CIA: Russians hacks were meant to rig the election for Trump

[Kazukian]

But that's been the case all during the campaign season.

The propaganda technique is one in which you demonize, accuse, insinuate in advance what you yourself have done -- deflecting attention.

Thus, we heard "Lock her up! Lock her up!" and "Hillary Clinton is a BIGOT!" I'm sure my brain is stuffed with so many memories of the campaign that the stack of thoughts will take longer to plumb.

There was a time when I mistakenly fell for the over-generalization about the CIA, demonizing the entire agency, as opposed to two renegade careerists of "Operation Zapata." I wised up to it maybe five years ago.

Like Robert McNamara and his "Fog of War" redemption, the CIA has redeemed itself, too. We just don't know how it will play out. But there's a sieve of possibilities associated with a search-tree of possible unfolding events. At this point, I'd be willing to bet $10 how it unfolds. With one or two people -- I could bet $100.

And $100 isn't just chump-change to me.

What's the bet? I'll wager $100 Trump is sworn in and serves 4 years as POTUS.

Actually, no, I'm out, but I'll make the same offer to Jhhnn or agent00f,

 

[uallas5]

The only logical thing to do over the Democrats inability to secure their computers is to start a war.

WHO'S WITH ME? WAR, BITCHES!!!!

I'm confused, why do you want to go to war with Germany?

 

[Sunburn74]

So if your wife was cheating on you and Russia hacked her emails and exposed this to you, you would rather them not have told you and you would think it's better to be with an unfaithful wife as long as your heart wasn't swayed by a 3rd party?

Hmm... maybe. First of all, unfaithfulness is a lot of grays. Maybe we've been together 10 years and 8 years ago she slipped up once, never told me and never did it again. Its possible that the person leaking the info is doing it intentionally trying to ruin an otherwise stable relationship. But that is beside the point.

Here's what the CIA is saying here. Lets go to an extreme. Lets say Hillary was a bad person. A really really bad and dangerous person and Russia felt that they had to protect the US from her from purely altruistic reasons on their end. So they leaked all the stolen wikileak stuff and got trump elected. That's great. Nonetheless, we would need to aggressively investigate Russia for interfering in our election, we need to aggressively investigate their relation to trump, and we need to investigate their motivations for interfering. Because I'm glad its altruistic in my imaginary situation and our investigation would likely find that hey they actually only had good intentions, but in the event it was not altruistic and perhaps actually a scheme to introduce harm, we need to know. In reality even if altruistic, that is a major problem that they interfered.

Lets say you are trying to marry your longstanding girlfriend. And the month before a wedding, mysteriously all sorts of stuff about her past starts leaking out (you get letters in the mail about stuff in the past about her you didn't know, stuff shows up in newspapers, your friends are getting text messages telling them to get you not to marry her, etc) and its clear the aim is intentionally trying to get you not to marry her. That stuff may be bad. It may be really bad and you may decide yeah I don't want to marry this lady because of her checkered past. Nonetheless, when its all said and done, pretty much everyone would wonder who it was that leaked all that stuff and why they wanted to interfere with your marriage. Maybe there are interested in doing more than just breaking up your marriage. You wouldn't want to know? You would simply thank this mysterious person and walk away? If I found out my best friend was trying to secretly break up my marriage even if he thought it was in my best interest to do so, there would still be a major major head on collision between the two of us.

 

[Kazukian]

I'm confused, why do you want to go to war with Germany?

It was just a random picture, obviously we should go to war with Russia.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

And that's the point, dummy. That could be true. Why would I bet on that?

Was Nixon effective as Watergate went forward? Or did he shrivel in a private room, listening to tapes, taking pills -- to be forced to resign? It all hinges on the facts -- the evidence -- and what they prove.

At this point, I could only bet that the inauguration could occur under a toxic, poisoned cloud.

