By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Firstly, I don't accept that Russia was behind the hacking of the Clinton email. Wikileaks themselves have denied this on numerous occasions. You'll counter that with "Trump himself now says it was probably Russia", well, I'd say that too if I was Trump. The US intelligence agencies know who was really behind the hacking and Trump is being a good little boy in going along with the game. If Trump is anyone's puppet, and I'm sure he's somebody's, his recent statement about these emails suggests that he is more of a CIA puppet than a Putin one. That said, he certainly isn't enough of a CIA puppet for their liking.
On to your first point: "the russian hack was not the decisive factor and no serious commentators have suggested it was", sits at odds with with all those media outlets which have claimed that "Putin stole the US elections", and that "Trump has been groomed for about 5 years".
""the russian hack was not the decisive factor and no serious commentators have suggested it was", sits at odds with with all those media outlets which have claimed that "Putin stole the US elections", and that "Trump has been groomed for about 5 years". "
I repeat, no serious commentators have suggested it was. the fact that you can find 'media outlets' which make other claims doesn't surprise me. your inability to critically assess the credibility of 'media outlets' is a recurring theme.
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
""the russian hack was not the decisive factor and no serious commentators have suggested it was", sits at odds with with all those media outlets which have claimed that "Putin stole the US elections", and that "Trump has been groomed for about 5 years". "
I repeat, no serious commentators have suggested it was. the fact that you can find 'media outlets' which make other claims doesn't surprise me. your inability to critically assess the credibility of 'media outlets' is a recurring theme.
Blaming the Russians detracts from what was actually in the emails. That is of far more interest and funnily enough the distraction tactic has worked. Secondly, both sides of that election are the same team. The Russians really have no influence there at all.
1) Clinton's use of her own e-mail server 2) Russia's hacking and selective release of e-mails
Both were known about pre-election, the point is not one about Clinton it is about whether Russian hacking was known about before the election - it was.
I'm surprised you say that "Russia's hacking of emails" was known pre-election. Seeing as the FBI and DHS themselves have not provided any substantial evidence to prove Russia hacked these emails, I'm surprised you can.
The first 5 and a half pages snow no real evidence, but lots of pretty but meaningless diagrams, all designed to implicate "Grizzly Steppe*" and the "Fancy Bear*" and "Cozy Bear*" groups as Putin backed hackers.
The remaining pages (the majority of the "detailed report") is entitled "Recommended mitigations".
Can you provide any credible evidence to support your claim?
2.) Leftfield, alternative, non-mainstream media, usually with an anti-western bias.
Very interesting links.
I don't read zerohedge actually, but I see that there are many articles on that site which I have read on other sites.
The zerohedge articles you link are interesting for the following reasons:
The first is based on Ex - Republican Senator and ex-US presidential candidate Ron Paul's own comment "Will The CIA Assassinate Trump?". The second, which starts with a quote from former President Roosevelt, is written by the founder of the Rutherford Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_Institute Anti-west?
These articles are decidedly anti CIA, but you are making the mistake of thinking that anti-CIA is anti West, or even anti-American. This is my position, I am anti-CIA and anti-Federal Reserve - I've got some great former US presidents who are on the same team as me. Were they anti-west too?
Your last link is from shtfplan.com seems to be an Alex Jones-type, Republican, pro RNA "news site" - this is the sort of "media" outlet which gets alternative media all labelled as "conspiracy", and "leftfield" - you should not really entertain these sites for more than 5 seconds, less still associate me with them.
""the russian hack was not the decisive factor and no serious commentators have suggested it was", sits at odds with with all those media outlets which have claimed that "Putin stole the US elections", and that "Trump has been groomed for about 5 years". "
I repeat, no serious commentators have suggested it was. the fact that you can find 'media outlets' which make other claims doesn't surprise me. your inability to critically assess the credibility of 'media outlets' is a recurring theme.
No 'serious commentator' has come out and said "Russia won it for Trump" - obviously.
But stories like this - and the fake news thing, and the not-so -secret 'dossier' - all serve to de-legitimise Donald Trump's presidency, bit by bit.
