CIA Concludes Russia Interfered In Election To Help Trump Win

[jc456]

The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just toundermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.

Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, according to U.S. officials. Those officials described the individuals as actors known to the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and hurt Clinton’s chances.

“It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. senators. “That’s the consensus view.”

Much more...

REPORT: CIA Concludes Russia Interfered In Election To Help Trump Win

Obama Demands Answers

More proof that Hillary was swiftboated. Her popular vote lead is now over 2.8 million. Trump was not fairly elected. Putin, Wikileaks, and Comey all had their thumbs on the scale for Trump - including other idiots who were pumping out conspiracy theories and fake news for fun and profit to discredit Hillary.

Putin, WikiLeaks, AND Comey!? Holy shit, what chance did she have? All 3 of those hugely influential sources, and all she had on her side was the US department of Justice, CNN, NBC, ABC, NYT, Washington Post, Hollywood, Us Weekly, the entirety of George Soros's online media empire, Gawker, Facebook, Google, Yahoo, the vast majority of monetary donations from the financial sector, and virtually every mainstream politician and news outlet in Europe. How are those tiny fringe groups supposed to balance Putin, Comey, and a website?! SO UNFAIR!

If you want to say they were on Hillary's side because they reported the crazy stuff Trump said and did, then you could be partly right. Mostly,they just reported his crazier stuff as if it was just another valid point of view, when it was anything but.

LMFAO, and all Comey did was let everybody know that the investigation which he said had concluded hadn't quite concluded. He never offered opinions or analysis one way or the other, just a statement of raw fact.

And all Putin and WikiLeaks did was release some factual information on the DNC and Hillary's campaign that nobody else was reporting on. There was no opinion or analysis offered on the site where the information appeared, just raw info.

And yet when CNN hears Trump's "they aren't sending us their best" statement about illegal immigrants from Mexico and states, many times over, that Trump said that "all Hispanics are rapists", I'm supposed to ignore that exaggeration and believe that they're being even-handed?

When The New York Times, on its front page, declares that engaging in journalistic objectivity regarding the presidential election would be immoral, and that their mission is to help defeat Trump, I'm supposed to go on believing that they're not biased for Hillary?

When MSNBC pundits, to a person, declare that the "grab 'em by the *****" tape couldn't possibly be the locker room banter of a self aggrandizer bragging about the liberties women allowed him to take sexually (the sort of locker room banter I heard throughout my adolescent/teenage years playing football and basketball, to be sure), but was DEFINITIVELY somewhere between a normalization of sexual assault and an admission of serial rape, I'm supposed to believe, despite my own experience with locker room banter, despite the fact that Trump specifically said "they LET you do it" (you know, let? That word that is synonymous with consent?), that these people are reporting unbiased facts?

Sorry, but if Comey was obviously biased for Trump, then the news organizations that I listed were active campaigners for Hillary.

Yep. You're nuts. Believe what you want. I won't bother offering you facts. It's clear you don't like them.

what facts might that be?

Holy fk are you all desperate fks.

 

[jc456]

Putin, WikiLeaks, AND Comey!? Holy shit, what chance did she have? All 3 of those hugely influential sources, and all she had on her side was the US department of Justice, CNN, NBC, ABC, NYT, Washington Post, Hollywood, Us Weekly, the entirety of George Soros's online media empire, Gawker, Facebook, Google, Yahoo, the vast majority of monetary donations from the financial sector, and virtually every mainstream politician and news outlet in Europe. How are those tiny fringe groups supposed to balance Putin, Comey, and a website?! SO UNFAIR!

If you want to say they were on Hillary's side because they reported the crazy stuff Trump said and did, then you could be partly right. Mostly,they just reported his crazier stuff as if it was just another valid point of view, when it was anything but.

LMFAO, and all Comey did was let everybody know that the investigation which he said had concluded hadn't quite concluded. He never offered opinions or analysis one way or the other, just a statement of raw fact.

And all Putin and WikiLeaks did was release some factual information on the DNC and Hillary's campaign that nobody else was reporting on. There was no opinion or analysis offered on the site where the information appeared, just raw info.

And yet when CNN hears Trump's "they aren't sending us their best" statement about illegal immigrants from Mexico and states, many times over, that Trump said that "all Hispanics are rapists", I'm supposed to ignore that exaggeration and believe that they're being even-handed?

When The New York Times, on its front page, declares that engaging in journalistic objectivity regarding the presidential election would be immoral, and that their mission is to help defeat Trump, I'm supposed to go on believing that they're not biased for Hillary?

When MSNBC pundits, to a person, declare that the "grab 'em by the *****" tape couldn't possibly be the locker room banter of a self aggrandizer bragging about the liberties women allowed him to take sexually (the sort of locker room banter I heard throughout my adolescent/teenage years playing football and basketball, to be sure), but was DEFINITIVELY somewhere between a normalization of sexual assault and an admission of serial rape, I'm supposed to believe, despite my own experience with locker room banter, despite the fact that Trump specifically said "they LET you do it" (you know, let? That word that is synonymous with consent?), that these people are reporting unbiased facts?

Sorry, but if Comey was obviously biased for Trump, then the news organizations that I listed were active campaigners for Hillary.

Yep. You're nuts. Believe what you want. I won't bother offering you facts. It's clear you don't like them.

You say that like you ever offered any in the first place. Just claims. Now you counter by claiming that I'm crazy. Way to ignore the substance of my post and declare victory. Pretty common with you dems, these days.

No victory to be declared. You're spouting Fox and Alex Jones propaganda, and there is no need to even address that silly crap. As I said, believe what you want.

and this isn't silly crap? a hack never happened that interfered with the election. And yet here we are discussing a fake story.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If you were in the military I respect that, but you are a ******* loon if you think that is the only way they influenced the elections. When they hack the DNC emails, they hack various DNC state headquarters, they create fake news stories all over the net... and they only do it to make one candidate look bad, they influenced the elections.

The FBI AND CIA say they did it. ******* quit with the retarded conspiracy theories of your own. When all these agencies, including European ones that have no skin in the game, other than the fact they don't want the same shit to happen in their elections, says it happened...

Update:

UK Diplomat: I've Met the DNC Wikileaks Leaker and the Person Is an Insider - Not Russian

FBI Investigation Refutes CIA=> There's No Evidence Russia Tried to Help Trump

No, there isn't.

The State of Georgia is reporting that the entity that tried to hack their computers belongs to the US Department of Homeland Security.

So it sounds like the Obama Administration is trying to create a false flag operation and blame Russia.

But the Democrat Media Complex has refused to follow up on Georgia's lead.

How does the State of Georgia know this?

They traced the IP address.

Your IP address is the computer you are logged into, not your location

and they traced that computer to a Department of Homeland security computer

 

[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?

BTW, a political party is not part of the government, it is private. So, actually no hack in our government happened.

 

[jc456]

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.

and interfering with an ongoing investigation by the FBI.

 

[jc456]

Update:

UK Diplomat: I've Met the DNC Wikileaks Leaker and the Person Is an Insider - Not Russian

FBI Investigation Refutes CIA=> There's No Evidence Russia Tried to Help Trump

No, there isn't.

The State of Georgia is reporting that the entity that tried to hack their computers belongs to the US Department of Homeland Security.

So it sounds like the Obama Administration is trying to create a false flag operation and blame Russia.

But the Democrat Media Complex has refused to follow up on Georgia's lead.

How does the State of Georgia know this?

They traced the IP address.

Your IP address is the computer you are logged into, not your location

and they traced that computer to a Department of Homeland security computer

isn't that considered an inside job? I mean, isn't that what Assange stated?

Ever hear that when you cut the head off of a live chicken it will run around flailing it's wings, sort of like what I've been watching for five weeks now with the libturds. See what happens when you cut the head off of live chicken?

 

[Divine Wind]

and interfering with an ongoing investigation by the FBI.

Thanks for backpedaling on your inference that the FBI declared there was noting to investigate.

 

[BULLDOG]

And why wasn't the hacking on only dems known before the election ? WHY did the FBI head hide the info costing dems votes and senators

The hacking was well known before the election. Remember when Wasserman resigned as co-chair of the DNC? Do you remember why? DNC chairwoman will resign in aftermath of committee email controversy

From last July: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/.../trail-of-dnc-emails-russia-hacking.html?_r=0

Timeline of the DNC and AKP Hacks WikiLeaks Releases - Glomar Disclosure


I have not seen a single shred of evidence that the hacking cost the Democrats a single vote. If you have actual evidence, please post it.

and there is absolutely no new information. So why is it such a big deal today? Oh can I say, the whiney bitches that are libturds who think only their point of view matters in the world and every opposing view is bigotted or racist or influenced by Russia I guess.

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 release of all those Wikileaks emails. They were hacked and given to Wikileaks by Russia. You don't think that effected the election?

 

[BULLDOG]

No, there isn't.

The State of Georgia is reporting that the entity that tried to hack their computers belongs to the US Department of Homeland Security.

So it sounds like the Obama Administration is trying to create a false flag operation and blame Russia.

But the Democrat Media Complex has refused to follow up on Georgia's lead.

How does the State of Georgia know this?

They traced the IP address.

Your IP address is the computer you are logged into, not your location

and they traced that computer to a Department of Homeland security computer

isn't that considered an inside job? I mean, isn't that what Assange stated?

Ever hear that when you cut the head off of a live chicken it will run around flailing it's wings, sort of like what I've been watching for five weeks now with the libturds. See what happens when you cut the head off of live chicken?

Assange lied.

 

[jc456]

And why wasn't the hacking on only dems known before the election ? WHY did the FBI head hide the info costing dems votes and senators

The hacking was well known before the election. Remember when Wasserman resigned as co-chair of the DNC? Do you remember why? DNC chairwoman will resign in aftermath of committee email controversy

From last July: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/.../trail-of-dnc-emails-russia-hacking.html?_r=0

Timeline of the DNC and AKP Hacks WikiLeaks Releases - Glomar Disclosure


I have not seen a single shred of evidence that the hacking cost the Democrats a single vote. If you have actual evidence, please post it.

and there is absolutely no new information. So why is it such a big deal today? Oh can I say, the whiney bitches that are libturds who think only their point of view matters in the world and every opposing view is bigotted or racist or influenced by Russia I guess.

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 release of all those Wikileaks emails. They were hacked and given to Wikileaks by Russia. You don't think that effected the election?

no they weren't it was an insider job, the guy that posted those emails said so. Don't you think he knows where he got them from? WTF is wrong with you anyway?

Well post up a voter who changed their mind? you know you need that to prove that right?

 

[jc456]

How does the State of Georgia know this?

They traced the IP address.

Your IP address is the computer you are logged into, not your location

and they traced that computer to a Department of Homeland security computer

isn't that considered an inside job? I mean, isn't that what Assange stated?

Ever hear that when you cut the head off of a live chicken it will run around flailing it's wings, sort of like what I've been watching for five weeks now with the libturds. See what happens when you cut the head off of live chicken?

Assange lied.

surrrrrrrrrrreeeeee he did. dude you just want to keep up the stupid don't you?

 

[jc456]

and interfering with an ongoing investigation by the FBI.

Thanks for backpedaling on your inference that the FBI declared there was noting to investigate.

I never said that dude. post up the post number I made that statement. Here let me correct you, I said they didn't agree with the CIA. hmmmmmmm remember that one? And so far, it stands that way and in fact, your own wikipedia post states the DNC emails were 'leaked', not hacked. DOH

 

[BULLDOG]

and interfering with an ongoing investigation by the FBI.

Thanks for backpedaling on your inference that the FBI declared there was noting to investigate.

I never said that dude. post up the post number I made that statement. Here let me correct you, I said they didn't agree with the CIA. hmmmmmmm remember that one? And so far, it stands that way and in fact, your own wikipedia post states the DNC emails were 'leaked', not hacked. DOH

They couldn't have been posted by Wikileaks if they hadn't been hacked first. If you know that Russia didn't supply them to Wikileaks, how did they get them?

 

[Dot Com]

....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?

