CIA investigation into US election ordered
Discussion
jsf said:
So what are you going to do about it? You think chucking a few diplomats out changes anything?
The only valid response is to do it back to the Russians, or repay the 'favour' in some other way. Unfortch Obama doesn't have that luxury because he's a lame duck who's out the door in s few days, so it's either rolling his eyes and saying 'Okaaaay - you got us. Sheesh you guys...', or making a gesture of some sort to show that it's not on, you don't f
k with the USA like that and nobody says anything. He picked the latter, as anyone with any balls in that position probably would. Yes it looks a bit petulant from some angles, but unless he wants to look like Putin's bh to the rest of the world (that job's already taken), it's all he had to play with.Edited by minimoog on Monday 9th January 22:55
minimoog said:
'Yes the Russians attacked American democracy but did you see what American democracy was wearing?
It was totally asking for it.'
H was hated by lot of Americans and half of the world. Her unsecure server was relatively easy to hack not to mention podesta's password "p@ssw0rd". There are many hacking groups that regularly ping all IPs in range and breach those with open ports. They also easily hack people with such ridiculous passwords and there are many groups in USA not connected to Russia that would like to have access to his e-mail.It was totally asking for it.'
So what makes you think it had to be Russia and only Russia among many of those?! That would really be a huge coincidence. Just doesn't happen in real world.
minimoog said:
jsf said:
If you are moronic enough to have open systems then you get what you deserve.
'Yes the Russians attacked American democracy but did you see what American democracy was wearing? It was totally asking for it.'
Can you believe it?!?!'
Countdown said:
scherzkeks said:
That trick only works if you aren't the one making a claim. 
Where's the evidence?Wikileaks are a serious thorn in the US's side. They have released hundreds of thousands of documents which reveal a lot of things that the US doesn't want public. There is nothing to suggest that they won't continue to do so.
Undeniable, irrefutable evidence from the US intelligence agencies would destroy Wikileaks. After stating so many times that Russia was not the source, Wikileaks would forever lose credibility. Which would be great news for the US and it's agencies.
Why won't they do it?
You tell me
Wouldn't trust wiki leaks to understand the provenance of their data or source. They could have been played, and then again they could be telling the truth. You have to remember he is now on a very public world stage and is playing his game, not yours.
I think Assange is fickle and will be an interesting source in the future, that is chuck out the dirt on the new lot as he sees fit. Of course there will be questions and viability on the source of that data.
In ten years or so someone will blab and a better understanding of be situation may arise.
I think Assange is fickle and will be an interesting source in the future, that is chuck out the dirt on the new lot as he sees fit. Of course there will be questions and viability on the source of that data.
In ten years or so someone will blab and a better understanding of be situation may arise.
Wikileaks are not in the business of national security, they are in the business of making money and undermining the security of nations as a means to boost the ego of Assange.
The intelligence services have much to lose if they publish the sources of their information, those sources will be compromised for ever.
Wikileaks can say what they want (non Russian source) and don't have to prove it, they place the onus on the intelligence services to disprove their claims. Easy argument to win that one. "Look how clever we are, the CIA can't disprove our claims"!
I wonder why Wikileaks are not targeting other states with their campaign of exposing the truth? Why not go after Russia? Oh yes, because Russia doesn't give a fk about international law and would be significantly more robust than the USA/UK in shutting them down. Polonium tea anyone?
The intelligence services have much to lose if they publish the sources of their information, those sources will be compromised for ever.
Wikileaks can say what they want (non Russian source) and don't have to prove it, they place the onus on the intelligence services to disprove their claims. Easy argument to win that one. "Look how clever we are, the CIA can't disprove our claims"!
I wonder why Wikileaks are not targeting other states with their campaign of exposing the truth? Why not go after Russia? Oh yes, because Russia doesn't give a f
k about international law and would be significantly more robust than the USA/UK in shutting them down. Polonium tea anyone?stevesingo said:
Wikileaks are not in the business of national security, they are in the business of making money and undermining the security of nations as a means to boost the ego of Assange.
The intelligence services have much to lose if they publish the sources of their information, those sources will be compromised for ever.
Wikileaks can say what they want (non Russian source) and don't have to prove it, they place the onus on the intelligence services to disprove their claims. Easy argument to win that one. "Look how clever we are, the CIA can't disprove our claims"!
The intelligence services have much to lose if they publish the sources of their information, those sources will be compromised for ever.
Wikileaks can say what they want (non Russian source) and don't have to prove it, they place the onus on the intelligence services to disprove their claims. Easy argument to win that one. "Look how clever we are, the CIA can't disprove our claims"!
scherzkeks said:
Countdown said:
scherzkeks said:
That trick only works if you aren't the one making a claim.
Where's the evidence?stevesingo said:
Wikileaks can say what they want (non Russian source) and don't have to prove it, they place the onus on the intelligence services to disprove their claims. Easy argument to win that one. "Look how clever we are, the CIA can't disprove our claims"!
The claim was made by the Democrats after losing the election. They cited US intel. Wiki responded to the claim. The onus is on the one making the claim.
The rules don't change to make things easier for you.
minimoog said:
The only valid response is to do it back to the Russians, or repay the 'favour' in some other way. Unfortch Obama doesn't have that luxury because he's a lame duck who's out the door in s few days, so it's either rolling his eyes and saying 'Okaaaay - you got us. Sheesh you guys...', or making a gesture of some sort to show that it's not on, you don't fk with the USA like that and nobody says anything. He picked the latter, as anyone with any balls in that position probably would. Yes it looks a bit petulant from some angles, but unless he wants to look like Putin's bh to the rest of the world (that job's already taken), it's all he had to play with.
Destabilizing two of Russia's major allies was not pay back but pay forward. You don't fk with the USA like that and nobody says anything. He picked the latter, as anyone with any balls in that position probably would. Yes it looks a bit petulant from some angles, but unless he wants to look like Putin's bh to the rest of the world (that job's already taken), it's all he had to play with.Edited by minimoog on Monday 9th January 22:55
k with Putin/Russia and expect not to get a bloody nose. The Obama administration's statecraft has been amateurish to say the least but then again, wars sell weapons and build military bases.stevesingo said:
Wikileaks are not in the business of national security, they are in the business of making money and undermining the security of nations as a means to boost the ego of Assange.
The intelligence services have much to lose if they publish the sources of their information, those sources will be compromised for ever.
Wikileaks can say what they want (non Russian source) and don't have to prove it, they place the onus on the intelligence services to disprove their claims. Easy argument to win that one. "Look how clever we are, the CIA can't disprove our claims"!
I wonder why Wikileaks are not targeting other states with their campaign of exposing the truth? Why not go after Russia? Oh yes, because Russia doesn't give a fk about international law and would be significantly more robust than the USA/UK in shutting them down. Polonium tea anyone?
more likely because people already know how things are going in Russia so there is nothing to reveal The intelligence services have much to lose if they publish the sources of their information, those sources will be compromised for ever.
Wikileaks can say what they want (non Russian source) and don't have to prove it, they place the onus on the intelligence services to disprove their claims. Easy argument to win that one. "Look how clever we are, the CIA can't disprove our claims"!
I wonder why Wikileaks are not targeting other states with their campaign of exposing the truth? Why not go after Russia? Oh yes, because Russia doesn't give a f
k about international law and would be significantly more robust than the USA/UK in shutting them down. Polonium tea anyone?article said:
If you read the “reports” that the U.S. government releases, and understand that the term “assess” is a synonym for “to claim without evidence,” it will very quickly become clear that reports on Russians’ motives for their alleged crimes (as well as for their non-criminal public actions, such as running a television network) are purely guesses. It also becomes clear that the U.S. government is not even claiming to have any evidence that Russia was a source for WikiLeaks. And, with a bit of help, it should become evident to anyone that the U.S. government is not claiming to have any actual evidence of the Russian government hacking Democratic emails.
Even the NSA will commit only to “moderate” confidence in what millions of Democrats will now stake their lives (and potentially everybody else’s) on. Former top NSA expert on this stuff William Binney swears the claims are utter nonsense. IP addresses produced as supposed evidence turn out in at least many cases to have nothing to do with Russia at all, much less the Russian government.
...
WikiLeaks, which never claimed Iraq had WMDs, never alleged Gadaffi was about to commit a massacre, never sent missiles from drones into a single wedding or hospital, never concocted tales of babies taken from incubators, never screwed up its claims re chemical weapons attacks or the shooting down of airplanes, and in fact has never, as far as we know, tried to lie to us at all, says Russia was not its source. Julian Assange clearly does not think Russia used someone else to pass information to him. He could be wrong. But Craig Murray, a diplomat with a stellar reputation for honesty, claims to know at least one source and to place them in either the NSA or the Democratic Party.
