Wordle - daily game
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - Apr 17, 2024 - 8:02pm
NYTimes Connections
- geoff_morphini - Apr 17, 2024 - 7:06pm
April 2024 Photo Theme - Happenstance
- haresfur - Apr 17, 2024 - 7:04pm
Trump
- kurtster - Apr 17, 2024 - 6:58pm
Europe
- haresfur - Apr 17, 2024 - 6:47pm
Country Up The Bumpkin
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Apr 17, 2024 - 5:23pm
Name My Band
- GeneP59 - Apr 17, 2024 - 3:27pm
Radio Paradise Comments
- GeneP59 - Apr 17, 2024 - 3:21pm
What's that smell?
- Isabeau - Apr 17, 2024 - 2:50pm
USA! USA! USA!
- R_P - Apr 17, 2024 - 1:48pm
Business as Usual
- black321 - Apr 17, 2024 - 1:48pm
Things that make you go Hmmmm.....
- dischuckin - Apr 17, 2024 - 1:29pm
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum
- VV - Apr 17, 2024 - 1:26pm
Russia
- R_P - Apr 17, 2024 - 1:14pm
Israel
- R_P - Apr 17, 2024 - 11:55am
Science in the News
- Red_Dragon - Apr 17, 2024 - 11:14am
Magic Eye optical Illusions
- Proclivities - Apr 17, 2024 - 10:08am
Ukraine
- kurtster - Apr 17, 2024 - 10:05am
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos
- Alchemist - Apr 17, 2024 - 9:38am
Song of the Day
- black321 - Apr 17, 2024 - 9:25am
Just for the Haiku of it. . .
- oldviolin - Apr 17, 2024 - 9:01am
HALF A WORLD
- oldviolin - Apr 17, 2024 - 8:52am
NY Times Strands
- Bill_J - Apr 17, 2024 - 8:45am
Today in History
- Red_Dragon - Apr 17, 2024 - 6:24am
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- oldviolin - Apr 16, 2024 - 9:08pm
Little known information... maybe even facts
- R_P - Apr 16, 2024 - 3:29pm
songs that ROCK!
- thisbody - Apr 16, 2024 - 10:56am
260,000 Posts in one thread?
- oldviolin - Apr 16, 2024 - 10:10am
WTF??!!
- rgio - Apr 16, 2024 - 5:23am
Australia has Disappeared
- haresfur - Apr 16, 2024 - 4:58am
Earthquake
- miamizsun - Apr 16, 2024 - 4:46am
It's the economy stupid.
- miamizsun - Apr 16, 2024 - 4:28am
TV shows you watch
- Manbird - Apr 15, 2024 - 7:28pm
Live Music
- oldviolin - Apr 15, 2024 - 2:06pm
Republican Party
- Isabeau - Apr 15, 2024 - 12:12pm
Vinyl Only Spin List
- kurtster - Apr 14, 2024 - 11:59am
Eclectic Sound-Drops
- thisbody - Apr 14, 2024 - 11:27am
Synchronization
- ReggieDXB - Apr 13, 2024 - 11:40pm
Other Medical Stuff
- geoff_morphini - Apr 13, 2024 - 7:54am
What Did You See Today?
- Steely_D - Apr 13, 2024 - 6:42am
Photos you have taken of your walks or hikes.
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Apr 12, 2024 - 3:50pm
Things You Thought Today
- Red_Dragon - Apr 12, 2024 - 3:05pm
Poetry Forum
- oldviolin - Apr 12, 2024 - 8:45am
Dear Bill
- oldviolin - Apr 12, 2024 - 8:16am
Radio Paradise in Foobar2000
- gvajda - Apr 11, 2024 - 6:53pm
The Obituary Page
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Apr 11, 2024 - 2:33pm
Mixtape Culture Club
- ColdMiser - Apr 11, 2024 - 8:29am
Joe Biden
- black321 - Apr 11, 2024 - 7:43am
New Song Submissions system
- MayBaby - Apr 11, 2024 - 6:29am
No TuneIn Stream Lately
- kurtster - Apr 10, 2024 - 6:26pm
Caching to Apple watch quit working
- email-muri.0z - Apr 10, 2024 - 6:25pm
April 8th Partial Solar Eclipse
- Alchemist - Apr 10, 2024 - 10:52am
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- orrinc - Apr 10, 2024 - 10:48am
NPR Listeners: Is There Liberal Bias In Its Reporting?
- black321 - Apr 9, 2024 - 2:11pm
Sonos
- rnstory - Apr 9, 2024 - 10:43am
RP Windows Desktop Notification Applet
- gvajda - Apr 9, 2024 - 9:55am
If not RP, what are you listening to right now?
- kurtster - Apr 8, 2024 - 10:34am
And the good news is....
- thisbody - Apr 8, 2024 - 3:57am
How do I get songs into My Favorites
- Huey - Apr 7, 2024 - 11:29pm
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously
- R_P - Apr 7, 2024 - 5:14pm
Lyrics that strike a chord today...
- Isabeau - Apr 7, 2024 - 12:50pm
Dialing 1-800-Manbird
- oldviolin - Apr 7, 2024 - 11:18am
Why is Mellow mix192kbps?
- dean2.athome - Apr 7, 2024 - 1:11am
Musky Mythology
- haresfur - Apr 6, 2024 - 7:11pm
China
- R_P - Apr 6, 2024 - 11:19am
Artificial Intelligence
- R_P - Apr 5, 2024 - 12:45pm
Vega4 - Bullets
- nirgivon - Apr 5, 2024 - 11:50am
Environment
- thisbody - Apr 5, 2024 - 9:37am
How's the weather?
- geoff_morphini - Apr 5, 2024 - 8:37am
Frequent drop outs (The Netherlands)
- Babylon - Apr 5, 2024 - 8:37am
share song
- dkraybil - Apr 5, 2024 - 8:37am
Love & Hate
- miamizsun - Apr 5, 2024 - 5:37am
iOS borked
- RPnate1 - Apr 4, 2024 - 2:13pm
Won't Load Full Page - Just Music (Canada)
- RPnate1 - Apr 4, 2024 - 2:13pm
Playlist Unwieldy
- darrenthackeray - Apr 4, 2024 - 12:09pm
|
Index »
Radio Paradise/General »
General Discussion »
Trump
|
Page: Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 977, 978, 979 ... 1139, 1140, 1141 Next |
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
Dec 22, 2016 - 10:02am |
|
he will get us all killed...
|
|
ScottN
Location: Half inch above the K/T boundary Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 21, 2016 - 9:45pm |
|
|
|
ScottN
Location: Half inch above the K/T boundary Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 21, 2016 - 9:17pm |
|
Red_Dragon wrote: Holding the evangelical/religious right is a major reason why Pence was on the ticket, imo.
|
|
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
Dec 21, 2016 - 8:00pm |
|
|
|
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
Dec 21, 2016 - 7:36pm |
|
|
|
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
Dec 21, 2016 - 6:19pm |
|
|
|
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
Dec 21, 2016 - 6:16pm |
|
|
|
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
Dec 21, 2016 - 4:32pm |
|
|
|
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
Dec 21, 2016 - 11:05am |
|
|
|
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
Dec 21, 2016 - 9:18am |
|
|
|
aflanigan
Location: At Sea Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 21, 2016 - 9:15am |
|
|
|
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
Dec 20, 2016 - 5:33pm |
|
|
|
kcar
|
Posted:
Dec 19, 2016 - 7:27pm |
|
Red_Dragon wrote: That's a long piece, I'm still soaking it in. However, I'd agree with it that the common journalistic response—we can blame this shocking election result entirely on the Democratic party and the press that overlooked Middle America—is inaccurate. It's easy to over-think the average American's level of intellectual engagement in campaigns. A lot of times it comes down to a gut reaction. I think a lot of Trump supporters just liked that Trump was calling BS on the whole presidential campaign system and the mealy-mouthed, sanitized personalities of the candidate. They got off on his politically incorrect outrageousness. They wanted Trump to start a bonfire in the middle of the high school campus. So no, I don't think that "the seething rage" was justified. As I've posted here many times, people have a right to be angry that they're struggling to find jobs, that their communities are declining, that they feel they're being left behind economically. But the Democrats under Obama tried hard to help them. Hillary had concrete plans to bring jobs back to struggling areas through infrastructure projects. All Trump has to offer is the bonfire and intolerance. Which makes me ask: did Trump's supporters really want economic help or just an angry guy ranting at the world? Look, it's quite possible that America will become more intolerant of minorities, more xenophobic, more in love with a would-be tyrant who claims he knows best how to fix the country, and more willing to ignore facts that don't fit into one's worldview. But are those trends really going to help create more jobs, lift wages, reduce income inequality, or bring back political power to people who feel left out? The answer is no. Right now it seems like Trump supporters are happy that their ranting guy won. They don't seem too concerned that Trump is on course to set up crony capitalism that won't help create jobs for the little guy. Which will leave most Trump supporters still stuck in the sh-t. But hey, at least they have a white guy as President who's dog-whistling the bigoted tune they want to hear. To Trump supporters I say: good luck with that! Trump has just scammed you the worst you've ever been scammed. Red_Dragon, you might also like this Paul Krugman piece: How Republics End But now we have a president-elect who openly asked Russia to help smear his opponent, and all indications are that the bulk of his party was and is just fine with that...Winning domestic political struggles is all that matters, the good of the republic be damned.And what happens to the republic as a result? Famously, on paper the transformation of Rome from republic to empire never happened. Officially, imperial Rome was still ruled by a Senate that just happened to defer to the emperor, whose title originally just meant “commander,” on everything that mattered. We may not go down exactly the same route — although are we even sure of that? — but the process of destroying democratic substance while preserving forms is already underway.
...
My question, instead, is why one party’s politicians and officials no longer seem to care about what we used to think were essential American values. And let’s be clear: This is a Republican story, not a case of “both sides do it.”
...
But what directly drives the attack on democracy, I’d argue, is simple careerism on the part of people who are apparatchiks within a system insulated from outside pressures by gerrymandered districts, unshakable partisan loyalty, and lots and lots of plutocratic financial support.
|
|
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
Dec 19, 2016 - 6:25pm |
|
|
|
kcar
|
Posted:
Dec 18, 2016 - 10:29pm |
|
kurtster wrote:Here, try this on for size ... Exclusive: Top U.S. spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hacking - sourcesReuters Tue Dec 13, 2016 | 9:36pm EST The CIA conclusion was a "judgment based on the fact that Russian entities hacked both Democrats and Republicans and only the Democratic information was leaked," one of the three officials said on Monday."(It was) a thin reed upon which to base an analytical judgment," the official added. And yes, the WSJ is far superior and the most trusted news source by all sides of political persuasion. I need to finish this up for the night very soon, but here: You argued that " Adding to this, the FBI has confirmed the the RNC was not hacked in spite of many attempts. That is why we only have info from the Democratic side of the fence."
I took issue with that. Having looked over your same post, btw, I also disagree with your statement that "What the most likely source of all the DNC info, other than Podesta's emails which were accessed in the method you described above, is a DNC insider who supported Sanders and got all of the dirt out into the sunshine for all to see as revenge for rigging the primaries for Hillary and against Bernie." You pointed me to a WSJ piece that stated the RNC was not hacked. I commented on that piece. You pointed me to the Reuters piece. I am quoting below from that piece. While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named.
...
An ODNI spokesman declined to comment on the issue. "ODNI is not arguing that the agency (CIA) is wrong, only that they can't prove intent," said one of the three U.S. officials. "Of course they can't, absent agents in on the decision-making in Moscow." The Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose evidentiary standards require it to make cases that can stand up in court, declined to accept the CIA's analysis - a deductive assessment of the available intelligence - for the same reason, the three officials said.
