So, the FBI is lying?

An Intelligence Agency Is Interfering In US Politics And It Ain’t Russian

12/10/16

Yesterday, the CIA allegedly determined that Russia had intervened in the US election to the deliberate benefit of Donald Trump.


American intelligence agencies have concluded with “high confidence” that Russia acted covertly in the latter stages of the presidential campaign to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances and promote Donald J. Trump, according to senior administration officials.

They based that conclusion, in part, on another finding — which they say was also reached with high confidence — that the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee’s computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks.
This is a serious allegation and one, that if true, should result in very public and painful consequences for Russia. But, if it was a serious report it wouldn’t be made public. In fact, if you want a definitive example of an intelligence agency meddling in our domestic politics, you need look no further than this report.

Two of my colleagues, Susan Wright and Jay Caruso, have posted on the subject. I respectfully dissent, in part, from both of their views.

First, the evidence presented is a “consensus view” presented by administration officials. This means two things. First, there is no direct evidence of the claim (see global warming, consensus view) but rather they are making the claim base on their interpretation of a fact pattern. Second, the people making the claim are the political appointees in the agencies. When one delves a little deeper into the report we find this:

One senior government official, who had been briefed on an F.B.I. investigation into the matter, said that while there were attempts to penetrate the Republican committee’s systems, they were not successful.

Consider this for a moment. The FBI actually investigated to see if the RNC network had been hacked. The FBI, which did the forensic investigation, determined the network had NOT been hacked but various RNC operatives had had their email compromised. The CIA, which has no charter at all to investigate anything on US soil, has now determined that the FBI is in error based on the “consensus view” that if the DNC was hacked then the RNC was hacked. And the hacked RNC documents weren’t released therefore the Russians were helping Trump. Even though the FBI says the RNC was not hacked. (And apparently the “interference” had no effect at all outside of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania or any other state Hillary lost.)

 

Well I see you are up to your old tricks again Ace of trying to cheery pick part of a source for the stuff you want but then cutting off the stuff that proves the author is nuts. Essentially saying we can trust Russia but not the Central Intelligence Agency which is a liberal organization. You literally crack me up Ace.

 

Q: On what points of the new Russian assessment do the CIA and other intelligence authorities differ with the FBI?

A: The FBI does not dispute that the CIA's assessment could be accurate, said a U.S. official with knowledge of the matter. The difference lies in the institutional standards the agencies require in reaching such conclusions. While the CIA develops assessments based on a broad interpretation of available data, the FBI, as a law enforcement agency, requires a standard of proof that could sustain a possible criminal prosecution.

There have been differences, the official said, in how much weight to ascribe a range of possible motives: Were the Russians specifically seeking to tilt the election in favor of Trump? Was the effort designed to damage Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's future ability to govern, believing that she was destined to win? Or was the operation a hedging of bets to sow confusion and undermine confidence in the process?

Of the assessment that the Republican Party systems were likely breached, the official said the picture is not entirely clear. While not dismissing the intelligence community's conclusion, the official said a more definitive determination has not yet been reached.

 

Proof that this happened for the specific reasons that you leftists are squawking about has not been determined, that is exactly the text book definition on speculation...guessing....surmising...hoping...exactly what you leftists are doing in this instance, and exactly what we have been telling you brain dead mother fuckers the entire time....

What is so hard for you leftist to understand?

 

It's official: The White House says Russia has been conducting a broad campaign to interfere with US elections.

This included hacking into the computers of the Democratic National Committee and other agencies and political officials.

"These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process," the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security said in a joint statement Friday. "Such activity is not new to Moscow -- the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there."

The official accusation puts real heft behind allegations that have been percolating since June 14. That's when the DNC and cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike first pointed to Russian intelligence agencies as the most likely suspect in the hacker whodunnit. Two different teams of hackers infiltrated the political party's computer systems, each from a different Russian government organization.

Not long after that report, someone calling himself Guccifer 2.0 claimed credit for the DNC hack and began publishing documents and emails purportedly taken from the DNC and other national political organizations. California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, vice chair of the Senate Committee on Intelligence, asserted late last month that Russia was behind the hacks.

Friday's official statement clearly implicates Russian President Vladimir Putin, without mentioning him by name.

"We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities," the statement reads.

Dmitry Peskov, Putin's press secretary, issued a statement of his own.

"This is another piece of nonsense!" Peskov said. "Putin's website is attacked by tens of thousands of hackers daily. Many are traced to the US territory. But we don't go blaming them on the White House or Langley every time." Langley, Virginia, is home to the US Central Intelligence Agency.

 

Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts.

This is not proof, it is still speculation....

