Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Do you think Julian Assange isn't biased?

Sure seems so to me.

I am no Wikileaks expert - - - far from it.

But, sure seems to me Hillary was targeted.

I would really like to know why. I would like to know what they are so afraid of.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Do you think Julian Assange isn't biased?

Sure seems so to me.

I am no Wikileaks expert - - - far from it.

But, sure seems to me Hillary was targeted.

I would really like to know why. I would like to know what they are so afraid of.

WW3.

a reply to: Annee

Must she be a "target"?

Maybe she's just a lying criminal. Like most pols.

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: Annee

Must she be a "target"?

Maybe she's just a lying criminal. Like most pols.

Trump's more of a criminal then she is.

His just happens to be in the private sector.

Can't really compare their political history - - now can we?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: Annee

Must she be a "target"?

Maybe she's just a lying criminal. Like most pols.

Trump's more of a criminal then she is.

In what way, exactly?

a reply to: Bedlam

Maybe both things are true. Maybe Clinton, Trump, Assange, Putin et al are all lying criminals. There's no reason that all of those things can't be true simultaneously and in fact, I'd say it's almost certainly the case. Does being a lying criminal preclude a person from being a target? Does targetting a lying criminal make another lying criminal less of a lying criminal?

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: Annee

Must she be a "target"?

Maybe she's just a lying criminal. Like most pols.

Trump's more of a criminal then she is.

In what way, exactly?

Fraudulent charity, basically used it for money laundering and self dealing.

Tried to work some business deals in Cuba during the embargo.

Refuses to pay workers, then tells them they can sue him if they don't like it.

Set up a fake University.

I'm sure more about Trump will come out over time.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Does targeting a lying criminal make another lying criminal less of a lying criminal?

There you go.

Someone tried to convince me Wiki didn't release anything on Trump cuz they didn't have anything.

I'm not buying that.

originally posted by: Annee
Fraudulent charity, basically used it for money laundering and self dealing.

Given the Clinton Foundation, I'm surprised your head doesn't detonate from the dissonance.

a reply to: Annee

Agreed, he hasn't been under close public scrutiny like HRC has for over 30 years.

And despite Hillary being under an electron scanning microscope and scandal after attempted scandal -- nothing with any real "teeth" has ever come forward with conclusive PROOF (not allegation, not opinion) of blatant criminal activity.

It's far more likely that the types of business dealings that Trump has engaged in over the years clearly violated the law at some point, but no one has been investigating him with a fine tooth comb.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Bedlam

Maybe Clinton, Trump, Assange, Putin et al are all lying criminals.

Maybe, but you have the server, and the Clinton Foundation to erase the maybe part.

a reply to: Kettu

"FBI issued an unprecedented warning to state election officials urging them to be on the lookout for intrusions into their election systems and to take steps to upgrade security measures across the voting process, including voter registration, voter rolls and election-related websites. The confidential “flash” alert said investigators had detected attempts to penetrate election systems in several states.”

Notice they claimed to have detected 'attempts' to penetrate election systems. But no actual penetration has been proven and never anywhere did they mention Russia.

attackers would probe election offices in advance to find ways to break into computers. Closer to election, when it was clear from polling which states would have close margins, the attackers might spread malware into machines in some of these states, rigging machines to shift a few % of the vote to favor desired candidate. This malware would likely be designed to remain inactive during preelection tests, do its dirty business during election, then erase itself when polls close. A skilled attacker’s work might leave no visible signs though the country might be surprised when results in several close states were off from preelection polls.

Would?

They would? Or they did?

Which is it? Would they or did they?

And the rest of your list is not dissimilar, most of your sources are more allegation and less facts. And of the ones that are based on fact, most make poor correlations that resemble the notoriously conflated correlations of pizzagate.

That's right, I just compared your argument to pizzagate.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

Not even close.

We have high level CIA personnel giving presentations on the floor of congress, presenting empirical evidence of known Russian middlemen hacking into US-based election-related computer systems.

We have highly professional contract netsec firms that have DoD contracts tracing attacks to known Russian assets (Fancybear).

Take your pepperoni and badly shot youtube videos out of here. This is the real deal.

a reply to: Bedlam

Given that Trump's business empire is already being flooded with money due to his election, that he has shown no real intention of removing himself from conflicts of interest — and it's arguably impossible that he even could short of selling everything and putting his money into an actual blind trust — I'm surprised that you're trying to frame Trump as an improvement.

a reply to: Kettu

Undocumented basement server is a crime..

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Bedlam

Given that Trump's business empire is already being flooded with money due to his election, that he has shown no real intention of removing himself from conflicts of interest — and it's arguably impossible that he even could short of selling everything and putting his money into an actual blind trust — I'm surprised that you're trying to frame Trump as an improvement.

Over Hillary? Are you kidding?

a reply to: Kettu

We have high level CIA personnel giving presentations on the floor of congress, presenting empirical evidence of known Russian middlemen hacking into US-based election-related computer systems.

So where is your source for that?

a reply to: ColdWisdom

I'm not going to waste my time digging through the new WaPo article that this thread was created just for you. I'm sorry you didn't bother to read it.

As stated by others, the USA does the same kind of stuff they are accusing Russia of doing. It seems to be a part of national policies these days to influence other countries in political stuff. I just can't see what difference it makes, look at the money Hillary got for campaigning from other governments, the extra money was used to advertise to get more people to support her. Still she is indebted to those countries.

I think that Russia is well aware of Trump's weaknesses and is ready to exploit him and the US.

In my opinion the US is much more weaker with Trump as president, especially given his cabinet picks. Russia knows this.