5 Most Important Findings in New Intelligence Report About Russian Election Interfere

[boutons_deux]

One of the reports most startling findings is that Russian President Vladimir Putin apparently ‘ordered’ an effort to influence the U.S. presidential election.

Overall, the report is vague on details, and evidence backing up the allegations.

The report has been declassified, so of course, it is possible that the fully classified version has more empirical evidence.

# 1 Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process and hurt Secretary Hillary Clinton’s chances of becoming president.

“We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump,” the reports reads. The report also found that the Russian Government “aspired” to help President-elect Trump’s election chances whenever possible by discrediting Hillary Clinton.

In addition, the report found that the Russian military intelligence ‘probably’ began cyber operations around March 2016 when the U.S. primaries were in full swing. They believe the Russian intelligence hacked emails accounts of Democratic Party Officials and by May 2016 had “large volumes of data from the DNC.”

# 2 Russia paid “internet trolls.”

From the report: “Moscow’s influence campaign followed a Russian messaging strategy that blends covert intelligence operations—such as cyber activity—with overt efforts by Russian Government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media users or “trolls.”

#3 U.S. Intelligence believes with “high confidence” that the Russian military intelligence used the Guccifer 2.0 persona to release information to DCLeaks and Wikileaks.

Guccifer 2.0 was the internet entity that claimed he hacked into the Democratic National Committee server and leaked the findings to the media and websites like Wikileaks.

“We assess with high confidence that the GRU (Russian Military Intelligence) relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to Wikileaks. Moscow most likely chose Wikileaks because of its self-proclaimed reputation for authenticity,” the report states.

However, in an interview with Vice (https://motherboard.vice.com/read/dnc-hacker-guccifer-20-full-interview-transcript), Guccifer 2.0 told the outlet that he was not Russian nor could he read or understand Russian. In addition this week, Wikileak’s founder, Julian Assange, told Fox News’ Sean Hannity that there was absolutely no Russian involvement (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/05/julian-assanges-claim-that-there-was-no-russian-involvement-in-wikileaks-emails/?utm_term=.855b350df0c1)in the Wikileaks emails.

# 4 Russia intelligence apparently had access to U.S. electoral boards.

However, the report says that the types of system Russian actors targeted or compromised were NOT involved in vote tallying. In other words, they didn’t actually meddle in the voting process, even though they appeared to have access to some of the databases.

#5 Russia might interfere with other elections now that they have the capability.

The report states, “We assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the US presidential election to future influence efforts worldwide, including against US allies and their election processes.”

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/5-most-important-findings-in-new-intelligence-report-about-russian-election-interference/

[boutons_deux]

We still don't who gave DNC emails to Assange, who leaded them out week by week to keep distracting from Hillary's campaign.

Assange is totally compromised now, having taken political sides.

Having been decided in typically very close election by Comey and Assange, Trash's "presidency" is 100% delegitimized.

[in2deep]

"Probably". :lmao

[SpursforSix]

Assange is totally compromised now, having taken political sides.

ha...that's rich.

[Thread]

Trash's "presidency" is 100% delegitimized.

I'm sure Hillary will find solace in that in her autumn years as she stands on the sideline with Bill and his skin condition.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Were any of these US intelligence agencies allowed into the DNC servers to do their own analysis?

[Thread]

Were any of these US intelligence agencies allowed into the DNC servers to do their own analysis?

Obviously not, otherwise they'd a tackled that tact immediately when Trump operatives put it out there. I waited, after 6 minutes of CNN/MSNBC ashen faces and shifting heavily in their soft seats on studio I knew the answer.

[boutons_deux]

Were any of these US intelligence agencies allowed into the DNC servers to do their own analysis?

You expect this analysis would annul the effect of Assange leaking the contents week by week to defeat Hillary?

Assange's source is important, but the overriding fact is that Assange and Comey threw the election to Trash.

[Thread]

You expect this analysis would annul the effect of Assange leaking the contents week by week to defeat Hillary?

Assange's source is important, but the overriding fact is that Assange and Comey threw the election to Trash.

& we caught it with one of those over sized catcher mitts.

You had your Barry. He coulda put a stopper in the bottle anytime he wanted, but, he thought it was in the bag for Hillary. Hey, sweetheart,,,it was not in the bag.

[TheSanityAnnex]

You expect this analysis would annul the effect of Assange leaking the contents week by week to defeat Hillary?

