-the same media now leaking this convenient story.
Why did the Intel services brief congress at the end of Nov that there was no evidence that the Russians could be tied to the Podesta/DNC hacks, and then not notify congress later if they came across new evidence?
And why, when the head Republican on the committee asks for a new briefing for this week does the CIA cancel the meeting at the last minute?
Why would they leak info to the Washpost - one of the media outlets exposed in WikiLeaks to be in collusion - instead of renotifying congress which is the Intel departments required procedure?
Most likely answer: because they want to whip up this frenzy as much as possible to try to influence electoral votes. Podesta and Clinton are still driving this with Obama's passive support.
They can't accept the rejection they got, they are the poorest of losers, and they want to try to steal the election at the end.
If nonClinton people are to believe anything else, the Intel organizations are going to have to reveal how they know - specifics. But it's becoming pretty clear that there aren't any specifics to be shown.
It all appears to be political theater, and I hope the GOP rams it back up their asses when they take over with their majorities if no specifics ever come forward.
Our country is in big trouble if people can't put patriotism ahead of partisanship.
And obviously you can't.
to Lois Lerner as an example of why not. I don't distrust "our IRS people" either, I distrust the heads who were politically appointed.
The guy carrying the water on this right now is the freaking Obama Press Secretary whose job it is to lie. Let's Obama or Schiff specifically say that the Russians hacked PODESTA's or the DNC's emails, not "our institutions which could later be said to be referring to the known previous hacks at the DoD. Sheesh!
" the Russian government directed the recent compromise of e mails from U.S. persons and institutions, including U.S. political organizations".
You do know what a political organization and an individual are, don't you? They clearly weren't talking about the DOD hack.
(no message)
He's proven he will lie for Obama to Congress already. Caught red-handed, and not removed from office.
Pesky facts!
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Clapper#False_testimony_to_Congress_on_NSA_surveillance_programs
"he was officially nominated by President George W. Bush to be Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USD(I)) on January 29, 2007 and confirmed by the United States Senate on 11 April 2007."
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Clapper
(no message)
what did we learn from WikiLeaks
1. That the DNC fixed the primary so that BS couldn't win
2. That DB got debate question before hand and turned them over to HRC.
Would you like to be in the dark about that and listen to us tell you without proof.
Now we have the proof and you claim RUSSIA did it--so it's wrong.
WTF
You are a wonder.
When Sony was hacked in 2014, it took less than one month from the time of the hack for all this to happen:
1) The FBI confirmed it...not sources say, blah blah...an actual confirmation, on the record.
2) Barry condemned it.
3) North Korean internet service was mysteriously down for several days.
It has been many months since the DNC was hacked, ditto Podesta. All these recent stories are "sources say". Today's headlines about it being ordered by Putin were speculation layered upon surmise.
As far as I know, Barry has not made a statement about this except during an interview on Comedy Central. Seriously.
Honestly, Barry seems to be acting very cavalierly about a foreign power trying to influence a US election. He took the hacking of a private company much more seriously. Makes one wonder...
The IC says it has "high confidence" that it was the Russians.
You doubt everything you hear. Fine.
Aside from downplaying it on The Daily Show?
Per Obama's spokesperson Josh Earnest: “Given that the president had endorsed a candidate in the presidential race, he believed it was important for the intelligence community to make this announcement,”
Also, due to the political nature of the leak, Earnest has stated: “it would’ve been inappropriate for White House figures — including the president of the United States — to be rushing the intelligence community to expedite their analysis of the situation.”
Bottom line is Obama didn't want to make it look like a political anti-Trump witch. He (falsely) believed that if the info came from the intelligence agencies themselves through their own process, instead of through him, that the info would be believed. But as Chris has pointed out...willfully ignorant Trump supporters have sided with Putin's version of the story over our intelligence community.
So, why not do something now?
I think there's already a cyber war of sorts going on behind the scenes between US, Russia, China, Iran, NK, etc. The fact we don't know about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
That's what he did with North Korea.
I'm sure we have lots of juice on where Putin has stored his billions. Maybe release a couple of his Swiss account #'s to Wikileaks? Post Andrey Lugovoy's (Alexander Litvinenko's killer) cell phone number? I'm sure we could get pretty creative.
(no message)
Like back in 2014.
