Trump voices new doubts about Russian efforts to sway U.S. vote

So in 2010 Trump wanted Assange to die-but now he takes his word as proof to support his agenda? Talk about fair weather fascism... But this goes to the heart of the matter, which with all politic aside-is a glaring example of how as a human being (not-lleft or right, but purely on a personal level) Trump is spectacularly unqualified to be president.

What national leader sends out Tweets that slam its own Intelligence Agencies??? The CIA has until Friday to produce a pop-up book that Trump can understand. #Sad.

Trump doubts Dutch investigators' and US intelligence agencies' conclusions that Russian separatists shot down the Malaysian airliner over Ukraine using a missile supplied by Russia.

Trump doubts US intelligence agencies' conclusions that the Russian government was behind the DNC hack.

Trump believes Julian Assange and Vladimir Putin. Trump believes 3 million illegals voted in the election because Alex Jones said so.

And Mike Pence simply doesn't have the moral integrity to disagree.

“Who are you going to believe?”

This is the post-truth era motto. Corporate media have long manipulated info; there’s no doubt about that. Individuals who want to find truth have had to sort through what’s been reported by various print and electronic outlets and use their reasoning skills to decide for themselves what they think is going on.

But whichever group (or groups) have demonized corporate media and have made MSM a pejorative, thereby convincing those with shallow reasoning skills that anything the MSM say can’t be true, have helped undermine institutions world wide. I’m not defending those institutions - most need to be overhauled and modernized, some even eliminated.

What’s worrisome is a consequence of the ‘who are you going to believe’ era is crackpot media are gaining stronger footholds on the minds (brains in their feet?) of those convinced the MSM are demonic. This has helped pave the way for demagogues to use crackpot media to manipulate their followers who are unable - for whatever reason - to see issues as having any complexity, as being no deeper than right-wrong, good-bad, my leader-your leader, us-them.

The manipulation of media should be especially worrisome when one of the richest (some say the richest) men in the world is a leader of a nation AND owns his own global media empire - and has groups like nashi trolling media worldwide pushing his agenda.

Assange himself publicly reiterated that he unequivocally did bot receive the emails from the Russian government.

I have no idea where the mails came from - Russia or otherwise.

But there are many reasons to not take Assange's word at face value, the least of which is that he may truly believe that the mails didn't come from Russia, not knowing that they did.

The point being that his comments on the mails not coming from Russia don't create absolute certainty that they didn't.

There is definitive NO PROOF of Russia's involvement in the hack.

Agreed.

There is definitive NO PROOF of Russia's involvement in the hack.

Really? Tell us, which are you, CIA, FBI, Homeland security or in the presidential inner circle? You must be in one of them to know all of the evidence to be able to definitively know that the proof doesn't exist.

Assange is also part of the vast Russian conspiracy.

Occam's razor, my friend. Trump is a man who spent years chasing the fantasy that Obama was born in Kenya yet is unwilling to accept the unified, confident conclusion of multiple intelligence agencies that Russia - which had the means, purpose, and precedent for the act and left behind a trail of verifiable digital fingerprints - was responsible.

There's a conspiracy all right, and Trump is part of it.

@RabidGaijin

There is definitive NO PROOF of Russia's involvement in the hack.

True, none has been provided to us. However, I believe lots of foreign govts, including Russia, had motive and opportunity. A "belief" is not proof, but that doesn't mean they didn't try.

Large claims require definitive proof. The USgovt hasn't provided any "proof" at this point. Their 13 page document is just smoke showing what thousands of server admins see daily. Nothing more.

I don't think they succeeded on any level, but that isn't the point.

There is definitive NO PROOF of Russia's involvement in the hack.

So, like Trump with his mysterious but as-yet undisclosed knowledge of "things," you too have an inside track on the hacking issue in a way that 17 separate intelligence agencies don't? Please, by all means, enlighten the ignorant masses.

Meanwhile, know that the 17 separate US intelligence agencies are comprised of the following:

o Air Force Intelligence o Army Intelligence o Central Intelligence Agency o Coast Guard Intelligence o Defense Intelligence Agency o Department of Energy o Department of Homeland Security o Department of State o Department of the Treasury o Drug Enforcement Administration o Federal Bureau of Investigation o Marine Corps Intelligence o National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency o National Reconnaissance Office o National Security Agency o Navy Intelligence o Office of the Director of National Intelligence

To suggest that all 17 of these agencies, both military and civilian, are conspiring to, what? undermine Trump? No, to point out that a foreign state committed a hostile act of interference against the Unites States' democratic system, is just political jockeying to appease a liberal base angry with Trump's squeak past the Electoral College into the White House? How daft do you really have to be?

You so-called conservatives are so bewilderingly inconsistent. You're usually so very Rah! Rah! Sis! Boom! Bah! when it comes to the US military. Support Our Troops!™ Yellow Ribbons! Mug Cups! Keychains! Respect Our Veterans! Team America! F#%k yeah!!

But when Trump insults our POWs or mocks Gold Star Families or calls the soldiers who make up the US Marine Corp, Coast Guard, Army, and Air Force Intelligence apparatuses liars at best, incompetent fools at worst, do you take issue? Do you stop and say, "Whoa, wait a sec, Mr. Trump. That's too far. These people form the backbone of what keeps America safe at night"?

No. Inexplicably, unfathomable, infuriatingly, you hypocritical fair-weather hacks waddle up to the mic with a predictable chorus of, "Hell, yeah! Trump's right on the money!"

Contemptible is too gentle a word for what describes your behavior these days.

I dont care where the information/emails came from. It was true and accurate information that the voters required to make their decision. So now that we think or know that Russia might have been involved in this, thank them for saving us from making a huge mistake with Clinton, and move on.

By move on I mean harden our systems so that they or anyone else can never get in again. We got lucky that the only thing disclosed last time was the truth, which was only inconvenient to the group that was lying.

LFRAgain: ... o Coast Guard Intelligence

Yes, I'm sure the Coast Guard Intelligence agency was all over the DNC's and Hillary's servers.

against 17 U.S. government intelligence agencies, outside cyber experts and lawmakers from both parties.

These are the same intelligence agencies which said Saddam possessed WMD. And many outside cypher experts are questioning any Russian links.

The problem with any agency in the government is that is is run by a presidential appointee, who, in exchange for his service, is usually repaid in one form or another after his or her term ends. That being the case, these people tend to tell the administration what the administration wants to hear, which, as we know from long experience, is often contrary to the truth.

And once again, this nonsense is all an attack on the messenger, and not an attack on the messages themselves, which were far more damaging. The leaked "documents" tell Hillary and her staff to dump their emails just days before they were to be subpoenaed. They show Bernie being tossed under the bus, they show Hillary trying to find ways for the Clinton foundation to continue collecting foreign contributions if she was elected, contrary to her promises not to do so. It shows the DNC as a crooked and corrupt organization which routinely lied and deceived. This being the case, whoever hacked and leaked the emails did the American people a great service.

'this nonsense is all an attack on the messenger, and not an attack on the messages themselves, whicih were far more damaging...'

Really? Hillary's email shenanigans are more damaging than any future outcomes of Trump's inexplicable warmth towards Vladimir Putin?

The other point ithat is often quoted is the failure of intelligence leading up to the Iraq war-and this is an arguement that is usually provided by the same people who supported the war-including Trump himself....where was the skepticism with the intelligence services from that particular quarter then?

And again Trump wanted Assange to get the death penalty in 2010 (despite the fact that Assange was neither an American citizen nor on American soil at the time) and now he quotes him as sufficient proof that the Russians did not hack the DNC? 'I want him dead...Wait, now I believe him'. 'Period..'

At the end of the day, the proof is in the borsht. Maybe, the intelligence services have got it wrong-but Trump certainly is no position to know that for sure. Trump knew Obama was a Kenyan muslim until he wasnt. 'Period'. Just as Trump knows without any shadow of a doubt that the Russians did not hack the DNC. Until it may behoove him to say it doesn't. 'Period'.

I just dont get what is the problem with releasing the TRUTH. Was anything faked or forged or altered? If so, no one involved has said so.

17 U.S. government intelligence agencies, outside cyber experts and lawmakers from both parties.

These are the same intelligence agencies which said Saddam possessed WMD.

So your theory is that there is a conspiracy between all 17 of these intelligence agencies?

Well Trump still believes Obama's birth certificate is fake, thousands of Muslims cheered in New Jersey, and 3,000,000 illegals voted for Hillary. I'm not sure why we'd think he'd believe and intelligence briefing over Putin/Assange.

Meet the new swamp.

And now they have released what they based this "assessment" on, a bunch of IP addresses that anyone could have used, over 300 of which were just Tor exit nodes.

Tor is great in theory, and for the most part will prevent someone from being tracked. But it's not absolute - there are various ways intelligence agencies track TOR users. Here's one: https://www.hackread.com/tracking-tor-users-with-mouse-movements/. There are others as well.

I have no idea what information these intelligence agencies have, nor what techniques they use. But to think they are going to release their methods to the public, and/or that 17 agencies are going to conspire to put it on the Russians, is a pretty wild theory. Not impossible, but highly doubtful.

Oh my...

Assange Confirms Russia Is not the Source of the DNC Leaks ( he ain't lyin', as opposed to Obama ):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L24uocNbv0o

LFRAgainJAN. 05, 2017 - 09:43AM JST But when Trump insults our POWs or mocks Gold Star Families or calls the soldiers who make up the US Marine Corp, Coast Guard, Army, and Air Force Intelligence apparatuses liars at best, incompetent fools at worst, do you take issue? Do you stop and say, "Whoa, wait a sec, Mr. Trump. That's too far. These people form the backbone of what keeps America safe at night"?

It's what happens when people value the power of Authority to control others over the Service of people toward their fellow human beings. The difference between fascism and patriotism in a nutshell.

@Serrano- you donn't know that...and five years ago you probably would have said Assange was 'lyin' because it fits your narrative. I certainly dont know who is lyin' anymore than you do...

Assange Confirms Russia Is not the Source of the DNC Leaks ( he ain't lyin', as opposed to Obama ):

I mentioned Assange earlier:

But there are many reasons to not take Assange's word at face value, the least of which is that he may truly believe that the mails didn't come from Russia, not knowing that they did.

Strangerland: I have no idea what information these intelligence agencies have, nor what techniques they use. But to think they are going to release their methods to the public, and/or that 17 agencies are going to conspire to put it on the Russians, is a pretty wild theory. Not impossible, but highly doubtful.

Remember......

52% of Trump supporters think Obama was born in Kenya. 46% believe Pizzagate. 62% think millions of illegals voted for Clinton.

What would make you believe this group wouldn't believe a wild theory about dozens of intelligence agencies and hundreds of intelligence workers lying, you know, just because?

WMD - They have already lied, in fact they colluded to lie in exactly the same fashion.

If I recall correctly, the CIA gave intelligence they had to Bush, but were clear that they didn't have confirmation on a lot of it, and that some of it was shaky, yet the administration decided to use it anyways. Not really the same as lying - lying would have been telling the administration they had no intel when they had some.

The fact that they haven't provided any evidence to support their claim and the fact that the provider of the leaked emails themselves, Mr. Assange, has gone on record verifying that the Russians were not the source of the leak, should settle the issue for any reasonable person right then and there.

