CIA report - Russia intervened in the 2016 election

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah. As much as I freely admit that I'd love to see Trump be utterly discredited, lose the Presidency, and, for that matter be thrown in Federal prison for the rest of his miserable life... still, the implications, and potential consequences, of Russia interfering in an American election in this manner are frightening. Its not really something any semi-sane person would think is a good thing. But if it did happen, if their is even a remotely plausible chance that it happened, we need to know, and it should disqualify Trump from the Presidency (the only mechanisms to achieve that, unfortunately, are either an unprecedented revolt by electors two days from now, or enough Republicans turning on Trump to impeach him).

[Grumman]

Yeah. As much as I freely admit that I'd love to see Trump be utterly discredited, lose the Presidency, and, for that matter be thrown in Federal prison for the rest of his miserable life... still, the implications, and potential consequences, of Russia interfering in an American election in this manner are frightening. Its not really something any semi-sane person would think is a good thing.

It is a good thing, because the manner in which Wikileaks interfered in this election was by telling the truth about the political actions, past and future, of the Presidential front-runner. The idea of throwing Trump in prison based on circumstantial evidence - that he was the one standing when Hillary's hard-on for overthrowing governments finally caught up with her - is fucking stupid.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Yeah. As much as I freely admit that I'd love to see Trump be utterly discredited, lose the Presidency, and, for that matter be thrown in Federal prison for the rest of his miserable life... still, the implications, and potential consequences, of Russia interfering in an American election in this manner are frightening. Its not really something any semi-sane person would think is a good thing.

It is a good thing, because the manner in which Wikileaks interfered in this election was by telling the truth about the political actions, past and future, of the Presidential front-runner. The idea of throwing Trump in prison based on circumstantial evidence - that he was the one standing when Hillary's hard-on for overthrowing governments finally caught up with her - is fucking stupid.

Well if Trump and his supporters get their way they'll have Hillary imprisoned instead. I know presidents can issue pardons, can they also throw someone in prison just because they say so?

[The Romulan Republic]

No, they can't.

Not Constitutionally anyway.

If Clinton was thrown in prison by Presidential fiat, and Trump got away with it, that would be incontrovertible proof that he was no longer a President, but a dictator.

Yeah. As much as I freely admit that I'd love to see Trump be utterly discredited, lose the Presidency, and, for that matter be thrown in Federal prison for the rest of his miserable life... still, the implications, and potential consequences, of Russia interfering in an American election in this manner are frightening. Its not really something any semi-sane person would think is a good thing.

It is a good thing, because the manner in which Wikileaks interfered in this election was by telling the truth about the political actions, past and future, of the Presidential front-runner. The idea of throwing Trump in prison based on circumstantial evidence - that he was the one standing when Hillary's hard-on for overthrowing governments finally caught up with her - is fucking stupid.

So you're fine with people breaking the law, and foreign interference in American elections, as long as its targeting someone you don't like?

Because I didn't see Wikileaks going after Trump's long list of misdeeds and accusations. Funny how they only seemed to go after Democrats. Its almost like they aren't real journalists interested in the truth, but partisan operatives with an ax to grind.

In any case, I'm referring (as I presume Flagg was) to the idea that Russia hacked to interfere in the election on Trump's behalf. I'm agreeing that, much as I dislike Trump, I don't want that to be true.

As to imprisoning Trump, I said that I would like to see him go to prison, but that's purely theoretical fantasy right now. I did not say that I wish him to be imprisoned without sufficient due process and proof of his guilt.

Moreover, the idea that Hillary Clinton's foreign policy is why she lost is a very dubious assertion, unless you are arguing that her foreign policy provoked Russia's/Wikileaks' interference.* In truth, the election was so close that if any of half a dozen or more factors had been different, it could have changed the outcome. But it is unlikely that Hillary Clinton's foreign policy (the militarism of which is sometimes exaggerated) is the foremost factor. I rather think the FBI email bullshit two weeks before election day played a greater role. But I doubt that's the answer you want to hear, because it doesn't put the blame entirely on Hillary Clinton.

*If you feel that it justifies said interference, you can go fuck yourself.

[aerius]

Moreover, the idea that Hillary Clinton's foreign policy is why she lost is a very dubious assertion, unless you are arguing that her foreign policy provoked Russia's/Wikileaks' interference.*

*If you feel that it justifies said interference, you can go fuck yourself.

