• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ex-British ambassador ... claims Russia did NOT provide Clinton emails

azgreg said:
I believe Charles Manson said he was innocent as well.
Click to expand...

We only have rhe word of Democrats that the res Ian's even hacked the emails
 
jonny5 said:
Nah, it was rhetorical. The CIA answers to the President and Congress (if they choose to enforce). Wikileaks doesnt answer to anyone.
Click to expand...

Lol. With a less than 10% approval rating I'm pretty sure that Congress answers to no-one.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Didn't the FBI also contradict the CIA's statement?
Click to expand...

Yes

And there is another report casting blame away from the Russians

See post #8 this thread

There is now an almost 100% certainly that john podesta is the unwilling source of the emails through a phishing attack that even a 12-year old kid could have done

Clinton aide made typo that led to John Podestas email hack - Business Insider

Clinton aide made typo that led to John Podesta?s email hack - Business Insider
 
azgreg said:
It's not just the emails though. The Brits are saying the Russians meddled in the Brexit referendum and the Germans are saying the same about their elections. I found this interesting.
https://cepa.ecms.pl/files/?id_plik=2773
Click to expand...

The report is 71 pages long

In a few words how are the Russians alleged to have thrown the election?
 
jonny5 said:
Looking like a he said-she said problem here. Who to beleive? CIA? Wikileaks?
Click to expand...

We don't know what the CIA really has to say - they're just being quoted by political partisans, and no official statement has been given from the agency themselves. We do know that the FBI does not feel there is evidence to show a Russian intent to support Trump.
 
sanman said:
We don't know what the CIA really has to say - they're just being quoted by political partisans, and no official statement has been given from the agency themselves. We do know that the FBI does not feel there is evidence to show a Russian intent to support Trump.
Click to expand...

Dems cannot even prove it was the Russians

It could have been a number or sources
 
It is funny how we are living in this bizarre world after this election. It wasn't long ago MSM saw Assange as a hero, and Obama was laughing at Mittens for saying Russia isn't our friend.

As far as I am concerned wikileaks is the closest thing we have to investigative journalism. I think both parties are a cancer to this country so as long they keep exposing corruption I'm good with it.
 
Mac77 said:
The report is 71 pages long

In a few words how are the Russians alleged to have thrown the election?
Click to expand...

Throwing elections isn't necessarily the goal. It's a case of warfare through disinformation.

Russia’s use of information as a weapon is not new, but the sophistication and intensity
are increasing. Belatedly, the West has begun to realize that disinformation poses
a serious threat to the United States and its European allies, primarily the “frontline
states”—Poland, the Baltic states, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Ukraine—but also
to Western Europe and North America. Across the Western world, the Kremlin promotes
conspiratorial discourse and uses disinformation to pollute the information space,
increase polarization and undermine democratic debate. Russia’s actions accelerate the
declining confidence in international alliances and organizations, public institutions and
mainstream media.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind this report concentrated on Europe, but did include findings concerning the US. I'm pretty sure all countries embark on similar programs, but the Russians appear to be ahead of the curve at the moment.
 
jonny5 said:
Nah, it was rhetorical. The CIA answers to the President and Congress (if they choose to enforce). Wikileaks doesnt answer to anyone.
Click to expand...

Still a good question as intentions are questionable and actual end results are definitely suspect. For example, the removal of Gaddafi definitely was not better for our nation.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Didn't the FBI also contradict the CIA's statement?
Click to expand...

Yes they did.
And we still have TV talking heads repeating that 17 intel agencies claim Russia hacked Hillary to help Trump.
So far the only thing that could conceivably be true is that maybe SOMEbody, so far only in the CIA, leaked SOMEthing like that to SOMEbody in the Media or in Congress.
 
Fishking said:
Still a good question as intentions are questionable and actual end results are definitely suspect. For example, the removal of Gaddafi definitely was not better for our nation.
Click to expand...

Certainly, but that was a full on military intervention.
 
Thoreau72 said:
This information is corroborated by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, VIPS. They have pointed out this was a leak, NOT a hack.
Click to expand...

Is this what you're saying ...

US Intel Vets Dispute Russia Hacking Claims | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community

It also might explain why a WIKI employee had to go to the USA to pick up Podesta's emails on, say for example, a thumb drive ... because they had been leaked and there was no sign of hacking.

This whole thing reeks of domestic political opportunism ... by elected, media, and intel personnel.
 
bubbabgone said:
Is this what you're saying ...

US Intel Vets Dispute Russia Hacking Claims | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community

It also might explain why a WIKI employee had to go to the USA to pick up Podesta's emails on, say for example, a thumb drive ... because they had been leaked and there was no sign of hacking.

This whole thing reeks of domestic political opportunism ... by elected, media, and intel personnel.
Click to expand...

Yes, thank you for the link.

I also wonder what role the young man who worked at DNC who was gunned down, shot from behind, on the streets of DC, a month or 2 before the election, had in this leak? Some at the time said he was the source for WikiLeaks. Seems plausible to me.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Yes, thank you for the link.

I also wonder what role the young man who worked at DNC who was gunned down, shot from behind, on the streets of DC, a month or 2 before the election, had in this leak? Some at the time said he was the source for WikiLeaks. Seems plausible to me.
Click to expand...

Assange ain't saying much except it wasn't the Russian Government.
However that could be deceptive and still be true since damn near everything in Russia is Government.
Nevertheless, it's pretty more persuasive that it was a leak given how I see things are playing out.
 
bubbabgone said:
EXCLUSIVE: Ex-British ambassador who is now a WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Clinton emails - they were handed over to him at a D.C. park by an intermediary for 'disgusted' Democratic whistleblowers.




WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Hillary Clinton emails | Daily Mail Online
Click to expand...

It never made sense that Russia hacked both the DNC and the RNC to influence the election. If they wanted to help get Trump elected then why did they even bother to hack the RNC at all?
 
bubbabgone said:
Assange ain't saying much except it wasn't the Russian Government.
However that could be deceptive and still be true since damn near everything in Russia is Government.
Nevertheless, it's pretty more persuasive that it was a leak given how I see things are playing out.
Click to expand...

I think Assange recently claimed that much of his material was provided by sources within the DNC and Clinton Campaigns. Whether pathways were provided, or actual material, will likely remain unclear.
 
jonny5 said:
Certainly, but that was a full on military intervention.
Click to expand...

Makes no difference whether it's military intervention or covert intervention if similar results occur.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom