Intelligence Report released “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections

The report was declasified shortly after President Elect Trump had seen it , here it is in pdf format.

“Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections” is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment that has been provided to the President and to recipients approved by the President.

Key Judgments
Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression
of Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these
activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort
compared to previous operations.

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US
presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process,
denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess
Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We
have high confidence in these judgments.

We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s
election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her
unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence
in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence

Moscow’s approach evolved over the course of the campaign based on Russia’s understanding of the
electoral prospects of the two main candidates. When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton
was likely to win the election, the Russian influence campaign began to focus more on undermining
her future presidency.

Further information has come to light since Election Day that, when combined with Russian behavior
since early November 2016, increases our confidence in our assessments of Russian motivations and
goals.
www.dni.gov...

a reply to: gortex

Nice thread...

EDIT: you added more but you are supposed to talk for at least a good paragraph.

I wouldn't mention it really except I've known and read your posts a long time and this just seems lazy.

In Summation, the Russkies hate Hilary.

In short it says that the hackers used a ukrainian malware that is accessible by anyone, Even you or me.

And the hack did not have any effect whatsoever on the final vote tally.

We did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election. The US Intelligence Community is charged with monitoring and assessing the intentions, capabilities, and actions of foreign actors; it does not analyze US political processes or US public opinion.

Yawn.

a reply to: gortex

what a load of bullocks. so they basically have a 'hunch'
they use the word 'influence' so loosely.

--basically this is beef between HRC and Putin and the Olympics, and Syria and online trolling and the state sponsored RT outlet.

i know what i'd use for toilet paper today if i were Trump.

this is worse than Iraq... they didnt even try in this one.
i hope the classified version wasnt this elementary.

Sourcing Many of the key judgments in this assessment rely on a body of reporting from multiple sources that are consistent with our understanding of Russian behavior. Insights into Russian efforts — including specific cyber operations — and Russian views of key US players derive from multiple corroborating sources. Some of our judgments about Kremlin preferences and intent are drawn from the behavior of Kremlin - loyal political figures, state media, and pro - Kremlin social media actors, all of whom the Kremlin either directly uses to convey messages or who are answerab le to the Kremlin. The Russian leadership invests significant resources in both foreign and domestic propaganda and places a premium on transmitting what it views as consistent, self - reinforcing narratives regarding its desires and redlines, whether on Uk raine, Syria, or relations with the U nited S tate

a reply to: gortex

"high confidence "...." Moderate confidence" = college words for " we think"

a reply to: gortex

I don't have a chance to read it right now but I have 1 question. Is there any proof? in regards to the "hackers"

IMO doubtful the dems are butt hurt that the ball is no longer in their court.

originally posted by: slapjacks
a reply to: gortex

I don't have a chance to read it right now but I have 1 question. Is there any proof? in regards to the "hackers"

IMO doubtful the dems are butt hurt that the ball is no longer in their court.

No proof, Only "confidence"

I don't have confidence in their "confidence"....

So the same thing we've been fed spoon and ladle?

a reply to: ColaTesla

Indeed, that confidence was blown when they confidently stated their confidence in Saddam confidently having WMDs.

a reply to: slapjacks

As expected, instant dismissal of the report.

Yet many popular conspiracy theories are based on a lot less.

Not really surprising I suppose.

What I find interesting, is that you believe the FBI, CIA and NSA must be pro Hillary", or at least pro democrat. That's hard to believe.

originally posted by: myselfaswell
a reply to: ColaTesla

Indeed, that confidence was blown when they confidently stated their confidence in Saddam confidently having WMDs.

What was used on the Kurds then?

Reads almost like that Statistics 440 course they joked about in College, Lying with Statistics. Overwhelm the audience with numbers, charts, graphs, lots of words and narrate your story. I'm sure there are similar courses in many disciplines.

Its amazing how some Americans have turned on their intelligence gathering community because it doesn't fit their messiah's paradigm.

Pity none of them did that when Bush was pushing his Iraq war rhetoric based on their assessments.

originally posted by: Chadwickus

originally posted by: myselfaswell
a reply to: ColaTesla

Indeed, that confidence was blown when they confidently stated their confidence in Saddam confidently having WMDs.

What was used on the Kurds then?

American WMD's

originally posted by: neformore
Its amazing how some Americans have turned on their intelligence gathering community because it doesn't fit their messiah's paradigm.

Pity none of them did that when Bush was pushing his Iraq war rhetoric based on their assessments.

It is a shame that we all let that happen back then, But we are smarter now + armed with the internet, In bush's time, Many including me, relied on the television for information.....

No proof, Only "confidence" I don't have confidence in their "confidence"....

True, I don't think many of us do.

originally posted by: neo96

We did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election. The US Intelligence Community is charged with monitoring and assessing the intentions, capabilities, and actions of foreign actors; it does not analyze US political processes or US public opinion.

Yawn.

Looks like some people missed it the first time.

Here it is again and let it sink in.

Stark contrast between what 'Intelligence' Officials are saying compared to what politicians are saying.

a reply to: Chadwickus

You might want to check your history.

Yes there were weapons PRIOR to the 1st war. Subsequently the vast bulk of stockpiles were destroyed.

The UNBELIEVABLY CONFIDENT premise to the 2nd war was that vast quantities remained. While there were remnants of chemical weapons and dilapidated missiles there were certainly no stockpiles nor nuclear devices.

The UNBELIEVABLY CONFIDENT assessment that was made regarding WMDs, by design, killed hundreds of thousands of people.