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

a reply to: daftpink
Great thread and points in the OP. This is obvious propaganda.

For the life of me, I can't see how everyone can fall for this, time after time. Will we ever learn?

a reply to: theantediluvian

There is plenty of information about the hacks available publically...

Yeah there is plenty of propaganda ahem (information) alright. Notice you didn't say evidence.

There is NO PROOF. The fact major news networks are standing by their claims and parroting this garbage story just reaffirms my distrust in our media and government.

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.

Maybe all the argument about the viability of the report may
keep us off the subject of why there's no meat in it.
I don't want to think about how big that hot potato is that
so many agencies are keeping our paws away from... and how
many different varieties of dirt is still making it seem cool.

I heard too many plausible reasons why there's no traction
in any media about some really ugly allegations... and where
the strings end up. Stuff nobody can talk about anywhere at all.

And with the "national security" meme getting even more
mileage than the interstate commerce clause (never thought
I'd live long enough to say that) something's gotta give. i.e. :
how many spooks are destroying our NS in its own name?

If the digging at that hot potato full of worms keeps up, I worry
about somebody about to get exposed pulling a plug. Or worse,
pushing a button or two for the ultimate diversion.

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.

If you honestly don't believe this report is propaganda I feel sorry for you as it is a bubble of ignorance you must be in if you believe the US does not regularly practice propaganda.
I mentioned the points you highlighted to outline the irony and the hypocrisy of the report. I thought that was clear. They are accusing Russia of things that the US and the UK are guilty of. It's boring more than anything, as people see through it so easily. Most people.
Can you provide sources for the public info on the hacks? I haven't seen any technical details in the public domain.

a reply to: UnBreakable

Apparent to who?

originally posted by: FanDanGo
None of Trump's or any RNC emails and twitters were hacked. And I'm sure many people, both foreign and domestic, tried to hack them. They had good protection. Gotta give them credit for that. If you don't protect your own accounts, it's nobody's fault but your own.

great advice.
But not really relevant to the thread.

Hail Russia!

The truth and the light.

I like Putin and Donald Trump for standing up against our lying country

a reply to: digital01anarchy

Yeah he,was forced.
This is too much.

There is a big hole in the report. The report concluded Russia hacked DNC because the software is in Cyrillic. Cyrillic is not unique to Russia. Cyrillic is used in Belarus and Ukraine and Bulgaria. Assange says the software is a commercial software from Ukraine. Just because the software is in Cyrillic, it does not irrefutably prove Russia hacked DNC. IMO this report does not have enough evidence to indict Russia.

originally posted by: daftpink
a reply to: Sillyolme

Where did you read that? I'd be interested in seeing a source to clarify your claim.

ok I found a written reference which confirms what I heard during the hearings.
It's in the report on page three. I don't know if I can copy paste the passage but it's here...
www.documentcloud.org.../p2

Page three left side at the bottom of the page.

a reply to: Tardacus

Hillary's server was never hacked.

a reply to: GodEmperor

Yeah ya got me . Haha

a reply to: FanDanGo

They're elected. One would assume you know this.
Oops


In other words trump can't fire them.


Oh and not only that but, lol, he will need them to get ANYTHING done. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

a reply to: daftpink

I sure hope that Trump, upon taking office, does a purge of these intelligence agencies! Out with the old and in with the new, they sure as hell deserve it.

originally posted by: FanDanGo
Well, if John Podesta was smart enough to not set his password as password, DNC would never have been hacked.

What email address was used again? I'm surprised a better password policy wasn't already in place.

"Please enter your password" - email system

"Ummm, le.me see here. [types "password]" - Posta

"Please re-type your password and confirm you are an idiot" - email system

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: FanDanGo
Well, if John Podesta was smart enough to not set his password as password, DNC would never have been hacked.

What email address was used again? I'm surprised a better password policy wasn't already in place.

"Please enter your password" - email system

"Ummm, le.me see here. [types "password]" - Posta

"Please re-type your password and confirm you are an idiot" - email system

(A) There were multiple hacks, not just Podesta's email...they were already in the system in 2015.

(B) The nonsense about Podesta's PW being "password" is FAKE NEWS BS...Gmail does not even allow you to use "Password" as a password...it will not permit it.

(C) Podesta got an email identical to this from the hackers..Exploiting a shortened bitly link.



Podesta forwarded to his IT guy asking if it was BS and his IT guy responded saying it was legit and he needed to change his password.

His IT guy later claimed that he mistyped when he responded telling Podesta it was legit..

www.slate.com...

A 29 year IT guy and either stupidity or typo opened up Podesta...But the Russians tried this with thousands of people in DNC and RNC and had multiple successes..

They also got Donna Brazille, Colin Powell, people at the congressional campaign level and an undisclosed number of other people in DC.

So it was indeed from Ukraine. Could be from Crimea? The US does not recognize Crimea as part of Russia. The US recognizes Crimea as part of Ukraine. It is possible the hack was from Crimea which is stated as from Ukraine.

DP