It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 4
30
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom


Here's an idea, instead of trying to delegitimize Julian Assange why don't you just learn how to hack and go get Trump's tax returns yourself. You can send them to Assange and if he chooses not to publish them you can come back here and tell us what a sell out he is.

Either way, your OP is deliberately obscure.


It's OBVIOUS what the strategy was ON ITS FACE. The fact that you can deny something that obvious makes your judgement highly suspect.

"why don't you just learn how to hack"

Lmao. No you just learn how to hack! Unreal. I did more than my share years ago which is probably why I don't get weak in the knees and fawn over Assange or random script kiddies who claim affiliation with Anonymous? That comment was absolutely asinine in so many ways.

There's nothing obscure, deliberately or otherwise, about the OP.




posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

It proves that his phone was in the custody of a total stranger for more than 24 hours.

They knew who's phone it was and I wouldn't be surprised if they compromised his email and then sold off the access to a hacking syndicate.

edit: And nothing obscure about 'secret assessment' either? If WaPo is reporting it, then it's obviously not a secret.

edit on 12/9/2016 by ColdWisdom because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 10:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Annee

Putin is no dummy. He'll eat Trump for lunch, then spit him out.


Like Soros and Hillary?



That's why Putin was afraid of Hillary - - enough to influence our election results?

It really amazes me, because its Hillary, so many take Putin's side.



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Russian hacking evidence

Probably more of the same old evidence.. Russian time zones, matching Russian holidays and Cyrillic characters. Could be anybody in Russia, Russian Americans, or anybody who can think one step ahead and create a false trail.



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom

This same source broke the Watergate scandal and cost Nixon dearly. We have one of the most reputable outlets in the world reporting on a secret meeting on the floor of congress itself, but somehow it's fake, yet some badly shot youtube videos regarding a favorite junk food is real. We have evidence of pay-for-play with McConnel's involvement and this isn't a conspiracy worth discussing?

This is the epitome of conspiracy. Shadowy figures, geopolitical titans, and subterfuge. And yet the conspiracy community dismisses this?!

I demand to know what is being pumped into the water and food supply, because it's clear to me that over half the nation is being drugged with some kind of mind-altering chemical. There's simply no other explanation why we're seeing rising levels of dis-associative disorders, where people can just pick and choose the reality they live in.

What's next? Tomorrow is the sky going to be green?



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 10:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
It really amazes me, because its Hillary, so many take Putin's side.


Putin is less egregious than Soros.



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

According to Wikileaks themselves their info came from the CIA.

So given the track records of both Wikileaks and the Washington Post regarding accurate and truthful information, Wikileaks wins in a flocking landslide. No contest.

Wikileaks has *never* been shown to have given out false information. Never.

The Washington Post on the other hand has become a joke even within the MSM itself which is quite a feat. They have been proven to be wrong, false, biased or inaccurate so many times I don't think anyone even bothers counting anymore.

They have zero credibility as a news organization.

So unless the CIA confirms or you have a *much* more reputable source - this is a non-starter from the jump.



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Bill Clinton was paid for a speech in Moscow by an organization that has ties to the Kremlin (everything in Russia has ties to the Kremlin) but then again so have a number of former world leaders.

As for money from Russia to the foundation, I can only assume she's talking about donations to the CF made by officers of Uranium One. 96%+ of that money actually came from a the Canadian ex-chairman years before Rosatom purchased its first share of Uranium One. In fact, when Bill accompanied the ex-chaiman to Kazakhstan, Uranium One was actually picking up mineral rights to Kazakhstani uranium fields out from under the Russianss. By many accounts, it was the Kremlin who was later behind the arrests of three top Kazatomprom execs who'd been involved in the deal with then UrAsia (later Uranium One).

There's no evidence to support that part of her claim.



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I dont know about the leaks but I called this a long time ago. It was pretty obvious...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 10:43 PM
link   

President-elect Trump's transition team on Washington Post report of secret CIA assessment saying Russia was trying to help Trump win White House: 'These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. 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"' - NBC News
end of alert


lol



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian



Should the White House have disregarded dissenting Republicans? The election is over, should we hear what the CIA assessment is? Will the investigation continue under the incoming Trump admin?


Coming back to your questions. At the time, it seemed that Hillary would win, so I wonder if Obama, taking it all into consideration, determined the best course of action was to wait it out, keep it from becoming public. Let action be taken after the election.
I would be curious now to read the assessment. Let it out.
Third question... Nyet. They would have nothing to gain, but rather all the oil and gas industry deals to lose.

Haha when I was a kid, the fear was that we'ld all be speaking Russian some day under Communist rule. Today, I just wonder what Putin is going to demand from Trump (the United States) as payback for helping him win. If people think that holding hands with the Saudi's was not a good thing, we now have a POTUS hand picked by Putin. How will he pull the strings on his puppet?



