The Election Recount

[GG]

EXCLUSIVE: Ex-British ambassador who is now a WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Clinton emails - they were handed over to him at a D.C. park by an intermediary for 'disgusted' Democratic whistleblowers

 

 

Saw the stories on this, but it doesn't answer why would CIA decide to take this high risk position if it's not true, and then double down today by claiming that Putin was directly involved.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

Saw the stories on this, but it doesn't answer why would CIA decide to take this high risk position if it's not true, and then double down today by claiming that Putin was directly involved.

My theory is that they are running cover for the fact that they are responsible for the death of Seth Rich at the behest of the Clintons.

 

"The Russians did it" isn't all that high risk when the alternative is "we are conducting political assassinations of United States citizens within the United States at the direction of the DNC and the Clintons".

Edited December 15, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker

[Nanker]

Look at the crowds of Russian sympathizers!

[GG]

My theory is that they are running cover for the fact that they are responsible for the death of Seth Rich at the behest of the Clintons.

 

"The Russians did it" isn't all that high risk when the alternative is "we are conducting political assassinations of United States citizens within the United States at the direction of the DNC and the Clintons".

But if that were the case, doesn't Wikileaks have a bigger story that their source just got killed?

[meazza]

 

Wrongo. I've been drooling about exposing Russia for what it is, for decades, not months. And yes, every time I encounter a Russia apologist, and let's clarify it, an apologist for a ruler who pines for the good old days of the Soviet Union and all the wonderful things that happy union brought to the world, I speak up. It's not like there isn't a 100-year history of Soviet orchestration and its effect on everyone who's been fortunate and blessed enough to be touched by it. If we only listen to the wise and unbiased sages at the Intercept or Consortium News who insist that US is the problem, and Putin is simply misunderstood.

 

But I digress. The real laugher about these exchanges is how your logic must now contort to the outcome of the election. While everyone is validly asking what's Russia's motivation for blatantly interfering with US elections, few people are asking what's CIA's motivation for publicly blaming Russia if they had nothing to do with it? After all, isn't it a lot easier to spin the story and catch the perpetrator if it's an inside leaker? Why in the world would you start an international incident and piss off your incoming boss, if there's absolutely no truth to the possibility that the Russians did the hacking. I imagine there must be another Youtube movie producer who can be the next fall guy.

 

Yet, like all grand conspiracy theories, it can't be the obvious answer. It all must involve a grand orchestration of the global world order.

 

Man now DR knows how the kangaroo felt.

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

But if that were the case, doesn't Wikileaks have a bigger story that their source just got killed?

They do, and they've made their declaration. But Wikileaks doesn't drive the story. Wikileaks presents the information.

[GG]

They do, and they've made their declaration. But Wikileaks doesn't drive the story. Wikileaks presents the information.

 

Assange hinted at it in August and then said nothing afterward. If Rich is the leak, I find it odd that they haven't put more info out there.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Wrongo. I've been drooling about exposing Russia for what it is, for decades, not months. And yes, every time I encounter a Russia apologist, and let's clarify it, an apologist for a ruler who pines for the good old days of the Soviet Union and all the wonderful things that happy union brought to the world, I speak up. It's not like there isn't a 100-year history of Soviet orchestration and its effect on everyone who's been fortunate and blessed enough to be touched by it. If we only listen to the wise and unbiased sages at the Intercept or Consortium News who insist that US is the problem, and Putin is simply misunderstood.

 

 

Once again, when you can't argue what you want, change the conversation.

 

This is something you've been trying to pin on me for months because you can't see through your own biases. It just ain't true, GG.

 

 

 

But I digress. The real laugher about these exchanges is how your logic must now contort to the outcome of the election. While everyone is validly asking what's Russia's motivation for blatantly interfering with US elections, few people are asking what's CIA's motivation for publicly blaming Russia if they had nothing to do with it? After all, isn't it a lot easier to spin the story and catch the perpetrator if it's an inside leaker? Why in the world would you start an international incident and piss off your incoming boss, if there's absolutely no truth to the possibility that the Russians did the hacking. I imagine there must be another Youtube movie producer who can be the next fall guy.

 

 

If you actually were honest about what I was writing, you'd see I've been trying to address exactly that issue.

 

The issue of contention, which you're ignoring, is that there is infighting going on between segments of the intelligence community. This is undeniable. Attempting to figure out the motives of CIA or any of the intelligence services, let alone Russia, is impossible unless you're willing to concede there is real conflict ongoing between our own agencies which has been ongoing since at least July. This is what Franklin denies and you ignore. Which is why your entire attempt to analyze current events is such a failure.

 

Of course the question should be trying to figure out the motivations of what's fueling this infighting, but you cannot have that conversation when the narrative is it's only Russia vs the US happening. The reality is it's Russia vs the US + CIA vs DHS vs NSA vs FBI.

 

Ignoring that key piece of information isn't being a patriot. It's not being smarter than the "Putin apologists". It's simply folly.

 

I've never said there's no way the Russians did it, quite the opposite. It helps to understand what's being debated before you wade into a situation. Then again, as a neocon, I would be surprised if you ever really tried to understand a situation before just wading in and blowing it up. It's what you do.

 

Saw the stories on this, but it doesn't answer why would CIA decide to take this high risk position if it's not true, and then double down today by claiming that Putin was directly involved.

 

Because a segment of CIA is in open rebellion against the incoming administration. They want the war with Russia HRC was promising and are manipulating their MSM sources in order to lay the groundwork for their plan B.

 

Assange hinted at it in August and then said nothing afterward. If Rich is the leak, I find it odd that they haven't put more info out there.

 

Assange has been missing for two months and change now. He was taken off the board by someone, most likely the US or UK.

 

Again, hard to come to good conclusions when you're only relying on State Department propaganda to gather your information.

 

And Assange did put it out there in a major way before he was taken out. It wasn't covered much by the MSM, because they were busy doing damage control for the DNC.

Edited December 15, 2016 by Deranged Rhino

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

Assange hinted at it in August and then said nothing afterward. If Rich is the leak, I find it odd that they haven't put more info out there.

Assange very transparently hinted at it, and was disappeared about a month afterwards. Craig Murray is directly saying so now.

[Deranged Rhino]

Assange very transparently hinted at it, and was disappeared about a month afterwards. Craig Murray is directly saying so now.

 

Yup.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/10/assange-implies-murdered-dnc-staffer-was-wikileaks-source.html

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3732239/Did-murdered-DNC-staffer-leak-20-000-party-emails-Conspiracy-theories-abound-Wikileaks-steps-forward-offer-20k-mystery-death-27-year-old.html

 

Then he goes missing:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-18/mystery-deepens-around-fate-julian-assange

Then, just a few days later PG started and the "fake news" / censorship thing really took off.

[GG]

 

Once again, when you can't argue what you want, change the conversation.

 

This is something you've been trying to pin on me for months because you can't see through your own biases. It just ain't true, GG.

 

 

If you actually were honest about what I was writing, you'd see I've been trying to address exactly that issue.

 

The issue of contention, which you're ignoring, is that there is infighting going on between segments of the intelligence community. This is undeniable. Attempting to figure out the motives of CIA or any of the intelligence services, let alone Russia, is impossible unless you're willing to concede there is real conflict ongoing between our own agencies which has been ongoing since at least July. This is what Franklin denies and you ignore. Which is why your entire attempt to analyze current events is such a failure.

 

Of course the question should be trying to figure out the motivations of what's fueling this infighting, but you cannot have that conversation when the narrative is it's only Russia vs the US happening. The reality is it's Russia vs the US + CIA vs DHS vs NSA vs FBI.

 

Ignoring that key piece of information isn't being a patriot. It's not being smarter than the "Putin apologists". It's simply folly.

 

I've never said there's no way the Russians did it, quite the opposite. It helps to understand what's being debated before you wade into a situation. Then again, as a neocon, I would be surprised if you ever really tried to understand a situation before just wading in and blowing it up. It's what you do.

