|
||||||||
confirmed: Russia interfered with USA elections (secret cia assessment) |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#26 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 65,724
|
Quote:
The allegations:
On Wednesday, Congressmen Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and Eric Swalwell (D-CA) introduced a bill to create an independent commission to investigate Russian government involvement in the digital attacks that shook the presidential election this year. It’s an extensive list. Security experts have linked Russian actors to hacker breaches of the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the emails accounts of Hillary Clinton aide John Podesta and former Secretary of State Colin Powell, the voter rolls of Arizona, Illinois, and Florida, and a deluge of fake news. The 12-member commission, to be chosen by both Republicans and Democrats, would present their findings and recommendations for preventing future attacks in 18 months. Some of them were funders of Hillary Clinton's election campaign. Now let's entertain the idea that the Democratic Party's emails were hacked by Russia, let's just say for the sake of the argument that this allegation is true. Well, Hillary Clinton was let off the hook by the director of the FBI James Comey who advised that the case was dropped and no charges should be made because it was felt that national security was not put at risk......but yet now the Democrats are claiming that the Russians have hacked the emails. Therefore national security WAS put at risk. So in terms of what Clinton was guilty of, how do they want to play it? She either did nothing wrong, or she's guilty of using a private email server and putting her country at risk which has led to Russia exploiting the situation. Is the the story the Democrats really want to run with? That Hillary has created a security breach which led to Russia hacking the Democratic Party's emails? Bradley/Chelsea Manning was in serious trouble for less and was punished for it, but yet as far as I'm aware nothing bad came of it. Then there's the content of the emails. Are we to just going to ignore that or pretend that the emails being released to the public is the bigger problem? If Russia ensured that these emails were leaked, and we must now assume that the emails are real if the authorities are claiming that this is information which Russia hacked into, then isn't it the case that this was information which the public found to be important and helped decide their vote? You know, they found access to some truth they would otherwise have been completely unaware of? But the big bad boogeyman is Russia. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 65,724
|
Quote:
If there was no corruption, there'd be no corruption to expose.
They don't appear to have clocked on that if what is being claimed about Russian hackers getting hold of the Podesta emails is true, then it completely incriminates Hillary Clinton's breach of protocol to use that private email server and put national security at risk....according to their own claims. No one else's, their very own allegations and claims. Can't they even see that? To carry on as if Hillary Clinton is whiter than white in all this and has nothing to do with it is quite staggering. The only other type of group I'd associate with this kind of ignorance of reality would be some kind of religious cult where they will believe in a reality which they've made up themselves and want to sort of make it real, and who think it will become real if they believe in it hard enough. I suppose we must also assume that America would never ever try to gain information on the Russians using nefarious techniques if they could would they? No, that's why it's important to be indignant and morally outraged at Russia.....even though it may turn out that they have had nothing to do with it. |
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,873
|
So presumably the people also presented evidence that it wasn't actually US operatives hacking via Russian-operated/located nodes? And also that those being presented to had fully understood what they were being told...?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 76,804
|
There's so much anti-Russian news/propaganda every day on the media that you begin to wonder what's true and what is just misinformation
Maybe it's just me but I think Jihadism is a much bigger threat to us than Russia is and Russia are out there taking them on whilst we promote the 'moderate' Islamists who'd slit our throats at the drop of a hat....... I'm wondering if the ruling elites in the West feels the need for a constant barrage of anti-Russian propaganda to counter the common feeling that at least they're doing something |
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,196
|
Quote:
The 'fake news' was coming from CNN, CNBC The New York Times etc. and the American mainstream media in general.
Some of them were funders of Hillary Clinton's election campaign. Now let's entertain the idea that the Democratic Party's emails were hacked by Russia, let's just say for the sake of the argument that this allegation is true. Well, Hillary Clinton was let off the hook by the director of the FBI James Comey who advised that the case was dropped and no charges should be made because it was felt that national security was not put at risk......but yet now the Democrats are claiming that the Russians have hacked the emails. Therefore national security WAS put at risk. So in terms of what Clinton was guilty of, how do they want to play it? She either did nothing wrong, or she's guilty of using a private email server and putting her country at risk which has led to Russia exploiting the situation. Is the the story the Democrats really want to run with? That Hillary has created a security breach which led to Russia hacking the Democratic Party's emails? Bradley/Chelsea Manning was in serious trouble for less and was punished for it, but yet as far as I'm aware nothing bad came of it. Then there's the content of the emails. Are we to just going to ignore that or pretend that the emails being released to the public is the bigger problem? If Russia ensured that these emails were leaked, and we must now assume that the emails are real if the authorities are claiming that this is information which Russia hacked into, then isn't it the case that this was information which the public found to be important and helped decide their vote? You know, they found access to some truth they would otherwise have been completely unaware of? But the big bad boogeyman is Russia. Obviously it's different to hack with malicious intent and cause harm. This isn't about the other people do it defense. Edit: And no why would it be ethical to release information from the DNC and conceal information from the RNC? |
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 22,428
|
Quote:
Or more than likely Clinton backers are trying to get the elections derailed so that the results can be declared null and void and the election re-held or something. Getting quite desperate now, that the recount thing didn't work. Turned out Clinton actually lost votes on that one. And funny how they didn't want a recount in all states.
