Election 2016

Report on Russian Involvement in U.S. Election Primarily about RT Network

Coverage of third-party candidates presented as attempt to discredit American democracy.

|

Putin
Klimentyev Mikhail/ZUMA Press/Newscom

This afternoon the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released its unclassified version of its report intended to show that the Russian government attempted to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election to try to help get Donald Trump elected.

Because this is the unclassified version of the report, it is extremely short on presenting actual evidence and the report up front acknowledges that it cannot reveal a lot of information for fear of revealing sources or intelligence gathering methods. Its conclusions are the same as what it is in the classified report that we will not see: The CIA, FBI and NSA are all confident that the Russian government, with the support of President Vladimir Putin, attempted to influence the outcome of the 2016 election, attempted to discredit Hillary Clinton as a candidate and erode Americans confidence in our government.

The declassified report is 25 pages long, but only a small part of it, just a couple of pages, talks about actual cyberintrusions or hacking and the role it might have played. And it's really what we've already heard. The agencies are confident that Russian intelligence gained access to Democratic National Committee (DNC) networks, collected the emails, and then released them to the public through intermediaries like Guccifer 2.0, Wikileaks, and DCLeaks.com. The agencies believe that Putin wanted to discredit Clinton because he blames her for anti-Putin protests from 2011 and 2012.

Those pages also include a bunch of reasons why they believe Putin chose Trump over Clinton that are logical but aren't exactly provable. The summary (of a summary) is that Putin believed it would be easier to advance Russia's interests with Trump rather than Clinton.

Then the report gets a little odd. All the above part takes up five pages. It is followed by seven pages of analysis of the operations of Russian-operated English-speaking news network RT (formerly known as Russia Today) and its role in spreading Kremlin-approved messaging. The goal of this section of the report is to highlight how Russian propaganda is reaching American listeners. And while it's obviously important for our intel folks to be aware of how this is all working, a look at their examples of how RT is fostering criticism of the United States government is illuminating in a way I'm not sure the intel agencies intended:

ODNI report
ODNI
ODNI report
ODNI

For those who can't see the images from the report for whatever reason, they point to the fact that RT hosted debates from third-party candidates and publicized the idea that the two-party system doesn't represent a third of voters. In addition, they call the United States a surveillance state full of civil liberties abuses, police brutality, and drone use.

Full disclosure here: I appeared on RT twice in 2012 to discuss a couple of instances of alleged police brutality in the Southern California area. I haven't been on since then. It became increasingly clear (especially after journalists there quit and went public about how the network actually operated) that the network was trying to slant the discussion to a sort of fatalistic "There's nothing we can do about these problems" attitude (as cynical as I am, I don't agree).

I don't dispute the findings here about RT, but look at those examples and they could apply not just to Reason but to media outlets of varying ideological positions within America. Americans are abandoning the two political parties. People are genuinely upset about surveillance and police brutality. If this is an attempt to sway the public to be concerned about RT, it's not terribly persuasive. And it's several years after the reality of what RT is came to light anyway, so it just reads rather dated.

I cannot imagine that this report will influence many people one way or the other. I said yesterday that it seems likely that Russia is behind the hack but the government will never be able to reasonably publicly prove it. This report does fall into that camp.

Which is all the more reason to focus on developing strong protections from cyberinfiltration rather than focusing so much on retaliation or a "cyberwar." If the government can't adequately prove to the public who is responsible, how can the public support responses like sanctions or even stronger action? People want to go to war over this stuff.

Read the report for yourself here.

NEXT: Intelligence Report on Russian Hacking Finally Released, Trump Officially Wins Electoral College: P.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “The agencies believe that Putin wanted to discredit Clinton because he blames her for anti-Putin protests from 2011 and 2012.”

    Oh, for crying out loud, I saw her on national TV saying the U.S. should enforce a no-fly zone in Syria against the Russians. Maybe that kind of belligerent attitude had something to do with Putin’s hostility?

    1. They are getting revenge for the size of the donation demanded for influence.

      1. I forgot about that, but the extortion was under the table while the threat was public.

    2. One candidate forwarded policies that would lead to war, one didn’t. In my estimation, that led to the Russians preferring Trump and there nothing wrong with that.

  2. The agencies are confident that Russian intelligence gained access to Democratic National Committee (DNC) networks, collected the emails, and then released them to the public through intermediaries like Guccifer 2.0, Wikileaks, and DCLeaks.com.

    They never got a look at the DNC servers, we know how Podesta got phished, and we’ve seen the private security report on the DNC penetration, which doesn’t give much if any basis for thinking it was a Russian op. We’ve also got two people on the record that it was an insider, not a hack, at the DNC.

    So what basis do they have for their “confidence”?

    The agencies believe that Putin wanted to discredit Clinton because he blames her for anti-Putin protests from 2011 and 2012.

    Fer fuck’s sake. Clinton also signed off on the sale of massive uranium reserves to Russian firms, and helped them build their new technology park. You’re a fool if you think Putin cares more about anti-Russian protests that came to nothing more than massive transfers of wealth to Russia and his cronies.

    1. Fer fuck’s sake. Clinton also signed off on the sale of massive uranium reserves to Russian firms, and helped them build their new technology park.

      For personal financial gain, no less.

      1. And that backstabber didn’t donate ONE DIME to her campaign.!

    2. So what basis do they have for their “confidence”?

      srsly? Large sums of cash. You hadda ask?

    3. I didn’t want her to win either and I spoke badly about her, I didn’t even vote for her.

      I AM AS BAD AS PUTIN!

      1. Brent Budowsky was a regular on RT and he’s the biggest Hillary shill out there.

        Worked for Lloyd Benson, writes for The Hill and appears regularly on RT.

        Maybe he’s a Russian plant! Maybe HE’S the DNC leaker!

    4. How about you shut the fuck up and get in line!

      The CIA needs new warrentless surveillance powers, but that’s no reason to accuse the CIA of over-interpreting flimsy evidence. This is totally different from the phony North Korean hack of Sony that turns out didn’t happen. Because this is the Russians, and the report makes it clear that the CIA totally knows how the Russians operate and trust them, this is a classic Russian move: release a bunch of catty emails about what Hillary’s staffers really think of Chelsea. That’s so Putin!

      Bottom line: there is a big crisis. Democracy is at stake. We need to do something! The CIA can’t help us if we don’t let them snoop on us.

  3. Will there be a separate report on FOX news’ treachery?

    1. Don’t forget The Today Show. Trump was on there endlessly.

      Where was Mrs. Clinton? AH HA! See?

    2. Not anymore

  4. attempted to discredit Hillary Clinton as a candidate and erode Americans confidence in our government.

    Question: Was discrediting Hillary Clinton eroding confidence in our government?

    1. Nominating her certainly eroded my confidence in American government.

      1. No, it eroded my confidence in the American people.

        1. Let her be Mayor of New York and imagine she’s still loved . . . somewhere

    2. No, I think those are two completely separate things.

      In this election, electing either of the main candidates is what was going to erode confidence in government. Which is probably the best thing about it.

