR trouble is brewing:

https://twitter.com/walshfreedom/status/807641582182735873

Well, what might the "FECC Trump-lovers" say about this? That the CIA is a "liberal" organization?

For once, I'd love to note even one of them saying, "My goodness, this is really disturbing information, and totally anti-democratic."

But I won't hold my breath, it doesn't fit their narrow view of what is happening in our beautiful country.

As always, we must remember that all of this is not normal.

Stay vigilant, America.

[iplayastrat]

Stay vigilant, America.

Under what administration did this act happen?

And who's surprised by these findings?

Couldn't all see this happening throughout the campaign season?

Isn't it funny that now we're doubling down on investigating Russia - after the election?

Aren't these guys suppose to protect us before things like this happen?

Asleep on the job I guess...

[MaryAnn]

This concern WAS brought up before the election.

Another nation interfering in our election process should concern ALL Americans -- regardless of our political opinions. Let's look at the evidence and try to discern the truth.

[Tony Trout]

Obama can and SHOULD call for another election before he is scheduled to leave office, IMO. This is just outrageous and, yes, scary as hell!!!

[MaryAnn]

Obama can and SHOULD call for another election before he is scheduled to leave office, IMO. This is just outrageous and, yes, scary as hell!!!

Not gonna happen. Nothing is going to change the result of this election.

But it IS Imperative that we get to the truth of what did -- or didn't -- happen regarding the interference of another country. This should concern ALL Americans.

[AnotherExit]

Obama can and SHOULD call for another election before he is scheduled to leave office, IMO. This is just outrageous and, yes, scary as hell!!!

Not gonna happen. Nothing is going to change the result of this election.

But it IS Imperative that we get to the truth of what did -- or didn't -- happen regarding the interference of another country. This should concern ALL Americans.

And the president-elect"s response to Russia interfering in our election is to attack the CIA.

Let that sink in: Russia interferes in our election and he attacks the CIA, not Russia. This is insane. And anyone who defends him at this point would have to be insane.

I swear, I am living in some horrible alternate universe. These are truly scary times.

[Hard Rocker]

...and of course the United States would never ever ever interfere with who's in power in another nation. Ever.



That's the way of the world, folks. Anyone who can be at it, WILL be at it. Don't kid yourselves otherwise. In politics as in life, self-interest will ultimately trump morality.... and the latter wont even come a close second. Sad but true.

[brian]

Russia didn't have any effect on the election. Sweet baby jesus.

For all of Hilary Clinton's faults if the economy was booming she would have won Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania and thus the election. I know all the liberal posters are disappointed but damn this is getting ridiculous.

The Democrats have an opportunity to beat Trump in four years just be patient and quit whining. One thing I like about the Republican party is that when they lose they don't complain as much and they don't make frivolous excuses.

[drjohncarpenter]

Russia didn't have any effect on the election. Sweet baby jesus.

For all of Hilary Clinton's faults if the economy was booming she would have won Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania and thus the election. I know all the liberal posters are disappointed but damn this is getting ridiculous.

The Democrats have an opportunity to beat Trump in four years just be patient and quit whining. One thing I like about the Republican party is that when they lose they don't complain as much and they don't make frivolous excuses.

This topic broaches a very serious issue about the foundation of American democracy, and you choose to chime in, being smug while saying incredibly inept things that have no basis in reality, or this discussion. It's embarrassing and offensive.

[TJ]

Disturbing, but could it have been more obvious?

[BBG]

This story reminds me of the NSA secure data center in Utah nonsense where massive servers sorted through billions of emails and other data. Big claims need big supporting evidence and the Russian story has none.

http://redrightrepublic.com/trump-transition-team-slams-cia-russia-report-video/

[Trevell]

Can you imagine that some supposedly neutral agency might have worked to harm one presidential candidates aspirations and promote the others? It’s GREAT when the mainstream media does it, but it’s just TERRIBLE when a foreign government is accused of doing it!

Just a couple bits that stood out to me in the Washington Post article:

The CIA presentation to senators about Russia’s intentions fell short of a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17 intelligence agencies. A senior U.S. official said there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered.

17 intelligence agencies and they still can’t prevent hacking???

For example, intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin “directing” the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second senior U.S. official said.

Don’t have specific intelligence? What does that even mean? Do they have general intelligence? Well wait, do they have any facts at all? It’s not specific intelligence... That implies that there’s some other non-specific intelligence that they have, in which case, why not present that? Unless they don’t really have it in any compelling way. So let’s use the weasel word "specific". All innuendo..

