Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump

[Cthulhu 2020]

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."

A sound bite of Trump admitting to sexual assault was pretty much the worst that got revealed though. Russians probably have dirt on the RNC and Trump, and are sitting on it til they need to blackmail.

For as much as Trumpkins love Russia right now, they'll be singing a different toon once they twist Trump's arm to be their stooge.

Trump was better than Hillary? Lol, please. I want a strong president that will stand up to threats from foreign rivals and play nice with our allies, not bend over to get fucked by our rivals and piss off our allies.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

They went over the emails and found nothing of consequence. A bunch of people thought Clinton was trafficking child sex slaves because they saw "Child trafficking underground code words" in the emails, and when asked about said code system, said they didn't know what the code words meant, just knew that they were code words.

In other words, anyone with a brain, hopefully yourself included, would know that they were just bullshitting because they hated Clinton. Bur regardless of all that, a large portion of the populace thought that these emails meant Clinton had done something illegal, which couldn't be further from the truth.

[Alydael]

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:



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.

Here is a link to an article about one of china's cyber attacks on us. Just look at how much more information is presented in this article compared to what is coming out about this Russian hack.

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...ity-clearances

Also, the "hot mic" incident is the same. The mic was supposed to be off, but "someone" turned it on, recorded it and sold it later in an attempt to derail Trump's candidacy. The "e-mails" were supposed to be private, but someone (CIA thinks Russia) hacked them and made them available to the public in an attempt to derail Hillary.

Both were incidences of something damaging, that was said in "confidentiality" and was later exposed in an attempt to harm the person. The only difference was that in one instance, it was probably a private citizen- in the other instance, the CIA thinks it was russia. The only difference between the two is the messenger, which is irrelevant if you think about it really.

[Kiri]

Here is a link to an article about one of china's cyber attacks on us. Just look at how much more information is presented in this article compared to what is coming out about this Russian hack.

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...ity-clearances

Also, the "hot mic" incident is the same. The mic was supposed to be off, but "someone" turned it on, recorded it and sold it later in an attempt to derail Trump's candidacy. The "e-mails" were supposed to be private, but someone (CIA thinks Russia) hacked them and made them available to the public in an attempt to derail Hillary.

Both were incidences of something damaging, that was said in "confidentiality" and was later exposed in an attempt to harm the person. The only difference was that in one instance, it was probably a private citizen- in the other instance, the CIA thinks it was russia. The only difference between the two is the messenger, which is irrelevant if you think about it really.

@Article: I see, I see. Though they did not really show any evidence there regarding how they found out that the Chinese did it. It only mentions how the hack was detected, but not how the connection to China was made (they were looking into it). Has actual evidence linking the Chinese been found in this case later on?
@Incident: I remain unconvinced. Yes, in both cases, something supposedly private was compromised. The analogy would, however, need Trump to have made the recording himself, stored it in his house, and then have it stored by someone else. The important part that this discussion is about would be about the break-in, not the recording itself.

[Deleted]

How did they lure him?

A you should change your email pass at this totally legit website.

[NED funded]

So uuuh like the FBI seems to agree with what the CIA said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.02bf09590afe

[Shadowmelded]

So uuuh like the FBI seems to agree with what the CIA said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.02bf09590afe

Just to pre-empt the "FAKE NEWS" "LOL WAPO" etc...

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/1...p-trump-232755
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...-trump-n697066
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/31...n-interference

[Alydael]

A sound bite of Trump admitting to sexual assault was pretty much the worst that got revealed though. Russians probably have dirt on the RNC and Trump, and are sitting on it til they need to blackmail.

For as much as Trumpkins love Russia right now, they'll be singing a different toon once they twist Trump's arm to be their stooge.

Trump was better than Hillary? Lol, please. I want a strong president that will stand up to threats from foreign rivals and play nice with our allies, not bend over to get fucked by our rivals and piss off our allies.