    3. She used a private, unsecured server during her tenure as Sec of State and she wants us to believe the Russians never hacked her little homegrown set-up back then.

      But now the Russians are out to get her.

  5. The politicized intelligence agencies are full of liars and statist traitors. What they released amounts to a report where the validity of the information used to draw the various conclusions cannot be adequately evaluated. After the faulty assessments and lies from Iraq II, Libya, Syria, and a seemingly endless litany of other fuckups I don’t believe a Goddamn thing these fools say unless hard evidence is presented.

    When Trump’s sworn in I hope he purges the vipers and pares back the power of the various intelligence agencies. Not is it only good tor the US in general, it’s also in his interest to do so we might see just that being done.

  6. RT News is actually one of the publications I visit for a different perspective than you’ll receive most anywhere in the media. If RT “hacked the election” by putting out content that the US government found disagreeable, then I’d say they’re one of the few journalistic outposts actually doing their fucking job, Russian slant or not.

    LONG LIVE RT NEWS

    1. True, as long as you approach their news coverage with your eyes open and an awareness of their slant RT can be a useful place to go and they approach their stories from interesting angles.

      1. That… that covers every news source.

        The idea of the dispassionate, unbiased journalist was a mid-to-late 20th century US affectation.

        1. You’re right about the bias and, yes, it’s’s been that way for quite some time-forever really. Even when journalists try to be unbiased bias seeps in, it’s just human nature.

        2. Sure, but there’s a difference in my mind between things like China Radio International, which certainly has a PRC spin on the news, and something like RT, which is almost as hyperventilating as Radio Havana.

      2. I’ve often found it fascinating to read coverage of the same story from multiple sources. Sometimes you would swear they couldn’t be talking about the same thing, even if they’re simply edited wire stories. What gets cut, what adjectives are put in or left out, whole parts of the backgrounds cut (but different parts at different papers).

    2. Yeah. The RT part is especially weak. How dare those Russians give Americans information and perspectives that they might not otherwise have access to. As long as you understand that they do have an agenda, they have some pretty interesting stuff.

      1. As long as you understand that they do have an agenda, they have some pretty interesting stuff.

        Hell, they gave, Adam Kokesh, an anarcho-capitalist his own show. Not because they sympathize with Rothbardian anarchism, but because they thought it would help to undermine the US. And I don’t care about their reasoning, they put a decent (even if not always eloquent) anarchist perspective on the airwaves and I found real value in that. Kudos to RT.

    3. McAffee was on RT with Schultz explaining how the Russkies didn’t do the hack. Does he suddenly become less expert as a result. If RT is on the state list of disapproved sources, I’m going back more often.

      vid link — https://youtu.be/E7t5zbKnvQk

    4. Agreed. RT was one of the only watchable news-video broadcasts about the election that there was. And you didn’t have to sit through cumulative hours of celebrity babble and drug commercials to see good, in-depth content about the candidates.

      I know butthurt Dems have enjoyed blaming for their failures anyone who even thinks third party and independent candidates should be allowed on the ballot, but to see an official government “intelligence” report blaming media discussions of third-party options for batting the crown away from Queen Hillary’s entitled claws…oh, the lulz.

  7. I’ve had friends train with Russian police, do ridealongs etc.

    Anybody from Russia complaining about police brutality in the US??? Um, it is to laff.

    uproariously.

    Russian cops are like anti-cops perception (vs the reality) of US cops – brutal as fuck

    a running joke we’ve had since the ridealongs was “this is how we arrest ” (insert thick accent) “RUSSIAN STYLE” with lots of baton use and punches.

    yes, excessive force sometimes happens in the US and even if ALL the complaints were bona fide (and of course most aren’t, as thank god dashcams and bodycams show) we don’t come CLOSE to “Russssshian style”

    seriously. you even mouth off in the slightest, you will be lucky to walk away with a broken jaw

    just… lol

    1. Don’t care, pig. “The police here aren’t near as bad as the police in Russia” is a pretty shitty argument. The cop worship on TV is disgusting, and complete bullshit. Your positive contribution to society is far outweighed by the negative.
      Police forces are the enforcement arm of tyrannical government, and the personal bad experiences I’ve had with the boys in blue are bad enough, but the shit regularly reported in the media is even worse.
      Shorter version: fuck off, slaver.

      1. Yeh. Go out and steal some money setting up some bull shit speed or seat belt trap.

        Did I do it right?

        1. Not bad. You could also have called him a sock puppet, troll, or 13 year old retarded kid in his basement.

          1. I liked him better when he was challenging Warty to no-holds barred boxing matches.

            1. Jeebus, I would have paid good money to watch Warty tear him apart like a hungry Cajun ripping into a crawfish.

      2. Oh please , gtfo,

        Blaming everyday police for the corruption and power that the us government wields is downright absurd and it is what simple minded fools associate with the problems with criminal justice. Of course there are rogue cops who deserve jail time but for you to anecdotally cite media stories as to why the police r so terrible is beyond BS. In a country of 320 million they are going bad experiences and the media has huge incentives to report darling stories.

        For you to say that police do more harm than good shows that you have no clue to what real justice is. If the police quit there jobs or stopped caring we would be fuked, now federal police agencies are completely BS but that is obviously way different. Please u guys sound like a no life Bernie or blm clown, being libertarian does not automatically equate to hating any authority.

        1. Actually, that kinda is what being libertarian means, especially “authority” that is unchecked, mostly because of people like you who have been brainwashed into believing that the cops are heroes and the only thing standing between us and and total chaos. The modem police force was not invented until the 19th century, how do you think civilization lasted until then?

          1. The modem police force was not invented until the 19th century, how do you think civilization lasted until then?

            Some sort of combination of token ring LANs and 5.25″ floppies?

        2. Shall we tell you what you sound like? A blueshirted cocksucker with a first-grader’s grasp of English composition.

          “Rogue cops” include any cops who turn their backs, pretend they didn’t see or hear anything, and hold the “thin blue line” when other asshole cops are accused of brutality, murder, overpolicing, unwarranted property seizure or entry, unwarranted property destruction, or harassment.

          Rogue cops aren’t just the ones who commit crimes themselves. They’re also the supposedly “good cops” who look the other way and cover for the criminal activity of their colleagues. Which means all of them.

      3. In this case, don’t you mean Slav off, copper?

    2. yes, excessive force sometimes happens in the US

      LOL

  8. “I _knew_ them Russkies were behind those third-party candidates!”

    That would have been a caricature of a Republican, what, 50 years ago? Now it’ll be a Dem talking point.

  9. Place Alyona under house arrest! My house.

    Please.

    Pretty please.

    1. If I search for just “Alyona” on Google image search (without ‘RT’), the first few hits are a bit of alright. e.g., hit #1 – probably NSFW, though safe-search is on.

      1. if you do the same search with unsafe search on aka “alyona naked”, you get even hotter pics

  10. Gotta love the fact that we’ve reached the point in this whole ridiculousness that JOE FREAKIN’ BIDEN is now the last voice of sanity from the left. Good times!

