FAKE NEWS EXPOSED: A Service of PoliticalChat.com

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Speaking of byproducts, this thread reminds me of grass after it has been processed by a bull.

Can't think of anyone better qualified to make an informed judgement about bull byproducts than you.

[donquixote99]

Very successful whell thread! Trolled along for 7 pages!

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Very successful whell thread! Trolled along for 7 pages!

Thank you for your hapless contributions.

[whell]

Fake News Alert: Russia Hacked the RNC Too - NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us...hack.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — American intelligence agencies have concluded with “high confidence” that Russia acted covertly in the latter stages of the presidential campaign to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances and promote Donald J. Trump, according to senior administration officials.

They based that conclusion, in part, on another finding — which they say was also reached with high confidence — that the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee’s computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks.

Never happened. The RNC's computers were not hacked.

"We contacted the FBI months ago when the [alleged hacking of the Democratic National Committee] issue came about. They reviewed all of our systems. We have hacking-detection systems in place, and the conclusion was then, as it was again two days ago when we went back to the FBI to ask them about this, that the RNC was not hacked," Priebus said today on ABC News' "This Week."

[donquixote99]

So, who do we believe, NY Times or Priebus. NY Times or Preibus....

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

So, who do we believe, NY Times or Priebus. NY Times or Preibus....

Even you should be able to frame the question better than that. Do we believe an "un-named CIA source", or do we believe Priebus (who can likely point to individuals at the FBI who can corroborate his story)?

[Rajoo]

This is a 'he said, she said' routine.
If the Russians did indeed hack the DNC server (of which we can be fairly certain of from Wikileaks), why would they not do the same to the RNC. Professional courtesy towards Trump? Or are we to believe that the RNC systems are hack proof?

[finnbow]

Let's review what we know:

- The DNC and Podesta were hacked and the entire intelligence community believes Russia was responsible.

- Trump has expressed admiration for Putin and has considerable business interests in Russia (per Trump's son) as do Michael Flynn, Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and Rex Tillerson.

- Putin hates Hillary for a variety of positions/actions as Secretary of State.

- Materials universally believed to have been hacked by Russia were released and contained materials damaging only to the Hillary Campaign. No such material was released directed at the Trump campaign.

- The FBI and CIA reportedly disagree as to whether the RNC was hacked.

The NYTimes prints: "American intelligence officials believe that Russia also penetrated databases housing Republican National Committee data, but chose to release documents only on the Democrats. The committee has denied that it was hacked...

And yet, there is skepticism within the American government, particularly at the F.B.I., that this evidence adds up to proof that the Russians had the specific objective of getting Mr. Trump elected.

A senior American law enforcement official said the F.B.I. believed that the Russians probably had a combination of goals, including damaging Mrs. Clinton and undermining American democratic institutions. Whether one of those goals was to install Mr. Trump remains unclear to the F.B.I., he said.

The official played down any disagreement between the F.B.I. and the C.I.A., and suggested that the C.I.A.’s conclusions were probably more nuanced than they were being framed in the news media."

Whell calls the NYTimes piece "fake news" (FWIW, Rush Limbaugh made Whell's argument nearly verbatim about 20 minutes before he posted it (I listened to it on the way home from the gym)) with the apparent intent to quell criticism of Russia's meddling in the election by highlighting disagreement as to whether the RNC was hacked (even though the NYTimes itself reported on the disagreement).

Whether or not the RNC was hacked is immaterial to their hacking of the DNC and Podesta and strategically releasing the materials to harm Hillary and discredit our democracy. Whell/Rush's arguments is a red herring that didn't seem to impress Mitch McConnell who said that that resistance by the GOP to a thorough investigation "defies belief."

Swing and a miss, Whell.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Let's review what we know:

- The DNC and Podesta were hacked and the entire intelligence community believes Russia was responsible.

- Trump has expressed admiration for Putin and has considerable business interests in Russia (per Trump's son) as do Michael Flynn, Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and Rex Tillerson.

