Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds

CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect

Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8332
Reputation: 279.6
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 2:20 pm    Post subject: Obama orders review of possible hacking during election Reply with quote

( democrats are clearly still bitter about all those embarrassing wikileaks , it doesn't matter if they broke the rules or destroyed emails , its all about who did the hacking )

Obama orders intelligence community review of 2016 election hacking

Published December 09, 2016
· FoxNews.com

President Obama has ordered his intelligence agencies to conduct a review of hacking during the 2016 presidential election and present their findings before he leaves office, a top adviser said Friday.

Obama's counterterrorism adviser Lisa Monaco disclosed the review to reporters in Washington Friday morning.

"We maybe have crossed into a new threshold," Monaco said. Monaco did not say if the report would be made public.

The intelligence community already has probed suspected foreign intervention in the U.S. election, having concluded earlier that Russia-backed actors likely were involved in breaching and releasing Democratic Party emails during the 2016 cycle.

The final weeks of the White House race also were rocked by WikiLeaks’ publication of Hillary Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta’s hacked emails.


At the time, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange denied the Russian government or any other “state parties” were the source for the 50,000 emails, which fueled weeks of embarrassing coverage for the Clinton campaign detailing behind-the-scenes discussions and arguments among Clinton advisers and family members.

Obama’s directive to his intelligence agencies to conduct a full review and report to him before he leaves office on Jan. 20 could serve to fuel more questions about the integrity of the election – at a time when President-elect Donald Trump’s advisers and allies are battling with Clinton stalwarts still bitter over the race.

Many Democrats believe the disclosures in emails stolen from Democratic Party officials and Podesta’s account benefited Trump. Democratic senators on the Senate Intelligence Committee have asked Obama to declassify more information about Russia's role in the hacks.

Trump senior adviser Kellyanne Conway told “Fox & Friends” on Friday that Democrats “won’t learn the lessons” from the 2016 race.

"A little self-awareness would do for a team that is blaming everybody but themselves for this. It’s Bernie Sanders’ fault … It’s the alt-right’s fault," she said. "It’s … fake news’ fault. It’s Russian interference. It’s James Comey. ... How about you had no message?"

Trump allies also are still trying to fight attempts by Green Party candidate Jill Stein to seek a recount in key battleground states, though so far the recount efforts have sputtered and not made much of a difference in the final tally.

In a separate development, Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp confirmed to Fox News on Friday that there was an attempted cyber-breach on his state’s systems in mid-November – and an extensive forensic review linked the IP address to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Kemp said he is unsure whether this was a rogue actor in the department, or an outside party that accessed DHS systems or was spoofing their address.

In a letter to DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, Kemp asked whether DHS was aware of the attempt and, “if so, why DHS was attempting to breach our firewall.”

Kempt said the intruder was trying to scan “certain aspects of the Georgia Secretary of State’s infrastructure,” and the breach was unsuccessful.

Fox News’ Jake Gibson and Catherine Herridge and The Associated Press contributed to this report.


Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5387
Reputation: 273.3
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 2:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What is obvious is that the Democrats can't get out of campaign mode even for a few weeks after the election and just before Christmas,

They are working to build a resistance to the new administration. For all the congeniality between Obama and Trump, it doesn't matter. Recently, Obama addressed a group of military officers and recommended they disobey orders they don't agree with.

The Democrats are locked in an orthodoxy, by which I mean that are one giant step beyond ideology. It has calcified into a faith, and those that question it deserve to be shut down because they are today's functional equivalent of heretics. No kidding.

Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8332
Reputation: 279.6
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 3:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
What is obvious is that the Democrats can't get out of campaign mode even for a few weeks after the election and just before Christmas,

They are working to build a resistance to the new administration. For all the congeniality between Obama and Trump, it doesn't matter. Recently, Obama addressed a group of military officers and recommended they disobey orders they don't agree with.

The Democrats are locked in an orthodoxy, by which I mean that are one giant step beyond ideology. It has calcified into a faith, and those that question it deserve to be shut down because they are today's functional equivalent of heretics. No kidding.

the election isn't entirely over there is still a senate vote in Louisiana , which could prove important in close senate votes , 1 extra vote either way , trump was there campaigning today indicating its seen as important who wins

as for the " alleged " hacking its clear the democrats have yet to accept any blame for there own wrong doings for which there were many revealed by wikileaks and are still desperate to somehow blame Russia for the whole incident

its clear there will be a lot of resistance from the democrats towards the new trump administration in the new year , its only just beginning , there will be more protests , there will be attempts to block with picks for cabinet and the supreme court , it will have no end

Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8332
Reputation: 279.6
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 3:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

( the democrat senate leader is already preparing for filibusters even before he knows what bills are coming thru the senate , he is trying to find ways to block them )

How Schumer and the Democrats are preparing to fight

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) speaks to reporters to unveil “Trump Outsource Watch,” a new effort to hold President-elect Donald Trump accountable for his promises to protect American workers, on Dec. 8. (James Lawler Duggan/Reuters)

By Dana Milbank Opinion writer

December 9 at 10:27 AM 

As of Jan. 20, Chuck Schumer will be the most important Democrat in the land. But spend a few minutes with the incoming Senate minority leader and it’s clear where the real power lies.

I was interviewing the New York Democrat in his Capitol hideaway office this week when he paused to take a call on his archaic flip phone. It was about an event scheduled for the next day to highlight a new initiative tallying jobs “outsourced” overseas during the Trump presidency.

Schumer had one question: “Is Bernie coming?”

“He told me he’d come,” Schumer continued. “Hold on, I’ll call him right now.” The party leader had his aides track down Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, the populist insurgent who nearly beat Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries. “Hey, Bernie, so can you come?” Schumer asked. “We’ll do it at a time that’s good for you, okay? . . . Try to clear it. It’s a good event. . . . It’s right up your alley and you can help us by coming. . . . It complements what you’re doing. . . . We need you.”

Schumer hung up. “Okay, he’ll come.”

Speaking Dec. 2., House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said Republicans are "more interested in dismantling Medicare than building job creating infrastructure," after President-elect Donald Trump chose Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. (Reuters)

Sanders didn’t come.

But the interruption said much about how Schumer will lead Democrats in the age of Donald Trump. Schumer, though close to Wall Street for much of his career, is wholeheartedly embracing the party’s Sanders-Elizabeth Warren populism. This means Schumer, and the Democrats, are ready to fight.

Conventional wisdom says Schumer will be pulled in a moderate and conciliatory posture by the 10 Senate Democrats up for reelection in 2018 in states that Trump won (two of them, West Virginia’s Joe Manchin III and North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp, have been wooed by Trump as possible Cabinet secretaries). He’ll be pulled the other way by Warren and Sanders, who represent the party’s energy.

But Schumer correctly views this as a false choice. The best way to protect endangered incumbents is to let the Warren wing lead.

Schumer’s predecessor, outgoing Democratic leader Harry Reid (Nev.), did his best both in the majority and the minority to protect vulnerable incumbents such as Mary Landrieu (Louisiana) and Mark Begich (Alaska), using parliamentary tactics to avoid tough votes. But a byproduct of this was that Democrats didn’t articulate a clear agenda — and Landrieu and Begich lost anyway.

If Democrats are to have any hope in 2018, they’ll need to reclaim the populism Trump stole in 2016. Schumer embraces this. “If you want to appeal to the manufacturing worker in Scranton, the college student in Los Angeles and the single mom making minimum wage in Harlem, one economic message will work,” he said. “We just didn’t have it” in 2016.

Schumer pledges to keep his focus almost entirely on the economy. When Republicans hold votes on energy and social issues that divide Democrats, he figures he’ll have enough votes to filibuster even if endangered incumbents split off. “We’re going to have five, six sharp-edged [policies] that can be described in five words,” Schumer said. “That economic message” — college affordability, infrastructure spending, taxing the rich — “unites our caucus.”

This reflects a broader post-election debate among Democrats. Clinton ally David Brock this week blamed the loss on the party, saying it “faces a crisis of competence at all levels” and calling for a commission to investigate.

Nonsense, reply those in the Warren wing. They say Clinton’s economic agenda was a muddled, build-on-success theme when people wanted change. They say Trump got to Democrats’ left with working people, and the answer now is to unite behind specific legislation such as expanding Social Security and protecting Medicare from privatization, and raising taxes on the wealthy to pay for infrastructure spending. This has unified Democrats before. Manchin teamed up in 2015 with Warren on legislation expanding Social Security, and Begich and Landrieu joined her 2013 effort to reduce student loan rates by taxing millionaires.

If the new president comes Democrats’ way, things will get done. If he takes a traditional Republican approach to the economy — stocking his Cabinet with billionaires and Wall Street multimillionaires suggests this is what he’ll do — Democrats will fight, and Trump’s working-class backers will know they were had.

This doesn’t mean a Mitch McConnell-style effort to oppose Trump reflexively — something Schumer told Trump when the president-elect called him recently to discuss infrastructure. “I said to him it’s got to be robust, it can’t be just tax credits because nothing much will get built . . . and it can’t cut traditional programs” such as education and Medicare. “He didn’t argue with me,” Schumer recounted.

Conversely, when Trump contradicts his campaign themes — a Wall Street banker as treasury secretary, a billionaire private-school devotee as education secretary and a health and human services secretary who wants to privatize Medicare — he can expect a populist pushback from Democrats.

This, and not incumbent protection, is what will work for Democrats in 2018 and beyond.


Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8332
Reputation: 279.6
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Dec 10, 2016 8:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

( really the CIA thinks Russia helped trump win the election ? the wikileaks were a small % of the overall coverage and were barely even covered by the mainstream media who devoted almost all there coverage to attacking trump over everything from bogus sexual harassment allegations to twitter rants , how can they possibly claim wikileaks swung the election to trump when they didn't even cover them to begin with ? )

World News | Sat Dec 10, 2016 | 7:16am EST

CIA says Russia intervened to help Trump win White House

The CIA has concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help President-elect Donald Trump win the White House, and not just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, a senior U.S. official said on Friday.

