CIA says Russia interfered in elections to help elect Trump

[Saccopoo]

The CIA has concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 election specifically to help Donald Trump win the presidency, a U.S. official has confirmed to NPR.

"Before, there was confidence about the fact that Russia interfered," the official says. "But there was low confidence on what the direction and intentionality of the interference was. Now they (the CIA) have come to the conclusion that Russia was trying to tip the election to Trump."

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...to-elect-trump

On Friday evening, the Trump transition team fired back with a statement dismissing the report of the agency's conclusion.

"These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction," the statement said. "The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It's now time to move on and 'Make America Great Again.' "

In fact, Trump's percentage of the electoral vote in the 2016 election ranks 46th among presidential election winners in U.S. history

[Easy 6]

Clinton is dirty as a goats ass

Russia possibly exposed it


Who is the real problem in this equation?

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by tk13

Would you feel the same way if say, China, hacks a collection of information that eventually proves Trump is doing something illegal or immoral as President?

Suppose Watergate had happened in a foreign country and their law enforcement agents were the ones to discover it. Would you want it to have been covered up?

[mdchiefsfan]

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy

Do the ends justify the means here is the question? Russia yanked open the curtain on Oz.

Exactly. The truth is what it is. I'm glad to have seen it before the choice was made rather than after.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Easy 6

Clinton is dirty as a goats ass

Russia possibly exposed it


Who is the real problem in this equation?

Interestingly, a counter-propaganda office would have been useless in this situation, unless it was lying. The only way to have prevented the leaks from impacting the election, assuming they did, would have been to either prevent the hacks from happening (laws already exist about such things, and that was also a failing of the hacked persons/groups), declaring them lies and offering proof (which, if they were lies, the Democrats should have been able to do but, instead, ended up having to admit that at least some of them were actually true) or making up false proofs, or censoring them once they'd been put on the internet.

So, a counter-propaganda office would almost certainly have been useless when it comes to the hacked emails and discussions about them.

[BigCatDaddy]

Originally Posted by tk13

Would you feel the same way if say, China, hacks a collection of information that eventually proves Trump is doing something illegal or immoral as President?

Yes and no. I would say undermining a CIC is off limits but if Trump was doing the shady shit Hill did I would say it is his fault, not the tattle tells.

I deal with my son the same way. Take personal responsibility for your mistakes. Dont blame who ratted you out or give me the someone else did it to shit.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Some, but not all. Hacking into our systems is an issue no matter what the purpose, but it's particularly troubling if it's a foreign power hacking our systems in order to manipulate and/or undermine our voting system.

I would think that anyone who wants voter ID in order to insure the integrity of our vote would want to prevent foreign powers from meddling in them through disinformation campaigns or subversive hacking projects.

Political parties being hacked by Foreign entities is an issue I don't care about one way or the other. This is a non-issue to me. I simply don't care. Everyone should assume that everyone is being hacked and act accordingly. Done.

[tk13]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Suppose Watergate had happened in a foreign country and their law enforcement agents were the ones to discover it. Would you want it to have been covered up?

That is not a 1:1 comparison at all. A better comparison would be a foreign government agent discovering something a US government official did by going through their file cabinet, without permission, on US soil.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by tk13

That is not a 1:1 comparison at all. A better comparison would be a foreign government agent discovering something a US government official did by going through their file cabinet, on US soil.

OK, suppose a foreign agent discovered the truth behind the Watergate break in by going through someone's file cabinet on US soil. Would you want that to have been covered up?

[tk13]

Originally Posted by listopencil

OK, suppose a foreign agent discovered the truth behind the Watergate break in by going through someone's file cabinet on US soil. Would you want that to have been covered up?

That's espionage. Do you believe someone who'd commit such an act was doing it purely in the best interest of the United States?

[Easy 6]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Interestingly, a counter-propaganda office would have been useless in this situation, unless it was lying. The only way to have prevented the leaks from impacting the election, assuming they did, would have been to either prevent the hacks from happening (laws already exist about such things, and that was also a failing of the hacked persons/groups), declaring them lies and offering proof (which, if they were lies, the Democrats should have been able to do but, instead, ended up having to admit that at least some of them were actually true) or making up false proofs, or censoring them once they'd been put on the internet.

So, a counter-propaganda office would almost certainly have been useless when it comes to the hacked emails and discussions about them.

Honestly cant think of a single instance where the dems earnestly tried to just get ahead of the story with their own spin... in almost every case they didnt say a damn word, didnt even bother

I can understand just saying "the Russians!" to point, but any reasonable person would look at some of what was said and fight like hell against it... "what this email said is an absolute LIE and we're offended as hell, here is why!"

Dont recall that happening though, the campaigns response was always to shut the hell up, and wait for their media toadies to clean it up/reset the tone for them

It will never endear me to some people here, but the truth as I see it that Clinton was the single most anti-American, most bought off and filthy dirty politician to ever run for president... she was a Goddamned robot pre-programmed to say whatever Mooks computer algorithm told her to say, and when

I'm With Her?

She didnt and doesnt give a FUC* about you, or your nation... like her mentor Soros, her nation is MONEY

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by tk13

That's espionage. Do you believe someone who'd commit such an act was doing it purely in the best interest of the United States?

So...yes, you would have wanted Watergate covered up or no, you wouldn't have wanted Watergate covered up?

[Squalor2]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

I'm not sure what your issue is, here. I did nothing more than ask you a question that was perfectly reasonable in light of your post.

you wee lads are about DADT.

easy 6 is a pillowbitergot term. it always means "target in the rear'

[tk13]

Originally Posted by listopencil

So...yes, you would have wanted Watergate covered up or no, you wouldn't have wanted Watergate covered up?

This is not a yes or no question. No, I would not want Watergate covered up. Of course not. And no, I do not want the United States to rely on foreign espionage to reveal government malfeasance. That's a dangerous, dangerous precedent to set.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Squalor2

you wee lads are about DADT.

easy 6 is a pillowbitergot term. it always means "target in the rear'

And now you've fallen to blatant trolling. How sad for you.

[Saccopoo]

Originally Posted by mdchiefsfan

Honest question: has there ever been this much of a roller coaster after a person was elected in the past? The fact that there needed to be a recount, the continuous media barrage of the results, and now the "CIA" is claiming false results?

I thought, in a democracy, the person voted for, by the people, was named President. Why so much resistance for this person selected?

Good question.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has garnered at least 65,527,625 votes in the 2016 presidential election, over 2.6 million more than the president-elect, who has received at least 62,851,436 votes, according to figures released Wednesday by The Cook Report, a nonpartisan election analysis organization. Clinton now has a margin of more than two percent of the popular vote majority than Trump, as states like Florida and California continue to submit ballots from primarily Democratic-held regions like Miami and Los Angeles.

http://cookpolitical.com/story/10174