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

a reply to: Kettu

I did read the article. And again, all they have to say in the article is 'so-and-so' says it was the Russians but they never name anybody specific or provide anything empirical to support their hypothesis.

Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, according to U.S. officials. Those officials described the individuals as actors known to the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and hurt Clinton’s chances.

So where is the empirical evidence? Where is the investigation?

An assessment is not an investigation.

Well, I already make a mean borscht with pork...

There's a well-known Russian book in circulation that predicted and even gives a glimpse into the inner workings of the Russian geopolitical agenda. It's a textbook, if you will -- a cheat sheet for Russian officials on what would be best for Russia moving forward. It's called, "The Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia"

Here, let's all take a look together and learn something:

The Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia is a geopolitical book by Alexander Dugin. The book has had a large influence within the Russian military, police, and foreign policy elites[1] and was allegedly used as a textbook in the General Staff Academy of Russian military.[1]

So, what's the basic premise?

The book declares that "the battle for the world rule of [ethnic] Russians" has not ended and Russia remains "the staging area of a new anti-bourgeois, anti-American revolution."

Wow, anti-American revolution eh? With bombs and missiles? Tanks and guns? Nope:

Military operations play relatively little role. The textbook believes in a sophisticated program of subversion, destabilization, and disinformation spearheaded by the Russian special services. The operations should be assisted by a tough, hard-headed utilization of Russia's gas, oil, and natural resources to bully and pressure other countries.

What does it say about the UK?

United Kingdom should be cut off from Europe.

Wow, Brexit anyone? That's kind of creepy...What about the USA? That's a hot button issue. What does this highly prized and studied Russian book say about the USA?

Russia should use its special forces within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism. For instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics."

Wikipedia

Well now now...doesn't that sound awfully familiar? That reads like Putin's very own football playbook. It sure seems to me that a road map for Russian actives has already been outline for a while now.

The puzzle pieces keep falling into place, and the picture just gets bigger and bigger...

I need to get to planting those beets. I have a feeling I might be needing to brush up on my borscht recipe here soon.

a reply to: Bedlam

I am not kidding. Do you really not see how they're comparable?

- With Trump's election, his businesses stand to make billions beyond what they would had he not been elected.
- A substantial amount of that money will come from influential persons with vested interests.
- Trump is not immune to conflicts of interest.

- While Hillary Clinton was SoS, the CGI took in half a billion or so in donations.
- A substantial amount of that money came from influential persons with vested interests.
- Hillary Clinton is not immune to conflicts of interest.

It would only take a single building deal that otherwise wouldn't have happened without his election for Trump to net more profit than CGI received in donations.

Are embezzling, self-dealing and otherwise utilizing money from the coffers of a non-profit easier or more difficult than making use of profits from one's businesses?

We've already got the appearance of impropriety in a couple instances and he hasn't been sworn in yet.

a reply to: Kettu

You might find this interesting.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Bedlam

I am not kidding. Do you really not see how they're comparable?
We've already got the appearance of impropriety in a couple instances and he hasn't been sworn in yet.

W88.

a reply to: theantediluvian


doesn't make sense why blame fancy bears they would have just posted the information directly. They wouldn't send it to wiki leaks they would post it here like they are doing over the athlete doping. They don't hide in the shadows at all.


twitter.com...

fancybear.net...

If they were involved they would have bragged about it everywhere its the way they work. In hackers world you have to keep your reputation going.

a reply to: Kettu

But again, where is the empirical evidence that proves the Russians tried to influence our elections?

The only thing you provided in that whole post was a motive to do so based on a book that may be floating around.

Every intelligence agency has a modus operandi similar to the excerpt you have provided

But again, still nothing empirical. Just like pizzagate.

a reply to: theantediluvian

It's OK ... sadly we live in a post-fact world, where people think this book (and others like it) is actually NON-fiction:



Yes, you are a shark.

If you want to be....

And you can even choose how the adventure goes!

For some reason people's identities are so tightly bound to their politics that they're willing to re-shape their entire perceptions of reality, and entertain entirely false paradigms in order to keep themselves from admitting uncomfortable truth.

The thing is, Russia has a vested interest in destabilizing the USA. We know this. The CIA knows this. We know for a fact that Russia has a long, sorrid history of doing these exact same things all over Europe for over a decade now.

The fact that people dismiss this as "whatever, it's fake but this pizzathing is totally real!" is beyond appalling.

I guess those are the people that would actually believe they are sharks and can choose their own adventure. The sad thing is, they're adventure is sucking all of us in. They're not content to live in disillusion alone, they want everyone to just make up whatever feels good and go with that.

Fine. I'm the King of Mars. I expect no arguing!

You are talking about the same CIA who got a war started by saying Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, have covertly run drugs to finance their overthrows of other countries leaders and well, the list can go on. The CIA wants war and so do the people they work for. Washington Post is a joke and the CIAs propaganda machine. I have no respect for anything they come up with.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

Fine.

The FBI alert listed eight nodes, or internet protocol addresses, that it said had been used in the attacks on the state elections systems.

Forensic analyses of the nodes led ThreatConnect to determine that some of the same nodes had been used for hosting a Russian cybercrime market and were the source of a takedown of the Ukrainian power grid in 2015, the company said.

One particular node, it said, was the source of digital penetration “targeting Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development (AK) Party, Ukrainian Parliament and German Freedom Party figures from March-August 2016 that fits a known Russian targeting focus and modus operandi.”

www.mcclatchydc.com...

Of course, I don't expect you to believe it. I'm mainly posting it for the benefit of the community-at-large.

a reply to: dragonridr

It makes perfect sense to release information through Wikileaks if you don't want it to appear to come from you and you want to use the Wikileaks brand to give it credibility, infrastructure to deliver it and networks of supporters to promote it.

a reply to: Kettu

More dodging of my question. I am not surprised.

The question is:

Where is the empirical evidence (that you claimed) that proves Russia was involved in trying to influence the US election?

Try answering my question without the condescending, irrelevant lecture.

originally posted by: Bedlam

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.

Show me the facts.

a reply to: drifter1109

The Washington Post is not a joke, and I am the King of Mars.

The WaPo broke the Watergate scandal, the original scandal that all other "gate" scandals are named after.

Just because you don't agree with something does not mean it doesn't contain details about events that actually happened.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Kettu

You might find this interesting.

That is indeed an interesting read. The guy was detained by the KGB...

I know for a fact that more and more Balkanized, former USSR states were eyeing the EU with hunger and it was worrisome to the Russian Federation. They feared loosing their hegemonic hold, as the younger generation saw what life was like in places like Germany, France, Austria ect...

Good link -- I'll be adding that to my research drive/vault.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Riffrafter

No one - I repeat no one - has questioned the validity of the Wikileaks emails.

You mean One Sided Wikileaks.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

"Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it"

What do you mean by one sided?

You're upset at the fact that the Wikileaks emails totally roasts HRC, the Clinton Foundation and the DNC?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Seriously. The facts (emails) are the facts (emails). Period.

If you're saying you believe Wikileaks has damaging info on Trump but is not releasing it - you have truly gone off the deep end.

First of all - based on what?! Your "feelings"? Secondly, don't you believe that if for one second some DNC staffer or HRC supporter had *any* evidence of that they wouldn't have screamed it to the rooftops?

Again, it seems like you don't like what's been brought out so you would rather shoot and/or disparage the one that showed that truth to the world vs being angry at those that committed the bad deeds in the first place.

I understand that you don't like the result - I do. But, you really should take a minute and think about the sentence above.

Is that who you are?

a reply to: theantediluvian

Russians hacking DNC staffers' emails or Podesta emails has absolutely nothing to do with how much you dislike HRC. They're separate issues. I don't understand how you don't get that? Throw Clinton in jail. Now, do you care if Russians are hacking emails of US politicians? Do you care if their doing so to influence the election?

Very good point.

Of course I do!

But if there were any real solid evidence of this, I find it somewhat hard to believe that our *current* government isn't all over this and letting the American public know about it. Although I can think of a few reasons why they might not let the public in on it i.e. - how do they know, what we are doing in response, "scaring" the public, etc - but none of which in my opinion justifies them not telling us about something as important as this.

Which leaves us right back where we started I guess.

[sigh]

a reply to: Kettu

You're kidding right?

The Watergate scandal was over 40 years ago. Multiple lifetimes in the MSM business.

The days of Woodward and Bernstein are *long* gone for the rag that is now WaPo.

And it is a rag. Such a shame too....

On the flip side I'll grant you that the NY Post which used to be an excellent newspaper is now a right wing rag since being purchased by Rupert Murdoch some years ago.

Excrement happens often in the MSM business. To not recognize it, means you become a part of said excrement.

Is it just me, or does that WaPo article seem an aweful lot like, I think it's sorcha fall or some # like that? The ones who always get their sources from "The Kremlin" lol.

originally posted by: Kettu
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.

I KNOW.

Let's compare their non-political history. The private citizen.

Can't compare their political history - - - Trump doesn't have one.

Hillary = 1 husband for life (don't bother mentioning Bill's philandering - - unless you're gonna include Trump's)