Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House

originally posted by: BlueMule

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
So you claim the right is corrupt. OK...but show your proof. Not conjecture, not "could be" but actual proof like that which was shown about the DNC. And as far as your comment about "assuming they are as bad or worse than Hillary"...you are doing so because you are bias. You are not using proof, truth or facts...just your "gut feeling".

And you know what they say about assuming...well obviously you do, just look at your avatar

There are of course plenty of corrupt republicans out there. Plenty have been caught, and many more will be. Do you want a list?

But you wouldn't know that by listening to you guys. Listening to trumpets, one might think corruption is only on the left.

Well, there are plenty of fools who fall for that. But the intelligent voter knows corruption is part of human nature and therefore is found on both sides of the isle.

Putin could release the republican emails he stole. That would prove that republicans are human too. As if anyone seriously doubts that republicans are corrupt too.

But I think he would rather hold on to those. I'm sure they make good leverage.

Lets make this simple then. During their election campaign, list for me the Republican corruption exposed. If that list is longer than the DNC list...I'll agree with you.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE



Trump doesn't take responsibility for his actions he deflects and may give a half hearted apology. Trumps general rule in life seems to be even if I'm wrong I'm right. and will argue that point until people just give up from exhaustion.

The facts prove you wrong. If someone pays a fine, admits to a wrong-doing, by DEFINITION they are accepting that they did something wrong. You can't find a single example of that with Clinton except that she claims should wouldn't use personal email again for business.

You're just flat wrong on this.

Clinton apologized for the emails admitted it was a mistake she made. So by your logic shes good to go isn't she? Seems to me I see people arguing on here from only one point of view. One side fails to acknowledge the flaws and tries to deflect by pointing out the flaws in others. Reality Clintion lies reality Trump lies in fact everyone lies. Now the trick is to figure out what they are lying for? Is it ego, is it agenda, or is it monetary in nature . And then you have to decide once you know there or believe you do anyway if you can live with it. People around here need to flip things and start defending there choice not deflect blame to the other side.

Are you seriously suggesting that apologizing for the emails admonishes her from not protect an American Ambassador killed in Benghazi, lying to the family of dead Americans about a YouTube video being the reason, lying to the American people about what the FBI discovered during the investigation, taking money or political and financial favors by foreign governments while employed to represent our government, threatening an CNN newscaster (recently exposed) with the loss of her job for telling the truth about the Clinton campaign, conspiracy with the DNC to keep Bernie Sanders from proceeding, etc...then you go ahead and wear that badge.

Geeeez

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Why, do you think democrats have managed to even the score since 2006, when they were down 17 - 3?

www.huffingtonpost.com...

If you want to use the bits and pieces the Russians have released in your list, I think we should wait until hackers do the same to your side.

a reply to: Kettu

Continuing along the line of blackmail, it could also involve the RNC and/or GOP members and/or those who wish to work for a Trump administration, if the Russians hacked but are not releasing RNC files. Somewhere a mole could be waiting to join or already be working.

Andrei Soldatov, co-author of Red Web, a book about Russia’s cybersecurity and use of the Internet to silence dissent, thinks that the likelier target of Moscow is not Trump but rather his now powerful party. “I doubt there can be any kompromat on Trump which can hurt him,” Soldatov said. “But the Republican Party is a different story.”

For Soldatov, the threatened publication of documents confirming rumors or alleged ties between Trump’s cabinet picks and the Russian government could be a useful tool to keep the administration in check. “Remember the story about a former Defense Intelligence Agency chief giving interviews to [Russian state propaganda channel] RT and being paid for that?” Soldatov said, referring to Flynn, who is now Trump’s national security advisor. “It would be bad enough simply to produce documentary evidence confirming things we already knew.”

Interesting

A former Russian spymaster agrees with that assessment.

Oleg Kalugin was a KGB general in charge of operations in the United States; he also ran the First Chief Directorate’s K Branch, or arm of counterintelligence, which got up to the very sort of dirty tricks, or “active measures,” that state hacking of a political party amounts to. “In the old days, in my time, we relied on human efforts: penetration, handling, manipulating people from the inside,” Kalugin told The Daily Beast, noting that he wasn’t personally convinced the DNC and RNC hacks were done by the Russian government and not by “individual actors.”

Nevertheless, Kalugin allowed that if the FSB and GRU were responsible and Putin was now sitting on crucial information about various GOP officials, it would be reckless and dangerous to try and blackmail the White House directly. High-level officials, such as cabinet secretaries, have rarely been cultivated as spies or informants of Moscow, owing to what Kalugin characterizes as “potential repercussions.”

So, someone at a lower level could be turned

Middle and lower-cadre officials in the State Department or military-industrial complex are deemed easier and better marks for the spooks.

In this hypothetical, a heretofore semi-anonymous RNC staffer who may have written something professionally or personally damaging to himself is likelier to find himself approached by a Russian operative and offered a chance to switch sides than a member of the National Security Council.

“Just one man can destroy everything,” Kalugin said. “He doesn’t have to be the president.”

How Russian Hackers Can Blackmail Donald Trump—and the GOP

I now look at Trump's quickly aborted call with Larry King (aired on RT) in a different light.

originally posted by: Kettu
The evidence is overwhelming, and its embarrassing to even attempt to refute the plausibility that the Russians were not involved

If the evidence is so "overwhelming" why didn't Hillary contest the election results? Why didn't the 3 state recount effort, specifically run to uncover evidence of russian involvement, end up discovering a single iota of any outside interference?

Trump has a Rally. He makes fun of Evan McMullin who worked for the CIA. Next day. CIA has a secret meeting and "confirms" Russia helped Trump.

originally posted by: Voiceofthemajority

originally posted by: Kettu
The evidence is overwhelming, and its embarrassing to even attempt to refute the plausibility that the Russians were not involved

If the evidence is so "overwhelming" why didn't Hillary contest the election results? Why didn't the 3 state recount effort, specifically run to uncover evidence of russian involvement, end up discovering a single iota of any outside interference?

also why did Obama state there was no signs of Russian interference. Also there seems to be a difference of opinion about Russian involvement between the CIA (who says they were involved) and the FBI (who says there is no link).

a reply to: desert


I think the RNC was working against trump. Id say that obvious so there is nothing there there not going to rig elections for someone they didn't want in the first place.

The emails are real emails from Clintons server and other locations. It doesn't really matter who leaked them. The outcome is the same: the world now knows more about how corrupt the Clintons and the DNC are.

a reply to: dragonridr

True. Until the RNC and finally the GOP came to terms with aligning themselves with Trump. (Especially when they knew they could have all three branches of govt.) But the blackmail theory is not about the RNC or GOP doing the blackmailing, it is the Russians who could be holding back files in order to blackmail not just Trump but the Party, now that Trump won.

To the RNC and the GOP it was supposed to be the usual election year. They never thought Trump would be the nominee. (Some GOP members openly were against a Trump nomination.) But it happened. What the Russians seem to have done was help tip the scales in favor of Trump, and perhaps, by NOT revealing RNC hacked files, convince Trump, the RNC, and GOP members that it is now in their best interest to be nice to Russia, even more so if they had been so inclined previously.

Remember, the last group to help carry Trump cross the finish line was Bannon, Conway, Bossie, and Ailes, funded by Koch ideologist Mercer. They came in after Manafort etal with direct Russian ties. By that time, the RNC IMO was probably glad to have the best established GOP operatives guiding Trump, hoping Trump would shape up. .... lol at the minimum a Russian RNC hack would show the RNC's own scheissturm.

a reply to: desert

Reince Priebus: 'RNC Was Not Hacked'

Republican National Committee Chairman and incoming White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus pushed back on a New York Times report that the RNC was hacked by Russians, saying that it is "absolutely not true" and even denied an earlier assessment from all 17 intelligence agencies that Russia was seeking to interfere with the U.S. election process.

"We contacted the FBI months ago when the [alleged hacking of the Democratic National Committee] issue came about. They reviewed all of our systems. We have hacking-detection systems in place, and the conclusion was then, as it was again two days ago when we went back to the FBI to ask them about this, that the RNC was not hacked," Priebus said today on ABC News' "This Week."

The Washington Post and The New York Times in separate reports late Friday said the CIA presented evidence to some government officials that Russia sought through hacking to help Trump win. The New York Times reported that intelligence agencies have concluded with “high confidence” that Russians hacked into both the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee’s internal communications but released only information they obtained from the Democratic committee in an effort to undermine the legitimacy of the Clinton campaign and the presidential election as a whole.

Well this has taken an interesting turn.

Sounds to me like those pushing the Russia story are trying to drag the Republicans into it to deflect from the fact they have no evidence to show Russia hacked the election or the DNC. The whole Russia angle started with Democrats as an effort to counter the wikileaks actions.