    Joe Biden SHUTS DOWN Democratic Congresswoman “It’s Over”. Gets Standing Ovation From GOP

    1. Oh, I think I kind of like Biden now.

      Slapping these idiots down for violations of well-known procedure – multiple times – and he’s not even trying to hide his exasperation.

      1. Did this EXACT same thing happen in 2000 and Gore himself was the one who had to shut it down?

    2. Fuck I was worried for a minute there.

      I saw Klobuchar’s ugly mug there and I thought maybe she was dumb enough to be the Senator who was dumb enough to sign up on one of those protest petitions.

      You know, if she was smarter she would resign in disgrace. If she were only smart enough to be aware that she isn’t even smarter than Al Franken.

    3. They’re Going to Put Y’all Back in Chains

  11. It they had “good news” (aka evidence), the thing would drop on a Monday. Since it was “bad news” (all bluster and no substance), it dropped on a Friday afternoon.

    1. Yeah, i made the same observation in the PM links.

      They dumb this bullshit on fridays to give their lies chance to marinate uncontested. they’ll be debunked by tuesday, but no one will notice.

    2. Such a cynical, accurate take.

  12. Clapper, the DNI head who LIED UNDER OATH TO CONGRESS, says “disparagement” of agents is cause for concern. Oh, that’s rich, that is.

    1. Here’s hoping the first email in his inbox on Jan 21 is “you’re fired”.

  13. erode Americans confidence in our government.

    Does this mean Obama was a Roosky mole?

    1. No, the people who reported the bad things he did…*they* were the moles.

      1. This

      2. John Podesta must be a mole. Or super-stupid

  14. it is extremely short on presenting actual evidence

    you spelled “completely lacking of evidence” wrong.

    1. Some of us don’t need the pomp and circumstance of a date.

    2. we’re all badly-photoshopped?

      1. I wasn’t able to secure the licensing for the ALF lunchbox.

        1. The Ass’n of Libertarian Feminists has a lunch box?

      2. I like how three of the edges of the superimposed image are (somewhat) blended but the fourth isn’t. As though the photoshopper lost interest 75% of the way through.

        1. It occurs to me a split-second too late that HM may have done the photoshopping himself.

          1. No, I subcontract that shit.

            1. You need to tighten up those contract demands.

            2. HM, pay ahead of time next time if you want shit done right. Jerk.

            3. If you contract out your photoshop, you’re contracting out your morals.

      1. If you had the Knight Rider lunchbox, like I did, you would have grown up to be as cool as me.

        1. Fucking rich kids.

        2. Narrowly beats out Magnum PI for having the greatest theme song ever.

        3. Jesus, I had exactly that one. I think it was stolen. Apparently it was really cool.

    3. He does look to be packin’. Can’t say I’m represented there.

    4. It’s like looking in a mirror.

    5. How the FUCK did you get into my wardrobe?!?!

  15. they call the United States a surveillance state full of civil liberties abuses, police brutality, and drone use.

    All of these things are true– with the last one being fairly selective and rare on a broad scale. I Clapper just pissed off that the Russkies are on to him on the surveillance thing?

    1. it’s far from full of police brutality

      even if all excessive force claims WERE true (which they are not and thank god for bodycams etc) , police brutality would stil be astonishingly rare

      force is used in a tiny percentage of arrests and an even tinier receive complaints of excessive force.

      1. Unfortunately, I misread my own quote:

        they call the United States a surveillance state full of civil liberties abuses, police brutality, and drone use.

        with the second-to-last one being fairly selective and rare on a broad scale.

  16. “People are genuinely upset about surveillance and police brutality”

    Don’t let the facts get in the way of your narrative, Scott…

    In the aftermath of Ferguson, after the American public realized they’d been duped AGAIN with this “hands up don’t shoot” bullshit and the truth as proven in 4 different investigations and with plenty of forensics was quite different.

    POLLING SHOWS SUPPORT FOR POLICE AT 40 YR HIGH, ONE POINT FROM ALL TIME HIGH

    the “people who are genuinely upset” are a tiny minority. the vast majority recognize that brutality is rare and dealt with fairly, but police would not enjoy NEARLY the level of support we do, if there was any kind of widespread concern over police brutality here

    contrast with RUssia (and the former USSR), where support for police is low and has been low (especially during the cold war) because they are and have been brutal as fuck, even moreso than you erroneously think we are

    1. You can’t spell “The artist known Dunphy” without “we shit on truth”.

  17. Hilary did a fine job discrediting herself, even former Communists wouldn’t throw away money trying to do the same.

    1. And then she spent gobs of money in states where she was a given, while ignoring others that might make a difference.
      And Vanneman was here yesterday whining that she’s a human punching bag!

      1. I think she never wanted to be POTUS in the first place. She behaves as if being a martyr is more lucrative.

  18. OK, I tried to red the entire thing, but c’mon!
    ‘We thinks the Russkis are bad guys and maybe they hacked into a computer and we have no idea if it affected the election whatsoever’
    We’ve spent the last two weeks waiting for that mealy-mouthed pile of stuff?

    1. It was bullshit from the get-go. Made up whole cloth. This is their attempt at weaseling out of having to provide evidence that doesn’t exist. It would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic how little self awareness they have.

  19. “The agencies believe that Putin wanted to discredit Clinton because he blames her for anti-Putin protests from 2011 and 2012.”

    To what extent was Hillary Clinton responsible for anti-Putin protests in 2011 and 2012?

  20. People want to go to war over this stuff.

    MEANWHILE, IN RUSSIA.

          1. It’s [INSERT CURRENT YEAR], Zagloba!

            1. I only accept that argument from PM Zoolander and any duly deputized member of the PMO.

          2. There you go, enforcing your outdated communist gender roles. It’s 2017 Pan.

  21. “The summary (of a summary) is that Putin believed it would be easier to advance Russia’s interests with Trump rather than Clinton.”

    Did he try making a donation to the Clinton Foundation? I guess he wasn’t getting value for services.

    Incidentally, I believe it’s easier to advance American interests with Trump rather than Clinton.

    I also suspect, in certain cases, it might be easier to advance American interests with Putin than without him.

  22. “Full disclosure here: I appeared on RT twice in 2012 to discuss a couple of instances of alleged police brutality in the Southern California area.”

    I remember a number of Reason staff appearing on Russia Today, and I remember thinking at the time that if the Kremlin wants to help spread the libertarian gospel–for whatever reason–we should let them.

    The suggestion that libertarians are a Fifth Column for the Kremlin are fucking absurd.

    1. And if Russia thinks they can wipe us out if our government is smaller than theirs, I beg them to continue whatever they’re doing.

    1. I sure hope Trump builds a wall around Puerto Rico

      1. A moat would be easier.

        1. Isn’t there already a really big one?

          Needs more sharks or something.

    2. I’ve been watching the CBS News online video thingy.

      On the one hand they report that the guy walked into an FBI office talking about ISIS two months ago. Then in the next breath they proclaim there is “no nexus to terrorism.”

    3. Nope: Esteban Santiago.

      Of course, that doesn’t mean he’s not a Muslim.

      1. I don’t think that the typical mujahid playbook is to walk into the FBI building and claim that ISIS is controlling your mind or whatever. Looks more like vaguely ISIS-flavored crazypants, based on the minor, unreliable information we have.

