The Election Recount

[GG]

We don't know that it was the Russians.

 

Not definitively, but highly probable.

[Nanker]

None but that's not the issue. Trump won. That ship sailed.

 

Russians hacked into highly placed election officials and disseminated those documents publicly with intent. Question: Does this bother you?

 

Good story in the NY Times today about the DNC's bumbling response to the hack including the email from the IT guy who told Podesta to follow the fraudulent link to change his password.

What bothers me is that the bolded part is taken as gospel, and I'm reluctant to join in the "hands-up don't vote" crowd or "Blue votes matter" when we don't really know for certain who stole the info, who were they working for/with, what did they intend for the leaks to do? What did they get out of it?

 

You say with such certainty that it was the Rooskies. I'm not totally convinced it was them or them alone. At this point, I think we don't know enough to be able to understand the full nature of what went down, yet alone for a team of one branch of the CIA to leak to a hot-to-trot WaPo "journalist" the tantalizing red meat that "The Russians hacked the election and wanted Trump to win" line of happy horse shi t story-line that's been taken and run with like it's the next coming of the OJ Simpson white Bronco low-speed freeway chase.

 

Where's Julian? Who killed Seth Rich, and why?

Edited December 14, 2016 by Nanker

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

Not definitively, but highly probable.

I question it.

 

First of all, the CIA is claiming that the RNC was hacked as well, which the RNC denies.

 

Also Julian Assange claimed that the source of the leak was not the Russians.

 

I leave open a strong possibility that the CIA, or some of it's operatives, did the hacking.

[TH3]

I question it.

 

First of all, the CIA is claiming that the RNC was hacked as well, which the RNC denies.

 

Also Julian Assange claimed that the source of the leak was not the Russians.

 

I leave open a strong possibility that the CIA, or some of it's operatives, did the hacking.

 

 

Hmmm....strong business ties to Russia, first campaign manager for DT worked for Putin in rigging the elections in Ukraine, picks SOS who does deals with Russia, Russia hates HRC, DT actually suggested Russia hack HRC...

 

I think there is a decent possibility that in the next 2 years a pre-election link is established between Putin and DT and the whole thing comes crashing down

[meazza]

 

 

Hmmm....strong business ties to Russia, first campaign manager for DT worked for Putin in rigging the elections in Ukraine, picks SOS who does deals with Russia, Russia hates HRC, DT actually suggested Russia hack HRC...

 

I think there is a decent possibility that in the next 2 years a pre-election link is established between Putin and DT and the whole thing comes crashing down

 

Yes but at that point, Trump could reply:

 

"At this point, what difference does it make?"

[Deranged Rhino]

"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscowthe Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities."

 

That's a fact.

 

The CIA briefed members of Congress on the hack with more details and that spurred Congress to inquire deeper.

 

Also a fact.

 

The USIC has not seen fit to reveal all the details of its investigation to the public. Maybe the Russians can hack that out of them but until they do, they will probably act like intel agencies and keep their methods under wraps.

 

I don't have access to do the investigation source materials. Going off the facts as known. A week ago the talk of Russian hacking was mocked. Now it's just mocked by Trump. He will come around too.

 

Again IT'S NOT A FACT AS YOU'RE TRYING TO USE IT. That USIC statement doesn't say what you keep saying it says. It does not in any way encompass the views of all 17 intelligence agencies, only DHS and DNI. And the statement itself is ANYTHING but definitive in its conclusions. It was politically motivated and released by one of the factions of the community, not the entirety of the community.

 

You keep assuming you're understanding the talking points you're getting fed but you're not doing your homework. Educate yourself before making definitive statements, it'll save us a lot of time.

[Deranged Rhino]

None but that's not the issue. Trump won. That ship sailed.

 

Russians hacked into highly placed election officials and disseminated those documents publicly with intent. Question: Does this bother you?

 

Good story in the NY Times today about the DNC's bumbling response to the hack including the email from the IT guy who told Podesta to follow the fraudulent link to change his password.

 

Again, this is NOT A FACT.

 

All evidence outside of the USIC statement which you keep misinterpreting in fact paint the opposite picture you're arguing. There is far more compelling testimony and evidence that the leaks came from inside the US intelligence community.

 

Which is the entire point you're missing and why your analysis is so flawed.

 

You cannot begin to understand what's happening without factoring in this intelligence battle into your thinking. It's impossible.

 

 

Are you saying that hacking into private conversations of top people in one political party, and then releasing them to the public in the months leading up to an election was NOT election related and had zero effect?

 

Only morons are claiming that Russians hacked into the voting systems. But the same thing can be said about people who claim that the hack had no effect on the election.

 

I know you've been drooling to pick a fight with Russia for months, you want to make their lives better through violence and bloodshed. So much so you were actually the first poster here to start throwing out the "Putin stooge" attacks when I questioned your backwards and dangerous ideology. With that in mind I know you're incapable of being objective or honest in this topic but I'll try anyway:

 

There is no definitive evidence that the wikileaks documents came from Russian sources. In fact, there is much more evidence that it came from within the US intelligence services themselves. Assange hinted at this while denying Russian involvement. Several people within the US intelligence community have taken credit for the leaks with public statements.