News agencies with an inherit opposition to Trump will run such things ad nauseam to undermine him. In truth, Corbyn has suffered similar, if milder, smears from our own hostile media.
It's the job of the press to report things, nearly all things. But as long as the reader/viewer understands that the reporting style is usually driven by an editorial line - and behind it, interests are being met.
No 'serious commentator' has come out and said "Russia won it for Trump" - obviously.
But stories like this - and the fake news thing, and the not-so -secret 'dossier' - all serve to de-legitimise Donald Trump's presidency, bit by bit.
News agencies with an inherit opposition to Trump will run such things ad nauseam to undermine him. In truth, Corbyn has suffered similar, if milder, smears from our own hostile media.
It's the job of the press to report things, nearly all things. But as long as the reader/viewer understands that the reporting style is usually driven by an editorial line - and behind it, interests are being met.
The most succinct way I heard this put was. " if as a journalist you aren't upset setting the establishment, then all you are doing is their PR"
Oh, for goodness sake - don't tell me you don't know the difference between effect and affect as well...
#givemestrength
The frustrating thing is that, even with all the 'information' out there, we still don't have a clue what's really happening. All these contrasting and sometimes intertwining narratives.
Watch this. I posted it here a couple of years ago, funnily enough. Seems more appropriate than ever:
""the russian hack was not the decisive factor and no serious commentators have suggested it was", sits at odds with with all those media outlets which have claimed that "Putin stole the US elections", and that "Trump has been groomed for about 5 years". "
I repeat, no serious commentators have suggested it was. the fact that you can find 'media outlets' which make other claims doesn't surprise me. your inability to critically assess the credibility of 'media outlets' is a recurring theme.
"But of course the sweetest victory came on 8 November. Donald Trump veered wildly during the campaign, but one of the few stances he maintained with iron consistency was his admiration for Putin. The autocrat certainly did all he could to return the favour. As one Kremlin ally puts it, “Maybe we helped a bit with WikiLeaks.” They certainly did. "Few credible sources doubt that Russia was behind the hacking of internal Democratic party emails, whose release by Julian Assange was timed to cause maximum pain to Hillary Clinton and pleasure for Trump. As a former KGB man, Putin must be proud of what is surely the most successful espionage operation in history, one that succeeded beyond even Moscow’s expectations — installing an admirer and sycophant in the White House." https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/09/person-of-the-year-trump-p
"Russia intervened to help Trump win election: intelligence officials" "U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that as the 2016 presidential campaign progressed, Russian government officials devoted increasing attention to assisting Trump's effort to win the election, the U.S. official familiar with the finding told Reuters on Friday night, speaking on condition of anonymity." http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-cyber-russia-idUSKBN13Z05B
All of these articles, bar one, clearly state claims by unnamed intelligence officials that Russian hackers helped Trump win. These "serious newspapers" don't take these agencies/officials to task over these claims, nor do they even express a degree of scepticism.
The Guardian's Jonathan Freedland clearly does suggest Putin brought about a Trump victory.
Are all these newspaper titles and journalists "not serious", or are they simply relaying claims from anonymous representatives from the CIA and other intelligence bodies? The fact these journalists show no scepticism towards these claims certain looks like they support them - if they didn't they would say as much.
"But of course the sweetest victory came on 8 November. Donald Trump veered wildly during the campaign, but one of the few stances he maintained with iron consistency was his admiration for Putin. The autocrat certainly did all he could to return the favour. As one Kremlin ally puts it, “Maybe we helped a bit with WikiLeaks.” They certainly did. "Few credible sources doubt that Russia was behind the hacking of internal Democratic party emails, whose release by Julian Assange was timed to cause maximum pain to Hillary Clinton and pleasure for Trump. As a former KGB man, Putin must be proud of what is surely the most successful espionage operation in history, one that succeeded beyond even Moscow’s expectations — installing an admirer and sycophant in the White House." https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/09/person-of-the-year-trump-p
"Russia intervened to help Trump win election: intelligence officials" "U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that as the 2016 presidential campaign progressed, Russian government officials devoted increasing attention to assisting Trump's effort to win the election, the U.S. official familiar with the finding told Reuters on Friday night, speaking on condition of anonymity." http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-cyber-russia-idUSKBN13Z05B
All of these articles, bar one, clearly state claims by unnamed intelligence officials that Russian hackers helped Trump win. These "serious newspapers" don't take these agencies/officials to task over these claims, nor do they even express a degree of scepticism.
The Guardian's Jonathan Freedland clearly does suggest Putin brought about a Trump victory.
Are all these newspaper titles and journalists "not serious", or are they simply relaying claims from anonymous representatives from the CIA and other intelligence bodies? The fact these journalists show no scepticism towards these claims certain looks like they support them - if they didn't they would say as much.
i can't comment on russia's intent - clearly some people believe they intended to assist trump, equally they may just have been seeking to discredit the process more generally. I don't know.
so that's a question of intent. what I have said is that no serious commentator believes that russian hacking was decisive in determining the outcome. you get the difference? intent v. effect.
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
Are they lying that Russia helped Trump get elected?
Or are they lying that Russia hacked into the emails in the first place?
no - the cia have reported on the source of the hacking and what they believe to be the intent behind it.
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
No 'serious commentator' has come out and said "Russia won it for Trump" - obviously.
But stories like this - and the fake news thing, and the not-so -secret 'dossier' - all serve to de-legitimise Donald Trump's presidency, bit by bit.
News agencies with an inherit opposition to Trump will run such things ad nauseam to undermine him. In truth, Corbyn has suffered similar, if milder, smears from our own hostile media.
It's the job of the press to report things, nearly all things. But as long as the reader/viewer understands that the reporting style is usually driven by an editorial line - and behind it, interests are being met.
"No 'serious commentator' has come out and said "Russia won it for Trump" - obviously. "
Well actually, individuals representing the CIA speaking on condition of anonymity have said as much. Either the CIA (as reported by serious and non serious commentators alike) are lying, or all those newspapers that reported it just made it up.
i can't comment on russia's intent - clearly some people believe they intended to assist trump, equally they may just have been seeking to discredit the process more generally. I don't know.
so that's a question of intent. what I have said is that no serious commentator believes that russian hacking was decisive in determining the outcome. you get the difference? intent v. effect.
"Few credible sources doubt that Russia was behind the hacking of internal Democratic party emails, whose release by Julian Assange was timed to cause maximum pain to Hillary Clinton and pleasure for Trump. As a former KGB man, Putin must be proud of what is surely the most successful espionage operation in history, one that succeeded beyond even Moscow’s expectations — installing an admirer and sycophant in the White House."
Jonathan Freedland, The Guardian
Intent and effect
You're way out here is to persist with your line "no serious commentator believes that russian hacking was decisive in determining the outcome". I'm happy to go along with that.
"Few credible sources doubt that Russia was behind the hacking of internal Democratic party emails, whose release by Julian Assange was timed to cause maximum pain to Hillary Clinton and pleasure for Trump. As a former KGB man, Putin must be proud of what is surely the most successful espionage operation in history, one that succeeded beyond even Moscow’s expectations — installing an admirer and sycophant in the White House."
Jonathan Freedland, The Guardian
Intent and effect
You're way out here is to persist with your line "no serious commentator believes that russian hacking was decisive in determining the outcome". I'm happy to go along with that.
Which is what i have said throughout here.
While Russia almost certainly was behind some incidents of hacking in the election, it did not influence the outcome.
M - are you Russian as your defence of them without any credible evidence to prove your side is interesting to me. Not a criticism, just interested!
While Russia almost certainly was behind some incidents of hacking in the election, it did not influence the outcome.
M - are you Russian as your defence of them without any credible evidence to prove your side is interesting to me. Not a criticism, just interested!
"While Russia almost certainly was behind some incidents of hacking in the election, it did not influence the outcome. "
Eh?
You say the content of the Freedland quote is what you have being saying throughout, but then you say "it did not influence the outcome".... which part of the following quote of Freedland's do you not understand?
"surely the most successful espionage operation in history, one that succeeded beyond even Moscow’s expectations — installing an admirer and sycophant in the White House"
And no, I'm not Russian and I don't read Russian. I am English/Indian living in the Spanish Basque Country.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
