Russians accused of interfering in election to get Trump elected

[Boges]

3 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

These aren't some random "people." It's the intelligence agencies, whose job it is to monitor these sorts of things. We're not talking some radical leftwing bloggers here or something.

People didn't seem to suspect political motivations from the FBI. 

[cybercoma]

Just now, Boges said:

People didn't seem to suspect political motivations from the FBI. 

If there's foreign interference in an election and you're not going to take the CIA's word for it, who's credible enough for you to believe it?

[?Impact]

18 minutes ago, sharkman said:

They'll do anything,(including threatening members of the EC) to change there votes.  

Sure, why not. Let's make up a story about threatening members of the electoral college.

[Omni]

The FBI is held to a higher standard in that if they want to bring forward an accusation they are supposed to have adequate evidence to win a court case. The CIA can work from a preponderance of evidence stance.

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Sure, why not. Let's make up a story about threatening members of the electoral college.

Hey it would play well on Facebook under the "fake news" heading.

[DogOnPorch]

Anyone manage to get Hillary crowned Queen yet? No??

 

Keep trying...

[Wilber]

7 minutes ago, Omni said:

The FBI is held to a higher standard in that if they want to bring forward an accusation they are supposed to have adequate evidence to win a court case. The CIA can work from a preponderance of evidence stance.

Doesn't matter, the Trumpists didn't believe them either when they said there was no case against Hillary. Evidence gathering is their enemy. Anyway, the FBI is a domestic operation, not tasked with gathering intelligence from foreign countries.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, Smallc said:

Also, you don't understand why an attack on democracy is different? 

What I don't understand is where such a Shiny Beacon of Democracy gets off lecturing the world on the ethics and amorality of hacking/interfering in other nation's affairs while hacking and interfering in everyone else's. I think it's the affront to American exceptionalism that galls the most, which only makes the angst all the more hilarious.

[Omni]

19 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Doesn't matter, the Trumpists didn't believe them either when they said there was no case against Hillary. Evidence gathering is their enemy. Anyway, the FBI is a domestic operation, not tasked with gathering intelligence from foreign countries.

And as a domestic operation they do get involved when the alleged hacking affects domestic interests, especially an election. So far the FBI has found there was hacking, but haven't concluded it was done to help Trump. 

[Wilber]

8 minutes ago, Omni said:

And as a domestic operation they do get involved when the alleged hacking affects domestic interests, especially an election. So far the FBI has found there was hacking, but haven't concluded it was done to help Trump. 

Other than co-ordinating with police departments in other countries, they don't have their own assets to gather intelligence outside the US. That's the CIA's job.

Edited December 16, 2016 by Wilber

[Omni]

4 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Other than co-ordinating with police departments in other countries, they don't have their own assets to gather intelligence outside the US. That's the CIA's job.

I guess when you hack the DNC and the RNC you are no longer outside the US.

[Argus]

13 hours ago, taxme said:

From website Natural News I read that the leaks were committed by a disgruntled democratic supporter who was peeved off about Bernie Sanders losing out to Hillary.

NaturalNews.com (formerly Newstarget, which is now a separate site) is a website run by Mike Adams (self-labeled "The Health Ranger") which promotes alternative medicine and related conspiracy theories and attacks on science.^[2] Even other quacks think it's a quack site.^[3]

^{http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/NaturalNews}

Edited December 16, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

8 hours ago, Topaz said:

It's more like  G .Soros  paid someone in the CIA to make it look like it was Russia ,since  helping Clinton didn't work out for him. He got his nose in everything, even behind the Ukraine upheaval.

Evidence?

[sharkman]

2 hours ago, cybercoma said:

If there's foreign interference in an election and you're not going to take the CIA's word for it, who's credible enough for you to believe it?

Is it okay that members of the media threw the nomination contest between Bernie and Hillary?  That's election fraud.

What Russia did wasn't any worse than that.  They leaked the proof that Hillary's team accepted debate questions ahead of time.  

