• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • General Discussion Forums
  • General Discussion
confirmed: Russia interfered with USA elections (secret cia assessment)
<<
<
5 of 12
>>
>
mebiscuit
11-12-2016
Of course we need to believe the CIA, after all, this organisation re-invented the phrase "conspiracy theory" when to many people questioned the death of JFK!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
bollywood
11-12-2016
Originally Posted by mebiscuit:
“Of course we need to believe the CIA, after all, this organisation re-invented the phrase "conspiracy theory" when to many people questioned the death of JFK!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory”

Note the difference between 'conspiracy theory' and 'conspiracy.'
stoatie
11-12-2016
Installing a right-wing government in a foreign country? Yeah, sure, that's pretty despicable, but I'm not sure the CIA are in any position to take the moral high ground on that one.
Virgil Tracy
11-12-2016
so the CIA are saying that Russia hacked the democrats and the republicans , and . . . so what ?

how did they influence the election ?
bollywood
11-12-2016
Originally Posted by Virgil Tracy:
“so the CIA are saying that Russia hacked the democrats and the republicans , and . . . so what ?

how did they influence the election ?”

By leaking dirt on the Dems and concealing stuff the Repubs did.
Virgil Tracy
11-12-2016
Originally Posted by bollywood:
“By leaking dirt on the Dems and concealing stuff the Repubs did.”

like what ?
bollywood
11-12-2016
Originally Posted by Virgil Tracy:
“like what ?”

Like any email or conversation that would embarrass them. Unless of course you think only the Dems have secrets.
dooglemire
11-12-2016
Its becoming a bit of a farce. The FBI is saying it hasn't happened the CIA are offering no evidence. Wikileaks is saying its definitely not the Russians and the RNC is saying that they have definitely not been hacked and have proof but it didn't fit the narrative so the press is not interested.
dee123
12-12-2016
Originally Posted by dooglemire:
“Its becoming a bit of a farce. The FBI is saying it hasn't happened the CIA are offering no evidence. Wikileaks is saying its definitely not the Russians and the RNC is saying that they have definitely not been hacked and have proof but it didn't fit the narrative so the press is not interested.”

Stop watching Fox/Sky.
koantemplation
12-12-2016
Originally Posted by St Dabeoc:
“I missed that memo about the CIA telling the truth”

Yes and the same agency that can't keep this 'secret' assessment out of public eyes.
alfamale
12-12-2016
Originally Posted by RobinOfLoxley:
“The only safe option is to declare the result invalid and run the Election again”

which presumably is the whole point of this fake linking of Russia to Clinton's email leaks
koantemplation
12-12-2016
I think the main thing this situation shows, whether true or not, is that electronic voting is still too dangerous to use as even the implication of cheating can be enough to put the results in doubt.
alfamale
12-12-2016
Originally Posted by dooglemire:
“Its becoming a bit of a farce. The FBI is saying it hasn't happened the CIA are offering no evidence. Wikileaks is saying its definitely not the Russians and the RNC is saying that they have definitely not been hacked and have proof but it didn't fit the narrative so the press is not interested.”

Nicely summed up. Unfortunately i'm not finding it farcical when it's regard to a perfectly fair and democratic winning of the election by the man most of the establishment don't want as President (admittedly who in the establishment would want that man-child muppet Trump in charge).

And i find it even less funny when the western mainstream media, including the BBC, start reporting this alleged russian hack as fact. Any journalist worth their salt knows there is absolutely no evidence to link Russia to these hacks.

Anyway here's a link to a properly sourced and credible account that Russia had nothing to do with it from a scottish blogger and ex british ambassador (although obviously this doesn't make it 100% fact, but at least its highly credible as opposed to the mainstream medias version which has no factual evidence whatsoever) -

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...ce-conviction/
RobinOfLoxley
12-12-2016
Trump hasn't actually said he didn't think it happened (in the clips I've seen)

He said it may be Russia or China or a guy sitting on his bed

Perhaps not the best statement to make.
Doctor_Wibble
12-12-2016
Originally Posted by koantemplation:
“Yes and the same agency that can't keep this 'secret' assessment out of public eyes.”

Or it wasn't the agency but the people they were briefing who are now on one or both lists of
a) people who can't keep their gobs shut and should never be trusted with anything important ever again.
b) useful conduits for completely accidental 'leaks'.
bollywood
12-12-2016
Originally Posted by alfamale:
“Nicely summed up. Unfortunately i'm not finding it farcical when it's regard to a perfectly fair and democratic winning of the election by the man most of the establishment don't want as President (admittedly who in the establishment would want that man-child muppet Trump in charge).