This is so funny and predictable. The fact that Hillary deleted emails under subpoena, and said she never received or sent any classified information. That's never any kind of proof of wrong doing. Such a high standard when it comes to Hillary and proof of wrong doing. But some vague tenuous potential ties between hackers and the GRU reported through 17 different channels.. oh yeah, that’s for certain and conclusive.

[TJ]

This story reminds me of the NSA secure data center in Utah nonsense where massive servers sorted through billions of emails and other data. Big claims need big supporting evidence and the Russian story has none.

http://redrightrepublic.com/trump-transition-team-slams-cia-russia-report-video/

Funny, I could have sworn that you said you are female. Your exact comment was written by a guy on Facebook.

[Rich_TCB]

I swear, I am living in some horrible alternate universe.

That's how I feel as well.

[FatherJack1980]

I swear, I am living in some horrible alternate universe.

That's how I feel as well.

Well, you two aren't alone.

Parallel Universes: Theories & Evidence http://www.space.com/32728-parallel-universes.html

Scientist May Have Found Proof Of Alternate, Parallel Universe http://www.techtimes.com/articles/103346/20151105/scientist-may-have-found-proof-of-alternate-parallel-universe.htm

Then there's the holographic universe theory:

Is the universe a hologram? https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150427101633.htm

... and I tried to find again what I read about our eyes potentially only seeing in 2d, or rather 2.5d, but couldn't find it, but I found this comment on a story: "I don't think we do see in 3D. We see in 2D and then analyse the 2D data to give us information about for instance, how long it will take to get to any stimulus using convergence and parallax" in http://www.livescience.com/32580-why-do-we-see-in-3-d.html.

Not to mention that Elon Musk thinks we are living in a simulation - Is our world a simulation? Why some scientists say it's more likely than not https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/11/simulated-world-elon-musk-the-matrix

[rocknroll]

This topic broaches a very serious issue about the foundation of American democracy, and you choose to chime in, being smug while saying incredibly inept things that have no basis in reality, or this discussion. It's embarrassing and offensive.

Take a deep breath son. All is alleged as of now.

What is deeply disturbing is the lengths that the butt hurt left will go to disqualify a legally elected President. I have news for you, Hillary Clinton is not going, nor will she ever, be President. Accept it and move on.

[poormadpeter2]

While this news is hardly surprising, it is disturbing. That said, people have to be a bit careful here.

"It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected" is what we are told, and no doubt that is true.

What is also true is that virtually every ally of America in some way or other tried to influence the election by airing their thoughts on the candidates - and very few, if any, were urging Americans to vote for Trump. That's not the same as hacking emails etc of course - one form of interference is legal, while the other is not, for starters. One is more extreme and more concrete than the other. But it's still interference.

Obama came to the UK and urged for the country to vote to stay in the EU, and then told the UK they would be at the "back of the queue" when it comes to trade deals if we left the EU. Now, I back Obama and I back staying in the EU, but that threat of being at the back of the queue" was also an attempt at considerable influence on the result of the referendum.

So, before crying "foul" quite so loudly, we do have to consider just how far removed these actions are from the normal practices of one country trying to persuade another to vote in a particular way. I'm not saying it's right or that it's not a step too far, but we shouldn't be shocked.

[AnotherExit]

Disturbing, but could it have been more obvious?

It's something that was obvious to a lot of us, but now the media is paying attention.

Worth noting that at Trump's last press conference, which was 137 days ago, he asked Russia to hack into HRC's emails. That would have been disqualifying for any other candidate, but not Trump. The media yawned and focused on HRC's emails instead. Because who cares if a presidential candidate asks a foreign country (who we are not allies) to hack the United States?

It was there all along. The media just chose not to notice.

[AnotherExit]

Too bad this story didn't catch on back in October. (But..but..but EMAILS!®)

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/15/opinions/putin-clinton-hate-affair-ghitis/index.html

Despite the frigid Moscow temperatures, thousands massed in the streets calling for fair elections and for an end to Putin's seemingly endless rule. Signs and chants declared, "Putin is a thief!" Putin's hold on power faced a genuine threat. Then-Secretary of State Clinton openly sided with the protesters. "The Russian people, like people everywhere," she said, "...deserve free, fair, transparent elections."
Putin was fuming. He blamed the protests on Clinton, accusing her of sending "a signal" to the opposition.

[poormadpeter2]

Disturbing, but could it have been more obvious?

It's something that was obvious to a lot of us, but now the media is paying attention.

Worth noting that at Trump's last press conference, which was 137 days ago, he asked Russia to hack into HRC's emails. That would have been disqualifying for any other candidate, but not Trump. The media yawned and focused on HRC's emails instead. Because who cares if a presidential candidate asks a foreign country (who we are not allies) to hack the United States?