Assange's source is important, but the overriding fact is that Assange and Comey threw the election to Trash. You dodged my question so I'm hoping someone else has answer.

To address your dodge, Assange and Comey did not throw the election to Trump. Hillary caused the FBI to investigate when it was revealed she had a private server set up. The content of the emails released by Wikileaks was also not falsified, so the words of Hillary and her staff are what cost her the election, on top of just being a vile kunt with no campaign strategy.

[boutons_deux]

You dodged my question so I'm hoping someone else has answer.

To address your dodge, Assange and Comey did not throw the election to Trump. Hillary caused the FBI to investigate when it was revealed she had a private server set up. The content of the emails released by Wikileaks was also not falsified, so the words of Hillary and her staff are what cost her the election, on top of just being a vile kunt with no campaign strategy.

goddam, you're stupid

FBI found nothing, but had a national press conference (protocol has always been "no indictment, then silence") to trash Hillary.

Weiner's stuff UNSEEN, Comey announced the discovery of the emails 10 days before the election.

Comey's political hacking of the election to Trump was not Hillary's fault or cause.

Assange and Comey threw the very close election to Trash, esp Comey's 2nd intervention which,eg, Silver saying he shifted votes in key states.

goddam, you're stupid

[TheSanityAnnex]

goddam, you're stupid

FBI found nothing, but had a national press conference (protocol has always been "no indictment, then silence") to trash Hillary.

Weiner's stuff UNSEEN, Comey announced the discovery of the emails 10 days before the election.

Comey's political hacking of the election to Trump was not Hillary's fault or cause.

Assange and Comey threw the very close election to Trash, esp Comey's 2nd intervention which,eg, Silver saying he shifted votes in key states.

goddam, you're stupidAnswer these two questions.

Why was the FBI investigating Hillary Clinton?
Was the content of the Wikileaks emails falsified?

[DMC]

The great prognosticator providing proof of his take through interpretation of future events.

[DMC]

& we caught it with one of those over sized catcher mitts.

You had your Barry. He coulda put a stopper in the bottle anytime he wanted, but, he thought it was in the bag for Hillary. Hey, sweetheart,,,it was not in the bag.

Obama wanted to watch Hillary squirm a bit for her handling of Benghazi and her history of shame. He let it go too far and couldn't recover after momentum was gained.

[boutons_deux]

Answer these two questions.

Why was the FBI investigating Hillary Clinton?
Was the content of the Wikileaks emails falsified?

The Repugs witch hunted, harassed Bill until Linda Tripp fell in their lap

The Repugs were witch hunting, harassing President-presumed Hillary about Benghazi, and her email server fell in their lap. Then the entire Repug establishment put enormous pressure on the FBI to go after Hillary. And we learned later that Comey was a Repug tool.

[TheSanityAnnex]

The Repugs witch hunted, harassed Bill until Linda Tripp fell in their lap

The Repugs were witch hunting, harassing President-presumed Hillary about Benghazi, and her email server fell in their lap. Then the entire Repug establishment put enormous pressure on the FBI to go after Hillary. And we learned later that Comey was a Repug tool.
You failed to answer either question. Try again.



Why was the FBI investigating Hillary Clinton?
Was the content of the Wikileaks emails falsified?

[boutons_deux]

You failed to answer either question. Try again.



Why was the FBI investigating Hillary Clinton?
Was the content of the Wikileaks emails falsified?

RIF GFY

[Thread]

Obama wanted to watch Hillary squirm a bit for her handling of Benghazi and her history of shame. He let it go too far and couldn't recover after momentum was gained.

I can't vouch for the reason, but, he did indeed "let it go too far"---& he'll take that decision on into the grave.

Been since Florida as the century turned that the Dems made such lethal mistakes. And I frankly believed they'd never make another. I was wrong.

The way he physically stalked Hillary on the 3rd debate stage was magnificent. I wanted to see her destroyed. & by God I got it. I never really took into account the effect(s) it would have on Obama. It didn't occur to me. I just wanted Bill & her. And I got 'em both. Obama is the bonus. Turns out he's squealin' loudest of the 3.

[SpursforSix]

I can't vouch for the reason, but, he did indeed "let it go too far"---& he'll take that decision on into the grave.

Been since Florida as the century turned that the Dems made such lethal mistakes. And I frankly believed they'd never make another. I was wrong.