...The CIA assessed after the election that the attacks on political organizations were aimed at swaying the vote for Trump because the targeting of Republican organizations diminished toward the end of the summer and focused on Democratic groups, a senior U.S. official told Reuters on Friday. Moreover, only materials filched from Democratic groups - such as emails stolen from John Podesta, the Clinton campaign chairman - were made public via WikiLeaks, the anti-secrecy organization, and other outlets, U.S. officials said. "THIN REED" The CIA conclusion was a "judgment based on the fact that Russian entities hacked both Democrats and Republicans and only the Democratic information was leaked," one of the three officials said on Monday. "(It was) a thin reed upon which to base an analytical judgment," the official added.
kurtster, please note that the excerpt from the Reuters piece that you included in your post—namely,
The CIA conclusion was a "judgment based on the fact that Russian entities hacked both Democrats and Republicans and only the Democratic information was leaked," one of the three officials said on Monday.
indicates that ODNI agrees that the Russian "entities" hacked the Republicans as well as the Democrats.
The Reuters article reports that ODNI does agree with the CIA that Russians hacked both parties. ODNI does not agree about the CIA's assessment of INTENT, that the "Russian entities" were trying to swing the election to Trump. The FBI did not agree with the CIA's statement about the hackers' intent because the CIA could not prove intent, which apparently the FBI focuses on during investigations since the Bureau seeks to build criminal cases during investigations, cases that rely heavily on evidence of intent.
ODNI is not willing to accept the CIA's conclusion as to the intent of the Russian entities. You and I were not discussing that subject of intent—we were arguing as to whether the RNC got hacked. Kaw and I were not discussing that subject either—Kaw does not believe that Russian entities were involved in the relevant hacking of American computer systems. I disagree with him.
I also disagree with the alternative explanations about the hacking that you and Kaw provide. For instance, I have read no work of journalism reporting that a disgruntled DNC insider leaked DNC material outside of Podesta's emails. If you have a news link supporting your notion, please supply it.
Finally, I would not rely on Web-based surveys for accurate measurement of anything. That chart you posted has more significance for a discussion about PERCEPTIONS of trustworthiness amongst the news-gathering public than it does for any serious, scientific assessment of the reliability or accuracy of any of those news organizations. Perceptions about news organizations are not necessarily facts.
Your chart points to opinions on trustworthiness that were not gathered in a statistically reliable manner as far as I can tell. Your chart does not point to any attempt to accurately and impartially measure how well the news organizations perform. It would really be great if the WSJ piece could supply a little more hard information. I hope that piece you pointed me to was not the best that the paper can do because that piece was not great journalism. I freely admit that I don't read it much since I don't have a subscription. Finally, again, you may be right the hackers didn't get much at all from the RNC. But it does seem from what you and I have read that the CIA, FBI and ODNI agree that the RNC got hacked. I think we can both agree that the DNC needs to learn a lot about how it handles cybersecurity. Good night.
|
|
kurtster
Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 18, 2016 - 9:50pm |
|
kcar wrote:kurtster, are you claiming that in general the WSJ is a better source than the NY Times, CNN or the Washington Post? I would strongly disagree with such a sweeping claim. The WSJ piece may be accurate, but it doesn't name the "US officials" sources or specify whether they work for the federal government. In fact, there are almost no names or vaguely identifying details as to the piece's sources. The piece also does not directly rebut or address statements by the FBI and CIA that hackers supported by the Russian government obtained computer-based data from the RNC and Republican individuals. Here's a sentence from the piece: A senior U.S. official said analysts now believe what started as an information-gathering campaign aimed at both parties later took on a focus of leaked emails about Mrs. Clinton and Democrats.
The piece gives no indication as to which agency, department or branch the "senior US official" belongs. And the analysts are...where? CIA? FBI? NSA? Here's another goof: A third person familiar with the investigation said RNC staff members didn’t realize they had been the target of spies until June, after Democratic committee leaders revealed that hackers had successfully gained a foothold inside their networks.
