Why didn't 17 US intelligence agencies end Russian meddling?

[Elvis]

Elvis, will you acknowledge that the alleged Russian meddling was detected and commented upon before the election? I don't know if you're deliberately avoiding replies to my posts, but it feels that way at the moment. I can go find more articles that show US Intelligence agencies were making these statements prior to November 2016 if I must. This was not something that appeared only after Trump's election.

Sorry, mgf, I didn't see your posts until now. I did acknowledge it, and I agree "detect" is not strong enough; I mean discover, "blow wide open" and counter it. I amended the thread title accordingly.

(More later, I have a guest, must sign off for awhile.)

[0_0]

Quite frankly, was the known Russian hacking, their human and bot generation and promotion of emotionally influential fake news postings to targeted social media users, retaliatory? Or just tit for tat everyday business? Does it matter?

What did russians hack exactly? The voting machines? The exit polls? The dnc server? If the latter why didn't the democrats allow it to be examined?

As far as using fake news to influence the election, even if you think 13 facebook trolls could have been more than a drop in the ocean influencewise, a report has just come out that they for the most part used stories from american major media newssources that were generally factually accurate. So the term "fake news" is a bit of a misnomer.

But keep throwing shit at the wall and see what sticks, that's how propaganda works. "Hacking" and "fake news" are two vague enough buzzwords that repeating them enough times, enough people will associate them as something def being up with "russians" even tho they'd be hard pressed to explain exactly what. Meanwhile real proven facts like the democrats totally rigging the primary get almost no attention at all.

Slightly offtopic again, for which my sincere apologies!

[0_0]

BTW about stuff sticking: i keep reading 17 intelligence agencies, but they had to retract that didn't they?

A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump’s deflections and denials about Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia orchestrated hacking attacks during last year’s presidential election. The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/page ... -2017.html

you could say 17, 4 meh what's the difference and someone probably will

[mentalgongfu2]

Quite frankly, was the known Russian hacking, their human and bot generation and promotion of emotionally influential fake news postings to targeted social media users, retaliatory? Or just tit for tat everyday business? Does it matter?

What did russians hack exactly? The voting machines? The exit polls? The dnc server? If the latter why didn't the democrats allow it to be examined?

As far as using fake news to influence the election, even if you think 13 facebook trolls could have been more than a drop in the ocean influencewise, a report has just come out that they for the most part used stories from american major media newssources that were generally factually accurate. So the term "fake news" is a bit of a misnomer.

But keep throwing shit at the wall and see what sticks, that's how propaganda works. "Hacking" and "fake news" are two vague enough buzzwords that repeating them enough times, enough people will associate them as something def being up with "russians" even tho they'd be hard pressed to explain exactly what. Meanwhile real proven facts like the democrats totally rigging the primary get almost no attention at all.

Slightly offtopic again, for which my sincere apologies!

Russians allegedly hacked the DNC server. The vague phrase "hacked the election" has been used for political benefit, but I don't think the actual allegation is in question from anyone who has paid attention. Why didn't the DNC allow it to be examined? Fuck if I know. I can speculate, but it's nothing more than that.

I don't know where you get this line about "13 facebook trolls," but I can testify that malleable people in my social circles were re-posting stories about things like the Pope endorsing Donald Trump, none of which has anything to do with any story from factually accurate American news sources. If that doesn't qualify as "fake news," nothing does. Yes, the term is being abused (mostly by the RNC, as I can tell), but when something is completely fake and made-up and has no basis in reality, yet is presented as news, I think the term fits pretty fairly.

There's no doubt that these buzzwords are being used across the spectrum to manipulate people. But I don't get why some people can't acknowledge the idea that there was a concerted effort to spread fake, made-up stories as real, confirmed news, whether or not Russians or some other bogeyman was behind it. And half the people who do acknowledge it just immediately go to whataboutism regarding the lies, or "fake news" propagated by the CIA and its bedfellows.

There's more than enough evidence the Dem primary was a fixed game as far as I'm concerned, but I'm not sure if it has been "proven" in the generally accepted sense of the word. In any case, the truth of that manipulation doesn't negate any manipulation that may have occurred in the general election.

Can we have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that bullshit "fake news" actually existed and was all over the place on social media, while also seeing how the term is now being used to frame all ideological opponents as liars regardless of merit? The two are not mutually exclusive. And pretending they are is just stupid.

[Elvis]

The point is, again: $50,000,000,000 every year. Fifty billion dollars. That's just for intelligence. We know some extent of their capabilities. They had "detected evidence" and "the evidence piled up during the spring and summer of 2016." Some people connected to the operation were already targets of surveillance.

So why didn't they have this operation covered from the beginning? Did someone on "our side" let this happen?

[Elvis]

United States Cyber Command
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM) is a Subordinate Unified Combatant Command of U.S. Strategic Command. The Command unifies the direction of cyberspace operations, strengthens DoD cyberspace capabilities, and integrates and bolsters DoD's cyber expertise.

USCYBERCOM was created in 2009 at the National Security Agency (NSA) headquarters in Fort George G. Meade, Maryland. It uses NSA networks and has been headed by the Director of the National Security Agency since its inception.[1] While originally created with a defensive mission in mind, it has increasingly been viewed as an offensive force.[1] On 18 August 2017, it was announced that USCYBERCOM is to be elevated to the status of a full and independent Unified Combatant Command.[2]


Mission statement

According to the US Department of Defense (DoD), USCYBERCOM "plans, coordinates, integrates, synchronizes and conducts activities to: direct the operations and defense of specified Department of Defense information networks and; prepare to, and when directed, conduct full spectrum military cyberspace operations in order to enable actions in all domains, ensure US/Allied freedom of action in cyberspace and deny the same to our adversaries."[3]

The text "9ec4c12949a4f31474f299058ce2b22a", located in the command's emblem, is the MD5 hash of their mission statement.[4]

The command is charged with pulling together existing cyberspace resources, creating synergies and synchronizing war-fighting effects to defend the information security environment. USCYBERCOM is tasked with centralizing command of cyberspace operations, strengthening DoD cyberspace capabilities, and integrating and bolstering DoD's cyber expertise.[5][6]


Organization

USCYBERCOM is an armed forces unified command under Department of Defense (DoD).


Service components

U.S. Cyber Command is composed of several service components, units from military services who will provide Joint services to Cyber Command.

Army Cyber Command (Army)
Army Network Enterprise Technology Command / 9th Army Signal Command (NETCOM/9thSC(A))
Cyber Protection Brigade
United States Army Intelligence and Security Command will be under the operational control of ARCYBER for cyber-related actions.[7][8][9]
1st Information Operations Command (Land)
780th Military Intelligence Brigade (Cyber)
Fleet Cyber Command/Tenth Fleet (Navy)[10][11]
Naval Network Warfare Command
Navy Cyber Defense Operations Command
Naval Information Operation Commands
Combined Task Forces
Air Forces Cyber/Twenty-Fourth Air Force (Air Force)[12][13]
67th Cyberspace Wing
688th Cyberspace Wing
624th Operations Center
5th Combat Communications Group
Marine Corps Cyberspace Command (Marine Corps)[14]


Military specialties

These are the known military specialties directly involved with cyber. Service members enlisted under these specialties may be assigned to their respective Cybercommand Service Component Command.

US Army - 17A Cyber Warfare Officer,[15] 170A Cyber Operations Technician,[16] 17C enlisted Cyber Warfare Specialists (up-coming),[15]
US Navy - CTN Cryptologic Technician Networks [17]
US Air Force - 1B4X1 (Enlisted) - Cyberspace Warfare Operations - (Not open to first term airmen) & 17S (Officer)[18]
US Marine Corps - 0651 Marine Cyber Network Operator and 2611 Cryptologic Digital Network Operator/Analyst[19]


Cyber teams

In 2015 the U.S. Cyber Command added 133 new cyber teams.[20] The breakdown was:

thirteen National Mission Teams to defend against broad cyberattacks;
sixty-eight Cyber Protection Teams to defend priority DoD networks and systems against priority threats;
twenty-seven Combat Mission Teams to provide integrated cyberspace attacks in support of operational plans and contingency operations; and
twenty-five Support Teams to provide analytic and planning support.


