CIA Concludes Russia Interfered In Election To Help Trump Win

[jc456]

So the two agencies don't agree here! You understand that right?

Yes, of course. You understand that they have different missions, right? You understand that prior to DHS being established 25NOV02, the FBI and CIA didn't coordinate very well, right? You understand that even after DHS was established it took a few years to get everything working, right?

No, they don't, the FBI investigates the CIA find, and they didn't find what was suggested. There is no evidence of Russia hacking. None. AND, no states have online voting! So the vote was legitimate!

My link says otherwise, but you are free to post your own evidence....if you have any.......or you can just back to throwing a tantrum and calling me an asshole.

well every news outlet last night stated that the FBI did not come to the same conclusion.

BTW, how would one prove that a voters vote was influenced by Russia? How do they do that?

 

[jc456]

So the two agencies don't agree here! You understand that right?

Yes, of course. You understand that they have different missions, right? You understand that prior to DHS being established 25NOV02, the FBI and CIA didn't coordinate very well, right? You understand that even after DHS was established it took a few years to get everything working, right?

No, they don't, the FBI investigates the CIA find, and they didn't find what was suggested. There is no evidence of Russia hacking. None. AND, no states have online voting! So the vote was legitimate!

No one is stating that the vote was not legitimate. What they are stating is that the DNC was hacked by the Russians and emails released in order to influence the election.

If true then the Russians are screwing with the election system. That does not mean that Trump is not president or that the election is bogus unless he was actually involved in the hacking/dissemination himself. That would be a question for congress if it were possible. It does bring up some interesting questions about our relations with Russia.

ii'm sorry, but there were no emails from the DNC ever published. Only Podesta's email. So I'm still confused, is there evidence that someone changed their vote due to the DNC supposed hack in October? Why wasn't it looked into in October, why is it news today?

 

[Lakhota]

Must be investigated.

 

[Divine Wind]

....I'm still waiting for what the interference was. why can't anyone at least tell the public what exactly the interference was? That can't be classified. I don't believe that. It's why I call all of this a ploy by the left. PLOY!!!!! can I say it louder? yes....PLOY

The interference was the ******* Russians hacking into political party email systems and selectively releasing the hacked information. Just because there's no proof it actually had an effect doesn't make it okay. If someone takes a shot at you and misses, is that okay? No harm, no foul"? Or would you rightfully be upset they did such a thing even though you were never actually harmed?

 

[Divine Wind]

well every news outlet last night stated that the FBI did not come to the same conclusion.

BTW, how would one prove that a voters vote was influenced by Russia? How do they do that?

You keep saying that but you also keep avoiding specifics and actual links of FBI statements. Why? I cited one link showing exactly why the FBI and CIA had different views. Why can't you do the same?

 

[jc456]

....I'm still waiting for what the interference was. why can't anyone at least tell the public what exactly the interference was? That can't be classified. I don't believe that. It's why I call all of this a ploy by the left. PLOY!!!!! can I say it louder? yes....PLOY

The interference was the ******* Russians hacking into political party email systems and selectively releasing the hacked information. Just because there's no proof it actually had an effect doesn't make it okay. If someone takes a shot at you and misses, is that okay? No harm, no foul"? Or would you rightfully be upset they did such a thing even though you were never actually harmed?

what was released was my question? I stated Podesta's emails were posted.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Russian hackers 'probably' swayed the historic EU referendum vote for Brexit, a former Cabinet minister has claimed.

Labour MP Ben Bradshaw, a prominent Remain supporter, raised doubts about the validity of the result in June as he warned that people were underestimating the extent of cyber-warfare by Vladimir Putin. Ben Bradshaw says Russian hackers 'probably' fixed the EU referendum vote for Brexit | Daily Mail Online

Putin..he's everywhere.......LLMMAAOOOOO

 

[jc456]

well every news outlet last night stated that the FBI did not come to the same conclusion.

BTW, how would one prove that a voters vote was influenced by Russia? How do they do that?

You keep saying that but you also keep avoiding specifics and actual links of FBI statements. Why? I cited one link showing exactly why the FBI and CIA had different views. Why can't you do the same?

come on man, you can't go look at the internet? really you are that disinterested? shit here, you lazy whiney ass.