Link: http://www.voanews.com/a/obama-tells-north-korea-us-will-respond-to-hack-attack/2566941.html
(no message)
Foreign power hacking is a non-issue, because everyone agrees it is bad and should be stopped.
The only points of disagreement are the ones that follow, and none involve siding with a foreign power:
1) Should voters have relied upon leaked information when they made their voting decisions? You think they shouldn't have. I think it is ok for them to use that information, even though the information was initially obtained illegally. The remedy is not to undermine the voters choices, but to pursue the original perpetrators. The Democrats want to do the former (undermine the election) instead of the latter (pursue the perpetrators). I would say that your side is being unpatriotic and treasonous in the name of partisanship.
2) Is it ok for the press and the Democrats to secretly collude?...without telling the voters...pretending that neutrality exists where in fact there is only pure partisanship? You think it is ok. I think it isn't.
3) Is it ok for the press and Democrats to use unofficial, leaked information from unnamed source inside our own intelligence agencies to challenge the validity of the election? I think no; you have no problem with our own intelligence agency personnel undermining our election. Who is being patriotic here? I would say that the Democrats certainly are not.
It is far worse for members of our intelligence committee to release disinformation to undermine our elections than for a foreign power to release accurate information to merely influence our election.
(no message)
their 1st amendment responsibilities. (I know it is arguable whether they have a responsibility at all) But the purpose of the 1st amendment as it relates to speech and press is to aid the public in the search of truth. Using this freedom to distort the truth is despicable and a more vigilant public would hold them accountable.
No surprise the dems and their media surrogates are looking for anyone to blame but themselves. But the reps would act the same if the shoe was on the other foot... IMO, the 2 party system and the widening divide in media sources has to be reformed in some way.
Does not compute! Does not compute!
If some jackass clicks on a phishing scam link (Podesta) and gets exposed, hard for me to feel sorry for them, especially if they are acting despicably behind the curtain. Am I mad at the Russians for scamming him, not really, I assume we target them similarly.
Regarding the two party system: I have accepted the fact that we will always have only two parties until we get a better voting system (not just winner take all). We would need a more sophisticated voting process, or a parliamentary system in which our new parliament selects the prime minister.
Having said that, I think we are undergoing a reformation of the system in practically (if not systemically). Periodically, a party loses focus, or issue leave them behind. This just happened to the GOP with Trump. As much talk as we have about the Democrats being in disarray, I think one can argue that the GOP has the same issues. The Dems seem to be doubling down on what got them here, when they really need to reassess what they stand for.
Also, why did the Russians not go after the RNC or Trump himself? Its pretty clear that the Russians had an agenda beyond just hacking for hacking's sake.
Personally, I'm glad the DNC was exposed. I also don't think it altered the election, but it does seem that the Russians really, really prefer Trump over Clinton. Why?
Wanting to get to the bottom it is simply common sense. You and BVZ can't seem to separate the partisan issue at hand from the national security issue.
You are also changing the subject with the Democrats/press collusion. Not the issue at hand. Robbery is not as bad as murder, but doesn't mean it shouldn't be prosecuted (which is basically what you are saying with your counter argument).
I assume the Russians are trying to hack everyone, just like we are.
I don't assume that the Russians are the wikileaks source. That is not undisputed yet.
And, while you and others here admit that it may not have altered the election, your side is trying to use it to undermine the election. That is anti-American at its core....and yet they lob the anti-American threat at the other side. They need to look in the mirror.
Regarding the change in subject: No. Read the title of Baron's post. He raised it as a topic in this thread. You want me to talk about other things, so you accuse me of changing the subject, but I am on topic.
Finally, I agree with you that "Wanting to get to the bottom it is simply common sense." Let's do that. But let's not set ourselves up for revolution before we have the facts...especially when you admit that the hacking didn't change the election.
for the purpose of interfering with US elections.
I'm assuming official releases from our intel our accurate. I believe these official statements over believing Russia or Trump.
I also don't see any of this as "setting us up for revolution". Trump will be certified as the next president. His lack of mandate is due to the fact he only got 40% of the votes, not b/c of Russian interference.
But I truly do want to know why Russia obviously prefers him over Clinton.
You are assuming official releases are accurate. Fine. But you are also projecting upon those releases additional viewpoints that were not expressed in those releases. If you read only the relaseses, and listen only to sworn testimony, you are left with a different picture. If you read about those relaeases in left-leaning news sources, your biases will be confirmed.
