Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump

[Creotor]

Pretty much.

CIA: "They may or may not have a more advanced weapon program than previously thought and may or may not have supplies to make WMDs. Needs further investigation."

White House: "THEY GOT NUKES WE GOIN TO WAR BOYS!"

That's what Bush's administration claimed was the main reason, the nuclear weapons? Did Colin Powell shake a vial of enriched uranium at the UN meeting?

[NYC17]

That's what Bush's administration claimed was the main reason, the nuclear weapons? Did Colin Powell shake a vial of enriched uranium at the UN meeting?

Did he not talk about aluminum tubes and their role in possibly enriching uranium? Oh...

[Creotor]

Did he not talk about aluminum tubes and their role in possibly enriching uranium? Oh...

Not an answer to either of my questions. Try again.

[NYC17]

Neither is an answer to either of my questions. Try again.

Your questions aren't very good. And honestly, people know the semantics game you're trying to play and don't seem interested in playing it. So perhaps, you should insert a quarter and try again.

[Bullettime]

Unless they actually manipulated the results in that the winner (Trump) didn't actually win, I don't see the point. Of course they tried to influence things to their benefit. Welcome to reality. I'm no more outraged by that then europeans here on Mmo-champion expressing their opinion about the election and trying to "influence" the americans who actually make the choice. So the russians got the person they wanted, good for them. Doesn't nullify the result unless there is some part of the constitution that says you cant be president if a foreign government likes you. (Yes the "outrage" over this is that stupid).

I swear to fucking god it's like people don't even bother to read articles and just go off half cocked in every fucking thread.

No one is saying Trump shouldn't get elected based on what we know RIGHT NOW, which isn't much because the investigation is still classified. We only know about the situation itself and vague details from interviews with Congressmen and the CIA leaking that it's happening. The investigation, along with the Congressional investigation about to start are for below.

1. Declare that it is or is not, in fact, Russia behind it. Most agencies say yes, but no formal statement.
2. Find out who currently, at this time, has the information.
3. Find out what information they have, and on who they may happen to have dirt and possible leverage on. The DNC, RNC, and Trump were all confirmed compromised by the CIA. The FBI agrees as well, just not in agreeance on the motive
4. Look for possibilities of collusion between any of our politicians, the DNC/RNC, and Trump with the culprit.

Trump is disqualifying his own presidency through other means like nonstop ethics violations and threatening to use his power for personal gain and for vendettas against opposition. This is just an extra layer of shade that needs to be investigated regardless.

edit: They're going to investigate EVERYONE on all sides. Trump just happens to be at the center.

[Creotor]

Your questions aren't very good. And honestly, people know the semantics game you're trying to play and don't seem interested in playing it. So perhaps, you should insert a quarter and try again.

Semantics games, that's exactly right. I'm posing very simple questions, to get very simple answers so they can't weasel out with some BS later on.
Now, if you can't answer the ones I asked, you can bail once again.

Also, good on you, for knowing why people will or won't do something. Are you one of those who speaks on behalf of others often?

[NYC17]

Semantics games, that's exactly right. I'm posing very simple questions, to get very simple answers so they can't weasel out with some BS later on.
Now, if you can't answer the ones I asked, you can bail once again.

Also, good on you, for knowing why people will or won't do something. Are you one of those who speaks on behalf of others often?

You're posing very simple questions to complicated situations in order to get the preconceived answer you seek. You aren't that clever and the obviousness of it belies your intent.

I don't need to speak on other's behalf when it's abundantly clear the game you are failing at playing. Do you need to borrow a quarter? You can't have my New York ones...

[Theodarzna]

Perhaps Russia just returned the favor?

[Creotor]

You're posing very simple questions to complicated situations in order to get the preconceived answer you seek. You aren't that clever and the obviousness of it belies your intent.

I don't need to speak on other's behalf when it's abundantly clear the game you are failing at playing. Do you need to borrow a quarter? You can't have my New York ones...

What's preconceived about yes/no answers to extremely simple questions? That's what they do in courts. I don't claim to be particularly clever, but certainly am guilty of thinking you are an idiot.

You don't need to, yet you are. What's up with that?

[zenkai]

This shit is getting hilarious.

In the wake of a CIA assessment that Russia interfered in the U.S. election to boost Donald Trump, some media personalities are seizing on the report as proof Moscow just installed its own version of a Manchurian candidate.

The Washington Post first reported on the CIA assessment Friday. But despite internal disagreements over the analysis -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has not embraced the CIA finding, and neither has the FBI -- the report has fueled efforts to derail Trump in the Electoral College and call the entire election into question.


GOP strategist John Weaver concluded the country has been hit by “cyber 9/11” and Russia “committed a Pearl Harbor cyber attack” to put Trump in the White House.

All these people with their tin foil hats on, it's even worse than when Obama was first elected.

[Bullettime]

This shit is getting hilarious.

In the wake of a CIA assessment that Russia interfered in the U.S. election to boost Donald Trump, some media personalities are seizing on the report as proof Moscow just installed its own version of a Manchurian candidate.

The Washington Post first reported on the CIA assessment Friday. But despite internal disagreements over the analysis -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has not embraced the CIA finding, and neither has the FBI -- the report has fueled efforts to derail Trump in the Electoral College and call the entire election into question.


