CIA says "High Confidence" that Putin involved with Hacking

[barbos]

From what they all saying looks like the basis for "high confidence" is their belief that hackers could not have done it without explicit permission from Putin Basically they say that Putin controls everything therefore he is responsible for everything. Great logic.

 

[repoman]

I would not use the Washington Times for much at all. It is highly biased.

 

[Elixir]

The only thing that repeats itself is the accusation how the Russians lost the election for the Democrats

Repeating in your brain perhaps. Where else have you seen that accusation on this site? (link please). You cannot point to where I ever stated that anything about this investigation casts doubt about the election results. But for some reason you seem to be forbidden to think of any other reason a country's intelligence agencies might be interested in knowing about and exposing other countries' interference in their elections... what incredible willful ignorance.

It is becoming apparent that the alt-right is petrified that something COULD turn up in the course of investigation that would cast doubt upon the legitimacy of the election results, and are trying to kill it before that can happen. I wonder if that's just their usual paranoia or if they actually know something...

 

[whichphilosophy]

I would not use the Washington Times for much at all. It is highly biased.

They are all biased; Faux News (pro Trump) CNN (Clinton News Network) Washington Post and (slightly less) the New York Times. Like all the news put together it means that there are different arguments floating about. Hence conclusions about any of it would be premature.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Julian Assage again states WIKI LEAKS didn't come from the Russians, so the 'investigation' should identify the actual source.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/assange-russian-government-was-not-wikileaks-source-163633069.html



WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange claimed in a new interview that he is completely confident that the Russian government was not the source of the hacked emails that his organization released leading up to the U.S. presidential election. He also shrugged off the question of whether the politically damaging emails affected the outcome of the race.

The publisher of classified and private information released embarrassing emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

Inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, Fox News political pundit Sean Hannity asked Assange to address the allegation that WikiLeaks was a tool employed by Moscow to interfere with the U.S. election.

“Can you say to the American people, unequivocally, that you did not get this information about the DNC, John Podesta’s emails, can you tell the American people 1,000 percent that you did not get it from Russia or anybody associated with Russia?” Hannity inquired.

“We can say, we have said repeatedly that over the last two months, that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party,” Assange responded.

Democrats have argued that the WikiLeaks email dumps were conducted as part of an orchestrated plot to tilt the election in favor of Donald Trump, who frequently showers praise on Russia and its leaders. Despite Assange’s claims, the U.S. intelligence community has said it is certain that Russia was behind the cyberattacks that led to the WikiLeaks disclosures. Experts have also linked “Guccifer 2,” the hacker who claims to have leaked the DNC emails, to the Kremlin.



And

Assange said he believes the Obama administration is trying to delegitimize Trump before his predecessor enters the White House.

“They are trying to say that President-elect Trump is not a legitimate president,” he said.

According to Democrats, the leak of thousands of Podesta’s emails were particularly damaging to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. An earlier hack this summer led to the resignation of DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and renewed distrust of the Democratic establishment among supporters of Bernie Sanders’ primary campaign.

When asked if the emails WikiLeaks published changed the outcome of the election, Assange said, “Who knows?” He also argued that if they had, the responsibility lies not with WikiLeaks but the people who penned the emails in the first place.

Will the 'investigation' consider this evidence?

Whether the wikileaks material came from a source other than the Russian hackers isn't relevant. The original material is known to have been obtained by Russian hackers as determined by analysis of the hacked sites. Who gives a shit whether Assange's material came from whatever. That is not the source of the leaks nor is it the source of the hacking. Those were taken and released independently of wikileaks.

Remember wikileaks is an intermediary not a hacker.

Assage says Wikileaks didn't receive such leaks from the Russians
Snowdon however, also as I recently quoted suggests one did.

If we can suggest the Russians do hack this is correct. Likewise so do the Americans, British, Israelis, Chinese and so forth.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The only thing that repeats itself is the accusation how the Russians lost the election for the Democrats

Repeating in your brain perhaps. Where else have you seen that accusation on this site? (link please). You cannot point to where I ever stated that anything about this investigation casts doubt about the election results. But for some reason you seem to be forbidden to think of any other reason a country's intelligence agencies might be interested in knowing about and exposing other countries' interference in their elections... what incredible willful ignorance.

It is becoming apparent that the alt-right is petrified that something COULD turn up in the course of investigation that would cast doubt upon the legitimacy of the election results, and are trying to kill it before that can happen. I wonder if that's just their usual paranoia or if they actually know something...