 

I hope so, but I have my doubts. Donald Trump has perfected the Reagan ploy of exploiting the resentments of lower income whites in order to get the political power to lower their incomes further. White blue collar incomes stagnated or declined during the Reagan years. Rural areas declined too. Nevertheless, Reagan was reelected by a landslide.

When faced with grim economic prospects white college graduates respond in ways that are politically functional.

When faced with grim economic prospects white high school dropouts are often drawn to some form of right wing populism.

 

To this day, you are still confused about what really happened in this past election season.

This election was nothing more than an uprising for more individualism, and a call for less collectivism.

A citizen of the U.S beats several career politicians to become POTUS.

 

The FBI performed a forensic investigation. The CIA didn't. The CIA has assessed that hacking occurred.

 

Lying left losers won't let sleeping dogs lie. They'll just tell more lies about 'em. Personally, I think most of it is Blowbama having a hissy fit because Trump is proving to be more presidential even before taking office, than the hissyfitter in chief has been in 8 years.



Democrats' all-out bid to smear Trump's victory as Clinton campaign backs electoral college members demanding intel briefing on Russian hacking before they vote

• Democrat's campaign is piggybacking on a call from 10 presidential electors for a briefing on open investigations into Trump and Russian hacking
• Among them: House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi's daughter, Christine
• The electors penned a letter to the director of national intelligence asking for a briefing
• 'These matters directly impact the core factors in our deliberations of whether Mr. Trump is fit to serve as President of the United States,' the letter says
• 'Podesta said: 'Electors have a solemn responsibility under the Constitution and we support their efforts to have their questions addressed'
  

12/12/16

Democrats put on a united bid to question the legitimacy of Donald Trump's election victory on Monday with the Clinton campaign returning from the dead to join in.

In a series of developments the White House, the Clinton campaign and Democrat members of the electoral college all pounced on reports that the CIA believe Russian wanted Trump to win the election.

A group of electoral college members - aided by an anti-Trump Republican - demanded a security briefing on the CIA's findings - a clear attempt to influence other members of the college who are not bound to vote for Trump.

Then they were backed by John Podesta, Clinton's campaign chairman, who launched a tirade against the media, claiming - in the teeth of overwhelming evidence - that claims of Russia interfering in the election had not been covered enough before voting day.

Next to the fray was the White House, which accused Trump of inviting Russia to hack Hillary Clinton, ending weeks of detente in the wake of the election result.

The attacks appear to be a concerted attempt by the Democrats to turn next week's vote by members of the electoral college into a massive question over the legitimacy of the result.

The three attacks came in the wake of a report in the Washington Post that the CIA had concluded Russia hacked both parties' systems but released only material which would embarrass the Democrats.

That was roundly rejected by Trump at the weekend and on Monday morning, as he said it was impossible to know who had hacked Clinton's efforts, and his campaign compared the CIA conclusion to the intelligence consensus that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

The White House's intervention came when spokesman Josh Earnest was asked to respond to Trump's position.

'He called on Russia to hack his opponent. He called on Russia to attack Secretary Clinton,' Josh Earnest said. 'So, he certainly had a pretty good sense of which side this activity was coming down on.'

But he spoke knowing that just hours earlier Clinton's campaign chairman had given public support to a letter from 10 members of the electoral college who are demanding an intelligence briefing on claims Russia interfered in the election's result before they cast their votes.


A group of Democrats are pushing for an intelligence briefing before they cast their ballots. Among
them: House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi's daughter, Christine

The electoral college has never defied the will of voters. In two cases it was unable to reach a majority, and the election went to the House of Representatives - in 1800 and 1824.

President Barack Obama has ordered a separate review of the hacking the intelligence community for his own purposes.

The report may not be made public because it will contain classified information, the White House said.
-----------------------

I'm sure it'll contain info that doesn't match his own meddling bullshit, which is the main reason it won't be made public.

 

Here is what I do not understand.......
here are the 10 that want the briefing....

Christine Pelosi (CA) - Democrat

Micheal Baca (CO) - Democrat

Anita Bonds (DC) - Democrat

Courtney Watson (MD) - Democrat

Dudley Dudley (NH) - Democrat

Bev Hollingworth (NH) - Democrat

Terie Norelli (NH) - Democrat

Carol Shea-Porter (NH) - Democrat

Clay Pell (RI) - Democrat

Chris Suprun (TX) - Republican

(10 of 538)


All but one of those people will be voting for Hillary......
so Hillary's voters want to be briefed about Russians?

 

I perfectly understand Democrats acting like Democrats, Randy.

Isn't Chris Suprun that same son of a bitch who was making waves as a rogue elector long before this current Russia bullshit hit the Democrat Party propaganda bureau news?

