Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump

[cubby]

I think you are the one that needs to put down the kool aid and stop being spoon fed by the media sir. I am going to copy paste your news story here to show you there is not one piece of evidence or fact that shows Russia hacked the election.

"The FBI is supporting the CIA's conclusion that Russia interfered in the presidential election with the goal of supporting Republican candidate Donald Trump.
In a message sent to employees, CIA Director John Brennan said he had spoken with FBI Director James Comey and James Clapper, the director of national intelligence.

Brennan said in the message that "there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election."

A U.S. official who had seen the unclassified message from Brennan confirmed it to The Associated Press on Friday.

President Barack Obama is promising that the U.S. will retaliate against Russia for its suspected meddling in America's election process, an accusation the Kremlin has vehemently denied."

What exactly did the hack do? What form did it take? What evidence did they base their conclusion on?

I'm sorry, but if you are going to accuse a nuclear armed (and aggressive) opponent of something of this magnitude (and have the president threaten retaliation), you better damn well have proof. Real, hard, evidence. I see no evidence of their "evidence," even in the article you posted to "strengthen" your position.

Again though, if this did happen (I am not ruling it out, it is just that no one has produced any real evidence of this) this begs the question of why Obama was unable to protect the integrity of this election. Is he so bad that his administration can't even run an election now?

Also, how is the government going to compensate us if this happened? Ashley Madison just had to pay out 1.5 million dollars because they were unable to protect the identity of their customers when they were hacked. If the government was unable to protect the integrity of the election if they were hacked, then how will we be compensated? Who will lose their jobs and be fined? The government is keen on punishing private companies when they fail to protect data, what should be the government's penalty for failing to do the same?

Thanks for finally manning up and agreeing. Now that we know it happened, the next step is to determine what to do about it. But at least we've taken the first step. Your point about what to do next is extraordinarily valid. And almost entirely impossible to answer. This is uncharted territory.

[Kiri]

Again though, if this did happen (I am not ruling it out, it is just that no one has produced any real evidence of this) this begs the question of why Obama was unable to protect the integrity of this election. Is he so bad that his administration can't even run an election now?

I know that you seem to be against the government etc., but the government was not hacked. An organization associated with them was. Possibly, the Republican party was hacked as well.
Further, releasing the evidence itself would be counter-productive, apparently. I think I read somewhere that releasing it to the public would equal revealing the methods they used to obtain it to the perpetrators. Which is a pretty bad move, if you want more cyber-security.

[Invrlose]

I know that you seem to be against the government etc., but the government was not hacked. An organization associated with them was. Possibly, the Republican party was hacked as well.
Further, releasing the evidence itself would be counter-productive, apparently. I think I read somewhere that releasing it to the public would equal revealing the methods they used to obtain it to the perpetrators. Which is a pretty bad move, if you want more cyber-security.

So you don't want evidence of a massive conspiracy?

- - - Updated - - -

Another person who doesn't read what he links. This says there's no evidence whatsoever that the hack was done by the Russian government, on its behest or even necessarily by Russians... To top it off, they're saying US intel agencies would have to release some hard evidence (defined in the article) to prove their claims (reason for such necessity also described in the article), much like most of your opponents here. Fucking wow, what a fail.

When I pointed this out he said I just didn't read it lol. Ironic

- - - Updated - - -

FBI, CIA, Homeland Security. I guess in your world they are all lying because . . . reasons. You just keep on chugging the Trumper kool-aid. MAGA!

Here (in case you're interested in information): https://www.yahoo.com/news/official-...194526659.html

Appeal to authority fallacy.

[cubby]

Appeal to authority fallacy.

Appealing to people who know what they're talking about isn't a fallacy - it's called evidence and facts. I'm not sure how you've gotten this far in life without knowing that basic tenet of discussion/conversation/argument.

[Alydael]

Thanks for finally manning up and agreeing. Now that we know it happened, the next step is to determine what to do about it. But at least we've taken the first step. Your point about what to do next is extraordinarily valid. And almost entirely impossible to answer. This is uncharted territory.

It says "the Fbi is supporting the CIA's" conclusion, it doesn't say why or based on what evidence.

It says "there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature and intent" once again, no evidence.

I am a scientific minded person, I need evidence or data- not just someone's word or "consensus."

I do admit it is possible, the government has been hacked multiple times by foreign entities in the last few years. So they are "hackable." It is just in all the other cases they produced evidence, which they have yet to do here. An opinion is not evidence (at least not to me).

Also what form did this hack take? Are they claiming Russia altered vote tallies? Or altered exit polling to somehow influence the voters? Are they just talking about the DNC getting it's e-mail hacked?

If it is the DNC e-mail hack, then it is a non issue to me. The hack just exposed what was said in the e-mails. It is similar to when Trump got recorded on the "hot mic" 20 years ago talking about grabbing that girl. He said something that was meant only to be heard in private that moment. He didn't know he was being recorded, and lo and behold, the tape pops up twenty years later for us all to hear. Same thing with the e-mails. They were speaking "in private" and it was not meant for the public, but it was exposed.

A wise man once told me: don't say anything that you don't want people to hear......

I do hope it is just the DNC e-mails they are talking about. If they are talking about vote tallies being altered or something serious to that effect, then it saddens me that this country has become so inept that we can't even run a proper election anymore....

[cubby]

It says "the Fbi is supporting the CIA's" conclusion, it doesn't say why or based on what evidence.

It says "there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature and intent" once again, no evidence.

I am a scientific minded person, I need evidence or data- not just someone's word or "consensus."

I do admit it is possible, the government has been hacked multiple times by foreign entities in the last few years. So they are "hackable." It is just in all the other cases they produced evidence, which they have yet to do here. An opinion is not evidence (at least not to me).

Also what form did this hack take? Are they claiming Russia altered vote tallies? Or altered exit polling to somehow influence the voters? Are they just talking about the DNC getting it's e-mail hacked?

If it is the DNC e-mail hack, then it is a non issue to me. The hack just exposed what was said in the e-mails. It is similar to when Trump got recorded on the "hot mic" 20 years ago talking about grabbing that girl. He said something that was meant only to be heard in private that moment. He didn't know he was being recorded, and lo and behold, the tape pops up twenty years later for us all to hear. Same thing with the e-mails. They were speaking "in private" and it was not meant for the public, but it was exposed.

A wise man once told me: don't say anything that you don't want people to hear......

I do hope it is just the DNC e-mails they are talking about. If they are talking about vote tallies being altered or something serious to that effect, then it saddens me that this country has become so inept that we can't even run a proper election anymore....

You keep saying I'm right and then asking good questions - ones that I cannot answer. I'll remind you I'm not the source of this information, I'm merely relaying it. You'll have to wait for people who know what they are doing to provide the information.

[Alydael]

You keep saying I'm right and then asking good questions - ones that I cannot answer. I'll remind you I'm not the source of this information, I'm merely relaying it. You'll have to wait for people who know what they are doing to provide the information.

When did I ever say i thought you were right? I said, to be fully clear, that I need to see the evidence before I decide if the election was hacked or not. I have yet, in any of the articles I have read (including the one you posted) seen any evidence of this at all. When they (the CIA, FBI and Homeland security) produce their evidence of this "hacking" and we are able to see what actually happened, then I will believe them. Until then, it is all hearsay by definition of the word.

[Orbitus]

Why are you linking stories older than new information being discussed?

Because you and I both know that if it agrees with his view then it doesn't matter how old the article is. Even if a newer article debunks the old article.

- - - Updated - - -

What makes someone a "real" American?

Anyone that agrees with him and his point of view. But somehow, that doesn't make him the most partisan hack on this forum. Something he called you.

[Cthulhu 2020]

"Dems are just salty that the TRUTH got revealed by Russia! Why do they not want the truth?"

"Truth is fine, as long as it goes both ways. Why didn't they release info on all the dirt on Trump."

"BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MATTER, HILLARY'S TRUTH DID MATTER, TRUMP'S DOESN'T!"



The theme of the Trumpkins throughout this whole thing has been pretty amusing. "We need to know the truth about Clinton, even if some of it's not truth, just someone spreading fake dirt on her. Trump, well we know he's a big liar and a scam, so we don't care if nothing is revealed on him. We just want someone who spits on SJWs in the white house. MAGA!"

I believe it was @Nixx that pointed out how you can throw as much of Trump's dirt out as you want and the Trumpkins will either deny it's even true, justify it, or dismiss it as irrelevant. They don't care how corrupt and terrible Trump is for the country, so you have to come up with other ways of beating them than pointing out they're massive hypocrites when it comes to corruption, pay to play, being a warmonger, being careless with emails, and countless litigations against him.

[Alydael]

I know that you seem to be against the government etc., but the government was not hacked. An organization associated with them was. Possibly, the Republican party was hacked as well.
Further, releasing the evidence itself would be counter-productive, apparently. I think I read somewhere that releasing it to the public would equal revealing the methods they used to obtain it to the perpetrators. Which is a pretty bad move, if you want more cyber-security.

As for releasing evidence, the government has released evidence in every other cyber attack it has suffered. It never cared about releasing the evidence and methodology before, why is it a concern now?

So then this is all about the DNC e-mail being hacked? That is a non issue for me. It is similar to when Trump got recorded saying he would grab that women 20 years ago. He thought what he was saying was private, but someone secretly recorded him and sold it to the papers. The DNC thought their e-mail was secure but, someone (Russia) hacked it and exposed what they said. Really the same thing. The candidate thought they were speaking in private but they were exposed.

[TriHard]

No surprise there tbh.

[Kiri]

So you don't want evidence of a massive conspiracy?

I want evidence, but I understand that it would be under a need-to-know basis here. The current problem is that we have experts hired to investigate things, be they reporters, spies or other agents, but due to the current climate, no one seems to believe them. It is prudent and good to not take everything one is told by the media or government agencies at face value, yes, but at the moment, everything they say seems to be met with 'give me 100% irrefutable proof that even Joe Normal understands or I will just not believe you'. Russia may or may not have launched a cyberattack, but the true war on information is going on amidst the general populace at the moment.

Edit:

As for releasing evidence, the government has released evidence in every other cyber attack it has suffered. It never cared about releasing the evidence and methodology before, why is it a concern now?

So then this is all about the DNC e-mail being hacked? That is a non issue for me. It is similar to when Trump got recorded saying he would grab that women 20 years ago. He thought what he was saying was private, but someone secretly recorded him and sold it to the papers. The DNC thought their e-mail was secure but, someone (Russia) hacked it and exposed what they said. Really the same thing. The candidate thought they were speaking in private but they were exposed.

Has it? I do not recall those incidents. Could you link me to any sources on that? I might be interested in your point, but you seem to have done some research already.

However, the two things are not really equal, unless the recording person was an agent from another nation-state, seeking to selectively release information on one of the two candidates. I also doubt they broke into Trump's house to make that recording, which would have been a crime analogous to the one supposedly perpetrated here. So no, not really the same imho.

[Orbitus]

Clinton still blaming russia. It couldn't be her 40 years of lies, scandals, dead bodies and basically thumbing her nose at the working class?

What dead bodies? Please don't tell me that stupid death list.

[Alydael]

"Dems are just salty that the TRUTH got revealed by Russia! Why do they not want the truth?"

"Truth is fine, as long as it goes both ways. Why didn't they release info on all the dirt on Trump."

"BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MATTER, HILLARY'S TRUTH DID MATTER, TRUMP'S DOESN'T!"



The theme of the Trumpkins throughout this whole thing has been pretty amusing. "We need to know the truth about Clinton, even if some of it's not truth, just someone spreading fake dirt on her. Trump, well we know he's a big liar and a scam, so we don't care if nothing is revealed on him. We just want someone who spits on SJWs in the white house. MAGA!"

I believe it was @Nixx that pointed out how you can throw as much of Trump's dirt out as you want and the Trumpkins will either deny it's even true, justify it, or dismiss it as irrelevant. They don't care how corrupt and terrible Trump is for the country, so you have to come up with other ways of beating them than pointing out they're massive hypocrites when it comes to corruption, pay to play, being a warmonger, being careless with emails, and countless litigations against him.

Maybe that is true of the Trump supporters you know, but the song of the Trump supporters I know is quite different. They admit to all the things he has said and done and agree they are bad. They just think that even with all that baggage, he was still better than Hillary. Maybe we just live in different parts of the country or something.

The DNC got e-mail hacked and exposed.

Trump got exposed by a hidden mic. Both sides were affected by similar types of attacks. They both said things they thought were "in private" and were never meant for the public to hear and both got exposed.

"Don't say (or e-mail) anything you don't want people to hear."

[Felya]

Maybe that is true of the Trump supporters you know, but the song of the Trump supporters I know is quite different. They admit to all the things he has said and done and agree they are bad. They just think that even with all that baggage, he was still better than Hillary. Maybe we just live in different parts of the country or something.

The DNC got e-mail hacked and exposed.

Trump got exposed by a hidden mic. Both sides were affected by similar types of attacks.

What was exposed in the email?

[Spectral]

Podesta getting phished really is pretty funny. These people are spectacular fuckups. How did we get such a bunch of spectacular fuckups to such high positions? This is the kind of shit that gets mid-level employees fired.

[Felya]

Podesta getting phished really is pretty funny. These people are spectacular fuckups. How did we get such a bunch of spectacular fuckups to such high positions? This is the kind of shit that gets mid-level employees fired.

How did they lure him?

[Orbitus]

Specifically what was the gossip? I feel like if I ask you specifically what was in the emails you can't tell me.

Probably the whole "spirit cooking" bullshit that was spread like wildfire through retarded conspiracy stations like Infowars. I know plenty of people on here have talked about it like Ransath.

[Alydael]

What was exposed in the email?

All the stuff on wiki leaks, I guess. I have read a bunch of articles on this alleged "hack" and they are vague. I am not even sure if they are talking about the old e-mail hack, some new e-mail hack or some other hack all together. I actually read this thread hoping someone would link something that was more certain than what I am seeing, but I have yet to find it, unfortunately. I guess we might have to wait until these agencies release more information.

[Spectral]

How did they lure him?

I'd missed it until things bubbled back up, but apparently like this:

On its face, the source of the potentially dangerous email is Google, but a closer look at the actual mailing address shows an unfamiliar or bogus-looking account: "no-reply@accounts.googlemail.com."
The subject line warns, "Someone has your password" and the body of the message says "someone" in Ukraine tried, but was stopped, from signing into Podesta's account.
"You should change your password immediately," the email warns. The words "CHANGE PASSWORD" then appear -- inviting Podesta to click on them -- as a way to do just that. But the address did not link to a secure Google web page, instead directing the user blindly via bit.ly, a service used to shorten or conceal web addresses.

Apparently John Podesta is my grandmother. This whole thing is funnier if read with a Russian accent.