- - - Updated - - -



They went over the emails and found nothing of consequence. A bunch of people thought Clinton was trafficking child sex slaves because they saw "Child trafficking underground code words" in the emails, and when asked about said code system, said they didn't know what the code words meant, just knew that they were code words.

In other words, anyone with a brain, hopefully yourself included, would know that they were just bullshitting because they hated Clinton. Bur regardless of all that, a large portion of the populace thought that these emails meant Clinton had done something illegal, which couldn't be further from the truth.

First of all, I didn't vote for Hillary or trump. Neither one represented my values and policy ideas. I vote locally, since what happens with local politicians tends to affect me more directly. Not only that, but they are more accessable, so I am able to meet them and get an accurate measure of their character.

From my view (I know opinions vary), that sound bite really hurt Trump. Some news agencies even dubbed it the "October surprise," so it is not as if it was inconsequential.

I never said I considered the e-mails damaging. Someone asked what the e-mail part was about so I responded. Personally, I don't think the e-mail scandal had anything to do with Hillary's loss. Obviously, Hillary and the Dems do though, which is why everyone is claiming that the "russian hack" affected the election. Assuming that the "hack" everyone is referring to is the DNC e-mail hack and not some other hack.

- - - Updated - - -

@Article: I see, I see. Though they did not really show any evidence there regarding how they found out that the Chinese did it. It only mentions how the hack was detected, but not how the connection to China was made (they were looking into it). Has actual evidence linking the Chinese been found in this case later on?
@Incident: I remain unconvinced. Yes, in both cases, something supposedly private was compromised. The analogy would, however, need Trump to have made the recording himself, stored it in his house, and then have it stored by someone else. The important part that this discussion is about would be about the break-in, not the recording itself.

Well honestly, I don't think they will ever release the exact evidence of how they know who the hacker is. I agree that it would compromise their ability to investigate future hacks. I was more speaking to the sheer volume of information about the Chinese hack in that article as to the seeming lack of information we are getting about this hack.

As for "the incident." I can totally see how some would be concerned that it was Russia that leaked this information as opposed to some private citizen just out for some cash. However, I look at it this way:

1) The truth needs to come out. I know there is a disrespect for whistleblowers in modern culture ("snitches get stitches") but, we need to know the truth. The press will not give it to us (for w/e reason). I don't approve of the method or the messenger but I am glad whenever the truth comes out (I have a scientific mind, I like facts ).

2) Russia made a blunder. They exposed their capabilities and their intent. If you read Sun Tzu's "Art of War," you never should let your enemies know either of those.

[Invrlose]

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.

Yeah, people like you are the reason that the American public was so willing to go to war with Iraq. Obviously the high-ranking government officials who know what they're talking about had it right when they said that Iraq was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. Nice ad hominem at the end there, you're just a big bag of logical fallacies it seems.

- - - Updated - - -

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:



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.

That's a funny way of saying "I have no evidence except for these guys saying they really do have evidence, yet putting forward none of it."

[Wells]

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 old are you Spectral?

[Invrlose]

How old are you Spectral?

Irrelevant

[Celista]

I'd be interested in knowing why Putin hates Clinton so much. Clearly for this much butthurt there must be a reason that we don't know about, although we know several things already.

Honestly (and this will be an unpopular opinion) this to me is indicative of some level of suckiness regarding Clinton at her job. Being Secretary of State is a diplomatic position. Yes there are countries where we will likely never be able to mend fences (like North Korea), but the Cold War died a long time ago. Relations with Russia should not have eroded to the point that Russia/Putin was pissed off enough to attempt to sway our entire presidential election. Even considering Putin's numerous attempts at overreaching in the past several years.

I'm not saying that what happened is defensible, but it should have been preventable for a number of reasons. Diplomatic relations being one of them.

[Ulmita]

I'd be interested in knowing why Putin hates Clinton so much. Clearly for this much butthurt there must be a reason that we don't know about, although we know several things already.

Honestly (and this will be an unpopular opinion) this to me is indicative of some level of suckiness regarding Clinton at her job. Being Secretary of State is a diplomatic position. Yes there are countries where we will likely never be able to mend fences (like North Korea), but the Cold War died a long time ago. Relations with Russia should not have eroded to the point that Russia/Putin was pissed off enough to attempt to sway our entire presidential election. Even considering Putin's numerous attempts at overreaching in the past several years.

I'm not saying that what happened is defensible, but it should have been preventable for a number of reasons. Diplomatic relations being one of them.

Maybe it has to do something with the fact that Clinton would start major wars? Like when she said she would enforce a no fly zone over Russia's ally, Syria?
Imagine if Putin said Russia would enforce a no fly zone over UK. It would be major war time. She had some sick ideas that lady and a very hawkish attitude.

[Wells]

Maybe it has to do something with the fact that Clinton would start major wars? Like when she said she would enforce a no fly zone over Russia's ally, Syria?
Imagine if Putin said Russia would enforce a no fly zone over UK. It would be major war time. She had some sick ideas that lady and a very hawkish attitude.

No, its because she rightly called into question the veracity of the 2011 Russian elections. He's hated her ever since.

[Ulmita]

No, its because she rightly called into question the veracity of the 2011 Russian elections. He's hated her ever since.

True, but avoiding a thermonuclear war is a good point to. Russia media cheered trump when he got elected by having titles like: ww3 risk is over, etc
They were afraid of a direct confrontation with the states if Hilary got elected.

[Wells]

True, but avoiding a thermonuclear war is a good point to. Russia media cheered trump when he got elected by having titles like: ww3 risk is over, etc
They were afraid a direct confrontation with the states if Hilary got elected.

Do people seriously think Clinton has so poor impulse control that she'd ramp up a policy line about a no-fly zone right up to nuclear war?

[Elegiac]

True, but avoiding a thermonuclear war is a good point to. Russia media cheered trump when he got elected by having titles like: ww3 risk is over, etc
They were afraid a direct confrontation with the states if Hilary got elected.

There wouldn't have been, as Putin would have backed down. Russia doesn't have the resilience to withstand another contest with the West.

- - - Updated - - -

Do people seriously think Clinton has so poor impulse control that she'd ramp up a policy line about a no-fly zone right up to nuclear war?

Clearly, as evidenced by all her 3AM twitter rants against her detractors.

Wait...

[Masark]

Do people seriously think Clinton has so poor impulse control that she'd ramp up a policy line about a no-fly zone right up to nuclear war?

Of course not. She'd "force" Putin into it by not giving him everything he wants (e.g. all of eastern Europe under his control) on a gold-encrusted platter.

[Ulmita]

Do people seriously think Clinton has so poor impulse control that she'd ramp up a policy line about a no-fly zone right up to nuclear war?

A no fly zone in Syria would mean they would shoot down Syrian, Russian and Iranian jets. She clearly said she would enforce one. Maybe she meant she would ask politely?

[Wells]

A no fly zone in Syria would mean they would shoot down Syrian, Russian and Iranian jets. She clearly said she would enforce one. Maybe she meant she would ask politely?

So that's a yes? You think Clinton would pursue a no-fly over Syria right up to starting a nuclear war?

That's hella silly

[Ulmita]

There wouldn't have been, as Putin would have backed down. Russia doesn't have the resilience to withstand another contest with the West.

I am curious on how did you come up with that assumption, especially regarding Putin, an ex military who up to today the only signs he has given is not backing down. Care to explain?

- - - Updated - - -

So that's a yes? You think Clinton would pursue a no-fly over Syria right up to starting a nuclear war?

That's hella silly

I mean she being one of the biggest hawks in politics atm, i have her capable of trying, yes. Are you suggesting she would back down on something she has repeated over and over and over and over?