        1. Yeah, sounds pretty crazypants.

          I don’t think there is a prize for being first to guess the guy’s motivations and connections. I can wait for actual information.

          1. YOU MUST DECIDE NOW. YOU COULD BE KILLED ANY MINUTE!!

    4. I think his pre-emptive announcement to the FBI that the government was controlling his brain may also suggest that he’s….

      …been implanted with some sort of brain-chip.

      A law enforcement official says the Florida airport gunman told the FBI in November that the government was controlling his mind and was forcing him to watch Islamic State group videos....

      …The official says agents in Anchorage completed their interview with 26-year-old Esteban Santiago and called the police, who took him for a mental health evaluation.

      The FBI’s Anchorage field office said in a statement that it was aware Santiago was an Anchorage resident and that it was assisting in the investigation, but it declined to comment further.

  23. …they could apply not just to Reason but to media outlets of varying ideological positions within America.

    How many rubles went into the Koch brothers’ pockets to push Johnson on libertarian potential Hillary voters?

    1. Libertarians hacked the election!!!!

      1. Libertarian Moment?

  24. Comment exchange of the day:

    The report seems to present lots of conclusions to controversial issues (like the hacking) but it provides zero evidence for these conclusions.

    Reply:

    This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment; its conclusions are identical to those in the highly classified assessment but this version does not include the full supporting information on key elements of the influence campaign.

    The authors addressed your complaint on the final page of the report. Stop confusing this matter by introducing a “burden of proof” fallacy.

    1. Burden of proof fallacy? What the Hell is that? Evidence or it didn’t happen.

      1. That’s some facepalm stuff right there – just throwing the word “fallacy” on the end of something doesn’t automatically makes it a fallacy.

        1. That’d be handy, come to think of it. I’ll need to set my company straight about the “embezzlement” fallacy.

      2. There is such a thing as the burden of proof fallacy, but it is not what this guy thinks it is.

        1. Si, quite literally the opposite of what that person ‘thinks’

        2. Huh, I didn’t know the you made the claim, you provide the proof argument had a formal term.

        3. well, dang, my mistake in re: ‘burden of proof fallacy’ – but, yes, he’s got that perfectly backwards.

    2. The report seems to present lots of conclusions to controversial issues

      I don’t know that’s even the case.

      as scott says, a lot of the claims they make are “unprovable”, and are about “intent” = not actions, or the results.

      Those pages also include a bunch of reasons why they believe Putin chose Trump over Clinton that are logical but aren’t exactly provable. The summary (of a summary) is that Putin believed it would be easier to advance Russia’s interests with Trump rather than Clinton

      Sure, the Russians could have “Wanted” Trump more than Clinton.

      Did anything they do be reasonably expected to effect that desire? What affected the election more = the wikileaks emails… or the “deplorables” comment?

      I’d think they could have leaked information showing that her email server had been hacked, and it would have been far more damaging.

      You can claim they were “trying to manipulate the election”… but “trying” doesn’t amount to “doing”. what if they were simply trying to “fuck around” and cause minor trouble … simply because they *can*, because it wouldn’t present any risk?

  25. One point of interest, does anybody think there’s a substantive difference between Russia Today shilling for Trump and, say, The New York Times shilling for Hillary?

    I’m even thinking about the fact that maybe not everybody realizes that Russia Today is a mouthpiece for the Kremlin.

    The BBC is a mouthpiece for elitist government, too.

    PBS and NPR are both pro-Democrat mouthpieces for Hillary Clinton.

    What are we complaining about here? That RT is backed by a government, or that RT is biased in favor of one candidate over another?

    Either way, The BBC, PBS, NPR, Deutsch World News, and France 24 have both of those bases covered, too.

    1. I have to think there’s way more money behind the NYT, MSNBC, CNN, et al. than RT. _Their_ shilling for one candidate is totally legit. RT hosting 3rd-party debates is a clear attempt to subvert democracy!

    2. Isn’t the NYT owned by a Mexican guy?

    3. Not just that. Every. Goddammed. Newspaper. Endorsed either her or no one at all…

  26. I give them credit for figuring out that RT is actually Russia Today.

    1. And this whole time I thought it stood for Rinky-dink Toboggans.

      1. I thought they were talking about that Matchbox 20 guy, Rob Thomas. He’s been anti-government since that time he was locked up with Sinbad.

        1. I though he was killed by zombies.

  27. The CIA, FBI and NSA are all confident that the Russian government, with the support of President Vladimir Putin, attempted to influence the outcome of the 2016 election, attempted to discredit Hillary Clinton as a candidate and erode Americans confidence in our government.

    Well, none of that is a surprise, but none of that says anything about “hacking”. Russia attempts to erode Americans’ confidence in our government, and the U.S. undoubtedly tries to erode Russians’ confidence in their government. That, unfortunately, is the way the game is played. If the U.S. “intelligence community” has no evidence they are actually willing to show the American people that Russia was behind the DNC “hacking”, they can’t expect the American people to simply take their word for it. As Reagan used to say, “Trust, but verify.” Assange says he didn’t get the info from the Russian government (or any other). Which doesn’t prove that there wasn’t simply a second level of intermediary, but no one has proved that there was, either. Someone should ask Assange directly if his source was a Russian national. I don’t know if he’d answer that, and I don’t know that it would really prove anything one way or the other, but I’m surprised no one seems to have asked that, as distinct from asking about the Russian government.

    1. When it comes to the American intelligence community the fallback position should be don’t trust but verify. The reason we aren’t seeing the supposed evidence is it’s either weak sauce or nonexistent.

    2. The CIA, FBI and NSA are all confident

      Well, two of them are, anyway (from the report):

      CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.

      Make of that what you will.

      1. They’re all incompetent?

        1. The NSA read all the CIA and FBI’s emails and were like “holy fuck, these people are incompetent”?

          1. Probably, since they are. I have to believe the NSA is, too. Tell us of any staggering triumphs they’ve had that we’re unaware of if you now about ’em, MA. Everything else is busybody bullshit.

      2. So, basically, the guys with the most expertise on electronic intelligence (e.g. hacking) are the least confident in the claim.

  28. People want to go to war over this stuff.

    They want others to go to war for them.

    1. *Rattles Sabre*

      Oh, come on. Try it. It’s fun.

      1. It is fun but you’ll go blind if you rattle it too often.

        1. I can stop anytime I want. It’s not a problem.

      2. That euphemism is not very obscure.

  29. “Vladimir Putin has accused Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, of fomenting an increasingly vociferous opposition movement in Russia, threatening to derail the two countries’ fragile resetting of relations.

    . . .

    Putin accused Clinton of giving “the signal” to opposition leaders, who are expected to gather with tens of thousands of supporters for a protest on Saturday. He rejected Clinton’s repeated criticism of a parliamentary vote last weekend that gave Putin’s United Russia party nearly 50% of the vote amid widespread reports of fraud.

    . . .

