CIA: Russia influenced election to help Trump win

CharminTide said:

Not sure why you think this is significant, but okay. In the end, 17 agencies issued a unanimous statement.


What evidence are you citing? The whole point of investigating this is see what Russia attempted, how systems or people were compromised, what effect it had, and what effect it may still have.

Click to expand...

To the first point, no, it was not a unanimous statement. It was a consensus statement. Based on what, we'd have to guess.

What evidence are you citing that there was a significant influence? My evidence was presented earlier in the thread and based on the number of hits these website received vs the number of votes. I believe this was related mainly to FB posts by the "fake news" sites. Again, if you are going to say the attempts to influence were successful then you need to present evidence to that effect. Otherwise, you have no case.

A couple of articles I came by tonight:

http://reason.com/blog/2016/12/12/cia-and-fbi-should-make-public-evidence

http://reason.com/blog/2016/12/12/lets-say-russia-did-hack-the-dems-what-w

I may be wrong, but one of the themes here seems to be that Trump voters are simply too stupid to discern which news is true. The evidence seems to be that they voted for Trump. Perhaps you think the "popularity" of the fake news sites proves the point. But who's to say just as many Hillary voters didn't view the "fake news" sites? What evidence is there that it was all or mostly Trump supporters clicking the links? It may be so, and "common sense" would seem to suggest it, but where is the evidence for that?

I guess what I am saying is that you have in no way whatsoever shown any compelling evidence based on hard facts (appeal to authority is not compelling - sorry) that validates any of your claims. If the Russians did the hacking then release the evidence. If that hacking (assuming it is true) influenced voters then release the evidence. If that influence was significant then release the evidence. Release the evidence. Period.

And then, assuming it is all true and the Russians hacked and had a significant influence then what? Does that mean Trump was complicit? Where's the evidence? Shall we overturn a democratic election? What is the outcome you seek?

Let's summarize: voters knew BEFORE the election that SOMEBODY who was releasing Clinton's emails had it in for her.

They didn't care.


Voters knew in 1968 and ESPECIALLY 1972 that Richard Nixon was a crook - they didn't care.

Voters knew in 1968 that George Wallace was an avowed racist - they didn't care, and he got almost half of his popular votes in the NORTH.

Voters knew Bill Clinton was lying in 1992 when he promised a middle class tax cut while saying he was going to reduce the deficit - they didn't care.

Voters knew in 1998 that Bill Clinton had committed the crime of perjury - they didn't care (and the Democrats actually did very well in those mid-terms).

Voters knew in 2000 that GW Bush was essentially an empty suit with a name - they didn't care.

Voters knew in 2004 that Iraq never had weapons of mass destruction and even Bush had admitted there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda - they didn't care.

Voters knew in 2008 that Barack Obama had no relevant experience to actually be President of the USA - they didn't care.

Voters knew in 2016 that the DNC had predetermined who was going to win their so-called competitive primary - they didn't care. (The argument "she won the most votes in the primaries" is completely irrelevant since it wouldn't have mattered if Bernie Sanders had done so).

Voters knew in 2016 that the Republicans had nominated an inexperienced buffoon with no manners and no specifics who insulted whomever he wished at a whim - they didn't care.



Maybe they should but the simple truth is that by and large - they don't.

NationalTitles16 said:

I may be wrong, but one of the themes here seems to be that Trump voters are simply too stupid to discern which news is true. The evidence seems to be that they voted for Trump. Perhaps you think the "popularity" of the fake news sites proves the point. But who's to say just as many Hillary voters didn't view the "fake news" sites? What evidence is there that it was all or mostly Trump supporters clicking the links? It may be so, and "common sense" would seem to suggest it, but where is the evidence for that?

Click to expand...

A simple perusal of my Facebook (and Gary Johnson got the most votes from my 150 or so friends who stated anything about it) shows that EVERY politician's supporters was susceptible to fake news. There simply was no 'Trump effect' that supported this nor have I seen it.

Besides - it seems to be almost exclusively Democrats who believe fake news like Reagan stealing the 1980 election by getting Iran to hold the hostages or that Dick Cheney murdered Paul Wellstone via a plane crash prior to the 2002 mid-terms.

NationalTitles16 said:

I guess what I am saying is that you have in no way whatsoever shown any compelling evidence based on hard facts (appeal to authority is not compelling - sorry) that validates any of your claims. If the Russians did the hacking then release the evidence. If that hacking (assuming it is true) influenced voters then release the evidence. If that influence was significant then release the evidence. Release the evidence. Period.

And then, assuming it is all true and the Russians hacked and had a significant influence then what? Does that mean Trump was complicit? Where's the evidence? Shall we overturn a democratic election? What is the outcome you seek?

Click to expand...

What one REALLY has to explain in terms of ELECTORAL OUTCOME is this: how did the Russians manage to make enough two-time Obama voters in three key states vote for Trump?


Better yet.....how did they hijack Hillary Clinton and force her to NOT campaign in Wisconsin?

NationalTitles16 said:

To the first point, no, it was not a unanimous statement. It was a consensus statement. Based on what, we'd have to guess.

Click to expand...

It appears Charmin is unaware of how NIEs work.

What evidence are you citing that there was a significant influence? My evidence was presented earlier in the thread and based on the number of hits these website received vs the number of votes. I believe this was related mainly to FB posts by the "fake news" sites. Again, if you are going to say the attempts to influence were successful then you need to present evidence to that effect. Otherwise, you have no case.