The way he physically stalked Hillary on the 3rd debate stage was magnificent. I wanted to see her destroyed. & by God I got it. I never really took into account the effect(s) it would have on Obama. It didn't occur to me. I just wanted Bill & her. And I got 'em both. Obama is the bonus. Turns out he's squealin' loudest of the 3.

Obama is the Kobe of the political world. Ah..never mind...that makes no sense.

[mavsfan1000]

Obama is the Kobe of the political world. Ah..never mind...that makes no sense.
More like Gus Fring. Lol

[boutons_deux]

Donald Trump, Julian Assange and Russia: How they’re connected, and how they changed an election

You don't have to believe the Russians hacked the Democratic Party to be disturbed by the Trump/Assange/Putin axis

Trump openly encouraged Russia to spy on Clinton.

Regardless of whether Russia was behind the election hacking, one thing is clear: When Trump first caught wind of the allegations, his reaction (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/27/donald-trump-basically-just-encouraged-russia-to-spy-on-hillary-clinton/?utm_term=.2dfd9129fc31) was to encourage the fascist state (http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-fascist-325534) to continue doing it.

“They probably have her 33,000 emails, too. I hope they do,” he said during a July press conference (http://www.salon.com/2016/12/12/donald-trumps-russia-hacking-denials-ignore-that-he-asked-russia-to-hack-hillary-clinton/). “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

One of Trump’s first campaign managers, Paul Manafort, used to work for pro-Putin politicians in Ukraine.

Although Manafort would eventually be asked to resign from the Trump campaign (in part because of the backlash over his Russia connections), this doesn’t change the fact that the campaign manager Trump chose to replace Corey Lewandowski had a long history of ties to pro-Putin politicians in Ukraine (http://www.politifact.com/global-news/article/2016/may/02/paul-manafort-donald-trumps-top-adviser-and-his-ti/). This included President Viktor Yanukovych, who had to flee to Russia after Ukraine waged a revolution in 2014 — the same year that Russia invaded that country now that its puppet was out of power.

Despite taking little interest in the Republican National Convention’s official platform, Trump and Manafort did push for one issue — appeasing Russia.

Although the Trump campaign reportedly had little interest (http://www.npr.org/2016/08/06/488876597/how-the-trump-campaign-weakened-the-republican-platform-on-aid-to-ukraine) in shaping their party platform during the Republican convention in July, they spent a disproportionate amount of time (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/03/trump-campaign-changed-ukraine-platform-lied-about-it.html) softening the language of a plank that condemned Russia for its invasion of the Ukraine. Most glaringly, it replaced (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/trump-campaign-guts-gops-anti-russia-stance-on-ukraine/2016/07/18/98adb3b0-4cf3-11e6-a7d8-13d06b37f256_story.html?utm_term=.b3820871a730) the call for “providing lethal defensive weapons” to Ukraine with one merely asking for “appropriate assistance.”

Trump’s incoming national security adviser, retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, has dined next to Putin.

The man Trump has appointed as his national security adviser, retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, has a lot of unsavory connections to the Putin regime (http://www.vox.com/2016/11/17/13673280/mike-flynn-trump-new-national-security-adviser-russia-isis-obama-clinton-turkey). These include doing a paid series of events in Moscow including a paid speech, an appearance at an anniversary for the state-funded TV network, RT, and sitting next to Putin during a subsequent dinner party. Flynn has made several appearances on RT (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/donald-trump-2016-russia-today-rt-kremlin-media-vladimir-putin-213833) since then and has repeatedly advocated that America align its foreign policy interests more closely with Russia.

Trump’s incoming secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, has bragged about how close he is to Putin.

Aside from having no government foreign policy experience whatsoever, the most alarming thing about ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson’s nomination as secretary of state is that he has a disturbingly cozy relationship with the Putin regime (http://www.salon.com/2016/12/21/rex-tillerson-donald-trumps-secretary-of-state-pick-once-bragged-about-his-close-relationship-with-putin/). This includes bragging about having a “very close relationship with Putin” earlier this year and striking a $500 billion venture in 2011 with Rosneft, a Russian oil company that is majority-owned by the Russian governmen

Trump has innumerable business ties to Russia.

After major banks stopped lending Trump money due to his multiple bankruptcies, the desperate businessman started turning to Russian financial interests (http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/) with close ties to the Putin regime in order to continue funding his various business ventures. Projects from Trump Soho to Trump’s first real estate project in Toronto were subsequently revealed to have been tied to shady Russian business interests.

The Kremlin has been defending Assange for a very long time.

In 2010 (http://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/6/14179240/wikileaks-russia-ties), an anonymous Russian official suggested that Assange be given the Nobel Peace Prize; on the very next day, Putin himself came forward to claim that the rape charges against Assange in Sweden were politically motivated. This happened after it was alleged that Israel Shamir, a former WikiLeaks employee, was discovered to have shared sensitive documents with Belarus (a nation aligned with Putin) that allowed them to repress pro-democracy dissidents. Assange denounced Shamir.

Assange specifically requested protection from Russian security once he started living in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

As Focus Ecuador reported in August 2015 (http://www.wikileaks-forum.com/-wikileaks-related-news/23/the-ecuador-intelligence-agency-spied-on-assange/34275/?utm_content=buffer578ac&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer):

“In some instances, the ‘guest’ requested that he be able to chose his own Security Service inside the embassy, suggesting the use of Russians. For the SENAIN agents, such choice would have meant, among other problems, the loss of control of the Embassy itself leaving the ‘guest’ free access to control and manage the flow of information. The report even asserts that it would have been the equivalent of ‘a coup in the embassy.'”

Assange hosted his own talk show on RT.

While Flynn can at the very least claim he has only made appearances on RT, Assange actually started hosting his own show (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/arts/television/julian-assange-starts-talk-show-on-russian-tv.html) on the network. RT is not some Russian equivalent to NPR or PBS, but a Kremlin-financed news network that exists for the primary purpose of advancing a pro-Putin agenda. It is impossible to sincerely believe that Putin would allow Assange to have a show on his network if he didn’t believe the WikiLeaks founder was an ally.

Assange claims to have convinced Edward Snowden to flee to Russia.

“I thought, and in fact advised Edward Snowden, that he would be safest in Moscow,” Assange told Democracy Now (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/world/europe/wikileaks-julian-assange-russia.html). In another interview with the Times (http://%E2%80%9Csnowden%20was%20well%20aware%20of%20the%2 0spin%20that%20would%20be%20put%20on%20it%20if%20h e%20took%20asylum%20in%20russia%2C%E2%80%9D%20assa nge%20told%20the%20times.%20%20%E2%80%9Che%20prefe rred%20latin%20america%2C%20but%20my%20advice%20wa s%20that%20he%20should%20take%20asylum%20in%20russ ia%20despite%20the%20negative%20pr%20consequences% 2C%20because%20my%20assessment%20is%20that%20he%20 had%20a%20significant%20risk%20he%20could%20be%20k idnapped%20from%20latin%20america%20on%20cia%20ord ers.%20kidnapped%20or%20possibly%20killed.%E2%80%9 D/), Assange elaborated:

“Snowden was well aware of the spin that would be put on it if he took asylum in Russia. He preferred Latin America, but my advice was that he should take asylum in Russia despite the negative PR consequences, because my assessment is that he had a significant risk he could be kidnapped from Latin America on CIA orders. Kidnapped or possibly killed.”

Assange hypocritically denounced the Panama Papers because they made Russia look bad.

One of the most common defenses of Assange is that his goal is to undermine all repressive governments, causing him to view no distinction between a member of the American political establishment like Hillary Clinton and other state establishments elsewhere. This would be believable if he didn’t attempt to discredit the Panama Papers (http://www.salon.com/2017/01/03/julian-assange-denies-russian-hacking-allegations-claims-president-obama-is-trying-to-delegitimize-donald-trump/), which alleged corruption among many of Russia’s political and financial elites (including a $2 billion overseas account owned by Putin), as an American plot — without the slightest shred of evidence.

http://www.salon.com/2017/01/07/donald-trump-julian-assange-and-russia-how-theyre-connected-and-how-they-changed-an-election/

[Winehole23]

read for yourself here:

http://documents.latimes.com/read-us-intelligence-report-russian-hacking/

[TheSanityAnnex]

read for yourself here:

[url]http://documents.latimes.com/read

Not a single mention on whether or not the three US intelligence agencies were allowed into the DNC servers to run analytics. I think they based this entire report off of the DNC hired CrowdStrike report. It will be interesting to watch the private security sector experts tear apart this report much like they did the JAR report.