Of course, having a plausible alternative account is not necessary to recognize that the U.S. government has no evidence to support its account. But the fact is that Murray’s and numerous other scenarios are perfectly plausible. One ought to await evidence before declaring one of them fact. But we can go ahead and declare the CIA’s story less and less likely with each passing day. NSA whistleblowers like Binney believe that if this story were true the NSA would have evidence of it. It is safe to assume that if the NSA had evidence of it, some outline of that evidence would have been made public by now, rather than all the fluff, nonsense, and incompetent false attributions of IP addresses to Russia, etc.
...
The accusations against Russia in the latest “overwhelming” report include: favoring proposals to work with Russia over proposals to build hostility (shocking!), and running a television network that many people in the United States choose to watch (the outrage! how capitalistic!). And the television network is accused of cheering for Trump’s election — as if the British media wouldn’t have cheered for Clinton’s — as if the U.S. media doesn’t cheer for election winners abroad all the time. This network, RT, is also accused of covering third-party candidates, fracking, Occupy, vote suppression, flaws in the U.S. election system, and other forbidden topics.
Full article - Even the NSA will commit only to “moderate” confidence in what millions of Democrats will now stake their lives (and potentially everybody else’s) on. Former top NSA expert on this stuff William Binney swears the claims are utter nonsense. IP addresses produced as supposed evidence turn out in at least many cases to have nothing to do with Russia at all, much less the Russian government.
...
WikiLeaks, which never claimed Iraq had WMDs, never alleged Gadaffi was about to commit a massacre, never sent missiles from drones into a single wedding or hospital, never concocted tales of babies taken from incubators, never screwed up its claims re chemical weapons attacks or the shooting down of airplanes, and in fact has never, as far as we know, tried to lie to us at all, says Russia was not its source. Julian Assange clearly does not think Russia used someone else to pass information to him. He could be wrong. But Craig Murray, a diplomat with a stellar reputation for honesty, claims to know at least one source and to place them in either the NSA or the Democratic Party.
Of course, having a plausible alternative account is not necessary to recognize that the U.S. government has no evidence to support its account. But the fact is that Murray’s and numerous other scenarios are perfectly plausible. One ought to await evidence before declaring one of them fact. But we can go ahead and declare the CIA’s story less and less likely with each passing day. NSA whistleblowers like Binney believe that if this story were true the NSA would have evidence of it. It is safe to assume that if the NSA had evidence of it, some outline of that evidence would have been made public by now, rather than all the fluff, nonsense, and incompetent false attributions of IP addresses to Russia, etc.
...
The accusations against Russia in the latest “overwhelming” report include: favoring proposals to work with Russia over proposals to build hostility (shocking!), and running a television network that many people in the United States choose to watch (the outrage! how capitalistic!). And the television network is accused of cheering for Trump’s election — as if the British media wouldn’t have cheered for Clinton’s — as if the U.S. media doesn’t cheer for election winners abroad all the time. This network, RT, is also accused of covering third-party candidates, fracking, Occupy, vote suppression, flaws in the U.S. election system, and other forbidden topics.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/09/allegations...
well, congratulations CIA..getting trolled by 4chan
https://i.redditmedia.com/ZmsO6afG5fxZ9_FK1xRBvHDe...
https://i.redditmedia.com/ZmsO6afG5fxZ9_FK1xRBvHDe...
AreOut said:
well, congratulations CIA..getting trolled by 4chan
https://i.redditmedia.com/ZmsO6afG5fxZ9_FK1xRBvHDe...
I'm seeing mixed reports on this. The one you posted suggests it's just the hookers story that 4chan provided which got mixed into the intel, but other websites are saying the entire dossier as published by Buzzfeed is a fake report by 4chan.https://i.redditmedia.com/ZmsO6afG5fxZ9_FK1xRBvHDe...
It's all terribly confusing. And funny.
I can't believe CIA didn't find this suspicious before including in that report. I mean they sure have access to border security database and could at least check if Trump was in Russia those days or not.
Or for some reason many of them intentionally want to make report sound as unbelievable as possible.
Or for some reason many of them intentionally want to make report sound as unbelievable as possible.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff