Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House

a reply to: superbanjo

Because as I pointed out the intelligence community under this president has been caught manipulating intelligence / flat out lying about it in order to give Obama talking points he needs to distort reality in his favor.

I dont trust the intelligence being put out blaming the Russians. I think Democrats are trying to manufacture a false reason as to why they lost. Doing it this way also creates a false illusion of Trumps presidency being illegitimate, which also serves democratic propaganda talking points.

As another example look at the jobs reports this administration has put out along with unemployment claims being down. The numbers / info they purposely leave out are the 95 million who dropped off unemployment numbers who exhausted unemployment benefits who still dont have a job. Leaving those key factors out they can claim unemployment numbers are at a historic low when in reality they arent.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Xcathdra

I don't understand how people can state something as a fact only to find out they don't bother to research whats being discussed.

But, you just did.

I have no idea what Intelligence officers did. I wasn't there.

then how can you challenge the facts if you arent familiar with them?

I guess I just don't see the problem here. EVERY other country was pulling for Clinton, so.... who cares?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: superbanjo

Because as I pointed out the intelligence community under the president has been caught manipulating intelligence / flat out lying about it in order to give Obama talking points he needs to distort reality in his favor.

I dont trust the intelligence being put out blaming the Russians. I think Democrats are trying to manufacture a false reason as to why they lost. Doing it this way also creates a false illusion of Trumps presidency being illegitimate, which also serves democratic propaganda talking points.

I'm seeing he same exact thing. Plus just a week ago Obama came out and claimed there was no evidence whatsoever that Russia, or any foreign government penetrated our election system, and now it seems the narrative has changed. This has been pretty common with him for the last 8 years to flip and waffle, much like the Clinton's do.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Obama's latest call for an investigation into Russian hacking came on the heels of the 3 recounts where Clinton ended up losing by even larger numbers than originally reported. Now that its been revealed Clinton met with her top advisors / lawyers after losing to talk about challenging results followed by Steins disastrous recount attempts they once again need someone to blame.

Better the Russians than the Democrats own arrogance and stupidity.

The attempt to blame Russia for hacking emails didnt work.. I guess we are on to round 2 now.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: superbanjo

Because as I pointed out the intelligence community under this president has been caught manipulating intelligence / flat out lying about it in order to give Obama talking points he needs to distort reality in his favor.

This intelligence was not released from the oval office it was presented to congressional leaders. Can you prove that this information was originated by Obama's decree?

I dont trust the intelligence being put out blaming the Russians. I think Democrats are trying to manufacture a false reason as to why they lost. Doing it this way also creates a false illusion of Trumps presidency being illegitimate, which also serves democratic propaganda talking points.

Why don't you trust it?

I already indicated Trump has already admitted to being in a dialog with Russia. Next Putin endorsed Trump on more than one occasion. Now the CIA adds another layer to move towards a validation of this claim.

originally posted by: superbanjo
Why don't you trust it?

I already indicated Trump has already admitted to being in a dialog with Russia. Next Putin endorsed Trump on more than one occasion. Now the CIA adds another layer to move towards a validation of this claim.

From the op article -

“It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. senators. “That’s the consensus view.”

Current Director of the CIA -
John Owen Brennan (born September 22, 1955)[1][2] is an American government official who is the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. He has served as chief counterterrorism advisor to U.S. President Barack Obama; his title was Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and Assistant to the President.


Current Director of National intelligence -
On June 5, 2010, President Barack Obama nominated Clapper to replace Dennis C. Blair as United States Director of National Intelligence. Clapper was unanimously confirmed by the Senate for the position on August 5, 2010.

Two U.S. representatives accused Clapper of perjury for telling a congressional committee in March 2013, that the NSA does not collect any type of data at all on millions of Americans. One senator asked for his resignation, and a group of 26 senators complained about Clapper's responses under questioning. Media observers have described Clapper as having lied under oath, having obstructed justice, and having given false testimony.