BTW, a political party is not part of the government, it is private. So, actually no hack in our government happened.

Good point. Parties are not in the Constitution either

 

[jc456]

and interfering with an ongoing investigation by the FBI.

Thanks for backpedaling on your inference that the FBI declared there was noting to investigate.

I never said that dude. post up the post number I made that statement. Here let me correct you, I said they didn't agree with the CIA. hmmmmmmm remember that one? And so far, it stands that way and in fact, your own wikipedia post states the DNC emails were 'leaked', not hacked. DOH

They couldn't have been posted by Wikileaks if they hadn't been hacked first. If you know that Russia didn't supply them to Wikileaks, how did they get them?

they were leaked by someone in the DNC he said so. fk why are you so stupid?

 

[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?

BTW, a political party is not part of the government, it is private. So, actually no hack in our government happened.

Good point. Parties are not in the Constitution either

so all we know for sure is that if there was indeed a hack it was to private citizens. hitlery's server was not government either.

 

[Lakhota]

and interfering with an ongoing investigation by the FBI.

Thanks for backpedaling on your inference that the FBI declared there was noting to investigate.

I never said that dude. post up the post number I made that statement. Here let me correct you, I said they didn't agree with the CIA. hmmmmmmm remember that one? And so far, it stands that way and in fact, your own wikipedia post states the DNC emails were 'leaked', not hacked. DOH

They couldn't have been posted by Wikileaks if they hadn't been hacked first. If you know that Russia didn't supply them to Wikileaks, how did they get them?

Great question! Seventeen national security agencies say Russia provided them to Wikileaks.

 

[jc456]

and interfering with an ongoing investigation by the FBI.

Thanks for backpedaling on your inference that the FBI declared there was noting to investigate.

I never said that dude. post up the post number I made that statement. Here let me correct you, I said they didn't agree with the CIA. hmmmmmmm remember that one? And so far, it stands that way and in fact, your own wikipedia post states the DNC emails were 'leaked', not hacked. DOH

They couldn't have been posted by Wikileaks if they hadn't been hacked first. If you know that Russia didn't supply them to Wikileaks, how did they get them?

Great question! Seventeen national security agencies say Russia provided them to Wikileaks.

and all wrong. The guy that actually had the emails stated they were from an inside source. DOH!!!!! those 17 agencies aren't very good. nor is obummer who they failed under.

Trump will change that.

 

[Divine Wind]

and interfering with an ongoing investigation by the FBI.

Thanks for backpedaling on your inference that the FBI declared there was noting to investigate.

I never said that dude. post up the post number I made that statement. Here let me correct you, I said they didn't agree with the CIA. hmmmmmmm remember that one? And so far, it stands that way and in fact, your own wikipedia post states the DNC emails were 'leaked', not hacked. DOH

I'm always happy to educate you since you obviously need it, but I doubt your partisanship will allow you to learn.

1) Inference: the process of inferring something.

2) You stated repeatedly that the FBI investigated and concluded there was no hacking. I.E. nothing further to investigate. Are you denying you've posting comments like "the FBI said the servers weren't hacked" several times? Are you now saying that they are still investigating the hacking? That your comments were premature? Incomplete?

 

[jc456]

and interfering with an ongoing investigation by the FBI.

Thanks for backpedaling on your inference that the FBI declared there was noting to investigate.

I never said that dude. post up the post number I made that statement. Here let me correct you, I said they didn't agree with the CIA. hmmmmmmm remember that one? And so far, it stands that way and in fact, your own wikipedia post states the DNC emails were 'leaked', not hacked. DOH

I'm always happy to educate you since you obviously need it, but I doubt your partisanship will allow you to learn.

1) Inference: the process of inferring something.

2) You stated repeatedly that the FBI investigated and concluded there was no hacking. I.E. nothing further to investigate. Are you denying you've posting comments like "the FBI said the servers weren't hacked" several times? Are you now saying that they are still investigating the hacking? That your comments were premature? Incomplete?

yes I stand by my comment. post up the quote. one where I made that declaration. Again, I stated the FBI did not agree with the CIA. Then you asked that I supply a link, I did.