Thomas Walkom (Star) - Forget the Moscow conspiracy theory. Donald Trump won

[Frankfooter]

Not one democrat said that the emails were altered. If they hadn't been up to no good there would have been no problem.

Nope.
http://www.snopes.com/clinton-cabbage-odor/

And you stand by your claim that the Russian hacked emails are all totally authentic and not doctored?

 

[danmand]

Julian Assange Crushes Obama Narrative: "Our Source Is Not The Russian Government"



by Tyler Durden
Dec 16, 2016 11:40 AM

As Obama gets set to announce retaliation efforts against the Russian government for "hacking" the 2016 election, Julian Assange has come forward, once again, to confirm that his source is not the Russians.** Appearing on the Sean Hannity radio show, Assange had the following to say:


Assange:** "Our source is not the Russian government."
**
Hannity:** "Let me be clear, Russia did not give you the Podesta documents or anything from the DNC?"
**
Assange:** "That's correct."

**
Meanwhile, even James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence who oversees the 17 intelligence agencies that Hillary loved to quote during the campaign, confirmed, after the election, that he had no "good insight" into where WikiLeaks received they're information.


James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence (11/17/16):** "As far as the WikiLeaks connection, the evidence there is not as strong and we don't have good insight into the sequencing of the releases or when the data may have been provided.** We don't have as good insight into that."
So, just to summarize where we are.** WikiLeaks, the organization behind both the DNC and Podesta leaks, has confirmed repeatedly that its source was not the Russian government.** James Clapper, the head of Hillary's 17 intelligence agencies, has confirmed that he has no "good insight" into where WikiLeaks got their information.** But the Obama administration, utilizing the full might of the corrupt mainstream media, is about to "retaliate" against the Russian government, without a shred of credible evidence, as the mainstream media continues to spin a dangerous narrative based on "anonymous" sources at the CIA.** Does that about sum it up?**

 

[Frankfooter]

Julian Assange Crushes Obama Narrative: "Our Source Is Not The Russian Government"



by Tyler Durden
Dec 16, 2016 11:40 AM

As Obama gets set to announce retaliation efforts against the Russian government for "hacking" the 2016 election, Julian Assange has come forward, once again, to confirm that his source is not the Russians.** Appearing on the Sean Hannity radio show, Assange had the following to say:


Assange:** "Our source is not the Russian government."
**
Hannity:** "Let me be clear, Russia did not give you the Podesta documents or anything from the DNC?"
**
Assange:** "That's correct."

**
Meanwhile, even James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence who oversees the 17 intelligence agencies that Hillary loved to quote during the campaign, confirmed, after the election, that he had no "good insight" into where WikiLeaks received they're information.


James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence (11/17/16):** "As far as the WikiLeaks connection, the evidence there is not as strong and we don't have good insight into the sequencing of the releases or when the data may have been provided.** We don't have as good insight into that."
So, just to summarize where we are.** WikiLeaks, the organization behind both the DNC and Podesta leaks, has confirmed repeatedly that its source was not the Russian government.** James Clapper, the head of Hillary's 17 intelligence agencies, has confirmed that he has no "good insight" into where WikiLeaks got their information.** But the Obama administration, utilizing the full might of the corrupt mainstream media, is about to "retaliate" against the Russian government, without a shred of credible evidence, as the mainstream media continues to spin a dangerous narrative based on "anonymous" sources at the CIA.** Does that about sum it up?**

Sorry, Assange is no longer trust worthy.
He's got a vendetta against Clinton, justifiably, since Clinton threatened to have him assassinated.
He's been locked up so long because of those threats that he's no longer acting as a whistleblower.

Meanwhile the latest news has the FBI and NDI confirming the CIA claims that Putin personally acted to get Trump elected through cyber warfare.

FBI director James Comey has signed on to a previously reported CIA assessment that Russian President Vladimir Putin directly intervened in the US presidential election in aid of Donald Trump, according to an internal CIA memo obtained by the Associated Press and Washington Post. The report has also been endorsed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, giving it the unanimous support of US intelligence agencies.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/16/13987634/fbi-cia-russia-trump-hacking-election-interference

This backs the initial statements by the White House in October, where they stated that the hacks were Russian state interference.
It also is backed by the reports by the EU stating that Putin is engaged in similar cyber warfare with Germany, again trying to change that election and getting extreme right wingers in power.
http://www.ecfr.eu/page/-/ECFR_169_-_INSIDE_RUSSIAS_INTELLIGENCE_SERVICES_(WEB_AND_PRINT)_2.pdf

All US intel, which on its own isn't trustworthy, plus the findings of the EU add up to enough consensus to dispel any claims by Assange himself.
And those claims are really backed only by Assange.

