Just realized this is the thread about the election, where off topic posts have been seriously denounced, so I'm removing my post. If LamarkNewAge wants to post his somewhere else I'll answer it there.
So it could be somebody else. And I also know things that other people don’t know, and so they cannot be sure of the situation.
Asked what that information included, the president-elect said: You will find out on Tuesday or Wednesday. He did not elaborate, although in a statement released on Thursday in response to Obama’s sanctions, he said he would meet intelligence officials.
The consensus of the CIA. Fidelis Cybersecurity Crowdstrike Mandiant
Which one has the truth?
If I learned anything from the right wing about Assange it is that he is a sex crazed cult leader of a traitorous and criminal organisation in 'hiding' from the US government in 'Ecuador' because of his attacks on the CIA and endangering the lives of intelligence agents and other servicemen.
If I learned anything from the left wing about Assange it is that Putin has used and defended him for years, and essentially gave him a job on RT and that despite saying he has damaging information regarding the Russian government, has not released it.
At the moment Assange is in favor with the Right, and it was in an interview by Sean Hannity that he said the Russians weren't involved. I'm waiting to see, myself.
Yes. They favour him when he is supporting their narrative, they call him a sex mad raping traitor when he does not. I think there's a word for this inconsistency isn't there?
quote: The latest round of publications of leaked classified U.S. documents through the shady organization called Wikileaks raises serious questions about the Obama administration’s incompetent handling of this whole fiasco.
First and foremost, what steps were taken to stop Wikileaks director Julian Assange from distributing this highly sensitive classified material especially after he had already published material not once but twice in the previous months?
He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders?
--Sarah Palin, 2010.
and it was in an interview by Sean Hannity that he said the Russians weren't involved
Right - but how would he know? It's not like Russian agents go around telling people they are Russian agents, so how would Assange know the source? How would a man living in a small room for the past several years have better information than the CIA?
quote:...including the names of 100 Afghans who are helping us privately identify Taliban leaders...all their lives have been put in jeapordy --Sean Hannity 2010.
quote:a guy who sits around, sleeping on other people's couches, changing his hair colour in order to avoid our surveillance is bringing American diplomacy - of this great country - to its heels. It's just an incredible sign of weakness.
-- Marc Thiessen, 2010 on the Hannity Show
quote:why didn't they go after this guy? Why didn't they arrest him? Why didn't they stop this from being published when they had so much time to do it?
-- Sean Hannity, 2010
quote:We can stop pirating of music and Hollywood movies but we can't stop this guy from stealing classified documents that put people's lives at risk?
-- Sean Hannity, 2010
quote:The 2nd thing that I think you did for America, which I think is very important, is you exposed how corrupt our government is, and I'll get to that in a second.
-- Sean Hannity, 2016
quote:You view yourself as a journalist. Information came to you and you disseminated that information because you felt the public had a right to know.
-- Sean Hannity, 2016
quote:Understood. And my big fear 10 years ago, which you and I discussed the last time you were on my radio show when I wanted you arrested. I said. Because I felt you would release potential information that would result in methods and people potentially dying because there is so much, in terms of covert operations, people working under cover, you purposely choose not to publish that information. Correct?
-- Sean Hannity, 2016
quote:And that was my argument about why I think America owes you a debt of gratitude
David Knight of Infowars did a report on the report -- I think his segment will be repeated again later -- probably between 4 and 6 or 7 PST if anyone is interested. He's not the only one who pointed out that there is no evidence in the report, just a lot of assertions. The report refers to sources that are years old, two years, four years, eight years. It's unevidenced, it's bogus, it's just part of the anti-Trump program. And according to Knight it's about THEM controlling the voting systems.
He's not the only one who pointed out that there is no evidence in the report, just a lot of assertions.
To clarify: It's a declassified document, I've read it and it seems primarily to be aimed at informing people of signatures to look out for and basic precautions to inhibit the tactics the suspected groups from succeeding.
It's not the actual CIA report that Trump and Obama have access to.
So is there any actual evidence being presented of Russia doing the hacking or are we just to accept it on faith that the CIA wouldn't lie? Cos I'm pretty suspicious of that lot, to say the least..
So is there any actual evidence being presented of Russia doing the hacking or are we just to accept it on faith that the CIA wouldn't lie?
That's an interesting question.
All you personally are ever likely to get are summaries of conclusions and descriptions of the evidence. So at some point you are going to have to trust somebody or just call everyone liars. You have individual Congressional representatives who get more access than you do and who have seen more directly the the evidence, have the ability to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses, and who, nearly to a man/woman, have been convinced.
Now that may or may not be enough for you, but with regards to classified information, you are not likely to get anything better. I admit to harboring some doubts that are not going to be assuaged, but my doubts don't include the idea that the intelligence folks are lying. Not that such a thing could not change.
Individuals of course are free to make up their minds any way they chose. In some cases that means simply concluding whatever fits in with the rest of your mindset.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000
In my view, it is far too big a political risk to lie about something that unequivocal at this stage. As NoNukes has said, they have to present classified evidence to members of the Houses, and for them to lie would be a blatant piece of political suicide. Can't see them being that stupid. They have to have something pretty solid, in order to be that unequivocal in public.
(Just to clarify - I don't think the CIA are incapable of lying (hell, it's an essential skill in that line of work) - I just don't think they'd lie stupidly.)
Edited by vimesey, : Clarification
Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
It's interesting that during the buildup to the first Gulf War it was not the heads of the FBI & CIA or even the DOD that were coming forward pushing evidence of any threat but rather the political arm. generally member of the Presidential cabinet that were claiming there was evidence.
The actual spooks generally do not come forward publicly if they can avoid it, particularly they don't generally go public with a position that might jeopardize funding.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
