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.

 

So the long-awaited 'The Russians Did It' report on US election is pure propaganda

page: 5
59
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBulk
I'd like to know how the Russians forced Hillary to be a corrupt liar and Democrats to collude with CNN to rig debates.


That's a good question.

Maybe the Russians are the real force behind the Clinton Foundation?




posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Hacking DNC is not hacking US government. DNC is a private organization.



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: daftpink

There's nothing particularly "long awaited" about this report. That would imply that this specific report was anticipated. What was released to the public isn't "evidence" but rather essentially a joint statement of conclusions from the FBI, NSA and CIA.

This is mentioned twice in the document:


This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment. This document’s conclusions are identical to the highly classified assessment, but this document does not include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence on key elements of the influence campaign. Given the redactions, we made minor edits purely for readability and flow.



Thus, while the conclusions in the report are all reflected in the classified assessment, the declassified report does not and cannot include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence and sources and methods



It neglects to mention the negative campaign directed against Trump by US media and others, which is still ongoing and ironically, this report is a part of.


Why should the document detail the nature of coverage of Trump by the media? The document doesn't mention the GOP's ten plus hours of televised kangaroo court which was little more than a failed publicity stunt where a series of hostile GOP congressman took turns berating and interrogating Clinton on national television either. It doesn't mention the Comey letters nor does it detail Bret Baier's election-week promotion of false rumors from the FBI sourced to unnamed individuals "with knowledge of the investigation" who were almost certainly two long time acquaintances of Donald Trump and active supporters of his campaign — Giuliani and Kallstrom — the former being a surrogate for DJT and recipient of hundreds of thousands of dollars from the pro-Trump Robert Mercer PAC.

Why doesn't it? Because none of that s# is relevant to the topic at hand. We have a guarantee of freedom of the press in the First Amendment and we have libel laws for individuals seeking legal redress for publication of false and damaging claims. All media is biased to some extent because all people have bias.

There is no tradition of strict neutrality in the media nor are there laws seeking to mandate this impossible standard. More to the point, the very nature of a person's behavior and statements will dictate to a degree the nature of the reporting. For example, how very very very few would argue that coverage of John Wayne Gacy was unfairly biased? How about none? In other words, if DJT wasn't a fountain gushing stupid s# and constantly attacking the media for critical reporting up to and including naming specific journalists for attack by the angry mob, perhaps the coverage would have been less critical.


The report gives little insight into the actual hacks and the leaks to Wikileaks. They don't mention Seth Rich, an alleged whistleblower who worked for DNC and who was then shot dead after the leaks.


There is plenty of information about the hacks available publically and in my experience, many have gone to great lengths to dismiss it or even deny its existence. Why should there be any mention of Seth Rich? Because his murder was exploited as a red herring? Even Assange who deliberately encouraged this wouldn't go so far as to make any comment alleging that Seth Rich was in fact a whistleblower let alone the source of the DNC emails.

Furthermore, it's obvious that Seth Rich is a red herring because if he wasn't, why wouldn't Julian Assange name Seth Rich as the source of the DNC emails? Seth Rich is dead. Withholding his identity as the source wouldn't be protecting him from anything and in fact, by not revealing this information plainly, Assange would be abetting murderers and working against the interests of whistleblowers to come.

You keep talking about Seth Rich though. You clearly are buying into a very flimsy and transparent misdirection.

Assange's actions only add to the picture of his williness to deceive. And before anyone responds to me with some bulls# about how "I bet you loved Assange when" — you would be wrong. If anyone can find me saying anything flattering about Assange ever, I will print it out and eat the paper.


We see the propaganda! It is being picked apart, and laughed at.


I see willfully ignorant fools constructing their own bubble of ignorance and laughing at their own manipulation which is pretty damn pathetic.
edit on 2017-1-7 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian
Hilary Clinton sent Ambassador Stevens to die there. He had learned about to much gun running and probably child trafficking, she made sure they knew where he was and she told the military workers ready to save him to stand down.



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 01:03 PM
link   
This document is bs. If one was inclined they could find examples of any news agency behaving the way RT does. RT being the subject of 30% of the report. Are we to ignore that, or treat them as commies too?



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: flyingdutchman2112
a reply to: theantediluvian
Hilary Clinton sent Ambassador Stevens to die there. He had learned about to much gun running and probably child trafficking, she made sure they knew where he was and she told the military workers ready to save him to stand down.


Absolutely none of that is true. Not only did HRC not give a stand down order (which is misrepresentation of the claims to begin with) the Republican authored report from the House Select Committee on Benghazi includes statements from the CIA chief of base that he did not give a stand down order which is the ACTUAL claim that was made by members of the Annex Security Team.

You'd know this is if you stopped believing the lies of Sean Hannity and did your own research.



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Templeton

RT is Russian state run propaganda. The editor-in-chief of RT has a phone on her desk that is a secure, direct line to the Kremlin.

Time (Mar 2015)


It was just past midnight on Feb. 28 in the Moscow studios of RT, Russia’s state-funded international tele­vision news network, when word of the assassination reached the staff: Boris Nemtsov, a leading figure in the fractious opposition to President Vladimir Putin, had been shot dead a short walk from Red Square. Later that morning, Putin’s spokesman set the tone for RT’s coverage. “What goes without saying,” said Dmitri Peskov, “is that this is a 100% provocation.” His implication was clear: the Nemtsov shooting was staged by Russia’s enemies, not to silence the victim but to discredit the regime he opposed.



Simonyan, now 34, bristles at suggestions that her media empire is not editorially independent. Is it possible, for instance, that someone from the Kremlin might call her up and demand that she not broadcast a particular story? “How can you imagine such a thing?” she asks, looking genuinely hurt.

And yet on her desk sits an old yellow telephone, a government landline, the sort with no dial pad, the sort usually seen in the offices of senior Russian officials. It is her secure connection, she admits, directly to the Kremlin. What’s it for, then, if not to talk shop? “The phone exists,” she says, “to discuss secret things.”

edit on 2017-1-7 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 01:19 PM
link   
I have a suggestion but it's not based on facts at all. Just an idea ok, a thought exercise, so don't take what I say seriously or anything. Remember I didn't vote for trump and I'm 95% confident our intelligence agencies know what they're doing regarding the claim Russia did the hacks. I also remember well the president debate when Hillary brought up the 17 US intellgence agencies who were convinced Russia was behind wikileaks.

What if our intelligence agencies were trying to get Hillary elected? They believed the accusations against Trump outweighed the wikileaks and clinton server investigation, so there was high confidence she would win. They in fact are responsible for the wikileaks, but why you ask? Because they needed a fallback in case Hillary lost. IF she lost, they would claim wikileaks originates in Russia. They could use this, amongst other ploys, to control Trump. Remember Trump wanted to cozy up with Russia and the intellignece agencies are tasked with defending us against Russia. So now that Russia is firmly an enemy again, Trump cannot get in bed with them like he hoped. They also know he can't be trusted as POTUS--he's hte most unqualified candidate in history. They've done deep analysis on his personality, habits and so forth. They have the next 4/8 years planned out. They're protecting this country from Trump.

I did/do believe Trump was unqualified, maybe the most unqualified in history, so I'd be not surprised they're trying to protect us from him.
edit on 1/7/2017 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   
If CIA wanted to fabricate some evidence, all they had to do was find a man posing as an FSB agent whom CIA caught and have him confess he is an FSB agent. I bet 1 million dollars can hire any man to do that.

There's an old Chinese say, mo xiang shen bu zhi, chu fei ji mo wei. If you don't want someone to know you didn't something, the only way is not doing it in the first place.

Evidence can be fabricated, but once exposed it would bring you down to Hell.
edit on 7-1-2017 by FanDanGo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I know. I watched them grow with apprehension since they were Russia Today. However, the practices the document points out like reporting on OWS, health concerns of fracking, or promoting social media are all common elements of any news agency. Why are they being pointed out? Which leads to my original qurstion.



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Russia is not the enemy. Obama and Hillary tried to overthrow Putin, Netanyahu, Erdogan. They overthrew Yanukovych in Ukraine in conjunction with Poroshenko. They overthrew Gaddafi in Libya. They tried to overthrow Assad in Syria. Russia has been on the defensive ever since 1991. Russia is not the aggressor. Russia don't want confrontation. Russia has never invaded anyone or caused trouble anywhere. Ethnic Russians are treated like dirt in ex Soviet republics and Russia don't even care about that.



