CIA: Russia manipulated the election to install Trump

One of the reason the CIA is probably holding back is not to let the Russian's know it's cyber capabilities. The information was probably obtained by hacking Russian systems.

 

When you don't go after Russia for what they did, but instead focus on what the Americans have done.

 

Yes, that makes sense, if anyone cares to use common sense. This is one reason Russia can say "prove it, American swine!" and know that we aren't about to release our intelligence stockpile publicly. Russia, along with their obedient pet Assange, have helped undermine (along with many American voices) any trust in the American intelligence agencies. So they know how to play the disinformation media age well.

Have to totally agree with Sam re: who is more trustworthy, our freaking president or trickle-partial-information-infrequently-with-open-agenda Julian Assange. The fact that we consider that debatable, I suppose, just underscores the extent to which the guy has played directly to what Russia and our right wing wants to hear. Such strange and incredible times, in terms of basic cognition.

 

I don't trust anyone who release government secrets with anonymous sources. WaPo has been doing tons of that.

 

what's pathetic is that russia allegedly could have not interfered if podesta and those other dnc hacks used stronger email passwords or encryption or if hilary didn't use an external system for her convenience. but let's let them off the hook right.

 

Don't underestimate how much many of our right-wing leaders as been about the attainment of power without regard for democracy, our institutions or the civil liberties of the plurality of our citizens. Just look at what is happening in North Carolina. That these same/similar people would cuddle up to Putin when it serves their interests is just realpolitik. Putin is saying what they want to hear, but he is also helping their "side." And when you put party over country, that is what matters most.

 

Burden of proof is on the accuser and that is something that is a pillar of american justice. All of a sudden does this pillar of american justice become arbitrary?

 

B-Bob, Sam and JeffB etc. i'm really surprised at the fact that you're content with undermining the foundations of our transition of
power and democracy over speculation of unnamed sources giving information to the New York Times.

There is no evidence of Russia hacking and this is all just another attempt to avoid the fact that there is so much arrogance and
hubris among democrats that they're willing to undermine our democracy to prove it.

First it was the RE-COUNT? How'd that go?

Then it was the FAKE NEWS? Didn't Go too Well Either huh?

Now it's RUSSIA!?

C'mon. The Clinton campaign had incredible holes in its logic and thought they could alienate and bypass
significant parts of the American populace and their philosophy was wholeheartedly rejected.

Let's move on. I know you don't like Trump, as many conservatives didn't like Obama, but did George Bush campaign with such
vitriol against Obama, or talk so negatively about him and question him in the manner Obama is?


Assange said it didn't come from Russia, Russia is denying the hacking and there is no evidence?

Aside from your post election shock rage, what validity is there to any of this?

 

It's pretty clear those on the left are putting party over country when it comes to this issue, they want to "punish" Russia, which I can only assume means some kind of attack either economic or military which has the potential to lead to war.....simply because the DNC got hacked and their corruption and collusion with the media to subvert the democratic process was exposed. None of the potential consequences of those actions matter to them, "you hurt the DNC by exposing their corruption, you have to suffer" is the mindset and it's a dangerous one.

 

Then why are there bipartisan calls for an investigation into the hacks?

 

Well, it was still a crime. So, yeah, investigate it as you would any other really important thing.....like steroids in baseball, violent video games, or the ineffectiveness of the TV ratings system. Also, you can find war hawks to rattle their sabers at the drop of a hat, doesn't mean anything.

 

There is no party that put party interest above national interest like the recent GOP party, I can only imagine what it would be like if the situation was reversed. I do not expect the election outcome to change, but I do expect an investigation into this.

 

Is it true that the FBI actually called the DNC IT department to let them know they were being hacked - and that the DNC employee essentially hung up on them?

 

Of COURSE THERE SHOULD BE AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE HACKS!

Who has ever said there shouldn't be? But now we're talking about shadowy figures giving off the record statements to
New York Times reporters and the investigation is taking place in the media as the judge jury and executioner.

Provide a serious investigation as to who hacked the DNC and figure out who was behind it and how to stop it from happening
again.

No one disagrees with an investigation, but this is not what this is. It is a public lynching by media and celebs with
no real proof of anything except citing other reporters

C'mon. Pathetic.

 

LOLOLOLOL.

 

Well first of all, you said in your previous post we should "move on," which implied that you don't care about this at all. But anyways, we agree then that there should be an investigation but what is really disturbing to me is the extent to which some of you guys are going to defend Russia when this is exactly what Putin and the Kremlin are known for - undermining the politics and interests of other countries, Lindsey Graham even said this himself. It's the conclusion that both the FBI and CIA have reached, although they seem to disagree on Russian motives, but it's clearly the best information we have up to this point. I'm not sure why you expect the media and others to just ignore this.

BTW, calling anyone who disagrees with you on this a sore loser leftist doesn't help anything and is only going to make others more hostile to your point of view. Just my two cents.

 

And now the FBI agrees:

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/310769-fbi-backs-cia-report-on-russian-interference

 

Anti-democratic means such as rigging a primary election to get the candidate you want instead of the candidate the people want or colluding with the media to undermine the democratic process? Oh wait, that wasn't the Republicans.

 

Define "rigged". I think both the DNC and the RNC, in general, put their support behind the candidates that serve establishment interests the most. I don't really buy this idea that the DNC did something that was just off the scales of what's standard practice. Not to say that I like it, but I think that's just how these systems work and have always worked. There's an inherent bias in favor of "establishment" candidates. It just so happened that this year we had "anti-establishment" candidates with large popular support. The Republican party was so fractured that there wasn't one person the RNC could grab on to and make their standard bearer this year and much to their displeasure they ended up with Trump. I haven't followed all the details of this terribly closely, so maybe my "analysis" of the situation is way off, but that's what it seems like to me. Disagree?