Trump refutes CIA's claim that Russia helped him win the election

midian182

Posts: 6,560   +58
Staff member

Back in October, American security agencies formally blamed Russia for a series of high-profile cyber attacks on US government organizations. Now, the same officials say the country intervened in the recent election to help Trump win and to undermine the electoral process.

President Obama on Friday ordered an investigation into Russian cyber attacks and foreign influence during the 2016 US vote. The report is due before he leaves office on January 20, but The Washington Post and New York Times both claim that the CIA has already concluded with “high confidence” that Russia was promoting Trump and harming Hillary Clinton’s campaign during the late stages of the election.

The conclusion is based on the CIA’s findings that Russia hacked both the Republican National Committee and several Democratic organizations, but passed only the Democrats’ documents to WikiLeaks.

Republicans claim the reason behind this apparent favoritism is because their networks were never compromised – only the accounts of individual Republicans were attacked. Trump’s transition office has been equally critical of the findings.

"These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction," the transition team said in a statement. "The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It's now time to move on and 'Make America Great Again.’”

During a Fox News appearance on Sunday, Trump himself also refuted the claims.

I think it’s ridiculous. I just think it’s another excuse. I don’t believe it. I don’t know why…. Every week it’s another excuse. We had a massive landslide victory as you know in the electoral college. I guess the final numbers are now at 306 and she’s down to a very low number. No I don’t believe that at all. If you look at the story and you look at what they said, there’s great confusion. Nobody really knows. And hacking is very interesting. Once they hack, if you don’t catch them in the act, you’re not gonna catch them. They have no idea if it’s Russia or China or somebody. It could be somebody sitting in a bed someplace.

Back in November, American officials warned Russia that it would face a US attack on its key systems if it interfered directly with the vote itself. Agencies said they did expect some “cyber mischief” from agents acting on behalf of the Russian government.

Permalink to story.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bigtruckseries

Posts: 583   +320
If you repeat a LIE enough eventually you'll get weak minded people to believe it. There's no way to hack voting machines globally simply because they are "standalone units" without a central network.
Hackers would have to physically be at each machine ready to hack them simultaneously.
That is the reason why individual polling places have to report the numbers. There is no networking that allows them all to simply communicate with some central server.
This is just a failed attempt to cast more doubt on the system in order to attempt to undermine it.
Yet another failure in a string of failures.
Hillary's private (illegal) server got hacked. Had she NOT had the server, it would've been far more difficult to hack the Government servers. But she didn't want us hearing or seeing what she was doing- which in my mind: disqualified her from being POTUS. She committed a crime by destroying government property and obstruction of justice.
I'd love to have someone from The View, Bill Maher Real Time, CNN or MSNBC- on live television to explain exactly how the computer technology in the voting booth actually works.
I already know that they can't, but it would be fun just to watch them try.
Maybe the president should actually settle down on the excuse as to why he feels that Hillary lost (again) and stick to it.
So far I've heard:
A) unfair media attention
B) racist white voters
C) sexist male voters
D) The electoral college is unfair
And a whole list of other bullshit that I didn't believe either...
 

seefizzle

Posts: 422   +292
If you repeat a LIE enough eventually you'll get weak minded people to believe it. There's no way to hack voting machines globally simply because they are "standalone units" without a central network.
Hackers would have to physically be at each machine ready to hack them simultaneously.
That is the reason why individual polling places have to report the numbers. There is no networking that allows them all to simply communicate with some central server.
This is just a failed attempt to cast more doubt on the system in order to attempt to undermine it.
Yet another failure in a string of failures.
Hillary's private (illegal) server got hacked. Had she NOT had the server, it would've been far more difficult to hack the Government servers. But she didn't want us hearing or seeing what she was doing- which in my mind: disqualified her from being POTUS. She committed a crime by destroying government property and obstruction of justice.
I'd love to have someone from The View, Bill Maher Real Time, CNN or MSNBC- on live television to explain exactly how the computer technology in the voting booth actually works.
I already know that they can't, but it would be fun just to watch them try.
Maybe the president should actually settle down on the excuse as to why he feels that Hillary lost (again) and stick to it.
So far I've heard:
A) unfair media attention
B) racist white voters
C) sexist male voters
D) The electoral college is unfair
And a whole list of other bullshit that I didn't believe either...


