Err, but, but…..

US intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia interfered in last month’s presidential election to boost Donald Trump’s bid for the White House, according to reports.

A secret CIA assessment found that Russian operatives covertly interfered in the election campaign in an attempt to ensure the Republican candidate’s victory, the Washington Post has reported, citing officials briefed on the matter.

A separate report in the New York Times said intelligence officials has a “high confidence” that Russia was involved in hacking related to the election.

The revelations came after the US president, Barack Obama, ordered a review of all cyberattacks that took place during the 2016 election cycle, amid growing calls from Congress for more information on the extent of Russian interference in the campaign.

According to the Washington Post, individuals with connections to Moscow provided anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks with emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign chief, among others.

If the emails weren’t so friggin’ damaging then there would have been no damage from their release, would there?

Jeebus.

25 thoughts on “Err, but, but…..”

  1. Lemme get this right: Putin – Putin ffs – figured out a chink in Clinton’s armour. Maybe even something to blackmail her with. Then, armed with this strategic advantage, decides to give that away by helping the other guy?

  2. War in Hell likely with one lot of US intell thugs working to try and insure the Evil Cow didn’t get in, while this is the friends of the Scrawny, Jug-Eared Cunt trying on the “Empire Strikes Back” routine. He and they have been mouthing against the Russians and the rule of law ever since the big upset and this is just more of their cockrot.

    From the people willing to decicate their lives to ensure no “FAKE NEWS” ever reaches your ear-oles.

    Interesting that the pack of poodles at MI6 were also doing the Putin = Darth Vader routine yesterday.

    Putin is not a good guy. But next to the Rancid Queen of Arkansas he is a minor problem.

  3. So they are not alleging fabrication

    The issue is making things public

    So why no furore over the withholding of such damaging information?

    Anyone would think the spooks had taken sides….

  4. So I take it the Russians have been interfering in our elections for close to a decade then. After all I really didn’t want Clinton in 2008. If we make the assumption that Clinton really wasn’t a terrible candidate then shouldn’t we also credit the Russians helping Obama win in the primaries?

    I’m guessing he’s saving his thanks to Russian for leverage on his post-office book deals.

  5. The news is that there’s going to be a review. However, a conclusion seems to have been reached.

    Seems like Fake News to me.

  6. The historical perspective as I see it (happy to be disproved) is that within living memory The Democrats have nearly cornered the market in Russian spies / agents of influence inside their organisation – never mind Alger Hiss.

    The cherry on that particular cake being FDR’s chum Harry Hopkins and the team assembled by FDR’s first VP pick in the 1944 election.

    Why no bleating about the dastardly Brits ” Man Called Intrepid” engineering the FDR win over Wendell Wilkie?

  7. What difference, at this point, does it make?

    Trump is next pres regardless of any thing found by a witch hunt . . . uhhh . . . investigation.

  8. Mr Ecks:

    “Interesting that the pack of poodles at MI6 were also doing the Putin = Darth Vader routine yesterday.”

    I seem to remember Mrs T saying that she found out more from just reading the papers than she did from any intelligence briefing. Of course that was before the news was taken over by ‘professional journalists’.

  9. Why would anyone believe the CIA? They lie for a living.

    It’s a terribly weak claim. Two newspapers reporting the same speculative story *isn’t* confirmation that the story is true.

    I would split my sides if this turns out to be another James O’Keefe undercover sting.

  10. Bloke in North Dorset

    The American people should be thanking Putin for helping to maintain transparency.

    What’s that you say, everyone has a right to privacy? I agree, except when we say it you progressives tell us to fuck off with the “nothing to hide, nothing to fear” fallacy.

  11. “According to the Washington Post, individuals with connections to Moscow provided anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks with emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign chief, among others.”

    No one mentions what cunts the democrats were shown to be by these emails. Nope – BLAME THE RUSSIANS!

  12. The Iraqattack demonstrated that the CIA is willing to report to the Prez pretty much whatever the Prez has asked them to report.

  13. ‘Most Read from The Washington Post: Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House’

    Secret? No one reads WashPo?

  14. So Trump having a chat with president of Taiwan is a diplomatic disaster but accusing Russia of trying to rig the election is ok

  15. The BBC talking heads were wetting themselves over this, this morning. Did Putin hold a gun to voters’ heads? No. If – and it is “if” – Russian hackers released the emails, they merely exposed something that was there to expose. So what? The voters merely had access to more information with which to make an informed decision. And this is a problem?

  16. Let’s face it Clinton has quite a lot of previous.
    Every time she of her husband has been exposed doing something disreputable, unethical or downright illegal she has conjured up a “vast right wing conspiracy” to blame, not for the misconduct, but the disclosure of the misconduct.

  17. @Gary Taylor. December 10, 2016 at 11:41 am
    “Lemme get this right: Putin – Putin ffs – figured out a chink in Clinton’s armour. Maybe even something to blackmail her with. Then, armed with this strategic advantage, decides to give that away by helping the other guy?”

    +1

    Also, anyone else think this and other Russia interfering/influencing/hacking election stories headlines are deliberately worded to imply the voting/vote-counting was manipulated?

  18. It’s not as if President Obama intervened in Brexit. It, to be fair, the sainted Nige did in the US Presidentials.

  19. As always, let’s reverse the polarity and test. The Russians ‘hack’ and release emails from the Republican High Command revealing very dirty dealings to fix their primary. How do you think the media would report this?

  20. Bloke in Costa Rica

    So let me get this straight. The FBI and the Russians were working together to get Trump elected? Riiiiiight.

    The only place you will find actual false consciousness is in a Leftist trying to explain why his side lost an election.

  21. BiCR
    To be fair, leftists don’t generally do elections, and when they do the results are often of the “98% vote for the incumbent” type, so it’s not like they have lots of practice.

  22. Podesta was hacked when someone sent him a dodgy email and one of his staff clicked on it.

    It’s not the most sophisticated set-up ever, is it? I expect better from the Russians. If you want my opinion I think that it was some high-ranking official in Nigeria who needed Podesta’s help to transfer large amounts of money out of the country.

  23. @Edward Lud, December 10, 2016 at 11:20 pm
    “It’s not as if President Obama intervened in Brexit. It, to be fair, the sainted Nige did NOT in the US Presidentials.”

    My bold

    Edward, Nigel Farage gave a speech at a Trump rally. At the end of his speech he stated he would not interfere by endorsing either candidate. Followed by saying if he was able to vote, he wold not vote for Hillary, but you must make your own decision.

    Unlike Sajid Javid (Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government) on BBC QT Thursday before election who said “..can’t endorse…next President…look forward to working with her

  24. Surely the Russians (and Chinese, and who knows else) have hacked both? So, as long as they get the calculation right, including the effect they might have with their selective release of material, they get to undermine one side and have 4 years’ worth of useful dirt on the other (let’s not pretend the Republicans are clean as the driven snow).

    And since the controversy seems to be about Hillary praising free trade to Goldman Sachs while condemning it in front of the voters, do we have all that much to celebrate here?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *