• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House

On A), every server as big as the DNC server is constantly attacked by outside sources. You have probably been targeted in phishing attacks yourself. That does not rule out an insider.

Sure, it doesn't rule out an insider. But didn't Podesta use gmail?

Why would an insider attack a foreign server instead of one that's presumably more accessible to an insider?

On B) you can say the same thing about the New York Times and other MSM who are spreading the Russian Hacker allegations. You assume they are knowledgeable, but all they have done is quote sources in the CIA and other government agencies. If you look at the originial CIA reports, you will see that they only provide vague references to an alleged Russian hack. They say they "know" it was Russian hackers whose motive, they are certain, was to influence the election. They expect us to believe them, it would be un-American no to is their insinuation if we don't, but they haven't shown us their data.

I agree. There's not enough evidence available to the public to make a decision.

Assange has never been discredited.

I've read enough about Assange and come to a differing conclusion than you.

The CIA, on the other hand, still hasn't shown us those WMDs that Saddam has been hiding. Don't forget about Snowden. Don't forget about a proven track record of lying whenever they want since they were first created. Even though the CIA lied in the past, they're American and that makes them OUR liars and are on our side. They lie to protect us, and they're doing a good thing. They lie for the Greater Good. So it is our patriotic duty to believe them.

As I've said before, the CIA being wrong before doesn't prove that they are wrong now.
 
"Why would an insider attack a foreign server instead of one that's presumably more accessible to an insider?"
Not sure what you're referring to.





"I've read enough about Assange and come to a differing conclusion than you."
Do you realize that vilifying the sources of opposing viewpoints is how the CIA operates? If it's the rape charges you are referring to, even the supposed victims said the charges were made up.



"As I've said before, the CIA being wrong before doesn't prove that they are wrong now."

There is a difference between being wrong (making an honest mistake) and lying.
 
"Why would an insider attack a foreign server instead of one that's presumably more accessible to an insider?"
Not sure what you're referring to.

Wasn't Pondesta's account at gmail.com?

"I've read enough about Assange and come to a differing conclusion than you."
Do you realize that vilifying the sources of opposing viewpoints is how the CIA operates? If it's the rape charges you are referring to, even the supposed victims said the charges were made up.

I was reading about Assange back when he was known for hacking, and Wikileaks was a decade in the future. He was known before Wikileaks. AFAIK, "Underground" would have been the first mainstream reference to him, and that was written in 1997. (Checking the publication date, I see Assange is now credited as an author - LOL.)

Also, do you have a credible source for either of the two women who alleged the sexual misconduct was made up? Because I can't find one, and when I was reading the police reports (admittedly the English translation, not the Swedish original), the man seems to have a problem with using a condom. Also, for the record, I can think that Wikileaks is generally a good thing, and Assange personally has issues. He wouldn't be the first hacker that is better from a distance than in person.
 
Edit - Hilary 2020
This is what the New York Times is saying: the real reason HRC lost the election is that Putin had a "personal beef" against her.

Hillary Clinton said on Thursday that the hacking attacks carried out by Russia against her campaign and the Democratic National Committee were intended “to undermine our democracy” and were ordered by Vladimir V. Putin “because he has a personal beef against me.”

Speaking to a group of donors in Manhattan, Mrs. Clinton said that Mr. Putin, the Russian president, had never forgiven her for the accusation she made in 2011, when she was secretary of state, that parliamentary elections his country held that year were rigged.

Hillary Clinton, speaking to donors Thursday night, said President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia directed the cyberattack against Democrats to settle a personal score with her. The New York Times
“Putin publicly blamed me for the outpouring of outrage by his own people, and that is the direct line between what he said back then and what he did in this election,” Mrs. Clinton said.

It should now be clear to everyone that HRC lost the election because the leader of a superpower ordered to be hacked and then released HRC's emails because he has a "personal beef" against the former first lady.

Furthermore, Sexism and the Patriarchy cost her the election.
Voter intimidation cost her the election.
Media bias did it.
Fake news on face book did it.
The deplorables did it.
The FBI did it.
A Republican conspiracy did it.
Everyone other than Hilary did it.

She's been laying low in the weeks following the election and, now that she has figured out why she lost, she is, doubtless, planning for Hilary 2020. With two election bids behind her as well as a life time of servign the American people, she is more entitled than any other candidate in history. She will be 73 and in good health. Sanders is 75 after all. Hilary is inevitable.

***************************
***************************
***************************
Wasn't Pondesta's account at gmail.com?
If you have read Underground, you are far too intelligent and knowledgeable about computers to believe that just because it was gmail, that the source of the emails was not an internal leak. He used gmail. He most likely used other accounts. Email from any account is routinely forwarded or collected in other ways by a user's organisation's email server or email client. Microsoft Outlook, Thunderbird, and others do this. Then they save the emails on the organisation's server. Anybody who works there could have accessed them. My own workplace does this. I have no doubt that his gmail account was targeted by external hackers as well. He's an old man who doesn't have common sense when it comes to computer security. He is simply too juicy a target.
In fact, 4Chan claims they hacked his gmail account.



I was reading about Assange back when he was known for hacking, and Wikileaks was a decade in the future. He was known before Wikileaks. AFAIK, "Underground" would have been the first mainstream reference to him, and that was written in 1997. (Checking the publication date, I see Assange is now credited as an author - LOL.)

Also, do you have a credible source for either of the two women who alleged the sexual misconduct was made up? Because I can't find one, and when I was reading the police reports (admittedly the English translation, not the Swedish original), the man seems to have a problem with using a condom. Also, for the record, I can think that Wikileaks is generally a good thing, and Assange personally has issues. He wouldn't be the first hacker that is better from a distance than in person.
Assange isn't the only wikileaks person who has been dealing with the leak. Whether or not he is a rapist is not related to his credibility with the leak claims. Certain people are highly motivated to do everything they can to take him down. Craig Murray, a former British ambassador, has been personally meeting the source of the leak.

So, about Assange, the story is murky. That's the way the CIA likes it. It's not a black and white issue, and to appreciate the story, you need to understand that certain governments have ulterior motives. In fact, his alleged victims have not accused him of rape. The Swedish police made up that story. The sex was consensual, and they were shocked when the police said it was rape without any evidence and without any accusers. His former lovers had found out about each other, met, compared notes, and were most likely very jealous. At least one was terrified of getting HIV. They were trying to get Assange to take an HIV test. They told the police it was not rape and that they did not want to press charges. As it stands now, Assange is accused of crimes that, if guilty, merit a 700£ fine. The British took his alleged crimes so seriously that British taxpayers have spent around £12 million per year since 2010 to post guards outside his hideout. The American government takes his "crimes" so seriously that they put him on the top 10 most wanted list up there where Osama bin Laden used to be.

This summarizes Assange's rape allegations: http://observer.com/2016/02/exclusi...-on-julian-assange-rape-charges-in-stockholm/

Remember, just as soldiers are professional killers, CIA agents are professional liars. They are extremely good at lying and have received a lot of training in how to do it. They have decades of experience.
 
Last edited:
IHMcPutOj9k0Y61b515-00XOHFl7tsbR8P5sFMa0RGsFeEVMQD5bACazAFrVX1tnkP_P88L2K5nL0mwdW2RxcuSpOAJJqaYCCA=w1366-h768-rw-no


The CIA always has the publics best interest in mind and that wasn't a fourth grade level deflection at all.
 
Well, the allegation is sex without a condom that wasn't consented to.

This isn't the source I read, but it looks similar. Try reading the sources.

The allegation goes from rape to sex without a condome. Apparantly, the charge of sex without a condome comes from her asking "are you wearing something" while they are already having sex. Still, in Sweeden, the police called it rape. A rapist is less a credible when it comes to reporting leaked information than somebody who didn't use a condome.

One thing I'm still wondering about is did Putin hack the election because he has a "personal beef" against HRC or did he hack the election because Trump insisted on account of Truump owing himi money or favors or something. The Democrats have claimed both things now. What is their official story, or do they smartly realize that most media consumers haven't even noticed this discrepancy? I know HRC believes the "personal beef" theory because, as always, the world revolves around her but I sense the DNC itself might disagree..
 
" What the legal system calls rape varies by jurisdiction. Sweden has the most sweeping and far reaching rape laws on the planet. Nagging in bed is considered a form of sexual assault in Sweden. Sweden also has the most claims of rape in Europe since expanding teh definition of what they call rape.

I skimmed it, and it is clear that Assange did not drug, get drunk, abuse a minor, or in any way forcibly have sexual intercourse with any of those girls. Assange is not a rapist by the more traditional and well understood definitions of rape. They were willing lovers. I'm satisfied with Assange's credibility and have no interest in whether a country with sex crime laws as encompassing as Sweden's accuses him of sex crime. The lesson I take from the rape scandal is taht I will never have sex in Sweden unless my partner signs have a notarized sexual consent form and records the encounter to make sure that somebody does not suddenly withdraw consent mid-act for my own legal protection.

