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: 3
50
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Until that happens, I consider your neo-McCarthyism has reached pathological levels.

And in order to fuel your paranoia :
Why send a reminder about the said documents existence then ?




posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: network dude


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.


Your'e wasting precious oxygen, people are taking sides and just don't want to discuss it with some rationale.
There's even talk about some struggle between the CIA and the FBI..jeesh, that's been going on for God knows how long....on the face of it that is. Whatever, this is what people should be discussing, (extract The Guardian)

'A secret CIA analysis found that people with connections to the Russian government provided emails, hacked from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign, to the whistleblower website WikiLeaks in the final months of the election, according to a Washington Post report published late Friday.

“The FBI had this material for a long time but Comey, who is of course a Republican, refused to divulge specific information about Russia and the presidental election,” Reid told MSNBC’s AM Joy on Saturday. Comey testified to Congress in July that he was no longer a registered Republican, though he belonged to the party most of his life.'

So according to the hill, the CIA knew about a Russian source/s, but also that Comey of the FBI sat on it, (we also know that Comey did some grandstanding over the more recently discovered - not new e-mails at a critical time in the election)
It does sound stinky, but let's not forget either that Assange insists that there were no Russian government sources involved in the e-mail hacks.
So, either someone is lying, Assange, the CIA or the FBI, or they are all talking shiite since they don't know, however that e-mails were hacked, is not in doubt.

www.theguardian.com...



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Sublimecraft


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.


Here you go. This isn't a new thing. The publicly available information was persuasive enough in terms of the DNC hacks. I haven't seen any proof about Podesta.

You'll have floppy headed muppet pro-liars like Sean Spicer casting doubt on the evidence but what he won't tell is that the RNC contracted CrowdStrike right after CrowdStrike's CTO published evidence that Russians had hacked the DNC. That evidence came out the day before the "Guccifer 2.0" WordPress site was put up — before that the general public even knew that that there had been a hack.

As I said, the Podesta hack is a different story but when it comes to the DNC hack, there's a significant amount of forensic evidence that points to Russians and you don't need the CIA to brief you on it. It's about as much forensic evidence as there ever is and more than in most cases.


Your source is a trigger because Steve Bannon.


Seriously, screw Breitbart.


Ok here are the quotes from each of the sources in the thread you directed us to followed by a link to the article:




United States officials say they believe with a high degree of confidence that the Democratic Party material was hacked by the Russian government


Source



Clinton and the US media have alleged that Russia was behind the DNC hack, despite failing to provide any actual evidence, while the Obama administration has never publicly blamed the Russian government for that attack.


Source



Clinton’s staff accused Trump of allegedly cooperating with Russian hackers, who were suspected of hacking into the DNC’s servers.


Source



While the FBI has launched an investigation, as of press time, nobody has conclusively proven who hacked into the DNC’s network, much less demonstrated what their motives were. But that didn’t stop Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook from appearing on CNN on July 24 to allege that Russia was behind the hack.


Source

So basically still zero proof of Russia interfering with the election.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: MysticPearl
a reply to: theantediluvian

And right on time, there's the generic liberal tantrum in response.


There's nothing generic about me but I will admit that I have a difficult time picking some of you out from the herd. Could you point to yourself in this photo please?



He's the Brahhhhhh on the left.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Your evidence consists of what exactly?

Unnamed sources, coincidences, mental gymnastics, and a whole lot of BS.

Nothing you presented would lead to anything 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. You don't know, you are only making assumptions and accusations, and have absolutely nothing other than flimsy circumstantial evidence at best.

On another note, had the DNC not been a corrupt criminal organization, those emails would only have served to bolster Hillary's win.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: MysticPearl
a reply to: theantediluvian

There you go, let it out.

We're all here to assist in helping you in getting thru this tough time.


You have to remember what it's been like for the last 4 years. This was put out on July 17, 2013. Heh





The 2016 election was all over at that point.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
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.


OK, so even if there is a picture of Putin himself, holding the laptop with CONCRETE proof that he was the guy who leaked the e-mails to wikileaks, and next to that was a signed affidavit that he did this to sway the election to Trump, what exactly does that do the legitimacy of what was leaked? I'm not sure you are grasping this.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

This is the best I come up with :





posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: theantediluvian
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.


OK, so even if there is a picture of Putin himself, holding the laptop with CONCRETE proof that he was the guy who leaked the e-mails to wikileaks, and next to that was a signed affidavit that he did this to sway the election to Trump, what exactly does that do the legitimacy of what was leaked? I'm not sure you are grasping this.


Not a flippin' thing. They, for some reason, don't seem to look at what corruption has been exposed but instead deflect and attack the messenger because they can't deny any of it.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: MysticPearl
a reply to: theantediluvian

And right on time, there's the generic liberal tantrum in response.