Oh and another thing, if it's a SECRET CIA assessment, why has it been splashed all over the Washington Times? Normally if secret material is released, somebody goes to jail over it. Just sayin' And Clinton doesn't need somebody badmouthing her. Her own behaviour does that for her. |
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 65,724
|
Quote:
You sound like a Trump voter, congrats on your horrible life choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,196
|
Quote:
It doesn't matter whether they are a Trump supporter or not. What is important is the content of what's being said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 12,003
|
As there is no evidence it's purely speculation. It's possible, because Russia and the American right wing absolutely didn't want Clinton anywhere near power. But it's all very elaborate if they did. Quote:
If Russia did have a hand in it, you can be sure it will have been in cahoots with some high powered individuals in the USA, who didn't want to see Clinton succeed.
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,196
|
Retired General Michael Hayden talked about Trump's refusal accept the intelligence conclusion at a private forum in Manhattan Wednesday evening.
"To have the president-elect of the United States simply reject the fact-based narrative that the intelligence community puts together because it conflicts with his a priori assumptions. Wow," he said. |
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,196
|
Quote:
As there is no evidence it's purely speculation. It's possible, because Russia and the American right wing absolutely didn't want Clinton anywhere near power. But it's all very elaborate if they did.
Thats the thing. They couldn't orchestrate that on their own, they'd need some very powerful inside support. |
|
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 12,003
|
Quote:
There's so much anti-Russian news/propaganda every day on the media that you begin to wonder what's true and what is just misinformation
Maybe it's just me but I think Jihadism is a much bigger threat to us than Russia is and Russia are out there taking them on whilst we promote the 'moderate' Islamists who'd slit our throats at the drop of a hat....... I'm wondering if the ruling elites in the West feels the need for a constant barrage of anti-Russian propaganda to counter the common feeling that at least they're doing something I agree too, that ISIS is the greatest current threat to the west, and I think North Korea is the greatest threat to global stability in the future... they're a joke that at some point is going to become quite unfunny. |
|
|
|
|
#38 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 12,003
|
Quote:
It was said with 'high confidence.'
|
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,196
|
Quote:
You still need evidence for such claims. I'm really on the fence about it. It's possible but it's also kind of conspiracy theory like in scale.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 130
|
Quote:
You sound like a Trump voter, congrats on your horrible life choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#41 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,873
|
Quote:
You still need evidence for such claims. I'm really on the fence about it. It's possible but it's also kind of conspiracy theory like in scale.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#42 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,771
|
Quote:
If only people had made those kind of comments about the ones setting Hillary up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#43 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,196
|
Quote:
I read that one, and whilst it does look like a case was presented, there's a lot of 'circumstantial bigging-up' going on (e.g. 'in a room used for', the booking sheet is on the noticeboard in the hall), and it's always worth being wary of that sort of thing, and evidence is not proof.
Similarly, we don't know if 'connected to' means 'employed by' or 'has previously bought stuff from', and then we get to the bit where we don;t know if 'instigated by' is the actuality or someone somewhere claimed credit for the idea afterwards. Basically what we are seeing is at least fourth-hand, even if it does appear to be a direct quote. |
|
|
|
|
|
#44 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,196
|
Quote:
That psychopath got everything she deserved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#45 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,771
|
Quote:
Fact checking her, she lied less than the other candidates.
No better than her (i did not have sexual relations with that woman) husband. ![]() Psychopathic liars. |
|
|
|
|
|
#46 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 35,196
|
Quote:
And that sums her up in a nut-shell.
No better than her (i did not have sexual relations with that woman) husband. ![]() Psychopathic liars. She lied less than the other candidates, even less than Bernie. And that will be more apparent in future. |
|
|
|
|
|
#47 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 4,456
|
Who needs the truth these days anyway? Just go on Facebook or Twitter at you'll find a truth that fits with your world view. That's where are at the moment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#48 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,771
|
Quote:
A lie doesn't make someone a psychopath. Check your definition.
She lied less than the other candidates, even less than Bernie. And that will be more apparent in future. |
|
|
|
|
|
#49 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 40,276
|
Quote:
Why it's being investigated. How can it be a conspiracy theory when we can see that DNC stuff was released but not RNC? That's a fact not a theory.
If it was that easy every firm would be hacked all the time. |
|
|
|
|
|
#50 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 435
|
Quote:
Only in degrees of assertiveness.
AFAICT this is mainly about stuff from a hacked server getting published. Any particularly interesting server will get more unwelcome attention and scrutiny than most, and known users are likely to get targeted for spearing but there's also the chance it wasn't fully secured and got done by a script and the implications weren't known straight away. Then whoever got the info flogged it to the Russians because they were most likely to buy without sending in a SWAT team instead, used the interesting stuff for themselves and punted the rest out to the world because stirring things up is what spy agencies do, as per 'degrees of assertiveness' remark above - though noting your own remark above, some was going to be more stir-worthy than the rest. TLDR I don't see this as having been anything particularly special, it looks an awful lot like 'business as usual'. AFAICT and TDLR??? what does this mean. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 08:21.





