And to be fair, the CIA were actually pretty clear about that - the reports were full of qualifiers and skepticism that disappeared when the administration used them as justification.
It seems they left out, “In a kingdom far, far away…” as they’re trying to recast events as a fairytale.
Also to be fair, this news story doesn’t have access to the CIA reports on the matter of the election hacks; it’s being sourced from “officials briefed on the matter,” who are telling us what the CIA told them. It’s entirely possible that any qualifiers and skepticism (if they exist) may have disappeared here in exactly the same way that they did regarding the Iraq WMD evidence, when that tale was spun to the media for public consumption.
I very much hope that we see the actual reports. That we see them soon. But currently all we have to go on are second- and third-hand accounts, so… there’ll undoubtedly be people arguing it both directions, and we don’t yet really have anything definitive to prove that anybody’s pet theory is wrong.
Loyal Trump supporters are maybe 5-10% of the population and heavily armed. That’s not an army.
And if the EC throws the election to the (Republican) congress, who’s to blame? Republican electors from red states. Democratic electors can’t change the outcome one bit. So maybe the mob will go after their own state houses and lynch a few legislators. I’m not sure what you call that but it sure isn’t civil war. The most likely outcome is another Malheur standoff.
Trump has been working on the standard right wing agenda of blaming an external or internal enemy for failures.
Did the Russians try to influence the elections? Did the US promote puppet rulers in Iraq and Afghanistan, and try to destabilise Ukraine and Venezuela, not mention assassinating Castro? It’s actually just politics as usual. The runup to WW1 was full of countries interfering with one another by diplomatic, media and terrorist activity, though this might be an unfortunate example.
If the elections were properly run instead of being a battleground between warring special interest groups - some of which span political parties - interference wouldn’t work. It’s the essential corruption of the system which makes foreign interventions possible.
I wonder if this is a turf war between the FBI management who wanted Trump to win and the CIA who wanted Clinton to win. “Comey - your candidate is supported by the Reds!”
While I’ll be forever ashamed that we elected Trump, after seeing how they treated Bernie, I have no sympathy for Clinton. I’m coming about to the idea that it’s good that we can address issues now. Hillary winning might have let us hide the issues with super delegates and let us think that the DNC tries to be fair to all candidates.
Why not? Reagan and Bush II both did. In fact, it might be better if all political jobs were part time. It would reduce the ability of politicians to do evil. You don’t usually hear of selectmen or parish councillors destabilising other parishes, growing fat on pork or starting wars for the greater profit of the MIC.
Yep. Name the CIA official, name the senators, release the report, and I’ll move this from the “mostly non fake news” to the “real news” column that instant.
Of course they are cool with it. They have been handed the country on a silver platter and they can start making it a “Christian/Ayn Rand” nightmare like they have always wanted. Who cares if anyone who isn’t white, straight, male and “Christian” gets screwed?
It wasn’t just mainstream media sites, either. We saw Putin’s sock puppets showing up here as new members every time the right keywords clicked in St Petersburg. It was fascinating to watch their language evolve from clumsy Cold War rhetoric in broken English to more sophisticated pseudo-lefty criticisms of the US’s own sins meant to distract.
Here’s one of the first articles, from 2014, describing the extent of the disinfo op:
It’s only a matter of time before we see the new administration move Paul Manafort and Carter Page and other shills for Russia from advisory roles into appointed positions (like Rex Tillerson, another friend of the Russian energy industry), all without a peep of protest from the GOP.
Those loans to #nextpresident by the Russian banking oligarchs really paid off. Next stop, Europe.
I’m not a Hillary fan and didn’t vote for her in the primary or general election, but it’s also glaringly obvious that there is a possible connection to Russian shenanigans in Littlefingers’ victory. You would aver this is OK, if so?
I see no reason to believe this story, based on my long-term experience with the US government going back to Vietnam. In short, they lie. So how does the story function? You’ll remember that the neocon elite strongly backed Clinton during the election, who was fully signed on to their program of war and imperialism. Apparently they haven’t gotten the submission they wanted from Trump yet, so the story, which might discredit or delegitimate Trump, is a sort of shot across the bow, putting Trump on notice that he’d better come to terms – that is, get ready for more wars and struggles with whomever the neocons want to fight. Also, the Democratic Party leadership needs an excuse for losing the election to save it from the wrath of their rank and file. So the story conveniently serves more than one purpose. It also serves to push the framing of the election back into a false liberal-versus-conserative contest, rather than a struggle between two right-wing factions. But that is probably not very important since Americans don’t pay much attention to what’s going on anyway.
This is not to say that hacking on the part of state actors doesn’t occur. I am sure every major power does plenty of it. Its importance is debatable, however.
Another piss poor click baiting headline. It conjures up images of tampering directly with the voting machines etc. “Influenced” is a better word. Or if you have to use the word hack, “Russian hack influenced US…” (The WP headline is good.)
As for placing the blame all on Russia - oh yes, for sure they tried to influence the election. I thought that was already fairly clear. It wasn’t the first time a country has wanted to swing things one way or another. But don’t give them too much credit to them for Trump winning the election. That fault still firmly lies on the shoulders of the Democrats for putting someone up that couldn’t put up someone who could convince people to get up and vote for them.
So, my question is - why?
Putin wanted it for political and personal favor? Is this a way for him to get richer? Ok, not too bad. Dirty, but not too bad.
Putin though Trump would be friendlier to Russia? Warm relations incoming? Ok, that might actually be good.
Putin wants to escalate things and make a 2nd Cold War - which would increase his control in Russia. That’s bad.
Just wanted a generally weaker leader in power he can manipulate? It is obvious the clown has no clue WTF he is doing. That’s bad.
Let’s not forget how many millions of voters were kept from voting due to the various methods specifically designed to keep potential Democrats from the polls. How many hundreds of polling places where minorities live were closed after the absentee voting deadline had expired in those states?