I don't think anyone is claiming that Russia hacked all the voting machines so you can just stop with that nonsense.

Hillary's server did get hacked, (probably by the russians) but that's not even what anyone is talking about either.

The two biggest issues I've been hearing about are how the DNC's servers were hacked and the data subsequently releaesed, and how the Russians were planting fake news stories and had armies of trolls posting comments all over American websites. You have said nothing to address these issues. If you'd like here's a link that explains the fake news stories. https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...3903b6-8a40-4ca9-b712-716af66098fe_story.html

What you've done with your comment is to simply create a series of positions to defend against, none of which have much bearing on what's actually going on right now. It's easy to defend against someone else's position when you make up that position for them.

Currently, it is not in question whether or not the Russians interfered with this election, the only thing that's debatable is the degree to which they did. The fact that a foreign country is interfering in our elections should enrage every single American. Trump seems to ignore all of this, while chastising the intelligence community, all the while having deep business ties in Russia. There are a lot of facts that one would have to ignore to think that there is nothing wrong here.
 

Bigtruckseries

Posts: 583   +320
[/QUOTE] I don't think anyone is claiming that Russia hacked all the voting machines so you can just stop with that nonsense. [/QUOTE]

There are plenty of stupid people out there who have no idea what actually happened - but they did hear the word "hacked" - and they think to the movies.

They actually believe it's possible for a single hacker or group of hackers to "hack" the entire voter network and control the outcome of the elections.

In reality, it was angry, anti-Hillary voters who caused just enough electoral votes to go Trump's way that Hillary lost.

And now this basket of losers and pathetics wants to do what they can to cast enough doubt on the system to undermine it.

That's always been their goal from the beginning.

The war on police.

The redistributive ecnomic models (socialism)

These are anarchists who think they can make the system "fair" by pushing the "reset" button.

They must be stopped.

They WILL be stopped.
 
R

RustyTech

Read the title, a few lines in and knew exactly who posted this... Rob Thubron.

Can we please keep politics out of this tech site? Everyone has their opinion and ready to argue it. Why start a firestorm?

I agree with Bigtruckseries.
And seefizzle is talking out of both sides of his mouth; oh boy...and then he links to Washington Compost. I feel queasy.
 

Cycloid Torus

Posts: 4,713   +1,517
Darn, and I thought it was about the probability that Russian state actors engaged in 'dirty tricks'....stupid me.
 
D

davislane1

The Russians may finally unseat the KKK as America's greatest boogeyman. Careful folks, Putin may be hiding under your bed just waiting to slither out when you shut off the lights.
 

thelatestmodel

Posts: 193   +124
Hilarious how people here somehow think they know more about the situation than the CIA, and that the whole thing must be "sour grapes" from the Democrats. Where there's smoke, there's fire. We're living in dangerous times.
 
D

davislane1

If you repeat a LIE enough eventually you'll get weak minded people to believe it. There's no way to hack voting machines globally simply because they are "standalone units" without a central network.
Hackers would have to physically be at each machine ready to hack them simultaneously.
That is the reason why individual polling places have to report the numbers. There is no networking that allows them all to simply communicate with some central server.
This is just a failed attempt to cast more doubt on the system in order to attempt to undermine it.
Yet another failure in a string of failures.
Hillary's private (illegal) server got hacked. Had she NOT had the server, it would've been far more difficult to hack the Government servers. But she didn't want us hearing or seeing what she was doing- which in my mind: disqualified her from being POTUS. She committed a crime by destroying government property and obstruction of justice.
I'd love to have someone from The View, Bill Maher Real Time, CNN or MSNBC- on live television to explain exactly how the computer technology in the voting booth actually works.
I already know that they can't, but it would be fun just to watch them try.
Maybe the president should actually settle down on the excuse as to why he feels that Hillary lost (again) and stick to it.
So far I've heard:
A) unfair media attention
B) racist white voters
C) sexist male voters
D) The electoral college is unfair
And a whole list of other bullshit that I didn't believe either...