U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that as the 2016 presidential campaign drew on, Russian government officials devoted increasing attention to assisting Donald Trump's effort to win the election, the U.S. official familiar with the finding told Reuters on Friday night on condition of anonymity.

Citing U.S. officials briefed on the matter, the Washington Post reported on Friday that intelligence agencies had identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including the chairman of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, to WikiLeaks.

U.S. President Barack Obama ordered intelligence agencies to review cyber attacks and foreign intervention into the 2016 election and deliver a report before he leaves office on Jan. 20, the White House said on Friday.

Obama's homeland security adviser, Lisa Monaco, told reporters the report's results would be shared with lawmakers and others.

"The president has directed the intelligence community to conduct a full review of what happened during the 2016 election process ... and to capture lessons learned from that and to report to a range of stakeholders, to include the Congress," she said during an event hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.

As summer turned to fall, Russian hackers turned almost all their attention to the Democrats. Virtually all the emails they released publicly were potentially damaging to Clinton and the Democrats, the official told Reuters.

"That was a major clue to their intent," the official said. "If all they wanted to do was discredit our political system, why publicize the failings of just one party, especially when you have a target like Trump?"

A second official familiar with the report said the intelligence analysts' conclusion about Russia's motives does not mean the intelligence community believes that Moscow's efforts altered or significantly affected the outcome of the election.

Russian officials have denied all accusations of interference in the U.S. election.

A CIA spokeswoman said the agency had no comment on the matter.

The hacked emails passed to WikiLeaks were a regular source of embarrassment to the Clinton campaign during the race for the presidency.

U.S. intelligence analysts have assessed "with high confidence" that at some point in the extended presidential campaign Russian President Vladimir Putin's government had decided to try to bolster Trump's chances of winning.

The Russians appear to have concluded that Trump had a shot at winning and that he would be much friendlier to Russia than Clinton would be, especially on issues such as maintaining economic sanctions and imposing additional ones, the official said.

Moscow is launching a similar effort to influence the next German election, following an escalating campaign to promote far-right and nationalist political parties and individuals in Europe that began more than a decade ago, the official said.

Also In World News
Syria, Russia pound rebel-held Aleppo but advances halt
After impeachment of South Korean president, anti-Park rallies resume

In both cases, said the official, Putin's campaigns in both Europe and the United States are intended to disrupt and discredit the Western concept of democracy by promoting extremist candidates, parties, and political figures.

In October, the U.S. government formally accused Russia of a campaign of cyber attacks against Democratic Party organizations ahead of the Nov. 8 presidential election. Obama has said he warned Putin about consequences for the attacks.

Trump has said he is not convinced Russia was behind the cyber attacks. His transition team issued a statement on "claims of foreign interference in U.S. elections" on Friday but did not directly address the issue.

"I don't believe they interfered," Trump told Time magazine about Russia in an interview published this week. "That became a laughing point, not a talking point, a laughing point. Any time I do something, they say, 'Oh, Russia interfered.'"


Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8332
Reputation: 279.6
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Dec 10, 2016 9:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anonymous Leaks to the WashPost About the CIA’s Russia Beliefs Are No Substitute for Evidence

Glenn Greenwald

December 10 2016, 7:11 a.m.

Photo: David Burnett/Newsmakers

The Washington Post late Friday night published an explosive story that, in many ways, is classic American journalism of the worst sort: the key claims are based exclusively on the unverified assertions of anonymous officials, who in turn are disseminating their own claims about what the CIA purportedly believes, all based on evidence that remains completely secret.

These unnamed sources told the Post that “the CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system.” The anonymous officials also claim that “intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails” from both the DNC and John Podesta’s email account. Critically, none of the actual evidence for these claims is disclosed; indeed, the CIA’s “secret assessment” itself remains concealed.

A second leak from last night, this one given to the New York Times, cites other anonymous officials as asserting 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.” But that NYT story says that “it is also far from clear that Russia’s original intent was to support Mr. Trump, and many intelligence officials — and former officials in Mrs. Clinton’s campaign — believe that the primary motive of the Russians was to simply disrupt the campaign and undercut confidence in the integrity of the vote.”

Deep down in its article, the Post notes – rather critically – that “there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered.” Most importantly, the Post adds that “intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin ‘directing’ the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks.” But the purpose of both anonymous leaks is to finger the Russian Government for these hacks, acting with the motive to defeat Hillary Clinton.

