Current and ongoing news across the world
U.S. intelligence agencies have "high confidence" Russia acted covertly to help Trump in election, officials said
Obama Orders Intelligence Report on Russian Election Hacking
Washington - President Obama has ordered American intelligence agencies to produce a full report on Russian efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election, his homeland security adviser said on Friday. He also directed them to develop a list of "lessons learned" from the broad campaign the United States has accused Russia of carrying out to steal emails, publish their contents and probe the vote-counting system.
nytimes.com
Russia Hacked Republican Committee but Kept Data, U.S. Concludes




The wiki leaks may or may not be supported by Russian hackers but if you look at the history of Internet enabled fraud there's always a lot of operators in Eastern Europe who are not prosecuted by any government I think it's an injustice to blame any government for the actions of privateers if anybody or any organization wants to hide things they should be smart enough to encrypt What I really want to know is what should they have hidden? What are they trying to hide with these smoke and mirrors?
I don't understand why they don't release something tangible. The media has been winding itself up over "fake news", then expects us to trust the CIA on what seems like a pretty big deal. I'm sure there are lots of smart, intelligent and well-meaning people at the CIA but they've been wrong on exactly by this type of thing before.
http://https://www.wired.com/2014/12/evidence-of-north-korea-hack-is-thin/
I think the issue is that their sources are confidential. If they shared their evidence, it would expose those sources and make them unusable. It is a bit of a quandary. I also am not really willing to take them at their word. The national intelligence community has a history of lying to the American public.
Have you tried Googling it? There is plenty of evidence. See this for an example: https://www.threatconnect.com/blog/guccifer-2-all-roads-lead-russia/
This article has a lot of detailed information on Guccifer2 (who claims to have leaked the DNC emails) but has to stop short of attributing his actions to the Russian government. If the CIA is so sure, one wonders why they don't provide some information to make this link solid.
I've also read that phishing emails designed to look like GMail password resets were involved and that this gambit can be attributed to the Russian state as they use this tactic often. This sounds pretty weak to me.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/12/10/evidence-prove-russian-hack/
They do attribute it. They say guccifer 2.0 is actually a russian propaganda unit. In fact the title is 'Guccifer 2.0: All roads lead to Russia'
Fair enough, you are correct that this article decides that Guccifer2 works for the Russia government . Still, the details seem circumstantial (they use the Russian EliteVPN service) and there are some links in mail headers to Russia organizations. IMHO, this doesn't seem strong enough to me to claim the Russian state hacked the DNC or RNC.
For me, personally, I am opposed to the CIA saying it is true because they said so and thinking it's okay not to release any corroborating evidence. Likewise I'm disappointed with the news media letting them get away with it. Lastly, it strikes me that poor security on the part of the DNC and the RNC is the real problem.
This is like the boy who cried wolf. When they tell us they were told this by a "Confidential source". We can be pretty sure that means the democrat party. Remember this is the newspaper who Wikileaks proved was working directly fir Hillary Clinton's campaign.
The source is the CIA, not the Democratic Party.
Could you source where they showed the Times working for the Clinton campaign?
That's what they tell us, but the CIA already said publically that they found no evidance of such activities. Its more lies from the press. There has been no shortage of that. Keep in mind that WAPO just had to admit that their article about fakr news was fake.
Could you source where the CIA said they found no evidence? I ask beause this is the full quote from today's news (via NPR):
"Before, there was confidence about the fact that Russia interfered," the official told NPR's Mary Louise Kelly. "But there was low confidence on what the direction and intentionality of the interference was. Now they [the CIA] have come to the conclusion that Russia was trying to tip the election to Trump."
The official adds: "The reason the assessment changed is that new information became available" since Oct. 7, when the Department of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence released a joint statement accusing Russia of interfering with the American election process.
How is this a lie?
Could you also source where the Washington Post had to admit they had a fake article?
If you could source these two things (as well as the previous 'Times working for Clinton' mention), maybe we can get to the bottom of this and form some agreement.
No offense, but I no longer play this game. I read the news every day, typically I spend 4 hours a day researching current events. If you want you can find this informatuon yourself. Let me give you another one to research. Hillary Clinton sent out an email to her supporters that claimed 17 intelligence agencies said that Russia was helping Trump. This is a narrative used to discredit Trump. What evidance is there? So far only one anonymous source that claims a secret CIA study concluded this. Why would it be secret? The news is not news anymore. Its propaganda. What if i said an anonymous source told me that your were a murderer. Should people give that credence? Dont you think that Obama would publish this infor if it were real? Nope all he has done is call for a deep dive investigation. All of this is intended to discredit Trump. Seriously, ask yourself. What is the evidance?
If you would just google this crap you would quickly see how little credibility the major outlets now have.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4014386/Washington-Post-appends-story-accusing-Russia-spreading-fake-news-saying-does-not-vouch-experts-findings.html?ito=email_share_mobile-top
I did try to find these sources and failed to do so - this is why I asked if you could provide any.
I don't know if Hillary Clinton's campaign sent out an email saying this, but she did mention it during a debate. It was factual, narrative or not. On October 7th this year, the Homeland Security Department and Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a joint statement that said, "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations."
USIC is a community of 17 intelligence agencies. Here is the list:
Air Force Intelligence Army Intelligence Central Intelligence Agency Coast Guard Intelligence Defense Intelligence Agency Energy Department Homeland Security Department State Department Treasury Department Drug Enforcement Administration Federal Bureau of Investigation Marine Corps Intelligence National Geospatial Intelligence Agency National Reconnaissance Office National Security Agency Navy Intelligence Office of the Director of National Intelligence
You do understand that USIC cannot divulge how they acquire their information, right? This would compromise national security. This joint statement was the very definition of news: new information regarding recent events. And this was straight from the horse's mouth, USIC. It's right here:
https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement
Do you also believe joint statements from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is fake news? Two months later, post-election, the President ordered a deeper conclusion and the CIA (again, the Central Intelligence Agency is part of USIC) just concluded that yes, Russia was in fact responsible and divulged some of the details (I assume whatever they could without compromising national security) to the press.
You say that you read the news for four hours daily, but this is the most blatant example of objective fact and you choose to call it fake news.
It's your right to believe what you want. You are clearly determined to believe this. Have at it. My position is that this is Fake news, and you will notice that it will never provide any detail beyond "they say" russians did it. But please carry on.
That entire article was written because of this note added to the very beginning of an existing story on the Washington post:
Editor’s Note: The Washington Post on Nov. 24 published a story on the work of four sets of researchers who have examined what they say are Russian propaganda efforts to undermine American democracy and interests. One of them was PropOrNot, a group that insists on public anonymity, which issued a report identifying more than 200 websites that, in its view, wittingly or unwittingly published or echoed Russian propaganda. A number of those sites have objected to being included on PropOrNot’s list, and some of the sites, as well as others not on the list, have publicly challenged the group’s methodology and conclusions. The Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so. Since publication of The Post’s story, PropOrNot has removed some sites from its list.
They included information from an anonymous group, realized the PropOrNot group was echoing Russian propaganda, and removed it. That is the entire story. Do you not feel this was the right thing to do?
I'm not talking about what I believe. I'm talking about a joint statement released by the US Government's Intelligence community. I even provided a link. It cannot get any more "from the source" than this. They are not a news agency reporting the statement- they are the statement.
Your position is calling a government intelligence agency's statement 'fake news'? Is that what you're saying?
You guys are funny. There isnt one piece of evidance behind the Russia claim. On the other hand, foreign governments paid for the majority of Hillary's campaign. 25℅ of her campaign funds came from Saudi Arabia alone. Is that not trying to manipulate our elections? How about George Sorros? He spent an estimated $300M doing nefarious stuff to tilt the election. He did this right out in the open a nd not a peep from WAPO or the NYT. Does the public realize that he is paying the post election protesters? Does the public realize that the BLM for example is a Soros funded organization? No, because News isnt news anymore. Its propaganda. What you are consuming as news is rubbish. The vast majority of the people know this. Its not worth arguong with yiu because you keep posting fake news to back up fake facts.
Clinton started this whole Russia is evil notion. But do you remember that when that idiot Romney said during a debate with Obama that Russia was a major threat, Obama quiped that "the 80s called and wanted their foreign policy back". Then SoS Clinton after getting millions in "donations" from them gave Russia 20℅ of the United States Uranium supply. Then she needed a boogie man, and she invented the Russian narrative. No evidance has been provided so far. Wikileaks said they did not get any documents from Russia. Oh yeah, funny how none of the.media did anything but a very superficial analysis of the documents released by wikileaks, and all of them took seriously any of the email gate alligations. Fake news.
Thats meaningless nonsence. They can say all they want, but proof is what they need to provide.
How you cam not k ow this info.is beyond me. Googled it and.copied the first link http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/wikileaks-list-least-65-msm-reporters-meeting-andor-coordinating-offline-top-hillary-advisors/
http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/10/rnc-spokesman-slams-wp-nyt-report-the-russians-never-hacked-us-video/
залупа
Hey Ziggy, I think this may be a case where both sides agree to disagree. this reminds me of a discussion I had with a few folks who thought fake protesters were brought in to protest one of Donald Trump's campaigns. Turns out that this was fake news, and Snopes wrote about it: http://www.snopes.com/anti-trump-protesters-bused-into-austin/
however, these guys mentioned that Snopes is lead by a liberal who was given an executive order by Obama to write articles that favor the left. however, the same group all believed that Obama was also going to enforce Sharia Law, based on nothing he said but based entirely on feeling. Enforcement of Sharia Law never happened and turns out that Obama is actually a citizen. I think some folks are selective about their news sources and stories, there's no changing that.
"25% of her campaig funds came from Saudi Arabia alone" you are making this claim. If you cannot provide a citation, we must dismiss this claim. And we will not accept Breitbart or Limbaugh as a source.
The Democratic Party is cooberating it,though. (Paywall)
I think what may be the lesson of this election: do not mess with traditional media. If you call them biased without reason or take their press passes, they will dig up all your little secrets and burn your public image to the ground.
I'm confused. Whose public image was burned to the ground here?
Trump... the one they're pretty certain was handed the election by Russian interference.... which does to your public image in this country what an elephant gun does to your face.
Yeah, but the problem is that everybody is already laughing at this story with cries of 'fake news'. Whatever they did worked too well. Nobody believes news any longer thanks to the conspiracy theory culture that's been propagated.
Still... you got to give it to the post and the times for persistence... and what do you know, this might be the lit bit of straw that burns it all down for him... because it seems congress and intelligence community might have bought it
I don't believe this wikileaks