Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump

[Elim Garak]

Do any of you here have Putin's permission to talk about this? I doubt so. So scram or he will cut you up.

[Thrive]

Oh look, a thing I did not say.


There have never been any credible allegations that she leaked top secret info.

Listen, I'm not in the right state to argue logically right now on more than one thread, as it is 2 in the morning, so I'm just not going to.

[Nadiru]

So the CIA made the bold claim that a foreign country was trying to help get a person, which they believed would be a good President for that country, elected as President. Did the CIA make any mention of Russia succeeding in their help? Trump winning in itself is not proof of foul play, no matter how much people might want it to be.

[Skroe]

There is no crisis. Other nations support foreign candidates all the time, it's not illegal. Consider it a humanitarian effort.

It is an intelligence operation against the United States. It doesn't matter if Hillary Clinton had been Hannibal Lecter. Foreign interference is unacceptabe as a matter of principle, even if it benefits "your side". This was a foundational principle of this country. The founders were concerned because especially in their time their contemporaries were formerly British subjects and they were concerned about the British Empire gaining influence in young America through sympathetic elected officials that they helped.

The principle has not changed in 229 years. It is not a Democratic or Republican issue. it is an American issue. You don't get to think of yourself as a patriotic person in the slightest, if you give a pass to Russia for their actions even if your side won.

[Wells]

So the CIA made the bold claim that a foreign country was trying to help get a person, which they believed would be a good President for that country, elected as President. Did the CIA make any mention of Russia succeeding in their help? Trump winning in itself is not proof of foul play, no matter how much people might want it to be.

This is an assumption of motivation with no support and a pretty laughable one at that.

There is zero reason to think Russia did this for anyone else than Russia.

[Elim Garak]

So the CIA made the bold claim that a foreign country was trying to help get a person, which they believed would be a good President for that country, elected as President. Did the CIA make any mention of Russia succeeding in their help? Trump winning in itself is not proof of foul play, no matter how much people might want it to be.

... trumP what more evidence do you need?

[Nadiru]

This is an assumption of motivation with no support and a pretty laughable one at that.

There is zero reason to think Russia did this for anyone else than Russia.

You're misreading it; I meant good for Russia.

[Reivur]

If you have evidence that Clinton broke the law with donations to her Foundation give the IRS a call.

This is not a thread about Clinton.

How is the topic not about Clinton in the context that they responded to you? The thread is literally: "Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump".

The CIA has been criticized for influencing votes towards Trump against Hillary by opening an investigation on her during a critical moment of the election. The CIA has been lambasted by both sides of the political isle for misinformation and muddying the campaigns as a whole, with varying yo-yo support depending on who the CIA flipped off that week.

Clinton has repeatedly made claims that Russia hacked the DNC to aid Trump so they would have their own personal puppet for the US. It was implied that not only does he have a terrible temper and is mentally weak, but that he has ties to Putin and is friendly and 'respects' him.

There are many criticisms being placed that the issue isn't necessarily the result of the election ( ) but instead that the argument is based on the principle that foreign nations have influenced and are undermining our democracy.

How is that not part of this topic? I get its inconvenient, but bringing up these auxiliary issues is quite relevant. You can't ignore the Saudi Prince's throwing wads of cash and support past the Federal allowance of campaign donations and then pretend this is a matter of integrity while talking about what Russia may or may not have done on its own.

[Shadowmelded]

Watch for the same thing to happen in Germany and France.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wir...rmany-44054910

The CIA has been criticized for influencing votes towards Trump against Hillary by opening an investigation on her during a critical moment of the election. The CIA has been lambasted by both sides of the political isle for misinformation and muddying the campaigns as a whole, with varying yo-yo support depending on who the CIA flipped off that week.

Uhhh, that was the FBI not the CIA. The same FBI who said there were no links between Russia and the DNC hack. The same FBI whose director opposed releasing information that Russia was trying to interfere in the elections because it was "too close to the election" but had no qualms about releasing information about an investigation into a candidate that turned up nothing extremely close to the election.

[Wells]

You're misreading it; I meant good for Russia.

Fair enough, but if your position is that its not reasonable to think that the constant leaks cost her the election that's a bold, bold claim.

- - - Updated - - -

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wir...rmany-44054910

Yeah Wikileaks put out another one of their pearl clutching pieces too, about how, horror of horrors, US intelligence was sharing information with German intelligence.

[Reivur]

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wir...rmany-44054910



Uhhh, that was the FBI not the CIA. The same FBI who said there were no links between Russia and the DNC hack. The same FBI whose director opposed releasing information that Russia was trying to interfere in the elections because it was "too close to the election" but had no qualms about releasing information about an investigation into a candidate that turned up nothing extremely close to the election.

I slipped, I pull the 4 AM excuse.

But yes, releasing information about an investigation close to the election was the part they complained about. Conversely the side the other aisle complained about (which held way less merit, but they complained regardless) was disclosing the first investigation and saying that she was innocent/would not be charged. RNC was just as pissed about that, though I feel little sympathy for them since it was kind of crazy that it was so out in the open in the first place.

Hillary's campaign being pissed about the second investigation was definitely justified.

[Nadiru]

It is an intelligence operation against the United States. It doesn't matter if Hillary Clinton had been Hannibal Lecter. Foreign interference is unacceptabe as a matter of principle, even if it benefits "your side". This was a foundational principle of this country. The founders were concerned because especially in their time their contemporaries were formerly British subjects and they were concerned about the British Empire gaining influence in young America through sympathetic elected officials that they helped.

The principle has not changed in 229 years. It is not a Democratic or Republican issue. it is an American issue. You don't get to think of yourself as a patriotic person in the slightest, if you give a pass to Russia for their actions even if your side won.

Saudi Arabia supported Hilary Clinton; so did Google, but they were sneakier about it.

Jordan’s official news agency reported that Saudi Deputy Prince Mohammed bin Salman claimed Riyadh provided 20% of Hilary Clinton’s election campaign. The Podesta Group contacted the news agency, which responded with a claim that they were “hacked”. Here is the FARA registration for the Podesta Group and the Center for Studies and Media Affairs at the Saudi Royal Court. Podesta Group was founded by Center for American Progress chairman and Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Staff John Podesta.

From influential foreign policy think-tanks, to American tech monopolies, to Iron Age chieftains who controls the fate of post-Industrial currency, the prime movers of the world are backing Hilary Clinton. This makes sense since these powers completely pocketed much of the liquidity freed up by the Clinton’s Pandora moment with repelling Glass-Steagall. And despite the massive surge of wealth Saudi Arabia and Google accumulated from this late 90s event, these two entities still fear being open about their support for Clinton.

With the passing of the Citizens United ruling, corporations are allowed to spend as much as they want to influence American elections. Saudi Arabia has made it very clear that clean energy technology and fracking are significant threats to its power. In fact, they’ve already utilized Citizens United to funded opposition to Democratic and Republican senators in Missouri and Wisconsin.

[Skroe]

Jesus fucking Christ what is going on.

We just lived through perhaps the most successful intelligence operation in human history. Trump shouldn't be 2016 man of the year. Putin should be.

[Wells]

Saudi Arabia supported Hillary Clinton; so did Google, but they were sneakier about it.

Jordan’s official news agency reported that Saudi Deputy Prince Mohammed bin Salman claimed Riyadh provided 20% of Hilary Clinton’s election campaign. The Podesta Group contacted the news agency, which responded with a claim that they were “hacked”. Here is the FARA registration for the Podesta Group and the Center for Studies and Media Affairs at the Saudi Royal Court. Podesta Group was founded by Center for American Progress chairman and Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Staff John Podesta.

From influential foreign policy think-tanks, to American tech monopolies, to Iron Age chieftains who controls the fate of post-Industrial currency, the prime movers of the world are backing Hilary Clinton. This makes sense since these powers completely pocketed much of the liquidity freed up by the Clinton’s Pandora moment with repelling Glass-Steagall. And despite the massive surge of wealth Saudi Arabia and Google accumulated from this late 90s event, these two entities still fear being open about their support for Clinton.

With the passing of the Citizens United ruling, corporations are allowed to spend as much as they want to influence American elections. Saudi Arabia has made it very clear that clean energy technology and fracking are significant threats to its power. In fact, they’ve already utilized Citizens United to funded opposition to Democratic and Republican senators in Missouri and Wisconsin.

"But but Clinton" kind of lost any significance when Trump won the White House.

[Nadiru]

Fair enough, but if your position is that its not reasonable to think that the constant leaks cost her the election that's a bold, bold claim.

Wasn't that basically Hillary's position, prior to November 8th? That the leaks were completely irrelevant and Trump was going to receive the electoral skullthumping of his life?

- - - Updated - - -

"But but Clinton" kind of lost any significance when Trump won the White House.

This ain't about Clinton, this is about Saudi Arabia, Citizens United, Google, and a paradigm shift that Skroe has allowed himself to miss.

[Wells]

This ain't about Clinton, this is about Saudi Arabia, Citizens United, Google, and a paradigm shift that Skroe has allowed himself to miss.

lol. mkay.

Wasn't that basically Hillary's position, prior to November 8th? That the leaks were completely irrelevant and Trump was going to receive the electoral skullthumping of his life?

A campaign said they'd win? Shocking development! Again, to claim that the constant negative coverage stemming from Russia's intelligence operations didn't cost her the election she lost by a couple thousand votes is.....yyeeeeaaaaaah

[Skroe]

Saudi Arabia supported Hillary Clinton; so did Google, but they were sneakier about it.

Jordan’s official news agency reported that Saudi Deputy Prince Mohammed bin Salman claimed Riyadh provided 20% of Hilary Clinton’s election campaign. The Podesta Group contacted the news agency, which responded with a claim that they were “hacked”. Here is the FARA registration for the Podesta Group and the Center for Studies and Media Affairs at the Saudi Royal Court. Podesta Group was founded by Center for American Progress chairman and Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Staff John Podesta.