[Winehole23]

point by point analysis here:

https://www.emptywheel.net/2017/01/06/the-declassified-russian-hack-report/

[Winehole23]

from the comments:


If you think about it, and it takes an awful lot of poring through pages of guff and fluff before one can, what the CIA and FBI are saying is “We have our own little racket here in election years: the oligarchs buy a couple of candidates and platforms then they decide which one will serve them best and the media takes it over, telling the Rubes where to mark their ballots. And suddenly the Russians come along and give platforms to people criticising the media-just like Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty al Hurra etc etc etc- and questioning the policies the oligarchs want. Who does Putin think he is? An American? …”

[TheSanityAnnex]

point by point analysis here:

https://www.emptywheel.net/2017/01/06/the-declassified-russian-hack-report/

Thanks for this. Will read later today.

[TheSanityAnnex]

If Russia Hacked Podesta, Then Russia Knew Hillary Used a Private Server to Email Obama

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/586f6742e4b0a5e600a789c7

The current establishment narrative states that Russia used Hillary Clinton’s incriminating emails against her campaign to elect Donald Trump. When Democratic pundits or the U.S. intelligence community (http://www.wsj.com/articles/intelligence-officials-to-testify-as-senate-examines-russian-hacking-1483612205) state that “Russia hacked our election,” they really mean Russia hacked the DNC and Clinton’s campaign. In 2016, words like “election” and “democratic process” are defined as either the DNC or Podesta’s emails. The fact Wisconsin hasn’t voted for a Republican since 1984 (http://www.270towin.com/states/Wisconsin), but picked Trump over Clinton, isn’t part of the equation.



Russia and “Russian hackers” are convenient scapegoats to explain Clinton’s $1.2 Billion campaign loss (http://freebeacon.com/politics/total-cost-of-clintons-losing-campaign-1-2-billion/). Otherwise, Democrats would have to accept that Clinton’s negative favorability (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQfz5OmNUKE) ratings, Iraq Vote, use of the phrase “super-predator” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/25/clinton-heckled-by-black-lives-matter-activist/?utm_term=.5645c2e38568) to describe black youth, advocacy of the TPP, Foundation issues, ongoing FBI email (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/22-hillary-clinton-emails-declared-top-secret-218420) investigations, and the DNC’s cheating (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/us/politics/debbie-wasserman-schultz-dnc-wikileaks-emails.html?_r=0) of Bernie Sanders might have had a tiny role in her defeat.

However, why would Russia only hack the DNC and Podesta’s emails?

What about Clinton’s server?



If indeed Russian hackers gave WikiLeaks the DNC and Podesta emails (there’s zero evidence backing this claim, but let’s follow the establishment’s narrative to its logical conclusion), then Russian intelligence would certainly have read these emails.

If indeed they hacked Clinton’s campaign, and then read Podesta’s emails, then Russia’s GRU and FSB (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/05/whats-inside-obama-gets-report-on-russia-hacking-as-republicans-spar-on-claims.html) intelligence agencies also knew Clinton used a private server; not a State.gov email address.

Oops.



We have a flaw in Democratic propaganda stating Hillary would have won if not for those meddling Russians.

It’s interesting that after a year-long FBI criminal investigation (where James Comey stated Clinton was “extremely careless” (http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/politics/fbi-clinton-email-server-comey-damning-lines/) in the handling of classified intelligence) that recent Congressional testimony from intelligence chiefs didn’t focus on what Russians learned from their alleged hacking activities. Keep in mind that Clinton’s server was unencrypted for the first three months (http://fortune.com/2015/03/11/hillary-clinton-email-unsecure/). It also contained 22 Top Secret (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/22-hillary-clinton-emails-declared-top-secret-218420) emails and thousands (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article63218372.html) of retroactively classified emails.

What kind of damage to U.S. national security would be caused by Putin hacking Clinton’s server?



Russians would certainly have read the emails they hacked, and the information they read would lead to Clinton’s server. If Russia indeed hacked Podesta, then Vladimir Putin knew the following information before President Obama (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-weighs-in-hillary-clinton-private-emails/):

In WikiLeaks Email ID 31077 (https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/31077), Cheryl Mills writes “we need to clean this up - he has emails from her - they do not say state.gov.” As CNN explains (http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/25/politics/cheryl-mills-john-podesta-email-obama-clean-up-wikileaks/), Mills is referring to President Obama receiving emails from Clinton that aren’t from a U.S. government network.
In WikiLeaks Email ID 51094 (https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/51094), John Podesta writes “At least we now know why Cheryl didn’t want her to run.” As POLITICO (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/podesta-mills-clinton-email-wikileaks-230823) explains regarding this email chain, “Podesta suggests Cheryl Mills was against Clinton run because of email server.”
Podesta’s statement is a response to Neera Tanden who writes (https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/51094) “Do we actually know who told Hillary she could use a private email? And has that person been drawn and quartered?”Thus, any foreign intelligence service would know very quickly that Hillary used a private server to communicate with President Obama. If they hacked the emails during Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, then they’d have real-time knowledge of everything on her server; 22 Top Secret emails and all the other classified emails.

However, what if Russia learned about Clinton’s server in 2015?



The potentially fabricated timeline from The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/07/27/us/politics/trail-of-dnc-emails-russia-hacking.html?_r=0) isn’t good news for Hillary supporters. Clinton eventually gave up her private email server in August of 2015 (http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/11/politics/hillary-clinton-email-server-justice-department/) (after weeks of stalling) so any Russian hacking attempt prior would have given Russian intelligence knowledge and access to data on the server.

The New York Times published a timeline of Russian hacking that takes place in March and July (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/07/27/us/politics/trail-of-dnc-emails-russia-hacking.html); months before the time Clinton eventually released her server to the FBI.

Russian hackers would have known of Clinton’s private server before she turned over the server (perhaps five months before) to the FBI.



With knowledge from Podesta’s emails regarding Clinton never using a State.gov, it’s doubtful Russians would refrain from hacking the server of America’s highest diplomat. In addition, Russia would have known Clinton communicated with President Obama using this server. This is where the CIA, NSA, and FBI should be concerned; not the vapid belief that Trump won because of Russian hacking.

The pseudonym (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440380/obama-email-alias-clinton-why-fbi-didnt-prosecute-hillary) that President Obama used when communicating with Clinton is almost certainly one of the reasons (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440380/obama-email-alias-clinton-why-fbi-didnt-prosecute-hillary) Clinton never received Espionage Act indictments. As written in POLITICO (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-228607), Obama used a pseudonym in emails with Clinton, FBI documents reveal:

President Barack Obama used a pseudonym in email communications with Hillary Clinton and others, according to FBI records made public Friday…
In an April 5, 2016 interview with the FBI, Abedin was shown an email exchange between Clinton and Obama, but the longtime Clinton aide did not recognize the name of the sender.
“Once informed that the sender’s name is believed to be a pseudonym used by the president, Abedin exclaimed: ‘How is this not classified?’” the report says. “Abedin then expressed her amazement at the president’s use of a pseudonym and asked if she could have a copy of the email.”
The State Department has refused to make public that and other emails Clinton exchanged with Obama. Lawyers have cited the “presidential communications privilege,” a variation of executive privilege, in order to withhold the messages under the Freedom of Information Act…
It’s been known since last year that Obama and Clinton corresponded occasionally via her private account, but the White House has insisted Obama did not know she relied on it routinely and exclusively for official business.
“Clinton did not recall receiving any emails she thought should not be on an unclassified system,” the FBI said in its Sept. 2 report. So, both Obama and Clinton communicated via email, and Clinton’s server wasn’t protected by State.gov security. Also, it’s unbelievable the FBI would accept Clinton’s answer that she “did not recall receiving any emails she thought should not be on an unclassified system.” Apparently, Clinton didn’t think that 22 Top Secret emails or communication with the president shouldn’t have been on a private server.

Why would Russian intelligence services not hack Clinton’s server, knowing from Podesta’s emails that she communicated with President Obama?



Finally, in addition to the fact Clinton stored email communication with President Obama that could have easily been intercepted by Russian intelligence (through the alleged hacking of Podesta’s emails), it’s important to note that Clinton’s server was unencrypted for three months (http://fortune.com/2015/03/11/hillary-clinton-email-unsecure/). Quoted in The Hill (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/266674-former-defense-secretary-says-clinton-server-may-have-been-compromised), former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates believes Clinton’s server was almost certainly compromised by Russia, China and Iran:

Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates says he believes foreign countries like Russia, China and Iran may have hacked the private email server Hillary Clinton used while secretary of State.
“Given the fact that the Pentagon acknowledges that they get attacked about 100,000 times a day, I think the odds are pretty high,” he said Thursday during an interview on “The Hugh Hewitt Show.”
Gates said he agreed with former acting CIA Director Mike Morell’s claim that the server had probably been hacked by either Russia, China or Iran.
He added that the fact that classified intelligence has been found on the server was “a concern for me.”In 2009, during the first three months Clinton’s server was unencrypted, she visited China (http://fortune.com/2015/03/11/hillary-clinton-email-unsecure/) as Secretary of State.

POLITICO (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/hillary-clinton-email-server-hacked-china-south-korea-germany-214546) writes Clinton’s server also faced hacking attempts from China, South Korea and Germany in 2013 and 2014.



Therefore, Russia hacking “the election” should be the least of the CIA’s worries, especially if Russian hackers actually read Podesta’s emails. Then of course there’s the recent revelation that the FBI requested DNC servers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmnsyuSTvV4) to conduct a forensic analysis, but the DNC refused to give up their servers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3o8UzIbBuk). Why wouldn’t the DNC want the FBI’s help in analyzing their hacked servers?



Julian Assange states (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/03/assange-russian-government-not-source-wikileaks-emails.html) Russia was not the source of WikiLeaks DNC and Podesta emails.



WikiLeaks has stated (https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/793268442329735168?lang=en) there’s no link between Trump and Russia and no link between Assange and Russia.



Russia is almost certainly being used as a scapegoat (one of numerous excuses used by establishment Democrats who cheated Bernie Sanders) to justify Clinton losing to Trump.

As for any attempt to paint Russia as influencing the election, Russian hackers would have read the emails they stole from Podesta. This information would then lead them to Clinton’s server. Ultimately, President Obama and his communication with Clinton would have been targeted by Russia, if indeed the latest Democratic election narrative is true.

[IceColdBrewski]

http://content.boards.philadelphiaeagles.com/monthly_2017_01/Post-Election-Options-NRD-600-578x420.jpg.10bb2e033d893cce4b1b296b5469fbaa.jpg

[boutons_deux]

http://content.boards.philadelphiaeagles.com/monthly_2017_01/Post-Election-Options-NRD-600-578x420.jpg.10bb2e033d893cce4b1b296b5469fbaa.jpg

Just another LIE, of omission, omitting Comey and Assange.

[Thread]

http://content.boards.philadelphiaeagles.com/monthly_2017_01/Post-Election-Options-NRD-600-578x420.jpg.10bb2e033d893cce4b1b296b5469fbaa.jpg


http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/images/icons/blackaward.gif

[TheSanityAnnex]

Just another LIE, of omission, omitting Comey and Assange.

What was Comey investigating?

Were any of the Wikileaks releases doctored?

[Thread]

What was Comey investigating?

Were any of the Wikileaks releases doctored?

Hillary called him everything but a white man. It's okay when she disparages though.

[boutons_deux]

What was Comey investigating?

Were any of the Wikileaks releases doctored?

no matter what Comey was investigating, with no indictment, the FBI protocol is silence, not a hyped national press conference.

[TheSanityAnnex]

no matter what Comey was investigating, with no indictment, the FBI protocol is silence, not a hyped national press conference.
What/who was he investigating and why?

And answer the second question puss.

[boutons_deux]

And answer the second question puss.

G F Y, asshole, and answer it yourself

[TheSanityAnnex]

G F Y, asshole, and answer it yourself
You answered neither puss. Why is that?

[CosmicCowboy]

:lol is boo still fighting this battle? :lol get the fuck over it.

[Winehole23]

HRC failed to inspire registered Democrats to vote. That, says FiveThirtyEight, is why she lost:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/registered-voters-who-stayed-home-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/

[boutons_deux]

HRC failed to inspire registered Democrats to vote. That, says FiveThirtyEight, is why she lost:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/registered-voters-who-stayed-home-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/

The 25 years witch hunting paid off, terminating in the $Ms spent on 8 Benghazi! "investigations" stumbling upon her email server, which was then HYPED non-stop for months.

Then Assange and Comey finished the job.

She still won 3M more votes than Trash, who used 50+ fraudulent votes to win the EC.

[Winehole23]

The 25 years witch hunting paid off, terminating in the $Ms spent on 8 Benghazi! "investigations" stumbling upon her email server, which was then HYPED non-stop for months. It was hypeworthy. Keeping official business on a private server was monumentally bad judgment at best, furtive and illegal at worst.


