Originally posted by checkbaiterThere is a a fair amount of information on this subject that none of us has access to, so I'd be careful about labeling this "Left-Wing ‘Fake News" Trump's Russian ties may be strictly legitimate business, or could be something far more. I know it's fun to slam the left wing, but you don't have all the facts here.
10 Ways the CIA’s ‘Russian Hacking’ Story is Left-Wing ‘Fake News’
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/12/cia-russian-hacking-story-sham/
Originally posted by checkbaiterBreitbart news...
10 Ways the CIA’s ‘Russian Hacking’ Story is Left-Wing ‘Fake News’
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/12/cia-russian-hacking-story-sham/
Yeah, that sounds like a reliable source...
Did the CIA produce that report?
(yes they did)
So:
Either there's something fishy going on which needs to be examined.
Or
The CIA is incompentent.
Or
The CIA is deliberately trying to undermine Trump.
Which is the more reassuring?
Originally posted by EladarHillary's server was never hacked as far as is known. That you are a suggesting it was, makes you either a liar or a victim of fake news.
Let me see if I understand Hillary's position.
I used a private server instead of the secure government server.
My private server got hacked by the Russians.
I should be President.
I also wonder whether or not the briefing reported on in the OP article was marked 'classified'.
The article says that the CIA and FBI disagree on Russia's motives. If they are discussing Russia's motives then surely Russia has motives and Russia did something?
The article can't decide whether it is referring to the CIA report or other, separate stories about the Russians hacking voting machines.
One of the supposed 'ways' is to say that foreign interference is nothing new? Seriously? Does the article writer have a brain?
And his last point? He thinks Occam's razor supports him? The simplest solution is to assume the CIA are lying?
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Never mind that Hillary Clinton said it was “horrifying” to hear Donald Trump suggest that he might not accept the results of the November election. Now that he’s been elected, she’ll use any pretense to de legitimize those very results.
Right now, she’s focused like a laser beam on the report that casts suspicion on Russian hacksters for trying to influence the election. That’s a great way to detract attention from the emails themselves, which confirm our worst fears about her cavalier, rules-don’t-apply-to-me approach to power. We’re supposed to forget about all that and assume that Russia actually changed the outcome of our election, when we had an exhaustive list of reasons to reject Hillary anyway. As a candidate, Hillary’s worst enemy in this election wasn’t Russia, or Republicans, or even Donald Trump. Her worst enemy was her own law-breaking, lie-telling, secret-keeping self.
A group of ten electors has written an open letter to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, calling for more details about the report. They want it before December 19, which is the day the Electoral College votes, so the implication is that it might change some votes. Interestingly, the letter was posted by Christine Pelosi, a California elector and the daughter of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. No, there’s nothing political about this at all.
The Clinton campaign has released a statement in support. And, of course, there’s nothing political about that, either.
Sincerely,
Mike Huckabee
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Originally posted by shavixmirI choose The CIA is deliberately trying to undermine Trump.
Breitbart news...
Yeah, that sounds like a reliable source...
Did the CIA produce that report?
(yes they did)
So:
Either there's something fishy going on which needs to be examined.
Or
The CIA is incompentent.
Or
The CIA is deliberately trying to undermine Trump.
Which is the more reassuring?
The left inserted their top people here for a reason.
Originally posted by checkbaiter15 Republican Senators have called for an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election. https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/808387776232194048
Never mind that Hillary Clinton said it was “horrifying” to hear Donald Trump suggest that he might not accept the results of the November election. Now that he’s been elected, she’ll use any pretense to de legitimize those very results.
Right now, she’s focused like a laser beam on the report that casts suspicion on Russian hacksters for trying to in ...[text shortened]... . And, of course, there’s nothing political about that, either.
Sincerely,
Mike Huckabee
Does Republican shill Mike Huckabee think that's "political", too?
Originally posted by checkbaiterIt probably is a sham. It is very unlikely that anybody intelligent enough to do the hacks would be careless enough to leave a traceable trail. Most computer experts agree that a fake trail can be manufactured all over the world to the point NOBODY (including the CIA) could find the true origin of the hack.
10 Ways the CIA’s ‘Russian Hacking’ Story is Left-Wing ‘Fake News’
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/12/cia-russian-hacking-story-sham/
In other words, the hacker would have had to be careless for evidence to actually exist and considering the expertize involved that is highly unlikely.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Originally posted by no1marauderOf course, the establishment will go with the libs.
15 Republican Senators have called for an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election. https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/808387776232194048
Does Republican shill Mike Huckabee think that's "political", too?
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Originally posted by Metal BrainThey wanted to be discovered.
It probably is a sham. It is very unlikely that anybody intelligent enough to do the hacks would be careless enough to leave a traceable trail. Most computer experts agree that a fake trail can be manufactured all over the world to the point NOBODY (including the CIA) could find the true origin of the hack.
In other words, the hacker would have had to ...[text shortened]... s for evidence to actually exist and considering the expertize involved that is highly unlikely.
I wonder why?
Gee whiz, it might be a last ditch effort to overthrow Trump or at least make his look illegitimate.
Originally posted by checkbaiterUhhh... I would presume consecutive administrations have had the CIA appoint the most compentent person to defend the US... with a check and balance to be sure.
I choose The CIA is deliberately trying to undermine Trump.
The left inserted their top people here for a reason.
Didn't the CIA suggest that the war on Iraq was misinformed?
Yup...
Anyways, so even though I personally find the DGSE and MI6 more professional (well, I find the Lichtenstein intelligence office more reliable, but that's besides the point), one can't deny that the CIA does give information (the term intelligence is too far fetched when it comes to Americans).
Listen to it.
It's you they're bloody protecting.
THE WASHINGTON POST late Friday night published an explosive story that, in many ways, is classic American journalism of the worst sort: The key claims are based exclusively on the unverified assertions of anonymous officials, who in turn are disseminating their own claims about what the CIA purportedly believes, all based on evidence that remains completely secret.
These unnamed sources told the Post that “the CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system.” The anonymous officials also claim that “intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails” from both the DNC and John Podesta’s email account. Critically, none of the actual evidence for these claims is disclosed; indeed, the CIA’s “secret assessment” itself remains concealed.
There is still no such evidence for any of these claims. What we have instead are assertions, disseminated by anonymous people, completely unaccompanied by any evidence, let alone proof. As a result, none of the purported evidence — still — can be publicly seen, reviewed, or discussed. Anonymous claims leaked to newspapers about what the CIA believes do not constitute proof, and certainly do not constitute reliable evidence that substitutes for actual evidence that can be reviewed. Have we really not learned this lesson yet?
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10/anonymous-leaks-to-the-washpost-about-the-cias-russia-beliefs-are-no-substitute-for-evidence/