The piece failed to point to a specific first or second person before the above sentence. Another excerpt below...Where are the names of the RNC officials? Why would they want to keep their names off the record? What is the name of the "private computer security firm"? The piece you've pointed me to is deficient on even modest descriptions of its sources and seems to have been inadequately edited. RNC officials, concerned they too might have been compromised, called a private computer security firm, which in turn called the FBI and obtained information about what kinds of malicious emails to look for, the person said. Upon inspection, the RNC found that its electronic filters had blocked emails sent to a former employee matching the description they’d been warned about.Sorry about the broken link. Let's see if the WaPo link works this time: FBI in agreement with CIA that Russia aimed to help Trump win White House https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-blames-putins-personal-grudge-against-her-for-election-interference/2016/12/16/12f36250-c3be-11e6-8422-eac61c0ef74d_story.html?utm_term=.e42bf71a31be Here, try this on for size ... Exclusive: Top U.S. spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hacking - sourcesReuters Tue Dec 13, 2016 | 9:36pm EST The CIA conclusion was a "judgment based on the fact that Russian entities hacked both Democrats and Republicans and only the Democratic information was leaked," one of the three officials said on Monday."(It was) a thin reed upon which to base an analytical judgment," the official added. And yes, the WSJ is far superior and the most trusted news source by all sides of political persuasion.
|
|
kcar
|
Posted:
Dec 18, 2016 - 9:46pm |
|
kurtster wrote: With all due respect, I based my statement on a far better and more credible source than the ones you offered, the Wall Street Journal. And your WaPo article is not available.
kurtster, are you claiming that in general the WSJ is a better source than the NY Times, CNN or the Washington Post? I would strongly disagree with such a sweeping claim. The WSJ piece may be accurate, but it doesn't name the "US officials" sources or specify whether they work for the federal government. In fact, there are almost no names or even vaguely identifying details as to the piece's sources. The piece also does not directly rebut or address statements by the FBI and CIA that hackers supported by the Russian government obtained computer-based data from the RNC and Republican individuals. Also, the editing of this article is poor—see below. Here's a sentence from the piece: A senior U.S. official said analysts now believe what started as an information-gathering campaign aimed at both parties later took on a focus of leaked emails about Mrs. Clinton and Democrats.
The piece gives no indication as to which agency, department or branch the "senior US official" belongs. And the analysts are...where? CIA? FBI? NSA? Here's another goof: A third person familiar with the investigation said RNC staff members didn’t realize they had been the target of spies until June, after Democratic committee leaders revealed that hackers had successfully gained a foothold inside their networks.
The piece failed to point to a first or second person before the above sentence. Another excerpt below...Where are the names of the RNC officials? Why would they want to keep their names off the record? What is the name of the "private computer security firm"? RNC officials, concerned they too might have been compromised, called a private computer security firm, which in turn called the FBI and obtained information about what kinds of malicious emails to look for, the person said. Upon inspection, the RNC found that its electronic filters had blocked emails sent to a former employee matching the description they’d been warned about.
If this truly is a WSJ piece, it's provided very little detail to back up its claims.
Sorry about the broken WaPo link. Let's see if it works this time: FBI in agreement with CIA that Russia aimed to help Trump win White House https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-blames-putins-personal-grudge-against-her-for-election-interference/2016/12/16/12f36250-c3be-11e6-8422-eac61c0ef74d_story.html?utm_term=.e42bf71a31be
|
|
kurtster
Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 18, 2016 - 9:07pm |
|
kcar wrote: Your statement is not correct.
