CIA says "High Confidence" that Putin involved with Hacking

[whichphilosophy]

Everyone hacks each other but the claim is the Russians not Clinton lost the election for Clinton.

Yes, because leaking 20 years of Trump's emails and tax forms would have had absolutely no affect on the outcome of the election.

I doubt it. Nothing else seemed to affect him that much.
The Russians did not win the election, Clinton lost it. What exactly was it that deterred the voters, most of whom would not have read the 20 years of emails.

However, I have a suspicion there is a plot to remove Trump with the help of some Republicans. The due report doesn't have to prove anything as long as it repeats the accusations. It's very hard to find what in the 20 year's emails are the factors which lost the election for Clinton.
This is pure speculation on my part. If this is the case it will happen just before or just after he takes office. This could of course be complete nonsense but I think something is cooking.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Incomplete data; excluding wikileaks version. 99 out of 100 is an opinion poll given the results are due in 3 weeks to be timed just before Obama's exit. No conclusions can on can be reached until all investigations have been completed

Huh? So you have NO information that was withheld from the senators? Color me dumbfounded. What kind of moron KNOWS he is less informed than a body of others, yet asserts that THEY are wrong?

re

That doesn't relate to what I said. The information is not complete per latest news as the report will be written up in 3 weeks.

See what some Democrat Senators asked which is a very reasonable request.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.6cd 17702ea22

Seven Democratic senators last week asked Obama to declassify details about the intrusions and why officials believe that the Kremlin was behind the operation. Officials said Friday that the senators specifically were asking the White House to release portions of the CIA’s presentation.

So where's the beef?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yes, because leaking 20 years of Trump's emails and tax forms would have had absolutely no affect on the outcome of the election.

I doubt it. Nothing else seemed to affect him that much.

Actually his debate performances did. But then they passed into oblivion. However, a bunch of emails regarding "his" "foundation" or maybe better referred to as the McMahon Foundation who apparently actually donated to it or any number of other sociopathic emails regarding his various swindles would have likely put off some independent voters. And it wouldn't have taken much.

The Russians did not win the election, Clinton lost it.

I keep seeing you say that. Trump won on technicality, winning three states by 100,000 votes aggregate... to a national deficit of 2.85 million to Clinton.

However, I have a suspicion there is a plot to remove Trump with the help of some Republicans.

If Trump gets the boot, it'd have to be the Republicans, they control everything.

The due report doesn't have to prove anything as long as it repeats the accusations.

It is Global Warming arguments all over again. First you admit there was hacking, but it didn't affect anything. Then you suggest that the hacking never took place.

It's very hard to find what in the 20 year's emails are the factors which lost the election for Clinton.
This is pure speculation on my part. If this is the case it will happen just before or just after he takes office. This could of course be complete nonsense but I think something is cooking.

Well, if he starts up the Cold War again, that may make some Republicans get a little nervous.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I doubt it. Nothing else seemed to affect him that much.

Actually his debate performances did. But then they passed into oblivion. However, a bunch of emails regarding "his" "foundation" or maybe better referred to as the McMahon Foundation who apparently actually donated to it or any number of other sociopathic emails regarding his various swindles would have likely put off some independent voters. And it wouldn't have taken much.

The Russians did not win the election, Clinton lost it.

I keep seeing you say that. Trump won on technicality, winning three states by 100,000 votes aggregate... to a national deficit of 2.85 million to Clinton.

However, I have a suspicion there is a plot to remove Trump with the help of some Republicans.

If Trump gets the boot, it'd have to be the Republicans, they control everything.

The due report doesn't have to prove anything as long as it repeats the accusations.

It is Global Warming arguments all over again. First you admit there was hacking, but it didn't affect anything. Then you suggest that the hacking never took place.

It's very hard to find what in the 20 year's emails are the factors which lost the election for Clinton.
This is pure speculation on my part. If this is the case it will happen just before or just after he takes office. This could of course be complete nonsense but I think something is cooking.

Well, if he starts up the Cold War again, that may make some Republicans get a little nervous.

The first problem is the election was not directed to issues but in character attacks on each other.
Clinton won the most votes which is an established fact. However this is based on the amount of states won per an electoral system that has been in operation for hundreds of years. Since this state by state it doesn't mean the winner will have the most overall votes. This system can always be changed from number of states won to number of votes but there is no indication this will be changed.
There is always spying and opportunist hacking on a global and governmental scale. However the burden of proof is (and contrary to wikileaks) is to demonstrate the 'Russians' did this. No proof has been presented.