Gap on Russia hacking conclusions between intelligence, FBI - CNNPolitics.com

"The disagreement between some Republicans and Democrats on Russia's intentions in hacking the election rests partially on the lack of agreement between intelligence agencies and the FBI about the conclusiveness of the evidence, officials explained this weekend."

 

[jc456]

Russian hackers 'probably' swayed the historic EU referendum vote for Brexit, a former Cabinet minister has claimed.

Labour MP Ben Bradshaw, a prominent Remain supporter, raised doubts about the validity of the result in June as he warned that people were underestimating the extent of cyber-warfare by Vladimir Putin. Ben Bradshaw says Russian hackers 'probably' fixed the EU referendum vote for Brexit | Daily Mail Online

Putin..he's everywhere.......LLMMAAOOOOO

I think I saw Putin this morning on the way to work holding up traffic on the highway!!!

 

[jc456]

....I'm still waiting for what the interference was. why can't anyone at least tell the public what exactly the interference was? That can't be classified. I don't believe that. It's why I call all of this a ploy by the left. PLOY!!!!! can I say it louder? yes....PLOY

The interference was the ******* Russians hacking into political party email systems and selectively releasing the hacked information. Just because there's no proof it actually had an effect doesn't make it okay. If someone takes a shot at you and misses, is that okay? No harm, no foul"? Or would you rightfully be upset they did such a thing even though you were never actually harmed?

was it attempted or was it interference? yuge difference friend. Name me someone who changed their vote?

See, no evidence, it's a nonsense story, and it is over two months old. these aren't the droids you are looking for, move on.

 

[Divine Wind]

what was released was my question? I stated Podesta's emails were posted.

Jeez, a person owns a computer but they can't use Google? LOL

WikiLeaks - Search the DNC email database
Starting on Friday 22 July 2016 at 10:30am EDT, WikiLeaks released over 2 publications 44,053 emails and 17,761 attachments from the top of the US Democratic National Committee -- part one of our new Hillary Leaks series. The leaks come from the accounts of seven key figures in the DNC: Communications Director Luis Miranda (10520 emails), National Finance Director Jordon Kaplan (3799 emails), Finance Chief of Staff Scott Comer (3095 emails), Finanace Director of Data & Strategic Initiatives Daniel Parrish (1742 emails), Finance Director Allen Zachary (1611 emails), Senior Advisor Andrew Wright (938 emails) and Northern California Finance Director Robert (Erik) Stowe (751 emails). The emails cover the period from January last year until 25 May this year.

 

[Divine Wind]

was it attempted or was it interference? yuge difference friend....

Correct, just like it's a huge difference between someone taking a shot at you and missing or hitting. Still, in that case, I'd be very concerned about the ******* shooter. You want to give them a pass if they miss, amirite?

Scroll up, my friend. I've seen no evidence a single vote was changed. Like being shot it, it's the thought that counts. Russia is not our friend.

 

[Divine Wind]

well every news outlet last night stated that the FBI did not come to the same conclusion.

BTW, how would one prove that a voters vote was influenced by Russia? How do they do that?

You keep saying that but you also keep avoiding specifics and actual links of FBI statements. Why? I cited one link showing exactly why the FBI and CIA had different views. Why can't you do the same?

come on man, you can't go look at the internet? really you are that disinterested? shit here, you lazy whiney ass.

Gap on Russia hacking conclusions between intelligence, FBI - CNNPolitics.com

"The disagreement between some Republicans and Democrats on Russia's intentions in hacking the election rests partially on the lack of agreement between intelligence agencies and the FBI about the conclusiveness of the evidence, officials explained this weekend."

Thanks for both the insult and proof you are wrong. From your own link. (Hint; trying reading more than the first paragraph next time, kid)

The FBI hasn't concluded that the RNC itself was directly breached, a law enforcement official said Sunday. FBI investigators did find that a breach of a third-party entity that held data belonging to the RNC. But the data appears to have been outdated and of little value to the hackers. The FBI also found that some conservative groups and pundits were hacked. The FBI also hasn't found conclusive evidence to show that it was done to help Trump.

"At this point, there appears to have been a combination of motivations," one US law enforcement official said. "They wanted to sow discord and undermine our systems. It's clear not even the Russians thought he would win."