 

Because a segment of CIA is in open rebellion against the incoming administration. They want the war with Russia HRC was promising and are manipulating their MSM sources in order to lay the groundwork for their plan B.

 

Assange has been missing for two months and change now. He was taken off the board by someone, most likely the US or UK.

 

Again, hard to come to good conclusions when you're only relying on State Department propaganda to gather your information.

 

And Assange did put it out there in a major way before he was taken out. It wasn't covered much by the MSM, because they were busy doing damage control for the DNC.

 

And all of this would be plausible if the crux of Russian influence was hammered much more BEFORE the election. What doesn't make sense, if your theory is true, is that the intelligence agencies are doubling down on the allegation AFTER the election.

 

If there's one thing that career DC operatives know very well is not to make waves when they don't have political backing. Why would they start poking Trump in the eye on the eve of his inauguration? If the leak was only by a disgruntled DNC staffer, that's a much easier story to spin than to blame Putin.

 

BTW, if CIA was into killing off known whistleblowers, why are Manning & Snowden still alive? After all, they all leaked information before they were household names, and could have easily been offed by the CIA before they became folk heros.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

And all of this would be plausible if the crux of Russian influence was hammered much more BEFORE the election. What doesn't make sense, if your theory is true, is that the intelligence agencies are doubling down on the allegation AFTER the election.

 

Some agencies are, others dispute it. I believe there is an internal struggle over the workings of what amounts to a soft, largely bloodless coup being attempted by the CIA.

 

 

 

If there's one thing that career DC operatives know very well is not to make waves when they don't have political backing. Why would they start poking Trump in the eye on the eve of his inauguration? If the leak was only by a disgruntled DNC staffer, that's a much easier story to spin than to blame Putin.

I think things spiraled out of control. Once the DNC staffer was assassinated, and I believe he was assassinated as a warning to Assange who was much harder to touch, but Assange began talking anyway, this is simply the only avenue left to them.

 

 

 

BTW, if CIA was into killing off known whistleblowers, why are Manning & Snowden still alive? After all, they all leaked information before they were household names, and could have easily been offed by the CIA before they became folk heros.

The charge, at least my charge, is not that the CIA is targeting whistleblowers. After all, Assange was left completely alone until Hillary Clinton and the DNC became his targets. My charge is that the CIA (or at least a Clinton loyalist faction of it) is targeting those who hurt the Clintons and the entrenched establishment at the behest of the Clintons and the DNC.

[DC Tom]

Some of you have read too much Tom Clancy. Or not enough.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

And all of this would be plausible if the crux of Russian influence was hammered much more BEFORE the election.

 

Russian influence and the Russian boogeyman have been hammered for the past three years on a daily basis by both State and the MSM. You're aware of this. This isn't new. The current media intensity is new because of the MSM's desire to hold anyone other than themselves accountable for HRC losing. Ditto for the DNC and the majority of the left.

 

The infighting within the intelligence community has been ongoing since at least July when the FBI made their first official conclusion on HRC's servers. That ruling pissed off one segment of the IC, including many within the FBI. While that was the first real public bleed through of this ongoing scuffle, it probably began even earlier than July.

 

We saw the influence of these warring factions in the campaign itself -- when Hillary was pushing for No Fly Zones and Trump was pushing for normalizing relations with Russia. Each candidate had a competing faction or two of the IC behind these campaign planks.

 

 

What doesn't make sense, if your theory is true, is that the intelligence agencies are doubling down on the allegation AFTER the election.

 

 

The theory that there is infighting going on is 100% true and not my theory. It's fact that's backed by multiple sources and first hand testimony that have been made available throughout this discussion.

The motives and reasons for this infighting are not known for certain -- which is why blindly taking unnamed sources within CIA as solid evidence that Russia is the only one worth looking into is so dangerous. We have to get a better understanding of why this infighting is happening and what the purpose is before we can draw any conclusions. Especially when the current conversation is clearly being framed as an act of war. That kind of unchecked rhetoric is dangerous.

 

But you can't even begin to untangle that mess without at least acknowledging the current state of affairs within our own intelligence community.

