CIA says "High Confidence" that Putin involved with Hacking

[barbos]

From this:

They gave me enough information to conclude that they are greatly exaggerating their "confidence".

Obviously you (think you) know far more about the basis of their confidence level than anyone who was actually briefed.
When was the last time you recall a 99:1 consensus being the result of an exaggeration? IIRC, the Iraq war vote was something like 77-23.

The consensus of 77 to 23 was meaningless given that the 77 were eventually shown to be wrong. This may apply to the 99

As I mentioned Wikileaks the source say the information was not from Russians which I shall repeat.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/hac...nsider-russia/

In what could only be described as a smashing development, a WikiLeaks insider now claims the hacked release of documents evincing massive corruption in the Democrat Party and collusion by corporate media presstitutes had nothing at all to do with Russia — but was, instead, the handiwork of disillusioned Democrat insiders.
Craig Murray, who served as British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from 2002 through 2004 — and is now a known ally and associate of Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange — told the Daily Mail, “Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians. The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.”
Murray’s claims — given the current Red Scare atmosphere proffered by a hysterical neoliberal establishment — blow the roof off claims Russia undertook a steadied and insidious campaign to throw the United States’ presidential election in favor of hotly contentious candidate, Donald Trump.
Indeed, the former ambassador says the leaks were the work of a Washington, D.C., insider and had nothing at all to do with Russia, as the Democrats have so vociferously proclaimed.

Therefore the Senate should not just rely on sources cherry picked for them and look at all the facts.

To be fair, hackers could still be involved. Also I would like to know reprecautions of this former ambassador admission. Should not they question him and somehow force to reveal the name?

 

[Elixir]

Therefore the Senate should not just rely on sources cherry picked for them and look at all the facts.

Should those "facts" include what is diseminated to the Daily Mail by "a known ally and associate of Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange"?

To be fair, hackers could still be involved.

What a generous allowance.

Also I would like to know reprecautions of this former ambassador admission. Should not they question him and somehow force to reveal the name?

Not sure they can summon a foreign national. How would that be done? Extradition?
FWIW, I am not one bit confident about all the hacking/no-hacking stuff that's floating around. But it seems inconceivable that Putin and his associates would NOT have made every effort to protect their investments/investors by trying to get their preferred candidate elected. In my uninformed opinion, it would be far more likely that they were working the fields of fake news, rather than trying any overt interference that might be discovered after the fact (which may or may not include feeding Wikileaks). The whole story is never going to come to light unless Don the Con releases his taxes. Which is why that is never going to happen.

 

[whichphilosophy]

From this:

They gave me enough information to conclude that they are greatly exaggerating their "confidence".

Obviously you (think you) know far more about the basis of their confidence level than anyone who was actually briefed.
When was the last time you recall a 99:1 consensus being the result of an exaggeration? IIRC, the Iraq war vote was something like 77-23.

The consensus of 77 to 23 was meaningless given that the 77 were eventually shown to be wrong. This may apply to the 99

As I mentioned Wikileaks the source say the information was not from Russians which I shall repeat.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/hac...nsider-russia/

In what could only be described as a smashing development, a WikiLeaks insider now claims the hacked release of documents evincing massive corruption in the Democrat Party and collusion by corporate media presstitutes had nothing at all to do with Russia — but was, instead, the handiwork of disillusioned Democrat insiders.
Craig Murray, who served as British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from 2002 through 2004 — and is now a known ally and associate of Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange — told the Daily Mail, “Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians. The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.”
Murray’s claims — given the current Red Scare atmosphere proffered by a hysterical neoliberal establishment — blow the roof off claims Russia undertook a steadied and insidious campaign to throw the United States’ presidential election in favor of hotly contentious candidate, Donald Trump.
Indeed, the former ambassador says the leaks were the work of a Washington, D.C., insider and had nothing at all to do with Russia, as the Democrats have so vociferously proclaimed.

Therefore the Senate should not just rely on sources cherry picked for them and look at all the facts.

To be fair, hackers could still be involved. Also I would like to know reprecautions of this former ambassador admission. Should not they question him and somehow force to reveal the name?

I think the Senate CIA and others aren't playing this with a full deck.
One statement is the Russians hacked Democrat emails and gave the information to WIKILEAKS
However there is another statement from Wikileaks that it was from Democrat sources to WIKILEAKS.
There is a disparity of information where we can assume one or both are wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

Should those "facts" include what is diseminated to the Daily Mail by "a known ally and associate of Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange"?

To be fair, hackers could still be involved.

What a generous allowance.