With all due respect, I based my statement on a far better and more credible source than the ones you offered, the Wall Street Journal. And your WaPo article is not available. Republican National Committee Security Foiled Russian Hackers Updated Dec. 16, 2016 12:27 a.m. ET {The only way to read the full article (unless you have subscription access to the WSJ) is to highlight the headline, search it on google and then enter it through google.} Russian hackers tried to penetrate the computer networks of the Republican National Committee, using the same techniques that allowed them to infiltrate its Democratic counterpart, according to U.S. officials who have been briefed on the attempted intrusion.But the intruders failed to get past security defenses on the RNC’s computer networks, the officials said. ... The possibility that Russians tried and failed to infiltrate the RNC doesn’t necessarily conflict with the CIA’s conclusion. A senior U.S. official said analysts now believe what started as an information-gathering campaign aimed at both parties later took on a focus of leaked emails about Mrs. Clinton and Democrats. ... Mr. Trump has discounted the U.S. intelligence assessments and disparaged intelligence officials. In a Twitter message Thursday, he wrote: “If Russia, or some other entity, was hacking, why did the White House wait so long to act? Why did they only complain after Hillary lost?” ... Until now, few details had been disclosed about the nature of the targeting of Republican organizations, especially the flagship Republican National Committee, where hackers sent so-called phishing emails last spring to an email address there. Those emails were quarantined by a filter meant to detect spam as well as potentially malicious traffic that may carry viruses or trick recipients into divulging passwords, two officials said. A third person familiar with the investigation said RNC staff members didn’t realize they had been the target of spies until June, after Democratic committee leaders revealed that hackers had successfully gained a foothold inside their networks. Once inside, they reportedly were able to access a trove of DNC opposition research on Mr. Trump, then a candidate. ...
RNC officials, concerned they too might have been compromised, called a private computer security firm, which in turn called the FBI and obtained information about what kinds of malicious emails to look for, the person said. Upon inspection, the RNC found that its electronic filters had blocked emails sent to a former employee matching the description they’d been warned about. The apparently successful blocking of a Russian espionage operation offers one possible explanation why the GOP’s main political organization didn’t suffer the same fate as its Democratic counterpart—a deluge of leaked emails revealing private correspondence and internal strategy. But the suspicion that Russians did try to break into the RNC, using the same techniques and tactics that worked so well on the Democrats, suggests that at least initially, they were trying to gather potentially incriminating or embarrassing information on both parties. And to rebut your WaPo statement ...
A few days after the Senate briefing, a senior FBI counterintelligence official briefed the House Intelligence Committee but was not as categorical as the CIA briefer about Russia’s intention to help Trump, according to officials who were present. The FBI official’s more cautious presentation of the intelligence to the House panel left some Republican and Democratic lawmakers in the room with the impression that the FBI disagreed with the CIA. Officials close to the FBI and the CIA now say that lawmakers had misunderstood Comey’s position. “The truth is they were never all that different in the first place,” an official said. Similarly, officials said, Clapper and Brennan saw the intelligence the same way. Just what meetings and when are being referred to in the above ? U.S. intelligence agencies feud with Republicans over Russian hackingReuters Fri Dec 16, 2016 | 4:21pm EST
Republican members of Congress are complaining that U.S. intelligence agencies are refusing to brief them widely on a classified CIA report that concluded Russia hacked Democratic Party data in an effort to help Donald Trump win the presidency. The Republicans said Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has refused their requests for full briefings of Congress' two intelligence committees. U.S. government officials said the leaders of Congress and the chairmen of the two intelligence committees, known as the "Gang of Eight," have been briefed on the Central Intelligence Agency's conclusion. Nevertheless, Representative Devin Nunes, the California Republican who chairs the House Intelligence Committee and is a member of President-elect Trump's transition team as well as the Gang of Eight, has called for a briefing for his entire committee on the CIA assessment. "The committee is vigorously looking into reports of cyber-attacks during the election campaign, and in particular we want to clarify press reports that the CIA has a new assessment that it has not shared with us," Nunes said.Representative Ron Johnson, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said his panel also has asked for a briefing but the CIA refused. "It is disappointing that the CIA would provide information on this issue to the Washington Post and NBC but will not provide information to elected members of Congress," Johnson said in a statement on Friday. Three U.S. government sources, who all asked for anonymity to discuss classified information, told Reuters that while the full congressional committees have not been briefed, the congressional leadership has, which is the standard procedure for briefing Congress on sensitive intelligence. The sources said that Nunes was personally briefed on the CIA finding. A congressional official denied Nunes was briefed, however. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) said in a statement that because President Barack Obama last week ordered the intelligence community to conduct a full-scale "review of foreign efforts to influence recent presidential elections – from 2008 to the present," the agencies would not comment further until the study is completed. I am very tired of anonymous sources.And lastly a summation ... Exclusive: Top U.S. spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hacking - sourcesReuters Tue Dec 13, 2016 | 9:36pm EST The CIA conclusion was a "judgment based on the fact that Russian entities hacked both Democrats and Republicans and only the Democratic information was leaked," one of the three officials said on Monday."(It was) a thin reed upon which to base an analytical judgment," the official added.
|
|
kcar
|
Posted:
Dec 18, 2016 - 8:30pm |
|
kurtster wrote: Your reply is spot on. And as Assange has said, his source is not Russian. I believe Assange.
Funny how no one has said any of the information revealed is made up or false. It is authentic.
What the most likely source of all the DNC info, other than Podesta's emails which were accessed in the method you described above, is a DNC insider who supported Sanders and got all of the dirt out into the sunshine for all to see as revenge for rigging the primaries for Hillary and against Bernie.
Until I see proof otherwise, this is what I am going to believe.
Adding to this, the FBI has confirmed the the RNC was not hacked in spite of many attempts. That is why we only have info from the Democratic side of the fence. The Democrats just don't know shit about cyber security. That is my story and I'm sticking to it.
Your statement is not correct. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html?_r=0 WASHINGTON — American intelligence agencies have concluded with “high confidence” that Russia acted covertly in the latter stages of the presidential campaign to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances and promote Donald J. Trump, according to senior administration officials. They based that conclusion, in part, on another finding — which they say was also reached with high confidence — that the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee’s computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks.
...
One senior government official, who had been briefed on an F.B.I. investigation into the matter, said that while there were attempts to penetrate the Republican committee’s systems, they were not successful. But the intelligence agencies’ conclusions that the hacking efforts were successful, which have been presented to President Obama and other senior officials, add a complex wrinkle to the question of what the Kremlin’s evolving objectives were in intervening in the American presidential election. “We now have high confidence that they hacked the D.N.C. and the R.N.C., and conspicuously released no documents” from the Republican organization, one senior administration official said, referring to the Russians. It is unclear how many files were stolen from the Republican committee; in some cases, investigators never get a clear picture. It is also far from clear that Russia’s original intent was to support Mr. Trump, and many intelligence officials — and former officials in Mrs. Clinton’s campaign — believe that the primary motive of the Russians was to simply disrupt the campaign and undercut confidence in the integrity of the vote.
See also this piece: http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/12/politics/gop-russia-hacking-trump/
Since most of the GOP material was not released, whereas the emails of Democratic Party groups and officials were made public, the intelligence community has growing confidence that hacking of US entities was meant to steer the US election toward Trump. In addition, there is evidence that entities connected to the Russian government were bankrolling "troll farms" that spread fake news about Clinton, according to the former official. Investigators also found digital footprints of individuals tied to the Russian government who had been on intelligence agencies' radar before, as was acknowledged when the intelligence agency put out a public statement in October.
See this 12/16/16 WaPo piece as well: FBI in agreement with CIA that Russia aimed to help Trump win White House
FBI Director James B. Comey and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. are in agreement with a CIA assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election in part to help Donald Trump win the White House, officials disclosed Friday, as President Obama issued a public warning to Moscow that it could face retaliation. New revelations about Comey’s position could put to rest suggestions by some lawmakers that the CIA and the FBI weren’t on the same page on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s intentions. ...
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 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. ... A few days after the Senate briefing, a senior FBI counterintelligence official briefed the House Intelligence Committee but was not as categorical as the CIA briefer about Russia’s intention to help Trump, according to officials who were present. The FBI official’s more cautious presentation of the intelligence to the House panel left some Republican and Democratic lawmakers in the room with the impression that the FBI disagreed with the CIA.
Officials close to the FBI and the CIA now say that lawmakers had misunderstood Comey’s position. “The truth is they were never all that different in the first place,” an official said. Similarly, officials said, Clapper and Brennan saw the intelligence the same way.
|
|
ScottFromWyoming
Location: Powell Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 18, 2016 - 8:02pm |
|
islander wrote: Wow. Cool-ish. In a strictly etymologically-speaking sort of way.
|
|
|