So let's see. Destabilizing the Ukraine and installing a western friendly puppet government and fucking up half the Middle East, all of which are areas where Russia has national interests is something that's not going to backfire and get a response of some sort? It's entirely within Russia's interests to install an American leader who they're friendly with, and who won't fuck shit up any more. Just because you're on the receiving end this time doesn't automatically make it a bad thing. World powers have been fucking with other nation's elections & politics to further their own interests since there were world powers. Welcome to the real world. Deal with it.

[The Romulan Republic]

Moreover, the idea that Hillary Clinton's foreign policy is why she lost is a very dubious assertion, unless you are arguing that her foreign policy provoked Russia's/Wikileaks' interference.*

*If you feel that it justifies said interference, you can go fuck yourself.

So let's see. Destabilizing the Ukraine and installing a western friendly puppet government and fucking up half the Middle East, all of which are areas where Russia has national interests is something that's not going to backfire and get a response of some sort?

Did I say that? Why, no, I didn't.

Cute straw man though.

Of course it'll get a response. Weather that response is justified is a different matter. Excuse me for not agreeing with your apparent position that Russia has a right to try to handpick the US President, you anti-democratic apologist hack.

Not even getting into the fact that to put all the blame for Ukraine or the Middle East on America is absurd. Guess you can't grasp the idea that these are complicated situations without a simple hero vs. villain narrative.

It's entirely within Russia's interests to install an American leader who they're friendly with, and who won't fuck shit up any more. Just because you're on the receiving end this time doesn't automatically make it a bad thing. World powers have been fucking with other nation's elections & politics to further their own interests since there were world powers. Welcome to the real world. Deal with it.

Its in Russia's interests, perhaps.

Its also in America's interests to oppose Russia in the Middle East and Ukraine. Yet it seems like only one of these do you have a problem with.

Putin fan whore "logic" at its finest.

"America is bad for interfering in other countries! Russia is against America, so Russia is good. Therefore, Russia is justified in interfering in other countries!"

Countries do this shit, yes. I'm aware. Doesn't make it right, for us or for them. For what its worth, though, I am not aware of any act of aggression America or its allies have engaged in against Russia directly in recent decades which is comparable to Russia trying to dictate our election.

Edit: Its funny also how you've shifted from trying to deny that Russia hacked the election to trying to justify their doing so. Its almost like your first position was complete bullshit.

[The Romulan Republic]

It isn't changing the rules. The rules say, and have said for over two hundred years, that it is the electors' job to make sure the President is competent and neither foreign-influenced nor a demagogue. Trump fails all three, so it is their constitutional duty (which they will doubtlessly neglect) to reject him.

Clearly, Americans should harrass and send death threats to their electors to ensure they do their duty.

So here's my question, if Trump is rejected by the electors because the electors were under death threats from the people, do we count that as domestic terrorism? Is it then kosher to go, fuck it, election results don't matter, it's all about bending the electors to our will?

Results matter, yes. Of course, Clinton won the popular vote, so I guess the actual will of the people doesn't. Not that you really give a shit about the sanctity of democratic elections, seeing as how you're a-okay with Russia interfering in ours.

Of course anyone making death threats should be arrested (though prior to this, the only people I'd heard of making threats to Electors were Trump supporters). But people do have the right to contact their Electors and urge them to vote against Trump, and the Electors have the right to listen to that.

[Grumman]

Because I didn't see Wikileaks going after Trump's long list of misdeeds and accusations. Funny how they only seemed to go after Democrats. Its almost like they aren't real journalists interested in the truth, but partisan operatives with an ax to grind.

It's almost like they didn't need to, you idiot. What was Wikileaks supposed to say about Trump that wasn't already being shouted from the rooftops by everyone else? Do they need to provide classified documents proving water is wet too?

Moreover, the idea that Hillary Clinton's foreign policy is why she lost is a very dubious assertion, unless you are arguing that her foreign policy provoked Russia's/Wikileaks' interference.*

*If you feel that it justifies said interference, you can go fuck yourself.

If somebody is openly planning on committing acts of war against you and your allies, that justifies spying on them. When Clinton plans to bomb Syrian cities so she can run interference for Islamist rebels and Putin's response is to discredit her with the truth about her political actions, Putin is not the one being unreasonable.

[Simon_Jester]

What, there isn't any investigative journalism to be done looking for Donald Trump's past dirt? It's "all out there," so aspiring investigative journalist types don't have to try to reveal his past?

That's an awfully convenient excuse to selectively investigate only one side, in an attempt to discredit in by creating a tu quoque argument that they're as bad as the side whose past crimes are "all out there."

The thing is, one doesn't need to fabricate per se. One just needs to see what they want to see and their own biases lead to them to the conclusion they want. On some level they realise that the evidence they gather might not cut it to other people, but they still will hold onto their conclusion. Kind of like a detective who "knows" a suspect is the culprit but cannot prove it in a court of law. Remember the link I posted earlier when Nancy Pelosi just "knows" Russia did it, and outright said she didn't even get that information from intelligence agencies. Even if intelligence agency workers had similar mindset but only half as strong, I wouldn't be surprise if they couldn't gather sufficient evidence.

Thing is, whatever they've gathered appears to have been enough to convince a LOT of very senior intelligence officials, including at least one (Comey) who... Let's just say, if Comey is biased in favor of giving the Democratic Party the benefit of the doubt, he has a hell of a strange way of showing it.

It's conceivable that all this is the result of a massive case of confirmation bias that somehow fooled all these people, even though they're taking it to briefings to Congress.

But seriously, stop and take a moment to think:

What would the world look like, if these accusations were true and the evidence were actual good evidence?

What would you expect the federal government to be doing in response, and how do you think it would differ from what you see?

There are multiple parallel lines of accusation, including some that come from people with a history of bending over backwards NOT to accuse Trump of criminality, despite him painting a huge neon-lit target on his backside for them to do so. At some point, dwelling on the thinner and thinner chance that it all "might be nothing" becomes foolish.

This is not to say anyone is obliged to immediately start believing the evidence, especially evidence they haven't seen. But I think it's time to at least stop and treat the evidence in question seriously, as something that actually has to be looked at before we fixate on coming up with excuses to dismiss it.

[The Romulan Republic]

Because I didn't see Wikileaks going after Trump's long list of misdeeds and accusations. Funny how they only seemed to go after Democrats. Its almost like they aren't real journalists interested in the truth, but partisan operatives with an ax to grind.

It's almost like they didn't need to, you idiot. What was Wikileaks supposed to say about Trump that wasn't already being shouted from the rooftops by everyone else? Do they need to provide classified documents proving water is wet too?

In other words, they were one-sided, but that's okay, because its Clinton.

I don't recall a one-sided media barrage against Trump. Most of the things that were used against him were his own words and actions, and some of them got far less attention than they should have. Just to take two glaring examples, the writing was on the wall about him being a rapist for months before the mainstream media really picked up on it, and it was the largely trivial and inconsequential developments in the email scandal, not where that information (illegally) came from, that got the lion's share of the coverage.

Are you really going to try to play the tired old "liberal media bias" card here?

If somebody is openly planning on committing acts of war against you and your allies, that justifies spying on them.

Where was Clinton or the Democratic Party planning to commit acts of war against Russia?

And don't say the no-fly-zone, unless you are prepared to demonstrate that Clinton planned to unilaterally implement a no-fly zone and shoot down Russian planes that violated it.

When Clinton plans to bomb Syrian cities so she can run interference for Islamist rebels and Putin's response is to discredit her with the truth about her political actions, Putin is not the one being unreasonable.

Okay, then let's see how you feel about the following statement:

"When Putin murders journalists, oppresses homosexuals, bombs Syrian hospitals for Assad, and seizes territory in the Crimea, and Clinton plans to undermine his allies, Clinton is not the one being unreasonable."

Because it seems like their's always a double-standard with Putin/Assad apologists. America/the West is evil because of (insert unethical acts and atrocities here), so Russia is justified to do anything to oppose them (sometimes even the exact same acts).

And no, Putin does not have a right to try to handpick our President, any more than we would have a right to try to handpick the Russian President.

[The Romulan Republic]

It is absolutely appalling to see anyone, but especially Americans, actually trying to argue that Putin has a right to try to choose our President. Putin. Not some principled champion of human rights or global justice, but a man who, among other things, has murdered journalists, persecuted homosexuals, and waged a mass bombing campaign against civilian targets on behalf of a torturing, murdering despot who gasses his own people.

Edit: I wonder, if America did the same to Russia, what you would have to say about that.

Just remember, if these allegations are proven and Trump still gets sworn in, then I get to hold every crime every committed by his Presidency against Russia. You don't get to play the "evil Americans" card in defence of Putin when our President is propped up by Putin.

[aerius]

But seriously, stop and take a moment to think:

What would the world look like, if these accusations were true and the evidence were actual good evidence?

What would you expect the federal government to be doing in response, and how do you think it would differ from what you see?

If it were solid evidence there'd be a lot more high ranking government officials racking up frequent flyer miles. Armed forces committees, JCS, and others will be getting briefed in on the situation and drawing up or dusting off plans. Everyone gets briefed in, then the President holds a press conference to address the nation, present the evidence, and set a course of action. And while they're doing that the press will be getting a steady diet of "no comments" until the President makes his address, you won't be getting shit like "the CIA says this but the FBI doesn't agree" on a daily basis, the intelligence heads won't be having public arguments in the press. There will likely be rumours leaking out but no one important will be saying anything until the President speaks.

[The Romulan Republic]

But seriously, stop and take a moment to think:

What would the world look like, if these accusations were true and the evidence were actual good evidence?

What would you expect the federal government to be doing in response, and how do you think it would differ from what you see?

If it were solid evidence there'd be a lot more high ranking government officials racking up frequent flyer miles. Armed forces committees, JCS, and others will be getting briefed in on the situation and drawing up or dusting off plans. Everyone gets briefed in, then the President holds a press conference to address the nation, present the evidence, and set a course of action. And while they're doing that the press will be getting a steady diet of "no comments" until the President makes his address, you won't be getting shit like "the CIA says this but the FBI doesn't agree" on a daily basis, the intelligence heads won't be having public arguments in the press. There will likely be rumours leaking out but no one important will be saying anything until the President speaks.

Is your argument actually "Obama's not preparing for war with Russia, therefore this can't be real"?

Obama has publicly addressed the allegations, demanded a full investigation and report from the intelligence community, and promised some form of response against Russia (obviously not military action, because he's not insane). What more do you expect of him?

Obama is not a terribly confrontational President in his approach, and he's not going to want to take dramatic public action until he is a) absolutely sure his case is solid and b) he is sure that he can convince most of the American people of that fact. Because the last thing he will want to do is either get into a direct confrontation with Russia, or create the appearance that he is trying to drum up a case against Trump to affect the election result for partisan reasons.

I may think Obama is too indecisive at times, but I'll give him this- he's not an idiot, and he's not generally reckless. Of course he's moving cautiously right now.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. "America is fabricating a story about Putin influencing the election to fearmonger/warmonger against Russia, but they're not overreacting enough, so it can't be real! And Russia totally is innocent, but they'd be completely justified if they were guilty!"

See why I think you're full of shit?

[aerius]

Show the fucking evidence. Oh that's right, you can't. Unlike you I don't have 5 hours a day to waste on a board arguing with fucking morons. Did you even watch Obama's speech yesterday where he threatened Russia with consequences and presented absolutely zero evidence? The investigation was just started a week ago and isn't due to wrap up for months, there is nothing. But hey, if it helps you sleep at night to believe that Putin worked with Trump to steal the election for him, then who am I to argue?

[mr friendly guy]

What, there isn't any investigative journalism to be done looking for Donald Trump's past dirt? It's "all out there," so aspiring investigative journalist types don't have to try to reveal his past?

That's an awfully convenient excuse to selectively investigate only one side, in an attempt to discredit in by creating a tu quoque argument that they're as bad as the side whose past crimes are "all out there."

Or maybe no one from the other side was willing to leak the info to wikileaks.

It's conceivable that all this is the result of a massive case of confirmation bias that somehow fooled all these people, even though they're taking it to briefings to Congress.

Like Iraq?

But seriously, stop and take a moment to think:

What would the world look like, if these accusations were true and the evidence were actual good evidence?

What would you expect the federal government to be doing in response, and how do you think it would differ from what you see?

How about putting the evidence out in public. That's what I would want the federal government to do.

There are multiple parallel lines of accusation, including some that come from people with a history of bending over backwards NOT to accuse Trump of criminality, despite him painting a huge neon-lit target on his backside for them to do so. At some point, dwelling on the thinner and thinner chance that it all "might be nothing" becomes foolish.

Ok. Who are these people bending over backwards not to accuse Trump of criminal acts, and evidence for this assertion. Because I have no clue what you're talking about.

This is not to say anyone is obliged to immediately start believing the evidence, especially evidence they haven't seen. But I think it's time to at least stop and treat the evidence in question seriously, as something that actually has to be looked at before we fixate on coming up with excuses to dismiss it.

Kind of a bit hard when the evidence is, "intelligence agencies think so, trust us," don't you think.

[The Romulan Republic]

Show the fucking evidence. Oh that's right, you can't.

I cannot prove beyond any doubt that Putin interfered to make Trump President. Especially if you're going to preemptive dismiss any source (like the CIA, or Barrack Obama) that comes to a conclusion you don't like.

Nor can you prove that the allegations are false or more implausible than the alternatives, yet you insist that even investigating further is ridiculous. Not that you really care, since you evidently feel that Russia would be entirely justified in having hacked the election.

But your case keeps getting weaker, and more self-contradictory. At first it was "Oh, its just the CIA, they can't be trusted, its just anti-Russian lies!" Now whoops, more agencies are backing the CIA up, and its changed to "Russia didn't do it, but if they did they'd have been totally justified!"

Unlike you I don't have 5 hours a day to waste on a board arguing with fucking morons.

You're right. Talking with you is wasting my time arguing with a fucking moron.

If you don't have time to defend your arguments, then don't be surprised when other people aren't convinced by them.

Did you even watch Obama's speech yesterday where he threatened Russia with consequences and presented absolutely zero evidence? The investigation was just started a week ago and isn't due to wrap up for months, there is nothing. But hey, if it helps you sleep at night to believe that Putin worked with Trump to steal the election for him, then who am I to argue?

Yeah, I totally want for Russia to have turned my country's democracy into a farce.

[Flagg]

It's conceivable that all this is the result of a massive case of confirmation bias that somehow fooled all these people, even though they're taking it to briefings to Congress.

Like Iraq?

Iraq wasn't the intelligence agencies going to the administration with evidence of anything (as opposed to 9/11 where the intelligence agencies concerns were ignored), it was the administration going to the intelligence agencies and cherry picking the very few scraps of evidence and reports that said Iraq had an ongoing WMD program, while ignoring the vast amount of evidence and reports saying the opposite, which essentially shit in their storyline for launching an illegal war of aggression on Iraq cheerios.

I'm kind of sick of having to keep reminding people that the Iraq debacle was not the intelligence agencies repeatedly telling the Bush Administration (which was planning for an Iraq war before the election even took place should he successfully have his brother and party loyalists in FL steal the election win) about how dangerous Iraq was and how they had more WMD than Cheney's friends had birdshot in their faces, but rather the agencies essentially being ignored unless they said something the war whores could use to con an already terrified public.

The only similarity would be if Democratic operatives were doing what Bush and company did as far as Russian hacking goes, but there's no evidence of that.

I would hope that there is strong evidence to bolster the claims of Russia engaging in hacking to the effect that it got Trump elected if that is what occurred (and I sure hope there isn't because they didn't, but we won't know until evidence more tangible than "intelligence officials say..." Is revealed or dubunked), but if that's the case we're in uncharted territories, especially should Psychopath, Pedophile, Rapist, Misogynist, Tax Cheat, Confidence Artist, and all around walking talking hunk of human excrement Donald Trump take office.

[Flagg]

Yeah. As much as I freely admit that I'd love to see Trump be utterly discredited, lose the Presidency, and, for that matter be thrown in Federal prison for the rest of his miserable life... still, the implications, and potential consequences, of Russia interfering in an American election in this manner are frightening. Its not really something any semi-sane person would think is a good thing.

It is a good thing, because the manner in which Wikileaks interfered in this election was by telling the truth about the political actions, past and future, of the Presidential front-runner. The idea of throwing Trump in prison based on circumstantial evidence - that he was the one standing when Hillary's hard-on for overthrowing governments finally caught up with her - is fucking stupid.

Well if Trump and his supporters get their way they'll have Hillary imprisoned instead. I know presidents can issue pardons, can they also throw someone in prison just because they say so?

Ask the people that have been in GITMO for 15 years.

[Grumman]

Because I didn't see Wikileaks going after Trump's long list of misdeeds and accusations. Funny how they only seemed to go after Democrats. Its almost like they aren't real journalists interested in the truth, but partisan operatives with an ax to grind.

It's almost like they didn't need to, you idiot. What was Wikileaks supposed to say about Trump that wasn't already being shouted from the rooftops by everyone else? Do they need to provide classified documents proving water is wet too?

In other words, they were one-sided, but that's okay, because its Clinton.

In other words, it is neither useful or possible for WikiLeaks to leak information which is being sent straight to the media instead of being sent to them. WikiLeaks exists to provide a safe channel for whistleblowers to get information to the public, but that channel will not get used if everyone knows they can safely cut out the middle-man.

Just to take two glaring examples, the writing was on the wall about him being a rapist for months before the mainstream media really picked up on it, and it was the largely trivial and inconsequential developments in the email scandal, not where that information (illegally) came from, that got the lion's share of the coverage.

Only a moron or a partisan hack could ever have believed that the rape accusation was true, because "I accuse Trump of committing a serious but unfalsifiable crime twenty years ago, and my excuse for not doing so sooner is because I accuse Trump of committing a different serious but unfalsifiable crime twenty years ago" was always blatantly bullshit. The only surprising thing when she dropped the lawsuit was that she did so the weekend before the election, rather than trying to squeeze a few more days of slander out of it.

[The Romulan Republic]

We will probably never know for certain weather the claim that he raped an underage girl is true, because it seems that it will never go to court. We do know that numerous other women have accused him of sexual harassment and/or assault (not technically rape by the legal definition, if you want to be technically accurate), and that he has confessed to such crimes on tape.

So... which is more likely? That a young girl was raped by a man with a lengthy history of sexual assault allegations he has himself confessed to, and of objectifying women and girls including his own infant daughter, and that she was afraid for her safety if she publicly challenged said rich and powerful man with a history of vindictive behaviour and suing his critics (especially as the race narrowed closer to election day and she faced the prospect of going up against the most powerful man in the world, while allegedly receiving death threats from his supporters).

Or that she just made it all up and then, after months of build-up, chickened out at the last moment?

And yes, I know some of her associates lacked credibility, but that doesn't prove that she lied. At the very least, I would say that the situation is ambiguous enough that to accuse her of slander could, ironically, be considered slanderous- or libellous, since you're doing it in print.

But of course, if the woman doesn't immediately report it, or ever change her story, she must be lying. Because their are no practical or psychological reasons why a rape victim might hesitate to make an accusation, especially against one of the richest, most powerful men in the world with a history of suing his critics and of general vindictiveness. Oh, and who now has a mob of loyal brownshirts chanting "lock her up" about Clinton and beating up protesters at rallies.

When those nasty SJWs talk about "rape culture"... this is what they're talking about.

[K. A. Pital]

I wonder, if America did the same to Russia, what you would have to say about that.

Nobody would have said anything.

America utterly destroyed the Russian economy after Russia lost the Cold War; it plundered the collapsed superpower for cash, technology secrets, oil, gas and metals in a fashion of a true capitalistic vulture.

[Flagg]

I wonder, if America did the same to Russia, what you would have to say about that.

Nobody would have said anything.

America utterly destroyed the Russian economy after Russia lost the Cold War; it plundered the collapsed superpower for cash, technology secrets, oil, gas and metals in a fashion of a true capitalistic vulture.

God I hate it when people use double negatives.

[Tvpnbb]

I wonder, if America did the same to Russia, what you would have to say about that.

Nobody would have said anything.

America utterly destroyed the Russian economy after Russia lost the Cold War; it plundered the collapsed superpower for cash, technology secrets, oil, gas and metals in a fashion of a true capitalistic vulture.

Would you mind giving some sources for that? I have never heard of USA having any decisive part in the Post-Soviet fuckup other than perhaps refusing to give them the same help as they gave for other more former Eastern Bloc countries that were closer to the West.

[Simon_Jester]

Stas can reasonably argue that the US is complicit in the post-Soviet fuckup, as is the rest of the West, by enabling Russian billionaires to sequester funds and sell off capital they'd looted from the wreckage of the Soviet-era economy. Most of the other former Soviet bloc nations were not so comprehensively looted as the former USSR itself.

The problem isn't the lack of aid to Russia, it's when you tacitly encourage thieves to plunder Russia.

(EDIT: To be clear, I am not in a position to present hard evidence of this. But it would amaze me if The Artist Formerly Known as Stas can't.)

But seriously, stop and take a moment to think:

What would the world look like, if these accusations were true and the evidence were actual good evidence?

What would you expect the federal government to be doing in response, and how do you think it would differ from what you see?

If it were solid evidence there'd be a lot more high ranking government officials racking up frequent flyer miles. Armed forces committees, JCS, and others will be getting briefed in on the situation and drawing up or dusting off plans. Everyone gets briefed in, then the President holds a press conference to address the nation, present the evidence, and set a course of action. And while they're doing that the press will be getting a steady diet of "no comments" until the President makes his address, you won't be getting shit like "the CIA says this but the FBI doesn't agree" on a daily basis, the intelligence heads won't be having public arguments in the press. There will likely be rumours leaking out but no one important will be saying anything until the President speaks.

So basically:

1) It can't be real because Obama isn't talking about a military attack against Russia, a nation which, as you have so helpfully pointed out, has nukes.

2) It can't be real because the evidence isn't being kept secret enough, whereas in a real emergency the president would be enforcing a gag on everyone, and

3) It can't be real because we haven't been shown the evidence, an argument you've made in the past but not here because of how obviously it contradicts (2), your new argument.

Firstly, (2) and (3) contradict each other; pick one to be true. (1) is stupid.

(2) isn't actually stupid but there's an obvious flaw in it. With the upcoming Electoral College vote, and the next president due to be sworn in about a month from now, this is a matter of extreme urgency.

If there is significant evidence of Trump receiving Russian aid, Obama and the intelligence community have a lot of reason to hurry. Because this information and our response to it have a "sell by date" of January 20, 2017. About half an hour after that, if Trump is in the White House, you can bet that no further investigation will be taking place, regardless of whether Trump is guilty or innocent.

There is every reason to think that, if there is good evidence of Russian involvement in the election, the administration is in a difficult position of having to compromise between making the investigation complete and secret, and making sure the investigation actually accomplishes anything and that the evidence is brought before responsible decision-makers in time to do anything about it.

If I were you, I'd have stuck to (3).

What, there isn't any investigative journalism to be done looking for Donald Trump's past dirt? It's "all out there," so aspiring investigative journalist types don't have to try to reveal his past?

That's an awfully convenient excuse to selectively investigate only one side, in an attempt to discredit in by creating a tu quoque argument that they're as bad as the side whose past crimes are "all out there."

Or maybe no one from the other side was willing to leak the info to wikileaks.

That conflicts with the interpretation that Trump's misdeeds are "all out there" and that Wikileaks isn't needed to spread the evidence of those misdeeds.

One or the other can be true, but not both.

Furthermore, given that many of Trump's misdeeds have been publicly spread, it seems unlikely that the "no one is willing to come forward" argument is actually true. Plenty of people have been willing to come forward publicly. It seems highly unlikely that nobody would be willing to use Wikileaks to more covertly come forward...

IF Wikileaks is actually serving its original stated function of providing a neutral repository for leaked documents. If, by contrast, they are serving the function "repository for whichever leaked or fabricated documents the guys who just took us over want us to repose," that is a very different matter. And suddenly it makes a lot more sense.

It's conceivable that all this is the result of a massive case of confirmation bias that somehow fooled all these people, even though they're taking it to briefings to Congress.

Like Iraq?

No, NOT like Iraq. Iraq was a deliberately orchestrated lie on the part of the White House. The cherrypicking of intelligence to support the "Iraq has WMD" conclusion in large part postdates the decision by Bush and Cheney to go to war. A lot of senior officials basically blew up their own credibility trying to pretend otherwise- but that's the reality. The Iraq WMD story was a deliberate lie, and people like Powell, Rice, and the CIA went along with it.

If you don't think this "Russians hacked the election" is all a deliberately orchestrated lie on Obama's part, then playing the Iraq card over and over is just you being a fool.

But seriously, stop and take a moment to think:

What would the world look like, if these accusations were true and the evidence were actual good evidence?

What would you expect the federal government to be doing in response, and how do you think it would differ from what you see?

How about putting the evidence out in public. That's what I would want the federal government to do.

Me too, but that's what I'd LIKE to see, not what I'd EXPECT to see.

Realistically, the CIA releasing its evidence within a short amount of time after investigation begins is not in the cards. The best we can hope for is that the relevant decision-makers get classified briefings, and either some of them leak the evidence to the public, or the CIA/FBI/et cetera get around to it... eventually.

There are multiple parallel lines of accusation, including some that come from people with a history of bending over backwards NOT to accuse Trump of criminality, despite him painting a huge neon-lit target on his backside for them to do so. At some point, dwelling on the thinner and thinner chance that it all "might be nothing" becomes foolish.

Ok. Who are these people bending over backwards not to accuse Trump of criminal acts, and evidence for this assertion. Because I have no clue what you're talking about.

Off the top of my head, Trump has enough accusations against him that the FBI really ought to have had him in their sights for a long time. And yet Comey has historically done more to inconvenience Clinton by 'whoops' releasing rumors regarding the email scandal, and very little to inconvenience Trump despite him being credibly accused of fraud, tax evasion, and sexual harassment.

This is not to say anyone is obliged to immediately start believing the evidence, especially evidence they haven't seen. But I think it's time to at least stop and treat the evidence in question seriously, as something that actually has to be looked at before we fixate on coming up with excuses to dismiss it.

