CIA: Russia manipulated the election to install Trump

Sam I don't have a theory. I'm not trying to be right or wrong. I'm just trying to understand things because things don't add up to me. Maybe I am a dense r****d....I won't put that past myself. You're trying to ascribe things to me based on other posters. I'm guessing you think I'm a right winger at this point based on the spirit of your post lol.

Yes I saw the DHS released a report and it didn't have any new evidence. It's strange that Obama chose to kick out 35 people and shut down a "well known spy base" in Maryland that has been there for 44 years over something that was supposed to be a fundamental threat to our republic.

And Sam to your point about all those govt agencies they haven't always been trustworthy or reliable or apolitical. I mean geez you just watched all the furor over the Iran deal from the right. All of that rage came from years of propaganda against Iran from some of those agencies you listed. I this is completely unrelated, but Iran was never aggressively or even actively pursuing nuclear weapons. They gave that up when they kicked the Shah out who actually was trying to get nukes. They continually denied that they were pursuing nukes and issued multiple declarations about their moral disgust for them. However, if you only listen to the propaganda then you would think they were hell bent on blowing up the world like the Repubs continually said.

Point being....you can't take everything at face value based on our govt's history. I don't know why any educated person would feel otherwise at this point.

 

Lol #hugs #kisses #happynewyear

Sometimes I wonder who I'd get along with in real life on these forums. It's funny how things get so escalated sometimes. I think most people actually would get along pretty decently here.

 

LOL. Anyone can choose a State and said how unpopular or popular a President is. That's not how we treat popular vote. That's call baloney logic of a partisan hack.

Look, Trump is not popular, even within Conservative circle. That's not like new news. It silly seeing all the excuses and distractions of his historic lost in popular vote. It really doesn't matter much - he's the President. Why be so anal about simple fact. What matter is how he perform. We'll see.

 

The national popular vote isn't even a thing, so it really doesn't matter how we "treat it", but I'm sure any idiot could realize that if you are touting a "win" by one candidate by nearly 3 million votes when they "won" one state by over 4 million votes, it's not really representative of the rest of the country. When you try to use that "nearly 3 million more votes" number to suggest that a president who easily won the presidency and the people ensured his (adopted) party would control the house, senate, and SCOTUS, is an unpopular president.....well it's kind of just you being a partisan hack. Any unbiased person would know better.

Holding on to the fact that Hillary ran up the score in California enough to swing the popular vote of the entire nation over to Hillary shouldn't make the ass beating that Democrats took in the election feel any better. They lost 30 states including Michigan and Pennsylvania which were solid blue states that hadn't been won by a Republican since California was last won by a Republican. That should worry Democrats, even if California still REALLY loves them.

 

Right, it is not a thing and yet it's recorded in history since the 1st election, is part of historic fact and here we are talking about it. I didn't read past that 1st sentence. Not interested anymore in your idiocy. Oops, I meant hand back up. Cheers.

 

what? all votes are recorded pal. Its not for the purpose of figuring out who won the popular vote. Just like all wins/losses are recorded in the NBA and its not for the purpose of figuring out who has the best record on weekends when its raining.

 

It's nothing more than a compilation of the popular vote in the states, which is something that matters. The national popular vote is entirely irrelevant....which you really should know but.....

and I think more often than not, that's your problem. You should work on that.

 

Robbie, you seriously believe that the current Iranian regime wasn't/isn't pursuing nuclear weapons? So our NATO allies, Israel, and our own intelligence entities have it all wrong? All those thousands of centrifuges destroyed by Iran under the agreement (over 13,000) that were producing enriched uranium were there for purely peaceful purposes? Really? Check the link below, which is very informative about the agreement with Iran. They were working hard to obtain the means to build nuclear weapons.

The IAEA has certified that Iran:

• Eliminated 97% of its uranium stockpile.
• Removed and destroyed the core from its Arak reactor, blocking the production of weapons-grade plutonium.
• Ripped out over 13,000 centrifuges (two-thirds of total). Those removed in the process must be placed under continuous IAEA monitoring.
• Halted all uranium enrichment activities at the underground Fordow site.
• Allowed the IAEA to implement the safeguards necessary to monitor Iran’s nuclear program and implemented transparency measures, such as the Additional Protocol, to permit greater access to inspectors.
• Gave the IAEA the information it needed to assess the possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear past.

Armscontrolcenter.org

 

No I don't believe they were truly pursuing a bomb. They had 37 years to make a nuke and they never did. It's clear as day that they abandoned their nuke weapons program after they kicked the Shah out. They fought a vicious war with Iraq (with us mostly backing the Iraqis) and did not try to make nukes then. Further, they have been negotiating for years with the international community about their nuclear program.

I just got home from watching the UFC fights but from what I recall we were the ones that were consistently creating roadblocks in these negotiations and I believe our intelligence was consistently questionable. I will read thru your link tomorrow when I'm not drunk lol and try to recall the stuff I read.

North Korea has actually tested nukes and has clandestinely pursued them for years. North Korea has been isolated and sanctioned for years yet they still were able to make nukes. There is a major incongruity with the way Iran was portrayed in the American press and by our govt versus their actions. They have been shunned and sanctioned for years and yet they never made a nuke. They had ample time and ability.

Maybe they truly were the blood thirsty expansionist murderers that the GOP was trying to portray them as, but I just don't think so based on history. Clearly I have no idea what was going on at the highest levels of Iranian govt. At some point you have to accept their words and actions and view them thru the perspective of the past 37 years and what they could have accomplished in that span of time if nuclear weapons truly were their desire.

 

I respect your opinion, but ardently disagree. Tonight's game with the Rocks would have better place to drink, IMO. We crushed the Clips!

 

Except it is not non-sequitur. Votes are the foundation of an election. Can't really have an election without votes, now can you? To suggest that votes are non-sequitur is the very definition of being wrong.

You are wrong.

 

You know your problem??? You know, right??? You really know????

Your problem, BobbytheGreat, is that you never figured out that dandorotik was posting as Baby Ice Dog this entire time since the end of the election. That's right, I completely welched on the bet I made with There's The Dagger- I think, and posted for the past 1.5 months as a half-illiterate poster. I am that weak for ClutchFans. I failed miserably to ban myself.

So, there's that.

 

Whew, what a relief. That fragmented English was getting annoying.

 

It was too ridiculous to be serious, so I had a feeling it had to be some kind of gag. Good to have you back as yourself.

 

Hate to rain on the Hillary supporters who want to blame her loss on the Russians and who still totally trust anonymous US intelligence leaks reported to subservient journalists or politicians with and agenda despite the Iraq War and wmd's .


The emails were almost for sure the results of leaks from insiders at the DNC.

I trust recently retired intelligence retirees who have a reputation for honesty and who are not tying to kiss ass to please their bosses. Perhaps some of you have seen folks at work keep silent or not tell the truth to protect their standing at work?

US Intel Vets Dispute Russia Hacking Claims
December 12, 2016
<img class="size-medium wp-image-17739"

.

In what follows, we draw on decades of senior-level experience – with emphasis on cyber-intelligence and security – to cut through uninformed, largely partisan fog. Far from hiding behind anonymity, we are proud to speak out with the hope of gaining an audience appropriate to what we merit – given our long labors in government and other areas of technology. And corny though it may sound these days, our ethos as intelligence professionals remains, simply, to tell it like it is – without fear or favor.

We have gone through the various claims about hacking. For us, it is child’s play to dismiss them. The email disclosures in question are the result of a leak, not a hack. Here’s the difference between leaking and hacking:

Leak: When someone physically takes data out of an organization and gives it to some other person or organization, as Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning did.

Hack: When someone in a remote location electronically penetrates operating systems, firewalls or any other cyber-protection system and then extracts data.

All signs point to leaking, not hacking. If hacking were involved, the National Security Agency would know it – and know both sender and recipient.

In short, since leaking requires physically removing data – on a thumb drive, for example – the only way such data can be copied and removed, with no electronic trace of what has left the server, is via a physical storage device.

Awesome Technical Capabilities

Again, NSA is able to identify both the sender and recipient when hacking is involved. Thanks largely to the material released by Edward Snowden, we can provide a full picture of NSA’s extensive domestic data-collection network including Upstream programs like Fairview, Stormbrew and Blarney. These include at least 30 companies in the U.S. operating the fiber networks that carry the Public Switched Telephone Network as well as the World Wide Web. This gives NSA unparalleled access to data flowing within the U.S. and data going out to the rest of the world, as well as data transiting the U.S.


Former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden. (Photo credit: The Guardian)

In other words, any data that is passed from the servers of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) or of Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) – or any other server in the U.S. – is collected by the NSA. These data transfers carry destination addresses in what are called packets, which enable the transfer to be traced and followed through the network.

Packets: Emails being passed across the World Wide Web are broken down into smaller segments called packets. These packets are passed into the network to be delivered to a recipient. This means the packets need to be reassembled at the receiving end.

To accomplish this, all the packets that form a message are assigned an identifying number that enables the receiving end to collect them for reassembly. Moreover, each packet carries the originator and ultimate receiver Internet protocol number (either IPV4 or IPV6) that enables the network to route data.

When email packets leave the U.S., the other “Five Eyes” countries (the U.K., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) and the seven or eight additional countries participating with the U.S. in bulk-collection of everything on the planet would also have a record of where those email packets went after leaving the U.S.

These collection resources are extensive [see attached NSA slides 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]; they include hundreds of trace route programs that trace the path of packets going across the network and tens of thousands of hardware and software implants in switches and servers that manage the network. Any emails being extracted from one server going to another would be, at least in part, recognizable and traceable by all these resources.

The bottom line is that the NSA would know where and how any “hacked” emails from the DNC, HRC or any other servers were routed through the network. This process can sometimes require a closer look into the routing to sort out intermediate clients, but in the end sender and recipient can be traced across the network.

The various ways in which usually anonymous spokespeople for U.S. intelligence agencies are equivocating – saying things like “our best guess” or “our opinion” or “our estimate” etc. – shows that the emails alleged to have been “hacked” cannot be traced across the network. Given NSA’s extensive trace capability, we conclude that DNC and HRC servers alleged to have been hacked were, in fact, not hacked.

The evidence that should be there is absent; otherwise, it would surely be brought forward, since this could be done without any danger to sources and methods. Thus, we conclude that the emails were leaked by an insider – as was the case with Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning. Such an insider could be anyone in a government department or agency with access to NSA databases, or perhaps someone within the DNC.

As for the comments to the media as to what the CIA believes, the reality is that CIA is almost totally dependent on NSA for ground truth in the communications arena. Thus, it remains something of a mystery why the media is being fed strange stories about hacking that have no basis in fact. In sum, given what we know of NSA’s existing capabilities, it beggars belief that NSA would be unable to identify anyone – Russian or not – attempting to interfere in a U.S. election by hacking.

For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)

Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator

Larry Johnson, former CIA Intelligence Officer & former State Department Counter-Terrorism Official

Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)

Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East, CIA (ret.)

Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA (ret.)

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/12/12/us-intel-vets-dispute-russia-hacking-claims/

 

This is too politicized, the timing of these releases is too awkward and the people that are promoting this "narrative" are too routinely dishonest and untrustworthy to just be believed without further scrutiny. This needs to be investigated. When it is, does anyone truly believe that this comes out just the way that Obama, his government and their lackies in the media say that it does? No way.

That being said, the Russians and the Chinese have been hacking us - our government at all levels, businesses and individuals - for a long time. We have had a pretty steady stream of new stories announcing hacks and cyber-attacks over the last 20 years, so this will not come as a surprise to anyone here who is not a dimwit.

As is also widely known, our government routinely hacks, "surveils" and engages in cyber attacks of others, including American citizens, businesses and other governments throughout the US. So the abrupt outrage over this that all of the sudden materialized as part of the left's hysterical meltdown following their electoral debacle on November 8, 2017 (and over the previous six years) was not very convincing other than as a continuation of the responsibility shifting efforts and the ongoing childish blubbering by Barack Obama and the Democrat left in the aftermath of their unexpected loss.

These US Intel Vets cannot be ignored. The worn out "the debate is over" tactic is not going to fly here anymore than it did with the Anthropogenic Global Warming propaganda. There must be an investigation and it must be public. Under no circumstances can there be any of the "we just have to take their word for it" or "we just have to trust them" nonsense. No, we don't. Nor should we.

The Senate needs to handle this investigation, right out in the open for all to see.

 

I am supportive of an investigation of this and other apparent breeches of US security by Russia and other actors and such an investigation needs to happen as soon as possible. The timing is critical since Russia has found a willing and favorable dupe in the form of the incoming President and thus their involvement should be investigated fully. Whether by the US Senate or an independent counsel, the investigation needs to be fully transparent since it involves questions that go to the very core of our political process. And since the investigation needs to avoid any appearance of political gamesmanship, if the Senate is chosen it needs be an equal split of members (Democrats and Republicans).

 

Glynch, they've released exactly how the security breaches happened. We know.

I am not and was not a Hillary supporter, and most people that I know that were including those on this site, haven't blamed the Russian hacking and campaign to subvert our democracy for the loss.

I'm not sure where you are coming from on this, since you are arguing against something that isn't the argument being put forward by most Hillary supporters. We've seen the release of the analysis that explained exactly how the breaches occurred.

That being said, I'm all for a bi-partisan investigation by congress to get as much information as possible.

 

The final vote by the Senate on any report that is produced will not be the determining factor on this. If it is done in a satisfactory manner, it will be conducted in an extremely open and public way, with as much information released as is required for the truth to come out and for everyone to see it, regardless of what anyone in Congress says. That public examination of the facts will be the important part of this exercise, not any procedural vote.

The good thing about doing it in the Senate is that everybody in the place will be able to weigh in as much as they like, as the US Senate effectively gives members all the speaking time they want. In fact, there are usually long gaps of open floor time on any given day. The committee that handles this will likely have one more Republican than Democrat, but there is no reason for the Republicans to stifle anything the Democrats want to say on this subject.

However, there does appear to be reason for the Democrats to want to stifle the speech of Republicans on this topic. Also, we do know that stifling discussion is a common tactic of the Democrats and the left. So with the Republicans in charge, pretty much everything will come out, even if it is about the RNC or DNC, or any of the leaders of the party, and that is what needs to happen here.

The report at the end will not be the critical output of this investigation, except to those people who believe that we "just have to trust them." I do not think there are very many people who are going to be processing the revelations that come from this investigation from that view at all.

 

So you make a big dramatic show about leaving the board and making life changes and all that, and then just keep posting under a different name with even more vitriol than ever. Good grief.