Political Roundtable Part XI

[nate33]

Watch on YouTube

[nate33]

Read on Twitter

[montestewart]

Watch on YouTube

Looks like an Old Spice commercial. "Putin your Trump Tower, Donald. Spasibo!"

[Induveca]

UK former official/Assange associate responds to CIA claims. His blog is actually quite good, story was picked up by the Guardian.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/
----
Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims “bull”, adding: “They are absolutely making it up.”
“I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.
“If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA’s statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States.
“America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it’s not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever.”

[I_Like_Dirt]

Malik Obama for Press Secretary!



Make him the Thot Czar!

I thought he had just found the website hotornot and was giving creative answers.

[Kanyewest]

How reliable and ethical Assange is still up for debate. One criticism that people have said of him is that his news stories generally go to the highest bidder, according to this interview with Stephen Colbert- http://www.cc.com/video-clips/5mdm7i/the-colbert-report-exclusive---julian-assange-extended-interview

I'm not sure who Assange's sources are. They could be Russian intelligence or an upset person from the Democratic party. That being said, the intelligence community agencies could formally give briefings to the public. Even electors from the electoral college want answers. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/electors-intelligence-briefing-trump-russia-232498

[Wizardspride]

I find when someone constantly goes on and on about how smart they are, they in actuality might not be that smart.

Or at very least deep down don't believe they're that smart.


Random thought on Trump.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[nate33]

There is so much exaggeration and intentional misinterpretation of the relatively few known facts about this hacking allegation.

• Nobody has actually presented any evidence whatsoever that the Russians hacked anybody. All we have is an anonymous leak from a CIA source with no corroboration. It is well understood that the CIA is strongly pro-Clinton (with the FBI being more pro-Trump), so this could just as easily be the case that the CIA, or a rogue element within the CIA is tampering with the election, not Russia. Let's not forget that the CIA are professional liars. That is what they do. It would behoove us all to be a bit skeptical until people with actual names and faces step forward.
  
• The CIA claims to have identified the actual individuals responsible for the hacking, but nobody has been named or penalized. Why?
  
• The CIA claims that the RNC had also been hacked, but this has been refuted by the RNC and by FBI sources. This is a critical fact that must be nailed down because the entire premise that Russia was aiding Trump is based on the notion that they selectively released the dirt from the Democrats, and not from the Republicans. If they were unsuccessful in obtaining RNC dirt, then it would explain why only DNC dirt was released.
  
• The Russian hacks (if indeed proven true) are only for the DNC emails, NOT the Podesta emails. Julian Assange and other Wikileaks officials have stated that the Podesta emails were not hacks from Russia but were from whistleblowers on the inside. The Podesta emails and the fundraising speech transcripts were where most of the Clinton dirt was. The DNC emails really only contained dirt on how the DNC was biased in favor of Clinton over Sanders during the primary. All of the Clinton scandals and alleged scandals in the weeks preceding to the election (the Comey email investigation, Donna Brazile cheating on the debates, Clinton's confession of having "public" and "private" positions on issues, the deplorables comment, the health scare, SpiritCooking, Pizzagate, etc.) had nothing to do with the DNC hacks.
  
• There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Russians hacked any election machines. The media has been deliberately conflating these stories in an attempt to discredit Trump's victory by saying that the Russians have "hacked the election" rather than saying they hacked the DNC server. If there was voting fraud to be found, so far, it's only been found in Wayne County and it favored Clinton.
  
• Nobody is opposing an investigation of the email hacks. People are opposing labeling Russia the culprit in the absence of any evidence.
  
• Nobody seemed to mind when Mexico interfered with the election in favor of Clinton. Their president likened Trump to Mussolini, and their government sponsored an initiative to assist Mexican immigrants to become U.S. citizens in time for the election. Heck, Carlos Slim owns the NY Times, who was viciously anti-Trump throughout the election.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[nate33]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

I continue to be amazed at this notion that someone who has the potential for a working relationship with Russia is, by definition, not qualified. Do we WANT war with Russia? Is that the goal?

Also, there's no chance that a Republican controlled Senate will block Tillman. Heck, plenty of Democrats will vote for him too. Cabinet confirmations are not Supreme Court confirmations. They're much less ideological. Presidents generally get their man unless there is outright corruption, criminal history or blatant incompetency.

Votes for confirmation for Obama's first cabinet went like this:
State: Clinton 94-2
Treasury: Geitner 60-34 (had that tax scandal when he didn't pay $35,000 in SS and Medicare)
Attorney General: Holder 75-21
Labor: Solis 80-17
Trade: Kirk 92-5
Health: Sebelius 65-31 (also had a tax avoidance issue. The pro-lifers used it as an excuse to oppose.)
Interior: Salizar 100-0

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[dckingsfan]

• The CIA claims to have identified the actual individuals responsible for the hacking, but nobody has been named or penalized. Why?

Because they are the C I A

[nate33]

Read on Twitter

I think Bolton makes a compelling point. If Russia managed to hack Clinton's server without leaving fingerprints, why would they leave fingerprints in the DNC server attack?

[closg00]

I have to chuckle, now the people who assumed far worse about Hillary Clinton with less evidence, want every I dotted and T crossed with-respect to giving Putin's Russia the benefit of the doubt. Think about it, Trumpers are choosing Putin/Russia over our own CIA's assessment.

The same CIA that told us Saddam had WMD's?

The same CIA that has been giving us such incredible intelligence in Syria that we're kicking ass and taking names over there?

The same CIA that was caught flat-footed when Putin seized Crimea?

The same CIA that was caught flat-footed when Putin invaded Georgia?

The same CIA that failed to anticipate the deadly consequences of the Arab Spring?

The same CIA that informed Bush that Bin Laden was determined to attack the United States? Most of the CIA's greatest successes are secret. Why do want to give Russia the benefit of the doubt over our own CIA?

[closg00]

UK former official/Assange associate responds to CIA claims. His blog is actually quite good, story was picked up by the Guardian.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/
----
Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims “bull”, adding: “They are absolutely making it up.”
“I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.
“If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA’s statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States.
“America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it’s not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever.”

Why should his claims be believed? Let's see what the hearings reveals, just because they can't arrest someone at this time, does not mean that they don't have Intel. It's isn't just the Russian hack that is the basis for the CIA's conclusions, there were also additional efforts deployed to further their goals, the creation and dessemmenation of "fake news" designed to damage Clinton also had Russian origins, hardly a coincidence.

There is more than enough there to have a good old fashion, Republican style witch hunt, just like for Benghazi

[closg00]

Read on Twitter

Great point. GW Bush received an intelligence briefing that Bin Laden was determined to attack the United States, this buffoon Trump thinks he doesn't need these briefings because "he's smart" How-long before this wreckless and careless clown is impeached?

[popper]

Read on Twitter

Great point. GW Bush received an intelligence briefing that Bin Laden was determined to attack the United States, this buffoon Trump thinks he doesn't need these briefings because "he's smart" How-long before this wreckless and careless clown is impeached?

You want to impeach him now? He's not even the president yet. Why not give him at least 24 hours on the job. That should be ample time to turn the country around.

[DCZards]

The same CIA that informed Bush that Bin Laden was determined to attack the United States? Most of the CIA's greatest successes are secret. Why do want to give Russia the benefit of the doubt over our own CIA?

It appears to be the new normal under Trump: question the credibility of essential American institutions like the CIA and hire neophytes like Tillerson for crucial and sensitive jobs. It's scary stuff.

[BigA]

<<snip>>Nobody has actually presented any evidence whatsoever that the Russians hacked anybody. All we have is an anonymous leak from a CIA source with no corroboration.<<snip>>

Actually not even that. The sources are characterized as "senior administration officials," so presumably people outside the CIA who were briefed on the findings.