Needless to say, Democrats – still eager to make sense of their election loss and to find causes for it other than themselves – immediately declared these anonymous claims about what the CIA believes to be true, and, with a somewhat sweet, religious-type faith, treated these anonymous assertions as proof of what they wanted to believe all along: that Vladimir Putin was rooting for Donald Trump to win and Hillary Clinton to lose and used nefarious means to ensure that outcome. That Democrats are now venerating unverified, anonymous CIA leaks as sacred is par for the course for them this year, but it’s also a good indication of how confused and lost U.S. political culture has become in the wake of Trump’s victory.

Given the obvious significance of this story – it is certain to shape how people understand the 2016 election and probably foreign policy debates for months if not years to come – it is critical to keep in mind some basic facts about what is known and, more importantly, what is not known:

(1) Nobody has ever opposed investigations to determine if Russia hacked these emails, nor has anyone ever denied the possibility that Russia did that. The source of contention has been quite simple: no accusations should be accepted until there is actual convincing evidence to substantiate those accusations.

There is still no such evidence for any of these claims. What we have instead are assertions, disseminated by anonymous people, completely unaccompanied by any evidence, let alone proof. As a result, none of the purported evidence – still – can be publicly seen, reviewed and discussed. Anonymous claims leaked to newspapers about what the CIA believes do not constitute proof, and certainly do not constitute reliable evidence that substitutes for actual evidence that can be reviewed. Have we really not learned this lesson yet?

(2) The reasons no rational person should blindly believe anonymous claims of this sort – even if it is pleasing to believe such claims – should be obvious by now.

To begin with, CIA officials are professional, systematic liars; they lie constantly, by design, and with great skill, and have for many decades, as have intelligence officials in other agencies.

Many of those incidents demonstrate, as hurtful as it is to accept, that these agencies even lie when there’s a Democrat overseeing the Executive Branch. Even in those cases when they are not deliberately lying, they are often gravely mistaken. Intelligence is not a science, and attributing hacks to specific sources is a particularly difficult task, almost impossible to carry out with precision and certainty.

Beyond that, what makes claims from anonymous sources so especially dubious is that their motives cannot be assessed. Who are the people summarizing these claims to the Washington Post? What motives do they have for skewing the assertions one way or the other? Who are the people inside the intelligence community who fully ratify these assertions and who are the ones who dissent? It’s impossible to answer any of these questions because everyone is masked by the shield of anonymity, which is why reports of this sort demand high levels of skepticism, not blind belief.

Most important of all, the more serious the claim is – and accusing a nuclear-armed power of directly and deliberately interfering in the U.S. election in order to help the winning candidate is about as serious as a claim can get – the more important it is to demand evidence before believing it. Wars have started over far less serious claims than this one. People like Lindsey Graham are already beating their chest, demanding that the U.S. do everything in its power to punish Russia and “Putin personally.”

Nobody should need an explainer about why it’s dangerous in the extreme to accept such inflammatory accusations on faith or, worse, based on the anonymous assurances of intelligence officials, in lieu of seeing the actual evidence.

(3) An important part of this story, quite clearly, is inter-agency feuding between, at the very least, the CIA and the FBI.

Recall that the top echelon of the CIA was firmly behind Clinton and vehemently against Trump, while at least some powerful factions within the FBI had the opposite position.

Former Acting CIA Director Michael Morell not only endorsed Clinton in the New York Times but claimed that “Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.” George W. Bush’s CIA and NSA Director, Gen. Michael Hayden, pronounced Trump a “clear and present danger” to U.S. national security and then, less than a week before the election, went to the Washington Post to warn that “Donald Trump really does sound a lot like Vladimir Putin” and said Trump is “the useful fool, some naif, manipulated by Moscow, secretly held in contempt, but whose blind support is happily accepted and exploited.”

Meanwhile, key factions in the FBI were furious that Hillary Clinton was not criminally charged for her handling of classified information; pressured FBI Director James Comey into writing a letter that was pretty clearly harmful to Clinton about further investigating the case; and seemed to be improperly communicating with close Trump ally Rudy Giuliani. And while we are now being treated to anonymous leaks about how the CIA believes Putin helped Trump, recall that the FBI, just weeks ago, was shovelling anonymous claims to the New York Times that had the opposite goal:

One can choose to believe whatever anonymous claims from these agencies with a long history of lying and error one wants to believe, based on whatever agenda one has. Or one can wait to review the actual evidence before forming beliefs about what really happened. It should take little effort to realize that the latter option is the only rational path.

(4) Even just within the leaks of the last 24 hours, there are multiple grounds of confusion, contradictions and uncertainty.

The always-observant Marcy Wheeler last night documented many of those; anyone interested in this story should read her analysis as soon as possible. I want to highlight just a few of these vital contradictions and questions.

To start with, the timing of these leaks is so striking. Even as Democrats have spent months issuing one hysterical claim after the next about Russian interference, the White House, and Obama specifically, have been very muted about all of this. Perhaps that’s becuase he did not want to appear partisan or be inflammatory, but perhaps it’s because he does not believe there is sufficient proof to accuse the Russian Government; after all, if he really believed the Russians did even half of what Democrats claim, wouldn’t he (as some Democrats have argued) be duty-bound to take aggressive action in retaliation?

