Russia "tried to help" Donald Trump win election, CIA concludes

[smilesammich 10,727]

all i can think about in all this is if the shoe were on the other foot..what if obama had refused intel briefings, said he was smart and could be phoned up in a minute or less no worries..?

what if obama had sided publicly (and flippantly) with russia over us intelligence before he was even inaugurated? i just don't even understand how trump supporters justify this nonsense.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

all i can think about in all this is if the shoe were on the other foot..what if obama had refused intel briefings, said he was smart and could be phoned up in a minute or less no worries..?

what if obama had sided publicly (and flippantly) with russia over us intelligence before he was even inaugurated? i just don't even understand how trump supporters justify this nonsense.

We justify the ends and rationalize away everything else. This is the cost of a revolution.

[Dashinka 25,898]

I guess a joke is lost on the Left. They take these things seriously since they tried the same thing back in 1984.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/27/ted-kennedy-soviet-union-ronald-reagan-opinions-columnists-peter-robinson.html

Remember when Obama tried to influence the Brexit election? He even told them that they would be at the end of the line ,as far as trade deals go.

Actual meddling vs fake news meddling from the Washington post.

Didn't Obama meddle in the last election in Israel? Edited December 12, 2016 by Bill & Katya

[yuna628 9,880]

all i can think about in all this is if the shoe were on the other foot..what if obama had refused intel briefings, said he was smart and could be phoned up in a minute or less no worries..?

what if obama had sided publicly (and flippantly) with russia over us intelligence before he was even inaugurated? i just don't even understand how trump supporters justify this nonsense.

Well you know what would happen of course. How do they justify it? There's three mindsets - 1) Those who actually believe the ends justify the means. They probably don't want a democracy any more, but a sort of new fascism, and this is the glorious way to achieve it. 2) Those who just don't care. Afterall their guy has won, and everything is like a fairy tale dream right now. It's going to hurt when the dream is shattered. 3) Those who know it's probably going on but if they ignore the festering wound long enough it'll be alright... right? Pretend nothing is happening and everything okay. And who cares if there's consequences or long term effects down the road, they won't be around to see it. They just have hope it'll be okay maybe, and if it's not it's someone else's problem right? This is 'Merica. Kicking the can down the street is what we do best.

We justify the ends and rationalize away everything else. This is the cost of a revolution.

Sounds like a glorious dictatorship. Subservience to the god-man-child or else...

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

all i can think about in all this is if the shoe were on the other foot..what if obama had refused intel briefings, said he was smart and could be phoned up in a minute or less no worries..?

what if obama had sided publicly (and flippantly) with russia over us intelligence before he was even inaugurated? i just don't even understand how trump supporters justify this nonsense.

Opps

Obama Skipped 62.5 Percent of Intelligence Briefings this Year

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/obama-skipped-62-5-percent-of-intelligence-briefings-this-year/

[eieio 1,594]

Okay, so tell us, why you don't think there is proof then. Do you currently work for the FBI or the CIA? Have you read the intelligence briefings and reports those in committee have seen? Are you in the room during intel briefings?

I have not seen any. Have you? The only proof so far is some senator told some official who then told the Washington post about some "secret" report. The Washington times produces more fake news than the NE.

On the other hand, Wikileaks has said that it was not a hack, but rather a leak, and not from russians. Wikileaks record of telling the truth is impeccable. The wapos' record of honesty is dismal.

Show me the beef!!!

Edited December 12, 2016 by eieio

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Let me try to understand

What is it he Russians supposedly did

They did not hack an election. The " supposedly " turned over info to Wikileaks, factual information, that exposed a very deep level of manipulation and corruption in the Democratic party. They did not hack any voting machines, they did not pull levers for people. What the lazy media is calling hacking the election, was actually providing information.

What happened to the girl that was supposedly suing Trump. Vanished. How about the Bimbo eruption of women claiming to be sexually harassed by Trump. Gone.

The media could dig up a decades old tape of Trump making some raunchy comments and spend 100's of hours on it, they could spend hundreds of hours dragging women onto to TV with unsubstantiated claims wit no evidence. They could dig up every financial transaction and person Trumps organization employed that had a negative opinion, but could not dig up one item or even cover most of the scandalous stuff wikileaks exposed .

The media is outraged, when they should be embarrassed that wikileaks did a better job than they did .

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

[eieio 1,594]

The Central Intelligence Agency is declaring the Washington Post’s much-hyped story linking the Russian government to hacking the presidential election to help Donald Trump an “outright lie,” according to CIA personnel with direct knowledge of the case.

The Washington Post, in a front-page splash on Friday, fingered the CIA for allegedly confirming the wild rumors of Russian hacking that were concocted and spread by Democratic lawmakers for months preceding the election and the weeks since the GOP win. The Washington Post’s story, however, contained no CIA sources and in fact, no credible U.S. intelligence agency sources whatsoever. Instead, it hinged on what unnamed lawmakers had supposedly been told by unidentified, supposed CIA-linked sources in “secret” briefings: That the CIA had developed proof the Russian state waged an orchestrated campaign to destabilize the U.S. election to benefit GOP-candidate Trump.

“It’s an outright lie,” a CIA analyst divulged to True Pundit. “There’s nothing definitive like that. There are leads from activity originating in Finland, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Britain, France, China and Russia.”

Multiple CIA sources are now denouncing the Washington Post for knowingly reporting misleading national security intelligence. Intelligence insiders said no one in the Agency or in the FBI, who is running at least one parallel inquiry, has ruled out a possible internal leak within the Democratic National Committee from actor(s) inside the United States who funneled private DNC emails to Wikileaks.

On the rabid Sunday morning political talk show circuit yesterday, fueled by the Washington Post’s thinly-sourced yet highly-lauded reporting, Sen. John McCain implored President Elect Trump to look at the CIA-Russian information which he said was credible. McCain, however, as the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, had strangely never publicly disseminated such intelligence prior to Sunday. And no other elected officials have stepped up to echo his narrative or that of the Washington Post.

CIA and intelligence sources, however, quickly countered McCain’s claims as speculative at best, saying his information is simply not accurate and he, as the Arizona senator has done previously, was grandstanding for the media without knowing key facts.

“If he (McCain) in fact is being told that information, it is bad information,” a CIA source said, pondering whether McCain had perhaps been briefed by outgoing CIA Director John Brennan or his loyal Agency underlings. Multiple sources said Brennan and his inner circle in the Agency could not be trusted to disseminate any true intelligence, especially in their final days on the job, without tainting raw data with political ideologies that parallel their White House boss.

Trump has already named Kansas Congressman Mike Pompeo as Brennan’s successor and CIA personnel anxiously anticipate Brennan’s departure, sources said. (But you won’t read about that in the Washington Post.)

Could the Russian state be linked to hacking to influence the 2016 U.S. election? Intelligence analysts, again, reiterate there is no overwhelming current evidence to definitively link any government to such rogue actions.

CIA personnel said any official information released by Brennan or the White House on this issue prior to President Barack Obama’s departure from office should be discounted and tuned out as partisan “white noise.”

The CIA sources’ collective assessment that the Washington Post purposely and brutally misrepresented the CIA’s findings is the third blow to the embattled newspaper in the last week, having been busted writing two other high profile fake stories on national security that were quickly proven to be problematic and ultimately bogus.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

I got implants today so took a day off work.

I had on the TV and heard Sheppard Smith lose his mind for about 20 mins on this subject

He repeatedly repeated the Hillary Clinton/DNC talking point/Lie that 17 security agencies all agreed that it the Russians did the hacking. I wished I could have asked him to name the 17 and provide a reference for this because, most of the 17 have nothing to do with this kind of Intel. The mainstream press has zero credibility

Example of the 17

Coast Guard Intelligence provides information on maritime security and homeland defense. The Drug Enforcement Administration hunts down illegal drugs. The Marine Corps Intelligence Activity monitors the Corp's battlefields. The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency provides advanced mapping for military forces. The Office of Naval Intelligence provides information on the world's oceans to sailors everywhere. Army Intelligence and Security Command offers essential intel to troops on the battlefield. Air Force Intelligence provides reconnaissance for US ground troops.

