big_dog

Washington Post: CIA Final Election Hack Investigation

2,122 posts in this topic

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
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.  

SacFalcFan and Billy Ocean 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

Earlier in the week, before these stories were published, Greenwald was talking about Lindsey Graham's Russia accusations:

"The Democrats' 2 most vocal allies in Russia accusations are the Senate's 2 most aggressive hawks: Graham and McCain"

"Democrats now have an ally in the always-confrontation-hungry Graham. But notice how passive, muted & inactive the WH is: any ideas why???"

"Put another way: if Obama/WH really believed Putin purposely interfered in the election, wouldn't he be speaking & acting much differently?"

 

Share this post


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

Earlier in the week, before these stories were published, Greenwald was talking about Lindsey Graham's Russia accusations:

"The Democrats' 2 most vocal allies in Russia accusations are the Senate's 2 most aggressive hawks: Graham and McCain"

"Democrats now have an ally in the always-confrontation-hungry Graham. But notice how passive, muted & inactive the WH is: any ideas why???"

"Put another way: if Obama/WH really believed Putin purposely interfered in the election, wouldn't he be speaking & acting much differently?"

 

You don't have to sell me Billy, I am already aware.  We have a "few" on here that feel otherwise...you and I both know who they are, yet they'll try tell you how much they know about such things.  

SacFalcFan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there's clear and overwhelming evidence against the Russians, the government could release it.

Instead, we've got people citing leaked, evidence-free, conflicting, second-hand "characterizations" of CIA claims -- not even CIA claims, themselves.

I'm just gonna believe Obama's proclamation that the outcome of the election was fair until I get proof otherwise.

 

SacFalcFan 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