It was announced yesterday afternoon that Obama had ordered a full review of hacking allegations: a perfectly sensible step that makes clear that an investigation is needed, and evidence disclosed, before any definitive conclusions can be reached. It was right on the heels of that announcement that this CIA leak emerged: short-cutting the actual, deliberative investigative process Obama had ordered in order to lead the public to believe that all the answers were already known and, before the investigation even starts, that Russia was guilty of all charges.

More important is what the Post buries in its story: namely, what are the so-called “minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment”? How “minor” are they? And what do these conclusions really mean if, as the Post’s sources admit, the CIA is not even able to link the hack to the actual Russian government, but only to people outside the government (From the Post: “Those actors, according to the official, were ‘one step’ removed from the Russian government, rather than government employees”)?

This is why it’s such a shoddy and unreliable practice to conduct critical debates through conflicting anonymous leaks. Newspapers like the Post have the obvious incentive to hype the flashy, flamboyant claims while downplaying and burying the caveats and conflicting evidence. None of these questions can be asked, let alone answered, because the people who are making these claims are hidden and the evidence is concealed.

(5) Contrary to the declarations of self-vindication by supremely smug Democrats, none of this even relates to, let alone negates, the concerns over their election-year McCarthyite behavior and tactics.

Contrary to the blatant strawman many Democrats are railing against, nobody ever said it was McCarthyite to want to investigate claims of Russian hacking. To the contrary, critics of Clinton supporters have been arguing for exactly that: that these accusations should not be believed in the absence of meaningful inquiry and evidence, which has thus far been lacking.

What critics have said is McCarthyite – and, as one of those critics, I fully stand by this – is the lowly tactic of accusing anyone questioning these accusations, or criticizing the Clinton campaign, of being Kremlin stooges or Putin agents. Back in August, after Democrats decided to smear Jill Stein as a Putin stooge, here’s how I defined the McCarthyite atmosphere that Democrats have deliberately cultivated this year:

So that’s the Democratic Party’s approach to the 2016 election. Those who question, criticize or are perceived to impede Hillary Clinton’s smooth, entitled path to the White House are vilified as stooges, sympathizers and/or agents of Russia: Trump, WikiLeaks, Sanders, The Intercept, Jill Stein. Other than loyal Clinton supporters, is there anyone left who is not covertly controlled by or in service to The Ruskies?

Concerns over Democrats’ McCarthyism never had anything to do with a desire for an investigation into the source of the DNC and Podesta hacking; everyone favored such investigations. Indeed, accusations that Democrats were behaving in a McCarthyite manner were predicated – and still are – on their disgusting smearing as Kremlin agents of anyone who wanted evidence and proof before believing these inflammatory accusations about Russia.

To see the true face of this neo-McCarthyism, watch this amazing interview from this week with Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff, one of the party’s leading Russia hawks (he’s quoted in the Post article attacking Obama for not retaliating against Putin). When Schiff is repeatedly asked by the interviewer, Tucker Carlson, for evidence to support his allegation that Putin ordered the hacking of Podesta’s emails, Schiff provides none.

What he does instead is accuse Carlson of being a Kremlin stooge and finally tells him he should put his program on RT. That – which has become very typical Democratic rhetoric – is the vile face of neo-McCarthyism that Democrats have adopted this year, and nothing in this CIA leak remotely vindicates or justifies it:

Needless to say, questions about who hacked the DNC and Podesta email accounts are serious and important ones. The answers have widespread implications on many levels. That’s all the more reason these debates should be based on publicly disclosed evidence, not competing, unverifiable anonymous leaks from professional liars inside government agencies, cheered by drooling, lost partisans anxious to embrace whatever claims make them feel good, all conducted without the slightest regard for rational faculties or evidentiary requirements


Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8332
Reputation: 279.6
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Dec 10, 2016 9:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CNN has all the exit polls posted here in great detail and explain why trump won

( but I can't seem to find the ones about angry voters wanting change or angry at Washington in general for some reason , they were mentioned on election night , trump overwhelmingly won these voters )

( one that is funny to read now is that 68 % of Clinton supporters were very confident in the vote count , trump supporters were very skeptical and now its the Clinton ones asking for recounts cause they lose , yet on election day they had no concerns about the system )

How confident are you in the vote count?

Very confident - Clinton

47% overall

68% ( Clinton supports were confident only 27 % of trump in this category )

Are you confident in the vote count ?

83 % said yes and trump supporters were more likely to say no

( 63 % of voters were bothered by Clinton's email's and her use of a private server including 24% of her own supporters )

Does Clinton's use of private email bother you?


Financial situation compared to 4 years ago ?

only 31 % said they were better

27 % worse ( went 77 % trump - 19 Clinton )

41 % the same ( Clinton narrowly won this group 47-45 )

( people clearly didn't feel they were any better off economically after 4 years of Obama and poor voters went to trump very strongly )


Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8332
Reputation: 279.6
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Dec 10, 2016 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Trump's team pushes back against Russia hacking reports

President Obama has ordered a full-scale review of campaign-season cyberattacks

Kathleen Hennessey

Saturday, December 10th, 2016

(EDITOR’S NOTE — In this article, Donald Trump refers to his victory as one of the largest in history. This is a gross exaggeration. Indeed, his 303-232 margin over Hillary Clinton is the among the smaller victories in the last century. Of the past 25 elections, 21 of them have had greater margins of victory.)

WASHINGTON – Donald Trump’s presidential transition team pushed back Saturday against reports that Russia was caught trying to tip the November election to the Republican and challenged the veracity of U.S. intelligence agencies investigating the campaign-season cyberattacks.

President Barack Obama’s order for a full-scale review of campaign-season cyberattacks to be completed before he leaves office next month met with a chilly reception at Trump Tower, as did published reports saying that the CIA believes Russia acted specifically to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances in the election.

“I believe there are people within these agencies who are upset with the outcome of the election,” Sean Spicer, spokesman for the Trump transition, said on CNN.

Spicer also denied a report in The New York Times that Republican National Committee systems had been breached during the election. He said the RNC has worked with intelligence agencies that have told it “with certainty that we haven’t been hacked.” Both The Times and The Washington Post reported on a secret CIA assessment that Russia intervened to help Trump win, not just to cause aimless mischief in a U.S. election.

Spicer questioned why the CIA wasn’t making its assessment public as the intelligence community did after the hacking of the Democratic National Committee.

An earlier statement by the Trump transition team also reflected the deep divisions that emerged between his campaign and intelligence agencies over Russian meddling. “These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,” the statement said. “The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It’s now time to move on and ‘Make America Great Again.”’

But Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said he would press for a congressional investigation in the new year. “That any country could be meddling in our elections should shake both political parties to their core,” he said. “It’s imperative that our intelligence community turns over any relevant information so that Congress can conduct a full investigation.”

There was no immediate official response from Moscow. But Oleg Morozov, a member of the foreign relations committee in the upper house of the Russian parliament, dismissed the claim of Russian interference as “silliness and paranoia,” according to the RIA Novosti news agency. Morozov described the allegations as an attempt to force the next administration to stick to Obama’s anti-Russian course.

The investigation ordered by Obama will be a “deep dive” into a possible pattern of increased “malicious cyber activity” timed to the campaign season, White House spokesman Eric Schultz said Friday, including the email hacks that rattled the presidential campaign. It will look at the tactics, targets, key actors and the U.S. government’s response to the recent email hacks, as well as incidents reported in past elections, he said.

The president ordered up the report earlier in the week asked that it be completed before he leaves office next month, Schultz said.

“The president wanted this done under his watch because he takes it very seriously,” he said. “We are committed to ensuring the integrity of our elections.”

The Kremlin has rejected the hacking accusations.

In the months leading up to the election, email accounts of Democratic Party officials and a top Hillary Clinton campaign aide were breached, emails leaked and embarrassing and private emails posted online. Many Democrats believe the hackings benefited Trump’s bid.

Schultz said the president sought the probe as a way of improving U.S. defence against cyberattacks and was not intending to question the legitimacy of Trump’s victory.

“This is not an effort to challenge the outcome of the election,” Schultz said.

Obama’s move comes as Democratic lawmakers have been pushing Obama to declassify more information about Russia’s role, fearing that Trump, who has promised a warmer relationship with Moscow, may not prioritize the issue.

Given Trump’s statements, “there is an added urgency to the need for a thorough review before President Obama leaves office next month,” said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., senior Democrat on the House intelligence committee. If the administration doesn’t respond “forcefully” to such actions, “we can expect to see a lot more of this in the near future,” he said.

The White House said it would make portions of the report public and would brief lawmakers and relevant state officials on the findings.

It emphasized the report would not focus solely on Russian operations or hacks involving Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and Democratic National Committee accounts. Schultz stressed officials would be reviewing incidents going back to the 2008 presidential campaign, when the campaigns of Sen. John McCain and Obama were breached by hackers.

Intelligence officials have said Obama and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney were targets of Chinese cyberattacks four years later.


Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5387
Reputation: 273.3
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sat Dec 10, 2016 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Russian hacking -- whether fictional or not -- is only part of this story. There is a massive attack on "fake news" going on in much of the news media right now. It got its start with Pizzagate, which it suggests that Podesta is involved in an underage sex scandal. As I read it, the pizza shop could be a place where cruising gays look for young guys. All legal, all their own business. But the connection to Podesta seems strained, and the suggestions of satanism and cult murders are entirely fanciful.

The mainstream media has decided to shut this one down. They simply declare it a fake, rather than reporting on the place, its owner, and all of the usual things they do. Who knows? It's a pretty shaky story.

So they are on a crusade against 'fake news', based on the alternative media and Pizzagate. Even though they publish fake news regularly. (What do you call most of the climate stuff?)

