SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the putin-his-nose-where-it-doesn't-belong dept.
A new declassified report released by US intelligence officials says Russian President Vladimir Putin "ordered" a campaign to influence the 2016 US presidential election.
The 25-page public version of the report was released on Friday after the officials briefed President-elect Donald Trump and top lawmakers on Capitol Hill on a longer, classified version.
The report said Russian efforts to meddle in vote represent the most recent expression of Moscow's long-standing desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order.
[...] After his briefing, Trump stopped short of embracing the intelligence community's assessment that Russia interfered in the presidential campaign, saying only that any hacking attempts had "absolutely no effect" on the outcome of the election.
Having hours earlier dismissed the hacking controversy as a "political witch hunt," Trump later issued a statement whose main aim appeared to be to deflect questions about the legitimacy of his November 8 victory over Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton.
Full text of report available in many places, including at scribd.
Ironically, Wikileaks, an organization usually in favor of information sharing, was upset about dissemination of this report.
In a Friday tweet, WikiLeaks slammed the CIA for leaking information to NBC.
"The Obama admin/CIA is illegally funneling TOP SECRET//COMINT information to NBC for political reasons before PEOTUS even gets to read it," the tweet read.
An NBC report last night touted "an exclusive, inside look" at the report connecting the Russian government to breaches of the Democratic National Convention and other groups and individuals during election season sourced to two intelligence community sources.
WikiLeaks and Assange have championed the dissemination of sensitive or classified in the past, publishing United States diplomatic cables and military information, emails from the 2014 Sony hack and internal documents from multiple other governments and political parties.
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/313002-wikileaks-opposed-to-cia-leaking-report-info-to-nbc
Previously on SoylentNews: Reactions to Russian Hacking Activity
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2017, @07:24PM
Nope, we've read the emails and know what they say. I am calling you, now where is your evidence?
You want me to provide evidence that the emails do not contain any terrible secrets?
Okay, here you go, here's every single heinous revelation from the emails: “ ”
To the extent there were irregularities, they contradict this direct tampering of a foreign power narrative that some individuals would have us believe.
Nobody serious is saying that the voting machines were tampered with. Just more mendacity from you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2017, @07:57PM
No, I want you to provide evidence that Russian state actors were responsible for Hilary Clinton losing the election.
"Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region". [wikileaks.org] Also note the phrase "restructure the Sunni resistance in Syria", ie: ISIS.
That's enough about Hillary Clintons terrorist supporting donors and her own endorsement of head-choppers in Syria. Now sir, your evidence?
What is being said and what is being implied are different. Both are clearly a complete joke. [youtube.com] Perhaps not so much of a joke as accusing somebody of lying for refusing to accept blatant lies and insinuation? Are we going to have a "Mendacity^3" whereby you describe the content of your own comments in the subject line?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2017, @09:21PM
> No, I want you to provide evidence that Russian state actors were responsible for Hilary Clinton losing the election.
Since I never said that, its weird you want me to prove it.
Tell you what, you prove that the CIA killed kennedy and then I'll give you what you want.
> Also note the phrase "restructure the Sunni resistance in Syria", ie: ISIS.
Hello, McFly that paragraph begins with talk of attacking ISIS, it literally says "once we engage ISIL, as we have now done in a limited manner, we and our allies should carry on until they are driven back suffering a tangible defeat." The email says attacking ISIS and you read that as supporting ISIS. Could you be any more of a dumbass?
> What is being said and what is being implied are different
I am not going to argue with random bullshit you make up in your own head. You are beyond dumbassery at this point.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2017, @11:04PM
Is this even the same AC I was talking to? Let's assume it is and remind them that this is the nexus of the story we're discussing here. I am however delighted you agree with myself and former CIA and counter-terrorist operatives on the issue of the report in question. [noquarterusa.net]
Is your contention that the Sunni resistance in Syria is not ISIS? Clinton was careful with her words but we know the truth. She was openly admitting the US strategy: Fight ISIS in Iraq, support ISIS in Syria. It is right there if you care to read HRC's own words with a basic understanding of who is who. If you do not understand who the "Sunni resistance" in Syria was, let me help you. [wikipedia.org]
Once again, we are discussing a US intelligence report that has been roundly dismissed as lacking in evidence by just about everyone. You present no evidence to support your claims, you accuse me of lying twice and then resort to calling me a "dumbass" whilst presenting no evidence to support your claims. Do you actually want to argue your case or are you just getting off on your butthurt?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2017, @11:44PM
> Is your contention that the Sunni resistance in Syria is not ISIS?
It wasn't originally. The reason it eventually became ISIS is because they were backed into a corner and no one else stepped up to help them out.
> Once again, we are discussing a US intelligence report that has been roundly dismissed as lacking in evidence by just about everyone.
Everyone in your head. Actual people in the real world? No, just the opposite.
But you can't even keep your arguments straight from one post to another, so no one wonder you've got these delusions.
Still waiting on that proof about the Kennedy assassination.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2017, @12:29AM
Where are these people that are being mislead by #FAKENEWS ???
You challenged my assertion about the Clinton campaign and I provided you with evidence from HRC herself, but look here:
Interesting that she later announces [politifact.com] the US can somehow vet 65,000. Why would an individual with any knowledge or awareness of the situation make such a claim? [wikileaks.org]
That's your job, it's your claim so knock yourself out!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2017, @01:20AM
While I'm here:
Half truth. [wikipedia.org] I suspect you know this already.
Syria was not only the birthplace of civilisation but also a truly beautiful country and the Assad regime was equally brutal both to those who would challenge the regime and the countries long enshrined secular values. Even in a state of "civil war", it is safer than many nations. [independent.co.uk] Are you not ashamed of what we've done? [twitter.com] Are you not ashamed of the virtue signalling celebrity retards who support the pro-salafist PR groups? The rest of us in the West are and we voted accordingly!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2017, @02:25AM
Missing your insults, I keep checking for replies but none are forthcoming. Get some facts [theantimedia.org] and come at me bro; I want to see you attempt to justify HRC supporting ISIS in Syria.