Lol, you may wanna clear up your confusions with a little ethics 101 review. Illegally obtaining information and spreading it in public is clearly not the same than campaigning or siding with either party. Media took a side, so what. If they illegally obtained information and spread it into public domain they would get immediately sued. Someone in the background who illegally obtains information and leaks it to the public is playing an entirely different game. Huge and all deciding difference.
Russian Hacking Questions
- Thread starter AAAintheBeltway
- Start date
Sure, "let's"...though you mean we should, right? You mean Americans. I have no problem with a full blown investigation. In fact, it's likely one already occurred and nothing was found, because that is the only real explanation as to why the Obama administration and appointed intelligence officials are making these claims without showing any proof. It's a psy-op initiative.
I think it was said they tried to hack Republicans. Not sure if it was successful. Seems Podesta is probably the only one who was dumb enough to click the phishing email, and Hillary the only one to put a private server, etc.
• Why Are the Media Taking the CIA’s Hacking Claims at Face Value? (Nation)
In 1977, Carl Bernstein published an exposé of a CIA program known as Operation Mockingbird, a covert program involving, according to Bernstein, “more than 400 American journalists who in the past 25 years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency.” Bernstein found that in “many instances” CIA documents revealed that “journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America’s leading news organizations.” Fast-forward to December 2016, and one can see that there isn’t much need for a covert government program these days.
[..] The high-profile anchors and analysts on CNN, CBS, ABC, and NBC who have cited the work of The Washington Post and The New York Times seem to have come down with a bad case of historical amnesia. The CIA, in their telling, is a bulwark of American democracy, not a largely unaccountable, out-of-control behemoth that has often sought to subvert press freedom at home and undermine democratic norms abroad. The columnists, anchors, and commentators who rushed to condemn Trump for not showing due deference to the CIA seem to be unaware that, throughout its history, the agency has been the target of far more astute and credible critics than the president-elect.
In his memoir Present at the Creation, Truman’s Secretary of State Dean Acheson wrote that about the CIA, “I had the gravest forebodings.” Acheson wrote that he had “warned the President that as set up neither he, the National Security Council, nor anyone else would be in a position to know what it was doing or to control it.” Following the Bay of Pigs fiasco, President John F. Kennedy expressed his desire to “to splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.” The late New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan twice introduced bills, in 1991 and 1995, to abolish the agency and move its functions to the State Department which, as the journalist John Judis has observed, “is what Acheson and his predecessor, George Marshall, had advocated.”
[..] To see what a corrosive effect outside powers can have on democratic processes, one need look no further than the 1996 Russian presidential election, in which Americans like the regime-change theorist Michael McFaul (later US Ambassador to Russia from 2012–14) interfered in order to keep the widely unpopular Boris Yeltsin in power against the wishes of the Russian people. For its part, the CIA has a long history of overthrowing sovereign governments the world over. According to historian William Blum, the CIA has “(1) attempted to overthrow more than 50 governments, most of which were democratically-elected, (2) attempted to suppress a populist or nationalist movement in 20 countries, (3) grossly interfered in democratic elections in at least 30 countries, (4) dropped bombs on the people of more than 30 countries, (5) attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders.”
In 1977, Carl Bernstein published an exposé of a CIA program known as Operation Mockingbird, a covert program involving, according to Bernstein, “more than 400 American journalists who in the past 25 years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency.” Bernstein found that in “many instances” CIA documents revealed that “journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America’s leading news organizations.” Fast-forward to December 2016, and one can see that there isn’t much need for a covert government program these days.
[..] The high-profile anchors and analysts on CNN, CBS, ABC, and NBC who have cited the work of The Washington Post and The New York Times seem to have come down with a bad case of historical amnesia. The CIA, in their telling, is a bulwark of American democracy, not a largely unaccountable, out-of-control behemoth that has often sought to subvert press freedom at home and undermine democratic norms abroad. The columnists, anchors, and commentators who rushed to condemn Trump for not showing due deference to the CIA seem to be unaware that, throughout its history, the agency has been the target of far more astute and credible critics than the president-elect.
In his memoir Present at the Creation, Truman’s Secretary of State Dean Acheson wrote that about the CIA, “I had the gravest forebodings.” Acheson wrote that he had “warned the President that as set up neither he, the National Security Council, nor anyone else would be in a position to know what it was doing or to control it.” Following the Bay of Pigs fiasco, President John F. Kennedy expressed his desire to “to splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.” The late New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan twice introduced bills, in 1991 and 1995, to abolish the agency and move its functions to the State Department which, as the journalist John Judis has observed, “is what Acheson and his predecessor, George Marshall, had advocated.”
[..] To see what a corrosive effect outside powers can have on democratic processes, one need look no further than the 1996 Russian presidential election, in which Americans like the regime-change theorist Michael McFaul (later US Ambassador to Russia from 2012–14) interfered in order to keep the widely unpopular Boris Yeltsin in power against the wishes of the Russian people. For its part, the CIA has a long history of overthrowing sovereign governments the world over. According to historian William Blum, the CIA has “(1) attempted to overthrow more than 50 governments, most of which were democratically-elected, (2) attempted to suppress a populist or nationalist movement in 20 countries, (3) grossly interfered in democratic elections in at least 30 countries, (4) dropped bombs on the people of more than 30 countries, (5) attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders.”
It is beyond ironic to see the leftwingers in the media and democrat party, ie pretty much all of them, hissing "how dare you" at Trump for doubting the CIA. Same deal with their sudden outrage over leaking.
What we have here is a thinly veiled attempt at staging a pre-election coup. The media, democrat big shots, establishment republicans and the CIA working together against their common foe, Trump.
I have to wonder if there are not plenty of people at Langley (CIA HQ.) who are wringing their hands over this obvious politicization of the agency. This is guaranteed to generate plenty of blowback.
What we have here is a thinly veiled attempt at staging a pre-election coup. The media, democrat big shots, establishment republicans and the CIA working together against their common foe, Trump.
I have to wonder if there are not plenty of people at Langley (CIA HQ.) who are wringing their hands over this obvious politicization of the agency. This is guaranteed to generate plenty of blowback.
What Trump should do is call Hillary and ask her if she wants to do jail time. That could get all these people off Trump's back. Of course, he shouldn't call Bill with the same proposition.
ha, you keep on pressing everyone who does not agree with you for facts, facts, facts, yet you keep on coming up with those funny insinuations and linguistic twists such as "in fact, it is likely", "I think it was said", "not sure,...", "seems ...probably". You know what that smells like?
Further, no appointed intelligence officials have made comments, which is exactly the problem. Some "anonymous" sources in the background are hinting at things, yes I agree, it is preposterous that those issues are not full-on investigated and the House is not frequently updated on who hacked what and exactly when. But hey, does that not speak volumes about your chaotic intelligence apparatus? Maybe Trump needs to "drain the swamp" in the same way than he drained the Washington D.C. swamp when he hired all those establishment politicians, lobbyists, and oil CEOs into his cabinet.
Further, no appointed intelligence officials have made comments, which is exactly the problem. Some "anonymous" sources in the background are hinting at things, yes I agree, it is preposterous that those issues are not full-on investigated and the House is not frequently updated on who hacked what and exactly when. But hey, does that not speak volumes about your chaotic intelligence apparatus? Maybe Trump needs to "drain the swamp" in the same way than he drained the Washington D.C. swamp when he hired all those establishment politicians, lobbyists, and oil CEOs into his cabinet.
If there was something shady than I think we would see it in media articles.
However your assertion is that they only tried to hack Democrats. Your assertion is completely untrue.
so mine is wrong and yours is true. Hmm, how about we settle that we both don't know shit, nor does Tsing Tao or anyone else until we, the plebs, is being informed.