It a part of their attempts to de-legitimize the Trump administration from the start.

Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8332
Reputation: 279.6
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2016 10:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
The Russian hacking -- whether fictional or not -- is only part of this story. There is a massive attack on "fake news" going on in much of the news media right now. It got its start with Pizzagate, which it suggests that Podesta is involved in an underage sex scandal. As I read it, the pizza shop could be a place where cruising gays look for young guys. All legal, all their own business. But the connection to Podesta seems strained, and the suggestions of satanism and cult murders are entirely fanciful.

The mainstream media has decided to shut this one down. They simply declare it a fake, rather than reporting on the place, its owner, and all of the usual things they do. Who knows? It's a pretty shaky story.

So they are on a crusade against 'fake news', based on the alternative media and Pizzagate. Even though they publish fake news regularly. (What do you call most of the climate stuff?)

It a part of their attempts to de-legitimize the Trump administration from the start.

I find the "fake news" story equally puzzling , its been widely reported there was fake news being spread on facebook in the media and everyone has just assumed that to be true . but there has been few examples provided of what exactly that fake news was ?
if it was so wide spread wouldn't there be posts and screen shots they could show on tv of these news postings ?

and if it was so obviously fake and inaccurate why didn't the moderators at facebook just delete the posts early on ? why did they allow them to be spread ? is facebook really that helpless that it couldn't do anything about this supposedly massive problem ?

I'm not personally convinced it was as much of a problem as they claim or that it really affected the race as much as media claims

Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8332
Reputation: 279.6
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2016 8:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Daily Caller News Foundation

FBI Disagrees With CIA On Russian Influence In The Presidential Election

Russ Read

Pentagon/Foreign Policy Reporter

5:55 PM 12/11/2016

The FBI did not corroborate the CIA’s claim that Russia had a hand in the election of President-elect Donald Trump in a meeting with lawmakers last week.

A senior FBI counterintelligence official met with Republican and Democrat members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in order to give the bureau’s view of a recent CIA report. The official did not concur with the CIA, frustrating Democrats.

The CIA believes Russia “quite” clearly intended to send Trump to the White House. The claim is a bold one, and concerned Democrats and some Republicans who are worried about Trump’s desire to mend relations with an increasingly aggressive Russia. The CIA report was “direct, bald and unqualified,” one of the officials at the meeting told The Washington Post Saturday.

The FBI official was much less convinced of the claims, providing “fuzzy” and “ambiguous” remarks.

The different conclusions reached by the two intelligence agencies is a reflection of their different institutional styles. CIA officials often use past behavior and analysis based on gathered intelligence to advise leaders, whereas the FBI comes from a more legalistic background which relies on hard evidence to make a case.

Who Do You Believe?

FBI CIA Both Neither

Completing this poll entitles you to Daily Caller news updates free of charge

The White House announced Friday that President Barack Obama ordered a full-scope investigation into the allegations against the Kremlin. Obama wants the investigation to be completed before he leaves office in late January, and intends to declassify as much of it as possible. Legislators want to accompany the report with a congressional investigation.

“Only in this way can the American people know the extent of Russian interference and we can attempt to inoculate ourselves against continued meddling in our elections,” Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking member of the House intelligence committee, told the Washington Post.

Rep. Devin Nunes, the chairman of the committee, sided with FBI’s assessment.

“There is no clear evidence — even now,” he told the Post. “There’s a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that’s it

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/12.....z4SdBWeGYQ

Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8332
Reputation: 279.6
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2016 9:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

( the big question for those saying Russia interfered in the election would be how ?

the first suggested way has been disproven , there was no evidence found to suggest anyone interfered or hacked into voting machines or counting machines , this claim is so far out there its laughable and a waste of time to even discuss as being a possibility

the second claim was fake news , which has been in the news a lot , but when compared to the % of the news market dominated by mainstream media outlets largely anti trump and pro Hilary , any posts on facebook would of been a rather tiny % of the news being read that election , its hard to believe they swayed the entire election and entire states towards trump .

the third claim seems to revolve around the hacking of emails which were then published by wikileaks , although this story was largely ignored by the mainstream media during the election as it came out the same week as trump's sexual harassment claims , so I also have a hard time believing it swayed the entire election .
but it is true they haven't yet been able to figure out who or why the democrats emails were hacked and exactly how wikileaks came into possession of them , which seems to be where the Russians must of did it claims have come about )

Technology News | Mon Dec 12, 2016 | 8:55am EST

Trump renews questions about election hacking reports

Voters cast their votes during the U.S. presidential election in Elyria, Ohio, U.S. November 8, 2016. REUTERS/Aaron Josefczyk/File Photo

U.S. Republican President-elect Donald Trump on Monday reiterated his questions about U.S. intelligence reports that Russia intervened in the presidential election on his behalf through targeted hacking.

In two posts on Twitter, Trump also suggested that politics played a role in the reports that emerged late last week.

"Can you imagine if the election results were the opposite and WE tried to play the Russia/CIA card. It would be called conspiracy theory!" he wrote.

