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.

 

10 Ways the CIA’s ‘Russian Hacking’ Story is Left-Wing ‘Fake News’

page: 1
50
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+23 more 
posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Here's Breitbart's take on the Russian hack stories circulating all over the place.

Compare, trust and verify is in order.

They say it's all Left Wing dreck.

I think a lot of it is.


10 Ways the CIA’s ‘Russian Hacking’ Story is Left-Wing ‘Fake News’

1. There is actually no new information leading the CIA to its conclusion.

2. The “evidence” that the CIA has gathered is inconclusive.

3. The CIA is not making public claims that Russia hacked the election.

4. Despite left-wing “fake news,” there is no evidence Russian hackers actually distorted the voting process.

5. The Obama administration has a history of manipulating intelligence for political gain.

6. Julian Assange and Wikileaks have vigorously denied that the Russians were involved in Wikileaks’ disclosures.

7. The fact that the Russians might constantly be trying to hack U.S. systems, and might even specifically have targeted the election, does not prove that they succeeded.

8. Foreign interference in elections is nothing new — and the Obama administration is a prime culprit.

9. What would the consequences of allowing undue Russian influence in our elections be, exactly?

10. Occam’s razor: the simplest explanation for the “Russian hacking” story is that it is “fake news” that suits the left-wing media.



+8 more 
posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

this Russian hack 'news' definitely smells fishy.. haven't bought it since they first started saying it. Not buying it now.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   
hmm CIA as well as Hillary we also have



+9 more 
posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Why complete silence from the left about a foreigner in Soros actually owning the voting machines in numerous key states?
edit on 12-12-2016 by MysticPearl because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: khnum

Ah there it is! I had only heard of that story and this is the first I have seen the actual clip.

Kudos.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   
more importantly, what information was offered that affected the election? Was any of it fake?
I think the fact that anyone is pumping air into this story is hilarious. All it does it highlight the corruption again, when we were just starting to see that shiny thing to distract us.

And the idiots with the air pump are.....wait for it.........the same ones who were caught with their pants suit down!

Damn fun to watch.


+2 more 
posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 02:22 PM
link   
I guess it has been mentioned that the FBI doesn't agree with the CIA.

They must be scared to death what Trump and his team may find.

They are doing everything within their power to discredit and delegitimize his win.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

The left might just be sowing dissent and perhaps a feeling that the election lacks legitimacy so that if the electoral college goes faithless and votes for Clinton there will be less outrage. I'm not saying the electoral college will go faithless, but let's wait and see.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

And I thought the left didn't
buy conspiracy theories, which is what it is.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

1. According to who?
2. According to two Republicans who've viewed it, one of them being McConnell whose wife just got an appointment.
3. Of course they're not? The CIA doesn't do that.
4. What kind of evidence are you looking for?
5. Example?
6. It was denied once? No reason to believe that Assange would even know the original source if an intermediary was used.
7. Okay.
8. Oh, so it's okay it happened because we "deserve it" because Trump Pravda says so. Got it.
9. Oh! Russian influence is okay as long as Breitbart shills approve. Check.
10. They were really stretching to get this list to 10.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 02:27 PM
link   
double post.


edit on 2016-12-12 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 02:28 PM
link   
The government makes a headline about it so it must be true. I seriously wonder if the fedsand its 3 letter agencies really think all of its citizens are idiots who can't think for themselves? Hmmm.

edit on 12-12-2016 by 4N0M4LY because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Another member pointed out that there might be some sort of power struggle going on between the Clinton-Bush CIA vs FBI and other agencies. 2016 has been a real eye opener.

Q&A: Why the CIA, FBI differ on Russian election hacking



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: network dude

And I thought the left didn't
buy conspiracy theories, which is what it is.



only the ones that might benefit them.
www.nytimes.com...



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: xuenchen

1. According to who?
2. According to two Republicans who've viewed it, one of them being McConnell whose wife just got an appointment.
3. Of course they're not? The CIA doesn't do that.
4. What kind of evidence are you looking for?
5. Example?
6. It was denied once? No reason to believe that Assange would even know the original source if an intermediary was used.
7. Okay.
8. Oh, so it's okay it happened because we "deserve it" because Trump Pravda says so. Got it.
9. Oh! Russian influence is okay as long as Breitbart shills approve. Check.
10. They were really stretching to get this list to 10.



The news is discussing an idea that the Russians are to blame for the hack and it may have influenced the election.

Is that your position as well? and you are ignoring what was hacked and it's legitimacy to effectively "kill the messenger", is that about right?



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 02:37 PM
link   
boogeyman!



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Ah, Breitbart the media mouth piece of the Trump Administration.

When the first thing I see when I open up the website is junk it wants me to buy instead of news I know their agenda is.

Besides I am pretty sure its an editoral because of who wrote it.


Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named one of the “most influential” people in news media in 2016. His new book, See No Evil: 19 Hard Truths the Left Can’t Handle, is available from Regnery through Amazon. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.


Notice more pushing to buy things in the about the author section.

Another thing many of the "sources" for the bullet points are just other breitbart articles. Sources in those articles consists of more breitbart articles. Some of the actual not breitbart sources take one or two sentences that fit the narrative of the breitbart article.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

No? I'm saying this list is pretty weak fodder for people who don't want to believe in Russian intervention in the election or worse, simply don't care because Donald Trump won.

The idea that this is new because the Democrats have been raising a stink and blabbing to the media is ridiculous. There was evidence that the Russians were involved in hacking the DNC emails before the first email was even released. Before the "Guccifer 2.0" persona was even created.

In fact, today is the six month anniversary of that evidence being published by the CTO of CrowdStrike. Have you read through any of that or the mulitple independent reviews of the forensic evidence that arrived at the same conclusion? Unlike some of these other posters, you're in the IT field. You're in a position to read it and make up your own mind.

This isn't something that just sprung up out of nowhere in the last week. People putting their fingers in their ears and yelling "Nah nah nah mainstream "fake news!" Left-wing plot! Didn't happen! No proof!" isn't going to change that.
edit on 2016-12-12 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

So you're saying it's definitely the Russians.

I thought so.



+7 more 
posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Team-Hillikileaks and her band of anti-Trump SJWs will continue to hang their hats on this B S claim of Russia meddling in US elections until CNN & the TVs tell them otherwise.

and of course, for everyone else its common knowledge that any claim without clear concise proof is BS.

Russia, or any of her affiliates, hacking or even meddling in USA elections is a fairy tale.

But, show me any proof and I'll take a look - so far BS claims without proof is BS.

NB: Your source is a trigger because Steve Bannon.



new topics

top topics



 
50
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join