Background

An intention by the U.S. Air Force to create a 'cyber command' was announced in October 2006.[21] An Air Force Cyber Command was created in a provisional status in November 2006. However, in October 2008, it was announced the command would not be brought into permanent activation.

On 23 June 2009, the Secretary of Defense directed the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) to establish USCYBERCOM. In May 2010, General Keith Alexander outlined his views in a report for the United States House Committee on Armed Services subcommittee:[22][23][24][25][26]

["]My own view is that the only way to counteract both criminal and espionage activity online is to be proactive. If the U.S. is taking a formal approach to this, then that has to be a good thing. The Chinese are viewed as the source of a great many attacks on western infrastructure and just recently, the U.S. electrical grid. If that is determined to be an organized attack, I would want to go and take down the source of those attacks. The only problem is that the Internet, by its very nature, has no borders and if the U.S. takes on the mantle of the world's police; that might not go down so well.["]

Initial operational capability was attained on 21 May 2010. General Alexander was promoted to four-star rank, becoming one of 38 US Generals, and took charge of U.S. Cyber Command in a ceremony at Fort Meade that was attended by Commander of U.S. Central Command GEN David Petraeus, and Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates.[27][28][29][30] USCYBERCOM reached full operational capability on 31 October 2010.[31]

The command assumed responsibility for several existing organizations. The Joint Task Force for Global Network Operations (JTF-GNO) and the Joint Functional Component Command for Network Warfare (JFCC-NW) were absorbed by the command. The Defense Information Systems Agency, where JTF-GNO operated, provides technical assistance for network and information assurance to USCYBERCOM, and is moving its headquarters to Ft. Meade.[32]

President Obama signed into law, on 23 December 2016, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year (FY) 2017, which elevated USCYBERCOM to a unified combatant command. The FY 2017 NDAA also specified that the dual-hatted arrangement of the commander of USCYBERCOM will not be terminated until the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff jointly certify that ending this arrangement will not pose risks to the military effectiveness of CYBERCOM that are unacceptable to the national security interests of the United States.[33]


Concerns

There are concerns that the Pentagon and NSA will overshadow any civilian cyber defense efforts.[34] There are also concerns on whether the command will assist in civilian cyber defense efforts.[35] According to Deputy Secretary of Defense William J. Lynn, the command "will lead day-to-day defense and protection of all DoD networks. It will be responsible for DoD's networks – the dot-mil world. Responsibility for federal civilian networks – dot-gov – stays with the Department of Homeland Security, and that's exactly how it should be."[36] Alexander notes, however, that if faced with cyber hostilities an executive order could expand Cyber Command's spectrum of operations to include, for instance, assisting the Department of Homeland Security in defense of their networks.[37]

Some military leaders claim that the existing cultures of the Army, Navy, and Air Force are fundamentally incompatible with that of cyber warfare.[38] Major Robert Costa (USAF) even suggested a sixth branch of the military, an Information (Cyber) Service with Title 10 responsibilities analogous to its sister services in 2002 noting,

While no one [Instrument of National Power] operates in a vacuum..., Information increasingly underpins the other three [Diplomatic, Economic and Military], yet has proven to be the most vulnerable, even as US society becomes more dependent on it in peace, conflict, and war. To attack these centers of gravity, an adversary will use the weakest decisive point, ...the Information IOP. In addition, the other IOPs benefit from Unity of Effort--Constitutional balances of power ensure the Diplomatic and Military IOPs exercised by the President in concert with Congress are focused, while the Economic IOP achieves Unity of Action through international market controls and an international body of law. [In 2002], [t]he Information IOP however, [was] rudderless, lacking both Unity of Action and Unity of Command.[39]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... er_Command

[mentalgongfu2]

Why didn't that amount of money, or a relative equivalent, stop 9-11-01?

Why didn't it stop 7-7-05 in London?

Why didn't it stop the 11-13-15 bombings in Paris?

(sorry non-American readers, I am using the American date format for my own convenience)

One possible answer - because money isn't always enough. Especially without a closer look at what that money is actually funding, compared to what you might think it should be funding.

At least with September 11 and July 7, there are indications on the record that there may have actually been inside influence. I'm not aware of such evidence in this case, though I remain open to it.

If the point of this thread is to question whether some agency or agencies allowed Russia to influence Trump's election, that's fair, but you're couching it in a very strange way, to only now be throwing that idea out in plain language. It also requires admitting there was an effort to influence, which you have so far not done.

I respect you, Elvis. We've had worthwhile discussions on other threads. But it really seems like you're moving goalposts in this thread constantly, and the thread is still young.

First it was claiming the alleged Russian influence wasn't detected or reported. That is clearly not true, and when pointed out, it became that the influence wasn't stopped. Now there's an insinuation that there were some inside players allowing Russian influence on the election, while you still seem to question that there was indeed such a thing as Russian influence.

None of these ideas are out of bounds, but your method of bringing about the topic seems less than forthright.

Please don't respond with the tired line of "I'm just asking questions." The questions you're asking are leading.

There are actual ways to just ask questions without leading to an unproven conclusion, and you are smart enough to do know that. If the real question is whether US intelligence allowed Russians to stage a media-based coup to elect Trump, then ask it outright, and point to evidence that 1) that's what happened and 2) how or why it may have happened.

Or if it's the same idea but less extreme, like why didn't US intelligence stop Russian influence in light of their budget, 1) acknowledge the attempted influence and 2) examine reasons it may not have been stopped.

Or, if the whole point is to say that there simply was no Russian influence because the giant budget of US Intelligence would have allowed them to stop it, then 1) just say so and 2) quit playing rhetorical games.

This whole 'open question' thing is sophistry. I realize it is more and more common among those who fashion themselves intellectuals, but it doesn't take much reading of communication theory to recognize it for what it is. Any one of us can ask a dozen unanswered questions that imply the answer we desire, without ever making any effort to actually answer the questions, and then just add more questions if any of those are answered. You have to know it's sophistry, and I think you're better than that.

If your goal is consideration and discussion of ideas, and not just ideological mythology, please alter your approach, or at least explain it. I can't speak for others, but I'm certainly willing to engage honestly in considering thoughts that are not my reflexive response. However, I do require they meet a standard above the baseline level of bullshit we already get from mainstream media sources and propagandists who present themselves as mere question-askers.

[mentalgongfu2]

BTW about stuff sticking: i keep reading 17 intelligence agencies, but they had to retract that didn't they?

A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump’s deflections and denials about Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia orchestrated hacking attacks during last year’s presidential election. The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/page ... -2017.html

you could say 17, 4 meh what's the difference and someone probably will

And the NYT made a correction in this case. Unlike, say, dozens of other organizations that refuse to correct their lies.

Sure, 17 and 4 is a difference.

So, on the one hand you have a news organization correcting the record when called to do so. And on the other hand... well, we need not get into that. Suffice it to say, I find official, on the record corrections by the major American newspaper of record within the same week the story was published to be the exact opposite of a sign of conspiracy and manipulation. It doesn't become dodgy until the timeframe between original reporting and correction becomes long enough to be consequential.

NYT isn't exactly clean. We can't forget Judith Miller, but the 'corrections' on her pro-admin Iraq invasion bullshit came years after her lies.
There's a window for mistakes to be fixed, allowing for the idea that people make mistakes and info is sometimes wrong.

In the same way that some people take the re-assignment of FBI agents with a clear political bias against the president as proof the fix was in, I am more inclined to take the re-assignment as proof someone in the Bureau was actually exercising ethical judgment. If the fix was really in, no one would have been re-assigned until the story broke. In that particular case, the internal action took place well before the story became public.

Returning to the subject at hand -

Even the USA today story noted earlier in this thread stated: "While the agencies all issued the statement together, Trump spokesman Steven Cheung told Politifact he took Clinton to be implying each agency came to the conclusion independently, a situation Cheung finds 'unlikely.' "

That story claiming 17 intelligence agencies (at least the one in USA Today) specifically pointed out that one organization, DHS, was making the statement on behalf of all the agencies. The story, and the official statement on which it was based https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national, was careful not to specifically name individual agencies. Presumably, because they could not confirm at the time which agencies agreed, disagreed or were not involved, but reporters clearly couldn't avoid reporting on such a statement by DHS.

That story came in October 2016 and was careful to not overstate its case. It merely reported an official DHS statement released that day.

While the correction you cite was in June 2017, regarding a story from the same week, long after the election and corrected within days. I find it hard to consider either a good example of any concerted effort to manipulate the populace.

[Elvis]

If the point of this thread is to question whether some agency or agencies allowed Russia to influence Trump's election, that's fair, but you're couching it in a very strange way

The point of this thread is to seek answers to the questions it poses. That I am "asking questions" is self-evident. I hoped I was expressing myself in plain language, and sorry again about using the word "detect" and I've addressed that.

However I wouldn't completely dismiss the question of detection, because apparently they should have detected much more about what we now know did in fact occur.

I'll add here that I still think, based on what is known, that it's unlikely that Russians stole the DNC emails, or gave them to Wikileaks. Manipulation of social media (not to mention all the Cambridge Analytic activity et al.) did occur, that's established.

It also requires admitting there was an effort to influence, which you have so far not done.

I've never denied there was influence, and in this thread I've stated unequivocally that there was influence. I have been doubtful that any Russian activity actually threw the election to Trump, but I can't know that without more information. And that's mostly irrelevant to the thread (though if it is true, the OP questions become all the more urgent).

Now there's an insinuation that there were some inside players allowing Russian influence on the election,

With all respect, I did not insinuate anything (you're drawing inferences), I speculated on the OP questions. At this point I can only speculate. Instead of actually searching and reading more about it, I'm here addressing all your worries about whether my questions are sincere.

while you still seem to question that there was indeed such a thing as Russian influence.

I honestly don't know why you would think or say that, and please stop.

your method of bringing about the topic seems less than forthright.

The questions you're asking are leading.

They might seem leading if you have some preconceived notions about it, or if you just assume that I do. I'm not here to confirm my beliefs about Russian interference, because I don't have any firm beliefs about it or anyone's role in it.

There are actual ways to just ask questions without leading to an unproven conclusion, and you are smart enough to do know that. If the real question is whether US intelligence allowed Russians to stage a media-based coup to elect Trump, then ask it outright, and point to evidence that 1) that's what happened and 2) how or why it may have happened.

You've just confused questions with conclusions, implying that I'd already reached a conclusion. But I've neither reached nor stated any conclusions. And no, the "real question" is the one I asked outright.

Or if it's the same idea but less extreme, like why didn't US intelligence stop Russian influence in light of their budget, 1) acknowledge the attempted influence and 2) examine reasons it may not have been stopped.

Yes, you got it—the bolded part is the question. It really is that simple. 1) is moot, a dead straw horse, and 2) is exactly what I proposed, and the subject of the thread—except that it's not a matter of whether they "may not have" stopped it; they didn't stop it.

Or, if the whole point is to say that there simply was no Russian influence because the giant budget of US Intelligence would have allowed them to stop it, then 1) just say so and 2) quit playing rhetorical games.

You're just assuming I have a point to make: I don't.

This whole 'open question' thing is sophistry.

I didn't ask for sophistry (I'm getting a ton of it, though)—I asked for information. Information.
The thread is an inquiry. Questions are inevitable. I'm afraid that's just the nature of an inquiry.

If your goal is consideration and discussion of ideas, and not just ideological mythology, please alter your approach, or at least explain it.

The subject of this thread is not ideas, yours or mine. It's a call for information.

I'm interested in things like: who was on duty, and whether or not they did their job.

Do you have a contribution? a link? some reporting we haven't seen? anything?

Also feel free to make intelligent speculation based on what we know—on the OP questions, that is—not my motives (which I hope are now clear).

[mentalgongfu2]

As a short reply, I'll offer an apology if I read too much into things or assumed too much about motivations.

My patience is not always as great as I would like, and I, too, have other things drawing my attention at these late (or early) hours.

I've made a few contributions in terms of links and reporting, but I will endeavor to make more if time and resources allow. I think I've made some fair, but limited speculation as well, though it may have been lost within the more critical components of my commentary.

Forgive me if I have assumed your intentions are other than just "I want information. Information." I am jaded from exposing myself to a mix of zerohedge and rawstory that will spin the head of any reader attempting to maintain an unbiased position.

Intended or not, the information reference relates to my current avatar. And as is clear from the show, No. 2 always wants more than just information. He/she wants control.

There are possibilities such as 1) the enemy could not be stopped, due to operational failures. 2) The enemy could not be stopped, due to the tit-for-tat that would result with American intelligence operations. 3) the enemy could not be stopped, due to a desire to avoid a hot war and maintain a cold one {relates to number 2} 4) the desire to stop it was lacking, due to any number of reasons 5) the enemy was stopped incrementally, while still turning it into a useful domestic issue. That's just off the top of my head.

I will see if I can re-visit the thread at another time in a more productive manner. But I suspect the big question you ask cannot be accurately answered by outside spectators such as ourselves, as we simply lack the information, information, to do so. Anyone who does have that information is likely sworn to secrecy, and even if willing to violate that secrecy, would probably couch the truth among one thousand lies for the sake of their own skin, if they dared to speak at all.

But I'll take a look later, though I doubt my google-fu is any better than yours on the subject. A lot of it comes down these days to who you believe. I don't like to take anyone at face-value, but despite our constant inundation of propaganda, I still think certain actors are trying much harder to present honest info than others. Not that they can't be fooled. That makes me inclined to accept well-sourced WaPo stories with bylines much more than the Tyler Durdens of the world. Each has their known biases, but at least when WaPo burns me, there's a real name attached, and usually a source or two cited. Tyler has burned me many times, but there's no way to ever pin down who it was that claimed, for example, a random picture of a bus was proof that Soros bussed in voters to some inner city precinct.

(I'm not trying to say your motives go toward promoting one or the other of these examples of sources, but the 'just questioning' line has been largely taken over by the Tyler Durdens of the world, who do have clear agendas, which is part of what makes me wary. Enough that there's even a South Park episode about it (Dances With Smurfs) Those who have read the Fight Club book, however, and not just seen the movie, know that Tyler is not a hero, but merely a wildly successful madman).

[liminalOyster]

In the interest of truth, I see no alternative but to question everything served up by the MSM (and/or any outlet really) and reconstruct it proposition by proposition as neutrally as possible. I don't follow the big story closely enough to offer up anything substantive yet. But the deliberate conflations mentioned above seem to remain, for most Americans, the story here which comes close to saying: there is reliable evidence that Putin is allied with Trump, an enemy of the dems, and threw the election to Trump by "hacking" (which I imagine looks roughly like the film War Games in alot of USA imaginations). I imagine many adherents of said theory know not a lick about CIA/media collusion or US manipulations in the former USSR, and believe something really exceptional has happened here, which, IMHO, it probably has not.

[0_0]

Russians allegedly hacked the DNC server. The vague phrase "hacked the election" has been used for political benefit, but I don't think the actual allegation is in question from anyone who has paid attention. Why didn't the DNC allow it to be examined? Fuck if I know. I can speculate, but it's nothing more than that.

So the only hacking in question is that of the DNC server, and yet the democrats didn't give the FBI access to it and apparently the FBI were fine with that. Seems like a very lukewarm start to such an important investigation, doesn't it? I can speculate as well as to their reasons, yet i really don't have to because former NSA experts say that it wasn't a hack at all but an internal leak, and they base that on transfer rates.

I don't know where you get this line about "13 facebook trolls," but I can testify that malleable people in my social circles were re-posting stories about things like the Pope endorsing Donald Trump, none of which has anything to do with any story from factually accurate American news sources. If that doesn't qualify as "fake news," nothing does. Yes, the term is being abused (mostly by the RNC, as I can tell), but when something is completely fake and made-up and has no basis in reality, yet is presented as news, I think the term fits pretty fairly. There's no doubt that these buzzwords are being used across the spectrum to manipulate people. But I don't get why some people can't acknowledge the idea that there was a concerted effort to spread fake, made-up stories as real, confirmed news, whether or not Russians or some other bogeyman was behind it. And half the people who do acknowledge it just immediately go to whataboutism regarding the lies, or "fake news" propagated by the CIA and its bedfellows.

I will acknowledge that fake news is a thing and it has a long history. But with regard to the topic at hand (russian meddling) i would say "wether or not Russians or some other bogeyman" was behind it is a rather crucial point. Your anecdote about the pope is amusing and i thank you for sharing it, but intellectual honesty compels me to contrast it against a recent analysis by Columbia University that showed that "Russia’s disinformation campaign" during the 2016 presidential election relied heavily on stories produced by major American news sources that were generally factually accurate. Accurate american news stories, a truly dangerous weapon indeed, it seems.

There's more than enough evidence the Dem primary was a fixed game as far as I'm concerned, but I'm not sure if it has been "proven" in the generally accepted sense of the word. In any case, the truth of that manipulation doesn't negate any manipulation that may have occurred in the general election.

I'm not sure what the generally accepted sense of the word "proven" is, but as the former chairman of the DNC, Donnie Brazile seems qualified to enlighten us on this one. She investigated whether Hillary Clinton's team had rigged the nomination process and according to her book found proof for it and it broke her heart. I can agree this doesn't negate any manipulations that may have occured in the general election, but in my opinion it does seriously diminish their relative importance.

Anyway, why am i putting an effort in, the damage has been done, and the paid talking heads on tv (Rachel Maddows for example has a salary of about 7 million a year) have discussed russiagate so much (more than half the airtime according to this report) that to most people the notion that in reality nothing much happened seems very quaint. And that's all that matters in the end really. What they cleverly did was take an existing template of an enemy (in this case: the russians) and through endless repeating associate them with what in essence was an internal fuck up, meaning Trump winning the 2016 elections. Just like after 911, a consequence of shady us-saudi ties which were just too painful to critically look at it, when they took an already existing bogeyman (saddam) and associated him with it. Because looking inwards is something american politics just can't afford. Can't say i'm surprised really, just kinda disappointed some people on this very own board (who in my opinion really should know better) fell for this cock and bull story.

[Elvis]

Good points raised, liminal and 0_0.

I wish Wombat would chime in.

[Grizzly]

I have nothing substantial to add, expect I appreciate the inquiry. As well as discussion. I'll keep an eye on this thread while putting up my new wallpaper.





Keep paying your taxes everyone yo!

[stillrobertpaulsen]

The point is, again: $50,000,000,000 every year. Fifty billion dollars. That's just for intelligence. We know some extent of their capabilities. They had "detected evidence" and "the evidence piled up during the spring and summer of 2016." Some people connected to the operation were already targets of surveillance.

So why didn't they have this operation covered from the beginning? Did someone on "our side" let this happen?

LIHOP. Now that is an intriguing possibility. The possibility becomes a higher probability in the instances where it can be proven that it was not a hack from the outside but a leak from the inside. Sorry I don't have more information to contribute on the subject at this time beyond my intuition, but I find it more likely in the instances where it may have been a leak (I don't buy it where the DCCC, state voting systems, RNC and other hacks occurred, but the DNC is a probability) that it was someone from the American IC on behalf of a Deep State faction favorable to a Trump administration than an actual Russian agent. But that could also be the case where hacks occurred as well. Which might explain why, as in the case with 9/11, all those billions didn't stop it from happening. Because it was supposed to happen.

Again, just hypothesizing. For now.