Personally, I think this is all birther/truther nonsense conspiracy theories. I can't think of any reason Putin would want Trump more than Hillary, except to cause constitutional chaos the the Left is bringing to bear.
Which is the link I provided. I didn't read any leftist interpretation. It seems straightforward to me, probably b/c I don't have anything invested into a Trump presidency.
In your defense, I think the release was crafted to lead you to do that.
Yet that is accepted as gospel here.
I'm not saying there weren't hacks of US institutions. I'm saying the release did not connect the dots from the Russians to Trump in the way the Democrats (and you) want them connected. The language alloww you to do that, but the language does not require you to do that. If someone tries to use the DOD release for political purposes, then we can investigate if they are reading anything into it.
I'm not connecting any dots to Trump. I don't think he was involved with it or knew about it.
But the fact that the Soviets did it isn't open to connect the dots doubt.
Making the interwebs great again!
What if Hillary won as everyone thought she would? There would be no crisis b/c the Russians only tried to mess with one side. If there only goal was to cause turmoil (not pick one candidate over the other), then wouldn't they have messed with both sides? That way if Hillary won Trump could say the Russians helped her. Also, if they were only going to mess with one side, since Hillary was the prohibitive favorite to win, wouldn't have made much more sense to mess with the RNC and Trump.
Birtherism is promoted by a crackpot sherriff in AZ. Russian interference with our election is what is believed by our Dept of Homeland Security as indicated by their official statement. You really don't see the difference?
The Don was one of the biggest birthers in the nation.
...because they don't believe our intel community, they are siding with Putin, who claims innocence. The CIA is nott going to explain which spies they have that told them that Putin was involved in the decisions to give stuff to wikileaks. And the NSA is not going to explain how they traced the leaks back to the Kremlin.
You either believe them or you believe Moscow.
And of course the press "collusion" is much different, and mostly a figment of the hyperactive conservative imagination. The same one that gives us Mexicans everywhere raping us, ISIS in every mosque and late-term, half-born baby murders.
(no message)
We have official statements from our intelligence agencies, and we have leaks to the press from unnamed sources. I will look to the former; but your side is using the latter and pretending it is the former. This is really dangerous stuff you are doing. Assuming for a second: The Russians released factual information, leading to more informed voters. The remedy is to pursue the perpetrators of the initial theft of information. I agree with you on that. But your side is going one step further, and pretending that there was some collusion between Trump and Putin. If true, there will be a revolution in this country. If not true, but you convince people it is true, and the electors switch, they may also be a revolution in this country. And it ain't going to go like the American Revolution. It will look like the French Revolution, with Committees of Public Safety and the like. It will not go well. The Dems need to accept this election. Hillary herself said that to challenge the election results was unpatriotic.
edited to provide linnk
Link: https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement
Also, you are reading into it to satisfy your preconceptions. You could say that I am doing the same. OK. But we can both do that because the memo was ambiguous. Also, it has been mischaracterized repeatedly by your side. It is not a memo from 17 agencies. It comes from one. It doesn't have the detail your side needs to justify its position, which is why we have unnamed sources. Meanwhile, the agencies testified last month under oath that this had not happened.
provided by our government that disputes what both Trump and Putin have claimed.
It says the Russians did the hack and gave it to Wikileaks for the purpose of interfering with our election.
Please let me know what part of that I'm misinterpreting.
Where does it say that the Russians gave the hack to Wikileaks. It doesn't. The language is very nuanced. It is crafted so that someone like you can look at it and say, "See! I told you so!" and yet the release is careful not to tie everything together. When Dem. Schiff (on the House Intelligence Committee) was grilled on this, he refused to tie things together, and he knows a lot more than you or I do. His interview was eye opening for me.
Ned you are trying too hard. The statement means what it means: that the whole thing was Russian-directed. There's no logical way to interpret it any other way.
You really think the Dept of Homeland Security would go through the effort to release this just so they could say "Told ya so!" at a later date? That's insane. To assume that is to do exactly what Chris is saying: choosing partisanship over patriotism.
they want to stop DT before he gets started. They are hoping to get a response so that in the end he looks bad.
You mean the Dept of Homeland Security? Why do they want to stop Trump?