 

There are plenty of reasons you could postulate for why a segment of the IC would double down, having nothing left to lose being the primary one.

 

 

If there's one thing that career DC operatives know very well is not to make waves when they don't have political backing.

 

You're making a GIANT assumption that the rebelling factions of the IC don't have political backing. I'd say that's not just an assumption but a false assumption.

 

The Clinton machine might be wounded but it's still very powerful.

 

 

Why would they start poking Trump in the eye on the eve of his inauguration? If the leak was only by a disgruntled DNC staffer, that's a much easier story to spin than to blame Putin.

 

 

The leak wasn't only a disgruntled DNC staffer acting on his own -- that's never been the contention. He was encouraged, maybe turned, maybe supported by elements of the IC who were working against the Clintons. It's also possible he was turned by the FSB or GRU... or PLA, or the North Koreans, or...

 

There is a large faction of the IC that was heavily, heavily invested in HRC's victory. Now that she lost, these same folks know their days are numbered in their current positions. That they'd launch such a vigorous information war as a hail mary to sway the public and EC that Trump won because of a soft coup executed by the Russians is extreme, but not unreasonable when you factor in all the evidence.

 

And why wouldn't the DNC just admit the leaks came from their own staff rather than blaming Putin? Because there has been a contingent within the neocon wing of the IC that's been trying to engineer regime change in Moscow for YEARS. That this faction was HRC's biggest supporters has to factor into your analysis of this question. When you do factor it in, the answer becomes pretty clear.

 

 

BTW, if CIA was into killing off known whistleblowers, why are Manning & Snowden still alive? After all, they all leaked information before they were household names, and could have easily been offed by the CIA before they became folk heros.

 

This question just shows you don't really know how the IC works.

Some of you have read too much Tom Clancy. Or not enough.

 

What's funny is the person Clancy based Jack Ryan on is the most visible person pushing the whole "we're witnessing the second american revolution" angle.

[Nanker]

I can't believe our intelligence community who were the same folks who swore there were WMDs in Iraq, and "fooled" W, the Congress, and Senate, and the Omerican peoples into invading that sovereign sh ithole in order to topple its gubment would get this Rooskie bidness wrong. It seems unpossible. They're unflappable, infallible, unerring, and motivated by the purest of the pure ideals.

[mead107]

Why are the news people up set with Russia and hacking now?

Not upset with the DNC and Clinton conspiring to screw with Bernie's bid to win the dem race.

NOT up set with the facts that what Russia said about Clinton was true.

 

All last ditch effort by leftist biased news media and White House to get Clinton in and ditch Trump

[DC Tom]

 

 

What's funny is the person Clancy based Jack Ryan on is the most visible person pushing the whole "we're witnessing the second american revolution" angle.

 

We're just witnessing infighting between the FBI and CIA, which is pretty normal. And they're arguing strictly according to their own biases: the guys who investigate cybercrime are calling it cybercrime, the guys who investigate espionage are calling it espionage. Notably, the counter-espionage guys, who are in a better position to know if it's espionage than the espionage guys, are not calling it espionage.

 

And the people who leaked Trump's words are bitching about Hillary's words being leaked. This isn't democracy, it's a !@#$ing circus.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Why are the news people up set with Russia and hacking now?

Not upset with the DNC and Clinton conspiring to screw with Bernie's bid to win the dem race.

NOT up set with the facts that what Russia said about Clinton was true.

 

All last ditch effort by leftist biased news media and White House to get Clinton in and ditch Trump

We don't know that it was the Russians.

[KD in CA]

And why wouldn't the DNC just admit the leaks came from their own staff rather than blaming Putin?

 

Once they do that even the media would start connecting the dots to the Seth Rich murder.

[DC Tom]

And why wouldn't the DNC just admit the leaks came from their own staff rather than blaming Putin?

 

Because they live in their own little bubble? And to admit that someone went outside the bubble would break the bubble they live in, and the integrity of the bubble must be protected?

 

The DNC is getting as bad as Scientology.