Also I would like to know reprecautions of this former ambassador admission. Should not they question him and somehow force to reveal the name?

Not sure they can summon a foreign national. How would that be done? Extradition?
FWIW, I am not one bit confident about all the hacking/no-hacking stuff that's floating around. But it seems inconceivable that Putin and his associates would NOT have made every effort to protect their investments/investors by trying to get their preferred candidate elected. In my uninformed opinion, it would be far more likely that they were working the fields of fake news, rather than trying any overt interference that might be discovered after the fact (which may or may not include feeding Wikileaks). The whole story is never going to come to light unless Don the Con releases his taxes. Which is why that is never going to happen.

Until one can establish clearly WHO leaked what, there is no basis to form any conclusion.

 

[ronburgundy]

Whatever the CIA has regarding the election, it better release it all now because as soon as Trump's lackee takes control of the CIA it will all be destroyed.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Whatever the CIA has regarding the election, it better release it all now because as soon as Trump's lackee takes control of the CIA it will all be destroyed.

I doubt if the CIA has got anything worth releasing to anyone regarding this. All it has is Wikileaks and there seems to be a dispute on whether this came from inside the Democrat camp or the Russians.

 

[Elixir]

Until one can establish clearly WHO leaked what, there is no basis to form any conclusion.

Apparently "one" doesn't mean "whichphilosophy".


Obama issues sanctions

But it looks like "one" (even if that means whichphilosophy) WILL get some previously unavailable information:

The Obama administration is also planning to release a detailed “joint analytic report” from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Homeland Security that is clearly based in part on intelligence gathered by the National Security Agency. A more detailed report on the intelligence, ordered by President Obama, will be published in the next three weeks, though much of the detail — especially evidence collected from “implants” in Russian computer systems, tapped conversations and spies — is expected to remain classified.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Apparently "one" doesn't mean "whichphilosophy".


Obama issues sanctions

But it looks like "one" (even if that means whichphilosophy) WILL get some previously unavailable information:

The Obama administration is also planning to release a detailed “joint analytic report” from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Homeland Security that is clearly based in part on intelligence gathered by the National Security Agency. A more detailed report on the intelligence, ordered by President Obama, will be published in the next three weeks, though much of the detail — especially evidence collected from “implants” in Russian computer systems, tapped conversations and spies — is expected to remain classified.

Will this be more credible than the reports on Communism in the 1950's and the Iraq war? This certainly is a joint effort between the agencies and outgoing administration to fit its accusations with facts. What needs to be shown are direct uninterrupted flows of information from one party to another. The New York and Washington Times no doubt will do their cheerleader bit for this. Let's see which computer were implants and details of the conversations. However upon examination I doubt if anything earth shaking will come out of this.

 

[Elixir]

Will this be more credible than the reports on Communism in the 1950's and the Iraq war?

Not to you, of course. Past records indicate that you're not going to believe ANYTHING if it doesn't fit your preconceptions. And nobody in possession of the facts is stupid enough to fill you in on all the details you demand in order to accept Russian interference in the US election.

Both of your examples were stridently opposed by significant minorities in congress BTW. The witch-hunt for commies was a flash in the pan, and Bush's habit of ignoring intelligence reports so he could do whatever he wanted was exposed upon his exit. In neither case was there a 99:1 consensus in congress.
Maybe Xenu will appear to you in a dream and tell you exactly who did what and to what effect. Other than that, you have no evidence that anyone is endeavoring to fit evidence to facts - other than you and your ilk, who are so obviously anxious to deny the existence of evidence that indicates facts you do not wish to accept.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Will this be more credible than the reports on Communism in the 1950's and the Iraq war?

Not to you, of course. Past records indicate that you're not going to believe ANYTHING if it doesn't fit your preconceptions. And nobody in possession of the facts is stupid enough to fill you in on all the details you demand in order to accept Russian interference in the US election.

Both of your examples were stridently opposed by significant minorities in congress BTW. The witch-hunt for commies was a flash in the pan, and Bush's habit of ignoring intelligence reports so he could do whatever he wanted was exposed upon his exit. In neither case was there a 99:1 consensus in congress.
Maybe Xenu will appear to you in a dream and tell you exactly who did what and to what effect. Other than that, you have no evidence that anyone is endeavoring to fit evidence to facts - other than you and your ilk, who are so obviously anxious to deny the existence of evidence that indicates facts you do not wish to accept.

So far there is a consensus based on incomplete data and now the proof is awaited. One cannot deny or confirm the existence of evidence that is not visible and has not been presented as yet. No dreams of this are required.

 

[Elixir]

Not to you, of course. Past records indicate that you're not going to believe ANYTHING if it doesn't fit your preconceptions. And nobody in possession of the facts is stupid enough to fill you in on all the details you demand in order to accept Russian interference in the US election.

Both of your examples were stridently opposed by significant minorities in congress BTW. The witch-hunt for commies was a flash in the pan, and Bush's habit of ignoring intelligence reports so he could do whatever he wanted was exposed upon his exit. In neither case was there a 99:1 consensus in congress.
Maybe Xenu will appear to you in a dream and tell you exactly who did what and to what effect. Other than that, you have no evidence that anyone is endeavoring to fit evidence to facts - other than you and your ilk, who are so obviously anxious to deny the existence of evidence that indicates facts you do not wish to accept.

So far there is a consensus based on incomplete data ....

Please tell us what data you know to have been withheld from senators in their briefings, O informed one!
You are sounding more deluded with every post. That something is not visible to you is not evidence of its non-existence, especially when that very thing has caused 99 out of 100 people, all of whom are better informed than yourself, to reach identical conclusions.
I would think that as a member of a fringe loony faux religious cult, you'd be among the first to acknowledge the existence of things you can't see...

 

[whichphilosophy]

So far there is a consensus based on incomplete data ....

Please tell us what data you know to have been withheld from senators in their briefings, O informed one!
You are sounding more deluded with every post. That something is not visible to you is not evidence of its non-existence, especially when that very thing has caused 99 out of 100 people, all of whom are better informed than yourself, to reach identical conclusions.
I would think that as a member of a fringe loony faux religious cult, you'd be among the first to acknowledge the existence of things you can't see...

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

 

[ZiprHead]

I know the site is shite but the report they link seems to be legit.

https://www.truthexaminer.com/2016/12/breaking-fbi-releases-report-showing-exactly-how-russia-hacked-the-election-read-it-here/

 

[barbos]

I know the site is shite but the report they link seems to be legit.

https://www.truthexaminer.com/2016/12/breaking-fbi-releases-report-showing-exactly-how-russia-hacked-the-election-read-it-here/

Nothing really new. The same very circumstantial evidence pointing to russian hackers with no names. And most important part about government links is still not revealed. I am starting to think that maybe Russian government IS involved but the goal was not what they claim, goal was to expose NSA hacks of russian government.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I know the site is shite but the report they link seems to be legit.

https://www.truthexaminer.com/2016/12/breaking-fbi-releases-report-showing-exactly-how-russia-hacked-the-election-read-it-here/

Nothing really new. The same very circumstantial evidence pointing to russian hackers with no names. And most important part about government links is still not revealed. I am starting to think that maybe Russian government IS involved but the goal was not what they claim, goal was to expose NSA hacks of russian government.

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

 

[barbos]

Nothing really new. The same very circumstantial evidence pointing to russian hackers with no names. And most important part about government links is still not revealed. I am starting to think that maybe Russian government IS involved but the goal was not what they claim, goal was to expose NSA hacks of russian government.

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

I understand that and wonder what would Obama have done about these hacks had Clinton won?

In any case, I meant that the whole hacking thing was done not to make America great again or piss Clinon/Democrats off. Instead they did it in order to measure NSA ability to spy on Russian government critters.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Nothing really new. The same very circumstantial evidence pointing to russian hackers with no names. And most important part about government links is still not revealed. I am starting to think that maybe Russian government IS involved but the goal was not what they claim, goal was to expose NSA hacks of russian government.

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.

 

[barbos]

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 think everyone knows he did not pay any taxes, as for emails, bus incident was pretty good indication what he has in his emails.

 

[Elixir]

Please tell us what data you know to have been withheld from senators in their briefings, O informed one!
You are sounding more deluded with every post. That something is not visible to you is not evidence of its non-existence, especially when that very thing has caused 99 out of 100 people, all of whom are better informed than yourself, to reach identical conclusions.
I would think that as a member of a fringe loony faux religious cult, you'd be among the first to acknowledge the existence of things you can't see...

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?

 

[barbos]

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?

Well, reports which did get out ignore wikileaks claims, so it's a good guess that CIA did not address this issue before senators, other than probably saying that wikileaks are lying.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I know the site is shite but the report they link seems to be legit.

https://www.truthexaminer.com/2016/12/breaking-fbi-releases-report-showing-exactly-how-russia-hacked-the-election-read-it-here/

Nothing new. Where's the smoking gun? None because now it likely be 3 weeks.