CIA: Putin had a hand in helping Trump win; McConnell dismisses U.S. intelligence, wife gets job with Trump

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

The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.
Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, according to U.S. officials. Those officials described the individuals as actors known to the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and hurt Clinton’s chances.

Maybe this explains the bumper sticker I saw in a local parking lot last week.

It gets better. Latest news is that Russia also hacked the RNC, but decided to hold on to the documents.

If you want to consider yourself an informed citizen, before you decide to accept uncritically an alleged secret report from anonymous sources, you should read this:

https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10/anonymous-leaks-to-the-washpost-about-the-cias-russia-beliefs-are-no-substitute-for-evidence/

Trump claims the Intel community got it wrong.

Obama claims intel gave him bad info.(which has received almost no comment)

Which one is FOS? hint, maybe both.

Sen. Lindsey is trying to get an investigation going to see if, in fact, an outside source tried to interfere in our election, if so how, because that is really what should be of concern to both sides.

BCC - what do think was more important to release. A confirmed Russian hack into our election or Hillary emails on Weiner's laptop which weren't reviewed at all?

What do you think about that bumper sticker? Is he anti or pro DJT? Can't tell if it's ironic or sincere.

jamie said:

BCC - what do think was more important to release. A confirmed Russian hack into our election or Hillary emails on Weiner's laptop which weren't reviewed at all?

Read Paul's post as to Russian hack.

My dear friend ml1 would call your last sentence a false equivalence.

My problem with Hillary had to do with her total bul^^^^t regarding the e-mails where Comey called her a liar over and over again, he said there was no evidence she had been hacked but it was in fact possible, and cyber experts said it was probable and where she had top secrets on her server 2 years after they were required to be returned to State.

BCC said:




My dear friend ml1 would call your last sentence a false equivalence.

No I wouldn't. Maybe you're unclear on what the phrase means.

33 hearings on Benghazi and Republipukes want none on Russian interference in an election.

Traitors.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/12/trump-mcconnell-putin-and-the-triumph-of-the-will-to-power.html

MccConnell, Comey, Trump, and their enablers: Scum, traitors, Benedict Arnolds all.

"Even the most cynical observer of McConnell — a cynical man to his bones — would have been shocked at his raw partisanship. Presented with an attack on the sanctity of his own country’s democracy by a hostile foreign power, his overriding concern was party over country. Obama’s fear of seeming partisan held him back from making a unilateral statement without partisan cover. No such fear restrained McConnell. This imbalance in will to power extended to the security agencies. The CIA could have leaked its conclusion before November, but held off. The FBI should have held off on leaking its October surprise, but plunged ahead.

Perhaps the most amazing revelation in the Post’s report is, “Some of the Republicans in the briefing also seemed opposed to the idea of going public with such explosive allegations in the final stages of an election.” Almost immediately afterward, Republicans in Congress trumpeted explosive (but ultimately empty) allegations from a different agency. Of the many causes of the election outcome, one was simply that Trump’s supporters in government were willing to put the system at risk in order to win, and Clinton’s supporters were not."

Below sums up my thoughts:

"This is banana republic crap, people, that looks to negate the votes of some 62 million Americans. We no longer believe in our own system. When the candidate many people did not support wins, the response is to seek to negate the democratic process, via accusations that make McCarthy in the 1950s look like a sad amateur.

What we have are anonymous voices at an intelligence agency supposedly dedicated to foreign intel saying the Russians helped elect our next president. That says the process is flawed and cannot be trusted, and that Trump will owe a debt to the Russians and can’t be trusted. It will keep alive the idea that Clinton should have won if not for this meddling and undermine for his term the legitimacy of Trump. Via the classification process, the CIA will only need to make public the snippets of info that support its contention.
This is an attempted coup as sure as it would be if there were tanks on the White House lawn. The CIA might as well have tried to shoot Trump during his next trip to Dallas.
To date, all of these accusations have been based on anonymous sources and leaks. The president of the United States remains silent.
And we are so easily manipulated — liberals/progressives who have rightly attacked the CIA for decades for domestic spying, WMD lies, overthrowing foreign governments, torture, drones, renditions, etc., overnight now believe and support every word the Agency says."

krugle said:

Below sums up my thoughts:




"This is banana republic crap, people, that looks to negate the votes of some 62 million Americans. We no longer believe in our own system. When the candidate many people did not support wins, the response is to seek to negate the democratic process, via accusations that make McCarthy in the 1950s look like a sad amateur.


What we have are anonymous voices at an intelligence agency supposedly dedicated to foreign intel saying the Russians helped elect our next president. That says the process is flawed and cannot be trusted, and that Trump will owe a debt to the Russians and can’t be trusted. It will keep alive the idea that Clinton should have won if not for this meddling and undermine for his term the legitimacy of Trump. Via the classification process, the CIA will only need to make public the snippets of info that support its contention.
This is an attempted coup as sure as it would be if there were tanks on the White House lawn. The CIA might as well have tried to shoot Trump during his next trip to Dallas.
To date, all of these accusations have been based on anonymous sources and leaks. The president of the United States remains silent.
And we are so easily manipulated — liberals/progressives who have rightly attacked the CIA for decades for domestic spying, WMD lies, overthrowing foreign governments, torture, drones, renditions, etc., overnight now believe and support every word the Agency says."