[yuna628 9,880]

I have not seen any. Have you? The only proof so far is some senator told some official who then told the Washington post about some "secret" report. The Washington times produces more fake news than the NE.

On the other hand, Wikileaks has said that it was not a hack, but rather a leak, and not from russians. Wikileaks record of telling the truth is impeccable. The wapos' record of honesty is dismal.

Show me the beef!!!

Since you haven't seen any or are privy to that information, what you know then is what you choose to believe. Not information from a source directly or from an intelligence briefing. Or rather what sort of information you choose to believe from specific sources that is. You for instance believe in WL, which hasn't the best track record, and is for the most part an organization that attempts to do very illegal things. You don't wish to acknowledge that even WL has it's own slant and agenda, or that the data they choose to release can be easily tampered with.

Let play hypothetical devil's advocate here: either the Russians are actively attempting sabotage or they are not. Since neither one of us have seen the reports, either one may be true. You have chosen to believe the Russians in the matter. That's your prerogative and you can insist that you are absolutely right. But what if you're wrong? Are you an ends justify the means type of person? Or do you rather not like to think about it, enjoy the 'party' while it fleetingly lasts, and kick the can down the road?

I got implants today so took a day off work.

I had on the TV and heard Sheppard Smith lose his mind for about 20 mins on this subject

He repeatedly repeated the Hillary Clinton/DNC talking point/Lie that 17 security agencies all agreed that it the Russians did the hacking. I wished I could have asked him to name the 17 and provide a reference for this because, most of the 17 have nothing to do with this kind of Intel. The mainstream press has zero credibility

Example of the 17

Coast Guard Intelligence provides information on maritime security and homeland defense.The Drug Enforcement Administration hunts down illegal drugs.The Marine Corps Intelligence Activity monitors the Corp's battlefields.The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency provides advanced mapping for military forces.The Office of Naval Intelligence provides information on the world's oceans to sailors everywhere.Army Intelligence and Security Command offers essential intel to troops on the battlefield.Air Force Intelligence provides reconnaissance for US ground troops.

Implants? Goodness that must hurt quite a bit.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Since you haven't seen any or are privy to that information, what you know then is what you choose to believe. Not information from a source directly or from an intelligence briefing. Or rather what sort of information you choose to believe from specific sources that is. You for instance believe in WL, which hasn't the best track record, and is for the most part an organization that attempts to do very illegal things. You don't wish to acknowledge that even WL has it's own slant and agenda, or that the data they choose to release can be easily tampered with.

Let play hypothetical devil's advocate here: either the Russians are actively attempting sabotage or they are not. Since neither one of us have seen the reports, either one may be true. You have chosen to believe the Russians in the matter. That's your prerogative and you can insist that you are absolutely right. But what if you're wrong? Are you an ends justify the means type of person? Or do you rather not like to think about it, enjoy the 'party' while it fleetingly lasts, and kick the can down the road?

Implants? Goodness that must hurt quite a bit.

Its not really that bad. They numb you up real good. They extract the teeth then drill titanium posts into your jawbone. Those plant for about 3-4 months then they attach an abutment and crown.

The big ouch is in the wallet. They are crazy expensive

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Yuna. How did they sabotage the election "if they did" by exposing truthful information about Hillary and the DNC

Did Woodward and Bernstein Sabotage Nixons presidency by exposing Watergate

[Ban Hammer 14,297]

[smilesammich 10,727]

We justify the ends and rationalize away everything else. This is the cost of a revolution.

meddling seems so sinister all a sudden.