And i find it even less funny when the western mainstream media, including the BBC, start reporting this alleged russian hack as fact. Any journalist worth their salt knows there is absolutely no evidence to link Russia to these hacks.

Anyway here's a link to a properly sourced and credible account that Russia had nothing to do with it from a scottish blogger and ex british ambassador (although obviously this doesn't make it 100% fact, but at least its highly credible as opposed to the mainstream medias version which has no factual evidence whatsoever) -

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...ce-conviction/”

How is Julian Assange a credible source? Not sure why Murray is a pal of his, considering that he's against torture, and the alt right (that Assange is helping) are in favor of things like extending gitmo.

Just because Murray 'met someone,' doesn't show that an agency didn't help him. How does he know the person isn't an agent? How does he know the information wasn't hacked and then passed to someone to 'leak?' Even pickpockets pass the goods.

Often the authorities will follow someone for a while, not arrest him/her, to observe. The idea that they arrest someone right away is naive.
bollywood
12-12-2016
Originally Posted by alfamale:
“which presumably is the whole point of this fake linking of Russia to Clinton's email leaks”

This from the nyt:

"Law enforcement officials said that if F.B.I. agents had the evidence to charge Russians with specific crimes, they would do so. The F.B.I. and federal prosecutors have already gone aggressively after Russian hackers, including two men detained in Thailand and the Czech Republic whom the United States is trying to extradite.

Russia has tried to block those efforts and has accused the United States of harassing its citizens."

So it's not true that the U.S. doesn't try to arrest hackers. It's the FBI, not the CIA that has law enforcement powers. This came from the CIA, that doesn't have the same standard of proof as the FBI.
Virgil Tracy
12-12-2016
Originally Posted by bollywood:
“Like any email or conversation that would embarrass them. Unless of course you think only the Dems have secrets.”

well like what ? what dirt did they leak that influenced the election ?

.
D_Mcd4
12-12-2016
I doubt the trumpets care. Their man won is all that matters. Now him and his cronies are free to loot America.
bollywood
12-12-2016
Originally Posted by Virgil Tracy:
“well like what ? what dirt did they leak that influenced the election ?

.”

I answered that already. It looks circumstantially suspicious that the RNC was hacked but no secrets were released.

Only someone naive enough to think the RNC doesn't have insider secrets, would think there wasn't a motive.

It made the RNC look squeaky clean. It's not what was released, it was concealing that both parties manipulate.

So it looked like a straight talker running against a liar.
Doctor_Wibble
12-12-2016
Originally Posted by bollywood:
“... It's the FBI, not the CIA that has law enforcement powers.”

Absolutely, which completely stops the CIA doing anything abroad at all whatsoever, in fact they are world famous for their utterly neutral hands-off approach to everything, especially when it comes to supplying nothing ever or their well publicised non-interventions.

Quote:
“This came from the CIA, that doesn't have the same standard of proof as the FBI.”

Oh let us never never doubt
What nobody is sure about!



[ with apologies to Hilaire Belloc, those lines from 'The Microbe', remembered from an ancient and much-loved dog-eared* silly poetry book ]


* typocorrect from 'god-eared', somewhat appropriate when talking about agencies that are listening in on everything!
Virgil Tracy
12-12-2016
Originally Posted by bollywood:
“I answered that already. It looks circumstantially suspicious that the RNC was hacked but no secrets were released.

Only someone naive enough to think the RNC doesn't have insider secrets, would think there wasn't a motive.

It made the RNC look squeaky clean. It's not what was released, it was concealing that both parties manipulate.

So it looked like a straight talker running against a liar.”

.

no , you said they were leaking dirt on the Dems , what dirt's been leaked ?



.
bollywood
12-12-2016
Originally Posted by Virgil Tracy:
“.

no , you said they were leaking dirt on the Dems , what dirt's been leaked ?



.”

Well look at the content of the leaks.
bollywood
12-12-2016
Originally Posted by Doctor_Wibble:
“Absolutely, which completely stops the CIA doing anything abroad at all whatsoever, in fact they are world famous for their utterly neutral hands-off approach to everything, especially when it comes to supplying nothing ever or their well publicised non-interventions.


Oh let us never never doubt
What nobody is sure about!



[ with apologies to Hilaire Belloc, those lines from 'The Microbe', remembered from an ancient and much-loved dog-eared* silly poetry book ]


* typocorrect from 'god-eared', somewhat appropriate when talking about agencies that are listening in on everything!”

Why do you have to be 'sure about' something to call it a lot of circumstantial evidence?
CLL Dodge
12-12-2016
Unfortunately you can't re-run an election because the elecorate are gullible.
<<
<
5 of 12
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map