Did you vote for HRC?
 
The Democrats went into autodestruction by allowing the 12 caucuses that Sanders won but was stolen by foul play, the real left is not the Hillary people, they've reduced everything in the name of centrism since Bill Clinton's DLC.
 
socko said:
I skimmed it, and it is clear that Assange did not drug, get drunk, abuse a minor, or in any way forcibly have sexual intercourse with any of those girls. Assange is not a rapist by the more traditional and well understood definitions of rape. They were willing lovers. I'm satisfied with Assange's credibility and have no interest in whether a country with sex crime laws as encompassing as Sweden's accuses him of sex crime. The lesson I take from the rape scandal is taht I will never have sex in Sweden unless my partner signs have a notarized sexual consent form and records the encounter to make sure that somebody does not suddenly withdraw consent mid-act for my own legal protection.
the thing about laws and travelling is that whether or not you agree with a country's laws, you are still obliged to follow them - or you face the consequences.
while i think that this is very questionable and unprecedented situation, it also speaks volumes about how the US government manipulates other countries. the contemporary legal definition of "rape" might not fit what you or i think of when the word "rape" or "sexual assault" are used - but it's a bit like how certain countries punish rape victims (often violently or even fatally) for "adultery".
i think that's incredibly fucked up - but it's just life that you have to observe local laws wherever you are, or be prepared to face punishment.
i guess what i'm trying to say is that from my perspective, that element of the case is a bit of a distraction from the really serious political issues here. that's just my take.
"traditional and well understood definitions of rape" is kind of a meaningless phrase - definitions of laws - and words generally, are fairly fluid.

as much as i hope assange is able to walk free - i think whistleblowers are very important in today's world - i think his credibility is pretty dubious, generally speaking.
it's been that way for quite some time.
he alienated most of the (h)activists that he previously worked alongside, and releasing the diplomatic cables in the manner in which they were leaked (names weren't redacted, for instance) potentially endangered people's lives.

i would be horrified if the US govt got their way - especially some of the people that made a lot of noise about executing him - but i think assange has his own agenda, his own endgame - that serves his own (seemingly quite erratic) intentions.
he's a player in a big game, and to say he lives dangerously would be the understatement of the century.

having said that, he's already a political prisoner, and will likely be one for the rest of his life. uncle sam wants to make an example of him for obvious reasons - but i personally don't trust the guy.
he's a brave man, but i personally respect manning and snowden a lot more than assange.
 
And before Snowden, Russ Tice, Thomas Drake, Kirk Wiebe, Bill Binney (Ed Loomis has kept silent), were in an emergency to call on Dubya's illegal "warrantless wiretapping", also Diane Roarke who was not NSA but was the liaison of the NSA to the Congress (8% popular, Hitler was more popular in the whole world) Intelligence Committee, I'm not exactly sure, but she was sacked like the rest of 'em. But the NYT decided to sit on these 4 guys' whistleblowing in late 2004 as not to upset the elections (I guess if they hadn't, back in 2004 they would have said that they were puppets of Iran) and only published what Tice and Drake gave the NYT a year later in Dec. 2005 when it was too late to do anything about it and the FBI raided each of them in their houses in 2004, pulling Binney out of the shower naked. A guy that had the same power as Generals in the NSA on the civilian side. Snowden just confirmed what they were saying with material proof, which of course I understand that he ended up in Russia, only because, of course the US was not going to even attempt to extract him illegally out of Russia, where it has no extradition treaty with the US. Those guys faced the music, going "through the channels" and even government sanctioned whistleblower agencies such as the Office of Special Council and POGO (I forgot what it stands for). Why the OSC didn't work for them? John Crane, a pentagon whistleblower, was in charge of that office, and when he got sick and tired of all the illegal and unconstitutional, he was proven right by government agencies but was still sacked when he had enough. The kind of guy who keeps a pocket sized Bill Of Rights and Constitution in his wallet...not much publicity around this case, but it would unravel why going through channels didn't work, and he felt guilty that everything that ended up on his desk, he was force-tasked to add in a letter on top to the office of the President where all complaints disappeared into a black hole. Now that he was proven right, he wants his job back.

In any case, if you want to even know how everyone in government knew something was going to happen, I recommend reading "Fortress of Deceit" by Bogdan Djakovic, it's on amazon and kindle for cheapskates, he was a very high ranking FAA guy who had his own open source lateral "intelligence agency" and when he was moved to TSA when that was created, he shared it, newspaper/magazine clippings, radio and TV broadcasts that he kept in his computers since 1988, who was part of the Red Teams who try to bring contraband through TSA had a success of 80-95%. The stuff he collected and shared with fellow employees was more useful and predictive of what's in the future than the crappy memos he would get from other agencies, which were sanitized pieces of politically correct outright lies or just completely useless information. His most chilling revelation...I don't know if any of you remember, in 2007 there was a foiled plot by the British who have typical regular airplane security (at least at the time, the UK being even under more fascism since Theresa May is PM (and she'll get kicked out next elections easy) managed to stop something as bad as 9/11, 20 jetliners leaving the UK to the US were to be exploded over the Atlantic Ocean, it was in the news, but since it was foiled, and by a foreign country, I imagine most everyone don't know about it and it was sucked into the memory hole. The same day, TSA published on their website their whole system as a kind of a public service announcement. Any dark minds with a plot can look at that and reverse engineer it. I recommend reading that book, although I realize millenials are literally illiterate, with how public schools in the US in different states removed History and Geography from the curriculum...to me that's so awful I get nauseous, I've had History classes in 4th (regional history), 5th (provincial history), 6th (Canada history), 7th grade I had my first Geography class, although I was obsessed with maps and could recite all then 192 countries when in 6th grade or probably before that, had a huge world map that was in a magazine in the 90's on a wall in the basement as a kid. Then in 8th grade we had History again, going from Paleolithic times up to the Middle Ages and in 10th grade regarding more intensive Provincial and National history. I had picked History at the end of grade 11th where it was a class you could opt-in in 12th grade. Despite an average of 88% I wasn't accepted even if it was my second choice out of 3 options, because, I don't know, the teacher I had in 11th grade History was pretty sub-par, although I had grades over 85% often in the 90%+ zone, because I didn't do his stupid crossword puzzles homework for terms we had to knew by heart, which to me, a very auditive person, I didn't need to do, but homework accounted for 25% of your average grade per "ordos (I can't find think of the english equivalent, our school year was divided into 5 "ordos", google translate it into a proper noun "Ordo", anyway, I would have averages of 75-80% because I did not bother with his lame homework), I was robbed of it, so out of the three options I picked in my final HS year, there was Computers, Biology (which prepared well, was on par with Biology 101 in college) and...freaking Keyboarding, where you'd practice the "correct" way of typing with indexes on F and J...it took a whole year for the people our group of 6 on the first 2 tables as we were of course sitting in alphabetical order, but it turned out to be the 6 persons in class who already had the Internet in 1999, so we cruised through all that BS class made for future secretaries most of the time, took the rest of the class who actually did catch up to my speed of typing, not using the official method, with 60-65 words a minute, I ended up second only to a friend in that group of 6 who would talk out loud while typing faster than everyone else, through that boring keyboarding improvement software and later on, writing text in MS Word 2000.

Quite the tangent, but that History class was basically Advanced History which was pretty much the same as the optional class I took in college "History of The Occidental World from 1760 to early 20th century", which I cruised right through. How many Americans can pinpoint Syria on a map? I'd say less than 15%.. Anyway, I included the keyboarding class study to explain how I can make large to admittedly huge posts in a breeze, not bragging, years of IRC before I even got there helped big time. So yes, tl;dr I am, often, but I appreciate those who read it and then do the tl;dr resume in reply, not giving their own opinion, just to make a streamlined comment on how I make sense, you know who you are ;)

As for Assange, I once considered moving to Sweden as I could have a job in the field I actually have a diploma in, and the Swedish embassy were happy with all my paperwork. But a Danish and another guy, a German, told me that Sweden, although I love so many things about it, the vibrant punk, hardcore and metal scene they have there and how the gap between rich and poor is one of the best in the industrial world, I've seen them go down on the UN's Human Development Index (as well as my own Canada which was #1 for like 10 years straight in the 80's and early 90's) lower and lower with time, with Norway surfing #1 since a long time now, I reconsidered, especially when I was told how PC by those 2 people who live near the country Sweden was, not the people necessarily, but the laws. Now that Canada has actually made soliciting prostitution illegal (prostitution laws we had were construed as unconstitutional so of course the then Conservatards used the "nordic model" and only the jacks get arrested here now, and Sweden is pretty much the place where that stupid law was invented. But also the definition of rape there...even if a woman consents, you can be accused of rape..which makes no sense, like Saudi Arabia's laws make no sense. There's no justification for this, so Assange did not infringe human rights as far as I'm concerned, fuck the laws made to protect the rich and for blackmail purposes, in all countries.
 
Last edited:
Top