Then Assange and Comey finished the job.The DNI-CIA report says the emails are legit. Assange didn't reveal anything untrue about HRC's campaign or the DNC, and the public was well served to be informed.

HRC does have a legit beef about Comey. Both his statements -- the one in the spring and the one the Friday before the election -- were very improper.


She still won 3M more votes than Trash, who used 50+ fraudulent votes to win the EC.Fraudulent how?

[Winehole23]

the press is unimpressed:


Daily Beast:U.S. Spy Report Blames Putin for Hacks, But Doesn’t Back It Up

(http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/01/06/u-s-spy-report-blames-putin-for-hacks-but-doesn-t-back-it-up.html)

Kevin Rothrock (https://twitter.com/KevinRothrock/status/817477742895788032) (Moscow Times):

I cannot believe my eyes. Is this really part of the US government's intelligence case?

I'll say it: the declassified USG report "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections" is an embarrassment.



Susan Hennessey (https://twitter.com/Susan_Hennessey/status/817479008124276736) (Lawfare, Brookings):


The unclassified report is underwhelming at best. There is essentially no new information for those who have been paying attention.



Bill Neely (https://twitter.com/BillNeelyNBC/status/817512606231646215) (NBCNews):


Lots of key judgements but not many key facts & no open proof in US Intell. report into alleged Russian hacking.



Stephen Hayes (https://twitter.com/stephenfhayes/status/817497766448472065) (Weekly Standard):


The intel report on Russia is little more than a collection of assertions. Understand protecting sources/methods, but it's weak.



Julia Ioffe (https://twitter.com/juliaioffe/status/817502551952289792) (The Atlantic):


It's hard to tell if the thinness of the #hacking report is because the proof is qualified, or because the proof doesn't exist. @JeffreyGoldberg Have to say, though, I'm hearing from a lot of Russia watchers who are very skeptical of the report. None like Putin/Trump.

[Th'Pusher]

the press is unimpressed:

Yet Trump's team has done a 180 since being briefed on the classified report. Reince was doing the rounds this morning saying DJT now accepts the fact that the Russians were responsible for hacking Podesta's emails.

[Th'Pusher]

“I think he accepts the finding,” Priebus said. “He’s not denying entities in Russia are behind these particular hackings.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/08/priebus-says-democrats-to-blame-for-email-hack-thinks-trump-accepts-intel-findings.html

[Winehole23]

Maybe the compartmentalized case is more convincing -- the unclassified one is notably weak. Trump's touchiness about anything relating to himself and his impulsive tweeting will require multiitudinous walk-backs.

[dbestpro]

I was unsure until I read this thread, and now I am convinced that they still have nothing but conjecture. Thanks, Boutons.

[florige]

HRC failed to inspire registered Democrats to vote. That, says FiveThirtyEight, is why she lost:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/registered-voters-who-stayed-home-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/


A large majority of Bernie or Bust people staying home, or casting a protest vote for Trump I'm sure didn't help her cause either. I know a few Bernie voters in VA who were along that same line of thinking.

[Winehole23]

Yep. The Dems nominated a hopelessly compromised technocrat in a year voters wanted change. Big mistake.

[boutons_deux]

Republican Senators Urge Trump To Embrace Findings On Russia Hacking

Two senior Republican senators urged President-elect Donald Trump to punish Russia in response to U.S. intelligence agencies’ conclusion that President Vladimir Putin personally directed efforts aimed at influencing the outcome of the November election.

In a joint appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain said evidence was conclusive that Putin sought to influence the election – a point that Trump has refuted repeatedly by arguing it might be impossible to tell who was responsible.

“In a couple weeks, Donald Trump will be the defender of the free world and democracy,” Graham said. “You should let everybody know in America, Republicans and Democrats, that you’re going to make Russia pay a price for trying to interfere.”

http://www.nationalmemo.com/republican-senators-urge-trump-embrace-findings/

Russians oligarch creditors ( loan sharks) have Trash by his tiny dick.

If Trash retaliates seriously against Russian hacking, then the oligarchs call in their debts ("break his knees"), Trash's heavily indebted bogus empire collapses.

[Durant82]

Meh, calling it "hacking" is too much. Makes it sound like Russia was up to some Mr Robot shit. What they did is more comparable to tactics used by Wild Cobra to break into a girl's gmail account.