CIA Assesment: Putin Helped Trump Win

[Dill]

So it wasn't just to "disrupt," but specifically to help Trump win.

The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_russiahack-1215p%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.1814855998c2

Even more interesting is the Trump Transition Team Response:

The Trump transition team dismissed the findings in a short statement issued Friday evening. “These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It’s now time to move on and ‘Make America Great Again,’ ” the statement read.

Trump = Kremlin "asset" now?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

"The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment...."


.....

[*bfine32*]

WaPo's reputation as the bi-partisan journalist standard bearer aside:  is the stance that Russia helped Trump by letting folks know about Hills?

[Dill]

(12-10-2016, 02:56 AM)bfine32 Wrote: WaPo's reputation as the bi-partisan journalist standard bearer aside:  is the stance that Russia helped Trump by letting folks know about Hills?

Which newspapers bear your stamp of approval?

Apparently Republicans on the Senate Intel committee knew and didn't want it made public before the election.

[NATI BENGALS]

(12-10-2016, 02:46 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: "The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment...."


.....

"Hackers released emails saying..."

[JustWinBaby]

(12-10-2016, 03:55 AM)Dill Wrote: Apparently Republicans on the Senate Intel committee knew and didn't want it made public before the election.

Sounds like extreme butthurt.

Mind you, this is the same savant committee, including Hillary, that was apparently hoodwinked by a yellow cake fax.

[NATI BENGALS]

Scary shit.

Even scarier that the people who voted for him will brush it off.

[JustWinBaby]

(12-10-2016, 05:11 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Scary shit.

Even scarier that the people who voted for him will brush it off.

Scarier still is some people who didn't vote for him thinking shit would be different if Hillary just would have won.

[Goalpost]

The party was tarnished, but really didn't defend itself that well. CNN did drop Brazille. Heck, the convention took place without the DNC chairperson.

[6andcounting]

The Washington Post admits in another article that their source on this story is from an actual fake news website.

"Editor’s Note: The Washington Post on Nov. 24 published a story on the work of four sets of researchers who have examined what they say are Russian propaganda efforts to undermine American democracy and interests. One of them was PropOrNot, a group that insists on public anonymity, which issued a report identifying more than 200 websites that, in its view, wittingly or unwittingly published or echoed Russian propaganda. A number of those sites have objected to being included on PropOrNot’s list, and some of the sites, as well as others not on the list, have publicly challenged the group’s methodology and conclusions. The Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so. Since publication of The Post’s story, PropOrNot has removed some sites from its list."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-propaganda-effort-helped-spread-fake-news-during-election-experts-say/2016/11/24/793903b6-8a40-4ca9-b712-716af66098fe_story.html?utm_term=.4264395df1f3

[xxlt]

(12-10-2016, 10:14 AM)6andcounting Wrote: The Washington Post admits in another article that their source on this story is from an actual fake news website.

"Editor’s Note: The Washington Post on Nov. 24 published a story on the work of four sets of researchers who have examined what they say are Russian propaganda efforts to undermine American democracy and interests. One of them was PropOrNot, a group that insists on public anonymity, which issued a report identifying more than 200 websites that, in its view, wittingly or unwittingly published or echoed Russian propaganda. A number of those sites have objected to being included on PropOrNot’s list, and some of the sites, as well as others not on the list, have publicly challenged the group’s methodology and conclusions. The Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so. Since publication of The Post’s story, PropOrNot has removed some sites from its list."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-propaganda-effort-helped-spread-fake-news-during-election-experts-say/2016/11/24/793903b6-8a40-4ca9-b712-716af66098fe_story.html?utm_term=.4264395df1f3

You are hearing more and more journalists say, "I don't know if this is true." I heard one say it on the radio just a day or two ago. The irony of 24 hour news and instant reporting is it has destroyed journalistic standards. I am reminded of what a good journalist often says: "First and wrong is still first!" - Dan Patrick

The whole industry and culture has to come to some sort of reckoning with this, it seems. Or, maybe not. Maybe we all know what we believe and nobody gives a shit what the truth is. 

[*bfine32*]

(12-10-2016, 03:55 AM)Dill Wrote: Which newspapers bear your stamp of approval?

Apparently Republicans on the Senate Intel committee knew and didn't want it made public before the election.

Lately all should be taken with a grain of salt; however, Yahoo is probably the nost bi-partisan, while BBC does a fairly good job. Most have an agenda and a following to cater to.

But the main point of the post was. IF there was a hack, this article focuses on the wrong reason to condemn it.

[Dill]

(12-10-2016, 05:11 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Sounds like extreme butthurt.

Mind you, this is the same savant committee, including Hillary, that was apparently hoodwinked by a yellow cake fax.

Not clear what your point is here. Are you saying that CIA report amounts to "butthurt"--as in the CIA concocted a story to, what, tilt the election in Hillary's favor? Explain her loss afterwards? Make Senate Republicans look bad?

Or are you saying that if a foreign government hacks the DNC to throw a presidential election to the candidate it wants, reaction to that fact is likely just "butthurt," and partisan "butthurt" at that? Nothing especially to be concerned about here and the Dems will eventually get over it?

I don't recall a Senate Intelligence committed being hoodwinked by a yellow cake fax. Perhaps you could refresh my memory.
Is the point of the reference that CIA intel deemed "fairly certain" has little credibility now because of the Bush Cheney intelligence fiasco?

[Dill]

(12-10-2016, 12:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Lately all should be taken with a grain of salt; however, Yahoo is probably the nost bi-partisan, while BBC does a fairly good job. Most have an agenda and a following to cater to.

But the main point of the post was. IF there was a hack, this article focuses on the wrong reason to condemn it.

What is the right reason?

[Dill]

(12-10-2016, 10:14 AM)6andcounting Wrote: The Washington Post admits in another article that their source on this story is from an actual fake news website.

"Editor’s Note: The Washington Post on Nov. 24 published a story on the work of four sets of researchers who have examined what they say are Russian propaganda efforts to undermine American democracy and interests. One of them was PropOrNot, a group that insists on public anonymity, which issued a report identifying more than 200 websites that, in its view, wittingly or unwittingly published or echoed Russian propaganda. A number of those sites have objected to being included on PropOrNot’s list, and some of the sites, as well as others not on the list, have publicly challenged the group’s methodology and conclusions. The Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so. Since publication of The Post’s story, PropOrNot has removed some sites from its list."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-propaganda-effort-helped-spread-fake-news-during-election-experts-say/2016/11/24/793903b6-8a40-4ca9-b712-716af66098fe_story.html?utm_term=.4264395df1f3

No, the Post does not "admit" their source for the story of Russian hacking is from an actual fake news site.

Your article states the Post reported on the work of researchers tracking fake news, whose job was to fullfill the mission of presenting Hillary as a shady character in ill health.

[*bfine32*]

(12-10-2016, 02:17 PM)Dill Wrote: What is the right reason?

That forgien agencies can hack our systems.

[Dill]

(12-10-2016, 02:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: That forgien agencies can hack our systems.

That is exactly what the Senate Democrats, some Senate Republicans, the Post, and Obama are upset about.

The problem is that McConnell and others were not, placing hope for partisan advantage above national security concerns.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

There is no more "News" and it's all "Opinion".

While CNN, MSNBC, FOX and all the others do have "News" and people do watch those broadcasts, they will take what they saw on those broadcasts, disregard them and form their own opinions by watching the hour long "Opinion" shows like O'Reilly, Maddow, Jones, Hannity ect.

"News" no longer exists.

[Dill]

(12-10-2016, 11:01 AM)xxlt Wrote: You are hearing more and more journalists say, "I don't know if this is true." I heard one say it on the radio just a day or two ago. The irony of 24 hour news and instant reporting is it has destroyed journalistic standards. I am reminded of what a good journalist often says: "First and wrong is still first!" - Dan Patrick

The whole industry and culture has to come to some sort of reckoning with this, it seems. Or, maybe not. Maybe we all know what we believe and nobody gives a shit what the truth is. 

I wouldn't say standards have been destroyed. I think there are still many reliable media news sources.  There is definitely a problem though, and I think it comes from three directions.

1. The flood of unvetted or inadequately vetted sources like the World Net Daily and Drudge and Breitbart, plus fake news of foreign and domestic origin and conspiracy sites like Infowars. People having (rightly I think) relied on the mainstream media more or less successfully for decades have found it easy to transfer credibility to anything that looks like a "real" news site. An unedited platform like Facebook makes it easy to circulate this stuff.

2. The connection between advertising money and sensational news, such that the latter drives the former, creates an incentive to disinform by feeding people's biases.

3. The conscious effort of right wing media like Fox to undermine the credibility of the mainstream media, many of whom continue to uphold standards, so that readers and listeners still "don't know who to trust" even when right wing media gets it wrong, as they did with the Iraq war and predicting the 2012 election. This also makes it hard for any news organization to exist wit the kind of national authority and credibility that CBS used to have.  This effort also includes holding mainstream media to an impossible standard of perfection which can't be met, and when it isn't becomes "proof" they are in the pocket of the Democrats or whatever. They are "just as bad" as Fox, just on a different side.  The false equivalence has greatly intensified as false news has come to dominate the media.

Given 1-3, it is pretty easy to live in a bubble of news you want to hear. And if a lot of that gets discredited, it's easy to fall back on the claim then that all news sources are equally partisan and unvetted, so you don't really have to change your sources or perhaps even read a book to help sort things out.  That said, the consumption of false news and general media illiteracy seems much more a problem on the right than the mainstream. The majority of Americans still don't buy when they hear someone working on the Clinton emails died mysteriously or Hillary was running a child sex ring out of a pizza parlor. But if you think Obama was really born in Kenya and the media and the state of Hawaii are covering that up, why would you be suspicious?

[*bfine32*]

(12-10-2016, 02:27 PM)Dill Wrote: That is exactly what the Senate Democrats, some Senate Republicans, the Post, and Obama are upset about.

Not saying THEY are not; it just seems the title of the article wants to turn the focus elsewhere. Maybe create a little devisiveness instead of searching for an answer.