 

Top US Spy Agency Refuses To Endorse CIA's Russian Hacking Assessment Due To "Lack Of Evidence"

12/13/16

When the WaPo posted last Friday's story about a "secret" CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election, the readers of the Bezos-owned publication took it as gospel, despite, as we promptly noted, there being no evidence provided by the CIA, and as we learned today, the FBI openly resisting the CIA's assessment. It now appears that once again the WaPo may have been engaging in "partial fake news", as it did with its Nov. 24 story about "Russian propaganda fake media."

According to Reuters, the so-called overseers of the U.S. intelligence community as it supervises the 17 agency-strong U.S. intelligence community, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), while not disputing the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations - something which would be unprecedented for the US spy industry and would telegraph just how partisan and broken the country's intelligence apparatus has become - has refused to endorse the CIA's assessment "because of a lack of conclusive evidence" that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton.

As Reuters conveniently notes, the ODNI position could give Trump fresh ammunition to dispute the CIA assessment, which he rejected as "ridiculous" in weekend remarks, and press his assertion that no evidence implicates Russia in the cyber attacks. The ODNI's position confirms that Trump was once again, you guessed it, right.

"ODNI is not arguing that the agency (CIA) is wrong, only that they can't prove intent," said one of the three U.S. officials.

As reported earlier, the FBI, whose evidentiary standards require it to make cases that can stand up in court, likewise declined to accept the CIA's analysis - a deductive assessment of the available intelligence - for the same reason, the three officials said.

The ODNI, headed by James Clapper, was established after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the recommendation of the commission that investigated the attacks. The commission, which identified major intelligence failures, recommended the office's creation to improve coordination among U.S. intelligence agencies.

As a reminder, the first hint that the US would scapegoat Russia for an "unexpected election outcome" took place on October 7, when the U.S. government formally accused Russia of a campaign of cyber attacks against American political organizations ahead of the Nov. 8 presidential election. Back then, president Barack Obama has said he warned Russian President Vladimir Putin about consequences for the attacks. Reports of the assessment by the CIA, which has not publicly disclosed its findings, have prompted congressional leaders to call for an investigation.

The narrative escalated rapidly last week, when outgoing president Obama ordered intelligence agencies to review the cyber attacks and foreign intervention in the presidential election and to deliver a report before he turns power over to Trump on Jan. 20.

So how did the CIA come to its conclusion?

According to Reuters, the agency assessed after the election that the attacks on political organizations were aimed at swaying the vote for Trump because the targeting of Republican organizations diminished toward the end of the summer and focused on Democratic groups, a senior U.S. official told Reuters on Friday. Moreover, only materials filched from Democratic groups - such as emails stolen from John Podesta, the Clinton campaign chairman - were made public via WikiLeaks, the anti-secrecy organization, and other outlets, U.S. officials said.

The CIA conclusion - one of induction and no supporting evidence - was a "judgment based on the fact that Russian entities hacked both Democrats and Republicans and only the Democratic information was leaked," one of the three officials said on Monday. "(It was) a thin reed upon which to base an analytical judgment," the official added.

Earlier Monday, Senator John McCain said on Monday also confronted the CIA's assessment, saying there was "no information" that Russian hacking of American political organizations was aimed at swaying the outcome of the election. "It's obvious that the Russians hacked into our campaigns," McCain said. "But there is no information that they were intending to affect the outcome of our election and that's why we need a congressional investigation," he told Reuters.

McCain also questioned an assertion made on Sunday by RNC Chair Reince Priebus, who said that there were no hacks of computers belonging to Republican organizations. "Actually, because Mr. Priebus said that doesn't mean it's true," said McCain. "We need a thorough investigation of it, whether both (Democratic and Republican organizations) were hacked into, what the Russian intentions were. We cannot draw a conclusion yet. That's why we need a thorough investigation."

Well, just because HIllary said that, it did make it true, so perhaps Reince is right as well?

Meanwhile, in an angry letter sent to ODNI chief Clapper on Monday, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes said he was “dismayed” that the top U.S. intelligence official had not informed the panel of the CIA’s analysis and the difference between its judgment and the FBI’s assessment. Noting that Clapper in November testified that intelligence agencies lacked strong evidence linking Russian cyber attacks to the WikiLeaks disclosures, Nunes asked that Clapper, together with CIA and FBI counterparts, brief the panel by Friday on the latest intelligence assessment of Russian hacking during the election campaign.

We, for one, can't wait to hear his testimony - under oath - why in the span of one month so much has changed, and who precisely prompted the CIA to "infer" that Russia is responsible for Hillary Clinton's loss. Or maybe we will just have to wait for Wikileaks, pardon Russia, to hack Podesta's email account for that first?

 

As I was saying...

 

OH HOLY SHIT ACE!!! You are getting so rattled you forgot to put on your M4M persona before you posted this and used all your usual terminology, cadence, and tone. FUCKING HILARIOUS!!!

 

I can see you're going thru withdrawals, Stumbelina. Here you go.