Are we seriously back to blaming Russia?
- Thread starter MegaPoke
- Start date
Are the Russians?
FBI said they weren't.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/0...tw-share&_r=0&referer=https://t.co/VreXCA4NIs
"False flag" per Bolton.
http://thehill.com/homenews/309897-bolton-questions-if-russian-hacks-were-false-flag
http://thehill.com/homenews/309897-bolton-questions-if-russian-hacks-were-false-flag
UK government official has met and knows who is responsible. Hint: It's not the Russians, it was a Democrat insider.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...lp-trump-win-election-report?CMP=share_btn_tw
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...lp-trump-win-election-report?CMP=share_btn_tw
Last edited:
From Wiki Leaks own site:
On March 16, 2016 WikiLeaks launched a searchable archive for over 30 thousand emails & email attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton's private email server while she was Secretary of State. The 50,547 pages of documents span from 30 June 2010 to 12 August 2014. 7,570 of the documents were sent by Hillary Clinton.
As we have all learned from the FBI. Now you can argue that the FBI is corrupt and not credible, that I would believe, but at this point I think we can all agree HRC kept a server in her bathroom.
Then the DNC failed to protect its servers in Arizona, and got hacked, but the FBI doesn't know by whom. (Again you can argue that the FBI is corrupt and not giving the whole story) What did they take that ended up on Wiki, emails pertaining to how the DNC was trying to use violence to affect the election. I think most of us can agree that the DNC was doing this at Trump rallies.
Lastly the FBI and Justice department are as corrupt as the rest of the Federal government. The Justice department should never have put a decision to prosecute on the FBI. That is not the FBI's job. Talk about passing the buck. That is not even talking about Mrs. Lynch meeting Bill in a Hanger right before a decision is being made.
This is all tied to together. Most of it links into the Clinton foundation, but that would be a discussion for another day. Now here is the problem with fake news. Which is fake and which is not? Who gets to decide? For now I'm going to take Wiki Leaks for face value as to what it said. They clearly say emails taken from her server. So I will ask you again. If you are willing to toss HRC in jail I'm willing to go along with your premise that there was a breach in national security.
This guy calls for a new election if Russia "affected public opinion." Nope, this Russia thing is definitely not centered around yet another attempt to get Hillary to the throne she is so entitled to.
http://cnn.it/2hgm6Pk
A serious question for david, with the level of dishonesty, favoritism, and collusion the corporate media showed during this election cycle, why would any independent thinking person believe the Russian stories that are full of anonymous innuendo put out by the Washington Post, NY Times, and Reuters? Secret CIA report? Come on. Those bastions of journalistic integrity were all in for Queen Hillary and I seriously doubt that the unbridled adoration for her ended when the election results were announced. Smells too much like bullshit to believe it's anything but bullshit.
I guess I can't blame the political establishment elite and media giants for desperately continuing their attempts to change the election results. They've been exposed and are on a fairly steep slope headed toward irrelevance unless they can drag Hillary into the White House and stop the madness.
http://cnn.it/2hgm6Pk
A serious question for david, with the level of dishonesty, favoritism, and collusion the corporate media showed during this election cycle, why would any independent thinking person believe the Russian stories that are full of anonymous innuendo put out by the Washington Post, NY Times, and Reuters? Secret CIA report? Come on. Those bastions of journalistic integrity were all in for Queen Hillary and I seriously doubt that the unbridled adoration for her ended when the election results were announced. Smells too much like bullshit to believe it's anything but bullshit.
I guess I can't blame the political establishment elite and media giants for desperately continuing their attempts to change the election results. They've been exposed and are on a fairly steep slope headed toward irrelevance unless they can drag Hillary into the White House and stop the madness.
Last edited:
Have there been any denials of the content in any of the email Wikileaks put out? I haven't heard any but have seen several loyal democrats get fired for what the email contained.
Wow - big stunner. $350k in donations to a peace advocacy group that also campaigned against Bebe - you get a contortionist award as well:
That money was misappropriated to influence a foreign election. And where is your outrage?
But hey, remember when GHB jumped into an SR 71 and fly to Europe for negotiations to get the hostages released right after Regan was inaugurated?
According to the allegation, the Reagan Administration rewarded Iran for its participation in the plot by supplying Iran with weapons via Israel and by unblocking Iranian government monetary assets in US banks.