    Clinton raised the issue of Russia’s elections again on Thursday during a visit to Brussels. “Human rights is part of who we are,” she said, after Putin’s comments emerged. “And we expressed concerns that we thought were well founded about the conduct of the elections.

    “Vladimir Putin accuses Hillary Clinton of encouraging Russian protests”
    Russian prime minister says US secretary of state gave a ‘signal’ to Kremlin opponents by criticising elections

    —-The Guardian, December 8, 2011

    http://tinyurl.com/jnqbj4y

    1. It’s not hard to believe that a person like Vladimir Putin might take offense at Hillary Clinton fomenting dissent against him. I can see how it might have occurred to him that turnabout was fair play.

      Incidentally, to what extent was the U.S. government involved in fomenting dissent against Putin in 2011 and 2012?

      In some sense, if we’re going to complain about Putin doing this to Hillary, we should probably check to see if his claims that Hillary did this to him check out.

      I don’t remember seeing Russia’s name in the list of donor countries to the Clinton Foundation, and maybe there was a price to pay for that. Someone should definitely investigate.

  30. ” it cannot reveal a lot of information for fear of revealing sources or intelligence gathering methods”

    We can’t reveal how we routinely hack the Russian government in our report bitching about them hacking the DNC.

  31. I’m shocked, shocked to find out that journalists are acting as mouthpieces for Russia.

    1. Much of the report can be summed up as “Russian state news advancing interests of Russian state”.

  32. “Clinton raised the issue of Russia’s elections again on Thursday during a visit to Brussels. “Human rights is part of who we are,” she said, after Putin’s comments emerged. “And we expressed concerns that we thought were well founded about the conduct of the elections.”

    Isn’t this evidence that Clinton’s tenure at the Department of State was amateur hour?

    Why would the head of our diplomatic efforts say shit like that to undermine Putin’s legitimacy–and then hope to forge a working relationship?

    Word of the day: “diplomatic”.

    “Diplomatic”: employing tact and conciliation especially in situations of stress

    —Merriam Webster

    http://tinyurl.com/jk9s5vn

  33. And now for Canada’s role in world affairs:

    http://bit.ly/2jkYT00

    1. AND they lost the world juniors.

      AND they lost the world juniors.

      http://www.tsn.ca/usa-edges-ca…..d-1.644874

      1. 17-7 shots in OT. Dammit!

        It’s okay. The boys will be alright. We’ll win again.

        1. Ha ha ha. Beat you and the Russian commies in a sport you should both own given your frozen statuses (stati?) Go back to your net and watch for the puck, Johnny Maple Leaf.

          1. /drops head. Quietly picks up puck and puts in pocket. Ponders pounding BP’s head with puck but decides to walk on…to the brasserie.

            1. Thx for the Canadian thing of not beating the shit out of me, even though I ragged on your hockey team.

              I have a lot of family from Canadia, I was wondering how effective at being a dick I could be, even when not mentioning donairs, Horton’s, or poutine.

              1. I know. I remember you saying that.

                The ragging was well earned.

              2. YOU LEAVE POUTINE AND HORTON’S ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!

  34. And it’s several years after the reality of what RT is came to light anyway, so it just reads rather dated.

    You don’t actually expect our intelligence agencies to be up on current events, do you? /sarc

  35. EBS’ summary from the PM links is pretty spot-on

    Eternal Blue Sky|1.6.17 @ 5:09PM| block | mute | #

    So basically I’ve read the whole report released by US Intelligence. Here’s what it pretty much says of note:

    -Russian politicians said bad things about Clinton and good things about Trump

    -Russian media said bad things about Clinton and good things about Trump

    -Wikileaks provided accurate information, there were no forgeries among the leaks.

    -Guccifer 2.0 made a lot of contradictory statements and is probably multiple people.

    -Regardless of the above fact, US intelligence says he’s “likely” Russian, at the end of the document a handy chart they provided translates the word “likely” to mean in intel-speak “a 70% chance of this being the case”.

    -Proof of Guccifer 2.0’s “70% chance” Russian identity is not specified. And because IP’s can be spoofed fairly easily, there’s no compelling evidence offered to confirm this man’s identity.

    IN SUMMATION: Russian politicians and media said things (shockingly) in the interests of Russians to say. There’s a 70% chance that a Russian person gave accurate information about the DNC to wikileaks, there is a 30% chance he was not Russian. No proof was presented in asserting this “70% chance he’s Russian” claim. DNC leaks were 100% legit and authentic.

    1. Find motive and you’ll find your perp. You trying to tell me there are people out there besides the Russians who had an axe to grind with the DNC and Hillary? Crazy talk.

      1. I continue to believe that the DNC’s collusion w/ Hillary to undermine Bernie is the root cause of all the leaks.

        And that the reason the Dems have gone apeshit about this is because they are terrified that further fracturing would be an existential threat to their party. Because if they lose the millenial/retard vote, they’ve basically lost it all.

        1. You add in the “Ewww. Russians are even worse than white people” feeling among the diversity-loving dem base, and you’ve got a nice little boogie man. If they find out that, indeed, the call is coming from inside the house, the party is toast.

        2. No way the Dems fracture. The DNC’s misdeeds against Sanders this cycle were nothing more than a personal favor for Hillary, and with her out of the picture the wounds will heal.

          If a party is at risk of fracture, it’s the GOP once Trump actually starts governing.

          1. i think you’re completely wrong.

            the left’s “younger generation” wants to go harder left. But that way lies electoral suicide. The party establishment wants to try to have their pretend-social-justice cake without actually committing to any real policies. That’s inevitably going to run into a schizm. All the people who think “bernie could have won” (he couldnt’) are going to be demanding to run the 2020 campaign. how do you think that’s going to turn out?

            The right’s more populist, less conservative drift? is something the GOP establishment can adapt to. as long as they get a few of their symbolic victories (e.g. i expect trump will nominate a pro-lifeish SC judge,…. tho that means nothing for any change to the generally pro-choice status quo) they’ll play along with some of his other deviancy from typical conservative orthodoxy. The #nevertrumpers only played that game when it was a matter of hooking their wagon to a brand they thought would fail. Now that he’s all shiny and presidential, they are already toeing the line.

  36. That one country would try to influence the direction of another country through whatever means is not news. It’s the butthurt whinings of loser Democrats. Trump won, get the fuck over it already and stop embarrassing yourselves further.

    1. It’s like they’re completely unaware of what we tried to pull before the last big Israeli election, Brexit, and a host of other examples. They’ve gone completely insane.

      1. Just like “The Party” was unaware of their previous claims of being allied with Eastasia and at war with Eurasia?

        This is intended for consumption of the Dem base (who doesn’t care about Dem hypocrisy) and politically apathetic people (who don’t know about anything political unless it is rammed into their heads by the media).

  37. You know who else the Russians didn’t like?

    1. Rasputin?

    2. Mike Eruzione?

  38. From page 7:
    Russia, like its Soviet predecessor, has a history of conducting covert influence campaigns focused on US presidential elections that have used intelligence officers and agents and press placements to disparage candidates perceived as hostile to the Kremlin.

    Like Mitt Romney? Obama as Russian plant confirmed!

  39. So I guess now we just wait until Trump does he reveal of the deep, dark, secret things only he knows about the Russian “hacking”? Is he still waiting for his 10-year old son the computer expert to get done hacking the Kremlin? Or his reveal going to be much the same as this one – “Oh, we know things, believe me. We know things, lots of things, lots of big secrets, lots of scary stuff you’d shit your pants if we told you what it was. So we’re not going to tell you what we know, you’ll just have to trust us.”

    1. The reveal will be that Trump is Yuri..

  40. I honestly don’t know who the White House is trying to influence with this bullshit

    (because lets be honest – the intel agencies were ordered to put something together that ‘sounded convincing’ to back up the admin’s desired narrative.)

    I mean… the people on the left (and the media) who really want to push the whole ‘Russians done stole the election!”-story? They don’t need “proof”. They either don’t care if its true or not, or will believe it because they want to.

    anyone who might even be mildly skeptical of the idea? is certainly not going to be convinced of anything by the pile of assertions in the “intelligence” report. Its a mess of varying “So What” claims. … where the “intent” of the russians is the scary stuff… but what they *actually have done* is nearly meaningless.

    because what’s the worst claim? that we got to read about john podesta’s icky campaign mechanizations? that donna brazille was exposed as a hack (duh); that (GASP) Hillary and the DNC conspired to undermine bernie?*

    I don’t see how adding “evil russian intent” to that big nothingburger is supposed to influence anyone who might be skeptical.

    In the end, it just undermines the credibility of the media & govt…. even more than it was already damaged before. Fuck, its doing the russians job FOR THEM.

    The idea that our government is lying to us all the time is just going to be further ingrained. and that’s really not good for anyone.

    1. The idea that our govt is lying to us all the time becoming further ingrained is actually a good thing because our government is doing precisely that.

    2. It gives Democratic partisans an excuse for losing, and a stick to beat Trump with.

      1. I can’t see what utility an “excuse” has unless they think they’re so fucked that they’re going to lose again in 2020

        1. You are thinking rationally, but politics is largely irrational. Democrats can’t face the facts of their loss, so they are grasping at excuses. It’s just feelz.

    3. I mean… the people on the left (and the media) who really want to push the whole ‘Russians done stole the election!”-story? They don’t need “proof”. They either don’t care if its true or not, or will believe it because they want to.

      Well that’s just it. Obama wanted to throw them some red meat to motivate the base to stay politically active…which of course means stomping their feet in a nationwide temper tantrum for as long as possible.

      For a politician that so often recites talking points about unity and togetherness, Obama didn’t have to stop and think even for a moment about the long term consequences of publicly declaring it an official US government position that the opposition party stole the election with the help of hostile foreign agents.

    4. 1. Keeps the story in the news cycle.

      2. Arms the Dems with “the assessment of 17 national intelligence organizations (before they got corrupted by Trump)” rather than just the leaks they already had.

      3. The headline is all that matters to people with short attn spans.

      This is not about finding the truth. This is about justifying their obstructionism against the GOP federal govt after villifying obstructionism for the past 8 years, and even more so driving Dem turnout in 2018 and 2020.

      They lost this time around only because they had hugeantic blind spots in the rust belt. They won’t be fooled again.

      1. Don’t forget the FAKE NEWS excuse that the left and the leadership immediately rallied behind right before RUSSIAN HACKING seemed to be a more effective piece of bullshit. Just like that youtube video that caused Benghazi…

  41. I just have this picture of Putin in a dark room pounding away at a keyboard, muttering “I can’t believe that is actually his password!”. Oh, well, we’re in. Can you actually believe they write like this? Why were we worried about the US?!

  42. The idea that our government is lying to us all the time is just going to be further ingrained. and that’s really not good for anyone.

    Gotta disagree with you there, Gilmore. If everybody distrusted government as much as they should, maybe they’d think twice about letting it become so big and powerful.
    OT, the little town in OK that i lived in for a few years has a little place called Gilmore’s Barefoot Bar and Grill. Good burgers.

    1. Gotta disagree with you there, Gilmore. If everybody distrusted government as much as they should, maybe they’d think twice about letting it become so big and powerful.

      I think that’s the starry-eyed libertarian notion about “Distrust of Government”.

      What i’m suggesting is something different, which is more like a discrediting of the rule of law.

  43. The Orangutan is Putin’s butt-boy – there is no question about that. But why?

    They both hate NATO.

    They are both shut off from US credit markets.

    And they both are power hungry to their mutual benefit.

    1. The Orangutan is Putin’s butt-boy – there is no question about that

      I like how Putin has become some kind of all-powerful supervillian. Obviously, the President-elect is the Kremlin’s lapdog! Because the soon-to-be-head of the world’s only remaining superpower has every reason to play second fiddle to a country that could accurately be called “borderline third world”.

      1. Shriek is into his stash already.

  44. If the government can’t adequately prove to the public who is responsible, how can the public support responses like sanctions or even stronger action?

    I remember a time when the government asserted that one of our military vessels was attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin and nobody demanded proof before a war was launched, the public just trusted that their own government wouldn’t lie to them about something that serious and took them at their word.

    So what has happened since then that the American public no longer is willing to take them at their word, that we don’t trust them, that we don’t have confidence in their transparency and honesty? It’s a puzzle. Maybe if that great statesman Richard Nixon were still alive he could explain to us why it’s wrong for us not to trust our government and our leaders.

    1. You don’t need to go back to 1967.

      Our government (including the POTUS and sitting VP) falsely claimed that Iraq had nuclear weapons and that a $2 trillion war was the only alternative.

      1. Chemical, not nuclear. And they repeatedly insisted the war would be a lot cheaper than it ended up being, mostly because they only really accounted for the cost of the invasion (which ended being well within expectations) and not the occupation (which turned into a money-pit clusterfuck).

        1. Get real. The Bushpigs talked up “mushroom clouds”, nuclear centrifuges, and even yellowcake uranium from Niger (after which they outed a covert CIA agent for political revenge).

          The Bushpigs were the most loathsome administration in US history.

          1. Trying to get them != Had them

            The case that was made to the U.N. was over chemical weapons production.

            1. Yes, to the UN because Colin Powell had some degree of honesty about him.

              The Big Lies were told to the American people – not to the UN.

              1. You’re the one who lied. The Bush administration said Saddam Hussein was trying to obtain nuclear weapons. Not that he had them, like you said.

                Moreover, that statement is not a “Big Lie”. Hussein had intended to restart the nuclear weapons program at some point, although it is iffy whether he had already begun doing so by 2002 or that he would have been able to with the sanctions against Iraq and with Israel watching them so closely.

                The “Big Lie” was that it was the U.S.’s job to stop him. That “Big Lie” was bought into by a majority of Congress, who had access to the same intelligence Bush did.

          2. The Bushpigs were the most loathsome administration in US history.

            Please. They might be top 5, at most. Just because you think U.S. history began in 1980 doesn’t mean that it did.

            1. Wilson administration is pretty goddamn hard to beat.

              1. While I think it’s great that Jackson abolished the National Bank of the U.S., that’s practically the Holocaust in shriek’s world.