Even some democrats have asked for specifics as I mentioned in an earlier post.

The US and Russia should be working to limit and eliminate terrorism. That should be something which they both have in common.

As for the evidence of specific hacking, this has not been presented. As for the actual data which 'swayed voters' this has not been presented.

 

[Trausti]

 

[whichphilosophy]

Putin didn't take the hook.

 

[Elixir]

Seven Democratic senators last week asked Obama to declassify details about the intrusions and why officials believe that the Kremlin was behind the operation. Officials said Friday that the senators specifically were asking the White House to release portions of the CIA’s presentation.

So where's the beef?

I don't know where your beef is WP. Maybe you should wait for the report before making baseless assertions about Russia's lack of interference. YA THINK?

 

[barbos]

Seven Democratic senators last week asked Obama to declassify details about the intrusions and why officials believe that the Kremlin was behind the operation. Officials said Friday that the senators specifically were asking the White House to release portions of the CIA’s presentation.

So where's the beef?

I don't know where your beef is WP. Maybe you should wait for the report before making baseless assertions about Russia's lack of interference. YA THINK?

LOL

 

[whichphilosophy]

Seven Democratic senators last week asked Obama to declassify details about the intrusions and why officials believe that the Kremlin was behind the operation. Officials said Friday that the senators specifically were asking the White House to release portions of the CIA’s presentation.

So where's the beef?

I don't know where your beef is WP. Maybe you should wait for the report before making baseless assertions about Russia's lack of interference. YA THINK?

You had already made the conclusion the unsupported accusations were factual based on a majority Senate opinion yet there is still no proof presented other than accusations and some conflicting reports.
Therefore until a report is produced which will show what was hacked and how this actually changed US opinion all assertions have no basis in fact.

In order to be fair the Russians must also be given their right to respond and also Wiki Leaks must also be considered.

Given this the US government has not shown itself to be objective but biased and assuming the facts before any “investigations.”

If there is an accusation against the Russians this must be taken to the International court so that both sides can produce their cases. The US will have the burden of proof since it is making such claims.

The reason for the last statement is that it not only ties in with modern Western logic based on its legal system. Your concept infers that all one has to do is accuse and doesn't have to do anything else.

 

[Jayjay]

I don't know where your beef is WP. Maybe you should wait for the report before making baseless assertions about Russia's lack of interference. YA THINK?

You had already made the conclusion the unsupported accusations were factual based on a majority Senate opinion yet there is still no proof presented other than accusations and some conflicting reports.
Therefore until a report is produced which will show what was hacked and how this actually changed US opinion all assertions have no basis in fact.

In order to be fair the Russians must also be given their right to respond and also Wiki Leaks must also be considered.

Given this the US government has not shown itself to be objective but biased and assuming the facts before any “investigations.”

If there is an accusation against the Russians this must be taken to the International court so that both sides can produce their cases. The US will have the burden of proof since it is making such claims.

The reason for the last statement is that it not only ties in with modern Western logic based on its legal system. Your concept infers that all one has to do is accuse and doesn't have to do anything else.

What "International court" exactly?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Seven Democratic senators last week asked Obama to declassify details about the intrusions and why officials believe that the Kremlin was behind the operation. Officials said Friday that the senators specifically were asking the White House to release portions of the CIA’s presentation.

So where's the beef?

I don't know where your beef is WP. Maybe you should wait for the report before making baseless assertions about Russia's lack of interference. YA THINK?

You formed an opinion that Russia somehow influenced the election where on examination there is no conclusive evidence.

It is not possible to draw any conclusion based on what you, the media and the Democratic Party have stated since nothing to show how the Russians could have actually changed public opinion in the election. It is rather like saying to an Atheist, prove God does not exist. This is disproving a negative.

Also a report in itself would not be conclusive unless all the parties are involved and there is an non-involved third party to evaluate and comment.
This would be a dispute between 2 countries but the main focus is on attacking the incoming new President.

So until any proof is presented to establish how the public changed to Republican. You have not demonstrated this, nor has anyone else.

So since the burden of proof lies with the accuser

See: http://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/glossary-courts-and-the-law.html


burden of proof -- the level or quality of proof that a party needs to prove his or her case. In civil cases, the plaintiff has the burden of proving his or her case by a preponderance of the evidence, which means the plaintiff's proof must outweigh the defendant's at least slightly for the plaintiff to win; if the two sides are equal, the defendant wins. In criminal cases, the government has the burden of proof, and that burden is much higher: A verdict of guilty requires the government to prove the defendant's guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt.


While we are not talking about a specific court case in question, a reasonable person does expect this doctrine is applied in life to prevent baseless or half baked accusations to be dismissed without sufficient evidence.

So once again where is the actual proof that the Russians under Putin hacked Democrat files and leaked them??

 

[whichphilosophy]

You had already made the conclusion the unsupported accusations were factual based on a majority Senate opinion yet there is still no proof presented other than accusations and some conflicting reports.
Therefore until a report is produced which will show what was hacked and how this actually changed US opinion all assertions have no basis in fact.

In order to be fair the Russians must also be given their right to respond and also Wiki Leaks must also be considered.

Given this the US government has not shown itself to be objective but biased and assuming the facts before any “investigations.”

If there is an accusation against the Russians this must be taken to the International court so that both sides can produce their cases. The US will have the burden of proof since it is making such claims.

The reason for the last statement is that it not only ties in with modern Western logic based on its legal system. Your concept infers that all one has to do is accuse and doesn't have to do anything else.

What "International court" exactly?

It's a good question. This would be the International Court of Justice.
This would be a dispute between two countries because the US has made allegations against another sovereign state and rather than conclude on its own (even before the report comes out) we can hope to see a more accurate finding.

The accusation is that a crime was committed so the legal procedure would apply in the same way as for murder, fraud and genocide etc.

The Plaintiff would need to demonstrate a direct unbroken line between the Russian government the operatives clearly under its command, the information it is stated to have hacked and how this was used and how it was directly effective in changing US opinion to switch from Democrat to Republican. This would take perhaps more than a few weeks.

However the Democrats I believe are in a hurry to somehow change the government back to Democrat or set up a caretaker government with a few Republicans in tow in a coup. This I clearly state is an opinion held by myself and may be wildly inaccurate but in a few months anything can happen.

 

[Elixir]

You formed an opinion that Russia somehow influenced the election where on examination there is no conclusive evidence.

You formed an opinion based on nothing but your own preconceptions, that Russia did not influence the US election. I formed an opinion based on the unanimous conclusions of 17 of the best intelligence agencies on the planet, that Russia made every attempt to influence the US election. Ho hum. If you keep insisting that your ignorance is as good as anyone else's knowledge, it is pointless to try to engage you in rational discussion.

 

[whichphilosophy]

You formed an opinion that Russia somehow influenced the election where on examination there is no conclusive evidence.

You formed an opinion based on nothing but your own preconceptions, that Russia did not influence the US election. I formed an opinion based on the unanimous conclusions of 17 of the best intelligence agencies on the planet, that Russia made every attempt to influence the US election. Ho hum. If you keep insisting that your ignorance is as good as anyone else's knowledge, it is pointless to try to engage you in rational discussion.

.
My opinion is there is no information either way and that the conclusions were formed before any investigation takes place.
You have not presented anything other than 99 senators or the 'top' 17 intelligence agencies say so which has no intellectual worth to man nor beast; and fish nor fowl. Of course again you did not address any specific points.

 

[Elixir]

You formed an opinion based on nothing but your own preconceptions, that Russia did not influence the US election. I formed an opinion based on the unanimous conclusions of 17 of the best intelligence agencies on the planet, that Russia made every attempt to influence the US election. Ho hum. If you keep insisting that your ignorance is as good as anyone else's knowledge, it is pointless to try to engage you in rational discussion.

.
My opinion is there is no information either way ...

Gee - your opinion is consistent with that of every ostrich on the planet.

 

[barbos]

I find this sudden trust between these senators and 17 agencies rather amusing and ironic. Was not that not long ago when the main US spy lied to senators about spying? Nobody in this story can be trusted.
The fact is, 99 out 100 senators voted for Hillary in last elections.

 

[whichphilosophy]

.
My opinion is there is no information either way ...

Gee - your opinion is consistent with that of every ostrich on the planet.

You're dodging the question again so her is what I said:

My opinion is there is no information either way and that the conclusions were formed before any investigation takes place.
You have not presented anything other than 99 senators or the 'top' 17 intelligence agencies say so which has no intellectual worth to man nor beast; and fish nor fowl. Of course again you did not address any specific points.


In fact it is more than an opinion because it is based on observation.

 

[Elixir]

Gee - your opinion is consistent with that of every ostrich on the planet.

You're dodging the question again so her is what I said:

My opinion is there is no information either way and that the conclusions were formed before any investigation takes place.
You have not presented anything other than 99 senators or the 'top' 17 intelligence agencies say so which has no intellectual worth to man nor beast; and fish nor fowl. Of course again you did not address any specific points.


In fact it is more than an opinion because it is based on observation.

As is usual with foregone right-wing conclusions, it is based on an observation of nothing. Just like that of an ostrich.
I observe that the most informed people dealing with the case all agree. I further observe that you disagree with them, based on the fact that you know shinola.

Why go through all these contortions to try to represent that you have some kind of knowledge? It's not like this forum has some vast audience... (that I'm aware of).

 

[whichphilosophy]

You're dodging the question again so her is what I said:

My opinion is there is no information either way and that the conclusions were formed before any investigation takes place.
You have not presented anything other than 99 senators or the 'top' 17 intelligence agencies say so which has no intellectual worth to man nor beast; and fish nor fowl. Of course again you did not address any specific points.


In fact it is more than an opinion because it is based on observation.

As is usual with foregone right-wing conclusions, it is based on an observation of nothing. Just like that of an ostrich.
I observe that the most informed people dealing with the case all agree. I further observe that you disagree with them, based on the fact that you know shinola.

Why go through all these contortions to try to represent that you have some kind of knowledge? It's not like this forum has some vast audience... (that I'm aware of).

No based on the US legal system as I am qualified in Law and investigate fraud as part of my job which included UK Law, Chinese, HK and UAE Laws.
So my point is very clear. Until there is a full unbiased investigation and since this involves another state the decision should rest with an international court. If this were in the USA this would have to be settled in the legal system in an unbiased manner.

You somehow concluded on the basis of accusation alone mentioning 99 Senators when the report hasn't been issued. When it is I doubt if it will have allowed input from Russia. This is apolitical because whether someone is left or right the principles of evidence and investigation would remain the same where I have not concluded Russian involvement due to a lack of evidence, and the CIA is reluctant to hand over what it has. I have not seen the exact wording of the senator's decision but normally in most European countries and the UK the upper (and sometimes lower houses) will only conclude there is ample reason to investigate. To conclude before such takes place would be at best asinine, as in Iraq.

Who needs an audience; this is a chat forum with scores and hundeds but not millions of visitors

 

[Elixir]

As is usual with foregone right-wing conclusions, it is based on an observation of nothing. Just like that of an ostrich.
I observe that the most informed people dealing with the case all agree. I further observe that you disagree with them, based on the fact that you know shinola.

Why go through all these contortions to try to represent that you have some kind of knowledge? It's not like this forum has some vast audience... (that I'm aware of).

No based on the US legal system as I am qualified in Law and investigate fraud as part of my job which included UK Law, Chinese, HK and UAE Laws.

What an impressive list of irrelevant "qualifications".
I am in charge of cyber-security for a contractor to the US government. I probably know more about the ins and outs of these things than you do. So what? Neither you nor I have sat in on the salient briefings. It comes down to this: you are convinced that the agencies and individuals expressing the consensus opinion are either all lying in conspiracy, or have been misled by some agency or individuals they trusted.

So my point is very clear. Until there is a full unbiased investigation and since this involves another state the decision should rest with an international court. If this were in the USA this would have to be settled in the legal system in an unbiased manner.

What world ARE you living in? Regardless of any international court reality show spectacle, the Russians always have and always will continue to make every attempt to interfere in US politics. Until and unless it is clearly not to their advantage to do so, the default assumption must be that they are trying to do so. Whether or not you or some other lawyers could get them found "not guilty" of some specific act in court, is of zero consequence.

Like it or not, you are stuck with your baseless opinion, and it continues to contradict the expressed opinions of the most informed people dealing with this case. Bitch and moan about jumping to conclusions if you must (for lack of any cogent argument), but these conclusions had already been reached in July, by those in the know. Unless, as I am sure you'd like to assert, they were lying then, and are sticking to their lie now.