Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House

[drobeski 3,061]

 

Thanks for answering.

And I will say...holy fock proving you are a hack if you really believe that.

Seriously...it would be actually defined as Treason if he worked with a foreign government to hack that information and influence the election. That you can't even agree to that shows the depth of how focking biased you are.

I think what hillary chose to do was treasonous. That really happened ...this other nonsense and fake outrage is based on dog schit.

[Sho Nuff 720]

I think what hillary chose to do was treasonous. That really happened ...this other nonsense and fake outrage is based on dog schit.

 

You think? The FBI apparently felt different. That really happened.

 

Based on what? You think the CIA and FBI are making up that Russia hacked things for a reason? Its a hypothetical if Trump was involved...but I got the response from you I thought I would. That it wouldn't matter...because you don't give a damn about as long as it helps a Republican or someone calling himself a Republican.

[Hardcore troubadour 14,930]

Someone get this hysterical woman a midol

[Mike Honcho 5,096]

I think what hillary chose to do was treasonous. That really happened ...this other nonsense and fake outrage is based on dog schit.

 

I stopped reading right there.

[Gepetto 1,288]

Hillary herself recently said she thinks Putin did it because he doesn't like her because she claimed he rigged his own re-election as Prime Minister of Russia a few years ago.

 

So, don't come at us with these bullsh!t, well what if it's true Russia hacked the DNC, and it is, and what if Trump communicated with Russia to do it to help him win and that is why he won the election.

 

Focking hypotheticals.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Hillary herself recently said she thinks Putin did it because he doesn't like her because she claimed he rigged his own re-election as Prime Minister of Russia a few years ago.

 

So, don't come at us with these bullsh!t, well what if it's true Russia hacked the DNC, and it is, and what if Trump communicated with Russia to do it to help him win and that is why he won the election.

 

Focking hypotheticals.

So...no answer. And what does what Hillary said have to do with anything?

[Sho Nuff 720]

Even with this...the sentiment is still...butbutbutHillary

[drobeski 3,061]

But but but...who cares ? The dnc is a private entity.

[Djgb13 2,339]

So you think the Russians rigged our election? Tell me again how Hillary beat Bernie

[drobeski 3,061]

What is this rigged nonsense...whomever hacked the DNC should get a medal. The voting public got to see what piles of schit the Democrats truly are. We get an election based on the truth and you guys are crying ?

[Hardcore troubadour 14,930]

Obama should draw a red line that Russia better not cross.

[drobeski 3,061]

Obama should draw a red line that Russia better not cross.

he said stop it!

[Hardcore troubadour 14,930]

he said stop it!

And by golly there was no more hacking after he said that! Yer darn tootin!

[Mike Honcho 5,096]

What is this rigged nonsense...whomever hacked the DNC should get a medal. The voting public got to see what piles of schit the Democrats truly are. We get an election based on the truth and you guys are crying ?

 

[fandandy 3,313]

I'm not going to read through 13 pages of you clowns yapping but has anyone pointed out how our very own mainstream media worked tirelessly to help Hillary win the White House? Has the CIA issued a report on that? The entirety of the campaign, the media was so biased in Clinton's favor. Almost every news website was in the bag for her. You couldn't open Yahoo without seeing some story ridiculing Trump. It was never ending and sadly (for the dimwits) it had the opposite effect than desired. People really started to question the integrity of the MSM, started to think they they really did have an agenda, and voted accordingly.

[Sho Nuff 720]

But but but...who cares ? The dnc is a private entity.

Who cares? As if more proof of you being a complete hack was needed.

[Sho Nuff 720]

So you think the Russians rigged our election? Tell me again how Hillary beat Bernie

Never said rigged

I know they hacked data and posting things to influence the election.

[Hardcore troubadour 14,930]

Never said rigged

I know they hacked data and posting things to influence the election.