Democrats have now grown beyond desperate.

a reply to: Xcathdra

It's definitely a predictable turn, because if he admits the RNC was hacked then he is put in an impossible situation - either the kremlin is withholding dirty laundry to spare their republican comrades embarrassment (bad), or they are withholding dirty laundry for blackmailing purposes (bad).

So, let me get this straight...

1. CIA - It was the Russians
2. 17 intelligence agencies - It was the Russians
3. Our NATO allies - It was the Russians
4. Investigative journalists - It was the Russians

...

5. Trump supporters - Nothing to see here...?

originally posted by: Kettu
So, let me get this straight...

1. CIA - It was the Russians
2. 17 intelligence agencies - It was the Russians
3. Our NATO allies - It was the Russians
4. Investigative journalists - It was the Russians

...

5. Trump supporters - Nothing to see here...?

Wikileaks a media outlet that defines itself by publishing 100% verifiable fact stated it was not a state leak.
It looks to me like you would prefer to believe the CIA.

Im sure lots of states had a look. Thats what happens when you dont use encryption.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Sounds to me like those pushing the Russia story are trying to drag the Republicans into it to deflect from the fact they have no evidence to show Russia hacked the election or the DNC. The whole Russia angle started with Democrats as an effort to counter the wikileaks actions.

omg..

for the first time ever i agree with you..

a reply to: theantediluvian

CIA dont have a very good track record for telling the truth.. Was there not stuff out recently about them covering up on the death JFK.


This is the shadow establishment trying to defend itself.. and kicking toys out of the pram..

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Kettu

"FBI issued an unprecedented warning to state election officials urging them to be on the lookout for intrusions into their election systems and to take steps to upgrade security measures across the voting process, including voter registration, voter rolls and election-related websites. The confidential “flash” alert said investigators had detected attempts to penetrate election systems in several states.”

Notice they claimed to have detected 'attempts' to penetrate election systems. But no actual penetration has been proven and never anywhere did they mention Russia.

DHS and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) have officially stated

The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. ... [O]nly Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.
www.dni.gov...

Snowden, do you trust him? Listen to what he had to say

Evidence that could publicly attribute responsibility for the DNC hack certainly exists at #NSA, but DNI traditionally objects to sharing.
— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) July 25, 2016

Do you honestly expect the United States government to show you the logs from Prism proving what happened?

originally posted by: BlueMule
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Why, do you think democrats have managed to even the score since 2006, when they were down 17 - 3?

www.huffingtonpost.com...

If you want to use the bits and pieces the Russians have released in your list, I think we should wait until hackers do the same to your side.

So...just to translate and summarize this chat. You claimed the right is just as corrupt as the left...I asked for proof and a list of what corruption was discovered on the right...your response is we have to wait until they are hacked.

Therefore, during the election the DNC, Clinton and the left were exposed for a load of corruption and corrupt activity and NO ONE was exposed for the right.

Thank you.

originally posted by: Kettu
So, let me get this straight...

1. CIA - It was the Russians
2. 17 intelligence agencies - It was the Russians
3. Our NATO allies - It was the Russians
4. Investigative journalists - It was the Russians

...

5. Trump supporters - Nothing to see here...?

Nope...you got it wrong. 1, 2,3 and 4 BELIEVE it was the Russians. The hacks likely originated in geographic Russia. But when you call it the Russians you imply it was the Russian government. That isn't a fact, there is no proof of that and anyone saying differently is lying or skewing the truth.

Here is the truth. The DNC, etc. were hacked by individuals in the Russian area. We have no idea who these individuals are but they had strong skills and equipment. They discovered corruption within the DNC and the Democratic party and informed the citizens of the United States of America. It can't be proven that this was done specifically to support Trump, destroy Clinton, etc. The result that the hacks found information that happened to help Trump and damage Clinton does not prove that was the intent. Had those hacks produced emails about yoga exercising or wedding plans...there wouldn't have been such an impact. Therefore...if anyone is to blame for the fall of Clinton, it is the DNC and Clinton herself.

What do they say...don't shoot the messenger!

But I know you know all that. I'm quite aware you aren't an idiot. Therefore, you are a liar and skew the truth to support your prejudicial views and beliefs...NOT facts.

a reply to: theantediluvian


Who cares?

Did they write the e-mails? No. That is like accusing an informant of committing the crime.

And besides how many countries (or individual Billionaires) where helping Clinton? (Umm Saudi, Soros to name two.)

SO who are you mad at? the DNC for commiting the crime or the people that exposed it?