I'd like to see Trump 62 million votes negated considering he lost the popular vote. I know it won't happen because our constitution will not allow. Therefore, its OK to negate the vote of over 65 million who voted for Clinton.

Actually I don't believe the intelligence reports are anonymous. They're written and signed by analysts. It seems even die hard GOP members of congress are concerned. Its not just one agency.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/10/us/politics/trump-mocking-claim-that-russia-hacked-election-at-odds-with-gop.html

theguardian.com: Time's person of the year shouldn’t be Donald Trump – it’s clearly Vladimir Putin

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/09/person-of-the-year-trump-putin-dreams-brexit-us-election-aleppo-post-truth

The CIA reports are not anonymous. WaPo just didn't name them. That's not at all unusual. Good journalists who have strong beats have to develop sources who sometimes go unnamed. Otherwise we would never find out anything.

Of course the CIA reports aren't "anonymous", that's absurd.

we are so effed. We're now being governed by lunatics.who clearly couldn't care less about Democracy, put in by moron voters who don't, apparently, even understand Democracy.

we're so effed.

Meanwhile, there are people, like those clowns at The Intercept, who somehow think that Putin has earned some kind of benefit of the doubt.

After Trump people purge the CIA and load it with loyalists we can be sure these reports will change. The emphasis will be on Iran. The to-be CIA director already said Iran is our greatest threat.

Which is patently incorrect. We haven't seen Iran invade other countries. The have their usual rallies of death to America but actually they have helped in the fight against ISIS.

Unlike Russia which has managed to successfully invade two countries, Georgia and Ukraine. And is destabilizing Syria to its benefit.

drummerboy said:


we are so effed. We're now being governed by lunatics.who clearly couldn't care less about Democracy, put in by moron voters who don't, apparently, even understand Democracy.

We are now governed by the Obama Administration. The Electoral College has not yet met and Obama's term still has 40 days left.

drummerboy said:

Of course the CIA reports aren't "anonymous", that's absurd.

we are so effed. We're now being governed by lunatics.who clearly couldn't care less about Democracy, put in by moron voters who don't, apparently, even understand Democracy.

we're so effed.

Meanwhile, there are people, like those clowns at The Intercept, who somehow think that Putin has earned some kind of benefit of the doubt.

So when the CIA says "Jump" you say "How high?"

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

Of course the CIA reports aren't "anonymous", that's absurd.

we are so effed. We're now being governed by lunatics.who clearly couldn't care less about Democracy, put in by moron voters who don't, apparently, even understand Democracy.

we're so effed.

Meanwhile, there are people, like those clowns at The Intercept, who somehow think that Putin has earned some kind of benefit of the doubt.

So when the CIA says "Jump" you say "How high?"

I know the CIA in the past has been very wrong. But that doesn't mean we
should automatically disregard the CIA and our other intelligence agencies
assessments.

Instead lets believe Trump's trust me, nothing to see here folk.

Using your reasoning we shouldn't believe the CIA assessment that climate change is a serious national security issue.

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/center-on-climate-change-and-national-security.html

Did you disclaim that assessment because its the CIA's? Did you denigrate those who accepted that assessment as you did drummerboy's belief? Do you instead accept what Trump says because Trump says so, not the CIA?

"Trump: ‘Nobody really knows’ if climate change is real".

BG9 said:

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

Of course the CIA reports aren't "anonymous", that's absurd.

we are so effed. We're now being governed by lunatics.who clearly couldn't care less about Democracy, put in by moron voters who don't, apparently, even understand Democracy.

we're so effed.

Meanwhile, there are people, like those clowns at The Intercept, who somehow think that Putin has earned some kind of benefit of the doubt.

So when the CIA says "Jump" you say "How high?"

Infantile and denigrating response.
I know the CIA in the past has been very wrong. But that doesn't mean we
should automatically disregard the CIA and our other intelligence agencies
assessments.

Instead lets believe Trump's trust me, nothing to see here folk.

Using your reasoning we shouldn't believe the CIA assessment that climate change is a serious national security issue.

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/center-on-climate-change-and-national-security.html

Did you disclaim that assessment because its the CIA's? Did you denigrate those who accepted that assessment as you did drummerboy's belief? Do you instead accept what Trump says because Trump says so, not the CIA?

"Trump: ‘Nobody really knows’ if climate change is real".

When the CIA makes a report that is documented and backed with evidence, we can make an informed judgement. We don't have that now. The report is secret.

What is important about drummerboy's post -- and which justifies my response -- is that he called the journalists at the Intercept "clowns" in connection with its critique of the rush to believe the "secret CIA report" without any documentation or evidence.