A couple of articles I came by tonight:

http://reason.com/blog/2016/12/12/cia-and-fbi-should-make-public-evidence

http://reason.com/blog/2016/12/12/lets-say-russia-did-hack-the-dems-what-w

I may be wrong, but one of the themes here seems to be that Trump voters are simply too stupid to discern which news is true. The evidence seems to be that they voted for Trump. Perhaps you think the "popularity" of the fake news sites proves the point. But who's to say just as many Hillary voters didn't view the "fake news" sites? What evidence is there that it was all or mostly Trump supporters clicking the links? It may be so, and "common sense" would seem to suggest it, but where is the evidence for that?

Click to expand...

My father, a Hillary supporter and fanatical MSNBC watcher, told me that the emails had been modified. That was a fake news story, planted by MSNBC, to help Hillary's campaign, that that voter bought hook, line and sinker.

I guess what I am saying is that you have in no way whatsoever shown any compelling evidence based on hard facts (appeal to authority is not compelling - sorry) that validates any of your claims. If the Russians did the hacking then release the evidence. If that hacking (assuming it is true) influenced voters then release the evidence. If that influence was significant then release the evidence. Release the evidence. Period.

And then, assuming it is all true and the Russians hacked and had a significant influence then what? Does that mean Trump was complicit? Where's the evidence? Shall we overturn a democratic election? What is the outcome you seek?

Click to expand...

I think that all those Trump and Hillary voters, if not for the Russians hacking the election, would have voted for Gary Johnson. All of them. (My evidence? My assertion of the fact.) So what I demand is the inauguration of Gary Johnson. My guy really won the election, so only an anti-democratic nazi would oppose Johnson's inauguration.

CharminTide said:

You seem to think I'm projecting my own judgement here. The claim that the right was more susceptible to fake news comes from multiple interviews with multiple owners of fake news empires during the election, which I've posted at least three times in the last month. They have all stated that fake news on the left was far less profitable, because a much higher proportion of that target audience will fact check and not share falsehoods. The same thing did not happen on the right.

Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, how did the owners of fake news sites determine the rightness or leftness of its readers?

CharminTide said:

Personally, I find it horrifying that the president-elect (1) refuses to believe multiple intelligence agencies telling him Russia underwent a campaign to influence our election, and (2) opposes investigating this issue so very ardently, as if doing so would somehow lessen his authority. This seems to be the mindset of a man who values his own power over the prospect of compromised sovereign elections or national security. Fortunately, most in the GOP seem to be breaking against him on this issue.

Click to expand...

The FBI doesn't seem to be on the same page with respect to the inferences being drawn by the intelligence agencies. Maybe Trump is listening to his buddy, Jim Comey, instead.

CharminTide said:

Since they clearly would know the target audience of the fake news being written, is it your contention that a significant number of readers on the left share and propagate fake news aimed at the right, and vice versa?

Click to expand...

Could lefties be alarmed by a news headline and click on it to see the details? Once the ridiculousness of an article is ascertained, could lefties share it as an example of conservative campaign tactics? I bet both scenarios happened regularly.

You probably don't agree with my inference. Is an investigation warranted to ascertain its accuracy?

CharminTide said:

The FBI believes Russia interfered in the election. Last I checked, they hadn't reached the same conclusion regarding their motivation as the CIA. This isn't too surprising, given that the FBI is tasked with mounting a prosecutable case, and the CIA compiles actionable intelligence that will never reach a courtroom. Seems like more reason to investigate what is known, what is suspected, and what is neither.

Click to expand...

The FBI has been investigating the various hacking incidents for months now. The "interference in the election" meme is the inference I believe the FBI is not willing to make...at least not yet.

Russians involved in cyber espionage? This is new to you? Interesting that it is now of special concern to you. Nevertheless, the investigation continues. No need to act outraged as if it is not.

Edit: As a note, congress has also been investigating Russian hacking for months as well.

Maybe this is fake news:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-intelligence-idUSKBN14204E

The overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced a CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election, three American officials said on Monday.

While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named.

Click to expand...

CharminTide said:

The only way this becomes a salient point is if you side with Trump and disbelieve the intelligence conclusion. Do you?

Click to expand...

Gentlemen, I present the fallacy of the false dilemma.

CharminTide said:

1)
3) The hacking campaign was originally presented as Russia leaking emails and setting up propaganda news outlets to merely disrupt the election. It was believed that these fake news sites (some were set up by Russian assets, others by random people looking to profit off Facebook clicks) were overwhelmingly aimed at the right not because of some anti-Clinton agenda, but because the right fell for the narrative-fitting lies more readily.

Click to expand...

One 'journalist' for the WaPo and a 'media critic' for CNN endorising this unhinged screed. But it fits with their narrative.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/125nwxptXyYSH3hiCW7hObeo86xFOvo_1UwNUgWL4E2I/edit

Keith Olberman - The Resistance Leader!


https://twitter.com/KeithOlbermann/status/808567254849875968

All this bickering is doing (here and nationally) is further driving a wedge through our country. The left and the right both need a time out and then we can see if they can behave afterwards.

CharminTide said:

The only way this becomes a salient point is if you side with Trump and disbelieve the intelligence conclusion. Do you?

Click to expand...

IDK. Should I believe them the same way I believed Iraq had WMD?