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Kettu


There's simply no other explanation why we're seeing rising levels of dis-associative disorders, where people can just pick and choose the reality they live in.


The word is dissociative.

And I never believed in Pizzagate.

And WaPo today is not what WaPo was in the past.

And it was Hillary that was afraid of Putin, not the other way around.

You all just can't wrap your head around the fact that Donal Trump won so you will dodge and deflect and do everything imaginable to delegitimize Trump voters because you refuse to accept reality.



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 10:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian

There's no evidence to support that part of her claim.


I didn't think so.

I've been watching to see if any of the accusations against Hillary for bribes or dirty money has any factual proof behind it.

So, far none - - as far as I can tell. Some might be considered questionable, but not illegal.



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueMule
It was pretty obvious what was going on. Wikileaks picks on NATO, etc.

The election scales were tipped by:

1. Russia
2. Comey
3. Fake news

You guys need to snap out of your denial.



Ummmm - No.

The election was influenced heavily by the truth exposed via the Wikileaks emails.

No one - I repeat no one - has questioned the validity of the Wikileaks emails. And had HRC not set up her own little comfy server in felony violation of the law and about a zillion government regualtions, none of this would have happened - would it? And to then say, "uh...sorry...I didn't know it was so bad".....are you flocking kidding me madame Secretary of State?! You're not some low level flunky with no government experience....holy crap.

It's amazing to me how all of the HRC apologists or Trump haters want to shoot the messenger. HRC and the DNC are the one who should be shot. They screwed all of us.

Yes, I am, or used to be a democrat. I didn't leave the party. The f#cking party left me.

Let's put the blame where it actually lies, shall we? Or are we not grown-ups here?



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 10:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Riffrafter

No one - I repeat no one - has questioned the validity of the Wikileaks emails.


You mean One Sided Wikileaks.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

"Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it"



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Riffrafter


According to Wikileaks themselves their info came from the CIA.


Where are you getting that from? That's 3-4 times this has been alluded to in the thread by different folks and the only link was to a thread with a video that didn't prove any such thing. If this is coming from WL, there should be a statement, tweet, interview, something. If you have it, I'd like to see it. If you don't, I'd be interested to know why you just said that.


The Washington Post on the other hand has become a joke even within the MSM itself which is quite a feat. They have been proven to be wrong, false, biased or inaccurate so many times I don't think anyone even bothers counting anymore.


I don't think there's any arguing that several of the writers definitely have a thing for Trump but that doesn't really phase me. It's not like they try to hide it. Do you think Julian Assange isn't biased? Serious question. Because I can give you plenty of evidence suggesting otherwise including the statements of his former #2, statements from himself, tweets, etc all showing their bias. They also retweeted the True Pundit story about the drone strike which gave it credibility which it certainly didn't deserve.

There's also legitimate questions as to whether or not WL excluded emails from the Syrian release. The are logs that tend to suggest that Assange has lied in the past about how certain material is acquired (see Thordarson chat logs).

I could go on but it's immaterial. Three journalists from the Washington Post have made specific claims that could easily be denied by McConnell, the White House, the CIA, etc. Instead, it looks like nobody is denying them, some people are actually corroborating them and the Trump transition team just wants us to ignore it.



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 11:01 PM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom


And nothing obscure about 'secret assessment' either? If WaPo is reporting it, then it's obviously not a secret.


Yeah that's an odd game you're trying to play. Is classified material that is leaked not "leaked classified material" or do we have to drop the word classified because it was leaked? Seems pretty desperate.



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 11:02 PM
link   
The evidence is overwhelming, and its embarrassing to even attempt to refute the plausibility that the Russians were not involved:

1. DNC/Podesta Email Hacks

Consensus is that Russia was behind it.

US government has officially accused Russia:

www.nytimes.com...

17 intelligence agencies say Russia was behind hack:

www.usatoday.com...

Guccifer 2.0:

motherboard.vice.com...

Julian Assange/Wikileaks:

www.forbes.com...

thefederalist.com...

20committee.com...

www.washingtonpost.com... nc-hacks/

Russian Propaganda/Disinformation Warfare Russian "Troll Factory":

www.nytimes.com...

www.newyorker.com...

Involvement in Election:

warontherocks.com...

www.washingtonpost.com... -4ca9-b712-716af66098fe_story.html

www.politico.com...

www.nytimes.com...

www.ox.ac.uk...

heatst.com...

heatst.com...

Previous Instances/Confirmed/Accepted to be True:

www.nytimes.com...