Officials familiar with the briefings given to Congress say the CIA assessment wasn't as definitive as has been portrayed in news reports this weekend. The agency developed new information in recent weeks, based on intelligence sources, which prompted a new assessment of the Russian hack. That assessment "leans" toward the view that the Russians were trying to hurt Clinton and help Trump. But the CIA assessment wasn't definitive, the officials said.

Part of the issue is the nature of the CIA and FBI roles in the investigation. The CIA produces raw intelligence, the FBI moves more slowly to reach conclusions based on the intelligence and other investigative work.

 

[idb]

what was suggested. There is no evidence of Russia hacking. None. AND, no states have online voting! So the vote was legitimate!

When did I say the vote wasn't legitimate? Please unbunch your knickers and try to be more concerned about national security than your own party politics.

What else is the point?

The point is whether a foreign government has been cyber-spying - or facilitating cyber-spying on the US government.
Doesn't that concern you at all?

Wait, i though you liberal fucktards said Russia hacked the election.....

You're referring to the CIA as 'liberal fucktards'?

 

[jc456]

what was released was my question? I stated Podesta's emails were posted.

Jeez, a person owns a computer but they can't use Google? LOL

WikiLeaks - Search the DNC email database
Starting on Friday 22 July 2016 at 10:30am EDT, WikiLeaks released over 2 publications 44,053 emails and 17,761 attachments from the top of the US Democratic National Committee -- part one of our new Hillary Leaks series. The leaks come from the accounts of seven key figures in the DNC: Communications Director Luis Miranda (10520 emails), National Finance Director Jordon Kaplan (3799 emails), Finance Chief of Staff Scott Comer (3095 emails), Finanace Director of Data & Strategic Initiatives Daniel Parrish (1742 emails), Finance Director Allen Zachary (1611 emails), Senior Advisor Andrew Wright (938 emails) and Northern California Finance Director Robert (Erik) Stowe (751 emails). The emails cover the period from January last year until 25 May this year.

hmmm states leaks, and is what Assange stated, leaks from the DNC, not hacks by Russia. I won't read anymore because it will add no value. I've highlighted the word leak for you in your snippet.

 

[jc456]

what was suggested. There is no evidence of Russia hacking. None. AND, no states have online voting! So the vote was legitimate!

When did I say the vote wasn't legitimate? Please unbunch your knickers and try to be more concerned about national security than your own party politics.

What else is the point?

The point is whether a foreign government has been cyber-spying - or facilitating cyber-spying on the US government.
Doesn't that concern you at all?

Wait, i though you liberal fucktards said Russia hacked the election.....

You're referring to the CIA as 'liberal fucktards'?

you don't think there aren't any? So every CIA rep is Conservative? really? You don't think they vote? Look at what Soros did. Why wouldn't they?

 

[Divine Wind]

You're referring to the CIA as 'liberal fucktards'?

That's standard partisan politics; regardless if they are far Left or far Right, anyone who agrees with them is a hero and anyone who disagrees is the scum of the Earth. Look at how both the LWLs and RWNJs flipped-flopped on Comey depending upon which particular testimony is being discussed.

 

[Divine Wind]

Just reid?? An ex Democrat leader? Have you called McConnel a lying ***? or Ryan??? if so I stand corrected

Harry Reid is still a Democrat leader. He won't be an "ex Democrat leader" until after 3JAN17. Meanwhile, he's not wasting his time as a lameduck. As a soon-to-be-ex-Senator, he's stepped up to fall on his sword for the DNC by overplaying (as usual) The-Russians-stole-the-election card. It's a lot like the old Bush-stole-the-election card but with a new coat of paint.

 

[Divine Wind]

hmmm states leaks, and is what Assange stated, leaks from the DNC, not hacks by Russia. I won't read anymore because it will add no value. I've highlighted the word leak for you in your snippet.

******* awesome, kid. IOW, you only read what you and skip what you don't. Spoken like a pure partisan puppet.

 

[jc456]

hmmm states leaks, and is what Assange stated, leaks from the DNC, not hacks by Russia. I won't read anymore because it will add no value. I've highlighted the word leak for you in your snippet.

******* awesome, kid. IOW, you only read what you and skip what you don't. Spoken like a pure partisan puppet.

well why read more, it states right there 'leak' not hack. Also, Assange already stated it was an inside job. DOH!