After twelve years of mixed media attention, both houses of the US Congress held separate inquiries and concluded that the allegations lacked supporting documentation.
Nevertheless, several individuals—most notably former Iranian President Abulhassan Banisadr,[2] former Naval intelligence officer and National Security Council member Gary Sick; and former Reagan/Bush campaign and White House staffer Barbara Honegger—have stood by the allegation.
Even in 2016, there is this beauty from "Occupy Democrats" On 11 February 2016, the web site Occupy Democrats published an article maintaining unequivocally that unspecified "Republicans in Congress" had sought to stall the release of American prisoners held by Iran until "the eve of" the 2016 presidential election:
According to the allegation, the Reagan Administration rewarded Iran for its participation in the plot by supplying Iran with weapons via Israel and by unblocking Iranian government monetary assets in US banks.
After twelve years of mixed media attention, both houses of the US Congress held separate inquiries and concluded that the allegations lacked supporting documentation.
Nevertheless, several individuals—most notably former Iranian President Abulhassan Banisadr,[2] former Naval intelligence officer and National Security Council member Gary Sick; and former Reagan/Bush campaign and White House staffer Barbara Honegger—have stood by the allegation.
Even in 2016, there is this beauty from "Occupy Democrats" On 11 February 2016, the web site Occupy Democrats published an article maintaining unequivocally that unspecified "Republicans in Congress" had sought to stall the release of American prisoners held by Iran until "the eve of" the 2016 presidential election:
This just in:
Various sources are reporting that the estimated cost of the wall President-Elect Trump promised to build on the U.S. southern border has been greatly reduced.
Apparently over 55 million Hillary Supporters unexpectedly shit bricks the week of the presidential election producing more than enough bricks to build the planned 2,000-mile, 30-ft. high wall.
Various sources are reporting that the estimated cost of the wall President-Elect Trump promised to build on the U.S. southern border has been greatly reduced.
Apparently over 55 million Hillary Supporters unexpectedly shit bricks the week of the presidential election producing more than enough bricks to build the planned 2,000-mile, 30-ft. high wall.
Simply not true. Comey rattled off a list of felony crimes committed by Hillary. He also made it very clear in his congressional testimony that Hillary committed numerous crimes.
Comey did, however, recommend no charges be filed for the numerous crimes committed. That's not the same as reaching a non-existent "consensus" that no crimes were committed. Not even close.
Are you going to award yourself a contortionist award now?
I nominate "consensus" as the liberal cuck Word of the Day.
Ian Welsh on the subject:
Alrighty, I had hoped to avoid this topic, because it’s stupid, but here we are, the left can talk about nothing else.
The argument is that Russia interfered in the US election, and that gave the election to Trump, therefore electors pledged to Trump should switch their vote to Clinton.
I’m tempted to just say “this is insanity”, but let’s step by step it out.
The CIA apparently believes that the Russians (GRU) hacked both the DNC and the RNC and Podesta and didn’t release the RNC emails, therefor were trying to push the election to Clinton.
Emptywheel has the best summary of this. She notes that:
First, hackers presumed to be GRU did hack and release emails from Colin Powell and an Republican-related server. The Powell emails (including some that weren’t picked up in the press), in particular, were detrimental to both candidates. The Republican ones were, like a great deal of the Democratic ones, utterly meaningless from a news standpoint.
So, weak on its point. Also, while there are reasons to believe Russia was involved in the various hacks, there is no smoking gun that makes it certain, especially not that it was Russian STATE actors.
But let’s assume it was true: the Russians hacked and made sure that the info wound up public.
So far, I am unaware of a single email which has bee found to be false. Not one. All information released appears to have been true. It was information germane to the election, there was just more truth available about Clinton than Trump.
(There have also been allegations of hacking voting machines. Maybe, but there is no proof. I’ll wait for that, and that it was from outside.)
So, there are some reasons to believe Russia may have tried to influence the election by releasing true information about Clinton that was damaging, but they also appear to have released info against the Republicans too, so—what?
More to the point, none of this is ironclad. Contrary to the wailing I see from many, the idea that intelligence agency assessments are always correct is laughable, as anyone who was alive for Iraq knows. Intelligence agencies not only get things wrong, they have axes to grind and slant intelligence to suit their ends, and the ends of their masters (still Obama.)
If I were a Trump voter, and a bunch of electors, on data that is this uncertain, and which even if it is true amounts to “telling the truth about Hillary and Democrats” were to give the election to Clinton I would be furious.
I would consider it a violation of democratic norms: an overturning of a valid election result because elites didn’t like the result.
And while I’m not saying they should, or I would (nor that I wouldn’t), many will feel that if the ballot box is not respected, then violence is the only solution.
If faithless electors give the election to Clinton, there will be a LOT of violence as a result, and there might even be a civil war.
If you’re pushing for this, understand what you are pushing for. One reason we have democratic elections and referendums (hello people who want to overturn Brexit), so that we don’t settle such things by violent means.
Trump won the election, unless you have ironclad proof of real election tampering that was large enough to throw the election (aka. voting fraud, in auditable form), you should probably live with it, unless you really think he’s Hitler and going to set up concentration camps, in which case I can see no argument against you using force.
This is where Nazi/Fascist/Hitler/Camps rhetoric leaves you. Nothing is off the table.
Either decide you mean it, or calm down and take shit off the table that is going to get a lot of people dead if you pull it off.
(Oh yes, and as a number of wags have noted, the idea of the CIA in specific, or America in general, whining about foreign influence leading to a right wing government is hilarious on its face.)
Update: The article has the worst case scenario for Russian hacks (minus machines) that can be even slightly suggested by the evidence IN ORDER to show that overturning an election result still isn’t justified. It wouldn’t be EVEN if the Russian state was directly behind all info releases. Only hardcore proof of hacking of the machines could justify it.
Alrighty, I had hoped to avoid this topic, because it’s stupid, but here we are, the left can talk about nothing else.
The argument is that Russia interfered in the US election, and that gave the election to Trump, therefore electors pledged to Trump should switch their vote to Clinton.
I’m tempted to just say “this is insanity”, but let’s step by step it out.
The CIA apparently believes that the Russians (GRU) hacked both the DNC and the RNC and Podesta and didn’t release the RNC emails, therefor were trying to push the election to Clinton.
Emptywheel has the best summary of this. She notes that:
First, hackers presumed to be GRU did hack and release emails from Colin Powell and an Republican-related server. The Powell emails (including some that weren’t picked up in the press), in particular, were detrimental to both candidates. The Republican ones were, like a great deal of the Democratic ones, utterly meaningless from a news standpoint.
So, weak on its point. Also, while there are reasons to believe Russia was involved in the various hacks, there is no smoking gun that makes it certain, especially not that it was Russian STATE actors.
But let’s assume it was true: the Russians hacked and made sure that the info wound up public.
So far, I am unaware of a single email which has bee found to be false. Not one. All information released appears to have been true. It was information germane to the election, there was just more truth available about Clinton than Trump.
(There have also been allegations of hacking voting machines. Maybe, but there is no proof. I’ll wait for that, and that it was from outside.)
So, there are some reasons to believe Russia may have tried to influence the election by releasing true information about Clinton that was damaging, but they also appear to have released info against the Republicans too, so—what?
More to the point, none of this is ironclad. Contrary to the wailing I see from many, the idea that intelligence agency assessments are always correct is laughable, as anyone who was alive for Iraq knows. Intelligence agencies not only get things wrong, they have axes to grind and slant intelligence to suit their ends, and the ends of their masters (still Obama.)
If I were a Trump voter, and a bunch of electors, on data that is this uncertain, and which even if it is true amounts to “telling the truth about Hillary and Democrats” were to give the election to Clinton I would be furious.
I would consider it a violation of democratic norms: an overturning of a valid election result because elites didn’t like the result.
And while I’m not saying they should, or I would (nor that I wouldn’t), many will feel that if the ballot box is not respected, then violence is the only solution.
If faithless electors give the election to Clinton, there will be a LOT of violence as a result, and there might even be a civil war.
If you’re pushing for this, understand what you are pushing for. One reason we have democratic elections and referendums (hello people who want to overturn Brexit), so that we don’t settle such things by violent means.
Trump won the election, unless you have ironclad proof of real election tampering that was large enough to throw the election (aka. voting fraud, in auditable form), you should probably live with it, unless you really think he’s Hitler and going to set up concentration camps, in which case I can see no argument against you using force.
This is where Nazi/Fascist/Hitler/Camps rhetoric leaves you. Nothing is off the table.
Either decide you mean it, or calm down and take shit off the table that is going to get a lot of people dead if you pull it off.
(Oh yes, and as a number of wags have noted, the idea of the CIA in specific, or America in general, whining about foreign influence leading to a right wing government is hilarious on its face.)
Update: The article has the worst case scenario for Russian hacks (minus machines) that can be even slightly suggested by the evidence IN ORDER to show that overturning an election result still isn’t justified. It wouldn’t be EVEN if the Russian state was directly behind all info releases. Only hardcore proof of hacking of the machines could justify it.
Peter King said on Morning Joe that the intel was not nearly as definitive as it was made out to be by the press.
In other words, libs got duped again.
In other words, libs got duped again.
THIS. Thanks pilt.
The Democrats should be spending every moment between now and 2018 and 2020 finding candidates that actually appeal to people (Sanders type) and finding a message that is electable. Doubling down on Clinton, Biden, the labels, etc is a complete waste of time for their future. If they don't learn from the mistake of coronating Clinton despite the raging popularity of Sanders, they are doomed.
This has nothing to do with the election result, despite coming out three weeks before the election:
Last edited:
It's doubtful that this, 2 months before the election, had any effect either...
"To just be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables," Clinton said. "Right? Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it."
She added: "And unfortunately, there are people like that and he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people, now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric."
Clinton then said some of these people were "irredeemable" and "not America."
She described the rest of his supporters as people who are looking for change in any form because of economic anxiety and urged her supporters to empathize with them.
Again, the only two things I saw move the needle down for her - and both temporarily - were the deplorables quote above, and the 9/11 health issue and cover up attempt.
Individually, Americans are a lot of things - but collectively they aren't stupid and they don't forget as much as the cynical politicians think they do.
The short answer is no there is no denial only that the information was from a untrustworthy source: Wiki Leaks
There's not a news agency on Earth who wouldn't kill for Wikileak's record of accuracy. Untrustworthy = uncontrollable
I'm tired of hearing that Russia impacted the elections themselves. I have seen noone provide any evidence of this. They may have been involved in the hacking of the DNC, but that's not the same as interfering with the election. They dissiminated non-public (and illegally gained) private information about the candidates. But if that's the criteria of judgement, then I expect the WH to immediately investigate where the NYTimes got the 20-year old tax statement regarding Trump.
In the course of research for my two-volume history of Ronald Reagan I read through a lot of declassified CIA assessments and reports, and was amazed at how consistently bad, and most often wrong, the analysis was. Here’s one example I included in the book:
On October 5, 1973, the CIA’s daily bulletin commented on Egyptian military exercises on the west bank of the Suez canal, just across the canal from the Israeli-occupied Sinai peninsula: “The exercise and alert activities . . . in Egypt may be on a somewhat larger scale and more realistic than previous exercises, but they do not appear to be preparing for a military offensive against Israel.” The very next day, the CIA’s daily bulletin reiterated its judgment that “For Egypt a military initiative makes little sense at this critical juncture.” Before the ink was dry, 70,000 Egyptian troops and 800 tanks started rolling across pontoon bridges over the Suez. Syria launched a simultaneous surprise attack in the Golan Heights to Israel’s northeast. The attack had been carefully planned for months, yet Egypt achieved complete surprise over the CIA.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/12/abolish-the-cia.php
On October 5, 1973, the CIA’s daily bulletin commented on Egyptian military exercises on the west bank of the Suez canal, just across the canal from the Israeli-occupied Sinai peninsula: “The exercise and alert activities . . . in Egypt may be on a somewhat larger scale and more realistic than previous exercises, but they do not appear to be preparing for a military offensive against Israel.” The very next day, the CIA’s daily bulletin reiterated its judgment that “For Egypt a military initiative makes little sense at this critical juncture.” Before the ink was dry, 70,000 Egyptian troops and 800 tanks started rolling across pontoon bridges over the Suez. Syria launched a simultaneous surprise attack in the Golan Heights to Israel’s northeast. The attack had been carefully planned for months, yet Egypt achieved complete surprise over the CIA.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/12/abolish-the-cia.php
Do any of you have a problem with Putin moving into eastern Europe?
@imprimis
@MegaPoke
@Marshal Jim Duncan
@imprimis
@MegaPoke
@Marshal Jim Duncan
Like when he took Crimea and 0bama stood by with one thumb in his ass and the other in his mouth?
