Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
You conveniently skipped the first sentence:
The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process.
What you highlighted is their belief that voting machines can't be hacked via the Internet - a true statement that doesn't contradict the point they made in the first paragraph. They're drawing a distinction between email hacking (which they believe the Russians did) and hacking voting machines (which they didn't).
I'm tired of going around in circles with you on this. If you're trying to somehow draw an equivalency between Trump, Flynn and Bolton spewing fake news with the NYTimes accurately reportedly on a CIA analysis that you don't like, you're pissing in the wind, but too obtuse to understand why your feet are wet.
I'm done with this thread until the next time you post a bogus "fake news" article from the WashPost or the NYTimes, at which time I'll again be happy to point out how ridiculous you are.  |
OK, one last time:
I didn't skip anything. Where our most recent exchange started, and I've said over and over again, is that there's no proof that the Kremlin was attempting to tip the scales for Trump. The section I quoted specifically stated that the hacks could not influence election results. Sure, that memo also stated that the hacks were intended to influence the election. That was on Oct 7.
Fast forward to the latest accusations that the Kremlin was trying to influence the election for Trump. You can't convert the very general statement "trying to influence the elections" to the latest allegation "trying to influence the election for Trump simply by pointing at Wikileaks. There's no way to "influence the election for Trump" unless the Russians get to the voting machines, which the Oct 7 memo states didn't happen.
So, the allegation must specifically be that the release of the emails - as released by Wikileaks - were the tool that the Russian gov't used to tip the election in favor of Trump. The conclusion by "unnamed sources" from the CIA was that the emails releases were unfavorable to Dems but not Repubs. But there are problems with that conclusion, as I've articulated earlier. Attempts to access the DNC systems were successful, but the FBI reports indicated that the attempts to access RNC systems were not successful. So how is it that this is interpreted by the CIA as tipping the election in favor of Trump when the was no compromised RNC data to release?
How can we attribute motive based on this set of facts? We can't. But the NY Times simply took the story and ran with it - complete with the "unnamed source as the authority for the story, and they apparently forgot to confirm whether RNC data had been hacked. Fake news.
Contrary to your breathless assertions to the contrary, this is not a defense of Russian activity. This has been exclusively a commentary on the content of the news reports. This is the same news that was in the tank for Hillary before the election. It stands to reason that stories like this - and the media's spin on them - should be subject to a healthy level of skepticism.
There remains no evidence that the Russians were attempting to tip the election in favor of Trump. Period. That is one of the Dem's key talking points. It also makes about as much sense - meaning not much - as any of the other election excuse-making the left comes up with. In fact, according to the NY Times story you posted, the Kremlin was as surprised by Trump's win as anyone in the mainstream media was.
I actually suspect that, if the Russians were trying to do anything, it would have been to discredit Clinton. Its not semantics to say that taking specific action to discredit Clinton is different than taking specific action to help Trump. The motives are different, and the objectives are different. What makes more sense, by the way:
- Releasing emails that show Donna Brazile leaking debate questions to Hillary inflates Trump? Or;
- Releasing emails that show Donna Brazile leaking debate questions to Hillary damages Clinton?
I think its the latter, which makes me even more suspect of the NY Time story, and the Dem mantra that the Russians were in the tank for Trump. I doesn't make any sense.