CIA: Senate briefed in September on Russian efforts to deliver a Trump victory

[Eddie Teach]

The fact that Reid thinks Trump conspired with Russia is worthy whether he's wrong or not.

Why is it worthy if he's not wrong?

Because Trump conspiring with Russia is a bad thing.

[Jacob]

Hey Seedy - it's a long read of twitter posts, but you may enjoy this summary of the Russian play: https://twitter.com/ericgarland/status/808045818024497157

[Syt]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/11/donald-trump-cia-russia-election-ridiculous

Donald Trump says CIA charge Russia influenced election is 'ridiculous'

Donald Trump said on Sunday that a CIA conclusion that Russia interfered with the 2016 presidential election was "ridiculous", and that he did not believe that the Kremlin had tried to bolster his candidacy.

The president-elect said the CIA's assessment was "just another excuse" for his stunning defeat of Hillary Clinton last month.

"I don't believe it," Trump said in an interview with Fox News Sunday. "Every week it's another excuse."

Two days earlier, the Washington Post reported that in a secret assessment, the CIA had concluded the Russian government sought to influence the election by hacking into Democratic party emails.

During the campaign, the intelligence community accused Russia-backed actors of hacking emails from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta.

Thousands of the emails, which intelligence officials said were provided by individuals with ties to the Russian government, were published by WikiLeaks. At the time officials said Russia hoped to undermine confidence in the election, but did not explicitly say the Kremlin favored Trump, as the CIA later concluded.

This week, Barack Obama ordered what the White House called a "full review" of Russia's role in the hacks and cyberattacks by Chinese hackers in the 2008 and 2012 campaign cycles.

Trump refused to believe the CIA's findings, saying on Sunday: "Nobody really knows, and hacking is very interesting.

"Once they hack, if you don't catch them in the act you're not going to catch them. They have no idea if it's Russia or China or somebody. It could be somebody sitting in a bed some place."

On Sunday John Bolton, a former ambassador to the UN said any foreign government trying to influence an American election should face "very grave consequences" but questioned whether the hacking of DNC and the RNC computers was "a false flag operation".

Asked by Fox News's Eric Shawn whether he was accusing someone in the administration or intelligence community of trying to throw something, he replied: "We just don't know. But I believe that intelligence has been politicized in the Obama administration to a very significant degree."

On Saturday, Trump's transition team issued a statement that invoked the faulty intelligence used to justify the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.

"These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction," the statement read.

The split was reflective of a growing rift between the CIA and Trump, who has declined daily intelligence briefings. The president-elect, who receives intelligence briefings just once a week claimed on Sunday he could skip the briefings because: "I'm, like, a smart person."

"I don't have to be told the same thing in the same words every single day," he added.

Senior Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway said the CIA's findings about the election were "unfounded" and undercut the peaceful transition of power. In an appearance on CBS' Face the Nation, she said Democrats were refusing to accept responsibility for their loss.

"They did a recount," she said, alluding to a campaign funded by the Green Party. "They're vilifying [FBI director] Jim Comey. It's everybody's false but Hillary Clinton's."

But a bipartisan group of senators, including John McCain and Lindsey Graham, two of the most outspoken Republicans on foreign policy, echoed the concerns of the intelligence community.

"This cannot become a partisan issue," the senators said in a statement. "The stakes are too high for our country."

McCain later told CBS: "It's clear the Russians interfered. Whether they intended to interfere to the degree that they were trying to elect a certain candidate, I think that's a subject of investigation.

"But facts are stubborn things. They did hack into this campaign."

McCain said he hoped to create a select committee to investigate the interference. He also expressed doubts over Trump's reported decision to nominate Exxon Mobil's CEO, Rex Tillerson, as his secretary of state.

"It's a matter of concern to me that he has such a close personal relationship with Vladimir Putin. And obviously they've done enormous deals together," McCain said, referring to a 2011 deal to access Arctic oil, potentially worth $300bn.

"That ... would color his approach to Vladimir Putin and the Russian threat."

McCain nonetheless said Trump's appointees would be given a fair hearing in the Senate, where they must first clear relevant committees before receiving a vote in the broader chamber.

On Sunday, Trump said he had not made a final decision on Tillerson, tweeting: "Whether I choose him or not for 'State' – Rex Tillerson, the chairman & CEO of ExxonMobil, is a world class player and dealmaker. Stay tuned!"

Tillerson has engineered deals around the world and is close to Igor Sechin, the head of Russia's state-owned oil giant Rosneft. In 2013, Tillerson was given the Order of Friendship award. In 2014, he called for the US to lift economic sanctions on Russia and leaders such as Sechin.

Reports of the possible nomination of Tillerson stirred criticism even among some Republicans, including two members of the Senate foreign relations committee, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul.

"Being a 'friend of Vladimir' is not an attribute I am hoping for from a #SecretaryOfState," Rubio said on Twitter. Paul said he was concerned should reports be confirmed that Trump plans to nominate former UN ambassador John Bolton, a leading supporter of the Iraq invasion, as the undersecretary of state.

Reince Priebus, the incoming White House chief of staff, insisted that the decision was not yet final.

"It's amazing to me that immediately everyone's just jumping the shark on this ," he said on NBC's Meet the Press. "Poking this prematurely is something that just isn't ... helpful. But it's also not accurate.

"I mean this is a guy who has business relationships in every continent in the entire world."

Priebus also denied that Trump lacked confidence in US intelligence, saying the president-elect was rejecting unnamed sources in newspaper reports.

But Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said it was clear "what the Russians were after".

"Plainly they were after discord and in this they were spectacularly successful," Schiff said on NBC. "But it wasn't alone to try and sow discord.

"They had a candidate with pro-Putin, pro-Russian views who belittled Nato, who was willing to potentially remove sanctions on Russia and by contrast they had in Secretary Clinton a candidate very tough on Russia."

[Legbiter]

The Russia hack narrative conveniently gives all the moron pundits and fake experts a way out. "See, we were right ALL ALONG". It's already solidifying into the Democrat and media version of birtherism. 

At this point the most effective opposition to Trump will have to be other Republicans. That's already starting by the looks of it. Rand Paul is for instance saying he'll work on blocking John Bolton from getting nominated to anything.

[CountDeMoney]

Says the Icelander.  You people have sucked so much Russian cock in getting rescued from shitfucking your economy like a bad night in Vegas, the prison tattoos on your asses are in Cyrillic. 

[Valmy]

At this point the most effective opposition to Trump will have to be other Republicans. That's already starting by the looks of it. Rand Paul is for instance saying he'll work on blocking John Bolton from getting nominated to anything.

Well yeah. The Democrats need other Republicans to block him. Math and stuff.

Putin and Russia have been interfering with elections across the western world. Why do you consider it unlikely they did not do so here? I thought it was pretty obvious they were working to get Trump elected months ago. Now the extent Trump was working directly for/with them is something else. But maybe I am giving you too much credit for actually having a real thoughtful opinion here and not just being LOLZ trash.

[Legbiter]

Well because the only presidential candidate to have verified Third World-tier corruption ties to the Russian government was Best Waifu Hillary through the Clinton Foundation (but of course).

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One's chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0

But as a case of cognitive dissonance and psychological projection it's fascinating to observe.

Also watching American liberals uncritically believe rumors sourced to the wretched CIA is more surprising to me than anything else so far about this election.

[Valmy]

I don't understand. If you had all this important information that needed to come to our attention why did not you not bring up serious matters in the campaign and instead acted like a jackass? If you keep all your information a secret we cannot discuss it and therefore there can be no cognitive dissonance, so why would that be fascinating?

Also watching American liberals uncritically believe rumors sourced to the wretched CIA is more surprising to me than anything else so far about this election.

Seriously? Did you have this immense and profound respect for American leftists prior to this election? Bullshit. Don't feed me garbage like this. This kind of dishonest shit pisses me off so much.

[garbon]

I don't understand. If you had all this important information that needed to come to our attention why did not you not bring up serious matters in the campaign and instead acted like a jackass? If you keep all your information a secret we cannot discuss it and therefore there can be no cognitive dissonance, so why would that be fascinating?

Also watching American liberals uncritically believe rumors sourced to the wretched CIA is more surprising to me than anything else so far about this election.

Seriously? Did you have this immense and profound respect for American leftists prior to this election? Bullshit. Don't feed me garbage like this. This kind of dishonest shit pisses me off so much.

Just don't read his posts? You know they'll be garbage.

[Valmy]

Just don't read his posts? You know they'll be garbage.

I try. I really do try to give people the benefit of the doubt that they have actual thoughts and desire earnest discussion.

[LaCroix]

regardless of how one feels about legbiter's point, a large portion of america largely agrees with him

[Valmy]

regardless of how one feels about legbiter's point, a large portion of america largely agrees with him

A large portion of America agrees with anything partisan. In any case I was addressing his dishonest troll garbage. I found his link interesting.

So, you know, read my posts before commenting on them please.

[Razgovory]

regardless of how one feels about legbiter's point, a large portion of america largely agrees with him

Fewer than those that do not.

[LaCroix]

regardless of how one feels about legbiter's point, a large portion of america largely agrees with him

A large portion of America agrees with anything partisan. In any case I was addressing his dishonest troll garbage. I found his link interesting.

So, you know, read my posts before commenting on them please.

I was more referring to the strategy of ignoring what a large portion of america believes. I didn't have anything in particular against what you and garbo said, except for the idea of ignoring it--I think that's kinda ostrich in sand.

[Razgovory]

And what do you propose we do about it?