Yeah it's from a GIA report - Gobshite Intelligence Agency
The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
- Status
Yeah it's from a GIA report - Gobshite Intelligence Agency
I hadn't heard the '17 agencies' claim until the 2nd or 3rd debate, when Hilldog kept repeating it. It got on my nerve at the time and still does. I mean, who matters besides CIA, NSA and FBI for this kind of thing? It was like she's parading the 17 around as if it makes it sound more convincing. You called up the NGA and NRO for this? They get satellite pics of the hacking? Coast Guard Intelligence made sure it wasn't a joint hacking/drug smuggling operation? ONI provided the readiness and position of Russian ships at the time of hacking?
Anyways, irrelevant but pet peeve when people seeking high office speak if not untruths about security matters, then at least nonsense. DNI made the statement, just say that.
I think they probably hacked into the e-mail server but there's been no evidence provided that they were the leak. The e-mails exposed widespread corruption which should be the real talking point. The Russians didn't "hack the election" even if they did leak it.
Why should we pick and choose the talking points? I would have thought both the leak AND the hack would be worth investigating...
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-propaganda-about-russian-propaganda
That's a good read about the tenuous links between actual Russian propaganda and reports of Russian propaganda in the Western media. Related to the media only, and not to the intelligence reports, obviously.
That's a good read about the tenuous links between actual Russian propaganda and reports of Russian propaganda in the Western media. Related to the media only, and not to the intelligence reports, obviously.
The hack would probably be innocuous without the leak. Its a new theory for me at least, that the Russians hacked, but so then did nothing but read the info, and someone else hacked and leaked?
That's not what we are discussing. The tactical hacking of various government agencies, political parties, and individuals (Podesta) for the strategic purpose of swaying the election towards Trump is more than enough to illustrate intent, even before you reach the proof within the intelligence.
I see the nutters are back out in force yet again. Still not answering anything though, just attacking the media and now the intelligence agencies too. I guess being enlightened in this day and age means being paranoid and deluded.
Rick Perry?? You cannot make this shit up.
You mean to tell me that US coast guard intelligence made an independent review as one of the intelligence agencies under the intelligence community umbrella?
I know you don't want to discuss the contents because it doesn't fit your agenda. It was an unsecured server so my guess is that a lot of countries hacked into it. So far there's been no evidence provided to show that they were behind the leak whereas credible people have come forward to say that they know the leak came from the DNC.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...lp-trump-win-election-report?CMP=share_btn_tw
Other countries wanting to influence the result of elections is normal. Obama tried to influence the Brexit referendum and Hillary was recorded lamenting the fact that they didn't rig the election in Palestine. Also, don't you find it suspicious that US Intelligence didn't notice Hillary was using an unsecured e-mail server for 4 years?
That'll be the same Assange who, through Wikileaks, has had his people admit on Reddit that they held back info on Trump and the Republicans because they 'didn't think it was interesting enough', and also admitted to making certain leaks at the most advantageous time so they'd get more traction - ie, help Trump. Assange lost any sort of impartiality a while ago and I'd doubt those who are referred to as close associates of him.
I don't think Assange is impartial but I also don't think he's lying. I'm not aware of any claim made by Wikileaks that turned out to be false.
Whatever about Assange, I've yet to see any direct evidence of the Russians providing Wikileaks with material. In fact, in one of those intelligence reports, they admit that none of the people they suspected as being Russian operatives with access to Wikileaks, had any direct link to the Russian government.
Still seems to suggest that the leak was indeed a leak.
The same Craig Murray who's made a career out of criticising the CIA?
No one's arguing what he's leaking is false, but what we are arguing is that when he shows deliberate preference to one side over the other he's more of a propaganda tool than trusted source. From what I see Assange hasn't released anything that debunks what the CIA are claiming. Murray calling it 'bullshit' doesn't hold any real weight without substance to back it up.
He's a fecking moron.
If this claim coming from the CIA that the Russians were behind the leak turns out to be false then it's not surprising that he would be critical of them. We don't know which side is correct yet.
its unbelievable tbh
But the problem is you're trying to use Murray, both an associate of someone who actively aided Trump and who is critical of the CIA, as an objective, or at least fairly objective source, when he's really, really not. It's difficult to imagine him coming out with anything other than that considering his loyalties.
the key point that is often ignored.
The CIA....
oh those loveable lads.....
They Always have the best interests of the nation at heart.
oh those loveable lads.....
They Always have the best interests of the nation at heart.
I know it's not an objective source but I am comfortable believing Assange and Murray ahead of this CIA claim made with no evidence.
On what basis?
Trump is going to 'Moyes' America.
"Give it Pencey til the end of the term"
Rick Perry for energy secretary anyone?
He will probabaly forget what he is head of.
I think Assange and Wikileaks is a credible source. They've never released false information or lied before. Murray corroborating is just further evidence.
The only thing that comes from CIA is trouble
But they have deliberately withheld information regarding Trump and his side: from what I see there Murray's words are more his opinion than an actual leak backed by evidence. The leaks themselves, yeah, I'm fine to believe, but Murray/Assange's 'opinion' on any given matter...which this absolutely is, should be taken with an entire bag of salt.
It wasn't just an opinion though, they've come out and categorically said that the leak came from inside the DNC. So if it's proven to be false then their reputation is completely ruined.
You could argue they've already partly abandoned their reputation to an extent in their complete abandonment of impartiality. I suspect the ongoing Russian affair extends beyond the DNC leaks alone, though: Trump's potential SoS pick may demonstrate direct collusion and if that comes out it'll be massive.
Facebook just suggested I should like Tomi Lahren. Actually, I do like her, but not in the way Facebook suggests.
Assange and other staff repeatedly said they can't publish docs they don't have. So who is this confirmed employee of wikileaks who said differently on reddit?
Creating a sense of tedium seems pretty insignificant when pitted against exposing significant levels of corruption on an international scale. Not everything is political posturing.
How about that time when RT (Russia Today) announced a WikiLeak before the actual leak appearing on the WL website? Right, credible.
I'm not sure that they've ever claimed to be impartial. I'm fairly certain that they wanted Trump to win the election but I don't think they would outright lie about the source of a leak.
Hang on, I thought the argument earlier was that this is an unreliable leak to the press and not an actual CIA opinion? Seems to have morphed into being that the CIA itself is wrong.
- Status