- Putin hates Hillary for a variety of positions/actions as Secretary of State.

- Materials universally believed to have been hacked by Russia were released and contained materials damaging only to the Hillary Campaign. No such material was released directed at the Trump campaign.

- The FBI and CIA reportedly disagree as to whether the RNC was hacked.

The NYTimes prints: "American intelligence officials believe that Russia also penetrated databases housing Republican National Committee data, but chose to release documents only on the Democrats. The committee has denied that it was hacked...

And yet, there is skepticism within the American government, particularly at the F.B.I., that this evidence adds up to proof that the Russians had the specific objective of getting Mr. Trump elected.

A senior American law enforcement official said the F.B.I. believed that the Russians probably had a combination of goals, including damaging Mrs. Clinton and undermining American democratic institutions. Whether one of those goals was to install Mr. Trump remains unclear to the F.B.I., he said.

The official played down any disagreement between the F.B.I. and the C.I.A., and suggested that the C.I.A.’s conclusions were probably more nuanced than they were being framed in the news media."

Whell calls the NYTimes piece "fake news" (FWIW, Rush Limbaugh made Whell's argument nearly verbatim about 20 minutes before he posted it (I listened to it on the way home from the gym)) with the apparent intent to quell criticism of Russia's meddling in the election by highlighting disagreement as to whether the RNC was hacked (even though the NYTimes itself reported on the disagreement).

Whether or not the RNC was hacked is immaterial to their hacking of the DNC and Podesta and strategically releasing the materials to harm Hillary and discredit our democracy. Whell/Rush's arguments is a red herring that didn't seem to impress Mitch McConnell who said that that resistance by the GOP to a thorough investigation "defies belief."

Swing and a miss, Whell.

You want your collection or speculation and opinion taken as fact?

And, I'm glad to hear that Limbaugh can read both ABC News, Politico and Marketwatch, all of whom ran the story the contradicted the NY Times report. Sorry that you can't read it, though.

There is yet to surface any proof that Russia meddled in the election. The closest WaPo can come is that the hacking MAY have been done by individuals with "ties" to the Russian intelligence. We have no idea what the CIA or WaPo means by "ties", but it is certainly falls short of a direct linkage to the Kremlin.

From WaPo:

The CIA briefed the administration that it thinks the Russians “breached” the RNC systems, according to a senior U.S. official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. “Obviously there haven’t been the same sort of leaks and pilfered documents spread about from this intrusion as there were from the various DNC and related incursions.”

Other officials familiar with the CIA’s assessment said there is “high confidence” that the RNC was targeted but less certainty that the Russians got inside the committee and stole material.

So, a nice bit of conflicting into there. We also know that the FBI didn't find any evidence that the RNC systems were compromised by hackers.

U.S. intelligence officials said the CIA has identified the “actors” who took possession of those stolen files and delivered them to WikiLeaks. The individuals are known for their affiliations to Russian intelligence services, but “one step” removed from the Russian government.

No smoking gun yet, but you guys are ready to conclude that this was all about Trump. Figures.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

No smoking gun yet, but you guys are ready to conclude that this was all about Trump. Figures.

Yet again, you missed the point. Russia deliberately interfered in our election either to discredit/weaken our democracy and/or to favor Trump. Neither is acceptable and both need to be thoroughly investigated. Your party's Senate Majority Leader has said that your view "defies belief." He's right. We'll find out soon enough what happened.

In the words of Republican Michael Gerson:
(T)he debate over whether Russia engaged in cyberespionage to help Trump or just to generally mess with American democracy is utter nonsense. Russian espionage resulted in the phased leak of material damaging to the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton at key moments during the presidential campaign. Anyone who finds Russia’s motivation mysterious is being intentionally obtuse.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...0ae_story.html

It seems he took the words right out of my mouth, particularly the part about you being intentionally obtuse.