Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
FBI Agrees with CIA Assessment That Russia Wanted to Help Trump
Two U.S. intelligence officials have confirmed to NBC News that FBI Director James Comey and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper agree with a CIA assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election in part to help Donald Trump win the presidency.
Two U.S. intelligence officials have confirmed to NBC News that FBI Director James Comey and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper agree with a CIA assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election in part to help Donald Trump win the presidency.
The number of reversals in this saga are making my head spin! Can none of these agencies make up their minds what they believe? Good thing I have to go back to work tomorrow. Focus on something a little less mentally stressful, lol.
You are free to believe, or not believe anything you want.
And same for you. When you have two unnamed sources saying opposite things how can you believe one over the other when you have no idea who is actually saying them?? That makes no sense!
The person who received the leaks is saying himself that it was not the Russians. That holds more weight than any "unnamed sources", no matter what those "sources" are saying.
FBI is local the CIA is international -- thus different sources of information -- make sense? and sources are not disclosed on either agency or its employees
FBI is local the CIA is international -- thus different sources of information -- make sense? and sources are not disclosed on either agency or its employees
Thanks for the lesson. Good thing we have you smart people here to teach us a few things ** eye roll**.. anyway, my "unnamed sources" claim that most of the CIA and FBI do not believe it was Russia, just the director of the CIA does and he is an Obama crony. Just check my link. My "unnamed sources" are better than your "unnamed sources" HA HA...
The number of reversals in this saga are making my head spin! Can none of these agencies make up their minds what they believe? Good thing I have to go back to work tomorrow. Focus on something a little less mentally stressful, lol.
From that last link: "Intelligence officials had earlier briefed Congress on a CIA assessment that the Russian hacking was intended not just to undermine the election and harm Hillary Clinton, but ultimately to help Donald Trump win. The other 16 agencies and the FBI did not publicly endorse the CIA's assessment.
The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes (R- Calif.), said his committee was never briefed on the CIA's assessment of Russia's intent, suggesting that the CIA's analysis that Russia intended to help Trump emerged only recently."
From the beginning, starting with Hillary; she presented it as all of our 17 agencies agree - it is more than obvious that they do not. My feeling is that there is not strong enough evidence in the CIA for everyone to agree in that agency. If they did have strong evidence; the other agencies would also jump on the CIA's assessment. It is more like Obama told John Brennan: This is what I want to hear. Just like Weapons of mass destruction!
FBI is local the CIA is international -- thus different sources of information -- make sense? and sources are not disclosed on either agency or its employees
Holy Moly... you should just stop, that was one of the dumbest answers...
and an unnamed source tells us Trump wears a Toupee and Hillary prefers wine to vodka: unnamed source can say anything, anytime: it needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Has Russia stuck their heads in where they don't belong? Possibly, were they trying to help Trump win? Who the Hell knows, not to mention this has nothing to do with Hillary's lousy showing at the polls in states she thought she would run away with.
Present the evidence... if you said someone is involved, its no longer a secret so put your evidence up...
Right? The big problem, that I talked about way back, is that you can only go so far with the hard data. You can show that the hack looked similar to other hacks that have been blamed on Russia, but there's no way to tell from only the binary data. The two groups that are being blamed are "linked" to agencies in Russia. Also no way to prove with data that it was directed by anyone in the Russian government. The CIA needs to have some kind of physical evidence from the field (like an actual spy who obtained papers) in order to say, irrefutably, that it was Russia. (This assessment is coming from a cyber expert who discovered Stuxnet, not me.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
