Who do you believe?

[Romeo]

Assange, or the CIA/NSA/FBI and so on?

[Patrick]

The internet of course.

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

Assange for now. I imagine the info coming from Washington will change when Obama's political operatives are on the sidewalk.

[Gavin_Sons]

Assange, or the CIA/NSA/FBI and so on?

Assange only because of his track record of being right. The CIA/NSA/FBI will spin it any way Obama wants it spun. The election was not hacked, the computers of the DNC were and e-mails released of how crooked they really are.

[Gavin_Sons]

Assange does look like a creeper though.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I think the bigger question is , what amount of evidence will cause you to believe our Intelligence orgs. ?

[Robert]

Assange for now

As for what evidence will it take to trust intelligence orgs, I'm sure they can provide any kind of intelligence to go any way the current potus wants.

I mean REALLY, you want us to trust organizations that have the charge to start riots and overthrow foreign powers by any means possible and another agency that said it found no wrong in Clinton's emails. I have a bridge for you cheap 

Or do you want to trust a guy that has nothing to loose and is being detained because of governments want to prosecute him or shut him up? Who already has a track record of revealing the lies of the current admin and its cronies. Who by the way Clintons emails would not have become such a big issue.


HHHHUUUUUUMMMMM lets see, its such a hard choice.

[Gavin_Sons]

I think the bigger question is , what amount of evidence will cause you to believe our Intelligence orgs. ?

they better have rock solid proof, not just assumptions like they have been doing. 

[The emperor has no clothes]

I think the bigger question is , what amount of evidence will cause you to believe our Intelligence orgs. ?

they better have rock solid proof, not just assumptions like they have been doing. 

So, I'm guessing for you no amount ?

[Gavin_Sons]

I think the bigger question is , what amount of evidence will cause you to believe our Intelligence orgs. ?

they better have rock solid proof, not just assumptions like they have been doing. 

So, I'm guessing for you no amount ?

read again, SOLID PROOF, NOT ASSUMPTIONS

[Serk]

I trust neither at face value, as with most things I'll take the evidence I can find, analyze the motives of the parties involved, and come to my own conclusion.

And my own conclusion is worth a hill of beans.

...and not the good beans either.

[3fan4life]

I think the bigger question is , what amount of evidence will cause you to believe our Intelligence orgs. ?

These are the same organizations that told us there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. 

[The emperor has no clothes]

I think the bigger question is , what amount of evidence will cause you to believe our Intelligence orgs. ?

These are the same organizations that told us there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. 

I understand that. There are some who still believe that, but don't believe the CIA in this instance. Probably some here. 

[Serk]

Basically, after Obama (pbuh) politicized and weaponized the IRS against those who disagree with Him, I don't trust ANYTHING that's under His control in any way.

[ridingron]

General way of evaluating such things.

Go to the source.

Follow the money.

Who came up with the info, who paid for it, who has the most to gain from it. Not that tough.

[baldo]

I think the bigger question is , what amount of evidence will cause you to believe our Intelligence orgs. ?

These are the same organizations that told us there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. 

[Romeo]

I think the bigger question is , what amount of evidence will cause you to believe our Intelligence orgs. ?

I repeat. Do you believe Assange, or The CIA/NSA/FBI?

[Romeo]

I think the bigger question is , what amount of evidence will cause you to believe our Intelligence orgs. ?

These are the same organizations that told us there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. 

so, Am I to assume you believe Assange? Just askin'

[The emperor has no clothes]

I think the bigger question is , what amount of evidence will cause you to believe our Intelligence orgs. ?

I repeat. Do you believe Assange, or The CIA/NSA/FBI?

I believe the hacked emails are real. I believe when Assange said the info didn't come from the Russians, he was disengenous at best. If the Russians gave them to a middleman to give to Wikileaks, then in my mind they came from the Russians. I believe our Intelligence Orgs. with a high degree of certainty. Not close to 100% . I do believe if they have eavesdropping that caught them celebrating Trumps victory they are probably happy with themselves. I believe as my friend Willow pointed out the other day, I'm not so concerned with the illegality of it as I am with preventative measures.
 So I guess to sum it up, yes and no.

[Wizzard]

Why would the Russians want Trump in instead of Hillary? Explain that to me. She was the one that brokered the Plutonium deal!
I hope the next election that our country interferes in we get sanctioned.
Why did they not hack the Republican emails?
Why is the election hacking now only a problem since Trump is elected. 3 months ago Obama said himself that hacking allegations were silly. Why the sudden 180  now?

many many questions unanswered

[Serk]

Why would the Russians want Trump in instead of Hillary? Explain that to me.

Because she was pushing for a shooting war with Russia.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/25/hillary-clinton-syria-no-fly-zones-russia-us-war

[Willow]

I believe the Serk.  Everyone else is suspect.

The boss of the CIA, FBA, and NSA has been caught openly lying.  Assange has not.

Assange did not really say that the Russians did not intercept the emails.  He very carefully said, "Our client is not a state."  That would not rule out the Russians providing the information to an individual who provided it to Assange.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I believe the Serk.  Everyone else is suspect.

The boss of the CIA, FBA, and NSA has been caught openly lying.  Assange has not.

Assange did not really say that the Russians did not intercept the emails.  He very carefully said, "Our client is not a state."  That would not rule out the Russians providing the information to an individual who provided it to Assange.

Doubletalk by Assange then. Serk is suspect also. 

[Serk]

Heck, I don't believe Serk most of the time!

[The emperor has no clothes]

Heck, I don't believe Serk most of the time!

[Pete]

If that is the choice:
I guess Assange, as he has not been caught lying that I know of.

[Willow]

Doubletalk by Assange then. Serk is suspect also. 

Double talk?   You do jump to a great number of unsupported conclusions.  I don't thin I in any way expressed that Assange would have to know that the emails were obtained through Russian activity or even that they must have been.

So many of us choose to believe what matches and supports what we already want to believe.  That applies to you and to me.  To some extent it may apply to the CIA, the FBI and the NSA.

I don't believe the so called intelligence agencies have specifically said that the emails were stolen by the Russians.  They have said that their indicators point to the Russians but they are still speculating.

Truth was exposed.  No one has denied that.  When truth is exposed I'm disinclined to be overly concerned with who exposed it.  I'm more concerned about who intended to hide it.  

[Romeo]

Doubletalk by Assange then. Serk is suspect also. 

Double talk?   You do jump to a great number of unsupported conclusions.  I don't thin I in any way expressed that Assange would have to know that the emails were obtained through Russian activity or even that they must have been.

So many of us choose to believe what matches and supports what we already want to believe.  That applies to you and to me.  To some extent it may apply to the CIA, the FBI and the NSA.

I don't believe the so called intelligence agencies have specifically said that the emails were stolen by the Russians.  They have said that their indicators point to the Russians but they are still speculating.

Truth was exposed.  No one has denied that.  When truth is exposed I'm disinclined to be overly concerned with who exposed it.  I'm more concerned about who intended to hide it.  

ditto that Willow

[The emperor has no clothes]

Doubletalk by Assange then. Serk is suspect also. 

Double talk?   You do jump to a great number of unsupported conclusions.  I don't thin I in any way expressed that Assange would have to know that the emails were obtained through Russian activity or even that they must have been.

So many of us choose to believe what matches and supports what we already want to believe.  That applies to you and to me.  To some extent it may apply to the CIA, the FBI and the NSA.

I don't believe the so called intelligence agencies have specifically said that the emails were stolen by the Russians.  They have said that their indicators point to the Russians but they are still speculating.

Truth was exposed.  No one has denied that.  When truth is exposed I'm disinclined to be overly concerned with who exposed it.  I'm more concerned about who intended to hide it.  

Supposedly Wikileaks and its founder Assange are diligent in determining the accuracy of their info. If that is true, do you believe he would not determine where the info came from ? If I were to receive 20 million from a bank robber. Then I were to give you 20 million. Would you not now be engaged in double talk if you told a news agency that you didn't receive any money from a bank robber ?

[Wizzard]

Doubletalk by Assange then. Serk is suspect also. 

Double talk?   You do jump to a great number of unsupported conclusions.  I don't thin I in any way expressed that Assange would have to know that the emails were obtained through Russian activity or even that they must have been.

So many of us choose to believe what matches and supports what we already want to believe.  That applies to you and to me.  To some extent it may apply to the CIA, the FBI and the NSA.

I don't believe the so called intelligence agencies have specifically said that the emails were stolen by the Russians.  They have said that their indicators point to the Russians but they are still speculating.

Truth was exposed.  No one has denied that.  When truth is exposed I'm disinclined to be overly concerned with who exposed it.  I'm more concerned about who intended to hide it.  

Supposedly Wikileaks and its founder Assange are diligent in determining the accuracy of their info. If that is true, do you believe he would not determine where the info came from ? If I were to receive 20 million from a bank robber. Then I were to give you 20 million. Would you not now be engaged in double talk if you told a news agency that you didn't receive any money from a bank robber ?