 

[oldjones]

I am actually conflicted on this one. I suppose the difference is whether or not the release of state secrets would have or did result in the death or harm of soldiers and operatives. This vs truthful information about a politician.

There does in my mind seem to be a definite line there. It doesn't matter to me the affiliation of the politician. The truth is more important.

But when it comes to identifying people in dangerous situations, sometimes the public does not need to know.

To add further to my thoughts the release of Iran/Contra was a good thing.

Iran/Contra undoubtedly endangered soldiers and operatives, just not American ones. Anyway, thanks for recognizing your original idealistic overstatement wasn't exactly a real world prescription. You're doing way better than Trump on that score.

And by making the body count definitive, you recognize Manning, Snowden, et al. aren't the black and white traitors that the Trump-simple have painted them as.

 

[Moviefan-2]

...nobody is alleging Russians tampered with the vote counting....

In that case, there is no dispute that Trump won and that his victory was legitimate.

 

[fuji]

In that case, there is no dispute that Trump won and that his victory was legitimate.

That's technically correct to the extent that there is no legal mechanism in US law to reverse an election tainted by a foreign attack on a US political party.

 

[Butler1000]

Iran/Contra undoubtedly endangered soldiers and operatives, just not American ones. Anyway, thanks for recognizing your original idealistic overstatement wasn't exactly a real world prescription. You're doing way better than Trump on that score.

And by making the body count definitive, you recognize Manning, Snowden, et al. aren't the black and white traitors that the Trump-simple have painted them as.

Actually I should have said could have. Military contractors and personal who give up information not on politicians but on operations that aren't redacted of information identifying personal just doing the job they were ordered to do by lawful superiors are traitors IMO. They are endangering their own.

In other words roast the politicians, not the pawns.

 

[Frankfooter]

In that case, there is no dispute that Trump won and that his victory was legitimate.

Putin interfered in the election through hacking Clinton and the DNC and releasing emails and information timed to change the election in Trump's favour.
As stated by the CIA, FBI, NDI, Obama and the 17 US intel agencies that released the joint statement.
Just as Germany states that Putin is trying to do there right now.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Putin interfered in the election through hacking Clinton and the DNC and releasing emails and information timed to change the election in Trump's favour.

"Interfered" is the wrong word. No one was prevented from voting and no one's vote was tampered with.

There's no dispute that the emails confirmed the Clintons are corrupt to the core and they were unhappy the emails became public. But that doesn't constitute interference in the election.

Indeed, voters knew it was quite possible the Russians were behind the hacking of the emails and were able to weigh that factor into their decisions on how to vote. There was no interference.

 

[Butler1000]

This is a very narrow minded approach. Whether or not the Russian had any influence in tampering the results is moot - you have a foreign government tampering with the elections. Suggesting that you ignore it because they happen to help your candidate is the dumbest most short minded logic ever. So the next election the candidates fly to Russia and put their views to Putin instead of the voters ???? For F*ck sakes - snap out of it. !!!

The election is voting part of the election is over so it cannot be proved without certainty what influence the Russians had. If the CIA have proof that any foreign government tried to tamper with the US election go after them HARD. You can't let any foreign government tamper with the election or go after anyone's emails - period.

They didn't tamper with the election. A private organization was hacked. That's all. No voting machine was tampered with or hacked. No ballot box was stuffed. The counts were correct minus minor discrepancies.

In no way was the election interfered with. A private organization had a staffer turn information over to a private website who's mandate is to print the truth. That's it.

No different then when a private company called NBC released an 11 year old off mike tape to discredit a candidate. All part of the truth.

 

[Frankfooter]

"Interfered" is the wrong word. No one was prevented from voting and no one's vote was tampered with.

There's no dispute that the emails confirmed the Clintons are corrupt to the core and they were unhappy the emails became public. But that doesn't constitute interference in the election.

Indeed, voters knew it was quite possible the Russians were behind the hacking of the emails and were able to weigh that factor into their decisions on how to vote. There was no interference.