In November 2016, Clapper resigned as Director of National Intelligence, effective at the end of President Obama's term.


It's from the same administration and senior democratic leadership who has access to classified briefing in Congress. I also point out its anonymous, which raises red flags. Its a perfect ploy - leak classified info with a spin knowing that no one who received the briefing can comment on it, let alone try to correct the record. They even use the same bs about Russia hacking the DNC / Clinton / Podesta emails, which has already been debunked.

Finally if the official is anonymous how do we know it didnt come from the White House?

a reply to: superbanjo

The reason not to trust it is easy. Trump having dialog with Russia is one thing, and Putin wanting him to win is also nothing to base a claim of criminal collusion with a foreign government to circumvent an election or change the outcome. Last week our government said there is no evidence that any foreign government penetrated our election systems in any way shape or form.
Just because Putin was rooting' for Trump means absolutely nothing. Putin wanting Trump to win was natural expectation after seeing how crooked Hillary was making very serious threats against Russia to cover her own feared defeat by Trump.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Xcathdra

I don't understand how people can state something as a fact only to find out they don't bother to research whats being discussed.

But, you just did.

I have no idea what Intelligence officers did. I wasn't there.

then how can you challenge the facts if you arent familiar with them?

What facts?

You choose which articles you believe to be true -- and call that fact.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: superbanjo
Why don't you trust it?

I already indicated Trump has already admitted to being in a dialog with Russia. Next Putin endorsed Trump on more than one occasion. Now the CIA adds another layer to move towards a validation of this claim.

From the op article -

“It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. senators. “That’s the consensus view.”

Current Director of the CIA -
John Owen Brennan (born September 22, 1955)[1][2] is an American government official who is the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. He has served as chief counterterrorism advisor to U.S. President Barack Obama; his title was Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and Assistant to the President.


Current Director of National intelligence -
On June 5, 2010, President Barack Obama nominated Clapper to replace Dennis C. Blair as United States Director of National Intelligence. Clapper was unanimously confirmed by the Senate for the position on August 5, 2010.

Two U.S. representatives accused Clapper of perjury for telling a congressional committee in March 2013, that the NSA does not collect any type of data at all on millions of Americans. One senator asked for his resignation, and a group of 26 senators complained about Clapper's responses under questioning. Media observers have described Clapper as having lied under oath, having obstructed justice, and having given false testimony.

In November 2016, Clapper resigned as Director of National Intelligence, effective at the end of President Obama's term.


It's from the same administration and senior democratic leadership who has access to classified briefing in Congress. I also point out its anonymous, which raises red flags. Its a perfect ploy - leak classified info with a spin knowing that no one who received the briefing can comment on it, let alone try to correct the record. They even use the same bs about Russia hacking the DNC / Clinton / Podesta emails, which has already been debunked.

Finally if the official is anonymous how do we know it didnt come from the White House?

SO you are saying Russia did not hack the DNC?

a reply to: superbanjo

As of now there is no information to support that. Even wikileaks has stated Russia is not their source and as much as I cant stand Assange he is more credible than our intelligence community, this white house, Clinton and senior democrats.

a reply to: Annee

Thank you for proving my point. You werent familiar with any of the article I posted yet you immediately dismissed them before I linked you to them.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: superbanjo

The reason not to trust it is easy. Trump having dialog with Russia is one thing, and Putin wanting him to win is also nothing to base a claim of criminal collusion with a foreign government to circumvent an election or change the outcome. Last week our government said there is no evidence that any foreign government penetrated our election systems in any way shape or form.
Just because Putin was rooting' for Trump means absolutely nothing. Putin wanting Trump to win was natural expectation after seeing how crooked Hillary was making very serious threats against Russia to cover her own feared defeat by Trump.

Sounds like you are making excuses. I just think it is lame to fool yourself into something that is bad for your country just because "your guy" won and it is self serving. I just did a search and news from big to small is acknowledging this as being e legitimate CIA report to senior congressional leaders. I did a search and Republican congressional leaders who were there and in the know have not claimed that this information is false.

I don't like Hillary I don't really like Trump, but I sure as hell know Russia does not have any business doing engineering american elections. I really can't believe you guys are so content and eager to cover Russia's ass., strange conservatives you are, like twisted backwards. Anyways, go Russia!!!

Yeah, again, no red flags here -

Obama wants the report before he leaves office Jan. 20, Monaco said. The review will be led by James Clapper, the outgoing director of national intelligence, officials said.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: superbanjo

As of now there is no information to support that. Even wikileaks has stated Russia is not their source and as much as I cant stand Assange he is more credible than our intelligence community, this white house, Clinton and senior democrats.

the information was presented to congress and I have not heard Republican congressional leaders reject this CIA report.
Had this report been fake it would be stupid for the GOP congressional leadership to let it stand, this makes me think you are just trying to cover Russia's ass. Are you are Russian or something?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Yeah, again, no red flags here -

Obama wants the report before he leaves office Jan. 20, Monaco said. The review will be led by James Clapper, the outgoing director of national intelligence, officials said.

What does that mean?

You expect Trump to investigate a security breach that benefited him?

a reply to: superbanjo

Tell us then - The op article states their is nothing linking this to the Russian government. How are you arriving at the conclusion the Russian government is behind it?

The CIA presentation to senators about Russia’s intentions fell short of a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17 intelligence agencies. A senior U.S. official said there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered.

For example, intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin “directing” the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second senior U.S. official said. Those actors, according to the official, were “one step” removed from the Russian government, rather than government employees. Moscow has in the past used middlemen to participate in sensitive intelligence operations so it has plausible deniability.

Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has said in a television interview that the “Russian government is not the source.”

The White House and CIA officials declined to comment.

Can you explain?

originally posted by: superbanjo

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Yeah, again, no red flags here -

Obama wants the report before he leaves office Jan. 20, Monaco said. The review will be led by James Clapper, the outgoing director of national intelligence, officials said.

What does that mean?

You expect Trump to investigate a security breach that benefited him?

No I expect Obama to create a report that supports Democratic talking points in an effort to cast Trump's presidency as illegitimate. As Democratic talking points have been pushing since they lost.

Getting the report before he leaves office also allows him to push the illegitimate presidency talking point.

a reply to: superbanjo

The GOP senators have called for an invstigation to see if Russia was involved. If they are calling for an investigation on Russian involvement, on Dec 8th 2016, then how can Democrats claim Russian involvement? Again even the op article states there is nothing linking the Russian government to this.

Republicans ready to launch wide-ranging probe of Russia, despite Trump’s stance

are Democrats lying about Russian involvement and if so why? After all they got their info from intelligence agencies who state they cant link Russia to the hacks.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: superbanjo

Tell us then - The op article states their is nothing linking this to the Russian government. How are you arriving at the conclusion the Russian government is behind it?

The CIA presentation to senators about Russia’s intentions fell short of a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17 intelligence agencies. A senior U.S. official said there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered.

For example, intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin “directing” the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second senior U.S. official said. Those actors, according to the official, were “one step” removed from the Russian government, rather than government employees. Moscow has in the past used middlemen to participate in sensitive intelligence operations so it has plausible deniability.

Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has said in a television interview that the “Russian government is not the source.”

The White House and CIA officials declined to comment.

Can you explain?

“It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. senators. “That’s the consensus view.”

This statement says there is a consensus that Russia was trying to manipulate the election, from the same article.

Maybe keeping up appearances is more important to you than anything so you can just tell me that and we can drop it.
I personally think this is outrageous, and I bet you would care had the consensus view indicated it was Hillary who was assisted.

It used to be that morals were right and wrong regardless of extenuating circumstances, like Russia manipulating a US election in years gone by would of been grounds for war. You cannot privately believe that Russia has any business in manipulating the US election, can you?