Secret CIA assessment says Russia intervened in election to help Trump win

RandyKnight · Dec 18, 2016

stumbler said: ↑

But what you Putin/Russia cheerleaders fail to note is that Putin is bluffing knowing full well that US intelligence agencies cannot produce "proof" without also revealing the techniques, software, resources, and human resources (ie spies) that allow the US to track what Putin/Russia are doing.

Not that that would matter to America haters like you.
Click to expand...

If the US was that fucking good we would not keep getting hacked.....

This was some insider leaking the e-mails....

stumbler · Dec 18, 2016

Fox’s Shep Smith: Trump lies about Russian hacking because those in power want to control ‘the narrative’

During an interview on Steven Colbert’s Late Show, Fox News host Shep Smith said he was siding with U.S. intelligence agencies over President-elect Donald Trump over the the whether the Russians hacked the presuidential election

Host Colbert complimented Smith for being one of the more independent voices on the conservative news network by pointing out the time he equated then-candidate Trump with fascism.

ADVERTISING
“You called Trump during the campaign ‘almost fascist'” Colbert said, with Smith cutting in to say, “Something he said at that moment was almost fascist.”

“That is un-Shep-like hairsplitting, I want to point out” Colbert needled Smith. “Something he said was ‘almost fascist,’ but he’s not responsible for what he says?”

“I want him to be the greatest president in the history of this nation and I’m going to be for him and with him,” Smith replied. “But as a journalist it’s my job to hold truth to power and I’m going to listen to what he says, give it context and report it and watch what he does and report it and let the people decide.”

Asked about people in power attempting to create distrust of the media, Smith said, “They’ve always tried to do that.”

“Every leader always says ‘Don’t believe them,’ when you tell them things that are true,” he continued. “You want a certain narrative out there and if the truth sometimes flies in the face of that, like Trump to claim that the Russians did not get involved in our election while all 17 of our intelligence agencies say that they did.”

“Unless and until there’s further information on this matter, I’m going with the intelligence agencies because [Trump] doesn’t know yet,” Smith said.

With Colbert pointing out that Trump claimed nobody brought up the hack before the election, Smith shot the president-elect down, saying, “Well, they did. They did long before the election. It was discussed openly in those segments and we reported on them.”
Click to expand...

RandyKnight · Dec 18, 2016

M4MPetCock · Dec 18, 2016

clarise said: ↑

Xenophobe.

Or is it Russophobe?

This is more for ThinSkin than Stumbler, because Stumbler's a meanie and ThinSkin is nice:

Why is it that when Obama stated a willingness to sit down with the savages in Iran, he was shortlisted for the Nobel Peace Prize, but when Trump states a willingness to sit down with the savages in Russia, he's branded a traitor?

And why is it that the looney left has so much trouble with Trump's selections of people who can work with the Russians, yet they have no problem with Obama having an Iranian bitch as his closest White House confidant?

I only ask because U.S. interests align more compatibly with Russia than Iran. So I don't get the double standard.
Click to expand...

Because the savages in Russia (along with other heads of state) have repeatedly made a fool of the Bluffer-in-Chief by exposing his foreign policy failures.

M4MPetCock · Dec 18, 2016

Speaking of fake news.

Wait. Who?

FeltPlay · Dec 18, 2016

The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming. Lions, tigers, and bears, oh my....just wait for the flying monkeys(I hear they are commies). Even Chicken Little is laughing at you losers. Get over it already.

stumbler · Dec 18, 2016

Three professors of psychiatry call for ‘neuropsychiatric evaluation’ of Trump out of fears he’s mentally ill

n a letter addressed to President Barack Obama, three professors of psychiatry — including one from Harvard Medical School — expressed fears that President-elect Donald Trump’s exhibits signs he may not be mentally fit to assume the presidency.

In the letter, which can be found at The Huffington Post, Judith Herman, M.D. a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School — along with two professors who taught at the University of California, San Francisco — made the appeal to Obama based upon their “grave concern” after watching Trump’s antics.

“We are writing to express our grave concern regarding the mental stability of our President-Elect,” the letter reads. “Professional standards do not permit us to venture a diagnosis for a public figure whom we have not evaluated personally.”

“His widely reported symptoms of mental instability — including grandiosity, impulsivity, hypersensitivity to slights or criticism, and an apparent inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality — lead us to question his fitness for the immense responsibilities of the office,” it continues. “We strongly recommend that, in preparation for assuming these responsibilities, he receive a full medical and neuropsychiatric evaluation by an impartial team of investigators.”

This is not the first time questions have arisen over Trump’s mental stability as a world leader — or the stability of his followers.

Prior to the election, the American Psychiatric Association made a plea to members to not associate Trump with mental illness at a distance, with APA President Maria A. Oquendo. writing, “This year, the election seems like anything but a normal contest, that has at times devolved into outright vitriol. The unique atmosphere of this year’s election cycle may lead some to want to psychoanalyze the candidates, but to do so would not only be unethical, it would be irresponsible.”
Click to expand...

freespiritx · Dec 18, 2016

freespiritx · Dec 18, 2016

stumbler · Dec 18, 2016

Trump has been lying about the Russian hack. He just accidentally admitted it himself.

In recent days, Donald Trump has been spinning a new narrative about CIA charges of Russian interference in our election: The administration did not leak the news of this finding until after Trump won, which shows this is just an after-the-fact effort to undercut the significance of his victory over Hillary Clinton. As Trump tweeted Thursday: “If Russia, or some other entity, was hacking, why did the White House wait so long to act? Why did they only complain after Hillary lost?”

This is not some small offhand remark. It represents an effort by Trump — one that is going to continue — to construct an alternative narrative to replace the increasingly substantiated one in which Russia may have in fact tried to interfere in our election to help him, which would obviously carry enormous significance on many levels.

But Friday, Trump send out a new tweet that accidentally reveals that he knows this entire narrative is a lie:

Trump is referring here to news that broke in late October: That a hacked email showed that interim DNC chair Donna Brazile may have leaked a Democratic primary debate question to Clinton’s campaign in advance. Brazile publicly blamed this leak on Russian hackers who were out to divide Democrats by feeding the perception among Bernie Sanders supporters that the DNC was putting its thumb on the scales for her. This built on a formal statement that the intelligence community put out earlier in October declaring itself “confident” that Russia was trying to interfere in the elections by hacking into DNC emails.

[John Podesta: Something is deeply broken at the FBI]

And so, by referring to this episode, what Trump is inadvertently revealing here is that, yes, the complaint about Russian hacking to hurt Clinton did in fact precede the election, and this was widely and publicly known. Of course, there is ample other evidence that Trump is fully aware of this. The intel community had publicly declared it weeks before the election. Trump had reportedly been privately briefed on it by U.S. officials. Trump was confronted with evidence of the hack at a debate with Clinton that was watched by tens of millions of people. At the debate, he cast doubt on the notion that Russia had hacked the materials to hurt Clinton. And yet, as Mark Murray points out, Trump himself widely referenced the material dug up in the hacks at rallies, where he used that material to — wait for it — try to damage Clinton.

Trump’s latest efforts are extraordinarily ham-handed. In this new tweet, he thinks he’s muddying the waters by suggesting that the hackers tried to help Clinton (as if to say this shows they couldn’t have wanted to assist Trump), as part of a broader ongoing effort to build an alternative narrative to the emerging one about possible Russian interference to help him. But he’s just succeeded in revealing how preposterous that alternative narrative really is.

Once again, we do not know for sure that Russia interfered. But, should more evidence emerge, Trump’s position on this is very likely to grow unsustainable. Confronted with evidence that a foreign power may have tried to swing our election — something that’s being widely condemned by Republicans — Trump continues to refuse to take it seriously (even as his own advisers gamely try to pretend he does). Instead, Trump appears to harbor boundless confidence that he can spin any substitute story line he wants, and that, no matter how deeply absurd it is, his supporters will eagerly buy into the alternate reality he’s concocted for them.

How long can Trump maintain this posture? It’s possible that the intelligence community will leak more evidence of Russian interference in coming days. What’s more, there will soon be confirmation hearings for two retired generals Trump has picked for his Cabinet — James Mattis as defense secretary, and John Kelly as head of the department of homeland security. They will be asked about the intelligence community’s confidence that Russia did try to swing our election, and what should be done about it. One presumes they will treat the topic with the gravity it deserves. Meanwhile, Trump — and let me remind you, he will soon be doing this as president of the United States — will be dithering around with tweets designed to spin his own reality about what happened that everyone knows is straight out of la-la land, including (presumably) him.

That can’t go on for too much longer. Can it?
Click to expand...

ace's n 8's · Dec 18, 2016

anon_de_plume said: ↑

You know that when I say "you" I mean "the conservatives". Don't be a fool and play dumb.
Click to expand...

So, whats your point?

ace's n 8's · Dec 18, 2016

stumbler said: ↑

But what you Putin/Russia cheerleaders fail to note is that Putin is bluffing knowing full well that US intelligence agencies cannot produce "proof" without also revealing the techniques, software, resources, and human resources (ie spies) that allow the US to track what Putin/Russia are doing.

Not that that would matter to America haters like you.
Click to expand...

Do you really think that Putin is so much of a pussy that he would hide behind and deny , that Russia was behind the hacking?

ace's n 8's · Dec 18, 2016

stumbler said: ↑

Ok you want proof that US intelligence agencies are in agreement that Putin/Russia interfered in our elections in favor of Trump here it is.

FBI in agreement with CIA that Russia aimed to help Trump win White House

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ac61c0ef74d_story.html?utm_term=.ca0842c08b3a

Now do you deny that is an actual reality? You know as in something that really has happened?
Click to expand...

Ok, so they're all in agreement, so...just what exactly are they basing the agreement on?

ace's n 8's · Dec 18, 2016

stumbler said: ↑

John Podesta: Something is deeply broken at the FBI
Click to expand...

Even Clinton's/leftist donors are not buying this bullshit that Clinton lost due to the Russian's interferring in this election.

anon_de_plume · Dec 18, 2016

ace's n 8's said: ↑

So, whats your point?
Click to expand...

Guess you're not playing...

ace's n 8's · Dec 18, 2016

anon_de_plume said: ↑

Guess you're not playing...
Click to expand...

I have played that game out.

DL keeps throwing this shit out, and I keep telling DL to shut the fuck up.

And DL is the one that thinks everyone else is closed minded.

stumbler · Dec 18, 2016

There are four ways Donald Trump may be guilty of treason, says law expert

Former Assistant Secretary of State and international human rights expert John Shattuck said this week that President-elect Donald Trump must welcome a thorough investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election because the questions it raises leave him vulnerable to charges of treason.

“A specter of treason hovers over Donald Trump,” Shattuck wrote in the Boston Globe. “He has brought it on himself by dismissing a bipartisan call for an investigation of Russia’s hacking of the Democratic National Committee as a ‘ridiculous’ political attack on the legitimacy of his election as president.”

With evidence piling up that forces within Russia worked to tip the election in Trump’s favor, Shattuck said that it’s unwise for Trump to bat aside the accusations as if they’re unimportant.

Shattuck — who was appointed by Pres. Bill Clinton and currently serves as a professor of diplomacy at the Fletcher Center of Law and Diplomacy and as a senior fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School’s Carr Center for Human Rights Policy — quoted the director of U.S. Cyber Command Admiral Mike Rogers.

“This was not something that was done casually, this was not something that was done by chance,” Rogers said. “This was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily. This was a conscious effort by a nation state to attempt to achieve a specific effect.”

Report Advertisement
“There are several possible explanations for Trump’s position” in avoiding an investigation, said Shattuck. “They are not mutually exclusive.”

In each of these scenarios, the president-elect is engaging in behaviors that fall under the definition of treason, Shattuck wrote, which is committed by a person “owing allegiance to the United States who…adheres to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort.” The crime of misprision of treason is committed by a person “having knowledge of the commission of any treason [who] conceals and does not disclose.”

1. Trump may be attempting to shore up his political standing ahead of the meeting of the Electoral College on Monday.

2. He may be trying to undermine public confidence in U.S. intelligence agencies so that when he is inaugurated in January, he can “intimidate them and have a freer hand in reshaping the intelligence product to suit his objectives.”

Report Advertisement
3. He may be testing to see whether the American public is willing to follow his lead over that of the intelligence community and “follow his version of the truth about national security threats.”

4. He may be attempting to cover up evidence of “involvement or prior knowledge by members of his campaign team or himself in the Russian cyberattack.”

Shattuck said, “By denigrating or seeking to prevent an investigation of the Russian cyberattack Trump is giving aid or comfort to an enemy of the United States, a crime that is enhanced if the fourth explanation applies — that he is in fact seeking to cover up his staff’s or his own involvement in or prior knowledge of the attack.”

While there has been no disclosure thus far of evidence that shows Trump was involved in or knew in advance about the Russian government’s actions, Shattuck said that a thorough investigation is clearly warranted.

He then laid out a series of known quantities that contribute to the air of suspicion and doubt around Trump’s claims that there was no collusion between his campaign and the Russian government.

“Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager, has had extensive political dealings with the Russian government. Trump’s designate for National Security Adviser, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, has appeared as a commentator for Russian state television and sat with Vladimir Putin at a Russian gala. As a candidate, Trump repeatedly praised Putin and took positions favorable to the Russian government. As reported by the New York Times, the president-elect’s son, Donald Trump Jr., told a real estate gathering in 2008 that ‘Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets,’ adding, ‘we see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.’ Two days after the election, Russia’s deputy foreign minister, Sergei Ryabokov, was quoted by the Times as saying that ‘there were contacts’ between Moscow and the Trump campaign, and that members of the campaign staff ‘were staying in touch with Russian representatives.’”

To continue to stall an investigation, Shattuck said, will leave Trump permanently vulnerable to questions about the legitimacy of his presidency. The president-elect, he said, must act quickly to “clear the air” lest “a specter of treason” hover over him and his presidency.
Click to expand...

ace's n 8's · Dec 18, 2016

stumbler said: ↑

There are four ways Donald Trump may be guilty of treason, says law expert
Click to expand...

How many 'law experts' have made that same claim about Obama...Hillary....Bill Clinton...GW Bush..so on and so on.

With even more ''facts'' to back their law expert claims?

stumbler · Dec 18, 2016

Larry Lessig On Why Trump Might Not Take Office

With just a couple days to go before the Electoral College officially votes for the next president of the United States, Harvard University law professor Larry Lessig has claimed there are as many as 30 Republican electors who are open to breaking their pledge and voting for a candidate other than Donald Trump - thus preventing him from "winning" the election.

In an interview with MSNBC's Chuck Todd on Tuesday, Lessig - who was once a candidate in the election himself - claimed that "a bunch of groups" have been offering legal advice and support to electors looking to exercise their federal right to "vote their conscience" by voting against Trump.

"Surveying the three groups that are supporting Republican electors, we believe there are 20 right now - some tell me the number is higher than that, it should be more like 30 - but I feel confident in saying there’s at least 20,” he claimed.

As the law professor went on to explain, it would take 37 faithless electors in states that voted for Trump to prevent the president-elect from reaching the 270 votes necessary to assume office. And while these faithless electors might be punished at a state level for voting against Trump, Lessig argues that because they are, technically, federal electors, their right to "be able to exercise their independent and nonpartisan judgment about who to vote for" should be protected by the federal Constitution.

"They can't be forced by law [to vote for a state's preferred candidate], but they have an ethical, moral obligation once they take the pledge and they must vote that way, unless there is an overriding moral reason not to vote that way," he said. "And the disqualification, or the failure of a candidate to live up to the qualifications, would be one such reason. And that's exactly the issue that's raised by this election. The Electoral College was made for this election."

In the interview, Lessig claimed it was completely plausible that 37 Republican electors would decide to vote against Trump - thus turning the decision over to the House of Representatives, who would then have to pick between the top three candidates. However, Lessig also acknowledged that if the Electoral College were to turn the decision back to Congress, it's entirely possible Trump would still be elected into office, given the fact that Republicans currently hold the majority of seats.

Furthermore, Lessig also stated his opinion that without the necessary 37 faithless electors, it's unlikely any of them will actually exercise their right to vote against Trump, let alone publicize it. In fact, so far, only one Republican faithless elector has come forward to say he will not vote for the president-elect.

However, because of "reasons like the threat of foreign involvement in our election, or a candidate who refuses to live up to the foreign bribery clause by disassociating himself or divesting himself from assets that could be affected by foreign governments," Lessig is still supportive of electors' right to vote against the president-elect if they believe he is unfit to serve.

"We have a system," he said. "The system is the Electoral College, which has the right to make a judgment in the end whether to confirm the democratic result."
Click to expand...

clarise · Dec 18, 2016

You know that Lessig is Harvard's nuttiest commie fruitcake.

Right?

Log in or Sign up

RandyKnight Have Gun, Will Travel

stumbler Porn Star

RandyKnight Have Gun, Will Travel

M4MPetCock Porn Star Banned!

M4MPetCock Porn Star Banned!

FeltPlay Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

freespiritx DreamWeaver

freespiritx DreamWeaver

stumbler Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

anon_de_plume Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

clarise Precious princess Banned!

Secret CIA assessment says Russia intervened in election to help Trump win

Log in or Sign up

RandyKnight Have Gun, Will Travel

stumbler Porn Star

RandyKnight Have Gun, Will Travel

M4MPetCock Porn Star Banned!

M4MPetCock Porn Star Banned!

FeltPlay Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

freespiritx DreamWeaver

freespiritx DreamWeaver

stumbler Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

anon_de_plume Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

ace's n 8's Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

clarise Precious princess Banned!

Useful Searches