So Exactly what should he have done with the info given him? He may really not know the source. Is he supposed to incriminate himself? Is that what you would do?

[Bighead]

Doubletalk by Assange then. Serk is suspect also. 

Double talk?   You do jump to a great number of unsupported conclusions.  I don't thin I in any way expressed that Assange would have to know that the emails were obtained through Russian activity or even that they must have been.

So many of us choose to believe what matches and supports what we already want to believe.  That applies to you and to me.  To some extent it may apply to the CIA, the FBI and the NSA.

I don't believe the so called intelligence agencies have specifically said that the emails were stolen by the Russians.  They have said that their indicators point to the Russians but they are still speculating.

Truth was exposed.  No one has denied that.  When truth is exposed I'm disinclined to be overly concerned with who exposed it.  I'm more concerned about who intended to hide it.  

Supposedly Wikileaks and its founder Assange are diligent in determining the accuracy of their info. If that is true, do you believe he would not determine where the info came from ? If I were to receive 20 million from a bank robber. Then I were to give you 20 million. Would you not now be engaged in double talk if you told a news agency that you didn't receive any money from a bank robber ?

180* turnaround once again

[Gavin_Sons]

Doubletalk by Assange then. Serk is suspect also. 

Double talk?   You do jump to a great number of unsupported conclusions.  I don't thin I in any way expressed that Assange would have to know that the emails were obtained through Russian activity or even that they must have been.

So many of us choose to believe what matches and supports what we already want to believe.  That applies to you and to me.  To some extent it may apply to the CIA, the FBI and the NSA.

I don't believe the so called intelligence agencies have specifically said that the emails were stolen by the Russians.  They have said that their indicators point to the Russians but they are still speculating.

Truth was exposed.  No one has denied that.  When truth is exposed I'm disinclined to be overly concerned with who exposed it.  I'm more concerned about who intended to hide it.  

Supposedly Wikileaks and its founder Assange are diligent in determining the accuracy of their info. If that is true, do you believe he would not determine where the info came from ? If I were to receive 20 million from a bank robber. Then I were to give you 20 million. Would you not now be engaged in double talk if you told a news agency that you didn't receive any money from a bank robber ?

180* turnaround once again

No way  gotta admit, Meathead is the best I know at turning what was said 180.

[Moonshot_1]

I don't believe anyone.

First, the Problem with the Intel agencies is that they are allowing the narrative of Russia Hacking the Election to support Trump.

That is, and has been, smoke and mirrors in collusion with the media.

There was no hacking of the Election. In the middle of their narrative they quietly say that, but the headline is always shouted out "The Russian's hacked the election!"

What was hacked was the computers at the DNC and their network along with the computers of some high level Democrat operatives. Their email correspondence was made public revealing rampant corruption and fraud. Revealing lax computer security procedures with Classified information in the mix.

Can the intel community convince me that the Russians were behind this? Probably not. The politics have made their opinions toxic. Their comments and even the testimony given at the Senate hearing was cryptic at times.  

What would have had me on the side of the intel community is them coming out and saying exactly what this is, lax cyber security standards at the DNC. That it would be ridiculous to consider this hacking the election and that there was no effect on the election whatsoever.

There are a number of things I don't like about the Russian narrative.

1. The time line. Russia was supposed to be doing this hacking to support Trump. Published reports have the hacking, and the possibility of Russian involvement at least as early as March 2016. Trump wasn't the nominee till June. Wasn't even the presumptive nominee till late May.

2. The hacking operation is pretty sophomoric. If the Russians were in fact out to support Trump we would have seen fabricated emails, a media doing a 180 on supporting Trump, and support of correspondence in the GOP. We saw no fabricated emails, the media was going after Trump like rabid dogs, and the GOP cursed near disowned him everyday. This does not make sense.

3. Of all the candidates, a Trump administration would be the greatest strategic threat to Russia.
Take the last 4. Trump, Cruz, Clinton and Sanders.

Trump is a great unknown foreign policy wise. Coming off his campaign as a Hawk with plans on beefing up our Military and economy.

Cruz is Hawkish as well, supports a beef up of the Military. Politics are a known factor

Hillary is a known factor politically. Likely to follow the current Obama foreign policies that allowed Russia into Crimea, Ukraine, and Syria virtually with no serious push back.

Sanders...Russia dreams about an America with leadership like his. A certain pushover. Destined to deplete the US economically and militarily.

So the Russian narrative doesn't make sense to me.

I do believe that the entity that did hack the DNC and others did so with programing of Russian design.
But that is accessible to a lot of people.

So who do I think was behind the hacking?

Israel. And for good reason.