How's that for certainty? And honestly -- with your supercilious allegiance to Hypocrisy and what we've seen all year -- and if we were both in the same platoon during a brushfire war with you walking point as I bring up the rear with a street-sweeper in hand -- do you think I might save the taxpayers your trip home? Or assure that you came back in an aluminum box?

I spit on you!

 

[Kazukian]

And that's the point, dummy. That could be true. Why would I bet on that?

Was Nixon effective as Watergate went forward? Or did he shrivel in a private room, listening to tapes, taking pills -- to be forced to resign? It all hinges on the facts -- the evidence -- and what they prove.

At this point, I could only bet that the inauguration could occur under a toxic, poisoned cloud.

How's that for certainty? And honestly -- with your supercilious allegiance to Hypocrisy and what we've seen all year -- and if we were both in the same platoon during a brushfire war with you walking point as I bring up the rear with a street-sweeper in hand -- do you think I might save the taxpayers your trip home? Or assure that you came back in an aluminum box?

I spit on you!

How about a walk and feed some ducks? I'll bring the bread

 

[ivwshane]

What good little fascist some of you have become. You are the lemmings that bring in the dictator.

 

[Starbuck1975]

There is a movie script in all of this.

Red Dawn doesn't seem quite as exciting if Patrick Swayze and Charlie Sheen are sitting behind a computer screen for the whole movie

 

[Moonbeam]

The framers of our constitution designed a system so we could have a bloodless coup every few years. I encourage everyone to participate.

Unfortunately, the media was telling one side they had a 99% chance of winning, I've never seen the public served in such a poor manner by the media.

My comment to BonzaiDuck was heartfelt, I hope he can get to a better place emotionally, and with his strong feelings, perhaps participate in the next election cycle in a non virtual manner, get involved, donate, volunteer, etc.

Most kind of you I'm sure but we did just elect The Ultimate Anti--Life, Anti-American to be our President. It's not like conservatives who are outraged by their projection. The madness that liberals will oppose is real. The altered reality of conservatives is only safe in their heads. The real world will still deliver a terrible beating. Get ready for it.

 

[Ackmed]

Obviously any country hacking us is terrible and should be investigated. If found out to be true, should be something by us done about it. Sadly we hear about hacking all the time with other countries.

The gray area is that it was just gmail accounts? Nothing government? So hard to be upset about hacking a personal email. Personal emails get hacked all the time. We see it in the news almost daily. Also if there wasn't anything to be ashamed of the hacking wouldn't have resulted into anything. Their dirty laundry got aired. With nothing to hide this would be a non issue.

That's being said, I have zero doubts similar emails were going on in the RNC world and between Trump staffers. And airing their dirty laundry as well would have resulted in poor publicity just like for Hillary and the DNC. Personally I would have rather seen both sides of the emails or none at all. But as I said, blaming Russia or whoever for putting out there what you said seems like passing the buck. Don't say or do anything wrong, and they'd have nothing to worry about. I don't like any country meddling with our elections though. Actions should be taken if proven.

 

[Kazukian]

Most kind of you I'm sure but we did just elect The Ultimate Anti--Life, Anti-American to be our President. It's not like conservatives who are outraged by their projection. The madness that liberals will oppose is real. The altered reality of conservatives is only safe in their heads. The real world will still deliver a terrible beating. Get ready for it.

We elected a Northeastern limousine liberal-populist RINO. Just hope he doesn't die, and Pence has to step in.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

The framers of our constitution designed a system so we could have a bloodless coup every few years. I encourage everyone to participate.

Unfortunately, the media was telling one side they had a 99% chance of winning, I've never seen the public served in such a poor manner by the media.

My comment to BonzaiDuck was heartfelt, I hope he can get to a better place emotionally, and with his strong feelings, perhaps participate in the next election cycle in a non virtual manner, get involved, donate, volunteer, etc.

By the way. I've already done that for some six years. And, unlike disgusting Traitor Hypocrite Republicans, I outed an embezzler in my own party and oversaw putting together the evidence to charge her with a crime.

Compared to you, I've always had the moral high ground. When I gave $250/annum to your disgusting excuse of a political party -- I'm the first to admit that I was a narcissist, I was delusional, and I now wish I could actually get my money back with interest.

No Trump supporter or GOP lemming who went along with the crowd is safe standing on my doorstep proudly wearing that label. If the Trumpers fired the first shot to start a civil war, I'd be glad to end it and burn them all down.

As I said before -- I spit on you. Take another wad in face, dummy!

 

[Ackmed]

Red Dawn doesn't seem quite as exciting if Patrick Swayze and Charlie Sheen are sitting behind a computer screen for the whole movie

I was born and raised in Alaska, tiny town in the middle of nowhere. Right on the ocean. After watching that I was sure it was going to happen to us. This was well before Internet and such, saw it just as it came out. I was just 10 when it came out, thinking we were going to be attacked briefly until my parents explained it was just a movie, etc. Seems so silly now, but I was young and stuff I guess.

 

[Kazukian]

By the way. I've already done that for some six years. And, unlike disgusting Traitor Hypocrite Republicans, I outed an embezzler in my own party and oversaw putting together the evidence to charge her with a crime.

Compared to you, I've always had the moral high ground. When I gave $250/annum to your disgusting excuse of a political party -- I'm the first to admit that I was a narcissist, I was delusional, and I now wish I could actually get my money back with interest.

No Trump supporter or GOP lemming who went along with the crowd is safe standing on my doorstep proudly wearing that label. If the Trumpers fired the first shot to start a civil war, I'd be glad to end it and burn them all down.

As I said before -- I spit on you. Take another wad in face, dummy!

I own 13 rifles, including a 300 WM & a 338 Lapua, let's just feed the ducks some stale bread.

 

[JSt0rm]

The original red dawn was a great film.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I was born and raised in Alaska, tiny town in the middle of nowhere. Right on the ocean. After watching that I was sure it was going to happen to us. This was well before Internet and such, saw it just as it came out. I was just 10 when it came out, thinking we were going to be attacked briefly until my parents explained it was just a movie, etc. Seems so silly now, but I was young and stuff I guess.

Hollywood cooperated with a sense of patriotism with CIA's panicked Stalin-era attempts to refine propaganda and psy-war science and art. The problem with the GOP is that some of their own had participated in those projects, the ideas in amateur form filtered into the advertising and political sector, and they delusionally believe that deceit is a valid political weapon.

You learn even from studying literature in print that authors can have a sermonizing or educational intent. Yet, friends I've known, when addressing that idea, would say "I don't go to movies to learn anything! I just go to be entertained."

The Red Dawn movie was more Cold War myth-making, just as was the original Manchurian Candidate. Sinatra only suspected as much after his friend's assassination, which explains why he bought the film rights and removed it from public view for 25 years.

Here's another example. Around 1986, Hollywood released a film entitled "Yuri Nosenko, KGB." Tommy Lee Jones played the lead role. Congress had put the kibosh on CIA-Hollywood collaboration during the mid-70s Church-Committee hearings. But since the film-makers wanted assistance with the film and they wanted to have footage from within Langley, you can be sure there was some influence.

At that time, CIA was in a panic because they had suspected they had a mole inside the agency since 1983. The film was about events in the early 1960s. The mole wasn't really a mole in the rigorous sense; he was Aldrich Ames, arrested in the early '90s, who had done it purely for money.

But because of the internal worries of the Company, it seems that the film about Nosenko was a total distortion, leaving the audience to believe that he had been a spy inside the CIA. Instead, every serious piece of information available seems to prove that Nosenko became a loyal American and CIA employee giving lectures about Soviet intelligence until he retired under cover of a pseudonym to live somewhere in Virginia.

You simply need to be aware of the possibilities in fictional movies, the possible influences, the backdrop of the reality behind them. It's fine to be entertained. It's better to develop your beliefs based on what you know, as opposed to subliminal impressions left in your mind by some film producer.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

The original red dawn was a great film.

I'll be the guy pissing in the radiator

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I own 13 rifles, including a 300 WM & a 338 Lapua, let's just feed the ducks some stale bread.

[Loser . . . You lost the election, won the White House -- probably at risk of losing "our" country. I'd rather call it "mine" you tenacious stubborn piece of Tory Shit.]

 

[Kazukian]

[Loser . . . You lost the election, won the White House -- probably at risk of losing "our" country. I'd rather call it "mine" you tenacious stubborn piece of Tory Shit.]

I choose to view it as winning the POTUS, USSC, congress and most state legislatures and governorships.

But if it makes you feel better, sure.

 

[interchange]

But that's been the case all during the campaign season.

The propaganda technique is one in which you demonize, accuse, insinuate in advance what you yourself have done -- deflecting attention.

Thus, we heard "Lock her up! Lock her up!" and "Hillary Clinton is a BIGOT!" I'm sure my brain is stuffed with so many memories of the campaign that the stack of thoughts will take longer to plumb.

There was a time when I mistakenly fell for the over-generalization about the CIA, demonizing the entire agency, as opposed to two renegade careerists of "Operation Zapata." I wised up to it maybe five years ago.

Like Robert McNamara and his "Fog of War" redemption, the CIA has redeemed itself, too. We just don't know how it will play out. But there's a sieve of possibilities associated with a search-tree of possible unfolding events. At this point, I'd be willing to bet $10 how it unfolds. With one or two people -- I could bet $100.

And $100 isn't just chump-change to me.

Sure. My statement was merely a foray into getting people to look at the following:
1. We have not, and likely will never, definitively pin down a source of the fire
2. Given this, people will attribute the source of the fire to wherever supports their framework
3. This leaves us with a bunch of thoughts and feelings about fire and smoke that leave us worked up looking for it everywhere since we can never confidently assign the blame where it belongs
4. If we want to use these thoughts and feelings productively, might there be a way to instead realize that our country is burning and it might be more important to put out the fire first instead of finding who started it?

After all, Mrs. O'Leary's cow didn't actually kick over the lantern to start the Chicago fire.

 

[Moonbeam]

I own 13 rifles, including a 300 WM & a 338 Lapua, let's just feed the ducks some stale bread.

Never tell a rational enemy mind about your weaponry. He will simply find a way to rig your guns to explode and go BOO!

 

[ivwshane]

Sure. My statement was merely a foray into getting people to look at the following:
1. We have not, and likely will never, definitively pin down a source of the fire
2. Given this, people will attribute the source of the fire to wherever supports their framework
3. This leaves us with a bunch of thoughts and feelings about fire and smoke that leave us worked up looking for it everywhere since we can never confidently assign the blame where it belongs
4. If we want to use these thoughts and feelings productively, might there be a way to instead realize that our country is burning and it might be more important to put out the fire first instead of finding who started it?

After all, Mrs. O'Leary's cow didn't actually kick over the lantern to start the Chicago fire.

So you are saying the intelligence community is wrong when they said that Russia tried to affect the election? Because it certainly seems like they've found fire. Site they may not have the details on how the fire was started but it's certainly more than a mere guess.

Its truly a post fact free world.

 

[interchange]

So you are saying the intelligence community is wrong when they said that Russia tried to affect the election? Because it certainly seems like they've found fire. Site they may not have the details on how the fire was started but it's certainly more than a mere guess.

Its truly a post fact free world.

Oh I don't really know. But it is clear that the evidence is not (yet?) enough to prevent the majority of people from filtering it in ways that suit their beliefs.

I don't care much for the concrete notions of right and wrong. I like exploring ideas and principles.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

I'm confused, why do you want to go to war with Germany?

We beat them in WW1, we beat them in WW2, why would we go to war against anyone else? We know we can beat them.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Hmm... maybe. First of all, unfaithfulness is a lot of grays. Maybe we've been together 10 years and 8 years ago she slipped up once, never told me and never did it again. Its possible that the person leaking the info is doing it intentionally trying to ruin an otherwise stable relationship. But that is beside the point.