              2. But Wilson was a Progressive!

                OK, I’ll go with you on Wilson as winner.

              3. Wilson was hardly the only segregationist/racist to become POTUS. That alone does not damn his administration to the bottom five.

                1. Wilson threw people who spoke out against the draft in prison, solidified the income tax, intervened in one of the most disastrous wars in human history and laid the groundwork for the next one, helped to create almost half of the 20th century’s foreign policy problems carving out his new world order with Clemenceau and Lloyd George, and set up a moronic diplomatic system that was doomed to fail.

                  Read a fucking book you moron.

                  1. Oh wow, crickets. How surprising Mr 8% has nothing to come back with.

                2. That alone does not damn his administration to the bottom five.

                  For that, we have him getting us into WWI, getting the Sedition, Espionage, and Immigration Acts he pushed for, and trying to form a new world order with the League of Nations. Heckuva job.

                  But hey, he vetoed the Volstead Act and was a tepid supporter of women’s suffrage.

                  1. Have to add FDR (America’s Brezhnev of the economy) and LBJ in there too.

    2. But shouldn’t we at least trust the media? Remember the Mainframe!

  45. My research has shed new light on the hacking of Caesar. It was the Goths.

      1. Would you believe…a Vandal taxi driver?

  46. The Religion of Peace? strikes again.

    1. All religion is evil – although Islam is the most evil of the lot.

      1. It’s got nothing on Radical Bombisism.

        1. All shreeks are stupid, but some shreeks are more stupid than others.

  47. The bottom line I keep seeing, when all is said and done, is that the Russians are guilty of airing facts and truths that the powers that be would prefer not see the light of day. When all your enemy has to do to defeat you is tell, the truth, the problem isn’t your enemy.

    1. They’re like a guy whining that a PI destroyed his marriage. Newsflash, the PI didn’t stick your dick in the nanny, he just gave proof to your wife.

  48. This all has a whiff of desperation (“mustn’t foment distrust in the government!”) that’s more at home in China than the United States. What a crock.

    1. It comes off as weaselly as Comey did when he decided not to recommend charges. Almost as though it’s not something they want to do, but they have orders from above to turn lead into gold and they have a gun to their head.

    2. It’s very Confucian, and I’m all Confuced.

    3. It’s quite fitting. John Kerry spent yesterday sucking off PRC officials and swallowing their load. “Taiwan is a province of the PRC, we remain United in opinion. *slurrrp*”

      John Kerry can go fuck himself.

  49. I don’t dispute the findings here about RT, but look at those examples and they could apply not just to Reason but to media outlets of varying ideological positions within America.

    AH HA!

  50. RT is the go-to site for the absurd anti-capitalist blog ‘ZeroHedge’.

    1. anti-(((capitalist))) blog ‘ZeroHedge’

      FTFY

  51. . . . the Russian government, with the support of President Vladimir Putin, attempted to influence the outcome of the 2016 election, attempted to discredit Hillary Clinton as a candidate and erode Americans confidence in our government.

    The question I have is ‘why is this a problem in the first place?’

    I mean, do we not attempt to influence the outcomes of elections, attempt to discredit candidates, and erode foreigner’s confidence in their own governments? Do we not actually flat out go and destroy governments that we do not like? Do we not ‘hack’ the communications of foreign government personnel?

    All I can say – and it needs to be said as often as possible is

    1. You really can’t complain when other people do to you the same shit you’ve been doing to them.

    2. There would be no ‘erosion of confidence’ no matter what the Russians hacked, if the DNC wasn’t doing sketchy to illegal shit in the first place. This is some ‘there’s no privacy violation if you don’t know your privacy is being violated’ bullshit justifications here. Nobody would have lost confidence in the DNC if the DNC hadn’t been caught doing shady shit. Hell, if a burglar steals your computer, finds kiddie porn on it, and makes that info public, we don’t wag our fingers at the thief and say he shouldn’t have done that. We prosecute the fuck out of the kiddy-fiddler.

    1. I’d like to read a report which said, “the Russians went into the DNC’s emails in search of incriminating information to leak to American voters, but all the found was a patriotic political party seeking to do what’s best for the United States.”

      Not going to happen.

    2. The funny part is, even if they actually did any hacking, they discredited (if that was still even possible) Mrs. Clinton by releasing the freaking truth!

      1. Which is why I’m amazed that the Democratic Party team wants to keep this matter in the news. Seems like the smart thing would be to try to bury all news about their being hacked and what it revealed.

    3. 3) If our “democracy” is fragile enough to be shattered by fucking RT and a phishing scam, RT and phishing scams are the least of our problems.

  52. Trump might not know shit about free markets and what trade barriers do to them, but one thing he does know is media eyeballs/ratings.

    How freaking loud must he have gotten when the Dem intel dogs told him RT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS WIN? That little website out influenced ALL of the coverage by everybody else? Even Ben Shapiro? COME THE HELL ON!

    1. How freaking loud must he have gotten

      This loud

      1. That is Supa Freak loud bruddah!

  53. Shreeky’s freaking out man, he’s freaking out.

    1. He didn’t gamble money again? I know Cytotoxic forecast a Clinton landslide, but only buttplug would be stupid enough to have put money on it.,

  54. Because this is the unclassified version of the report, it is extremely short on presenting actual evidence and the report up front acknowledges that it cannot reveal a lot of information for fear of revealing sources or intelligence gathering methods.

    Don’t know how you can justify assuming the classified version actually contains any evidence. It could just be a bunch of beating around the bush like the unclassified version.

    Of course, if the classified version is just a bunch of filler, then in a couple of weeks, Trump and his cabinet will have the authority to declassify it. So I can’t imagine the intel community would risk their reputation on doing something like that.

    1. Don’t know how you can justify assuming the classified version actually contains any evidence. It could just be a bunch of beating around the bush like the unclassified version.

      true. I think more important is the point made above – which is that a lot of the claims made aren’t even provable in any case. they’re about “intent” rather than actual actions. It doesn’t really matter if they “wanted” or talked among themselves about how much they disliked Clinton if what they actually did about it (eg. 2 low-brow Phishing scams? both done well before the primaries had even completed?)… was such low-level, chickenshit behavior that had zero actual impact on the results of the election.

      If they’d actually forged some documents and generated actual ginuwine “Fake news” (a la “We have (faked) documents proving hillary sold uranium under the table to North Korea:)…. a la this famous example…. then that might be de-facto “proof” that their intent was sincere.

      but the fact is that the actions don’t quite live up to the ooga-booga scare story the Intel community is trying to spin.

      Speaking of “Rathergate”, i find it surprising no one bothered to note that the most famous example of “Fake News” during a recent election came from the Left.

    2. I can’t imagine the intel community would risk their reputation on doing something like that.

      yeah this is also something i was wondering above.

      then again, consider their unbelievably shitty reputation to begin with. Look at the shit Mike Morell was willing to do for Hillary (e.g. re-write the talking points to help provide political cover for Obama/Hillary). Why wouldn’t they do they same for Obama when called upon?

