Trump, predictably, has dismissed this. But it’s a major concern. I think it should be thoroughly investigated, and I’m sure it will be.
The issue I have is one raised by John Bolton. Now Bolton seems to be out there on many issues, but I think he’s on to something here. He argued that the Obama administration has politicized things to the point that they can’t be trusted. I agree with him. When you consider the extent to which the Obama administration has twisted the laws in order to fit them with their preferred agenda, and used administrative powers intended for one purpose to advance their cause in others (e.g. pipeline decisions) it’s hard to fully trust anything coming from them on a murky issue like what Russia’s true intentions are and WRT to something as political as this one.
Already now, electors opposed to Trump have demanded intelligence briefings on this matter, in an effort to use this to promote electors to flip their votes - an effort supported by the Clinton campaign.
That said, this is something that absolutely has to be looked into. Just that until the evidence is out there, there is valid concern that the specific conclusion between put out by the administration at this time is colored by politics.
“Intervened” is a nebulous term. What exactly is “Russia” accused of?
“Russia” is a nebulous term. Has it been determined if it was an agency of the Russian government or just someone in Russia? There is a difference.
In order to claim to know the motive, and not just what action was taken, the CIA must have some evidence of the motive. Where is it?
Releasing this statement (well, even worse, leaking it through anonymous sources) without providing information on all 3 of the above points is pretty disingenuous. I can’t blame the Republicans who think that this is a political maneuver. It definitely stinks of it.
Hacking the DNC and RNC, and then only releasing the DNC files, to discredit Clinton (even though the files released didn’t actually show any nefarious actions). Also generating and promulgating fake news.
They seem to think it’s the government. That evidence hasn’t be released yet.
The motive, I would assume, is to put an sputtering imbecile in charge of America.
What’s the basis for the claim that the RNC was hacked? Dopers have said that, but I’m afraid it might just be something they’ve told each other so much they believe it’s true, because they really want to believe it’s true.
Now that the recounts didn’t produce the desired result, I guess is back to the Russia bogeyman.
Much like the rest of the hand wringing and whining, this will go nowhere. Some people are having a tough time accepting the results of the election. It’s everything and anything but Hillary/the Democrats.
They have none. They’re literally choosing to believe anything that is anti-Trump, because they refuse to accept his impending presidency. I guess they feel that if they throw enough mud against a wall, something is bound to stick.
As you might imagine, I’m not inclined to trust the NYT and their anonymous sources, and even a flag-waving patriot like myself has to acknowledge that our intelligence agencies have a track record that falls a good distance short of flawless, but I do thank you for providing a source, even though it’s the NYT.
If they’d just been open about it, buying newspaper and TV ads, and donating to campaigns via PACs, we wouldn’t so much give a damn. First Amendment, free speech. The same right I have to donate to a political PAC in Virginia or Florida.
Even the fake news stories, via FaceBook: free goddamn speech (except for the formal libel, e.g. the pizza restaurant.) It stinks, but it’s part of our liberty.
I listened to an interview by an “ex CIA operative” on CNN. I can see why he isn’t one anymore because he is obviously retarded. He was babbling about calling for new elections even though there is no way to do that and he freely admitted that he didn’t know anything about the Constitution. They should have gotten that guy from the History channel that believes aliens are responsible for almost everything. At least that would have been entertaining.
I am not a Trump supporter in the least but he is going to be the next POTUS. I know some people find that impossible to believe because they live in a perpetual Liberal bubble but he really did win and sometimes you just have to work with the hand you are dealt and then learn from it but we all know that is not going to happen either.
Wisconsin just finished their recount and Trump gained votes. That effectively ends the recount strategy because Hillary Clinton needed to have the results of Wisconsin, Michigan AND Pennsylvania overturned. That is impossible now too.
All of this Russian interference bullshit is starting to piss me off. Democrats and liberals in general are starting to go off the rails. What did the Russians do exactly? Does anyone have any idea? What they didn’t do was hack into voting machines because one of the strengths of the American voting system is that it is completely decentralized, every state is different and the voting machines generally are not connected to the internet at all. So what was it they did?
I think the claim is more like: the Democrats were the only ones we know were successfully hacked, probably because Democrats were the only ones dumb enough to fall for phishing schemes, or something like that.
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.
There have been flaws / mistakes in the reporting of most major media outlets, so I’m a bit skeptical of all of them. I don’t consider InfoWars credible. The little bit of Breitbart I’ve read usually just rephrases and summarizes other media outlets, but I certainly don’t spend enough time there to consider myself familiar with their coverage. So, I guess I’d describe it like this: I take most articles with a grain of salt and try to take into consideration the known or suspected biases of the author and organization publishing the piece.