Russians accused of interfering in election to get Trump elected

[eyeball]

20 minutes ago, sharkman said:

Speaking of which(well  not really), I wonder how the Bushes like Trump now, since they had officially abandoned him before the election.

Well, given that the rise of Trump or someone like him was one of the inevitable results stemming from the calamities Bush contributed so richly towards, I'm not surprised he tried to distance himself from Trump before. Now, who know's? Anything is possible under Trump. For all we know Bush will soon be printed on American currency.

Edited December 14, 2016 by eyeball

[Argus]

On 12/11/2016 at 10:26 PM, Michael Hardner said:

So we are supposed to accept assertions from the CIA as fact ?

As I understand it 17 US intelligence agencies, in addition to private sector agencies who have examined the data, have ALL come to the conclusion that it was the Russians. Against which you have Trump and his fart catchers claiming that is ridiculous - yet they don't have any evidence to contradict it, and none of them have any personal education or skill in detecting such things so don't even know what they're talking about.

[Argus]

On 12/11/2016 at 10:46 PM, Smallc said:

Are you saying that the CIA is always wrong because they were wrong once (btw, the US military did find not insignificant chemical weapon stockpiles in Iraq).

The CIA was less than enthusiastic about there being WMDs in Iraq. It is clear from the investigation that they were heavily pressured by the Bush White House to find evidence, ANY kind of evidence. So they did. It was very fallible and uncertain evidence, and far from proof, but the white house then exaggerated into a certainty.

 

[kimmy]

25 minutes ago, Argus said:

As I understand it 17 US intelligence agencies, in addition to private sector agencies who have examined the data, have ALL come to the conclusion that it was the Russians. Against which you have Trump and his fart catchers claiming that is ridiculous - yet they don't have any evidence to contradict it, and none of them have any personal education or skill in detecting such things so don't even know what they're talking about.

I agree, but I still think the evidence needs to be put on the table and publicly discussed. Until such time as it's made available for all to see, there will continue to be suspicion that this is partisan politics as opposed to a demonstrable event.

 -k

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh...great idea....publicly disclose the evidence that it was the Russians (as if that matters) and also disclose sources and methods for all "17 US intelligence agencies".

This would be an attempt to undermine the U.S. election process and result(s) far more than the "Russians" could ever dream of.

[Hal 9000]

56 minutes ago, Argus said:

As I understand it 17 US intelligence agencies, in addition to private sector agencies who have examined the data, have ALL come to the conclusion that it was the Russians. Against which you have Trump and his fart catchers claiming that is ridiculous - yet they don't have any evidence to contradict it, and none of them have any personal education or skill in detecting such things so don't even know what they're talking about.

When the CIA actually arrests somebody, we'll know who leaked the emails.  Until then it's just talking heads. I dont expect any charges toward anybody or anything Russian to ever materialize though. 

Julian Assange has formally stated it wasn't the  Russians, so until further notice, that's what I'll believe. 

[eyeball]

Is it fair to say that hacking and interfering with other countries is only just and noble when America does it?

That seems to be the sense I get from the outrage.

Edited December 14, 2016 by eyeball

[dialamah]

3 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

When the CIA actually arrests somebody, we'll know who leaked the emails.  Until then it's just talking heads. I dont expect any charges toward anybody or anything Russian to ever materialize though. 

Julian Assange has formally stated it wasn't the  Russians, so until further notice, that's what I'll believe. 

Wow.  I'm pretty naive and all, but I think whatever motivated him initially, he's now no more reliable than any random politician. 

Why did Ecuador cut his internet access?

[bush_cheney2004]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Is it fair to say that hacking and interfering with other countries is only just and noble when America does it?

That seems to be the sense I get from the outrage.

 

No...it is a routine matter for any competent intelligence service.   Gathering intel on elections is often by-catch, but influence measures are executed in many ways before elections and after politicians take office.   Nothing special about America in this regard except for the scope of dedicated global resources that are government sponsored to do such things.

[eyeball]

9 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

No...it is a routine matter for any competent intelligence service..

That's kind of what I figured too. The hysteria seems a little naive not to mention over the top. That said I sure would have liked to have seen the reaction if it had been the Republicans that got hacked/leaked/whatever.

[segnosaur]

14 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

When the CIA actually arrests somebody, we'll know who leaked the emails.  Until then it's just talking heads. I dont expect any charges toward anybody or anything Russian to ever materialize though.

In the real world, its possible to identify the source of an intrusion, even if a case that could result in criminal charges is not brought forward.

There is evidence pointing to Russia... software left behind on Russian computers that were sourced to Russian hackers, communication with an IP that had been used in similar attacks against Germany. 

http://time.com/4600177/election-hack-russia-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/

Julian Assange has formally stated it wasn't the  Russians, so until further notice, that's what I'll believe.

Ummmm... what exactly has Assange done to actually earn that level of trust?

Did it ever occur to you that Assange might be lying? His dislike for Clinton has been well established, and he does have a show on Russia Today (a state-sponsored media outlet.) Furthermore, he has a motive for lying: by denying links to Russia, he can claim Wikileaks neutrality (even if its not.)

On the other hand, consider those who claim that Russia was behind the hacking.... you have both Democrats and republicans, various intelligence agencies like the CIA, and private security firms all claiming Russian involvement. What would be their motives for lying about the Russians? Granted, the democrats might have a motive, but why would prominant republicans? After all, claims of Russian ties could smear all republicans, not just Trump. What would the CIA have to gain? They work for Obama now, but in a month or so they'll be working for Trump; what benefit would they have in lying about the guy who will soon be signing their paychecks (in a figurative sense)? And then there are the private security firms... they base their reputation on their skills; if they are caught lying, their reputation is damaged.  So you have multiple groups all standing by the "Russian was involved" story, most of whom would see little or no benefit in lying.

 

[Argus]

15 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

When the CIA actually arrests somebody, we'll know who leaked the emails.  Until then it's just talking heads.

Be honest. Even if they arrested someone you'd call it a 'false flag' operation or something similar. You will always believe anonymous bloggers and hostile foreign countries rather than anything that is said by a Western government or mainstream media.

15 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

Julian Assange has formally stated it wasn't the  Russians, so until further notice, that's what I'll believe. 

The noted rapist and fruitcake? Yes, sure. Clearly a good source of reliable information there... 

[Guest]

11 hours ago, eyeball said:

Is it fair to say that hacking and interfering with other countries is only just and noble when America does it?

That seems to be the sense I get from the outrage.

I think that you would probably support whatever measures another country took, internally, to mitigate the effects of US hacking if it were found to have had any.  I would.

Any outrage felt would be their business too.  I don't feel any outrage either way.  But   I would certainly understand if the election result was challenged.

[Boges]

13 minutes ago, Argus said:

The noted rapist and fruitcake? Yes, sure. Clearly a good source of reliable information there... 

Ahh I see so when Wikileaks releases info you don't like Julian Assange is a rapist and fruitcake. LOL

[segnosaur]

3 minutes ago, Boges said:

Ahh I see so when Wikileaks releases info you don't like Julian Assange is a rapist and fruitcake. LOL

Do you have any proof that Argus (or any of Assange's detractors here) have actually supported him in the past, and are only now critical about him?

 

[Boges]

In the past, the idea of a Whistleblower was lauded. It was what the mainstream media was for before people stopped actually paying for the news they got. 

It's not lauded when it hurts Trump's opponent though? 

[Argus]

11 minutes ago, Boges said:

Ahh I see so when Wikileaks releases info you don't like Julian Assange is a rapist and fruitcake. LOL

I invite you to find a single instance where I have ever had anything good to say about either Assange or Wikileaks.

[Argus]

1 minute ago, Boges said:

In the past, the idea of a Whistleblower was lauded.

Wikileaks is not about whistleblowing. It is about gleeful voyeurism, about sifting through other people's mail in hopes of finding something juicy you can gossip about. 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Boges said:

In the past, the idea of a Whistleblower was lauded.

What?! Not by very many right-wingers - the vast majority of whom routinely seethe when people speak truth to power or otherwise expose it's filthy underbelly.

[Wilber]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

What?! Not by very many right-wingers - the vast majority of whom routinely seethe when people speak truth to power or otherwise expose it's filthy underbelly.

People in power don't like whistle blowers. Also, it's pretty naive to assume whistle blowers never have an agenda of their own.

[eyeball]

Agendas are not necessarily bad things and in the case of whistle-blowing against powerful institutions I think its pretty apparent that the vast majority of it is has proven to be in the public's interest.

[Topaz]

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.

[GostHacked]

20 hours ago, kimmy said:

I agree, but I still think the evidence needs to be put on the table and publicly discussed. Until such time as it's made available for all to see, there will continue to be suspicion that this is partisan politics as opposed to a demonstrable event.

 -k

This Russian hacking thing is more of that Fake News garbage. 

[Hal 9000]

5 hours ago, Argus said:

Be honest. Even if they arrested someone you'd call it a 'false flag' operation or something similar. You will always believe anonymous bloggers and hostile foreign countries rather than anything that is said by a Western government or mainstream media.

The noted rapist and fruitcake? Yes, sure. Clearly a good source of reliable information there... 

Actually, I don't outright believe any bloggers, hostile countries or western gov't.  And I certainly don't believe mainstream media.  What I believe is the sniff test, the who's, what's why's ...and so on.  This Russian angle has reeked ever since day one, it has all the signs of a scene from "wag the dog".  It is not only a conspiracy theory, but it's actually a preamble to other conspiracy theories.  It's playing on the 70 year old fear of the big bad Russians (also on the man who made Obama his bitch).

If they arrested somebody, I would look at that and decide to either hold my ground or admit I was wrong - And I really have no issues admitting that.  However, I would wager just about anything that once this idea gets firmly settled in the people of the US, you'll hear nothing more about it.  Speaking of which, where are all those groping victims of Trump?

Oh Yeah, I should add that as far as hacking (aka spying), I'm pretty sure every country does that to some extent.  I'm sure that Russia, the USA, Isreal, china (all the players) spy on each other.  My issue is the assertion that Russia hacked the emails and released them to help out Trump.  

Anyway, it should provide for more James Bond/cold war type movies which beat drug dealer/smuggler movies like we've suffered ever since the fall of the soviets.

Edited December 14, 2016 by Hal 9000

[Argus]

2 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.

Do you have ANY evidence whatsoever to back up this latest bizarre conspiracy theory of yours?