That is literally what it means (first point you raised) unless you are saying the Russians did not alter the course of the elections.
I don't see that the Alt-right or others should be petrified that something COULD turn up.Maybe it could be but this would need to be established.
The meeting between the CIA and Trump was postponed. What does this mean; a poor case or what does this mean??

 

[Elixir]

Repeating in your brain perhaps. Where else have you seen that accusation on this site? (link please). You cannot point to where I ever stated that anything about this investigation casts doubt about the election results. But for some reason you seem to be forbidden to think of any other reason a country's intelligence agencies might be interested in knowing about and exposing other countries' interference in their elections... what incredible willful ignorance.

It is becoming apparent that the alt-right is petrified that something COULD turn up in the course of investigation that would cast doubt upon the legitimacy of the election results, and are trying to kill it before that can happen. I wonder if that's just their usual paranoia or if they actually know something...

That is literally what it means (first point you raised) unless you are saying the Russians did not alter the course of the elections.

Read this real slow, or get someone to read it to you:
Nobody knows whether or not Russia's efforts to influence the election was a factor in the outcome.
Also, the "postponed" meeting was never scheduled. (Show me one source other than Trump's camp that ever said it was.) You are falling for Trump's lying tweets again.

Now, back to "the point". Why are Trump and his trumpsuckers so deathly afraid of an investigation into Russia's known hacking, and their efforts to undermine the democracy that elected Trump?

If we can suggest the Russians do hack this is correct. Likewise so do the Americans, British, Israelis, Chinese and so forth.

Trying to imply that they make no effort to stop foreign interference, and therefore we should ignore Russia's attempts to influence our elections? Or are you just saying that to avoid "the point"? Or perhaps you're simply tiring of trying to make a losing case, and want to appear too stupid to respond to?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Whether the wikileaks material came from a source other than the Russian hackers isn't relevant. The original material is known to have been obtained by Russian hackers as determined by analysis of the hacked sites. Who gives a shit whether Assange's material came from whatever. That is not the source of the leaks nor is it the source of the hacking. Those were taken and released independently of wikileaks.

Remember wikileaks is an intermediary not a hacker.

Assage says Wikileaks didn't receive such leaks from the Russians

Didn't he say "the Russian State"?

I guess what we are seeing now is that the Russians didn't need to do this in private, all Vlad needed to do is come to America and openly endorse Trump, based on the fucking love show going on among right-wings and the Trump Admin / Team.

 

[Elixir]

Assage says Wikileaks didn't receive such leaks from the Russians

Didn't he say "the Russian State"?

I guess what we are seeing now is that the Russians didn't need to do this in private, all Vlad needed to do is come to America and openly endorse Trump, based on the fucking love show going on among right-wings and the Trump Admin / Team.

I can imagine Uncle Vlad meeting with a cohort:

V: "But what if Trump doesn't do what we want him to do?"
Cohort: "Then we just tell the Americans we got him elected. He won't be able to do shit then, even if they don't impeach him."
V: "That's too extreme. They might replace him"
Cohort: "Probably right. We could threaten to freeze his assets if he gets out of line?"
V: "We'll do that anyway, as soon as he outlives his usefulness. No threats, just seizure. If he is still in the White House at that point, it will be a lot of fun seeing what the Americans do when they find out how we hoodwinked them!"

 

[whichphilosophy]

That is literally what it means (first point you raised) unless you are saying the Russians did not alter the course of the elections.

Read this real slow, or get someone to read it to you:
Nobody knows whether or not Russia's efforts to influence the election was a factor in the outcome.
Also, the "postponed" meeting was never scheduled. (Show me one source other than Trump's camp that ever said it was.) You are falling for Trump's lying tweets again.

Now, back to "the point". Why are Trump and his trumpsuckers so deathly afraid of an investigation into Russia's known hacking, and their efforts to undermine the democracy that elected Trump?

If we can suggest the Russians do hack this is correct. Likewise so do the Americans, British, Israelis, Chinese and so forth.

Trying to imply that they make no effort to stop foreign interference, and therefore we should ignore Russia's attempts to influence our elections? Or are you just saying that to avoid "the point"? Or perhaps you're simply tiring of trying to make a losing case, and want to appear too stupid to respond to?

The point you emboldened in large print are what I was saying all along. Therefore any consensus to contrary is still unfounded.

However, if an investigation is proceeding on the basis those involved have already made up their mind then it's hardly an investigation. Such can be called a fit-up (being framed). If it is being done objectively then it must start with some reasonable grounds to assume looking into the situation further.

Did Russia attempt to influence the election results, you again implied ...therefore should we ignore Russia's attempts to influence our elections?
Of course the US should NOT ignore any attempt to breach websites in its own country. I’m sure several hundreds of hacking and virus attempts are foiled each month

http://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurit...berattacks-hit-united-states-last-year/61775/

The Pentagon reports getting 10 million attempts a day.
The National Nuclear Security Administration, an arm of the Energy Department, also records 10 million hacks a day.

I've just been watching the news: So on what basis is Clapper claiming that Russia was interfering in the elections. Assage who released the the leaks stated that the Russians didn't provide him with the details. Is this a circus or an investigation?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Assage says Wikileaks didn't receive such leaks from the Russians

Didn't he say "the Russian State"?

I guess what we are seeing now is that the Russians didn't need to do this in private, all Vlad needed to do is come to America and openly endorse Trump, based on the fucking love show going on among right-wings and the Trump Admin / Team.

There is nothing concrete to suggest the Russians influenced the US election results and how could such a swing be estimated? Anyone in their right mind would not wish to leave a Western country and live in Russia, but an alliance with Russia against global terrorism would be a great step forward. I''m sure Trump will choose to meet Putin. Who knows it could be love at first sight.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Read this real slow, or get someone to read it to you:
Nobody knows whether or not Russia's efforts to influence the election was a factor in the outcome.
Also, the "postponed" meeting was never scheduled. (Show me one source other than Trump's camp that ever said it was.) You are falling for Trump's lying tweets again.

Now, back to "the point". Why are Trump and his trumpsuckers so deathly afraid of an investigation into Russia's known hacking, and their efforts to undermine the democracy that elected Trump?

If we can suggest the Russians do hack this is correct. Likewise so do the Americans, British, Israelis, Chinese and so forth.

Trying to imply that they make no effort to stop foreign interference, and therefore we should ignore Russia's attempts to influence our elections? Or are you just saying that to avoid "the point"? Or perhaps you're simply tiring of trying to make a losing case, and want to appear too stupid to respond to?

The points in large bold are what I was saying all along. It follow any consensus that Russia did influence the election are unfounded.
I don't think anyone will fear an impartial investigation. Let the CIA be open with its information to the US government (both outgoing and incoming).

Did Russia attempt to influence the election results, since you mentioned ...therefore should we ignore Russia's attempts to influence our elections? Of course the US should NOT ignore any attempt to hack and to influence the US elections but this has not been established. It would be correct to say that it has corrective measures in place which are successfully countering thousands of attempts each month.

It would be seemingly established because the US kicked out a few dozen Russian spies and have laid sanctions on Russian individuals, and Russia shrugged. Russia would never ever shrug off a baseline act like that. Putin pretended to play the 'better' man, but was as convincing as a mustached villain in a silent movie.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Read this real slow, or get someone to read it to you:
Nobody knows whether or not Russia's efforts to influence the election was a factor in the outcome.
Also, the "postponed" meeting was never scheduled. (Show me one source other than Trump's camp that ever said it was.) You are falling for Trump's lying tweets again.

Now, back to "the point". Why are Trump and his trumpsuckers so deathly afraid of an investigation into Russia's known hacking, and their efforts to undermine the democracy that elected Trump?

If we can suggest the Russians do hack this is correct. Likewise so do the Americans, British, Israelis, Chinese and so forth.

Trying to imply that they make no effort to stop foreign interference, and therefore we should ignore Russia's attempts to influence our elections? Or are you just saying that to avoid "the point"? Or perhaps you're simply tiring of trying to make a losing case, and want to appear too stupid to respond to?

The points in large bold are what I was saying all along. It follow any consensus that Russia did influence the election are unfounded.
I don't think anyone will fear an impartial investigation. Let the CIA be open with its information to the US government (both outgoing and incoming).

Did Russia attempt to influence the election results, since you mentioned ...therefore should we ignore Russia's attempts to influence our elections? Of course the US should NOT ignore any attempt to hack and to influence the US elections but this has not been established. It would be correct to say that it has corrective measures in place which are successfully countering thousands of attempts each month.

It would be seemingly established because the US kicked out a few dozen Russian spies and have laid sanctions on Russian individuals, and Russia shrugged. Russia would never ever shrug off a baseline act like that. Putin pretended to play the 'better' man, but was as convincing as a mustached villain in a silent movie.

Essentially Putin didn't take the hook and do the same (tit for tat).

 

[ZiprHead]

I think it would be extremely easy to determine if the email dumps by WL affected the election. Just ask Bernie people if those releases changed their decision to vote for Hillary to anyone else or to not vote at all.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I think it would be extremely easy to determine if the email dumps by WL affected the election. Just ask Bernie people if those releases changed their decision to vote for Hillary to anyone else or to not vote at all.

The US government itself receives 10 million cyber attacks a year. This seems to be something the US can reasonably continue to claim exists.
There are several sources for this.

Yet of course a need to demonstrate that the Russians, hacked the emails, passed them to Wiki or anyone else. Then there is the need to show how this information affected the outcome of the US election.

The CIA so far has not produced anything to back up this claim. This should be clear evidence at least to show why it is making that claim (which it then can investigate).

It's not clear what information caused people to change their vote.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Read this real slow, or get someone to read it to you:
Nobody knows whether or not Russia's efforts to influence the election was a factor in the outcome.
Also, the "postponed" meeting was never scheduled. (Show me one source other than Trump's camp that ever said it was.) You are falling for Trump's lying tweets again.

Now, back to "the point". Why are Trump and his trumpsuckers so deathly afraid of an investigation into Russia's known hacking, and their efforts to undermine the democracy that elected Trump?

If we can suggest the Russians do hack this is correct. Likewise so do the Americans, British, Israelis, Chinese and so forth.

Trying to imply that they make no effort to stop foreign interference, and therefore we should ignore Russia's attempts to influence our elections? Or are you just saying that to avoid "the point"? Or perhaps you're simply tiring of trying to make a losing case, and want to appear too stupid to respond to?

The points in large bold are what I was saying all along. It follow any consensus that Russia did influence the election are unfounded.
I don't think anyone will fear an impartial investigation. Let the CIA be open with its information to the US government (both outgoing and incoming).

Did Russia attempt to influence the election results, since you mentioned ...therefore should we ignore Russia's attempts to influence our elections? Of course the US should NOT ignore any attempt to hack and to influence the US elections but this has not been established. It would be correct to say that it has corrective measures in place which are successfully countering thousands of attempts each month.

It would be seemingly established because the US kicked out a few dozen Russian spies and have laid sanctions on Russian individuals, and Russia shrugged. Russia would never ever shrug off a baseline act like that. Putin pretended to play the 'better' man, but was as convincing as a mustached villain in a silent movie.

Essentially Putin didn't take the hook and do the same (tit for tat).

Yes, because Putin is known for acting as such. What in the hell is with the right-wing all of sudden spreading their cheeks for Putin?

- - - Updated - - -

I think it would be extremely easy to determine if the email dumps by WL affected the election. Just ask Bernie people if those releases changed their decision to vote for Hillary to anyone else or to not vote at all.

The US government itself receives 10 million cyber attacks a year. This seems to be something the US can reasonably continue to claim exists.
There are several sources for this.

Yet of course a need to demonstrate that the Russians, hacked the emails, passed them to Wiki or anyone else. Then there is the need to show how this information affected the outcome of the US election.

The CIA so far has not produced anything to back up this claim. This should be clear evidence at least to show why it is making that claim (which it then can investigate).

It's not clear what information caused people to change their vote.

Look, there is no evidence the Russians affected the election by leaking these emails. The information was released and people just didn't like what they saw. Also, the Russians didn't hack the DNC email. Hey, anyone else vacationing on the Black Sea this summer?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Read this real slow, or get someone to read it to you:
Nobody knows whether or not Russia's efforts to influence the election was a factor in the outcome.
Also, the "postponed" meeting was never scheduled. (Show me one source other than Trump's camp that ever said it was.) You are falling for Trump's lying tweets again.

Now, back to "the point". Why are Trump and his trumpsuckers so deathly afraid of an investigation into Russia's known hacking, and their efforts to undermine the democracy that elected Trump?

If we can suggest the Russians do hack this is correct. Likewise so do the Americans, British, Israelis, Chinese and so forth.

Trying to imply that they make no effort to stop foreign interference, and therefore we should ignore Russia's attempts to influence our elections? Or are you just saying that to avoid "the point"? Or perhaps you're simply tiring of trying to make a losing case, and want to appear too stupid to respond to?

The points in large bold are what I was saying all along. It follow any consensus that Russia did influence the election are unfounded.
I don't think anyone will fear an impartial investigation. Let the CIA be open with its information to the US government (both outgoing and incoming).

Did Russia attempt to influence the election results, since you mentioned ...therefore should we ignore Russia's attempts to influence our elections? Of course the US should NOT ignore any attempt to hack and to influence the US elections but this has not been established. It would be correct to say that it has corrective measures in place which are successfully countering thousands of attempts each month.

It would be seemingly established because the US kicked out a few dozen Russian spies and have laid sanctions on Russian individuals, and Russia shrugged. Russia would never ever shrug off a baseline act like that. Putin pretended to play the 'better' man, but was as convincing as a mustached villain in a silent movie.

Essentially Putin didn't take the hook and do the same (tit for tat).

Yes, because Putin is known for acting as such. What in the hell is with the right-wing all of sudden spreading their cheeks for Putin?

- - - Updated - - -

I think it would be extremely easy to determine if the email dumps by WL affected the election. Just ask Bernie people if those releases changed their decision to vote for Hillary to anyone else or to not vote at all.

The US government itself receives 10 million cyber attacks a year. This seems to be something the US can reasonably continue to claim exists.
There are several sources for this.

Yet of course a need to demonstrate that the Russians, hacked the emails, passed them to Wiki or anyone else. Then there is the need to show how this information affected the outcome of the US election.

The CIA so far has not produced anything to back up this claim. This should be clear evidence at least to show why it is making that claim (which it then can investigate).

It's not clear what information caused people to change their vote.

Look, there is no evidence the Russians affected the election by leaking these emails. The information was released and people just didn't like what they saw. Also, the Russians didn't hack the DNC email. Hey, anyone else vacationing on the Black Sea this summer?

In the first instance Putin didn't react, pending discussions with Putin which are inevitable.
In the second instance there is no reason for sanctions if the Russians didn't do this.

 

[Elixir]

Nobody knows whether or not Russia's efforts to influence the election was a factor in the outcome.

The point you emboldened in large print are what I was saying all along. Therefore any consensus to contrary is still unfounded.

Why are you still arguing it? 17 different intelligence agencies didn't express the conclusion that Trump won the election because of Russian support, nor did I, nor did anyone else here that I'm aware of. You are trying to conflate Trump's victory - admittedly a disturbing fact - with another disturbing fact: the fact that the Russians interfered with the US election. You simply don't want anyone to know what that effort looked like, lest it cast doubt on the legitimacy of Trumps victory.
Still afraid that they'll find something out? Or are you saying they should forget about it due to some "no harm no foul" rule?
Newsflash: that's not how international intelligence agencies operate.

 

[barbos]

The point you emboldened in large print are what I was saying all along. Therefore any consensus to contrary is still unfounded.

Why are you still arguing it? 17 different intelligence agencies didn't express the conclusion that Trump won the election because of Russian support, nor did I, nor did anyone else here that I'm aware of. You are trying to conflate Trump's victory - admittedly a disturbing fact - with another disturbing fact: the fact that the Russians interfered with the US election. You simply don't want anyone to know what that effort looked like, lest it cast doubt on the legitimacy of Trumps victory.
Still afraid that they'll find something out? Or are you saying they should forget about it due to some "no harm no foul" rule?
Newsflash: that's not how international intelligence agencies operate.

Not saying != not suggesting.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The point you emboldened in large print are what I was saying all along. Therefore any consensus to contrary is still unfounded.

Why are you still arguing it? 17 different intelligence agencies didn't express the conclusion that Trump won the election because of Russian support, nor did I, nor did anyone else here that I'm aware of. You are trying to conflate Trump's victory - admittedly a disturbing fact - with another disturbing fact: the fact that the Russians interfered with the US election. You simply don't want anyone to know what that effort looked like, lest it cast doubt on the legitimacy of Trumps victory.
Still afraid that they'll find something out? Or are you saying they should forget about it due to some "no harm no foul" rule?
Newsflash: that's not how international intelligence agencies operate.

Consensus can only be validated with the facts and sequence of events These would demonstrate how the accused party clearly had the intent to hack the emails in question.
Then it must be shown how such acts were actually executed (also with malice as aforethought so as to show this was purposeful and not accidental.'

There has to be clear proof that as a result of this action there was a clear detrimental effect on Clinton votes. So far there is none.
No harm no foul is a reality with respect to the claims of intentionally influencing the election results.

We know all the parties are hacking each other with no less involvement by US agencies and go alone hackers. In the current absence of proof we have only a consensus over an abstraction.