There's nothing generic about me but I will admit that I have a difficult time picking some of you out from the herd. Could you point to yourself in this photo please?

Still using that same meme from your editorial on DailyKos.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Putin's had it with the "West's Imaginary Threats."
I can't say I blame him.

Worldcrunch



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Dmitri Alperovitch's post Bears in the Midst: Intrusion into the Democratic National Committee, published June 14, 2016, the day before the appearance of "Guccifer 2.0" and updated on June 15, 2016.

Think this is new? No. It was covered later that day by a number of outlets: NPR, NYT and WaPo.

The bulls# narrative that this is something that was invented in the last week or two to delegitimize Trump is just that, bulls#. Hell, a comment from Donald Trump was quoted by Fox News on June 17:

Fox News - Lone hacker claims responsibility for DNC breach, but fingers still point at Russia


Trump, in a statement released earlier this week, accused the DNC of inventing the "hack" to provide a distraction from Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton's issues. The presumptive Republican Presidential nominee also downplayed the information contained in the DNC’s playbook. "This is all information that has been out there for many years. Much of it is false and/or entirely inaccurate," he said.


Trump's first response was that the hack didn't happen and it was a hoax to distract from HRC's "issues." Now he's tweeting:

"Why wasn't this brought up before election?"

Am I suffering from the most severe case of Mandela Effect ever? I seem to remember this being brought up before any emails were even published. Oh wait, no, I'm not. Because it's all sitting right there!



EDIT:

Must not have happened because it was reported by Brietbart.
edit on 2016-12-12 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: omniEther

Awww.. that's you isn't it ssenerawa? I figured as much when you referenced the thread the other day. OmniEther account made the same day as the last day the other account was logged in? Talking about a deleted thread that was up for a few hours in the middle of the night a week before your account was created?

Are you a glutton for punishment? Still trying to push your imbecilic fail, clown? Want me to embarass you into changing your username again, dummy?



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude


OK, so even if there is a picture of Putin himself, holding the laptop with CONCRETE proof that he was the guy who leaked the e-mails to wikileaks, and next to that was a signed affidavit that he did this to sway the election to Trump, what exactly does that do the legitimacy of what was leaked? I'm not sure you are grasping this.


Huh? Where did I say that the hacked emails weren't legitimate? I didn't. I haven't. Straw man much? On top of that, you're doing it to move the goal posts. Lmao.

What do you think would have been in the RNC emails had they been hacked and released? I'm sure it would have been all manners of embarassing things. Alas, the hacking and releasing of documents was one sided — by design.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke


Why send a reminder about the said documents existence then ?


To take some of the heat off. Now WikiLeaks can claim that they published hacks that make the Trump camp look bad too. Of course, when they were released originally it was to make the United States look bad. Just so long as the United States looks corrupt and Russia looks like the champion of truth, justice and decency:




posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Breitbart trying to call someone else out for fake news


You can't make this stuff up.

(Then again, I guess you can. Breitbart does it on the regular.)



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   
What difference does it make?

The democrats opened the vote up to Non Americans

They are unconcerned about foreign voters? They allowed Mexico to vote, may as well ship in half of Russia to vote as well

Im for anything that flies the bird directly in the elite faces.
As for bush........ He should shut his globalist face and take a nap. A dirt nap



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Letter to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
From Devin Nunes, Chairman


Dear Director Clapper:
Media articles published over the last several days have highlighted supposed analytic
disagreements within the Intelligence Community (IC) over alleged Russian cyber activities
relating
to the recent U.S. Presidential election. Such articles have stated, among other claims, that the
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) have developed
conflicting intelligence assessments and delivered to Congress "divergent messages" regarding the
Russian government's alleged cyber attacks connected to the election. The claims in these articles
also appear to conflict with recent IC statements to the public and to this Committee characterizing
alleged Russian activities.

Over the past several months, the Committee has received multiple briefings and
assessments from the IC on the alleged Russian activities and cyber threats. On November 17,
2016, you told the Committee during an open hearing that the IC lacked strong evidence connecting
Russian govemment cyber-attacks and WikiLeaks disclosures
, testifying that "as far as the
WikiLeaks connection, the evidence there is not as strong) and we don't have good insight into the
sequencing of the releases or when the data may have been provided." According to new press
reports, this is no longer the CIA's position.


... etc.

I'm glad that someone is putting the CIA to explain their sudden attempts to push the Russia narrative, after previously saying there was no proof - just in time for the electoral college vote.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 09:37 PM
link   
One word....

PROOF??????

Got any???

Any at ALL??????????

ETA..."Proof???" meaning, those who suggest there is some credible backing to the Russian 'influence' angle. (sorry for not being clear initially)



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



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 09:45 PM
link   



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join