It was there all along. The media just chose not to notice.

I would suggest that Trump's request to Russia is considerably more problematic than Russia actually doing it, if they did. Russia hacking emails to sway a vote is problematic. The winner of the election supporting and requesting those actions is ten times worse.

[TJ]

While this news is hardly surprising, it is disturbing. That said, people have to be a bit careful here.

"It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected" is what we are told, and no doubt that is true.

What is also true is that virtually every ally of America in some way or other tried to influence the election by airing their thoughts on the candidates - and very few, if any, were urging Americans to vote for Trump. That's not the same as hacking emails etc of course - one form of interference is legal, while the other is not, for starters. One is more extreme and more concrete than the other. But it's still interference.

Obama came to the UK and urged for the country to vote to stay in the EU, and then told the UK they would be at the "back of the queue" when it comes to trade deals if we left the EU. Now, I back Obama and I back staying in the EU, but that threat of being at the back of the queue" was also an attempt at considerable influence on the result of the referendum.

So, before crying "foul" quite so loudly, we do have to consider just how far removed these actions are from the normal practices of one country trying to persuade another to vote in a particular way. I'm not saying it's right or that it's not a step too far, but we shouldn't be shocked.

They are a million miles apart. Going openly on record with an honest assessment is nothing like trying to influence an election by spreading hacked information, some of which was contrived.

Many on the far left have historically supported Wikileaks, believing that their intention has simply been to hold America to higher standards in response to revelations such as the use of torture, etc. That's always been nonsense. If that was true, Wikileaks wouldn't have been contriving to elect the candidate who said such ridiculously outlandish things, including that he would "bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding". Those who elected Trump have elected the man that Putin wants in the White House. Putin doesn't want that because he expects Trump to "make America great again".

[poormadpeter2]

While this news is hardly surprising, it is disturbing. That said, people have to be a bit careful here.

"It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected" is what we are told, and no doubt that is true.

What is also true is that virtually every ally of America in some way or other tried to influence the election by airing their thoughts on the candidates - and very few, if any, were urging Americans to vote for Trump. That's not the same as hacking emails etc of course - one form of interference is legal, while the other is not, for starters. One is more extreme and more concrete than the other. But it's still interference.

Obama came to the UK and urged for the country to vote to stay in the EU, and then told the UK they would be at the "back of the queue" when it comes to trade deals if we left the EU. Now, I back Obama and I back staying in the EU, but that threat of being at the back of the queue" was also an attempt at considerable influence on the result of the referendum.

So, before crying "foul" quite so loudly, we do have to consider just how far removed these actions are from the normal practices of one country trying to persuade another to vote in a particular way. I'm not saying it's right or that it's not a step too far, but we shouldn't be shocked.

They are a million miles apart. Going openly on record with an honest assessment is nothing like trying to influence an election by spreading hacked information, some of which was contrived.

Many on the far left have historically supported Wikileaks, believing that their intention has simply been to hold America to higher standards in response to revelations such as the use of torture, etc. That's always been nonsense. If that was true, Wikileaks wouldn't have been contriving to elect the candidate who said such ridiculously outlandish things, including that he would "bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding". Those who elected Trump have elected the man that Putin wants in the White House. Putin doesn't want that because he expects Trump to "make America great again".

Putin wants an easy life, and Trump is going to give him that far more than Clinton.

While I'm not supporting Wikileaks and certainly not Trump or the revealing of emails, there were damaging reveals during the campaign for both candidates. I don't actually think the Wikileaks material regarding Clinton would have swayed anyone to not vote for her, not least because you can bet most voters didn't really give a damn (or even understand) what was mentioned in the leaked emails anyway.

[Hard Rocker]

"Truth" has very little to do with any of it... on either side!

[iplayastrat]

"Truth" has very little to do with any of it... on either side!

And unfortunately most on here that supported Hillary either
don't want to accept the truth on why she lost, or are so blind
to it they just can't see it.

Questioned directly as to whether He (Trump) would accept the
outcome should Hillary Clinton win the election he answered
"I'll keep you in suspense". Clinton called Trumps answer
"horrifying" saying he was "talking down our Democracy".

Note she said this during the third and last debate. While all
were already suspecting Russian involvement in our election
process.

And again of critical note, under whose administration did
this happen?

For those who keep putting down Trump's supporters. You're
blaming the wrong people.

Before responding please check out a most revealing report
from a respected news source. Go to YouTube and watch the
first five minutes and fifty three seconds of The Choice 2016
(full film) FRONTLINE (PBS). That's a reality check.

It was all well and fine if she won the election. That's what
she the DNC and all her supporters thought. Funny how that
changed after she lost.