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 01:36 PM
link   
I'll accept the US intel community's findings when they actually perform a proper/thorough investigation into the DNC and its servers.

Investigations are what intel agencies do but in this instance their hands were tied? We just have to accept Crowdstirke's assessment because our own intel agents are completely impotent, can't perform their duties. Really?

FBI, CIA, NSA...meh apparently Crowdstrike's on the job, providing/authenticating US intel with superior, far reaching powers. I had no idea intel agents are simply "crime monitors," outside contractors have to do the actual investigation/legwork.

If something as basic as investigating DNC servers is beyond the scope/reach of American intel, that's pretty sad. I refuse to jump on their bandwagon when beckoned based on that failure alone. Whatever the Russians may have done pales in comparison to the level of incompetence exhibited by the intel community.

The hubby and I hail from the Chicago area. We've been lifelong dems just like our parents. The Russians/Putin had absolutely nothing to do with our dissatisfaction with the dems/their candidate. The behavior we witnessed with our own eyes is what turned us against the democratic party.

Bill's meeting with Loretta Lynch could've been handled more discreetly, not so in our face, but he purposely chose to be blatant about it. I bet he laughed/thought it was cute. I expected intelligent/honest answers from Hillary concerning the lackadaisical handling of communications but she flat out refused to deliver. The best she offered was the "like with a cloth or something" comment. Nothing but disrespectful BS not worthy of my vote.

Hillary and Bills behavior struck me as irrational if not outright insane and extremely suspect. Hillary is a very well educated woman playing dumb for reasons we're not privy to. The American people deserve better than blatant lies, flippant dismissals and meaningless third party "assessments." Disgusting behavior, imo, far worse than anything the Russians could do because I expect dishonor from them.



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: daftpink

There's nothing particularly "long awaited" about this report. That would imply that this specific report was anticipated. What was released to the public isn't "evidence" but rather essentially a joint statement of conclusions from the FBI, NSA and CIA.

This is mentioned twice in the document:


This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment. This document’s conclusions are identical to the highly classified assessment, but this document does not include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence on key elements of the influence campaign. Given the redactions, we made minor edits purely for readability and flow.



Thus, while the conclusions in the report are all reflected in the classified assessment, the declassified report does not and cannot include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence and sources and methods



It neglects to mention the negative campaign directed against Trump by US media and others, which is still ongoing and ironically, this report is a part of.


Why should the document detail the nature of coverage of Trump by the media? The document doesn't mention the GOP's ten plus hours of televised kangaroo court which was little more than a failed publicity stunt where a series of hostile GOP congressman took turns berating and interrogating Clinton on national television either. It doesn't mention the Comey letters nor does it detail Bret Baier's election-week promotion of false rumors from the FBI sourced to unnamed individuals "with knowledge of the investigation" who were almost certainly two long time acquaintances of Donald Trump and active supporters of his campaign — Giuliani and Kallstrom — the former being a surrogate for DJT and recipient of hundreds of thousands of dollars from the pro-Trump Robert Mercer PAC.

Why doesn't it? Because none of that s# is relevant to the topic at hand. We have a guarantee of freedom of the press in the First Amendment and we have libel laws for individuals seeking legal redress for publication of false and damaging claims. All media is biased to some extent because all people have bias.

There is no tradition of strict neutrality in the media nor are there laws seeking to mandate this impossible standard. More to the point, the very nature of a person's behavior and statements will dictate to a degree the nature of the reporting. For example, how very very very few would argue that coverage of John Wayne Gacy was unfairly biased? How about none? In other words, if DJT wasn't a fountain gushing stupid s# and constantly attacking the media for critical reporting up to and including naming specific journalists for attack by the angry mob, perhaps the coverage would have been less critical.


The report gives little insight into the actual hacks and the leaks to Wikileaks. They don't mention Seth Rich, an alleged whistleblower who worked for DNC and who was then shot dead after the leaks.


There is plenty of information about the hacks available publically and in my experience, many have gone to great lengths to dismiss it or even deny its existence. Why should there be any mention of Seth Rich? Because his murder was exploited as a red herring? Even Assange who deliberately encouraged this wouldn't go so far as to make any comment alleging that Seth Rich was in fact a whistleblower let alone the source of the DNC emails.

Furthermore, it's obvious that Seth Rich is a red herring because if he wasn't, why wouldn't Julian Assange name Seth Rich as the source of the DNC emails? Seth Rich is dead. Withholding his identity as the source wouldn't be protecting him from anything and in fact, by not revealing this information plainly, Assange would be abetting murderers and working against the interests of whistleblowers to come.

You keep talking about Seth Rich though. You clearly are buying into a very flimsy and transparent misdirection.

Assange's actions only add to the picture of his williness to deceive. And before anyone responds to me with some bulls# about how "I bet you loved Assange when" — you would be wrong. If anyone can find me saying anything flattering about Assange ever, I will print it out and eat the paper.


We see the propaganda! It is being picked apart, and laughed at.


I see willfully ignorant fools constructing their own bubble of ignorance and laughing at their own manipulation which is pretty damn pathetic.


Who did the investigation on the dnc server? Was it the FBI or CIA or NSA? No it was a pro clinton anti-russian ex russian ceo whos business conducted the research on the dnc hack. The intelligence agencies based their information on that report. Then we have Hillary's basement server which was hacked by a ROMANIAN hacker name guccifer he was sent to american and jailed for hacking her server and up to 5 other foriegn nations hacked her server too. Podestas Password for his email was "Password" honestly this is a stupid witch hunt to take the heat off clinton for her actual crime regarding classified information.

So the only thing we see here is one questionable company supporting these claims and the other agencies agreement over that one companies conclusion. Lol why not release all the information in full considering its already done the damage. No it needs to be secretive because bs excuses of national security and trade secrets.



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Brennan and Clapper are getting fired and replaced by Pompeo and Coats. About time. Trump says to them. YOU ARE FIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIRED!



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Brennan and Clapper failed to protect Americans from foreign and domestic cyber terrorists. They should be charged with treason. They have no right to write up a report and pretend they did their job.
edit on 7-1-2017 by FanDanGo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: banjobrain




the report cannot name specific names or sources because that would expose tradecraft secrets.


Your more right than you know, and others more wrong than they know.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

They are not going to come out and say they been waging Cyberwarfare against Russia since before the election came around per the commander in chiefs orders.

See Equation Group.

The DNC are just poor little victims.



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti
This will be part of what defines Obama's legacy. A sore loser who thinks he's more important than the position of the president. He is the first president in my lifetime (starting with Kennedy) who can't let go and will do everything he can to subvert the incoming president.

I can only guess that it is Obama that pushed the agencies to put out this report. I've never seen any single government agency work so fast much less 3 working together. Normally an investigation like this would take many months with a lot more review time.


the investigation has taken months, apparently that is one of the things that you do not know took place


And from what you have gathered, what is the conclusion of the investigation?



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: daftpink

Seems to be enough to change Trump's opinion...

You obvioulsy missed that news?

The cool kids are now conceding that Russia did at least try to influence the election.

Jury is still out if it succeeded or not


Links?



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: daftpink

Seems to be enough to change Trump's opinion...

You obvioulsy missed that news?

The cool kids are now conceding that Russia did at least try to influence the election.

Jury is still out if it succeeded or not


Russia can't believe it was this easy....Putin is giddy that Trump himself, doesn't even believe his own intelligence agencies...they now have the true Manchurian candidate...they are laughing about all the stupid Americans that bought into Trumps line of BS


You eat up the propaganda like a fly on $H!7.

Precisely what evidence has been presented by the intelligence agencies showing that it was FOR A FACT RUSSIA?????

You know if you are going to go sanctioning a nation you should be ONE HUNDRED PERCENT SURE they have committed the offence you allege.

So I ask again where is the undeniable proof?

why cant they show the trail like they did with China? Oh, because it wasnt the Russians.




posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian


Assange's actions only add to the picture of his williness to deceive.


How? By releasing facts? Why don't you try attacking the information Assange released? Oh because you don't have a leg to stand on there. Pleeeease go back to watching CNN and eating up your propaganda, wash it down with the kool-aid.



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join