Slashdot Mirror
CIA Captured Putin's 'Specific Instructions' To Hack the 2016 Election, Says Report (thedailybeast.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Daily Beast: When Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr., CIA Director John Brennan and FBI Director James B. Comey all went to see Donald Trump together during the presidential transition, they told him conclusively that they had "captured Putin's specific instructions on the operation" to hack the 2016 presidential election, according to a report in The Washington Post. The intel bosses were worried that he would explode but Trump remained calm during the carefully choreographed meeting. "He was affable, courteous, complimentary," Clapper told the Post. Comey stayed behind afterward to tell the president-elect about the controversial Steele dossier, however, and that private meeting may have been responsible for the animosity that would eventually lead to Trump firing the director of the FBI.
If your boss explodes when reality does not conform to his wishes, he just might be a snowflake.
If you show the average person evidence that someone is doing something bad, they might ask questions about the reliability of the evidence.
If his own spy agency shows Trump evidence that Russia is doing something bad, he denounces them and has an off-the-record chat with Putin.
I wouldn't trust a spy agency as a general rule - their whole existence is about getting what they want by deception - but I'd hardly trust the Russians when it comes to a domestic agency's claims against them.
This immediately leads to questions about why a president might trust a foreign power over his own agencies. And more questions when there are records of his team attempting to work with that same power to scuttle an opponent's election bid, that have been consistently lied about in an obvious cover-up.
But this is Trump, so this will amount to another round of Twitter outrage and blow over.
>When you require careful and concerted choreography to explain simple concepts to your president
If you want Trump to believe something, it's best to get Fox News to do a short and aggressive segment on it in which they flatter Trump a lot. Maybe include a short phrase that looks good with a hash tag.
Publish them... SHOW us all this "Evidence" I want to SEE it. Not hear about it. I can hear lies from ALL directions. SHOW ME THE TRUTH!
Too much work. Just say that Obama wanted the opposite.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Exactly.
The media has been pounding on the Russian drum for over a year now. So far, it's a big nothing-burger. A few alleged Facebook ads, not even a molecule in a drop in a bucket. Otherwise, endless allegations, but a stunning lack of actual proof.
Really, it's like the media are trying to distract from something. Like, maybe, Trump isn't doing such a bad job after all?
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Turns out the entire FBI leadership was, and mostly still is, a rat's nest of opposition to him filled with unethical bureaucrats who think it's their right to have "insurance policies against the President" among other things.
If this were happening in 2009, the Democrats would have been giving Obama--rightly--carte blanch to purge the entire agency's leadership above the level of GS15. It doesn't matter what you think of Trump or Obama. Neither of them were Hitler or Stalin or anything like that. The only proper response from the federal civil service to their every lawful order is "yes, sir." Anything else is insubordination; this is approaching mutiny.
He continued and expanded W. Bush's policies so much, that we, outside of the usVSthem brainwashing call him Bush 3.0 (because W was 2.0).
If you manage to look at the actual actions and results, it is one continous progress since at least Nixon. Parties don't mean fuck-all. Which is obvious, given that they are staffed with 100% lobbyists (which used to be a crime, treated as treason, punished with a maximum sentence).
Can we move on? Hillary lost Trump won.
>Up to this point it still appears that Russia bought some ads to try to sway the vote.
Well... more than that. There's also the bot net deployed to make certain opinions look vastly more popular than they were.
But how upset are you supposed to get about that when your own country has a history of funding outright revolutions and installing puppet regimes?
>There is no evidence that they hacked any voting machines.
I really don't understand why Americans tolerate their current voting system. Computer-tallied paper ballots and pencils with ballot boxes and any manual counting observed by the candidate's representatives is pretty solid.
Computer kiosks with known flaws, with the electronic records purged ASAP looks an awful lot like the dream system of someone who wants to generate whatever result they like and should offend (and terrify) the average voter.
Actually, the public record shows that Putin is playing Trump like a banjo.
This is the same James Clapper who lied under oath in proceedings in Congress. Not sure he can be trusted to make any comments at this point.
Hillary didn't lose because of Russia. Trump didn't win because of Russia.
Ignore Russia for five seconds if you can... Hillary was a weak candidate and so was pretty much the entire republican field.
Jeb Bush for example carried 3 percent of the republican vote. Hillary is generally disliked by most of her own party. Trump naturally is one of the most disliked presidents in US history. But he didn't win the election because people liked him. He won because for whatever reason... he said he was going to do things and people believed him.
Pretending that the current political circumstances are the result of the Russians is deranged. This is the same sort of blind spot that lead to Al Gore losing the election against Bush 43. Anyone that studied the gore vs bush election knows that Gore made a lot of mistakes. If you tell yourself you lose because of the Russians or because the Supreme Court robbed you... then you're going to keep losing and you'll deserve to lose.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
So, it had nothing to do with his policies, how he enacted those polices, his attitude toward the opposition, his repeated mishaps (Fast and Furious as example), his moneyed ties to Wallstreet, his repeated power grabs at various government agencies, his cozy relationship with MSM, his continuation of Bush policy, or his lackluster foreign policy. No, it comes down to muh racism. Even when he was first elected 'muh racism and muh racists' was trotted out. I distinctly remember on CNN the day after in 2008 "We found out last night that there were not enough racists to beat president-elect Obama.". Because only a racist would oppose the perfect 2nd Coming of Christ Obama, amirite? ...
In reality, he was just a crappy president. His agenda being undone by the "pen and phone" is the bed he made. The only legacy he will have is the ACA and the cost he placed on poor people forcing them to buy an expensive service. Congrats to him that his presidency still needs white knight protection from muh racists.
Putin did that, not Trump.
"Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
Maybe it helped that the new administration didn't introduce the "no fly zone" over Syria that Clinton had wanted to put in place.
Let's take this tripe one by one.
it had nothing to do with his policies
This one is true. Obama told everyone what he wanted to accomplish which then allowed Republicans to state unequivocally their top priority, make him a one-term president. And thus they became the party of No, obstructing everything, even if the people wanted it.
how he enacted those polices
Not sure what you mean by this one. Oh wait. You mean those executive orders and signing statements, don't you? The same ones George Bush and every single president has done since George Washington. Yeah, I can see how that would be an issue. After all, if you do the exact same thing as your predecessor, only you are in the wrong. Not the guy who came after you and does the exact same thing.
his attitude toward the opposition
You mean like reaching out and trying to find common ground? How horrible!
his repeated mishaps (Fast and Furious as example)
You claim multiple mishaps yet cite only one. I'm guessing those 3,000 dead that happened when George Bush ignored months of daily warnings of an impending attack doesn't come close this one issue, right? Nor the financial collapse which was the worst in 80 years. Nor the invasion of Iraq which cost us over 4,000 soldiers and over $4 trillion in costs. How about handing over $700 billion of taxpayer money to Wall Street and banks so they could pay out their bonuses? Forcing phone companies to install illegal wiretaps? Does any of this ring a bell?
his moneyed ties to Wallstreet
You mean unlike the current administration who as as his Treasury chief a person who came from Goldman Sachs, right? Or that he had, until recently, Carl Icahn who is lousy with connections to Wall Street. Here's a list of the Goldman Sachs employees the con artist has in his administration. This is only Goldman Sachs employees. This doesn't include all the other firms people have come from.
This article talks about how the con artist doesn't want to enforce rules against Wall Street and the banks. Instead, he wants them to "self report" whenever they commit a crime. This of course is in no way a sign the con artist has moneyed ties to Wall Street or is doing their bidding. None whatsoever.
his repeated power grabs at various government agencies
Like signing statements above, the same as previous administrations. Were you whining when Bush did this? How about Reagan?
his cozy relationship with MSM
Non sequitor. MSM is a nonsense name, a fake name if you will, made up by those trying to claim the high ground because they have nothing to offer. If you think Breitbart and the Fox tabloid are somehow better news sources than the New York Times, BBC or CNN, it's quite clear facts don't enter into your daily life.
his continuation of Bush policy
Isn't this a good thing? Everyone knows how great things were under Bush what with the financial markets collapsing, the worst recession in 80 years, 14 million people losing their jobs, millions losing their homes. This doesn't even take into account the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history which occurred on Bush's watch. Make up your mind. You criticize Obama for doing his own thing, and you criticize him for doing the exact same thing Bush did. You can't have it both ways.
his lackluster foreign policy
This is the only legitimate issue and is a continuation of your first comment. Obama was lackluster when it came
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
No, it was literally GWB's policies that helped to create ISIS. The invasion of Iraq set the stage for the rise of ISIS and the Bush policies on torture allowed their future leader to be imprisoned by American troops, tortured and then released. That experience pushed him towards a path to religious fanaticism and mass murder. So if you want to blame an American president for ISIS, the facts say Bush would get the blame.
Fanatically anti-fanatical