FAKE NEWS EXPOSED: A Service of PoliticalChat.com

[Rajoo]

This is a 'he said, she said' routine.
If the Russians did indeed hack the DNC server (of which we can be fairly certain of from Wikileaks), why would they not do the same to the RNC. Professional courtesy towards Trump? Or are we to believe that the RNC systems are hack proof?

[finnbow]

Let's review what we know:

- The DNC and Podesta were hacked and the entire intelligence community believes Russia was responsible.

- Trump has expressed admiration for Putin and has considerable business interests in Russia (per Trump's son) as do Michael Flynn, Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and Rex Tillerson.

- Putin hates Hillary for a variety of positions/actions as Secretary of State.

- Materials universally believed to have been hacked by Russia were released and contained materials damaging only to the Hillary Campaign. No such material was released directed at the Trump campaign.

- The FBI and CIA reportedly disagree as to whether the RNC was hacked.

The NYTimes prints: "American intelligence officials believe that Russia also penetrated databases housing Republican National Committee data, but chose to release documents only on the Democrats. The committee has denied that it was hacked...

And yet, there is skepticism within the American government, particularly at the F.B.I., that this evidence adds up to proof that the Russians had the specific objective of getting Mr. Trump elected.

A senior American law enforcement official said the F.B.I. believed that the Russians probably had a combination of goals, including damaging Mrs. Clinton and undermining American democratic institutions. Whether one of those goals was to install Mr. Trump remains unclear to the F.B.I., he said.

The official played down any disagreement between the F.B.I. and the C.I.A., and suggested that the C.I.A.’s conclusions were probably more nuanced than they were being framed in the news media."

Whell calls the NYTimes piece "fake news" (FWIW, Rush Limbaugh made Whell's argument nearly verbatim about 20 minutes before he posted it (I listened to it on the way home from the gym)) with the apparent intent to quell criticism of Russia's meddling in the election by highlighting disagreement as to whether the RNC was hacked (even though the NYTimes itself reported on the disagreement).

Whether or not the RNC was hacked is immaterial to their hacking of the DNC and Podesta and strategically releasing the materials to harm Hillary and discredit our democracy. Whell/Rush's arguments is a red herring that didn't seem to impress Mitch McConnell who said that that resistance by the GOP to a thorough investigation "defies belief."

Swing and a miss, Whell.

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

So, who do we believe, NY Times or Priebus. NY Times or Preibus....

Even you should be able to frame the question better than that. Do we believe an "un-named CIA source", or do we believe Priebus (who can likely point to individuals at the FBI who can corroborate his story)?

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Let's review what we know:

- The DNC and Podesta were hacked and the entire intelligence community believes Russia was responsible.

- Trump has expressed admiration for Putin and has considerable business interests in Russia (per Trump's son) as do Michael Flynn, Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and Rex Tillerson.

- Putin hates Hillary for a variety of positions/actions as Secretary of State.

- Materials universally believed to have been hacked by Russia were released and contained materials damaging only to the Hillary Campaign. No such material was released directed at the Trump campaign.

- The FBI and CIA reportedly disagree as to whether the RNC was hacked.

The NYTimes prints: "American intelligence officials believe that Russia also penetrated databases housing Republican National Committee data, but chose to release documents only on the Democrats. The committee has denied that it was hacked...

And yet, there is skepticism within the American government, particularly at the F.B.I., that this evidence adds up to proof that the Russians had the specific objective of getting Mr. Trump elected.

A senior American law enforcement official said the F.B.I. believed that the Russians probably had a combination of goals, including damaging Mrs. Clinton and undermining American democratic institutions. Whether one of those goals was to install Mr. Trump remains unclear to the F.B.I., he said.

The official played down any disagreement between the F.B.I. and the C.I.A., and suggested that the C.I.A.’s conclusions were probably more nuanced than they were being framed in the news media."

Whell calls the NYTimes piece "fake news" (FWIW, Rush Limbaugh made Whell's argument nearly verbatim about 20 minutes before he posted it (I listened to it on the way home from the gym)) with the apparent intent to quell criticism of Russia's meddling in the election by highlighting disagreement as to whether the RNC was hacked (even though the NYTimes itself reported on the disagreement).

Whether or not the RNC was hacked is immaterial to their hacking of the DNC and Podesta and strategically releasing the materials to harm Hillary and discredit our democracy. Whell/Rush's arguments is a red herring that didn't seem to impress Mitch McConnell who said that that resistance by the GOP to a thorough investigation "defies belief."

Swing and a miss, Whell.

You want your collection or speculation and opinion taken as fact?

And, I'm glad to hear that Limbaugh can read both ABC News, Politico and Marketwatch, all of whom ran the story the contradicted the NY Times report. Sorry that you can't read it, though.

There is yet to surface any proof that Russia meddled in the election. The closest WaPo can come is that the hacking MAY have been done by individuals with "ties" to the Russian intelligence. We have no idea what the CIA or WaPo means by "ties", but it is certainly falls short of a direct linkage to the Kremlin.

From WaPo:

The CIA briefed the administration that it thinks the Russians “breached” the RNC systems, according to a senior U.S. official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. “Obviously there haven’t been the same sort of leaks and pilfered documents spread about from this intrusion as there were from the various DNC and related incursions.”

Other officials familiar with the CIA’s assessment said there is “high confidence” that the RNC was targeted but less certainty that the Russians got inside the committee and stole material.

So, a nice bit of conflicting into there. We also know that the FBI didn't find any evidence that the RNC systems were compromised by hackers.

U.S. intelligence officials said the CIA has identified the “actors” who took possession of those stolen files and delivered them to WikiLeaks. The individuals are known for their affiliations to Russian intelligence services, but “one step” removed from the Russian government.

No smoking gun yet, but you guys are ready to conclude that this was all about Trump. Figures.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

No smoking gun yet, but you guys are ready to conclude that this was all about Trump. Figures.

Yet again, you missed the point. Russia deliberately interfered in our election either to discredit/weaken our democracy and/or to favor Trump. Neither is acceptable and both need to be thoroughly investigated. Your party's Senate Majority Leader has said that your view "defies belief." He's right. We'll find out soon enough what happened.

In the words of Republican Michael Gerson:
(T)he debate over whether Russia engaged in cyberespionage to help Trump or just to generally mess with American democracy is utter nonsense. Russian espionage resulted in the phased leak of material damaging to the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton at key moments during the presidential campaign. Anyone who finds Russia’s motivation mysterious is being intentionally obtuse.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...0ae_story.html

It seems he took the words right out of my mouth, particularly the part about you being intentionally obtuse.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Yet again, you missed the point. Russia deliberately interfered in our election either to discredit/weaken our democracy and/or to favor Trump. Neither is acceptable and both need to be thoroughly investigated. Your party's Senate Majority Leader has said that your view "defies belief." He's right. We'll find out soon enough what happened.

It seems he took the words right out of my mouth, particularly the part about you being intentionally obtuse.

Its the highlighted part that you're hanging on to like a lifeline, and there's no proof. You're the one being obtuse.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...KBN14204E?il=0

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Its the highlighted part that you're hanging on to like a lifeline, and there's no proof. You're the one being obtuse.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...KBN14204E?il=0

Your position is that unless the Russians can be proven in advance to have favored Trump rather than just hacking and meddling in our election to disrupt and discredit our democracy, we should forego any investigation of their transgressions. Thankfully, there are enough Republicans that are willing to put country before fear of Trumpenfuhrer tweets and support an investigation. Russia interfering and releasing only material negative to Clinton because that's all they could successfully hack or Russia releasing only Hillary material because they favored Trump is a distinction without a difference. We'll likely never be able to divine the exact motive for what they did (disrupting/discrediting America or favoring Trump), but it makes no difference.

BTW, your linked article on based upon a specious premise. Neither the NYTimes nor the WashPost reported that the CIA has proven that Russia interfered specifically to benefit Trump. The CIA said that their analysis led to them have strong confidence that Russia did so. So you and Rush accusing them of saying something they didn't say isn't reason not to investigate - a typical Trump diversionary tactic. I'm starting to think that you're some teenager in a basement in Macedonia.

[Oerets]

All this argument proves to me, the GOP and the Right will sell their souls to advance an agenda. But that is assuming they have souls to sell in the first place.
The Right firmly to the core believes in the dead voting in mass to effect elections but are now blind to Russia. Will not even entertain a independent investigation to see. Willing to embrace Russia and overlook little things like hacking, Ukraine and Syria as acceptable. As long as they are the perceived beneficiaries.



Barney

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I'm starting to think that you're some teenager in a basement in Macedonia.

My guess is he's an 'ordinary American' who enjoys doing a fantasy role-play of 'professional internet warrior for the RNC.' As such, he's going to love the idea that you think he's a teenager in a basement in Macedonia.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Your position is that unless the Russians can be proven in advance to have favored Trump rather than just hacking and meddling in our election without a favorite, we should forego any investigation. I'm started to think that you're some teenager in a basement in Macedonia.

Your position is to sling as much crap as you can and hope that it sticks. Please point me to any statement I've made in ANY thread that suggests that we should "forego any investigation". Let me help you: you won't find it.

Now that that's out of the way:

Again, here's what we know:

We have lots of un-named sources making lots of accusations in the press. We've got documents that have been accessed from servers and emails of the DNC and their operatives and posted on Wikileaks. We have accusations that these disclosures somehow interfered with the election. We have Obama, Dems and some Repubs calling a "congressional investigation" which, as they often do, could turn into a circus very quickly. We don't have any smoking gun that ties this to the Kremlin, though we believe that the hackers used methods that are similar to those used by hacking groups that have been used by Russian intelligence before. And half - backed conclusions backed with little to no documentation have been leaked to the press.

To me, this is unprecedented in a number of ways, not the least of which is a very public discussion of intelligence gathering and speculation about that process in the press by the intelligence community. Leaks are not unprecedented, but to have folks as high as the President and the former Secretary of State commenting publicly about intel gathering is. Sure, its the election and sure the Wikileaks stuff made the news, but whatever happened to the good old days of simply saying "We're investigating and have no further comments until the investigation has concluded."

Also, how is this playing in the Kremlin? No one has linked this to directly to the Kremlin, though much speculation about that is being leaked, and there's no clear agreement on it. But public statements about Russia trying to influence the election are, with or without proof, dangerous. And what if the investigation continues and we find out that Russian-based hackers were actually working on their own (some of these groups do have their own agendas) or working for someone besides Russian intelligence, someone not connected with the Russian gov't at all? Too late, the damage has already been done.

Also, has anyone stopped to think what Russian gov't might gain from hacking the DNC? Finn, you earlier suggested that the motivation here is that "Putin hates Hillary for a variety of positions/actions as Secretary of State." Is there proof that Trump's positions on issues will be demonstrably better than Clinton's for Russia? At best, since Trump has no history in elected office, he's a wild card, and doesn't strike me as consistent or predictable. The "tip the election in favor of Trump" thing doesn't make sense to me.

So, we have an investigation. Then what? What's the end - game if the best we can prove is what we already think we know now: "that Russian-based hackers with ties to Russian intelligence" may have been responsible for accessing DNC servers and emails. What do we do with that flimsy set of facts? Since we had a very public investigation, the politicos will likely believe that they need to have a very public response...one that's motivated by politics rather that logic or prudence.

I think we've let the genie out of the bottle with making this all very public - likely made public for politic's sake - and we're going to have a very difficult time conducting an objective examination of the facts in this case. Or acting on the facts that we do uncover without a healthy dose of politics informing those actions.