big_dog

Washington Post: CIA Final Election Hack Investigation

2,135 posts in this topic

13 minutes ago, Worzone said:

The only evidence here i read was that russia hacked both  and only relessed one.  maybe one wasn't as damaging. 

Whats the likelihood that President Elect is a baby killing, devil worshiping, psycho who puts  classified info on his server and wants to start ww3 with russia over the syrian conflict ? 

Unless hes chopping up little kids and selling their body parts on the black market, hes not going to compete  with those headlines. on top of all of that, his scandals weremt behind a presidential firewall everytime one came up.  

:doh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

^^^Thinks that InfoWars is just as credible as CNN.  Spouts stuff like this, to nobody's surprise.

Wont answer question in other thread, typical.milleneal cant deal and tries to bring to this thread

- said Hilary was gonna win...hilary lost. belives Trump is a russian spy candidate, nobodys surprised . 

Edited by Worzone
SacFalcFan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Worzone said:

Wont answer question in other thread, typical.milleneal cant deal and tries to bring to this thread

- said Hilary was gonna win...hilary lost belives Trump is a russian spy candidate, nobodys surprised . 

You've already destroyed any credibiiity you had with the conspiracy theory nonsense.  But do keep digging in...I want to see how whacked out you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Leon Troutsky said:

You've already destroyed any credibiiity you had with the conspiracy theory nonsense.  But do keep digging in...I want to see how whacked out you are.

Lol redirect with an insult. to the Safe Cave Milleneal Man!

SacFalcFan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Worzone said:

Wont answer question in other thread, typical.milleneal cant deal and tries to bring to this thread

- said Hilary was gonna win...hilary lost. belives Trump is a russian spy candidate, nobodys surprised . 

 

1 minute ago, Worzone said:

Lol redirect with an insult. to the Safe Cave Milleneal Man!

Trout isn't a millennial, and he's older than you are. 

Leon Troutsky likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mdrake34 said:

 

Trout isn't a millennial, and he's older than you are. 

Must be a milleneal born out of sue season lol to the Safe Cave!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Worzone said:

Lol redirect with an insult. to the Safe Cave Milleneal Man!

I'm just highlighting that somebody who spouts insane conspiracy theories has zero standing to attack the credibility of legitimate news sites.  As I said, please keep digging in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Leon Troutsky said:

I'm just highlighting that somebody who spouts insane conspiracy theories has zero standing to attack the credibility of legitimate news sites.  As I said, please keep digging in.

You still aren't addressing  the cnn news reportees doing hands up dont shoot during  the Michael Brown incident love on air, in front of the world. True or False? was that accurate or appropriate? was that real or factually honest news? did Brown have his hands up?

SacFalcFan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Worzone said:

You still aren't addressing  the cnn news reportees doing hands up dont shoot during  the Michael Brown incident love on air, in front of the world. True or False? was that accurate or appropriate? was that real or factually honest news? did Brown have his hands up?

Complains about legitimate news organizations after posting the following:

47 minutes ago, Worzone said:

Cia killed JFK so...theres that about their trustworthiness.  its humorous to me that there has been someone since election night tying to delegitimize his presidency. 

 

big_dog likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mdrake34 said:

You're trolling, poorly, at this point. 

He initiated it. tell him to take it to the other thread :tiphat:it's funny im the troll in this to you.  hmm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Worzone said:

He initiated it. tell him to take it to the other thread :tiphat:it's funny im the troll in this to you.  hmm.

You're the Gus Malzahn of ABF.

raw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, mdrake34 said:

 

****** about fake news, posts conspiracy theories. 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Worzone said:

He initiated it. tell him to take it to the other thread :tiphat:it's funny im the troll in this to you.  hmm.

Give mdrake a little credit...he's the one who first brought it up first.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anonymous Leaks to the WashPost About the CIA’s Russia Beliefs Are No Substitute for Evidence

The Washington Post late Friday night published an explosive story that, in many ways, is classic American journalism of the worst sort: the key claims are based exclusively on the unverified assertions of anonymous officials, who in turn are disseminating their own claims about what the CIA purportedly believes, all based on evidence that remains completely secret.

These unnamed sources told the Post that “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.” The anonymous officials also claim that “intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails” from both the DNC and John Podesta’s email account. Critically, none of the actual evidence for these claims is disclosed; indeed, the CIA’s “secret assessment” itself remains concealed. 

A second leak from last night, this one given to the New York Times, cites other anonymous officials as asserting that “the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee’s computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks.” But that NYT story says that “it is also far from clear that Russia’s original intent was to support Mr. Trump, and many intelligence officials — and former officials in Mrs. Clinton’s campaign — believe that the primary motive of the Russians was to simply disrupt the campaign and undercut confidence in the integrity of the vote.”

Deep down in its article, the Post notes – rather critically – that “there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered.” Most importantly, the Post adds that “intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin ‘directing’ the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks.” But the purpose of both anonymous leaks is to finger the Russian Government for these hacks, acting with the motive to defeat Hillary Clinton.

Needless to say, Democrats – still eager to make sense of their election loss and to find causes for it other than themselves – immediately declared these anonymous claims about what the CIA believes to be true, and, with a somewhat sweet, religious-type faith, treated these anonymous assertions as proof of what they wanted to believe all along: that Vladimir Putin was rooting for Donald Trump to win and Hillary Clinton to lose and used nefarious means to ensure that outcome. That Democrats are now venerating unverified, anonymous CIA leaks as sacred is par for the course for them this year, but it’s also a good indication of how confused and lost U.S. political culture has become in the wake of Trump’s victory.

Given the obvious significance of this story – it is certain to shape how people understand the 2016 election and probably foreign policy debates for months if not years to come – it is critical to keep in mind some basic facts about what is known and, more importantly, what is not known:

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Billy Ocean said:

Anonymous Leaks to the WashPost About the CIA’s Russia Beliefs Are No Substitute for Evidence

The Washington Post late Friday night published an explosive story that, in many ways, is classic American journalism of the worst sort: the key claims are based exclusively on the unverified assertions of anonymous officials, who in turn are disseminating their own claims about what the CIA purportedly believes, all based on evidence that remains completely secret.

These unnamed sources told the Post that “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.” The anonymous officials also claim that “intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails” from both the DNC and John Podesta’s email account. Critically, none of the actual evidence for these claims is disclosed; indeed, the CIA’s “secret assessment” itself remains concealed. 

A second leak from last night, this one given to the New York Times, cites other anonymous officials as asserting that “the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee’s computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks.” But that NYT story says that “it is also far from clear that Russia’s original intent was to support Mr. Trump, and many intelligence officials — and former officials in Mrs. Clinton’s campaign — believe that the primary motive of the Russians was to simply disrupt the campaign and undercut confidence in the integrity of the vote.”

Deep down in its article, the Post notes – rather critically – that “there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered.” Most importantly, the Post adds that “intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin ‘directing’ the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks.” But the purpose of both anonymous leaks is to finger the Russian Government for these hacks, acting with the motive to defeat Hillary Clinton.

Needless to say, Democrats – still eager to make sense of their election loss and to find causes for it other than themselves – immediately declared these anonymous claims about what the CIA believes to be true, and, with a somewhat sweet, religious-type faith, treated these anonymous assertions as proof of what they wanted to believe all along: that Vladimir Putin was rooting for Donald Trump to win and Hillary Clinton to lose and used nefarious means to ensure that outcome. That Democrats are now venerating unverified, anonymous CIA leaks as sacred is par for the course for them this year, but it’s also a good indication of how confused and lost U.S. political culture has become in the wake of Trump’s victory.

Given the obvious significance of this story – it is certain to shape how people understand the 2016 election and probably foreign policy debates for months if not years to come – it is critical to keep in mind some basic facts about what is known and, more importantly, what is not known:

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

A few assertions and some unnamed sources and the left is running with this.  It is very easy to see the distrust that goes on in the media now.  Also, one sides dismay and chagrin on a loss and the reasons for that loss, that they seem oblivious to.  

Billy Ocean and SacFalcFan like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Billy Ocean said:

Anonymous Leaks to the WashPost About the CIA’s Russia Beliefs Are No Substitute for Evidence

The Washington Post late Friday night published an explosive story that, in many ways, is classic American journalism of the worst sort: the key claims are based exclusively on the unverified assertions of anonymous officials, who in turn are disseminating their own claims about what the CIA purportedly believes, all based on evidence that remains completely secret.

These unnamed sources told the Post that “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.” The anonymous officials also claim that “intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails” from both the DNC and John Podesta’s email account. Critically, none of the actual evidence for these claims is disclosed; indeed, the CIA’s “secret assessment” itself remains concealed. 

A second leak from last night, this one given to the New York Times, cites other anonymous officials as asserting that “the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee’s computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks.” But that NYT story says that “it is also far from clear that Russia’s original intent was to support Mr. Trump, and many intelligence officials — and former officials in Mrs. Clinton’s campaign — believe that the primary motive of the Russians was to simply disrupt the campaign and undercut confidence in the integrity of the vote.”

Deep down in its article, the Post notes – rather critically – that “there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered.” Most importantly, the Post adds that “intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin ‘directing’ the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks.” But the purpose of both anonymous leaks is to finger the Russian Government for these hacks, acting with the motive to defeat Hillary Clinton.

Needless to say, Democrats – still eager to make sense of their election loss and to find causes for it other than themselves – immediately declared these anonymous claims about what the CIA believes to be true, and, with a somewhat sweet, religious-type faith, treated these anonymous assertions as proof of what they wanted to believe all along: that Vladimir Putin was rooting for Donald Trump to win and Hillary Clinton to lose and used nefarious means to ensure that outcome. That Democrats are now venerating unverified, anonymous CIA leaks as sacred is par for the course for them this year, but it’s also a good indication of how confused and lost U.S. political culture has become in the wake of Trump’s victory.

Given the obvious significance of this story – it is certain to shape how people understand the 2016 election and probably foreign policy debates for months if not years to come – it is critical to keep in mind some basic facts about what is known and, more importantly, what is not known:

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

Exactly.  See my first post in this thread.  We have anonymous leaks to the press of supposed classified material designed to sway public opinion, but it's cool because it questions the legitimacy of Trump's victory.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair to Trump I think it was less about helping him per say (not sure I buy that Putin just likes Trump) than just undermining the whole American political establishment in general and the international sources I've read seem to indicate the real propaganda target wasn't any Americans at all but probably the  Russian people. (The idea being to shake their own citizens confidence in the idea of a democratically elected government which isn't taken for granted as the best system like it is over here)

Leon Troutsky likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now