Russia's Influence On The American Election
Comments
-
And yet you or anyone else won't answer what was hacked by Russia?mrussel1 said:
"Don't take intelligence on face"... well that's great advice if any of us had access to it. Perhaps then we could critically analyze it. But we don't. And he doesn't.JC29856 said:
My argument...GG suggests don't take the intelligence on face.mrussel1 said:
Did we forget to mention the part that Greenwald has not seen the classified parts, whereas elected officials from both parties have? As of now, the only person I have seen dispute the conclusion is one person who benefited by it.JC29856 said:Talking turkey!!!
"The same lesson in 2002 when a group of bipartisan senators assured the nation that the intelligence community convinced them that Saddam (Hussein) has weapons of mass destruction ... and the same lesson we learned in 2013, when, just months before the (Edward) Snowden reporting, James Clapper, Obama's top national security official, lied to the faces of the country when he said that he wants to assure everybody that the NSA doesn't collect data," he said.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/01/08/us/greenwald-intel-report-reliable-cnntv/index.html?client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us
At this point you can choose to believe Trump and Putin, or the intelligence community and the rest of the oversight committees. Because you have zero way of proving your argument. Nor do I.
My argument is that I believe Assange who has been 100% truthful from jump unless you have information otherwise, over the US intelligence that frequently lies, even when it means killing innocent civilians and US troops.
Anyway, what exactly did Russia hack? Is that the classified info you are referring to?
Regarding Assange, according to the intelligence community the path from Russia to Assange was made deliberately multi-channel so he can make the denial he is making. I have no doubt he didn't get it straight from Russia. There was at least one intermediary. The guy needs a new benefactor and he found one.
Like I said, at this point you have to choose who you believe....and then you should sit under the blanket of protection of who you believe.
My semi-educated guess is that the evidence, the methodology, the code utilized to trace and decrypt, and the underlying details that led to the conclusion are going to be classified. Releasing the methodology would compromise future counter-intelligence estimates.
BTW - this is a dumb argument.
States secrets?0 -
certainly DNC emails... Do you really not know this or is it a troll question?JC29856 said:
And yet you or anyone else won't answer what was hacked by Russia?mrussel1 said:
"Don't take intelligence on face"... well that's great advice if any of us had access to it. Perhaps then we could critically analyze it. But we don't. And he doesn't.JC29856 said:
My argument...GG suggests don't take the intelligence on face.mrussel1 said:
Did we forget to mention the part that Greenwald has not seen the classified parts, whereas elected officials from both parties have? As of now, the only person I have seen dispute the conclusion is one person who benefited by it.JC29856 said:Talking turkey!!!
"The same lesson in 2002 when a group of bipartisan senators assured the nation that the intelligence community convinced them that Saddam (Hussein) has weapons of mass destruction ... and the same lesson we learned in 2013, when, just months before the (Edward) Snowden reporting, James Clapper, Obama's top national security official, lied to the faces of the country when he said that he wants to assure everybody that the NSA doesn't collect data," he said.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/01/08/us/greenwald-intel-report-reliable-cnntv/index.html?client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us
At this point you can choose to believe Trump and Putin, or the intelligence community and the rest of the oversight committees. Because you have zero way of proving your argument. Nor do I.
My argument is that I believe Assange who has been 100% truthful from jump unless you have information otherwise, over the US intelligence that frequently lies, even when it means killing innocent civilians and US troops.
Anyway, what exactly did Russia hack? Is that the classified info you are referring to?
Regarding Assange, according to the intelligence community the path from Russia to Assange was made deliberately multi-channel so he can make the denial he is making. I have no doubt he didn't get it straight from Russia. There was at least one intermediary. The guy needs a new benefactor and he found one.
Like I said, at this point you have to choose who you believe....and then you should sit under the blanket of protection of who you believe.
My semi-educated guess is that the evidence, the methodology, the code utilized to trace and decrypt, and the underlying details that led to the conclusion are going to be classified. Releasing the methodology would compromise future counter-intelligence estimates.
BTW - this is a dumb argument.
States secrets?0 -
Ok...DNC emails. Does guccifer2 have anything to do with the hacking?mrussel1 said:
certainly DNC emails... Do you really not know this or is it a troll question?JC29856 said:
And yet you or anyone else won't answer what was hacked by Russia?mrussel1 said:
"Don't take intelligence on face"... well that's great advice if any of us had access to it. Perhaps then we could critically analyze it. But we don't. And he doesn't.JC29856 said:
My argument...GG suggests don't take the intelligence on face.mrussel1 said:
Did we forget to mention the part that Greenwald has not seen the classified parts, whereas elected officials from both parties have? As of now, the only person I have seen dispute the conclusion is one person who benefited by it.JC29856 said:Talking turkey!!!
"The same lesson in 2002 when a group of bipartisan senators assured the nation that the intelligence community convinced them that Saddam (Hussein) has weapons of mass destruction ... and the same lesson we learned in 2013, when, just months before the (Edward) Snowden reporting, James Clapper, Obama's top national security official, lied to the faces of the country when he said that he wants to assure everybody that the NSA doesn't collect data," he said.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/01/08/us/greenwald-intel-report-reliable-cnntv/index.html?client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us
At this point you can choose to believe Trump and Putin, or the intelligence community and the rest of the oversight committees. Because you have zero way of proving your argument. Nor do I.
My argument is that I believe Assange who has been 100% truthful from jump unless you have information otherwise, over the US intelligence that frequently lies, even when it means killing innocent civilians and US troops.
Anyway, what exactly did Russia hack? Is that the classified info you are referring to?
Regarding Assange, according to the intelligence community the path from Russia to Assange was made deliberately multi-channel so he can make the denial he is making. I have no doubt he didn't get it straight from Russia. There was at least one intermediary. The guy needs a new benefactor and he found one.
Like I said, at this point you have to choose who you believe....and then you should sit under the blanket of protection of who you believe.
My semi-educated guess is that the evidence, the methodology, the code utilized to trace and decrypt, and the underlying details that led to the conclusion are going to be classified. Releasing the methodology would compromise future counter-intelligence estimates.
BTW - this is a dumb argument.
States secrets?0 -
I have no clue.JC29856 said:
Ok...DNC emails. Does guccifer2 have anything to do with the hacking?mrussel1 said:
certainly DNC emails... Do you really not know this or is it a troll question?JC29856 said:
And yet you or anyone else won't answer what was hacked by Russia?mrussel1 said:
"Don't take intelligence on face"... well that's great advice if any of us had access to it. Perhaps then we could critically analyze it. But we don't. And he doesn't.JC29856 said:
My argument...GG suggests don't take the intelligence on face.mrussel1 said:
Did we forget to mention the part that Greenwald has not seen the classified parts, whereas elected officials from both parties have? As of now, the only person I have seen dispute the conclusion is one person who benefited by it.JC29856 said:Talking turkey!!!
"The same lesson in 2002 when a group of bipartisan senators assured the nation that the intelligence community convinced them that Saddam (Hussein) has weapons of mass destruction ... and the same lesson we learned in 2013, when, just months before the (Edward) Snowden reporting, James Clapper, Obama's top national security official, lied to the faces of the country when he said that he wants to assure everybody that the NSA doesn't collect data," he said.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/01/08/us/greenwald-intel-report-reliable-cnntv/index.html?client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us
At this point you can choose to believe Trump and Putin, or the intelligence community and the rest of the oversight committees. Because you have zero way of proving your argument. Nor do I.
My argument is that I believe Assange who has been 100% truthful from jump unless you have information otherwise, over the US intelligence that frequently lies, even when it means killing innocent civilians and US troops.
Anyway, what exactly did Russia hack? Is that the classified info you are referring to?
Regarding Assange, according to the intelligence community the path from Russia to Assange was made deliberately multi-channel so he can make the denial he is making. I have no doubt he didn't get it straight from Russia. There was at least one intermediary. The guy needs a new benefactor and he found one.
Like I said, at this point you have to choose who you believe....and then you should sit under the blanket of protection of who you believe.
My semi-educated guess is that the evidence, the methodology, the code utilized to trace and decrypt, and the underlying details that led to the conclusion are going to be classified. Releasing the methodology would compromise future counter-intelligence estimates.
BTW - this is a dumb argument.
States secrets?0 -
EXACTLYdignin said:
Your critical thinking has no place in Trump's America.mrussel1 said:
Did we forget to mention the part that Greenwald has not seen the classified parts, whereas elected officials from both parties have? As of now, the only person I have seen dispute the conclusion is one person who benefited by it.JC29856 said:Talking turkey!!!
"The same lesson in 2002 when a group of bipartisan senators assured the nation that the intelligence community convinced them that Saddam (Hussein) has weapons of mass destruction ... and the same lesson we learned in 2013, when, just months before the (Edward) Snowden reporting, James Clapper, Obama's top national security official, lied to the faces of the country when he said that he wants to assure everybody that the NSA doesn't collect data," he said.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/01/08/us/greenwald-intel-report-reliable-cnntv/index.html?client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us
At this point you can choose to believe Trump and Putin, or the intelligence community and the rest of the oversight committees. Because you have zero way of proving your argument. Nor do I.
Because without posting ignorant hatefull memes, vague links to fake news sites, and cut and pastes of tweets, you can't possible know what the hell you are talking about.0 -
Another Kirby Klassic!
Trump indicated cnbc or nbc was given or parts of the classified reports were leaked to them by anonymous sources, they reported as if it were the case.
Interesting that Kirby does not refute that Intel reports contain zero evidence of Russia's involvement.
Kirby says the US should have high confidence in the intel community and when it has high confidence, they should too, even without proof.
Kirby says the WMD claims were along time ago so don't compare this to Iraq and WMDs, we learned allot From that, when asked about intel false claims that lead to Iraq war started a long time ago over those false claims that we are still fighting today, interesting.
https://youtu.be/SUDXV66-n64 0 -
Abby Martin gets my goat!! Addresses the RT claims in intel report. Passionate responses.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qis8b5nwMc8 0 -
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/09/allegations-against-russia-less-credible-every-day/
Informative and funny. Reading this may cause discomfort.
Just an excerpt:
The New York Times calls the latest report “damning and surprisingly detailed” before later admitting in the same “news” article that the report “contained no information about how the agencies had collected their data or had come to their conclusions.” A quick glance at the report itself would have made clear to you that it did not pretend to present a shred of evidence that Russia hacked emails or served as a source for WikiLeaks. Yet Congresswoman Barbara Lee declared the evidence in this evidence-free report “overwhelming.” What should progressives believe, the best Congresswoman we’ve got or our own lying eyes?0 -
A little off topic but since RT is being brought up.
RT anchor Liz Wahl said she could no longer be "part of a network that whitewashes the actions of Putin."
March 5, 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55izx6rbCqg 0 -
My memory isn't that intel said Iraq had wmd, it's that they presented flimsy evidence, acknowledged as such, and Bush and friends stretched that into fabricated evidence to build up the case to go to war.0
-
She's clearly a CIA asset. Putin good... Obama bad...dignin said:A little off topic but since RT is being brought up.
RT anchor Liz Wahl said she could no longer be "part of a network that whitewashes the actions of Putin."
March 5, 2014https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55izx6rbCqg0 -
Your memory is massively wrong. George Tenent, who was also the CIA Director to President Clinton, called the evidence a slam dunk. Some of the evidence turned out to be flimsy and/or wrong but it was the product of the intelligence agencies that for some reason now nobody is allowed to question.Go Beavers said:My memory isn't that intel said Iraq had wmd, it's that they presented flimsy evidence, acknowledged as such, and Bush and friends stretched that into fabricated evidence to build up the case to go to war.
0 -
Which part of the evidence turned out to be a "slam dunk?"BS44325 said:
Your memory is massively wrong. George Tenent, who was also the CIA Director to President Clinton, called the evidence a slam dunk. Some of the evidence turned out to be flimsy and/or wrong but it was the product of the intelligence agencies that for some reason now nobody is allowed to question.Go Beavers said:My memory isn't that intel said Iraq had wmd, it's that they presented flimsy evidence, acknowledged as such, and Bush and friends stretched that into fabricated evidence to build up the case to go to war.
09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Why are you bringing Clinton into your argument? Because Tenet served two different administrations with opposing political ideologies? Does this some how make Tenet, under Bush/Cheney, reputable or give their lies a pass?BS44325 said:
Your memory is massively wrong. George Tenent, who was also the CIA Director to President Clinton, called the evidence a slam dunk. Some of the evidence turned out to be flimsy and/or wrong but it was the product of the intelligence agencies that for some reason now nobody is allowed to question.Go Beavers said:My memory isn't that intel said Iraq had wmd, it's that they presented flimsy evidence, acknowledged as such, and Bush and friends stretched that into fabricated evidence to build up the case to go to war.
Nice cherry picking, distinguished professor.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
What I am doing is answering Go Beavers. The intel said Iraq had WMD. I am not defending the intel or Tenent. I am reminding Beavers what the intel amassed under a Democratic appointed CIA director said. Please try to follow along Halifax...this is not a complex thread for you to understand.Halifax2TheMax said:
Why are you bringing Clinton into your argument? Because Tenet served two different administrations with opposing political ideologies? Does this some how make Tenet, under Bush/Cheney, reputable or give their lies a pass?BS44325 said:
Your memory is massively wrong. George Tenent, who was also the CIA Director to President Clinton, called the evidence a slam dunk. Some of the evidence turned out to be flimsy and/or wrong but it was the product of the intelligence agencies that for some reason now nobody is allowed to question.Go Beavers said:My memory isn't that intel said Iraq had wmd, it's that they presented flimsy evidence, acknowledged as such, and Bush and friends stretched that into fabricated evidence to build up the case to go to war.
Nice cherry picking, distinguished professor.0 -
A close reading of the report shows that it barely supports such a conclusion. Indeed, it barely supports any conclusion.
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/01/09/russia-trump-election-flawed-intelligence/
Breaks down the entire report.0 -
I think I said before that the reports were completed by interns.
This from above link...
That is the entirety of the evidence the report offers to support its estimation of Putin’s motives for allegedly working to elect Trump: conjecture based on other politicians in other periods, on other continents—and also on misreported or mistranslated public statements.0 -
While willfully ignoring other sources of intel that pointed in different directions but not the neocon desired outcome. You forgot "cherry picked" in front of the word intel, thus perpetuating the myth that Bush/Cheney were legitimate in their decision making while also ignoring the pressure applied to the intel agencies by Cheney and his henchmen for their desired outcome of war in Iraq.BS44325 said:
What I am doing is answering Go Beavers. The intel said Iraq had WMD. I am not defending the intel or Tenent. I am reminding Beavers what the intel amassed under a Democratic appointed CIA director said. Please try to follow along Halifax...this is not a complex thread for you to understand.Halifax2TheMax said:
Why are you bringing Clinton into your argument? Because Tenet served two different administrations with opposing political ideologies? Does this some how make Tenet, under Bush/Cheney, reputable or give their lies a pass?BS44325 said:
Your memory is massively wrong. George Tenent, who was also the CIA Director to President Clinton, called the evidence a slam dunk. Some of the evidence turned out to be flimsy and/or wrong but it was the product of the intelligence agencies that for some reason now nobody is allowed to question.Go Beavers said:My memory isn't that intel said Iraq had wmd, it's that they presented flimsy evidence, acknowledged as such, and Bush and friends stretched that into fabricated evidence to build up the case to go to war.
Nice cherry picking, distinguished professor.
Where has Obama done the same as it relates to Russia meddling in our electoral process? Everything is not a black and white view from down your neocon nose and ivory tower, professor.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
You somehow think the what was released publicly is the same as what was released to the oversight committees. Believe who you want.JC29856 said:I think I said before that the reports were completed by interns.
This from above link...
That is the entirety of the evidence the report offers to support its estimation of Putin’s motives for allegedly working to elect Trump: conjecture based on other politicians in other periods, on other continents—and also on misreported or mistranslated public statements.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help