I don't think anyone is claiming that Russia hacked all the voting machines so you can just stop with that nonsense.

Hillary's server did get hacked, (probably by the russians) but that's not even what anyone is talking about either.

The two biggest issues I've been hearing about are how the DNC's servers were hacked and the data subsequently releaesed, and how the Russians were planting fake news stories and had armies of trolls posting comments all over American websites. You have said nothing to address these issues. If you'd like here's a link that explains the fake news stories. https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...3903b6-8a40-4ca9-b712-716af66098fe_story.html

What you've done with your comment is to simply create a series of positions to defend against, none of which have much bearing on what's actually going on right now. It's easy to defend against someone else's position when you make up that position for them.

Currently, it is not in question whether or not the Russians interfered with this election, the only thing that's debatable is the degree to which they did. The fact that a foreign country is interfering in our elections should enrage every single American. Trump seems to ignore all of this, while chastising the intelligence community, all the while having deep business ties in Russia. There are a lot of facts that one would have to ignore to think that there is nothing wrong here.

First you link to a fake news site, then you prattle on about things disproven months ago ("deep business ties to Russia" for example), and cite a mysterious Russian cyber army.

Let me tell you what people should be outraged about. This is a paragraph from the same fake news article you linked to:

There is no way to know whether the Russian campaign proved decisive in electing Trump, but researchers portray it as part of a broadly effective strategy of sowing distrust in U.S. democracy and its leaders. The tactics included penetrating the computers of election officials in several states and releasing troves of hacked emails that embarrassed Clinton in the final months of her campaign.

There has been a consistent theme ever since the DNC and Podesta emails were leaked: nobody has denied that any of the emails. Instead, they've repeatedly screamed and yelled that Russia, by allegedly releasing these emails, has interfered with American politics and we should be extra cautious to prevent it from happening again.

Stated in simple terms, if we take the fake news media's word for it, Russia exposed high-level corruption and collusion while the media tried to burry it and government officials tried to cover it up.

The fact that it takes an alleged Russian cyber army to expose the truth in America should get people hopping mad.

You'd do well to unplug from the Matrix.
 

p51d007

Posts: 2,668   +2,007
Now think about it...IF the Russians did anything, it would have been to keep a weak person
in the WH like Obama. Obama has let all of these thugs do ANYTHING they want the past
eight years. China, Russia, Iran...you think they want someone who might stand up to them
in the WH? Nope, they would want Hillary...who will bend to their will.
Anyone thinking Russia got Trump elected is simply ignorant.
 
D

davislane1

Now think about it...IF the Russians did anything, it would have been to keep a weak person
in the WH like Obama. Obama has let all of these thugs do ANYTHING they want the past
eight years. China, Russia, Iran...you think they want someone who might stand up to them
in the WH? Nope, they would want Hillary...who will bend to their will.
Anyone thinking Russia got Trump elected is simply ignorant.

There's no way Russia wanted HRC in office. Of the people trotted out in 2015 (both sides), she was the most likely to escalate operations in that region and provoke war with Russia. She even roped in all the Neo Cons with her DNC speakers. Trump is a plus for Russia because he's not inept like she is. Much lower risk. Trump is also less likely to play ball with the EU with respect to Russia.
 

Footlong

Posts: 153   +82
Now think about it...IF the Russians did anything, it would have been to keep a weak person
in the WH like Obama. Obama has let all of these thugs do ANYTHING they want the past
eight years. China, Russia, Iran...you think they want someone who might stand up to them
in the WH? Nope, they would want Hillary...who will bend to their will.
Anyone thinking Russia got Trump elected is simply ignorant.

I think you are misreading this. Trump wants to end the embargo on Russia, he called Putin a friend in multiple ocasions. Hillary would continue the embargo to strangle Russia's economy till the World Cup in 2018. All you have to do is google Russia's financing Trump's campaign. There are multiple stories and they ad up to the fact as Trump is removing the embargo.
China and Iran have nothing to do with the story so I'll ignore what you said.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 5,718   +3,926
Hilarious how people here somehow think they know more about the situation than the CIA, and that the whole thing must be "sour grapes" from the Democrats. Where there's smoke, there's fire. We're living in dangerous times.
Agreed! Personally, I see people who think it is demeaning to their favorite, but don't seem to care in the least that there may have been interference in our election process.

I don't care who got elected. If there WAS interference, every US Citizen deserves to know. An investigation should not be quashed just because it might reveal the results of such actions favored one candidate or another. The point is, IF there was interference, it IS dangerous to our democracy. And, in fact, an investigation now has bipartisan support - as it should, IMO.

Now think about it...IF the Russians did anything, it would have been to keep a weak person
in the WH like Obama. Obama has let all of these thugs do ANYTHING they want the past
eight years. China, Russia, Iran...you think they want someone who might stand up to them
in the WH? Nope, they would want Hillary...who will bend to their will.
Anyone thinking Russia got Trump elected is simply ignorant.

There's no way Russia wanted HRC in office. Of the people trotted out in 2015 (both sides), she was the most likely to escalate operations in that region and provoke war with Russia. She even roped in all the Neo Cons with her DNC speakers. Trump is a plus for Russia because he's not inept like she is. Much lower risk. Trump is also less likely to play ball with the EU with respect to Russia.
I agree with you that Russia would not have wanted HRC in office. Yet, there are also stories about Trump business ties to Russia, and Exxon certainly has ties there - so why would Trump be considering the CEO of Exxon for Secretary of State when there is so great a potential for conflict of interest?
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 5,718   +3,926
The fact that it takes an alleged Russian cyber army to expose the truth in America should get people hopping mad.
While in general I agree with what you said, I do not see any reason to believe that Russia would necessarily expose truth. I question Russian honesty from the get go as they may (or may not) have doctored things to discredit the side they wanted to lose. As I see it, Americans should be hopping mad IF there was ANY Russian influence at all whether that exposed actual truth, and Americans should be absolutely furious if Russians doctored things to favor one side over the other and then those same Americans fell for it.
 
D

davislane1

Agreed! Personally, I see people who think it is demeaning to their favorite, but don't seem to care in the least that there may have been interference in our election process.

I don't care who got elected. If there WAS interference, every US Citizen deserves to know. An investigation should not be quashed just because it might reveal the results of such actions favored one candidate or another. The point is, IF there was interference, it IS dangerous to our democracy. And, in fact, an investigation now has bipartisan support - as it should, IMO.


I agree with you that Russia would not have wanted HRC in office. Yet, there are also stories about Trump business ties to Russia, and Exxon certainly has ties there - so why would Trump be considering the CEO of Exxon for Secretary of State when there is so great a potential for conflict of interest?

He doesn't have business ties to Russia. He's done business with people from Russia. To say this amounts to having business ties to a foreign country is like saying anyone on this forum who has used an immigrant contractor for landscaping or duct cleaning has business ties to Mexico.

As for the Exxon CEO...I don't care about potential conflict of interest. There are more important things to be concerned with at the moment. I care about the ability of the SoS to engage in successful diplomacy and avoid calamities like ISIS et. al. In this respect, being Exxon CEO is a plus because he has experience negotiating with the applicable parties and working with the applicable governments and actually getting results.

While in general I agree with what you said, I do not see any reason to believe that Russia would necessarily expose truth. I question Russian honesty from the get go as they may (or may not) have doctored things to discredit the side they wanted to lose. As I see it, Americans should be hopping mad IF there was ANY Russian influence at all whether that exposed actual truth, and Americans should be absolutely furious if Russians doctored things to favor one side over the other and then those same Americans fell for it.

Democrats didn't deny the contents of any of the emails and people who were specifically named in them (Donna Brazile, for example) were fired once the emails were leaked. Russia isn't the enemy. The U.S. media, establishment politicians, and large parts of corporate America are.

Nobody needs to trust a single thing out of Russia when we get to see the narrative crafted before our very eyes.
 

mbrowne5061

Posts: 1,791   +1,030
I don't think anyone is claiming that Russia hacked all the voting machines so you can just stop with that nonsense.

There are plenty of stupid people out there who have no idea what actually happened - but they did hear the word "hacked" - and they think to the movies.

They actually believe it's possible for a single hacker or group of hackers to "hack" the entire voter network and control the outcome of the elections.

In reality, it was angry, anti-Hillary voters who caused just enough electoral votes to go Trump's way that Hillary lost.

And now this basket of losers and pathetics wants to do what they can to cast enough doubt on the system to undermine it.

That's always been their goal from the beginning.

The war on police.

The redistributive ecnomic models (socialism)

These are anarchists who think they can make the system "fair" by pushing the "reset" button.

They must be stopped.

They WILL be stopped.

If it was "just enough" in 'just the wrong places' voters who swung the election in Trump's favor, who is to say that it still wasn't Russian hacking - just not in the computerized sense?

The statistical anomalies between predicted results and actual results that Stein wanted to investigate with a recount have already demonstrated that it was a minority of districts polling against predicted outcomes was what swung the election. What caused this unexpected swing is still a matter of debate, and probably will be for decades, but we're faced with three equally unlikely possibilities:

First, all the pollsters got it wrong because their methods for gathering and analyzing data are wrong and they should have been calling Trump to win the day before the election. To support this, look at the Brexit, the first FARC peace deal, and now Italy. A lot of major political polls that a lot of major political polling organizations called wrong in 2016. But at the same time, they've been doing this accurately for decades - why is 2016 different? Or is the entire year just a statistical anomaly, in a more grand scale of decades?

Second, Russia pulled off the largest social engineering hack the world has ever seen. How they [hypothetically] did it could also be debated; from internet trolls on the right boards, to foreign agents in polling places over/under-reporting ballot counts. The former KGB and the present FSB are no strangers to large scale social manipulation. It was how the KGB maintained the Soviet Union for so long, despite economic, social, and political shortfalls. It is how the FSB has insulated their present government from much change, despite having a 'democratic' political process. It is also how they likely were manipulated the Ukraine government into closer ties with Russia over the EU before their civil war, and the FSB is likely behind Turkey now politically drifting towards Russia as well.

Third, some kind of large scale electronic cracking of voting machines - not necessarily by Russia. While probably the 'simplest' one to pull off from an individual machine standpoint (their security is almost non-existent), the shear number of machines they would have to get their hands on, WITHOUT anyone noticing before the election, makes this extremely unlikely and on the same scale as the first two options.

None of these are likely, but I can't think of a fourth possibility. But all of them are plausible when you consider that it was a minority of districts, polling above pre-election predications, in just three states that swung the election.



First you link to a fake news site...

Since when is the Washington Post a "fake news site"?
 
R

RustyTech

In speaking on American's ability to vote for themselves, I think Putin said something to the order of "What, is America now a banana republic? America is a great power."
 

OortCloud

Posts: 560   +416
I wish people would stop posting what he denies/accepts. He denies everything that is bad about him and agrees with everything that is good. He hasn't got an honest bone in his body. Standard issue for a politician these days.