The 2016 US General Election

[citanon]

“It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. senators. “That’s the consensus view.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.b2d9ee104631

What next from the CIA? The Arctic may be cold?

that's a rather curious assessment from the CIA as the optimal outcome for Russia was clearly victory by a seriously weakened Clinton with Trump in the background being the perpetual spoiler. that's also what the Russians were on track to achieve if one believed the polls.

now they have trump heading a unified government with both major parties hating their guts and military buildup imminent. seems like they got more than they bargained for.

[snapper]

that's a rather curious assessment from the CIA as the optimal outcome for Russia was clearly victory by a seriously weakened Clinton with Trump in the background being the perpetual spoiler. that's also what the Russians were on track to achieve if one believed the polls.

now they have trump heading a unified government with both major parties hating their guts and military buildup imminent. seems like they got more than they bargained for.

No Hilary they fooled once - the 'reset' - and like most people she learned from the mistake; she was noticeably more hawkish on Muscovy during the campaign than say Obama was. Trump they had have inside access and feedback on all the time and clearly in their view he will be less interested in their neo imperialist strategy and more isolationist.

[citanon]

No Hilary they fooled once - the 'reset' - and like most people she learned from the mistake. Trump they had have inside access and feedback on all the time and clearly in their view he will be less interested in their neo imperialist strategy and more isolationist.

did they know Trump better than Chris Christie or Rudy Giuliani? bevause those two just found out they didn't know him as well as they thought.

only trump knows Trump.

also, you have to put yourself back before the election. do you really think the Russians predicted that Trump would win? if not, do you think Putin was playing for a hail Mary?

the intelligence community can look at as many mid level sources as they want. the truth is there is one source that matters for the true Russian intentions, and that's what Putin is thinking in his head.

[YellowFever]

If there is evidence that the Rooskies did indeed hack the DNC email servers and tried to influence the election, Barry should have quietly and discreetly ordered the counter intelligence services to investigate further.

Making it public like this will make it look like just another temper tantrum by the Democrats by half the country.

Poorly played, Barry...

[TopHatter]

I just can't shake the feeling that this Presidency is going to be a disaster. Entertaining as hell, but a total disaster.

[snapper]

did they know Trump better than Chris Christie or Rudy Giuliani? bevause those two just found out they didn't know him as well as they thought.

only trump knows Trump.

also, you have to put yourself back before the election. do you really think the Russians predicted that Trump would win? if not, do you think Putin was playing for a hail Mary?

the intelligence community can look at as many mid level sources as they want. the truth is there is one source that matters for the true Russian intentions, and that's what Putin is thinking in his head.

Nobody can read the mind of another to my knowledge so we shall never know your last stipulation... The point is not whether they predicted a Trump win or not - almost certainly they did not - but whether there is proof that they tried to influence the election in his favour once he was selected. Bearing in mind his dovish remarks about Muscovite policy and NATO during the campaign - compared to Hilary's stance - their reasons for trying to influence the election in Trumps favour are pretty clear - as is the fact they did so not only through hacking but in the wikileaks timings (which RT appeared to know in advance on three occasions). To those of us who have some familiarity with their modus operandi this was just another - but sadly rather successful - Muscovite disinformation operation and the case was not questioned even before election day. It much surprises me that it has taken so long for the CIA to go public with such a conclusion.

[snapper]

If there is evidence that the Rooskies did indeed hack the DNC email servers and tried to influence the election

See https://www.wired.com/2016/07/heres-...ssia-dnc-hack/ for starters.

[YellowFever]

See https://www.wired.com/2016/07/heres-...ssia-dnc-hack/ for starters.

So what's you point?

Did I say the Russians weren't involved?

Maybe yes...maybe no.

I didn't offer an opinion as to whether they were or not.....I just said it was poorly handled by Barry.

And I will decide for myself if the evidence ever gets declassified.

And it better be after all the fuss that's been made.

And what if it has been proven the Russians tried to influence the election?

Do we do a do-over?

We lick our wounds and try to prevent it in the future.

[snapper]

So what's you point?

Did I say the Russians weren't involved?

I was merely trying to inform you. The only point I was trying to make is, as I have said, I am surprised that it taken so long for the CIA to make their view public. I presume they have additional proofs of Muscovite involvement but to many of us accustomed to these cases which are never solved (from Ryazan to Litvinenko to MH17 and many more) it walked like a pig, snorted like a pig and smelled like a pig so we had reached the conclusion that the same cause was behind it and clearly there was an attempt to influence the US election. One could perhaps debate how much it influenced the vote but there was clearly an attempt for fairly obvious reasons. That is my point - nothing against you.

[citanon]

Nobody can read the mind of another to my knowledge so we shall never know your last stipulation... The point is not whether they predicted a Trump win or not - almost certainly they did not - but whether there is proof that they tried to influence the election in his favour once he was selected. Bearing in mind his dovish remarks about Muscovite policy and NATO during the campaign - compared to Hilary's stance - their reasons for trying to influence the election in Trumps favour are pretty clear - as is the fact they did so not only through hacking but in the wikileaks timings (which RT appeared to know in advance on three occasions). To those of us who have some familiarity with their modus operandi this was just another - but sadly rather successful - Muscovite disinformation operation and the case was not questioned even before election day. It much surprises me that it has taken so long for the CIA to go public with such a conclusion.

No. The fact that one cannot know with complete confidence what is on another person's mind in no way changes the essential importance of what is on the mind of a nation's leadership. What it should do is diminish one's confidence in any intelligence assessment based purely on factual sources, as the over reliance on available facts is tantamount to willfully ignoring the fundamental limitation on what any set of facts can tell us.

So guessing is actually essential. You have to make an intelligent estimate based partly on facts, partly on strategy, and partly on psychology.

We know that Putin is a seasoned strategic player. Supporting Trump based purely on his dovish statements would be an amateurish mistake. Achieving a certain state of weakness in the US political system would be a much more obtainable and reliable end. Therefore, it would likely take primacy in the mind of the Russian leadership.

You, once again, are underestimating the Russians because of your inexperience.

[YellowFever]

I was merely trying to inform you....

Uh, OK....thank you.

.............

Yeah, like I said, Obama played this poorly.

[Parihaka]

It seems to me, we have to accept these realities, and defend the freedom of the press to piss us off.

Exactly so, for both legacy media AND new media. Yes, shyt is being made up out of nothing (by both sides) but as the article I posted above says, a lot of stuff such as Lewinsky or DNC hired provocateurs at Trump rallies would never have been published were it not for Drudge or Breitbart or Infowars or Project Veritas. You may or may not despise them but they are the target of the Obama administration and the Democrat party. It's a battle whether you have a full choice of news, opinions and yes fake news, or only govt. approved messages. I know which I'd prefer, even if I have to wade through pap to get there.

[Parihaka]

she was noticeably more hawkish on Muscovy during the campaign than say Obama was.

Including the use of military force in response to a DNC-type hacking.

[snapper]

No. The fact that one cannot know with complete confidence what is on another person's mind in no way changes the essential importance of what is on the mind of a nation's leadership. What it should do is diminish one's confidence in any intelligence assessment based purely on factual sources, as the over reliance on available facts is tantamount to willfully ignoring the fundamental limitation on what any set of facts can tell us.

So guessing is actually essential. You have to make an intelligent estimate based partly on facts, partly on strategy, and partly on psychology.

I am not sure what to make of this... seems to be some self contradiction of misunderstanding going on. First you discount factual evidence as being the "end all" which seems contrary to all reason in any given case though of course one must often look behind the obvious facts... I dare say Assange and Snowden were approached by people who appeared to be interested in revealing facts for great and altruistic purposes and it is not necessarily their fault they got played. So to a certain extent I agree that the facts are not always what they seem at first glance. However on a hack that leaves meta data and SSL traces identical to ones traced to Muscovite intelligence you would need a convoluted story and much other proof to suppose that the smoking gun did not have Muscovite prints on it. Each case of course deserves evaluation in it's own right on the basis on the circumstances and evidence as well to be viewed in a larger context where it may add or detract from some growing picture. If that is what you mean then I agree but it is in my opinion forming an informed opinion from the facts.

As for the 'psychology' I do not need to know a hackers psychology - or Assange's or Snowdon's. They don't matter. Putin's I understand all too well... it is nothing particularly new either.

We know that Putin is a seasoned strategic player. Supporting Trump based purely on his dovish statements would be an amateurish mistake. Achieving a certain state of weakness in the US political system would be a much more obtainable and reliable end. Therefore, it would likely take primacy in the mind of the Russian leadership.

You, once again, are underestimating the Russians because of your inexperience.

I would question Putin's strategic comprehension and mastership; as I have said before I think you greatly over estimate this. I also think you mistake his psychology which rolls into this. He is no strategic master mind to have lost Ukraine and estranged his country from nearly the whole world community for the sake of Crimea to which he has to build an extremely expensive bridge that is nigh on indefencible to a missile strike. His game is based on fear my friend - and most of it is his own. Having robbed and murdered his own people, having them facing no rising standard of living for the next 8-10yrs and increasing poverty, infrastructure breakdown, bankruptcy in the regions etc etc etc he has focused his paranoia - which in reality is his fear of his own people - into a national paranoia that everyone out 'there' is out to get them/him. In other words his view of his own position is a defencive one; he is a captive of what he has done and become and cannot be seen to lose or... well some wood somewhere most likely. I would love to discuss this subject more but am aware that this is a US election thread so if you wish to continue elsewhere or by pm be my guest.

[drhuy]

See https://www.wired.com/2016/07/heres-...ssia-dnc-hack/ for starters.

did the russians make up those emails?

No? then whats the problems?