 

Could the Russians have been responsible for the actual hacks? Sure. I've never said they couldn't be. I've actually offered NO conclusions other than there's very clearly infighting going on behind the scenes. There has been zero evidence proffered to support that position that you're taking as absolute fact.

 

Couple this lack of proof with the jingoistic push for war with Russia which predates these election shenanigans by over 3 years, and only a fool would take highly suspect anonymous CIA sources, or poorly researched propaganda articles in the MSM (who was all for escalating the wars in Syria and Ukraine in order to bleed Russians) as definitive proof of anything.

 

The mindless drones from both the left and neocon wing are pushing the conclusion as definitive when it's far from definitive because they've been trying to pick a fight with Russia for YEARS. They thought they had it in the bag with HRC's election -- now they're on to plan B.

 

Again, where was this outrage over the OPM hacks? By any definition, were far more of a threat to national security and sovereignty than anything the Russians have been accused of doing this election cycle.

What bothers me is that the bolded part is taken as gospel, and I'm reluctant to join in the "hands-up don't vote" crowd or "Blue votes matter" when we don't really know for certain who stole the info, who were they working for/with, what did they intend for the leaks to do? What did they get out of it?

 

You say with such certainty that it was the Rooskies. I'm not totally convinced it was them or them alone. At this point, I think we don't know enough to be able to understand the full nature of what went down, yet alone for a team of one branch of the CIA to leak to a hot-to-trot WaPo "journalist" the tantalizing red meat that "The Russians hacked the election and wanted Trump to win" line of happy horse shi t story-line that's been taken and run with like it's the next coming of the OJ Simpson white Bronco low-speed freeway chase.

 

Where's Julian? Who killed Seth Rich, and why?

 

 

Hmmm....strong business ties to Russia, first campaign manager for DT worked for Putin in rigging the elections in Ukraine, picks SOS who does deals with Russia, Russia hates HRC, DT actually suggested Russia hack HRC...

 

I think there is a decent possibility that in the next 2 years a pre-election link is established between Putin and DT and the whole thing comes crashing down

 

Crashing down how? Seriously, what's the outcome in your mind if everything you're saying is proven to be true? It wouldn't be enough to impeach a sitting president as there still would be no proof that the Russian propaganda altered the election in any meaningful way.

 

Again, let's assume everything you, BF and GG and the other neo-McCarthites are pushing is 100% true. What did the Russians actually do that is different from what they and every other major nation has been doing for hundreds of years? Disinformation campaigns to undermine another nation's democratic process is not new. They didn't alter votes, they didn't change the outcome directly. At worst they engaged in a high intensity propaganda campaign that co-opted the "alternative" media.

 

What's the solution for that? Censorship? Installing some sort of filter that prohibits "propaganda" from being readable on US screens? Or maybe it's up to the individual to be better educated about the sources they trust.

 

You could make a case for prosecuting the individual hackers in this scenario who breached the DNC's servers -- but that's a matter for the courts not the military.

 

Russians have been trying to influence our elections for decades. We do the same to them (and others). This is nothing new even if it's proven to be 100% true.

 

What also isn't new, sadly, is the US intelligence community whipping the populace into a war footing by pushing false or incomplete information and propaganda on its own populace: The Maine, Gulf of Tonkin, WMD's in Iraq... that list is long and growing apparently.

[DC Tom]

 

What also isn't new, sadly, is the US intelligence community whipping the populace into a war footing by pushing false or incomplete information and propaganda on its own populace: The Maine, Gulf of Tonkin, WMD's in Iraq... that list is long and growing apparently.

 

The Maine? What intelligence community was pushing a false narrative of the USS Maine?

[Nanker]

 

The Maine? What intelligence community was pushing a false narrative of the USS Maine?

Uh, that would be the US Department of Pulitzer, and the William Randolph Hearst Governmental Agency of Information Sharing.

I guess.

[B-Man]

Reminder:

 

 

 

The casual reader of newspaper headlines might well believe that the Russian government hacked into voting machines, or something of the sort, to influence the presidential election. But that is not the case.

 

 

If you read the Washington Post story, they are merely talking about the well-known hacks of Democratic National Committee and John Podesta emails.

 

 

 

 

The only news here is that someone at the CIA thinks the Russian government carried out the operation and did so in order to help Donald Trump win the election.

 

But the supporting information is very thin. The third-hand account in the Post admits that it wasn’t actually the Russian government that did the hacking:

[Doc]

None but that's not the issue. Trump won. That ship sailed.

 

Russians hacked into highly placed election officials and disseminated those documents publicly with intent. Question: Does this bother you?

 

Good story in the NY Times today about the DNC's bumbling response to the hack including the email from the IT guy who told Podesta to follow the fraudulent link to change his password.

 

Why should it? The content didn't bother the Dems at the time. Now it's the reason she lost the election?

[Benjamin Franklin]

So the Russians, Chinese et al. have been hacking us for years but now because it prevented the Queen's ascent to the throne it becomes a big deal?

You don't think that this is a big deal, regardless of who won/lost? Russians used their hacking to attempt to influence our election. I'd say that's a big deal.

 

Trump still won. That's not debatable.

What bothers me is that the bolded part is taken as gospel, and I'm reluctant to join in the "hands-up don't vote" crowd or "Blue votes matter" when we don't really know for certain who stole the info, who were they working for/with, what did they intend for the leaks to do? What did they get out of it?

 

You say with such certainty that it was the Rooskies. I'm not totally convinced it was them or them alone. At this point, I think we don't know enough to be able to understand the full nature of what went down, yet alone for a team of one branch of the CIA to leak to a hot-to-trot WaPo "journalist" the tantalizing red meat that "The Russians hacked the election and wanted Trump to win" line of happy horse shi t story-line that's been taken and run with like it's the next coming of the OJ Simpson white Bronco low-speed freeway chase.

 

Where's Julian? Who killed Seth Rich, and why?

The USIC said it was the Russians. That's. it a leaked source. It was publicly announced FFS.

 

But I guess you have a better source?

[Deranged Rhino]

You don't think that this is a big deal, regardless of who won/lost? Russians used their hacking to attempt to influence our election. I'd say that's a big deal.

 

Trump still won. That's not debatable.

 

They've been doing so for decades if not more...

 

Why is it only a big deal in 2016 and not 2012, or 2008?

 

And why are you more concerned about this particular event -- which even if everything you believe happened actually happened the worst you could accuse the Russian government of doing was illegally breaching the DNC -- than you are about the Chinese stealing enough material to literally blackmail the US government establishment?

 

Isn't one far more sinister than the other? Or does your patriotism not travel that far east?

[Benjamin Franklin]

 

Why should it? The content didn't bother the Dems at the time. Now it's the reason she lost the election?

She lost the election because she was a crap candidate who couldn't begin to connect with an angry electorate. Irrelevant to this.

 

Deranged, you hear what you want to hear from the sources only you believe.

[Simon]

 

Why should it?

Because some people actually love their country more than their political masters.

[DC Tom]

You don't think that this is a big deal, regardless of who won/lost? Russians used their hacking to attempt to influence our election. I'd say that's a big deal.

 

Trump still won. That's not debatable.

 

The USIC said it was the Russians. That's. it a leaked source. It was publicly announced FFS.

 

But I guess you have a better source?

 

No, the media said that unnamed sources in the USIC said that.

Because some people actually love their country more than their political masters.

 

Not a whole lot, though.

[Benjamin Franklin]

 

They've been doing so for decades if not more...

 

Why is it only a big deal in 2016 and not 2012, or 2008?

 

And why are you more concerned about this particular event -- which even if everything you believe happened actually happened the worst you could accuse the Russian government of doing was illegally breaching the DNC -- than you are about the Chinese stealing enough material to literally blackmail the US government establishment?

 

Isn't one far more sinister than the other? Or does your patriotism not travel that far east?

Both bother me. This is the issue of the moment. You get that right?

 

Or shall we revisit the magic bullet or twin towers conspiracies? Did John Wilkes Booh act alone? The truth is out there.

[Deranged Rhino]

She lost the election because she was a crap candidate who couldn't begin to connect with an angry electorate. Irrelevant to this.

 

Deranged, you hear what you want to hear from the sources only you believe.

 

Another false claim you're making.

 

Of the two of us, I'm the only one who's looking at all the evidence. You're still making yourself look silly by stating something as fact that is clearly not a fact.

 

You've reached your conclusion before you've even bothered to investigate it. That's why your position is weak and dangerous.

Both bother me. This is the issue of the moment. You get that right?

 

Or shall we revisit the magic bullet or twin towers conspiracies? Did John Wilkes Booh act alone? The truth is out there.

 

You didn't make a peep during the OPM hacks. Not a word.

So clearly, one bothers you far more than the other. Enough to push aside anything that contradicts the narrative you've already decided is truth.

 

That's lazy at best. Dishonest at worst.

Because some people actually love their country more than their political masters.

 

That's a rapidly dwindling number sadly. As evidenced by BF's refusal to even look outside his party's narrative.

[Benjamin Franklin]

 

No, the media said that unnamed sources in the USIC said that.

 

 

Read. The. Statement.

 

It's pretty straightforward. And. I.e. Members of Congress to the extent they can appear to verify the statement.

[Deranged Rhino]

Read. The. Statement.

 

It's pretty straightforward. And. I.e. Members of Congress to the extent they can appear to verify the statement.

 

It is in no way definitive. It is in no way a conclusion reached by the entire intelligence community.

 

This is inarguable. The fact you're still arguing makes me wonder if you actually read it yourself.