From influential foreign policy think-tanks, to American tech monopolies, to Iron Age chieftains who controls the fate of post-Industrial currency, the prime movers of the world are backing Hilary Clinton. This makes sense since these powers completely pocketed much of the liquidity freed up by the Clinton’s Pandora moment with repelling Glass-Steagall. And despite the massive surge of wealth Saudi Arabia and Google accumulated from this late 90s event, these two entities still fear being open about their support for Clinton.

With the passing of the Citizens United ruling, corporations are allowed to spend as much as they want to influence American elections. Saudi Arabia has made it very clear that clean energy technology and fracking are significant threats to its power. In fact, they’ve already utilized Citizens United to funded opposition to Democratic and Republican senators in Missouri and Wisconsin.

And that's wrong too. You do_not_ have a counter argument here in the slightest. This gets back to the larger point: American politicians need to stop pretending that their domestic campaigns and domestic politics don't have international consequences and international interests. Once upon a time American politicians generally knew that. Now they flagrantly don't care, so long as it benefits them. That must not be the case. All foreign intervention and assistance must be reacted to with nothing but condemnation and scorn.

The key difference here though, is that Saudi Arabia is an American ally that operated on a small scale, while Russia is an American enemy operating on a large scale with this a component in their grand strategy to role back America's global role. Now as a matter of principle, a country interfering is a country interfering, but the two don't cross each other out. Rather if we ignore Russia's actions now for the sake of protecting your guy Trump, what happens over the next 4 years is more pro-Russian, anti-American events.

Just remember: Vladmir Putin is the man who described the Fall of the Soviet Union as the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century (as in, he lamented it's dissolution). The man does not have America or yours interests at heart.

- - - Updated - - -

This ain't about Clinton, this is about Saudi Arabia, Citizens United, Google, and a paradigm shift that Skroe has allowed himself to miss.

There has been no paradigm shift, period. (1) Trump narrowly won the electoral vote while decisively losing the popular vote. (2)Obama's people said and thought the same thing in 2008. And look how that turned out.


If you actually think that Trump's victory heralds some new era in this country and the world that declares that will see Trumpism ascendant, I invite you to go talk to Barack Obama 2008's most enthusiastic supporters and ask them how our counter-establishment, post-racial liberal society is working out. After all wasn't "Demographics supposed to be destiny"?

But you won't because Trumpkins winning is all about the feels and not on iota about what to do constructively now that he won. I mean you guys can't even get your narrative right. "Drain the Swamp"? Nice three Goldman Sachs guys Trump has picked. And it seems perhaps the CEO of Exxon Mobile as Secretary of State.

[kenthovind]

To summarize:

Trump praises Putin
Trump publicly urges Putin to hack opponent
Putin hacks opponent
Trump wins
Trump denies Putin's role

I mean at this point this is fucking ridiculous. This is far beyond the level of even GWB being given the Presidency out of shenanigan bullshit in Florida.

I don't give a damn if you support Trump or not, but how can you call yourself an American (Which Trumpettes love to do, pretend they're TRUE REAL MURICANS!) and be ok with a foreign nation deciding our election? Are you that much of an ideologue that this is ok? And don't come in with this "You just want Clinton" bullshit. Put anybody else in there you want. I'm not mad it wasn't Clinton, I'm mad that Russia helped Trump win.

Stop it with your dumb conspiracy theories about Russia. The elite of the USA need to blame someone and they do it with theories accusing other governments of being involved. Provide proof or shut the hell up.

[Nadiru]

A campaign said they'd win? Shocking development! Again, to claim that the constant negative coverage stemming from Russia's intelligence operations didn't cost her the election she lost by a couple thousand votes is.....yyeeeeaaaaaah

Trump received tons of bad press. He was compared to Hitler, Voldemort, Darth Vader, the Antichrist, was called sexist, racist, misogynist, fascist, corrupt...people tried to smear him in pretty much any possible way they could think of. The question you'd need to answer is: how did Wikileaks, which got considerably less mainstream focus than is being acknowledged, to the point of being censored on live TV, manage to permeate the skulls of an American demographic so derided for being stupid, uncritical, unindependent thinkers, over a constant bombardment strategy of "Trump bad" news media?

[Wells]

Trump received tons of bad press. He was compared to Hitler, Voldemort, Darth Vader, the Antichrist, was called sexist, racist, misogynist, fascist, corrupt...people tried to smear him in pretty much any possible way they could think of. The question you'd need to answer is: how did Wikileaks, which got considerably less mainstream focus than is being acknowledged, to the point of being censored on live TV, manage to permeate the skulls of an American demographic so derided for being stupid, uncritical, unindependent thinkers, over a constant bombardment strategy of "Trump bad" news media?

Wait, are you seriously trying to claim that these hacked emails weren't everywhere in the news? And that that didn't damage Clinton?