Things. How about they posted the truth? Such a hack

[Sho Nuff 720]

I'm not going to read through 13 pages of you clowns yapping but has anyone pointed out how our very own mainstream media worked tirelessly to help Hillary win the White House? Has the CIA issued a report on that? The entirety of the campaign, the media was so biased in Clinton's favor. Almost every news website was in the bag for her. You couldn't open Yahoo without seeing some story ridiculing Trump. It was never ending and sadly (for the dimwits) it had the opposite effect than desired. People really started to question the integrity of the MSM, started to think they they really did have an agenda, and voted accordingly.

Biased media and even handing her debate questions isn't actually a CIA issue..,apparently not even illegal.

And you bitcheshave cried about the MSM for years because they don't kiss your sides ass enough for you

[Strike 5,186]

Biased media and even handing her debate questions isn't actually a CIA issue..,apparently not even illegal.

And you bitcheshave cried about the MSM for years because they don't kiss your sides ass enough for you

Assuming Russia hacked something what law did they break?

[Sho Nuff 720]

Assuming Russia hacked something what law did they break?

Assuming? Still don't believe it...huh?

You think hacking emails is legal? Are you really that dense?

[drobeski 3,061]

Assuming? Still don't believe it...huh?

You think hacking emails is legal? Are you really that dense?

answer his question coward

[Sho Nuff 720]

answer his question coward

His question can't be serious if you all don't understand that hacking emails and phishing scams are illegal you are completely brain dead

[drobeski 3,061]

Never said rigged

I know they hacked data and posting things to influence the election.

what influence did they have ?

 

She was toast either way...dumbocrats are still too stupid to realize that.

[Sho Nuff 720]

what influence did they have ?

 

She was toast either way...dumbocrats are still too stupid to realize that.

Ask the CIA and FBI when they finalize their report and investigation. They are the ones saying so.

[drobeski 3,061]

Ask the CIA and FBI when they finalize their report and investigation. They are the ones saying so.

do we ask the anonymous CIA and FBI guys ? Or the real ones?

[Sho Nuff 720]

do we ask the anonymous CIA and FBI guys ? Or the real ones?

Google is your friend. Plenty of names and quotes that they agree right now. But I know facts are not of interest to you.

[drobeski 3,061]

Google is your friend. Plenty of names and quotes that they agree right now. But I know facts are not of interest to you.

that's funny, Google was hillary's friend too

 

[Mike Honcho 5,096]

that's funny, Google was hillary's friend too

It must take quite the effort to remain this focking ignorant.

[Hardcore troubadour 14,930]

that's funny, Google was hillary's friend too

 

Lol. Yahoo! Too

[Cdub100 3,836]

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Comey%2C+FBI+agrees+with+CIA+findings+on+russia+hacking

 

Pick whatever source you want.

 

I asked for something official and you give me the same garbage Washington Post anonymous person. It's all the same fake source DUMMY!!!!

 

From the USAToday link

The FBI's support of the CIA's assessment, according to the official familiar with the bureau's position but not authorized to comment publicly

 

Washington Post:

according to U.S. officials who have seen the message.

 

CNN

according to multiple intelligence officials who have viewed the message.

 

 

The best part about all of this!!!! The House Intelligence Committee abruptly canceled a briefing set for Thursday on alleged Russian interference in the U.S. election, after the CIA declined to provide a briefer for the session, Fox News is told.

Amid concerns about reports that conflict with details previously provided to the committee, Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., had requested a closed, classified briefing Thursday for committee Republican and Democratic members from the FBI, CIA, Office of the Director of National Intelligence and National Security Agency.

But Fox News is told the CIA declined citing its focus on the full review requested by President Obama, and the other agencies did not respond to the committee’s request, which is unusual given the panel is the most-senior committee with jurisdiction.

 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/14/intel-panel-nixes-briefing-on-alleged-russian-interference-in-us-election-after-resistance.html

[Cdub100 3,836]

 

You think the CIA and FBI are making up that Russia hacked things for a reason?

 

No we think the DNC and Democrats in power are making it up. The FBI and CIA HAVE NOT RELEASED ANY OFFICIAL ARTIFACT ABOUT RUSSIAN HACKING THE DNC!!! Read the bold part again. This is a fact! 100% true!

 

And because of the LEAK from within the DNC... That Podesta admitted to in the LEAKED emails. We know the MSM is bought and paid for SHILLS for the DNC.

 

We also know they (DNC / MSM) are pushing the BS Russian hack because they don't want people talking about WHAT IS ACTUALLY IN THOSE EMAILS!

[drobeski 3,061]

It must take quite the effort to remain this focking ignorant.

you seem to do it as effortlessly as you take a hog to the mouth

[drobeski 3,061]

 

I asked for something official and you give me the same garbage Washington Post anonymous person. It's all the same fake source DUMMY!!!!

 

From the USAToday link

The FBI's support of the CIA's assessment, according to the official familiar with the bureau's position but not authorized to comment publicly

 

Washington Post:

according to U.S. officials who have seen the message.

 

CNN

according to multiple intelligence officials who have viewed the message.

 

 

The best part about all of this!!!! The House Intelligence Committee abruptly canceled a briefing set for Thursday on alleged Russian interference in the U.S. election, after the CIA declined to provide a briefer for the session, Fox News is told.

 

Amid concerns about reports that conflict with details previously provided to the committee, Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., had requested a closed, classified briefing Thursday for committee Republican and Democratic members from the FBI, CIA, Office of the Director of National Intelligence and National Security Agency.

 

But Fox News is told the CIA declined citing its focus on the full review requested by President Obama, and the other agencies did not respond to the committees request, which is unusual given the panel is the most-senior committee with jurisdiction.

 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/14/intel-panel-nixes-briefing-on-alleged-russian-interference-in-us-election-after-resistance.html

game set match

[Sho Nuff 720]

 

I asked for something official and you give me the same garbage Washington Post anonymous person. It's all the same fake source DUMMY!!!!

 

From the USAToday link

The FBI's support of the CIA's assessment, according to the official familiar with the bureau's position but not authorized to comment publicly

 

Washington Post:

according to U.S. officials who have seen the message.

 

CNN

according to multiple intelligence officials who have viewed the message.

 

 

The best part about all of this!!!! The House Intelligence Committee abruptly canceled a briefing set for Thursday on alleged Russian interference in the U.S. election, after the CIA declined to provide a briefer for the session, Fox News is told.

Amid concerns about reports that conflict with details previously provided to the committee, Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., had requested a closed, classified briefing Thursday for committee Republican and Democratic members from the FBI, CIA, Office of the Director of National Intelligence and National Security Agency.

But Fox News is told the CIA declined citing its focus on the full review requested by President Obama, and the other agencies did not respond to the committee’s request, which is unusual given the panel is the most-senior committee with jurisdiction.

 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/14/intel-panel-nixes-briefing-on-alleged-russian-interference-in-us-election-after-resistance.html

 

 

No matter the source...this isn't anonymous sources dumbass...learn to focking read.

 

The positions of Comey and Clapper were revealed in a message that CIA Director John Brennan sent to the agency’s workforce Friday.

“Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI [Director] James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election,” Brennan said, according to U.S. officials who have seen the message.

 

FBI, DNI, and CIA...all focking named and the director of the CIA was quoted.

[Sho Nuff 720]

 

No we think the DNC and Democrats in power are making it up. The FBI and CIA HAVE NOT RELEASED ANY OFFICIAL ARTIFACT ABOUT RUSSIAN HACKING THE DNC!!! Read the bold part again. This is a fact! 100% true!

 

And because of the LEAK from within the DNC... That Podesta admitted to in the LEAKED emails. We know the MSM is bought and paid for SHILLS for the DNC.

 

We also know they (DNC / MSM) are pushing the BS Russian hack because they don't want people talking about WHAT IS ACTUALLY IN THOSE EMAILS!

 

We know they have not released it...but people have been named and quoted dumbass.

This theory that the CIA, FBI, and DNI are just in on it is mindnumbingly stupid.

It must be tough going through life as dumb as you and drobeski are...or just as biased as you two are.

Holy .

[Hardcore troubadour 14,930]

Why should the public believe anything the FBI or the CIA has to say at this point? Obama doesn't.

[Strike 5,186]

Why should the public believe anything the FBI or the CIA has to say at this point? Obama doesn't.

 

It's simple. When they say something critical of Hitlery they're just trying to influence an election, but if they say something that supports the left's dwindling hope of getting electors to violate their oath and vote for Hitlery it's totally believable and acceptable.

[Hardcore troubadour 14,930]

 

It's simple. When they say something critical of Hitlery they're just trying to influence an election, but if they say something that supports the left's dwindling hope of getting electors to violate their oath and vote for Hitlery it's totally believable and acceptable.

Right. And when the CIA and FBI and every other national security leader gets in front of congress and tell them they can't possibly vet refugees from Syria, Iraq and every other backwards Muslim controlled country they are dismissed. And prior when Obama is told if he pulls out of Iraq it will create a vacuum for Isis what does he do? He gets rid of those voices (that he appointed) and does it anyway, and dismisses their advice and says " JV team". Yeah, that all happened.

[naomi 356]

Here’s the Public Evidence Russia Hacked the DNC — It’s Not Enough

 

Excellent article.

 

Wading through what's being offered as evidence takes patience. The stakes are being ignored in this situation though, so this is what I think people can agree on:

 

"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process."

 

What’s missing is any evidence at all. If this federal confidence is based on evidence that’s being withheld from the public for any reason, that’s one thing — secrecy is their game. But if the U.S. Intelligence Community is asking the American electorate to believe them, to accept as true their claim that our most important civic institution was compromised by a longtime geopolitical nemesis, we need them to show us why.

 

The same goes for the CIA, which is now squaring off directly against Trump, claiming (through leaks to the Washington Post and New York Times) that the Russian government conducted the hacks for the express purpose of helping defeat Clinton. Days later, Senator John McCain agreed with the assessment, deeming it “another form of warfare.” Again, it’s completely possible (and probable, really) that the CIA possesses hard evidence that could establish Russian attribution — it’s their job to have such evidence, and often to keep it secret.

 

But what we’re presented with isn’t just the idea that these hacks happened, and that someone is responsible, and, well, I guess it’s just a shame. Our lawmakers and intelligence agencies are asking us to react to an attack that is almost military in nature — this is, we’re being told, “warfare.” When a foreign government conducts (or supports) an act of warfare against another country, it’s entirely possible that there will be an equal response. What we’re looking at now is the distinct possibility that the United States will consider military retaliation (digital or otherwise) against Russia, based on nothing but private sector consultants and secret intelligence agency notes. If you care about the country enough to be angry at the prospect of election-meddling, you should be terrified of the prospect of military tensions with Russia based on hidden evidence. You need not look too far back in recent history to find an example of when wrongly blaming a foreign government for sponsoring an attack on the U.S. has tremendously backfired.

 

We Need the Real Evidence, Right Now

 

It must be stated plainly: The U.S. intelligence community must make its evidence against Russia public if they want us to believe their claims. The integrity of our presidential elections is vital to the country’s survival; blind trust in the CIA is not. A governmental disclosure like this is also not entirely without precedent: In 2014, the Department of Justice produced a 56-page indictment detailing their exact evidence against a team of Chinese hackers working for the People’s Liberation Army, accused of stealing American trade secrets; each member was accused by name. The 2014 trade secret theft was a crime of much lower magnitude than election meddling, but what the DOJ furnished is what we should demand today from our country’s spies.

 

If the CIA does show its hand, we should demand to see the evidence that matters (which, according to Edward Snowden, the government probably has, if it exists). I asked Jeffrey Carr what he would consider undeniable evidence of Russian governmental involvement: “Captured communications between a Russian government employee and the hackers,” adding that attribution “should solely be handled by government agencies because they have the legal authorization to do what it takes to get hard evidence.”

Claudio Guarnieri concurred:

All in all, technical circumstantial attribution is acceptable only so far as it is to explain an attack. It most definitely isn’t for the political repercussions that we’re observing now. For that, only documental evidence that is verifiable or intercepts of Russian officials would be convincing enough, I suspect.