But here's the thing, Russia and China have been hacking the US for several years, and nobody cares.  Obama makes a statement about Russia hacking and now the left is in an uproar.  What a bunch of lemmings.

Edited December 16, 2016 by sharkman

[Smallc]

So now that the FBI officially confirms this? 

[BubberMiley]

6 minutes ago, sharkman said:

Is it okay that members of the media threw the nomination contest between Bernie and Hillary?  That's election fraud.

What Russia did wasn't any worse than that.  They leaked the proof that Hillary's team accepted debate questions ahead of time.  

But here's the thing, Russia and China have been hacking the US for several years, and nobody cares.  Obama makes a statement about Russia hacking and now the left is in an uproar.  What a bunch of lemmings.

People were upset about what went down in the DNC with regard to Bernie, so there's no indication that it was "okay", but there's a big difference between partisan people making their mind up about a candidate and working to get that person in place and rogue Manchurian candidates getting an unfriendly foreign government to fix an election for them.

Now, if Putin had hacked the election so that Hillary would win, would you be sitting here saying you don't care, or would you be screaming bloody murder? I have a feeling you would be among the lemmings calling for her to be locked up.

Edited December 16, 2016 by BubberMiley

[sharkman]

25 minutes ago, Smallc said:

So now that the FBI officially confirms this? 

Does anybody understand what this incomplete sentence might mean?

[Smallc]

6 minutes ago, sharkman said:

Does anybody understand what this incomplete sentence might mean?

Now that the FBI officially confirms the allegations alluded to in the title of this thread? 

 

 

[BubberMiley]

4 hours ago, sharkman said:

Does anybody understand what this incomplete sentence might mean?

Having kept up to date with the latest news, I was able to decipher its cryptic meaning. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-backs-cia-view-that-russia-intervened-to-help-trump-win-election/2016/12/16/05b42c0e-c3bf-11e6-9a51-cd56ea1c2bb7_story.html?utm_term=.fcb136dc9bc7

Edited December 17, 2016 by BubberMiley

[Wilber]

1 hour ago, Omni said:

I guess when you hack the DNC and the RNC you are no longer outside the US.

Not everything happens on the internet. The CIA has physical and human offshore sources of intelligence that the FBI doesn't.

[Michael Hardner]

From Bubber's link

Quote

“Earlier this week, I met separately with (Director) FBI James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election,” CIA Director John Brennan said in a message to the agency’s workforce, according to U.S. officials who have seen the message.

That is a little more specific than just a leak - it says there was an internal message.  Still no public statement that I have seen.

What can be done ?  WH says they will retaliate but it remains to be seen how much that will matter after January.

[Smallc]

1 hour ago, BubberMiley said:

Having kept up to date with the latest news, I was able to decipher its cryptic meaning. You may now question the integrity of both the FBI and CIA and, failing that, the importance of Russia influencing the election.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-backs-cia-view-that-russia-intervened-to-help-trump-win-election/2016/12/16/05b42c0e-c3bf-11e6-9a51-cd56ea1c2bb7_story.html?utm_term=.fcb136dc9bc7

Sorry for being so cryptic.  I'm glad the you were able to break the code.

[-TSS-]

I wonder why there wasn't such speculation in 2000 about electors defecting when the EC-vote was really close with Bush leading by only 5 electoral college-members and also then the election was very controversial with the losing candidate winning the popular vote.

This time the idea of 37 electors defecting is not realistic but fun to speculate nevertheless. The thing you can say with 100% certainty is that Hillary won't be President. The Republicans won't give up their election-victory, of course they won't, they just might want someone else than Trump as President.

 

[?Impact]

32 minutes ago, -TSS- said:

also then the election was very controversial with the losing candidate winning the popular vote.

Al Gore lost with a 0.5 million popular vote lead

Hillary Clinton lost with a 2.3 million popular vote lead

I would say the election this time around is about 5 times as controversial

[Smallc]

I thought it was up to 2.8M.