Interfered is the correct word.

The Russian hacks interfered in American trust in their elections and in particular, Clinton.
They were targeted to attack the credibility of the candidate that Putin disliked.

That's interfering in the election through cyber warfare.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Interfered is the correct word.

The Russian hacks interfered in American trust in their elections and in particular, Clinton.
They were targeted to attack the credibility of the candidate that Putin disliked.

That's interfering in the election through cyber warfare.

Hogwash. Although some of the rhetoric used by the candidates and the campaigns was shocking, the election process was fair and the result was clear.

If there are any Americans who have doubts about the results, it's only because Hillary and the crybaby Democrats keep trying to sow doubts about the election through their own "fake news" agenda -- eg., "irrational" calls for recounts, Russian "interference" nonsense, etc.

As I have said, voters had all of the relevant information -- including the speculation that the Russians were behind the disclosure of the Democrats' emails -- at the time of the vote. There was no tampering with the votes or the results.

There is no reason for any rational American to have doubts about the results.

 

[Frankfooter]

If there are any Americans who have doubts about the results, it's only because Hillary and the crybaby Democrats keep trying to sow doubts about the election through their own "fake news" agenda -- eg., "irrational" calls for recounts, Russian "interference" nonsense, etc.

Now you're calling reports from Obama, CIA, FBI, NDI, EU and the 16 intel agencies that issued the joint statement 'fake news'?
You really have sunk right off of the media credibility chart in my signature.
That would put you in the bottom right hand corner, just to the right of infowars.

 

[danmand]

There is no reason for any rational American to have doubts about the results.

An endangered species.

It is really puzzling to me that Obama wants to tarnish his reputation this late in his presidency. He would be better off going to Hawaii to play golf.

 

[fuji]

"Interfered" is the wrong word. No one was prevented from voting and no one's vote was tampered with.

There's no dispute that the emails confirmed the Clintons are corrupt to the core and they were unhappy the emails became public. But that doesn't constitute interference in the election.

Indeed, voters knew it was quite possible the Russians were behind the hacking of the emails and were able to weigh that factor into their decisions on how to vote. There was no interference.

Interfered is the right word. They attacked a US political party and used espionage to influence the election.

 

[Moviefan-2]

They attacked a US political party and used espionage to influence the election.

I'm guessing you've never read Spin Cycle by Howard Kurtz. It's a book about how media relations was done when Bill Clinton was president.

https://www.amazon.ca/Spin-Cycle-WHITE-HOUSE-MANIPULATE/dp/0684857154

I hate to break this to you, but leaking stuff to the press to try to influence news coverage isn't "espionage." And the public release of the emails was done by Wikileaks, not the Russians.

 

[fuji]

Actually they hacked the systems of a US political party in order to undermine it in the election.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Now you're calling reports from Obama, CIA, FBI, NDI, EU and the 16 intel agencies that issued the joint statement 'fake news'?

No, Drama Boy, I'm saying the false assertion that the release of the emails "tainted" or "interfered" with the election results is "fake news."

Let's review:

-- The Democrats got hacked.

-- The hacked emails became public.

-- The hacked emails confirmed that the Clintons are corrupt.

-- The hacked emails confirmed that the Democratic Party was working to torpedo Bernie Sanders' campaign and had a rather cozy relationship with the news media.

-- The hacked emails revealed shenanigans such as Donna Brazile leaking debate questions to the Clinton campaign (according to Fuji, Brazile should be charged with "espionage.")

-- It was widely speculated that the Russians were the ones who hacked the emails. Hillary Clinton made quite an issue about that point during one of the candidates' debates.

-- President Barack Obama knew about the hacking and the possibility the Russians were behind it and did nothing.

All of this is a problem for the Democratic Party.

It's not a problem for the democratic system. Voters knew what had happened and were fully aware of the speculation about the Russians and proceeded to make their decisions about who to elect as president.

The voters elected Trump.

The voting wasn't hacked. The votes weren't tampered with.

Trump was the legitimate winner. The Democratic Party's IT issues and ethical lapses are a problem for the party but they have no bearing on the validity of the results.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Actually they hacked the systems of a US political party in order to undermine it in the election.

"Influence" and "interfere" are two different words.

 

[fuji]

"Influence" and "interfere" are two different words.

In any case an illegal attack on the United States.