GOP strategist John Weaver concluded the country has been hit by “cyber 9/11” and Russia “committed a Pearl Harbor cyber attack” to put Trump in the White House.

All these people with their tin foil hats on, it's even worse than when Obama was first elected.

The spin from Fox is hilarious. An assload of other outlets, including GOP politicians themselves, have stated that the FBI and CIA are in agreeance that Russian tampering and cyber attacks have happened on the three parties. What they're NOT agreeing on is the motive or the severity.

[zenkai]

The spin from Fox is hilarious. An assload of other outlets, including GOP politicians themselves, have stated that the FBI and CIA are in agreeance that Russian tampering and cyber attacks have happened on the three parties. What they're NOT agreeing on is the motive or the severity.

No one is disagreeing that Russia cyber attacks happened, they disagree WHY it happened. There is no spin, that is just a fact.

[NYC17]

No one is disagreeing that Russia cyber attacks happened, they disagree WHY it happened. There is no spin, that is just a fact.

That's...exactly what he said.

But more to the point, people on this very thread are claiming the CIA is lying about the hacking because they distrust the CIA. SO yes, there are people disagreeing that they happened.

[Bullettime]

No one is disagreeing that Russia cyber attacks happened, they disagree WHY it happened. There is no spin, that is just a fact.

The spin is Fox's wording of the article making it out like a "nothing to see here folks" claim and not going into detail about what they disagreed with. Instead, they just claimed disagreement with the CIA and everything is peachy.

[zenkai]

That's...exactly what he said.

But more to the point, people on this very thread are claiming the CIA is lying about the hacking because they distrust the CIA. SO yes, there are people disagreeing that they happened.

I reiterate and and showed there is no spin, it's just a fact. Calling facts a spin just shows his ignorance.

[Elim Garak]

No one is disagreeing that Russia cyber attacks happened

I disagree, because that haven't been proven. I don't disagree that cyber attacks happened, though. Perhaps even by Russian hackers, but not Russia as in State.

[zenkai]

The spin is Fox's wording of the article making it out like a "nothing to see here folks" claim and not going into detail about what they disagreed with. Instead, they just claimed disagreement with the CIA and everything is peachy.

I didn't take it that way, I took it as people took a statement from CIA, ignored the FBI and Director of National security and ran saying that Trump is Putin 2.0. If you want to complain about spins, THAT is a spin.

So you don't have a problem with people making false claims against Trump but have a problem with Fox News stating facts? I love Partisans.

[NYC17]

What's preconceived about yes/no answers to extremely simple questions? That's what they do in courts. I don't claim to be particularly clever, but certainly am guilty of thinking you are an idiot.

You don't need to, yet you are. What's up with that?

There's nothing wrong with yes or no answers. It's the actual questions, the obvious semantical argument your questions are designed to invoke, and the obliviousness of why "simple questions" about complex problems is a pointless endeavor. Unless, of course, you're trying to base your argument on semantics. Funny how that works.

Unfortunately your analytical ability seems to be somewhere south of dog shit, so it also seems your ability to determine idiocy correctly is, at best, suspect. That..is a shame.

There's a difference between speaking on other's behalf and offering a reason as to why they most likely haven't engaged in your rather pathetically designed attempt at an argument based on semantics after your whining about them not answering you. Usually, functional adults are able to draw conclusions and understand other adults draw conclusions without attributing it to them speaking on another's behalf. You don't seem capable of distinguishing that.

Is this the part where I "cleverly" ask, What's up with that? Or can we just ignore that bit of failed nonsense and pretend like you are capable of an actual discussion?

[Creotor]

...

Questions that can be answered with yes/no/I don't know answer are not complex by default. All the complex situations, as you called them, are made up of simple constructs. Clarifying people's thoughts on those simple parts makes their opinion on the whole matter as close to crystal clear as possible. You refusing to acknowledge that and starting the whole diatribe about my questions indicates either that you are mentally challenged or refusing to back down from something you clearly shouldn't have started and already lost; at this point, resorting to saying stupid, dishonest shit, because the only other alternatives are either to shut up or admit being wrong. Of course, that will never happen. Expecting your 'I'm fed up with your shit, I'm ignoring you' exit post soon to cover your ass at least a bit on the way out.

You saying they know my games or w/e is exactly speaking on someone's behalf. It is not offering a reason, it is called making a claim, one that can only be made if you either communicated with said someone explicitly on that matter, or if you're a mind reader. Or if you're full of shit.
Do point out my whining about not being answered. Will be waiting for an exact quote of it.

The part where you "cleverly" say "failed nonsense" is contained in every one your responses to me in this thread, you've already overfilled the quota.

[zenkai]

You're debating people that aren't here because no one here seems to be saying what you're claiming they're saying.

Intelligence agencies agree russians hacked all political parties.
Only shit to smear one particular party seems to have been leaked by them.
logical conclusion? They wanted the other party to win.

Not very difficult to come to that conclusion. I don't see any spinning going on.

Speculating and confirming are 2 different things, and pretty strong statement. People are worried Trump is going to start a war with China and here we are the CIA accusing Russia of shit that could start another cold war.

Also no proof of RNC hacking - http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/10/politi...acked-russian/