They aren't going to provide their methods, nor can Assange's word be taken as-is.

'WMD-They have already lied, in fact they colluded to lie in exactly the same fashion'.

Highly doubtful as they were under a republican regime at the time...so it wouldn't have been in exactly the same fashion. They would have told republican lies. If they are lying now-which STILL remains to be seen-they will be lying in a democratic fashion....The notion that the intelligence services are completely impervious to the prevailing regime is a bit far fetched.

And now they have released what they based this "assessment" on, a bunch of IP addresses that anyone could have used, over 300 of which were just Tor exit nodes.

No, it's not based solely on "a bunch of IP addresses."

Here's a good article explaining why the intelligence community isn't coming forward with details on exactly how they know Russia was behind the hacks. While I'm confident some readers will dismiss it as all part of the "conspiracy" between 17 independent intelligence agencies, it's a reasonable assessment that makes sense to reasonable people.

Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/12/27/why-its-so-hard-to-prove-russia-was-behind-the-election-hacks/?utm_term=.da64715dc686

Something everyone seems to be ignoring is that Assange never says anything speaking to the original source of the content that made it's way to Wikileaks. Rather, he just says that the entity that gave the emails directly to Wikileaks was not a state actor. So, he can very well be telling the truth when he says that an alleged hacktivist, named, for example, FuzzyPuppy, who gave his organization the stolen emails is not a Russian government agent. But that's all he can say. He cannot -- and more importantly, did not speak to how those emails made their way to this hypothetical FuzzyPuppy. I'm fairly confident Wikileaks does not have either the resources or interest in tracking down the original sources of their content.

Meanwhile, since it was on the receiving end of a malicious hack, the US intelligence community most certainly could (and routinely does) backtrack hacks to their point of origin. This is partially what the NSA was created to do, and they do it well. Case in point, the 2014 hack of Sony Entertainment servers, which the FBI, with the help of the NSA, attributed to the DPRK, a conclusion that was bolstered by the independent assessment of no fewer than 10 major independent cybersecurity firms, including Kaspersky Lab, Symantec, and Trend Micro.

Occam's Razor was very aptly mentioned earlier by another poster. I'll take the assessment of 17 separate intelligence agencies over the opinion of Julian Assange and a conflicted PEOTUS who thinks his 10-year-old son has hacking "skillz" that are superior to those of professional analysts any day of the week.

It would be hillarious if it didn't spell such doom for the Republic: the same people who insist without a shred of evidence that 17 independent government intelligence agencies are working together in a conspiracy to smear Trump also think it's totally okay for the President Elect to just let his kids handle his business while he runs the country because we can just take him at his word that they won't collude in any unethical way.

Serrano: "Assange Confirms Russia Is not the Source of the DNC Leaks..."

(on the article about Assange being confined to the Ecuador Embassy):

"bass4funkJUN. 17, 2013 - 10:04AM JST He should stay and rot there. Good riddance!"

You too, Serrano, have suggested the man should "rot" or "die" in the past when he leaked information, but now suddenly support the guy hands down, despite leaking sensitive information, because he has done so clearly to help your guy Trump. And PLEASE with the "if he says it's so, it must be true!" The guy is in it for himself, 100%! He has tried to get diplomatic asylum with Russia, and so this benefits him to say Russia was not involved. He probably wants to go back to the US at some point, and we all know full well that if you kiss Trump's arse he'll give you a seat at the table. Bottom line is the guy is going to lie through his teeth if it protects his interests, and there is absolutely no reason to believe him when he says Russia had nothing to do with it, and only using what he says as "proof".

There is proof from 17 different intelligence sources, but only Trump saying, "I know it's true -- I know things (that I won't tell you about)" and Assange protecting himself. Hypocrites.

There is proof from 17 different intelligence sources

To be fair, claiming their is proof is no different from claiming there isn't. We don't know what evidence they do or don't have. All we know is that 17 agencies have claimed they have proof. So the question is whether you want to believe a theory that these 17 agencies have come together in a conspiracy to lie to the public in favor of an outgoing administration over the incoming one.

'Many people were shocked by this election by this election and they're desperate for an outlet for their dismay and frustration. Watch how this drags on, but Trump is a strong enough leader to ignore this and move on'.

Shocked by the elextion? I'll say... Need an outlet for their dismay? Youre not wrong.. Drag on? You betcha...

Trump a strong eonugh leader to ignore this and move on? Errr. No, if he ignores it-it will only be because it could call into question the legimitacy of the election...and typically a man who frantically tweets pertulantly any time of day to vinidicate every perceived slight that has rubbed his thin skin the wrong way is not a strong anything-nevermind leader. He brings an 'unpresidented' level of mental midgetry, lunacy and childishness to what may the most powerful positon on the planet. He is morally repugnant and intellectually inferior to the demands of that particulalr office. And thiat is putting it in the nicest possible terms. He is the number one threat to world peace and economic stability.

LFRAgain: Here's a good article explaining why the intelligence community isn't coming forward with details

OK. Again. 46% of Trump supporters believe Podesta and his friends are running child sex rings out of pizza shop basements. What impact could you possibly have on people like that?

Accept that they won't change and focus on what we can do to sideline them. There should be some bipartisan support for investigating Russia which means there will be some areas that we can lock out the nutballs. Let Trump praise Putin and protect him all he wants. He won't be able to stop things outside of his control.

Save the arguments based in logic and intelligence for Obama supporters. Let the Trump/Putin fans exchange swamp stories. You can't reason with crazy.

And guess what, all those diplomats will quietly return come Jan. 20th.

Is this fake news or do you have an actual source, maybe TASS, for this?

It's clear that liberals still haven't come to terms with their devastating election loss.

It was only devastating insofar as the fact that in a democracy, the will of a few hundred politicians took precedent over the will of a millions of the people.

Their disillusionment has blinded them to facts and reason.

The irony here is teeth-clenchingly bitter.

Its clear that those who cant see their nose to spite their face don't recognize what an absolutely sick person is about to go into the oval office. You dont have to be a liberal to see this. It is not a question of liberal/ conservative bias here. It is the actuallity of the of who the man is as a person.

I'd be the first to say that Hillary was an absolutely terrible candidate-and she should not have been running. But he really is a Mussolini like figure...more so than Hitler...because even Hitler before the height of his career had more impulse control than Trump. Look at stills of Trump scowling, nashing his teeth with his weird skin and dyed hair.

He has no impulse contrlol whatsoever. His texting will soon become a national security risk. He has the most sordid back catalogue of taped gaffs in presidential history. He is racist, sexist, infantile, egomaniacal, child, unable to conclude a simple sentences at times because his attention span is too short. He represents the worst aspects of humanity. A horrible person is a horrible person regardless of political persuasion..

He drunk texts while sober for goodness sake... Talk about putting the blinders on. If you think being repulsed by a nasty, sweaty, 70 year old man baby is purely a politcal judgement.

I keep reading '17 U.S. government intelligence agencies', '17 U.S. government intelligence agencies', ...

So what was the Coast Guard Intelligence agency's role?

This "Russian hacking" thing is no different from the birth certificate issue that dogged Obama at the start of his presidency.

It's completely different. The Russian hacking is based on reports from intelligence agencies. You may have reasons (some valid) to doubt/distrust those agencies, but it's at least someone in a position of authority saying it, unlike the birthers who were quite frankly just a bunch of racists. They literally had no reason to question his birthplace other than his race, especially after he provided the first document.

The hacking is a lot more plausible and the potential ramifications if true are also more dangerous.

Then the media hypes the story, a few congressmen become torchbearers, but within a month or two, the American public get bored and nothing comes of it. Only a hardcore fringe group continue to fuss about it, but nobody else cares.

You know Trump was a loud member of that hardcore fringe group of birthers up to 2016, right?

I'm not claiming the Russians did it, but it's something we need to get to the bottom of. If they didn't do it who did? The establishment Democrats might be playing this up as an excuse for their loss, but regardless, this should be a concern for anyone.

Burning BushJAN. 05, 2017 - 02:59PM JST This "Russian hacking" thing is no different from the birth certificate issue that dogged Obama at the start of his presidency.

I dunno dude, there's not much of a logical comparison between people thinking there's probably something worth investigating the claims of the 17 independent intelligence agencies that say Russia was involved in the election because we've already seen with our own eyes Trump taking rhetorical cues from Sputnik and people insisting that President Obama was definitely not born in the US in spite of the comprehensive evidence because they don't like black people.

Well one guy claimed the Russian choir plane tragedy was the result of a shoulder fired missile from Syrian rebels on a boat....then demands to see your evidence. You have another guy who only posts YouTube videos from basements, another guy who plagarizes and fancies himself a 1 percenter worldwide journalist with endless flip flops, another who blasts the press for fake news while getting caught talking to himself after failing to sign into his other account, etc. And they all support Trump and Putin.

Remember who you are talking to. We are well past the point of traditional political discussion. We are dealing with personalities, not evidence.

And now comes SuperLib :D.

Only a hardcore fringe group continue to fuss about it, but nobody else cares.

You only wish it would go away that easily. Where the Obama Birth Certificate was a flat-out lie perpetuated again and again and again by Trump in an effort to question his legitimacy as a presidential candidate, the Russian hacking is something that actually happened.

So what was the Coast Guard Intelligence agency's role?

Wow. Why am I not surprise to see you mocking the 43,000 active members of the US Coast Guard? Or is it because Trump has already set the tone for treating our armed service members like trash?

Besides protecting our coasts, the Coast Guard also serve as a major force in drug interdiction and deploys regularly around the world, including in Iraq and the Persian Gulf, to protect US assets near ports and waterways. These are people who have volunteered to protect the US and some of them have been wounded or killed doing so.

Coast Guard Intelligence has been a vital part of national security since 1915 and served a vital role in protecting Americans in World War II.

Educate yourself:

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coast_Guard_Intelligence

. . . Or don't and go ahead banging away with your hypocritical disdain for anyone who might dare question Trump's idiocy.

And then we have a poster who says that we need to believe the guy who wrote an article claiming Obama had violated the constitution, without showing any constitutional violations, because said guy had the credentials. Then the poster doesn't believe the word of 17 security agencies speaking on a matter of security.

Post trutherism at its best.

Burning BushJAN. 05, 2017 - 08:24AM JST

Assange himself publicly reiterated that he unequivocally did bot receive the emails from the Russian government.

But, I already know how the liberals will respond.

Never mind liberals, what about Paul Ryan?

“I think the guy’s a sycophant for Russia, he leaks, he steals data and compromises national security,”

Simon Foston: "Never mind liberals, what about Paul Ryan?"

You don't even have to be quiet to hear the heads imploding.

Trump knows squat about hacking.

“Who are you going to believe?”

A conspiracy theorist who lashes out at any criticism or question that injures his overly large and thin ego.

Or, the world's best hackers, i.e., the U.S. intelligence agencies.

“Who are you going to believe?”

For Trump supporters, the answer is simple - Trump.

I wouldn't believe Assange anyway... he's a fugitive from the law in Sweden, so he's not exactly trustworthy is he?

I wouldn't believe Assange anyway

A guy with an IQ of plus 170? Yeah....he gets his kicks from lying...too funny.

A guy with an IQ of plus 170? Yeah....he gets his kicks from lying...too funny.

IQ and morality are independent of each other. A high IQ does not have anything to do with whether or not one tells lies.

For a neutral observer the whole hacking thing looks very illogical and plain stupid.

You have to produce evidence if you claim that somebody stole your wallet with twenty bucks in it, but here you just can tell "hey, we strongly believe", "our 17 intelligence agencies conclude that", and that supposed to be enough. No, you're wrong. Let me remind all believers in 17 agencies that the biggest crime of this century - the invasion of Iraq - started with the the great lie about Saddam having WMD. All tricks were the same: "we strongly believe", "our intelligence concluded", finalized by Colin Powell's magic vial show at UN. Anyone who did not buy this sham was branded a traitor to the US cause and Saddam's agent. It does not matter who lied most - US intelligence in its reports or Bush administration, twisting these reports. Just remember the result of this great lie: a ruined country and hundreds of thousands of people killed.

And now they want to do the same "just believe in our words" trick again? Anyone who does not believe you is Putin's agent? Seriously?. You can't fool all the people all the time.

Also believers in hacking should be reminded that this trick can work in opposite direction: Putin can claim anything he wants ("our 17 intelligence agencies have proof that the McLaren probe in doping is a CIA covert operation, we have solid proof, just believe us"). Why not believe him?

For a neutral observer the whole hacking thing looks very illogical and plain stupid.

Let us know when one comes along - your posts have shown you to be very partisan.

Let me remind all believers in 17 agencies that the biggest crime of this century - the invasion of Iraq - started with the the great lie about Saddam having WMD.

As I posted earlier:

If I recall correctly, the CIA gave intelligence they had to Bush, but were clear that they didn't have confirmation on a lot of it, and that some of it was shaky, yet the administration decided to use it anyways. Not really the same as lying - lying would have been telling the administration they had no intel when they had some.

And was it all 17 agencies at that time? Did they even all exist? And were they putting out public announcements that they believed Saddam had WMDs? I don't think so.

As we don't know what information they do or don't have, it all comes down to whether or not you want to believe the theory that there is a conspiracy between 17 different agencies to put the blame on Russia.

A couple of things:

1) Whoever gave the data to Assange, nobody in hacking/espionage is dumb enough to do it directly - it has to be thru a 3rd-, 4th-, 5th-party anonymously. You want as many obstacles as possible that it can be traced back to you - you don't want to be found unless you want to be found.

2) The way WikiLeaks is set up in the first place, even WikiLeaks wouldn't know and wouldn't want to know the source - that's to protect the source even if WikiLeaks is attacked, compromised, or raided, etc. WikiLeaks set it up that way on purpose.

So even if Assange wanted to know, he really wouldn't be able to find out who the true source is.

Anyways, if they really want to know what Assange knows, all they have to do is give clemency to Bradley/Chelsea Manning:

"WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange says he’ll surrender to U.S. if Chelsea Manning is released from prison"

http://www.thefrisky.com/2016-09-16/wikileaks-julian-assange-says-hell-surrender-to-u-s-if-chelsea-manning-is-released-from-prison/

(BTW, the Unabomber has an IQ of 167.)

Trump said the Russians didn't do anything wrong? Well, we all know that Trump never lies......

"I'll take his word over the CIA any day."

I wouldn't trust either. There are nutters even on this site who trust other nutters who have 'evidence' Obama is a Muslim and 9/11 was an inside job.

Many people like to believe whatever suits their mindset. I suppose we're all guilty of that to some extent.

Assange is a coward hiding in an embassy because he won't face his accusers in Sweden. Why should we believe anything he says?

Assange stuck his neck out for something he believed in and he challenged governments across the world on lies and corruption.

I'll take his word over the CIA any day.

The problem is that he may believe he is telling the truth, without realizing he is telling a falsehood. Who knows how the information got to him - it could have been a multistep process with him only knowing the last step or two.

It's not a matter of his integrity (though it could be for all we know). It's simply a matter of whether or not even he knows where it came from - which he may believe he does, but have the wrong information. It's not like he's out and about researching stuff first-hand.

your posts have shown you to be very partisan

On the subject of the US election I'm really neutral: I'm not a US citizen and I did not have a horse in the race. If you're so thorough reader of my posts tell me did I ever support Clinton or Trump or anybody else during these elections.

And was it all 17 agencies at that time? Did they even all exist?

Ask the believers in these agencies, not me. For me the generic term "US intelligence (community)" is good enough. Names of the agencies, their structure, do they produce their reports in green or red files, what they say in public announcements etc is not so important. What they produce and how US policymakers use their production - that is important. And the Iraq war lie clearly demonstrated - never believe in "just believe us" chorus.

Ask the believers in these agencies, not me. For me the generic term "US intelligence (community)" is good enough.

I got it. So one agency gave some data to their boss when ordered to, the boss used that data in an irresponsible manner, so in your eyes, no US intelligence agency can ever be trusted again from now until the end of time, under any administration, even when as many as 17 independent agencies are in agreement as to what happened.

Seems legit.

I got it.

No, you did not. My point is simple: since US policymakers committed once a capital crime using intelligence data as a tool, then any claims citing intelligence should be backed by proof, not by just words "believe us". Or, if you insist on "belive our word, we're good guys" thing, then be ready to accept the same approach from the other side - Russians, Chinese, whoever, who can accuse the US in anything just telling "believe our intelligence".

Now I hope you got it.

I got it the first time, as shown by the fact that your post just repeated exactly what I said in different words.

AsakazeJAN. 05, 2017 - 09:58PM JST Or, if you insist on "belive our word, we're good guys" thing, then be ready to accept the same approach from the other side - Russians, Chinese, whoever, who can accuse the US in anything just telling "believe our intelligence".

Can we get rid of this dishonest meme? No one is proposing to just straight up act as though it's certain that Russians interfered in the election without evidence. All anyone is proposing is that since we have some evidence and plenty of reason to suspect, we investigate. And this is apparently deeply threatening to Trump and his goldshirt supporters.

Imagine if we approached other crimes this way:

*"Excuse me, officer, but I think that man just robbed my house!"

"Do you know for sure it was him?"

"Well no, I don't have the tools to dust for fingerprints, but he was seen in the area around the time of the break-in, he was bragging about how he was going to get my prized gold watch and now he's wearing a gold watch that looks suspiciously like the one that was just stolen from me! Can you at least send a detective?"

"If you don't have evidence then it could be anyone. Why don't you just accept the results and move on?"*

These fools will turn a blind eye to anything they personally don't believe.

@Katsu78, that will completely fly over their heads... because they don't want to think logically, they like "thinking" based off of whatever rhetoric fits their "views" for that moment in time.

There is that film, "Idiocracy" that is sadly becoming very true. Too many un-wise, selfish, corrupt, foolish, and greedy people becoming the majority in America.

15 more days until the clock strikes the truth, and who knows how many months before the **** of the truth that they "wanted" hits the fan and sprays their ignorance, arrogance, and stupidity back down on them (and the rest of us poor saps that will have to suffer from it.)

Oh my...

BREAKING: U.S. OFFICIALS ADMIT WIKILEAKS SOURCE NOT RUSSIA. Obama Retaliates Because Clinton Lost:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FB0ycR2CxUc

Oh my...

BREAKING: DONALD TRUMP ADMITS SWAMP IS NOT TO BE DRAINED. Also admits he hired hackers to break into Clintons emails:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0gfg1Nm9GU

Stranger - Har!

@katsu78

Can we get rid of this dishonest meme? No one is proposing to just straight up act as though it's certain that Russians interfered in the election

It seems too late. For the past two weeks I've seen dozens of photos - kids who ate all the cookies, pets who did nasty stuff in their masters' house etc, with the same meme "Russians did it!!!"

Jokes aside, US authorities have every right to start every investigation they deem necessary. The problem is that some incurable idiots like McCain began to yell "Russians did it" even before the investigation, compromising the whole idea. To use your nice metaphor, they convicted the suspect even before the police arrived.

BurningBush: "I've been posting on this board for donkey's years, and have an impeccable record of being spot on, admittedly perhaps being a sliver off the mark once or twice."

So, you contradict yourself within the first sentence of your post and yet still believe you are spot on... errr... just a sliver off... at the same time? haha.

"Allow me to go on record as predicting that this issue will be old hat by February, if not sooner. As the right questioned Obama's legitimacy by challenging him on his missing birth certificate, the left is trying to overturn Trump's victory with this vague and unproven "Russian hacking" claim."

First, you claim they are similar, when they are not, but that this issue will be forgotten in a month, while you guys STILL -- if you can believe it, STILL believe Obama was not born in the USA!! Second, they are not at all comparable, as has been outlined quite clearly; It is FACT Obama was born in the USA, and that has been proven. All you have to say Russia did not hack is Trump's claims that "I know more than I am saying", and Assange, who wants in with Russia AND Trump, as opposed to 17 intelligence agencies that say they have proof. Sorry, but not in any way are they comparable.

Thunderbird2: "Assange is a coward hiding in an embassy because he won't face his accusers in Sweden. Why should we believe anything he says?"

Because suddenly he's saying it for Trump and Russia. Once you side with them all rationale goes out the window.

Let's see the proof first!!!!

LFRAgain: Wow. Why am I not surprise to see you mocking the 43,000 active members

I am pretty sure you are intelligent enough to have seen that I wasn't mocking the Coast Guard.

If you like, you can replace 'Coast Guard Intelligence' agency with 'Drug Enforcement Agency' in my post.

And if any Russian involvement were proven then that would point to Trump being elected thanks to the Russian government.....ha ha ha !

I wasn't mocking the Coast Guard.

Weren't you though? You were dismissing their contributions to the intelligence efforts of a post-91-11 America by suggesting they would have little to do with cybercrime investigation.

Just as you would be dismissing the contributions the DEA makes towards national security on a regular basis if you were to ask, "I keep reading '17 U.S. government intelligence agencies', '17 U.S. government intelligence agencies' ... So what was the DEA's role?"

Educate yourself.

Link: https://www.ice.gov/cyber-crimes

Or don't and go ahead and lump the DEA's own website info into your ever-growing glob of "untrustworthy," "biased," "partisan" MSM conspirators.

And if any Russian involvement were proven .......Is Mr.Trump planning to step down and give back Hillary the White House or 'Will He'?

@LFRAgain

You're still not getting the point, or purposefully avoiding it. A lot of JT posters, and the White House spokesman (yesterday), are claiming '17 intelligence agencies say the Russians hacked the election'. I am doubting this claim.

In the October ODNI press release the term 'US Intelligence Community' was used. People can look USIC up on wikipedia and find this is a body of 17 intelligence agencies, and then say 'See! 17 intelligence agencies claim this Russian hacking was done!' But the ODNI's December press release of last week said only 'the intelligence community' and dropped the 'USIC'.

So, I'm not allowed to doubt the ODNI's, Earnest's, Thomson Reuters', and numerous JT poster's claim of '17 agencies' because it might somehow impugn the way the CGI and DEA handle their business? Did I really make a claim impugning the CGI and the DEA, or did you just make that up?

And can you say what these two agencies had to do with producing the Russian hacking claim?:

CGI (wikipedia): ... Its core roles are to protect the public, the environment, and U.S. economic and security interests in any maritime region in which those interests may be at risk, including international waters and the U.S.'s coasts, ports, and inland waterways. ...

DEA (wikipedia): ... the lead agency for domestic enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act, ... It has sole responsibility for coordinating and pursuing U.S. drug investigations both domestic, and abroad. ...

If the answer is "nothing", where did your '17' come from?

In the October ODNI press release the term 'US Intelligence Community' was used. People can look USIC up on wikipedia and find this is a body of 17 intelligence agencies, and then say 'See! 17 intelligence agencies claim this Russian hacking was done!' But the ODNI's December press release of last week said only 'the intelligence community' and dropped the 'USIC'.

This is fair enough. Assuming what you say is true (I haven't checked) - it may not have been all agencies. It does make sense that the Coast Guard intelligence wouldn't have any insight into who did the hacking.

Here's the press release: https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1463-joint-dhs,-odni,-fbi-statement-on-russian-malicious-cyber-activity

Strangerland: This is fair enough. Assuming what you say is true (I haven't checked) - it may not have been all agencies. ...

Thank you ... someone said Biden said soon an unclassified report will be made public proving all ... maybe it will!

turbostat,

A lot of JT posters, and the White House spokesman (yesterday), are claiming '17 intelligence agencies say the Russians hacked the election'. I am doubting this claim.

Are you being serious here? Is this a joke with the punchline being, "I don't trust MSM, so I've completely avoided it in its entirety for the past year"?

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/12/29/joint-dhs-odni-fbi-statement-russian-malicious-cyber-activity

The statement points out unambiguously that the "intelligence community" supports the conclusion that Russia was behind the hacks. There is no mention of a dissenting opinion.

James Clapper, who oversees the entirety of the US intelligence apparatus has said that the intelligence community believes Russia is the culprit. Again, no mention of dissenting opinion.

So, my question to you is this: Why are you asking what the Coast Guard's role was in making the assessment? Do you place some sort of special weight or value on their determination that you wouldn't place on, say, the CIA, FBI, or NSA that, in the absence of thereof, lessens the weight of the other 16 agencies' conclusions?

I'm saying I doubt the CGI, DEA, and probably some other agencies, contributed at all, so you, et al, including Josh Earnest, repeating 'determined by 17 agencies!' as a kind of 'the science is settled!' argument, just because the ODNI put "UCIS" in their press release, is silly.

Also that the ODNI changing from "UCIS" in their October press release to "intelligence community" in their December release may be some recognition of that.

We can see from the list of the '17' that you provided that a number of them are highly likely to not have been involved at all. If you subtract FBI, CIA, State Dept. (for obvious reasons such as "HRC: Putin hates me!"), NSA, and ODNI, that leaves 12 that probably didn't contribute, and 5 that probably did.

Sooooo . . . You're convinced the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissence Agency, Navy Intelligence, Army Intelligence, Marine Corp Inteligence, and, oh, yeah, the Department of Homeland Security had nothing whatsoever with invstigating foreign attacks on our election process?

. . .

. . . Interesting, if ever there were a more apt occasion to use that word.

. . .

Here's a little something about the Office of the Director of National Intelligence:

The U.S. Intelligence Community is a coalition [emphasis added] of 17 agencies and organizations, including the ODNI, within the Executive Branch that work both independently and collaboratively to gather and analyze the intelligence necessary to conduct foreign relations and national security activities.

This is directly from the ODNI website. They're a team. They work together. And they reach a concensus. If the ODNI office is saying the intelligence community is behind the conclusion that Russia was meddling in our affairs, then you can be damned sure everyone had some input.

Speaking of teams, what's truly disturbing about how you're practically tripping over yourself to minimize the severity of demonstrated foreign meddling in the American election process -- not the Democratic process, not the Republican one -- the American process is that you, in your senseless, bile-driven disdain for Hillary Clinton, are willing to give Russia the benefit of the doubt over career professionals in the American -- not the Democratic, not the Republican, not the Liberal, not the Conservative -- the American intelligence community. You're putting party over country, 100%.

And you perportedly are an American.

How you sleep at night is beyond me.

If Trump were running for the Democrats, he would have already been called a treacherous dirty little commie. And Sarah Palin sounds absolutely stupid in her 180 degree turnaround comments the other day. Yeap, not only can you see Russia from your window, you can now invite them over for tea. This is another day I'm thankful he's not my joke of a president.

LFRAgain: Sooooo . . . You're convinced the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissence Agency, Navy Intelligence, Army Intelligence, Marine Corp Inteligence, and, oh, yeah, the Department of Homeland Security had nothing whatsoever with invstigating foreign attacks on our election process?

Yes, the only mention of the DHS in the recent report is their assessment that the Russians didn't target vote-tallying machines. It's a couple of sentences in the report, not even an appendix.

The others you listed, except for the NRO, are military intelligence agencies, involved in military issues.

And what do you think the NRO contributed? They're a satellite observation agency. Did they spy out the bits from orbit?

Wow. So, now it's, "Homeland only contributed x-amount," and "Why would military intelligence possibly have any interest in a foreign adversary influencing American politics?" (gee... I wonder...) You've gone into full-blown denial mode here in your zeal to prop up Trump the Pretender as long as he isn't Clinton.

As the above poster accurately noted, if the shoe were on the other foot, you and the rest of the "DTS" brigade would be among the shrillness voices alleging treason. Again, that you would so willingly side with Russia on this is absolutely appalling. You're some American, aren't you?

In fact, what is most infuriating about all of this is how much you and other Trump sycophants bellowed and raged about Clinton's private email server. Remember that? Supposedly, her crime of simply allowing foreign adversaries potential access to America's secrets was tantamount to treason, not that there was ever evidence that they did access it, but that the possibility was there. My, how righteously indignant you were, invoking patriotism, mom, and apple pie as Trump led the battle cry to appoint an independent prosecutor who's sole duty was to see Clinton in prison for exposing America's secrets to our enemies.

Fast forward to today when the coalition of 17 separate intelligence agencies (yup, they still issued the report as a unified voice, no matter how much you wish it weren't so) stand behind a comprehensive investigation revealing how and to what degree Russia interfered with our election, what do we hear?

Certainly not that spirited, patriotic call to protect the integrity of our democracy, oh, no. Instead we get everything ranging from "Why does Russia have to be an adversary?" to "Russia did us a favor."

Absolutely fascinating that you can't see your own duplicity,

Hypocrites, hypocrites, two-faced, double-dealing, disingenuous, myiopic, intellectually and morally stunted hypocrites, the lot of you.

Again, how you sleep at night is beyond me.

LFR: Wow. So, now it's, "Homeland only contributed x-amount," and "Why would military intelligence possibly have any interest in a foreign adversary influencing American politics?" (gee... I wonder...) You've gone into full-blown denial mode here in your zeal to prop up Trump the Pretender as long as he isn't Clinton.

You still haven't justified the '17' in the statement:

LFRAgain: ... So, like Trump with his mysterious but as-yet undisclosed knowledge of "things," you too have an inside track on the hacking issue in a way that 17 separate intelligence agencies don't?"

and it appears you aren't going to. The ICA report (ICA 2017-01D) issued the other day has a section "CIA/FBI/NSA Assessment". It has a couple of sentences mentioning DHS. That's three agencies, plus a smidgen. Not 17.

You still haven't justified the '17' in the statement:

I don't have to. James Clapper justified their involvment when he stated before a Senate subcommittee that the intelligence community -- not just the FBI, the CIA, and the NSA -- the intelligence community stands more resolutely than ever behind their assessment that Russia tampered with American democracy.

From the same report where you seem to be obsessed with the semantics of the FBI, CIA, and NSA's explicit involvement in the investigation, it is laid out very clearly:

"Many of the key judgments in this assessment rely on a body of reporting from multiple sources that are consistent with our understanding of Russian behavior. Insights into Russian efforts—including specific cyber operations—and Russian views of key US players derive from multiple corroborating sources." -- Page i, subsection "Sourcing"

It's clear you intend to hide behind semantics and equivocation rather than own up to your shameless hypocrisy. So I guess it's a long shot to expect you to just be honest and say, "I don't care if the Russians hacked us. My guy won, and that's all that matters." That would at least contain a kernel of truth from you, even if it were the most petty, vulgar bastardization of the democratic process one can imagine, as if this were a football game or something.

Go ahead and split hairs all you like, but in the end, your guy got a boost to the presidency by Vladamir Putin. I know it, you know it, Donald J. "I totally expected to lose" Trump sure as hell knows it, and now, so does America.

I don't see this blowing over in 10 days, champ.

The difference is Cuba hasn't been a threat for decades, and the Iran deal is extremely controlled to ensure that nothing goes wrong, with multiple countries backing it. Trump on the other hand is in bed with Putin, for no public reason, with no controls, no backing from other countries, and no publicly discernible reasons. Gotta suspect there's something in his tax returns that would explain it further though.

LFRAgain: I don't have to. James Clapper justified their involvment

He backed it off in the next ODNI press release. "USIC", i.e. '17 intelligence agencies', was downgraded to "intelligence community", i.e. 3 agencies plus a little help from another. As I explained.

@kurisupisu "And if any Russian involvement were proven then that would point to Trump being elected thanks to the Russian government.....ha ha ha !"

Yes, shameless and rather stupid attempts of American Dems and Libs to convince the rest of the World that Donald Trump is 'the Manchurian Candidate".

It’s unlikely that anyone except the actors will ever know whether the info came from Russia or not. Spy agencies are not known for telling the truth. In fact, lies and, deception are the spy’s stock in trade. Creating mischief and even committing atrocities and then blaming it on their opponents is the natural order of the spy agencies business. Anyone who can ever believe anything reported by a spy agency from any nation has got to be smoking crack. How many times has that bald headed guy Clapper told the truth before congress or the public? I guess there could accidentally be a first time.

How couldn't US prevent it from happening in the first place?! Russia had every reason to conduct it but not sure the truth. If they actually did, that is not something that they can get away from severe punishment.

LFRAgain

Anyone who can ever believe anything reported by a spy agency from any nation has got to be smoking crack.

>The Federal Bureau of Investigation is not a spy agency. It's America's top law enforcement body. The NSA is also not a spy body. The CIA, sure, no doubt about them. They spy. But you're barking up the wrong tree otherwise.

FBI was a domestic law enforcement agency but since 911 it has been retasked to counter terrorism. Therefore, it is now primarily a domestic spy agency. NSA has never had a mission other than spying on signals. But regardless, I submit that none of the bunch get many points for honesty.

Also, Putin was the communist KGB operative... would he not naturally be inclined to support the communist Clinton?

Wasn't Trump recently briefed by the intelligence agencies? So why is he still not convinced?

Regarding the 17 intelligence agencies, they did not all independently conclude Russia was involved. All it is is that the one person who oversees the 17 agencies claims Russia was involved. This person is Clapper, yes the same Clapper who previously lied under oath when asked: "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?".

The Emails were likely leaked from inside the DNC.

The Emails were likely leaked from inside the DNC.

"You cannot trust the intelligence agencies who are reporting based on the intelligence they've gathered".

Goes on to make claim not based on any intelligence findings whatsoever. Post-truth©

Readers, the word "snowflake" will no longer be permitted unless you are referring to snowfall.