Here's what the CIA is saying here. Lets go to an extreme. Lets say Hillary was a bad person. A really really bad and dangerous person and Russia felt that they had to protect the US from her from purely altruistic reasons on their end. So they leaked all the stolen wikileak stuff and got trump elected. That's great. Nonetheless, we would need to aggressively investigate Russia for interfering in our election, we need to aggressively investigate their relation to trump, and we need to investigate their motivations for interfering. Because I'm glad its altruistic in my imaginary situation and our investigation would likely find that hey they actually only had good intentions, but in the event it was not altruistic and perhaps actually a scheme to introduce harm, we need to know. In reality even if altruistic, that is a major problem that they interfered.

Lets say you are trying to marry your longstanding girlfriend. And the month before a wedding, mysteriously all sorts of stuff about her past starts leaking out (you get letters in the mail about stuff in the past about her you didn't know, stuff shows up in newspapers, your friends are getting text messages telling them to get you not to marry her, etc) and its clear the aim is intentionally trying to get you not to marry her. That stuff may be bad. It may be really bad and you may decide yeah I don't want to marry this lady because of her checkered past. Nonetheless, when its all said and done, pretty much everyone would wonder who it was that leaked all that stuff and why they wanted to interfere with your marriage. Maybe there are interested in doing more than just breaking up your marriage. You wouldn't want to know? You would simply thank this mysterious person and walk away? If I found out my best friend was trying to secretly break up my marriage even if he thought it was in my best interest to do so, there would still be a major major head on collision between the two of us.

See, like someone stacking up complications attempting to create a work of genius in some Rube Goldberg invention, you've run off on detours with analogies.

First, there are -- or certainly had been in history -- factions within CIA.

Second, there's no refuting the idea that a President-Elect who collaborated with the Russians in simply intending to affect an election outcome is a threat to national security. It's not just some assumption pulled out of the air; it's an axiom.

Third, assume you have evidence of a crime. Assume you were Gil Grissom in "CSI." Better -- assume you were directing a real CSI, as opposed to being a "film director." You can do what some law enforcement is tempted to do when under political pressure: you can develop a convenient theory of the crime based on an easy suspect already arrested, and then cherry-pick the facts for the prosecution's benefit.

Or, you can collect as many facts as you can without prejudice. Suppose you have a database of facts, and someone adds the fact that some butterfly flapped its wings in Indonesia -- the common idea for a religious discussion of Zen? It won't matter, because you can't find an inferential connection between some suspect or other piece of evidence and the butterfly. This is science -- not séance.

With the largest collection of relevant facts, you have the best chance of getting to the truth. That's all there is to it.

Any GOP hack who lives in a bubble of thinking that you can simply design a reality around a political objective and belief system would fail at what either CIA or a CSI could do well.

And nobody -- nobody in that agency -- is going to put forward some concoction that would prove false later, to torpedo even the most toxic, disgusting, low-life trash ever to wait in the wings as a "president-elect."

What comes out of this is much more likely to be a mirror of the Truth and a near-perfect approximation of Absolute Truth -- which as an absolute is rather difficult to achieve from a scientific point of view.

Coming back -- I see that no other posts had come in since this one, so I'll merely update. Someone mentioned "putting out the fire" instead of identifying the cause. Or they insinuated that we shouldn't be laying blame.

You'd lay blame on someone like Dylan Roof and give him 99 years in the electric chair. If this were an industrial quality control or quality assurance program, of course you want to find the "cause" instead of laying blame on someone who merely made a mistake.

But here, the cause is the criminal -- at least certainly in Roof's case, and only possibly that of Trump's case. We're only building a "case," to make better use of the word.

That's why the solution to Roof's "fire" is to either execute Roof, or lock him up --which would be more costly -- so we would hope.