CIA report - Russia intervened in the 2016 election

[Simon_Jester]

I will say there's a certain parity between evidenceless leaks accusing Russians of hacking the election, and evidenceless leaks accusing Clinton of being connected with secret crimes via that email 'scandal' people kept nursing along. The fact that he's been accused doesn't convince me that he's guilty.

On the other hand, bluntly, I DO think the matter merits investigation. If the accusations aren't total fabrications by some 'CIA person' who pulled them out of a hat, they need to be investigated. If they are total fabrications. THAT needs to be investigated, because slandering a presidential candidate or a president-elect on this scale is not a small matter.

The problem is that there is effectively no possibility of the investigation actually taken place. The only way it could conceivably happen is (if the accusations are not outright fictions) one of the CIA personnel involved decides to fall on their sword and pull a Snowden- and if so, they're going to need to do it right now. Because a real investigation, the kind that takes time, isn't happening. By the time such an investigation could even get started, Trump will pre-emptively quash it because that's the way he works, even if he's innocent of the accusations and the Russians were not involved.

Because, and I think everyone should be prepared to admit this: Donald Trump is a corrupt fuck.

Trump's corrupt fuckery is a large part of why these accusations take on even the slightest tinge of plausibility. No one remotely sane would take accusations like this seriously against most candidates. You'd have to be a true idiot, in the classical sense of "too stupid and emotional to belong in a discussion of public affairs" to take them seriously. But Trump is a serial fraudster with extensive foreign ties and associations running back for decades, and enough shade to start his own Ice Age by blocking out the sun over half the northern hemisphere. He really is exceptionally corrupt by the standards of American politics.

It's telling that we elected a guy like this. A man who, if it turned out that he did get into office via the services of foreign hackers... nobody would actually be all that surprised. It is at least believable that he would have solicited such services, and that he has the connections to obtain them.

I don't think he actually did that. But I can't say "wow, no way would he do that." Nor can I say "no way the Russians would do that." I honestly don't know he didn't do it on a gut level. And that would worry me if I weren't already pre-worried about the prospects of the Trump administration altogether.

[Wild Zontargs]

Julian Assange denies receiving the data from any Russian sources. Also quoted is the Director of National Intelligence saying they don't have a strong link between Wikileaks' email leaks and Russia:


The FBI also doesn't believe there's any strong evidence that Russia influenced the election by hacking:

In telephone conversations with Donald Trump, FBI Director James Comey assured the president-elect there was no credible evidence that Russia influenced the outcome of the recent U.S. presidential election by hacking the Democratic National Committee and the e-mails of John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

What’s more, Comey told Trump that James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, agreed with this FBI assessment.

The only member of the U.S. intelligence community who was ready to assert that the Russians sanctioned the hacking was John Brennan, the director of the CIA, according to sources who were briefed on Comey’s conversations with Trump.

“And Brennan takes his marching orders from President Obama,” the sources quoted Comey as saying.

In Comey’s view, the leaks to the New York Times and the Washington Post alleging that the Russians tried—and perhaps even succeeded—in tilting the election to Trump were a Democratic Party effort to delegitimize Trump’s victory.

During their phone conversations, Comey informed Trump that the FBI had been alert for the past year to the danger that the Russians would try to cause mischief during the U.S. presidential election.

However, whether the Russians did so remains an open question, Comey said, adding that it was just as likely that the hacking was done by people who had no direct connection to the Russian government.

“It’s also unclear,” the sources pointed out, “why Putin would have preferred dealing with Donald Trump, who has promised a major military buildup, over Hillary Clinton, who would have continued Barack Obama’s cautious policies toward the Kremlin.”

All Kremlin shills, right?

[Flagg]

The so called investigations have already been debunked by Vympel in his previous posts. As for the CIA, why the fuck should they be trusted? Do I have to bring up Iraq and WMDs again? They're proven liars. No one has shown conclusive evidence so why the hell should I take any claims seriously? At this point I might as well claim that the NSA hacked the DNC and framed Russia because they knew it would cause a bunch of hysterics that would enable them to grab more surveillance powers. What's that you say? Where's my proof? Well my proof is that the NSA are professionals, they're the only ones who can frame Russia and not leave their fingerprints all over it, therefore it was the NSA. My proof is the lack of evidence.

Do you see how fucking stupid this is? This is like saying the cheque's in the mail and I won't cum in your mouth.

I'm put in the awkward position of defending the CIA, an organization I despise, but regarding Iraq and WMD: The politicians (and yes, I consider the appointed head of the CIA as a politician) took the "intelligence" that supported their rush to war and ignored the "intelligence" that contradicted it.

Not to say that the same isn't being done here, I just think the CIA gets a bum rap for Iraq. There's plenty of horrible shit they've done, but Iraq was a special case.

And that's not a rebuttal to the Russia, Election, CIA shit.

[Shroom Man 777]

Hannity interviewed Ulian Jassange? Wow. Hannity seems like the type who'd want Jassange tried for treason (even though he's from Straya) and frozen in carbonite for a thousand years...

[Flagg]

Julian Assange denies receiving the data from any Russian sources. Also quoted is the Director of National Intelligence saying they don't have a strong link between Wikileaks' email leaks and Russia:


The FBI also doesn't believe there's any strong evidence that Russia influenced the election by hacking:

In telephone conversations with Donald Trump, FBI Director James Comey assured the president-elect there was no credible evidence that Russia influenced the outcome of the recent U.S. presidential election by hacking the Democratic National Committee and the e-mails of John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

What’s more, Comey told Trump that James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, agreed with this FBI assessment.

The only member of the U.S. intelligence community who was ready to assert that the Russians sanctioned the hacking was John Brennan, the director of the CIA, according to sources who were briefed on Comey’s conversations with Trump.

“And Brennan takes his marching orders from President Obama,” the sources quoted Comey as saying.

In Comey’s view, the leaks to the New York Times and the Washington Post alleging that the Russians tried—and perhaps even succeeded—in tilting the election to Trump were a Democratic Party effort to delegitimize Trump’s victory.

During their phone conversations, Comey informed Trump that the FBI had been alert for the past year to the danger that the Russians would try to cause mischief during the U.S. presidential election.

However, whether the Russians did so remains an open question, Comey said, adding that it was just as likely that the hacking was done by people who had no direct connection to the Russian government.

“It’s also unclear,” the sources pointed out, “why Putin would have preferred dealing with Donald Trump, who has promised a major military buildup, over Hillary Clinton, who would have continued Barack Obama’s cautious policies toward the Kremlin.”

All Kremlin shills, right?

Comey is the one who announced "new email investigations" that torpedoed Clinton's campaign, so if he told me my hair was on fire I'd look in the mirror.

And Sean Hannnity? Really? A proven liar? The guy who supported waterboarding and promised that he'd be waterboarded to "prove it wasn't torture" only to never undergo it or mention it again?

[Flagg]

Hannity interviewed Ulian Jassange? Wow. Hannity seems like the type who'd want Jassange tried for treason (even though he's from Straya) and frozen in carbonite for a thousand years...

He's a lying sack of shit. The fact that Julian Assange can only get booked on Sean Hannity tells you everything you need to know.

[aerius]

On the other hand, bluntly, I DO think the matter merits investigation. If the accusations aren't total fabrications by some 'CIA person' who pulled them out of a hat, they need to be investigated. If they are total fabrications. THAT needs to be investigated, because slandering a presidential candidate or a president-elect on this scale is not a small matter.

The problem is that there is effectively no possibility of the investigation actually taken place. The only way it could conceivably happen is (if the accusations are not outright fictions) one of the CIA personnel involved decides to fall on their sword and pull a Snowden- and if so, they're going to need to do it right now. Because a real investigation, the kind that takes time, isn't happening. By the time such an investigation could even get started, Trump will pre-emptively quash it because that's the way he works, even if he's innocent of the accusations and the Russians were not involved.

They are investigating.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/09/politics/ ... -election/

It's been less than a week and far too early to have any results. Will there ever be conclusive evidence? I doubt it, unless someone fucked up good, but the intelligence community is looking into things.

So far all we have are a bunch of claims from unknown sources and known liars.
It pretty much amounts to saying the person in this video is a Russian terrorist because he speaks with a fake Russian accent and blows shit up with an AK-47.

[Shroom Man 777]

As Skimmer said, the nature of cyberwar is such that nothing there can be conclusively used as cassus belli or whatever, I mean North Korean mines and mini-subs actually sink South Korean ships and they haven't blown each other to smithereens. I hope if there are any conclusive findings though, those involved in the local front will get their asses chewed and held accountable.

It's hilarious since in the Philippines, our dear leader also made weird ass statements amounting to claiming to have received foreign intelligence assistance in nailing some political opponent in illegal activities. What the hell.

[Titan Uranus]

Want to back up that assertion? Or is "reverence for the truth" a euphemism for "they agree with my biases"?

When has Wikileaks knowingly lied?

I do know that the alternative theory needs more than a Wikileaks operative (i.e. one of the guilty parties in aiding Trump) cited by the Daily fucking Mail.
I an the biased one? Guilty of revealing the truth. BWAHAHA
Ignorance is Strength, it seems. How unseemly that they aired the dirty laundry of POTUS job candidate. How very passe, revealing the foul acts of a politician whose from my tribe!

Also, Russia has been known to interfere in other countries' elections before. As has America. The only "shocking" thing about these allegations is that they would have the audacity to do it to America. And thus far, it hasn't backfired on Russia. Barring a miraculous stand by the Electoral College, Trump has won, and they have their business partner/enabler/useful idiot in the White House.

Yeah, it definitely won't backfire if the accusation is proven true, that definitely won't turn the US population completely against Russia and plunge us into a new cold war for the foreseeable future.

So, little corporate whore, did CTR pay you for your comment, or do you play an enemy of all republics for free?

Aw, you think you're being clever.

I don't stand for corporatism, but for democracy.

I accused you of the very same thing you just accused Aerius of doing you dense motherfucker.
How do you remain conscious with so little self-awareness?
Also, you do not support democracy, between this and Brexit you have twice now supported the overthrow of democratic results in favor of oligarchic rule as long as the oligarchy temporarily agrees with you.

(I saw the mod note after I typed this up, I'm not sure if it is in violation of the note.)

[Rogue 9]

I accused you of the very same thing you just accused Aerius of doing you dense motherfucker.
How do you remain conscious with so little self-awareness?
Also, you do not support democracy, between this and Brexit you have twice now supported the overthrow of democratic results in favor of oligarchic rule as long as the oligarchy temporarily agrees with you.

(I saw the mod note after I typed this up, I'm not sure if it is in violation of the note.)

It arguably wouldn't be overthrowing democratic results for the Electoral College to refuse to vote for Trump; after all, he didn't even come close to a popular majority or plurality.

[aerius]

It arguably wouldn't be overthrowing democratic results for the Electoral College to refuse to vote for Trump; after all, he didn't even come close to a popular majority or plurality.

That's like playing a game of chess and getting checkmated, and insisting that you won because you had more pieces left on the board. Accept the results and deal with it, then learn to play the game next time.

[Titan Uranus]

I accused you of the very same thing you just accused Aerius of doing you dense motherfucker.
How do you remain conscious with so little self-awareness?
Also, you do not support democracy, between this and Brexit you have twice now supported the overthrow of democratic results in favor of oligarchic rule as long as the oligarchy temporarily agrees with you.

(I saw the mod note after I typed this up, I'm not sure if it is in violation of the note.)

It arguably wouldn't be overthrowing democratic results for the Electoral College to refuse to vote for Trump; after all, he didn't even come close to a popular majority or plurality.

However, he did win handily by the rules agreed upon at the beginning of the contest, which have remained constant for almost two centuries (it's been 180 years since faithless electors actually had an effect on the election).
You can't just change the rules ex post facto until you win, on that path lies madness and a rapid slide to tyranny.

[Flagg]

I accused you of the very same thing you just accused Aerius of doing you dense motherfucker.
How do you remain conscious with so little self-awareness?
Also, you do not support democracy, between this and Brexit you have twice now supported the overthrow of democratic results in favor of oligarchic rule as long as the oligarchy temporarily agrees with you.

(I saw the mod note after I typed this up, I'm not sure if it is in violation of the note.)

It arguably wouldn't be overthrowing democratic results for the Electoral College to refuse to vote for Trump; after all, he didn't even come close to a popular majority or plurality.

However, he did win handily by the rules agreed upon at the beginning of the contest, which have remained constant for almost two centuries (it's been 180 years since faithless electors actually had an effect on the election).
You can't just change the rules ex post facto until you win, on that path lies madness and a rapid slide to tyranny.

They agreed to it under duress. The electors can award the election to whomever they choose and the most that can happen to them is state charges. The rest is appeal to tradition.

[Rogue 9]

I accused you of the very same thing you just accused Aerius of doing you dense motherfucker.
How do you remain conscious with so little self-awareness?
Also, you do not support democracy, between this and Brexit you have twice now supported the overthrow of democratic results in favor of oligarchic rule as long as the oligarchy temporarily agrees with you.

(I saw the mod note after I typed this up, I'm not sure if it is in violation of the note.)

It arguably wouldn't be overthrowing democratic results for the Electoral College to refuse to vote for Trump; after all, he didn't even come close to a popular majority or plurality.

However, he did win handily by the rules agreed upon at the beginning of the contest, which have remained constant for almost two centuries (it's been 180 years since faithless electors actually had an effect on the election).
You can't just change the rules ex post facto until you win, on that path lies madness and a rapid slide to tyranny.

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.

[aerius]

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?

[Rogue 9]

Breaking news! People lobby their elected officials! Also, we can't spell "Deseret!"

I mailed a very nicely phrased cover letter and copies of Federalist #68 to all the electors in my state, personally. Which is entirely appropriate. Death threats aren't, but they're also unfortunately par for the course for elected officials of any stripe.

[Titan Uranus]

They agreed to it under duress. The electors can award the election to whomever they choose and the most that can happen to them is state charges. The rest is appeal to tradition.

Of course it is an appeal to tradition, that's what keeps society together, the decisions that become traditions that become part of the unspoken foundation of society. The reason the Supreme Court can say that the death penalty cannot be enforced in the case of rape, the reason that we have such a long and arduous appeals process, the reason that the protesters at Standing Rock were not immediately thrown into prison for their various minor crimes. And you want to throw that away, you want to throw us down another rung on the ladder of civilization, change politics from a limited war to a total war, because your tribe put forward an incompetent, corrupt, criminal (as the FBI admitted, even though they claimed that she should not be prosecuted because she is a noblewoman and above such trivialities as the law) candidate and she lost. I'm sorry, but that is not a good enough reason to set the nation on fire.

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.

The tradition, since the days of the founders themselves has been that the popular vote by state is the final arbiter.
HRC, as we now know, was definitely foreign-influenced, via the Clinton Foundation. She was not competent to defeat Donald Trump, and her campaign strategy consisted of vague platitudes and fear-mongering to an even grater degree than Donald Trump. At least Trumpy was smart enough to play the goal and claim to provide policies that actually helped the working class.
Fucking hell, I was a Sanders man, I voted for Jill Stein, why do you insist on saying something so absurd that I have to defend Trump?

Faithless electors, changing the result now would cause far more damage both to American democracy and to the physical nation than it could possibly be worth.

[Flagg]

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?

Death threats are unacceptable, but I doubt any electors will be moved by them. If they actually fail to give Trump the 270 to win, buy a sturdy umbrella because pigs will be flying and shitting on everything.

[Flagg]

They agreed to it under duress. The electors can award the election to whomever they choose and the most that can happen to them is state charges. The rest is appeal to tradition.

Of course it is an appeal to tradition, that's what keeps society together, the decisions that become traditions that become part of the unspoken foundation of society. The reason the Supreme Court can say that the death penalty cannot be enforced in the case of rape, the reason that we have such a long and arduous appeals process, the reason that the protesters at Standing Rock were not immediately thrown into prison for their various minor crimes. And you want to throw that away, you want to throw us down another rung on the ladder of civilization, change politics from a limited war to a total war, because your tribe put forward an incompetent, corrupt, criminal (as the FBI admitted, even though they claimed that she should not be prosecuted because she is a noblewoman and above such trivialities as the law) candidate and she lost. I'm sorry, but that is not a good enough reason to set the nation on fire.

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.

The tradition, since the days of the founders themselves has been that the popular vote by state is the final arbiter.
HRC, as we now know, was definitely foreign-influenced, via the Clinton Foundation. She was not competent to defeat Donald Trump, and her campaign strategy consisted of vague platitudes and fear-mongering to an even grater degree than Donald Trump. At least Trumpy was smart enough to play the goal and claim to provide policies that actually helped the working class.
Fucking hell, I was a Sanders man, I voted for Jill Stein, why do you insist on saying something so absurd that I have to defend Trump?

Faithless electors, changing the result now would cause far more damage both to American democracy and to the physical nation than it could possibly be worth.

An appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy.

[Rogue 9]

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.

The tradition, since the days of the founders themselves has been that the popular vote by state is the final arbiter.

Don't speak of what you do not know. In the days of the Founders themselves several states didn't even have a popular vote for President; state legislatures are perfectly allowed to appoint Electors however they damn well please. South Carolina just picked Electors via the legislature right up until 1860. The Constitution doesn't say they have to hold a popular vote.

As to the rest, I didn't say a damn thing about Clinton. She's not going before the Electoral College - or actually she is, but since she doesn't have the majority of it she's not the primary concern.

[aerius]

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.

Forgot to add this in my previous post. If we go by what you've just said (I defer to your knowledge of the Constitution), both Trump and Clinton would be disqualified for being foreign influenced. The Clinton Foundation and the campaign itself has taken large contributions from Saudi Arabia among others, so you could reasonably suspect that they've been bought off by foreign interests. So Sanders it is? Fuck your system is fucked up.

[Rogue 9]

It can be anyone they choose who meets the legal requirements to serve. In practice it would be impossible to get 270 of them to agree to do it, but they have the legal authority to put up anybody, even someone who wasn't running.

[Titan Uranus]

An appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy.

You don't actually understand what I am saying, read again. And this time try not to get caught up on familiar turns of phrase used in new ways.

Don't speak of what you do not know. In the days of the Founders themselves several states didn't even have a popular vote for President; state legislatures are perfectly allowed to appoint Electors however they damn well please. The Constitution doesn't say they have to hold a popular vote.

As to the rest, I didn't say a damn thing about Clinton. She's not going before the Electoral College - or actually she is, but since she doesn't have the majority of it she's not the primary concern.

I know damned well that a lot states didn't chose electors via popular vote, but I also know that the majority of states which failed to do so were either slave states ruled by oligarchies, newly created low-population states, or Massachusetts.
And that's ignoring the fundamental changes brought about by Andrew Jackson and his movement which are an example of exactly the sort of decision becoming tradition becoming unspoken law.
You know Jackson, right? The one man most responsible for us not being an oligarchy in law as well as fact? But tradition doesn't matter at all, we should throw it aside in favor of ever more cutthroat politics, after all, it worked so well for the Roman Republic, why not ours?


Clinton is the only other possible candidate, any other would be completely open subversion of the will of the people and would require a tyranny to be instituted.

[Flagg]

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.

The tradition, since the days of the founders themselves has been that the popular vote by state is the final arbiter.

Don't speak of what you do not know. In the days of the Founders themselves several states didn't even have a popular vote for President; state legislatures are perfectly allowed to appoint Electors however they damn well please. South Carolina just picked Electors via the legislature right up until 1860. The Constitution doesn't say they have to hold a popular vote.

As to the rest, I didn't say a damn thing about Clinton. She's not going before the Electoral College - or actually she is, but since she doesn't have the majority of it she's not the primary concern.

Btw, as an addendum: Fuck the founders right in their genocidal, misogynist, mostly slave owning Rapist ears.

[Flagg]

An appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy.

You don't actually understand what I am saying, read again. And this time try not to get caught up on familiar turns of phrase used in new ways.

Don't speak of what you do not know. In the days of the Founders themselves several states didn't even have a popular vote for President; state legislatures are perfectly allowed to appoint Electors however they damn well please. The Constitution doesn't say they have to hold a popular vote.

As to the rest, I didn't say a damn thing about Clinton. She's not going before the Electoral College - or actually she is, but since she doesn't have the majority of it she's not the primary concern.

I know damned well that a lot states didn't chose electors via popular vote, but I also know that the majority of states which failed to do so were either slave states ruled by oligarchies, newly created low-population states, or Massachusetts.
And that's ignoring the fundamental changes brought about by Andrew Jackson and his movement which are an example of exactly the sort of decision becoming tradition becoming unspoken law.
You know Jackson, right? The one man most responsible for us not being an oligarchy in law as well as fact? But tradition doesn't matter at all, we should throw it aside in favor of ever more cutthroat politics, after all, it worked so well for the Roman Republic, why not ours?


Clinton is the only other possible candidate, any other would be completely open subversion of the will of the people and would require a tyranny to be instituted.

I read your post and almost punctured a lung laughing.