Ongoing/Future:

foreignpolicy.com...

foreignpolicy.com...

www.washingtonpost.com... upt-election/

www.reuters.com...


2. Russian Connections to Trump Team

Connection between Right Wing Populism Movements & Kremlin:

thediplomat.com...

Russian Support for Trump:

www.newsweek.com...

Trump ties to Russia:

time.com...

During Campaign:

www.nbcnews.com...


“A senior U.S. intelligence official assured that cybersecurity and the Russian government's attempts to interfere in the 2016 election have been briefed to, and discussed extensively with, both parties' candidates.... ‘To profess not to know at this point is willful misrepresentation,’ said the official. ‘The intelligence community has walked a very thin line in not taking sides, but both candidates have all the information they need to be crystal clear.’”


Paul Manafort (former campaign manager, current advisor):

www.nytimes.com...

Carter Page (former foreign policy advisor):

www.politico.com...

Mike McSherry (aide who helped lead convention strategy, worked alongside Manafort and Gatesto lobby):

www.buzzfeed.com...

Howard Lorber (Trump economic adviser):

www.washingtonpost.com...

Boris Epshteyn (senior Trump adviser and surrogate):

talkingpointsmemo.com...

Richard Burt (former adviser to Trump, helped write major foreign policy speech):

www.usrbc.org...

www.politico.eu...

www.vice.com...

Michael Flynn (Trump's choice for National Security Advisor):

thefederalist.com...

www.yahoo.com...

Even Michael Flynn's Son:

www.cnn.com...

Trump Jr. meeting with foreign think tank on Syria before election:

www.theguardian.com...

Russia in contact with Trump "allies" during campaign:

www.nytimes.com...

** Roger Stone Wikileaks Connection:**

www.theguardian.com...

Harry Reid on FBI investigation:

www.cnbc.com...

House Passes Bill against Russia, limiting diplomat movement:

thehill.com...

To be continued...



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 11:04 PM
link   
continued…

Thank god for figuring out that I can use a word processor to compile/edit all of this. Anyhow, the evidence continues to mount and pile up:

Trump Tower Server (Speculative/Inconclusive):

www.slate.com...

FBI Investigating Trump (Speculative/Unconfirmed):

heatst.com...

Claims of Russian Blackmail (Speculative/Unconfirmed):

www.motherjones.com... thehill.com...

3. Russian Hacking of Election Itself

Confirmed Hacks Before Election:

www.washingtonpost.com... 016/09/04/aec27fa0-7156-11e6-8533-6b0b0ded0253_story.html


"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.”


www.washingtonpost.com... -b19e428a975e_story.html

Hacking of the Election Itself (Unconfirmed/Speculative):

medium.com...@jhalderm/want-to-know-if-the-election-was-hacked-look-at-the-ballots-c61a6113b0ba#.nc8nolsat


attackers would probe election offices in advance to find ways to break into computers. Closer to election, when it was clear from polling which states would have close margins, the attackers might spread malware into machines in some of these states, rigging machines to shift a few % of the vote to favor desired candidate. This malware would likely be designed to remain inactive during preelection tests, do its dirty business during election, then erase itself when polls close. A skilled attacker’s work might leave no visible signs though the country might be surprised when results in several close states were off from preelection polls.


The body of evidence is staggering. The mountain of evidence with the fingerprints of Russia is overwhelming. The GOP obviously sold their soul to Russia in order to secure a White House victory. It’s clear from the statements coming from the Mitch McConnel that they don’t seem to care that Russia has been injecting propaganda and hacks into America.

To say that “well we do it, so it’s fair I guess” is an asinine excuse to reconcile the truth that Americans were duped, sucker punched and beaten. Its a shameful day in America when the coffee (strong as it is) can’t be smelled…and the people willingly want to remain asleep.



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Riffrafter


No one - I repeat no one - has questioned the validity of the Wikileaks emails. And had HRC not set up her own little comfy server in felony violation of the law and about a zillion government regualtions, none of this would have happened - would it? And to then say, "uh...sorry...I didn't know it was so bad".....are you flocking kidding me madame Secretary of State?! You're not some low level flunky with no government experience....holy crap.


None of the hacked emails came from the Clinton server.


It's amazing to me how all of the HRC apologists or Trump haters want to shoot the messenger. HRC and the DNC are the one who should be shot. They screwed all of us.


Russians hacking DNC staffers' emails or Podesta emails has absolutely nothing to do with how much you dislike HRC. They're separate issues. I don't understand how you don't get that? Throw Clinton in jail. Now, do you care if Russians are hacking emails of US politicians? Do you care if their doing so to influence the election?

Every scenario in life doesn't break down to good vs evil. Sometimes they're all bad guys. Being against Russian hacking doesn't necessitate being for Clinton.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join