It was on the website because even I had read some of the e-mails at that point. It wasn't tweeted though until hours after it was published. There is a world outside of twitter.
The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) are here to discuss Amad saving our blushes in a win against Southampton as well as our now annual loss at home to Brighton. They discuss Amorim's post-match comments, revisit how mid-table we may or may not be, and discuss some transfer news.
- Status
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5c8u9l/we_are_the_wikileaks_staff_despite_our_editor/
Have a read of this. Shows some holes in their approach: namely holding back info for maximum impact, and not releasing info on Trump which wasn't deemed interesting enough. Even stuff like selling Bill Clinton "dicking bimbos" t-shirts on their website (
) and putting polls regarding Hilary's health on their Twitter, shows a fair bit of contempt for the DNC which just didn't exist for Trump. There's plenty of contradictions when you begin to dig through the thread, from what they say to what Assange has said.They did not release everything at one go.
I think it's an actual CIA opinion but not a consensus view and I think it's wrong.
EDIT: To clarify I don't think anyone in the CIA actually believes this but I think it was either leaked/presented to the press by someone in the CIA or higher up.
Last edited:
Have you ever worked in Intelligence ? That's exactly what intelligence assessments are - opinions that are created by analysts from a variety of intelligence sources that the general public never have access to. That's not to say they are always 100% correct, but they know infinitely more than your average random punter on the internet who feeds off crumbs left by journalists.
That's one of the three he wanted to eliminate in 2011.
I know that and every day there was a delay between publishing on website and announcing on twitter.
But the story in question was not about twitter.
I made a mistake and edited my post for clarification.
And that's based on nothing other than Assange suggesting it's untrue?
Why would the CIA not believe the work of its own intelligence professionals ? I don't disagree that it was leaked to someone at the Washington Post for political effect, but the leak itself isn't really at issue - its the substance of what was leaked and the implications it has on Trump's election.
Yes it was, they just could not grasp that it had been published despite not being tweeted.
Intelligence is one thing. Intelligence from the mouth of a politician is an entirely different thing.
As removal from a source grows (removed from its starting point as it is), motivations about what to publish and why to publish also multiply. It's a bureaucratic chain that gets lost with partisan spin.
So even in the most condemnatory opinion, there isn't a direct link. Within that opinion itself, there isn't a consensus. Even if the opinion is assumed to be fact, it doesn't hint at a direct link between the Putin regime and Wikileaks.
As removal from a source grows (removed from its starting point as it is), motivations about what to publish and why to publish also multiply. It's a bureaucratic chain that gets lost with partisan spin.
In the Post article, they state that the intelligence agencies have not reached a consensus, and that no one with a direct link to the Russian government was involved.
So even in the most condemnatory opinion, there isn't a direct link. Within that opinion itself, there isn't a consensus. Even if the opinion is assumed to be fact, it doesn't hint at a direct link between the Putin regime and Wikileaks.
It's from piecing things together from different sources outside the mainstream for a few years about the level of corruption in DC. The Clinton and Podesta e-mail leaks has made me more confident. I know it sounds ridiculous and you can laugh if I turn out to be wrong.
Exactly! So on top of the continuous lies, the sexist comments, the blatant racism and completely impossible promises, not releasing tax returns, conflicts of interest, feck me I give up I can't be arsed to list it all, there's pages and pages of shit the moron did and said and didn't do, we all know it. Anyway, on top of EVERYTHING ELSE! Now there is concrete proof of Russian meddling and extreme conflicts of interest in cabinet appointments and deals AND current embargos and sanctions against a foreign country! But despite all that, everything is kushty and all ok?
Can the Republicans on this forum please, just for one minute, stop and imagine this was all being done by a Democrat Candidate and the Democratic Party.
You're going to have a stroke, langster!
It's quite scary to know citizens receive a constant supply of altered and/or faked news and begin to believe it as truth. Imagine if links to a foreign country influencing an election were tied to this Hillary. The outrage from the public and political opposition would be deafening.
These altered and/or faked news were used to attack Hillary. Yet these people refuse to accept apparent intelligence that appears to put Donald in collusion with, or at minimum an acknowledgement of actions taken by, a foreign nation. Where is the outrage from the public?
I'm not sure what you mean. I don't think anyone in the CIA actually believe the Russians are behind the leak. But someone in the CIA or higher up gave permission to the media to say that the CIA believes it.
Most agencies don't have a fraction of the resources the CIA has, so its really their opinion that is the most credible since Russia is a part of the CIA portfolio, whereas the likes of the FBI deal with domestic issues. So the FBI for example may have circumstantial information related to people connected to Russia doing the hacking and the CIA could have actual human intelligence recorded of high level Russians openly plotting a pro-Trump campaign.
That's probably the least likely of scenarios as it would infer that everything has been conjured up for political effect with no intelligence data to back it up. But if you "think" that's what happened then feel free to "keep thinking" that.
They very likely have intelligence that the Russians hacked the e-mail server but not that they are behind the leak.
would this be the same people who said we had WMDs in Iraq?
How original.
And Obama. Remember that a sizeable percentage (varying polls) blame him from 911 to Katrina to Iraq to just about anything else.
And that would still be a damning act of aggression, making Trump's cosying up to them all the more suspicious.
Its not difficult to trace a connection between the GRU and Wikileaks, even if the former are using civilian Russian hackers (who are probably also GRU members masquerading as hipster hackers) as a front. Anything and everything Assange does is likely monitored around the clock, as are communications of the Russian military.
It was an unsecured e-mail server so I'd imagine a lot of countries hacked into it. As I said earlier, how did US intelligence not notice that Clinton was using an unsecured server for 4 years?
I have no doubt there's an element of truth to Russia wanting to influence the US election, in fact, it would be more unbelievable if they didn't. All countries do it, and the bigger countries do it on a vast scale. A quick look at Clinton's Gulf supporters for reference. Countries look after their own interests, and in today's world, that often seems to mean meddling in the interests of others.
I also wouldn't doubt that the Russians have been trying to hack the DNC and RNC for decades -- successfully, too, I'd guess. My problem here is that you have information which no one sees unless they're in a position to do so -- the nature of the game. Yet, despite this, a very intricate narrative is being spun about Russia directly getting Trump elected. That just isn't true. Even if Putin personally handed the emails to Assange himself, it still wouldn't be true.
As far as the emails go, in terms of their negative effect in the weeks leading up to the election, that's all on Comey. So if people want a scapegoat, he's the man to look at. That's if we can establish the emails as having swung the election in the first place.
So what is this story actually about? That the Russians may have compromised the election by hacking? First we have to assume that the hacks were the source of Wikileaks' info, which is always an assumption. Even with that, the notion of the Russians having decided the election in any meaningful way whatsoever just rings false to me, unless Comey is a Russian.
not necessary to be original. True though.
My point is we have no reason to accept what any agency says as being true.
Any findings need to be gone over by the proper oversight commitees.
The findings then announced.
I'm not defending any party here.
But history has shown us 'intelligence' can be manipulated.
The cheeto dust is strong in this one. So if the CIA is full of shit then the FBI is full of shit. This is so fecking obvious what is happening here and it is only low information people who trust dodgy news sources that deny Russia's meddling.
What's happening? Exactly, I mean. Because I've read all of the articles referenced here, and plenty others, and it appears a very complex issue to me.
If you don't have any trust in your own institutions and want to resort to one off Iraq war examples then that's your call. I have more trust in the intelligence community than all other government institutions combined.
look at what I said.
They are not independent. They are answerable to someone. How much oversight do these agencies have?
We have enough evidence from history that agencies go off and do things without proper oversight.
They have plenty of oversight. Its a pretty lame argument to cite the few one off examples you may have heard of over the years as some sort of normal occurance.
This is Our government. They are answerable to the American people.
We want our povernment to have full oversight about everything our tax money is used for.
Democracy.
You may feel comfortable everything is all right.
Many people are not.
We want our povernment to have full oversight about everything our tax money is used for.
Democracy.
You may feel comfortable everything is all right.
Many people are not.
Do you believe this oversight is recent or it has always been there?
The government generally has good oversight across the board.
You do know that Our Government is answerable to Our democratically representatives in Congress don't you.
and you do know our democratically elected representatives do sometimes what they are not supposed to do. right?
The American people would not have approved of us undermining properly elected governments abroad as we have done.
Regime change for example.
1958 Iran
1973 Chile
others we may or may not have heard of.
I had one in February. Well, a Subarachnoid Haemorrhage anyway, which is an aneurysm and rare form of stroke. You're not the first to suggest that either. I would like to point out though, that yeah, I agree my style of posting does seem a tad OTT and dramatic at times, but I can assure you it's not with rage. I get upset about stuff the same as everyone does, but I post more with passion and enthusiasm than with anger or rage. I have a pretty full on job and 3 kids, so ironically I find it a kind of release in a way and I find it very cathartic.Entertaining (and very long) thread
- Status