Kind of a bit hard when the evidence is, "intelligence agencies think so, trust us," don't you think.

Which is why what I'm doing is deliberately withholding judgment. The situation is such that the claim of Russian hacking is plausible. It would not be out of keeping with either Putin's behavior or Trump's behavior. And if the Russian hacking claims are false, it is most likely because of a deliberate decision on Obama's part to lie or slander the incoming Trump administration. Which would be very unusual behavior from Obama, and is in turn a serious accusation to make against Obama.

I wonder, if America did the same to Russia, what you would have to say about that.

Nobody would have said anything.

America utterly destroyed the Russian economy after Russia lost the Cold War; it plundered the collapsed superpower for cash, technology secrets, oil, gas and metals in a fashion of a true capitalistic vulture.

Let me ask you directly.

Do you think that I personally would approve if evidence came to light of the US interfering in a Russian election? We've been conversing for about six years. You be the judge.

Because TRR's question isn't about what the mainstream media would have said, or what Obama would have said. It is, by all appearances, about what the posters on this forum have said.

Let's actually address the question, shall we?
Therefore, I refrain from claiming that Obama made the whole thing up, I refrain from claiming that Trump is necessarily guilty, and I refrain from tripping over my own feet coming up with self-contradictory explanations for why it can't be true.

Because seriously. "Trump couldn't possibly have committed Crime XYZ" is not a hill I want to try and make a stand on. Not now, and not for the next four years.

[aerius]

The problem with the Russian hacking conspiracy theory is it fails Occam's Razor. The fact is both John Podesta and the DNC were hacked with a simple phishing scam, and then the info ended up at Wikileaks which chose to leak it at a time of their choosing.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-phishin ... n-podesta/

CBS News October 28, 2016, 11:43 AM
The phishing email that hacked the account of John Podesta

March 2016

This appears to be the phishing email that hacked Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s Gmail account. Further, The Clinton campaign’s own computer help desk thought it was real email sent by Google, even though the email address had a suspicious “googlemail.com” extension.

The email, with the subject line “*Someone has your password,*” greeted Podesta, “Hi John” and then said, “Someone just used your password to try to sign into your Google Account john.podesta@gmail.com.” Then it offered a time stamp and an IP address in “Location: Ukraine.”

“Google stopped this sign-in attempt. You should change your password immediately.” And it then offered a link to change his password.

“This is a legitimate email,” Charles Delevan at the HFA help desk wrote to Podesta’s chief of staff, Sara Latham. “John needs to change his password immediately, and ensure that two-factor authentication is turned on his account.”

Delevan included the Gmail link that would be used to change a user’s password, but whoever changed Podesta’s password instead clicked on the shortened URL that was in the original phishing email. This is the same technique used to hack Colin Powell’s emails and the Democratic National Committee emails, according to the website Motherboard.

All of these hacks were executed using these shortened URLs in fake emails, according to Motherboard, and those URLs “were created with a Bitly account linked to a domain under the control of Fancy Bear,” a group of Russian hackers.

In October, WikiLeaks began releasing thousands of Podesta’s emails daily before the November presidential election.

The only Russian connection is that the shortened URLs were created by an account that is linked to a domain used by Russian hackers. It's the same as saying I'm an American business because I used Godaddy as the domain service to setup my web based retail site.

To summarize. The Russian hacking theory that's being peddled by the US claims the following:
1) Russian hackers, specifically those with the GRU and other Russian agencies hacked the DNC, Podesta, and everyone else
2) These hacks were personally authorized by Putin
3) Putin, Trump, Russian intelligence, Wikileaks, and other outlets all co-ordinated with each other to hack & leak the info at the best possible time to ensure Trump's victory

The much simpler alternate theory says the following:
1) Some hacker(s) using a Russian DNS phished the DNC and Podesta
2) The info from the hack was dumped to a file and given to Wikileaks (we have a person who claims to be the courier)
3) Wikileaks then released the info at a time of their choosing

We have indisputable evidence of the phishing emails, whereas there's absolutely zero evidence of an organized Russian state sanctioned hacking attack. You can actually download that email off of Wikileaks and verify the cryptographic signature & authentication with the public keys to prove its authenticity. DKIM shit is beyond my level but others have done it and the Podesta emails verify.

In other words, we have evidence & proof of 1) and 3) in the alternate theory, and some evidence of 2). There is zero evidence to support the "official" theory.