A second tweet said, "Unless you catch "hackers" in the act, it is very hard to determine who was doing the hacking. Why wasn't this brought up before election?"


Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8332
Reputation: 279.6
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2016 9:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

( democrats are still so angry that they lost , now they want the FBI director investigated as well )


Reid wants FBI Director Comey investigated

Published December 11, 2016
· FoxNews.com

Retiring Sen. Harry Reid renewed his feud with FBI Director James Comey on Saturday, accusing the bureau boss of sitting on information about Russia’s alleged interference in the 2016 election -- and calling for Comey to be investigated.

The Senate Democratic leader, who leaves office next month, referred to a Washington Post report that the CIA had determined individuals tied to the Russian government gave hacked Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, in a bid to boost Donald Trump’s campaign.

“The FBI had this material for a long time but … Comey, who’s of course a Republican, refused to divulge this information,” Reid told MSNBC. “… He has let the country down for partisan purposes.”

Reid, while comparing Comey to J. Edgar Hoover, said he should be investigated by the Senate and “should be investigated by other agencies of the government including the security agencies because if there ever were a matter of security, it’s this.”

President-elect Trump told “Fox News Sunday” that the claim about Russia helping his candidacy is “ridiculous” and “just another excuse” by Democrats to explain his victory.

Reid, despite having praised Comey in the past, has gone after the sitting director ever since he revisited the Hillary Clinton email investigation 11 days before the Nov. 8 election.

Reid said in late October that Comey may have violated the law in doing so, since officials are barred from using their position to influence an election.

Republicans in response blasted Reid as a “disgrace” and a “hack,” defending Comey’s decision.

Comey, meanwhile, defended his actions at the time and said he had an obligation to provide Congress with an update on the case since he previously had told them it was closed. Comey and his bureau expedited their review, and, two days before the election, determined to stand by the original decision not to pursue charges.

Reid told MSNBC on Saturday he still thinks Comey should resign, but predicted he won’t.

FoxNews.com has reached out to the FBI for comment.


Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5387
Reputation: 273.3
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2016 9:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If I were Trump, I'd have the existing director of the CIA review the evidence, and make a full report ... there would be some careers ended.

Who wants an intelligence service that interferes in domestic politics? That is supposed to be no-no number one for the CIA.

My own view is that Trump's seeing the possibility of a 'deal' with 'Putin is a helluva lot better than continuing a path that leads to war. It means accepting that Obama lost hegemonic control over the middle east, and the eastern Mediterranean.

That makes control of the Suez -- a major strategic choke-point through which a lot of Europe's trade with Asia comes -- problematic if there is a war.

It's a major set-back, but it's Obama's and Hillary's fault. But do you want to go to war over it if a deal can be worked out?

Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 8332
Reputation: 279.6
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2016 10:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

( the recount in PA and accusations by the greens that the states election was hacked into have been tossed by a judge who has rejected a last minute request for a recount )

Federal Courts

US judge rejects Green Party's Pennsylvania recount case

Published December 12, 2016
· Associated Press

A federal judge on Monday issued a stinging rejection of a Green Party-backed request to recount paper ballots in Pennsylvania's presidential election, won by Republican Donald Trump, and scan some counties' election systems for signs of hacking.

In his 31-page decision, U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond said there were at least six grounds that required him to reject the Green Party's lawsuit, which had been opposed by Trump, the Pennsylvania Republican Party and the Pennsylvania attorney general's office.

Suspicion of a hacked Pennsylvania election "borders on the irrational" while granting the Green Party's recount bid could "ensure that that no Pennsylvania vote counts" given Tuesday's federal deadline to certify the vote for the Electoral College, Diamond wrote.

"Most importantly, there is no credible evidence that any `hack' occurred, and compelling evidence that Pennsylvania's voting system was not in any way compromised," Diamond wrote. He also said the lawsuit suffered from a lack of standing, potentially the lack of federal jurisdiction and an "unexplained, highly prejudicial" wait before filing last week's lawsuit.

The decision was the Green Party's latest roadblock in Pennsylvania after hitting numerous walls in county and state courts. Green Party-backed lawyers argue that it was possible that computer hackers changed the election outcome and that Pennsylvania's heavy use of paperless machines makes it a prime target. Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein also contended that Pennsylvania has erected unconstitutional barriers to voters seeking a recount.

It is part of a broader effort by Stein to recount votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Trump won all three states narrowly over Democrat Hillary Clinton, while Stein captured about 1 percent of the vote, or less, in all three states.

In Pennsylvania, Trump beat Clinton in Pennsylvania by about 44,000 votes out of 6 million cast.

A federal judge halted Michigan's recount last week after three days. The Wisconsin recount was expected to conclude Monday. With about 95 percent of the votes recounted as of Sunday, Clinton had gained 25 votes on Trump, but still trailed by about 22,000

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 3

Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next  

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum

Obama orders review of possible hacking during election

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB