Brantt wrote:

pacino wrote:It's a weird (not weird, completely expected) thing to see the same people that were very upset about the server and its possible implications now not caring at all about actual hacks and demanding classified verification be provided as proof of it.

The days of blindly following the intelligence communities died when James Clapper went up and flat out lied under oath about the NSA violating citizen's rights and freedoms. He should have been indicted. Bottom line is people are going to support the intelligence findings if it lines up with them politically and attack it if it hurts them politically. Case in point James Comey who was both praised and hated by both liberals and conservatives at various times in the last year depending on which side his actions favored.

It's a hypocritical joke on both sides.

Brantt wrote:

pacino wrote:It's a weird (not weird, completely expected) thing to see the same people that were very upset about the server and its possible implications now not caring at all about actual hacks and demanding classified verification be provided as proof of it.

The days of blindly following the intelligence communities died when James Clapper went up and flat out lied under oath about the NSA violating citizen's rights and freedoms. He should have been indicted. Bottom line is people are going to support the intelligence findings if it lines up with them politically and attack it if it hurts them politically. Case in point James Comey who was both praised and hated by both liberals and conservatives at various times in the last year depending on which side his actions favored.

It's a hypocritical joke on both sides.

pacino wrote:

Brantt wrote:

pacino wrote:It's a weird (not weird, completely expected) thing to see the same people that were very upset about the server and its possible implications now not caring at all about actual hacks and demanding classified verification be provided as proof of it.

The days of blindly following the intelligence communities died when James Clapper went up and flat out lied under oath about the NSA violating citizen's rights and freedoms. He should have been indicted. Bottom line is people are going to support the intelligence findings if it lines up with them politically and attack it if it hurts them politically. Case in point James Comey who was both praised and hated by both liberals and conservatives at various times in the last year depending on which side his actions favored.

It's a hypocritical joke on both sides.

somehow i don't think that's when it died for most of the people we're talking about...it died when a democrat came into office, then got buried when trump blasted it. but, there's been 3rd party verification of the hacking.

Brantt wrote:

pacino wrote:

Brantt wrote:

pacino wrote:It's a weird (not weird, completely expected) thing to see the same people that were very upset about the server and its possible implications now not caring at all about actual hacks and demanding classified verification be provided as proof of it.

The days of blindly following the intelligence communities died when James Clapper went up and flat out lied under oath about the NSA violating citizen's rights and freedoms. He should have been indicted. Bottom line is people are going to support the intelligence findings if it lines up with them politically and attack it if it hurts them politically. Case in point James Comey who was both praised and hated by both liberals and conservatives at various times in the last year depending on which side his actions favored.

It's a hypocritical joke on both sides.

somehow i don't think that's when it died for most of the people we're talking about...it died when a democrat came into office, then got buried when trump blasted it. but, there's been 3rd party verification of the hacking.

Point is the intelligence communities failures are widespread and consistent......9/11, WMD's in Iraq, NSA spying, Isis' rise in Syria. Look at the paths faulty or negligent intelligence reports has led this country down.

Nobody should blindly trust anything coming out of our intelligence agencies no matter if it benefits your political party or not.

pacino wrote:

Brantt wrote:

pacino wrote:

Brantt wrote:

pacino wrote:It's a weird (not weird, completely expected) thing to see the same people that were very upset about the server and its possible implications now not caring at all about actual hacks and demanding classified verification be provided as proof of it.

The days of blindly following the intelligence communities died when James Clapper went up and flat out lied under oath about the NSA violating citizen's rights and freedoms. He should have been indicted. Bottom line is people are going to support the intelligence findings if it lines up with them politically and attack it if it hurts them politically. Case in point James Comey who was both praised and hated by both liberals and conservatives at various times in the last year depending on which side his actions favored.

It's a hypocritical joke on both sides.

somehow i don't think that's when it died for most of the people we're talking about...it died when a democrat came into office, then got buried when trump blasted it. but, there's been 3rd party verification of the hacking.

Point is the intelligence communities failures are widespread and consistent......9/11, WMD's in Iraq, NSA spying, Isis' rise in Syria. Look at the paths faulty or negligent intelligence reports has led this country down.

Nobody should blindly trust anything coming out of our intelligence agencies no matter if it benefits your political party or not.

i'm not sure where NSA spying (you can disagree with aspects but it's not a 'failure') was a failure or how a report 'bin Laden intent on attacking US' was one of those providing the intelligence, either. how administrations use the intelligence is a different thing from IA failures. i've also never been a blind truster of these agencies, but everything they do isn't always wrong.

in any event, the Russian interference has been verified; Crowdstrike saw it and Fidelis agreed months ago. it happened.

This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment; its conclusions are identical to those in the highly classified assessment but this version does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign.

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.
- We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.
-  Moscow’s approach evolved over the course of the campaign based on Russia’s understanding of the electoral prospects of the two main candidates. When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton was likely to win the election, the Russian influence campaign began to focus more on undermining her future presidency.
-  Further information has come to light since Election Day that, when combined with Russian behavior since early November 2016, increases our confidence in our assessments of Russian motivations and goals.

Moscow’s influence campaign followed a Russian messaging strategy that blends covert intelligence operations—such as cyber activity—with overt efforts by Russian Government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media users or “trolls.” Russia, like its Soviet predecessor, has a history of conducting covert influence campaigns focused on US presidential elections that have used intelligence officers and agents and press placements to disparage candidates perceived as hostile to the Kremlin.
- Russia’s intelligence services conducted cyber operations against targets associated with the 2016 US presidential election, including targets associated with both major US political parties.
- We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks.
-  Russian intelligence obtained and maintained access to elements of multiple US state or local electoral boards. DHS assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying.
-  Russia’s state-run propaganda machine contributed to the influence campaign by serving as a platform for Kremlin messaging to Russian and international audiences.

We assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the US presidential election to future influence efforts worldwide, including against US allies and their election processes.

pacino wrote:no one credible was alleging hacking of voting machines, but here's the Trump statement post-briefing:


no public discussion = no bi-partisan committee

pacino wrote:no one credible was alleging hacking of voting machines, but here's the Trump statement post-briefing:


no public discussion = no bi-partisan committee

Youseff wrote:

pacino wrote:no one credible was alleging hacking of voting machines, but here's the Trump statement post-briefing:


no public discussion = no bi-partisan committee

that's an admission. hopefully Greenwald and the like will shut up now.

@ggreenwald 1m1 minute ago
Glenn Greenwald Retweeted Noah Shachtman
Every time IC repackages its same assertions in a new form, media acts like it's been proven, even though it - again - includes no evidence:

pacino wrote:

Youseff wrote:

pacino wrote:no one credible was alleging hacking of voting machines, but here's the Trump statement post-briefing:


no public discussion = no bi-partisan committee

that's an admission. hopefully Greenwald and the like will shut up now.

@ggreenwald 1m1 minute ago
Glenn Greenwald Retweeted Noah Shachtman
Every time IC repackages its same assertions in a new form, media acts like it's been proven, even though it - again - includes no evidence:

also glommed onto NSA has moderate confidence line.

06hawkalum wrote:Pretty sure that Tillerson nomination is DOA in light of today's news that Putin personally directed the influence campaign.

thephan wrote:

06hawkalum wrote:Pretty sure that Tillerson nomination is DOA in light of today's news that Putin personally directed the influence campaign.

I'm pretty sure that more then 50% of the house and senate fearing being tweet slashed by the incoming president will keep their mouths collectively shut and #$!&@ their pants instead of oppose the temperamental king of vulgaria and conquer of the formerly free United States of America. Trump rejects that there was any tampering by a foreign power, much less Russia and that this is a grand witch hunt somehow that the members of the IC are engaged in. So I see very little more then rice paper walls that will hold back Tillerson's ascension to the position of secretary.

The Savior wrote:How do we know Russia didn't tamper wIth voting machines?