1. The Obama administration meddled in the Israeli election in 2015. Their attempt to unseat Netanyahu failed but it was not a secret that the Obama Administration had involved themselves, with taxpayer monies to fund the attempt.

2. The hacking began in March 2016. So the timeline to undermine the Clinton Campaign and the Obama legacy is good.

3. The response was proportional. The Obama Administration only focused on ousting Netanyahu.
Israel focused only the Clinton Campaign.

4. Clinton as Sec. of State pursued policies that tended to be unfavorable to Israel in regard to peace negotiations.

5. Clinton, via her Foundation, received 10s of millions of dollars from Arab countries that are historically considered Israel's adversaries.

And then she runs for President. Imagine Putin and Imagine Netanyahu. Who you think is freaking out more?

6. Israel's cyberwar ability is unmatched worldwide.

7. I believe the Obama Administration recently figured this out and that was what was behind the UN abstention.

8. This will likely not be in the public domain for a number of reasons. One of which is that the Obama Administration would have to explain why the US was actively meddling in a foreign election. Of one of our closest allies no less.

9. The Israeli intel services simply used Russian programing codes to do the hacking.
Our intel guys assumed the Russians because of the programing used but just couldn't nail it down.

I'm betting they know now and can't say anything about it.

Game set match Israel.


 

[baldo]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/intelligence-report-russia-hack-election_us_586fed0fe4b02b5f8588b94a

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/us/politics/donald-trump-transition.html

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/06/politics/trump-russia-intelligence-briefing/

Lots more out there....

And ever wonder why there were no 'reported hacking' of the repubs? Could it be that Putin likes to keep that dagger over Trump's head?

[Gavin_Sons]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/intelligence-report-russia-hack-election_us_586fed0fe4b02b5f8588b94a

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/us/politics/donald-trump-transition.html

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/06/politics/trump-russia-intelligence-briefing/

Lots more out there....

And ever wonder why there were no 'reported hacking' of the repubs? Could it be that Putin likes to keep that dagger over Trump's head?

It could be because they tried and there was nothing there. And who says Russia did anything? Angry speculation from O?

[G-Man]

After Holder and now Lynch, Lerner, Comey, Clinton, Kerry, Hussein himself, and every WH press sec'y since Dana Perino have been caught in such tremendous lies, so often, I believe nothing of what I hear and not much more of what I see. 

Unlike a democrat, I don't want corruption and lies in my gov't.

[Moonshot_1]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/intelligence-report-russia-hack-election_us_586fed0fe4b02b5f8588b94a

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/us/politics/donald-trump-transition.html

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/06/politics/trump-russia-intelligence-briefing/

Lots more out there....

And ever wonder why there were no 'reported hacking' of the repubs? Could it be that Putin likes to keep that dagger over Trump's head?

The reason there was no reported hacking of the GOP?

Because the GOP had the FBI review their computer systems and networks early on. They invited the FBI to do that.
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/pj-gladnick/2016/12/11/reince-priebus-nails-chuck-todd-whether-rnc-hacked-russia


The DNC rejected the offer by the FBI. The relative matter is at the end of the article.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/06/intel-report-says-putin-ordered-campaign-to-influence-us-election.html

[MP]

What should Israel do to us? Our state department spent a lot of money to defeat their prime minister. Why is it OK for us to interfere in foreign elections, and go ballistic I'd anyone returns the favor?

[Pappy!]

I am a firm believer that, after Comey did his song and dance and pissed off about everyone that worked for him that someone under him passed these along to Wiki. Wonder if Comey knew about it. Maybe he was pissed about having to lay off the Hildabeast and this was his way of getting even? Those folks should be able to cover their tracks pretty well. Imagine the scandal if it were true and it got out that our own FBi was the source...lol Would make O'Idiot look pretty bad, wouldn't it? What to do? Make it look like the Russians did it and let it go away.

[TallRider]

Lets see if I understand the storyline here correctly from the left?  In times past when evidence is obtained by means of some undercover agent or snitch. A criminal or group is convicted or exposed by means of that evidence is put in jail that is OK. Today if a criminal or some unscrupulous person or group is exposed by means of accessing their email or personal data that is foul  play. The voice recording of Trump bragging in that bus was obtained scrupulously  as well but no foul there. There was a lot of torpedoing going on on both sides.  Hey the best candidate won What's  the problem. I was intelligent enough to sort out the issues. No  stinkin  russians swayed me. I know there are privacy laws today and there is need for security and personal privacy. I voted based on the platform of change and prosperity for all. Not the same Ole thing. As to the Intel report am still sceptical of especially the current administration.