I would like to know what drummerboy finds "clownish" about the Intercept article. Here's the link for his convenience:

https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10/anonymous-leaks-to-the-washpost-about-the-cias-russia-beliefs-are-no-substitute-for-evidence/

As far as Trump -- It's very sad that he's the one who is reminding us about CIA duplicity and prevarication in persuading Americans to believe that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. I would have expected such a reminder from drummerboy.

How many mainstream media sources have included this in their coverage?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/10/cia-concludes-russia-interfered-to-help-trump-win-election-report?CMP=share_btn_tw

[ Excerpt ]
The Kremlin has rejected the hacking accusations, while the WikiLeaks
founder Julian Assange has previously said the DNC leaks were not
linked to Russia. A second senior official cited by the Washington Post
conceded that intelligence agencies did not have specific proof that the
Kremlin was “directing” the hackers, who were said to be one step
removed from the Russian government.

Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims “bull****”, adding: “They are absolutely making it up.”

“I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.

“If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA’s statement refers
to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would
have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States.

“America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it’s not
been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge
whatsoever.”

paulsurovell said:

As far as Trump -- It's very sad that he's the one who is reminding us about CIA duplicity and prevarication in persuading Americans to believe that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. I would have expected such a reminder from drummerboy.

I was unaware that we were supposed to give George W. Bush and his political people a pass, and blame everything about invading Iraq on the CIA professionals.

paulsurovell said:

I would like to know what drummerboy finds "clownish" about the Intercept article. Here's the link for his convenience:

https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10/anonymous-leaks-to-the-washpost-about-the-cias-russia-beliefs-are-no-substitute-for-evidence/

So Mr. Greenwald has his knickers in a twist because some anonymous source is saying mean things about his anonymous source?

Got it. Greenwald's article could just as well have been written about every "Wikileaked" story that was used to attack Ms. Clinton and help Mr. Trump.

If The Right can believe or profess to believe every negative allegation, rumor or suspicion about Hillary Clinton why shouldn't The Left believe or profess to believe every negative allegation, rumor or suspicion about Donald Trump?

In the Era of Trump facts do not matter. All that matters is winning.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

As far as Trump -- It's very sad that he's the one who is reminding us about CIA duplicity and prevarication in persuading Americans to believe that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. I would have expected such a reminder from drummerboy.

I was unaware that we were supposed to give George W. Bush and his political people a pass, and blame everything about invading Iraq on the CIA professionals.

Of course not. And I didn't.

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

I would like to know what drummerboy finds "clownish" about the Intercept article. Here's the link for his convenience:

https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10/anonymous-leaks-to-the-washpost-about-the-cias-russia-beliefs-are-no-substitute-for-evidence/

So Mr. Greenwald has his knickers in a twist because some anonymous source is saying mean things about his anonymous source?

nohero said:

Got it. Greenwald's article could just as well have been written about every "Wikileaked" story that was used to attack Ms. Clinton and help Mr. Trump.

Greenwald discusses why a "secret CIA report" should not be believed in the absence of evidence. The Wikileaks documents (emails) were the evidence cited in stories. None of the Wikileaks emails were shown to have been altered or inauthentic.

You are trying to make an equivalence between the absence of evidence and the presence of evidence.

Good luck.

Mr. Surovell proved my point. Anonymous leaks were used against the DNC. But they were more reliable than the latest reports, according to the "anti-Hillary" thinking.

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

I would like to know what drummerboy finds "clownish" about the Intercept article. Here's the link for his convenience:

https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10/anonymous-leaks-to-the-washpost-about-the-cias-russia-beliefs-are-no-substitute-for-evidence/

So Mr. Greenwald has his knickers in a twist because some anonymous source is saying mean things about his anonymous source?

Could you be a little more specific?

nohero said:

Got it. Greenwald's article could just as well have been written about every "Wikileaked" story that was used to attack Ms. Clinton and help Mr. Trump.

Greenwald discusses why a "secret CIA report" should not be believed in the absence of evidence. The Wikileaks documents (emails) were the evidence cited in stories. None of the Wikileaks emails were shown to have been altered or inauthentic.

You are trying to make an equivalence between the absence of evidence and the presence of evidence.

Good luck.

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

As far as Trump -- It's very sad that he's the one who is reminding us about CIA duplicity and prevarication in persuading Americans to believe that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. I would have expected such a reminder from drummerboy.

I was unaware that we were supposed to give George W. Bush and his political people a pass, and blame everything about invading Iraq on the CIA professionals.

Of course not. And I didn't.

The CIA didn't "persuade Americans to believe that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat". President Bush and his political minions did that. Your comment, blaming the CIA for everything, excused Bush. So,you did give Bush a pass, as part of giving cover for Mr. Trump. Sorry to point out the obvious implication of your argument.

nohero said:

Mr. Surovell proved my point. Anonymous leaks were used against the DNC. But they were more reliable than the latest reports, according to the "anti-Hillary" thinking.