    3. Of course, if the classified version is just a bunch of filler, then in a couple of weeks, Trump and his cabinet will have the authority to declassify it. So I can’t imagine the intel community would risk their reputation on doing something like that.

      That is unless they bound Trump’s hands by including the names or information of actual agents or institutions in the field who were their alleged sources. So even if the story is totally implausible bullshit that screams of falsehoods, Trump won’t be able to declassify because of all the tangential (but real) programs, contacts and personnel that he’d be putting at risk just to clear his name.

    4. “I can’t imagine the intel community would risk their reputation on doing something like that”

      Didn’t seem to bother Clapper.

    5. “Don’t know how you can justify assuming the classified version actually contains any evidence. It could just be a bunch of beating around the bush like the unclassified version.”

      That unpossible.

      The people who run our government are much smarter than we are–or anyone else is. If they weren’t so smart, how could they lord over the rest of us?

      I met someone from the government once. He’d gone to college and everything.

      They just gave us the summary edition because that’s all our tiny little brains are capable of comprehending.

  55. The emails were authentic.

    Nothing else fucking matters.

    1. Pay no attention to the power hungry cunts behind the curtain.

    2. Thank you DOOMco.

  56. I appeared on RT twice in 2012 to discuss a couple of instances of alleged police brutality in the Southern California area.

    SHACKFRUMPUTIN!

  57. Dead thread Fred, so let me break it down for you all. The Russians used a Cyrillic keyboard to trick us into thinking it wasn’t the Russians. Fail, we’re onto you fuckers. They used old Ukrainian malware to get us to think that no state backed apparatus would use such outdated crap. Sneaky bastards. We can play 6D chess, too. How stupid do they think we are? Wait…Don’t answer that.

  58. reason.com tries hard. A lot of skepticism when it comes to accepting Drumpf might have benefited. But they are not very careful concealing their hard on for him. Or a rage boner for Hillary?can’t be sure which.

    Those pages also include a bunch of reasons why they believe Putin chose Drumpf over Clinton that are logical but aren’t exactly provable.

    Aren’t exactly proved.

    But nice try.

    1. Lithium. Try it. It might help.

      1. Cyanide. You try it. It will help.

        Everyone.

    2. Yeah, i read nothing but pro-Trump articles on this site from June 2015 until after Election Day.

      1. Figures. Since you did not read the comment made above.

        1. This troll is not quite as stupid as Tony, and a bit more coherent than Hihn, but full of impotent rage, more like amsuck.

          Can someone order better trolls, who can argue logically.

          Um..I guess they wouldn’t be trolls.

    3. Uhhhh…. Reason is pro-Trump? That’d be news to the regular readers. Someone should tell them.

      1. Tell ’em what they should already know? Sure. They are rather dim.

  59. RT may play stronger from the other direction here. Assange was a commentator at RT, So when he denies getting information from Russia ,… he was on their government payroll, But proof doesn’t matter here. If they had a live video of Putin doing the hacking himself, the Trumpster cult would call it the biased media. They already swallow the wacko notion that a DNC staffer turned over the emails to punish Hillary for her treatment of Sanders ,,,, as if a Sanders supporter would conspire to elect Trump!!

    Likewise, the Hillary cult would deny a video of a DNC staffer handing over the Podesta-related emails!

    It’s like everything else these days. Politically Correct liberals see Fox News in a vast conspiracy. Politically Correct conservatives see the dreaded MSM conspiracy. And which conspiracy of wealth is more treasonous, the George Soros conspiracy or the Charles Koch conspiracy?

  60. my roomate’s step-mother makes $72 every hour on the computer . She has been out of a job for six months but last month her check was $13623 just working on the computer for a few hours. blog here

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  61. my roomate’s step-mother makes $72 every hour on the computer . She has been out of a job for six months but last month her check was $13623 just working on the computer for a few hours. blog here

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  62. And of course, now we can use the ‘what difference, at this point, does it make’ line.

    1. ..and that would be perfectly valid.

      But in the spirit of that line, can we have at least eight committee hearings?

  63. If the Russian goal was to sow discord in the US democratic process, they succeeded. Russia is against the Neoliberal globalist order, so it backs the populist nationalist movements, including Trumpism, in the West via a multi-prong strategy of hacking, fake news, disinformation, and propaganda. That an enemy state would selectively and damagingly release information that conforms to it’s strategic objectives against the USA is not surprising.

    The incursions on our computer networks from Russia and other countries is nothing new either. We are in the midst of a new cyber-Cold War.

  64. If the government can’t adequately prove to the public who is responsible, how can the public support responses like sanctions or even stronger action?
    Yeah, pity that.

    Maybe they should get the dudes who convince people that Hillary is running a pedophilia ring from a pizza parlor.

    You sure you are not being this rigorous because the alleged hacking possibly helped Drumpf?

    1. We should always be rigorous. The report had no hard data, just ‘trust us.’

  65. uptil I saw the paycheck for $7608 , I accept that…my… friend woz realey bringing home money in there spare time on their apple labtop. . there aunts neighbour has done this for under 18 months and at present paid the loans on there house and purchased a new Chrysler . Check This Out

    ==================== http://www.homejobs7.com

  66. Political commentators on the Sunday shows are stroking their warboners pretty furiously

  67. Are all the people too young or too old to remember Radio Free Europe? Seems that the RT network is doing to us what we did to them.

  68. You want to get good income at home? do you not know how to start earnings on Internet? there are some popular methods to earn huge income at your home, but when people try that, they bump into a scam so I thought i must share a verified and guaranteed way for free to earn a great sum of money at home. Anyone who is interested should read the given article..
    Click this link.

    ===========http://www.joinpay40.com

  69. Which confirms what I’ve previously concluded.

    The bitching about Russian “influence” is fundamentally opposition to the freedom of speech and press.

    The Left doesn’t want you to be able to hear Putin’s arguments. Or the truthful, factual information he supposedly exposed. They only want you to be able to hear the #fakenews put out by their Lying Press and government apparatchiks.

    Americans have the right to hear from the BBC, Al Jazeera, RT, or any other press sponsored by anyone in the world. The Left is getting huffy about “outside agitators”, just like all the other thugs in the world have always done.

    A free press allows governments outside the US to provide a check on the propaganda our local institutions provide. People who oppose it don’t want you to hear an argument they don’t control.

  70. I bought brand new RED Ferreri by working ONline work. Six month ago i hear from my friend that she is working some online job and making more then 98$/hr i can’t beleive. But when i start this job i have to beleived herNow i am also making 98$/hr if you want to try just check this out…..

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  71. Nevaeh. I agree that Richard`s storry is shocking… last wednesday I got a great BMW M3 from earning $5318 this-past/4 weeks and just a little over 10/k lass month. without a question it is the most comfortable job Ive ever had. I began this 10-months ago and pretty much straight away got me at least $83, p/h. see here now

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  72. Ella . although Margaret `s article is super, on friday I got a new McLaren F1 after having earned $4887 this-past/four weeks and just over ten grand last-month . this is actually my favourite-work Ive had . I actually started six months/ago and right away began to earn minimum $82 p/h
    . Read more on this site…..

    ================= http://www.homejobs7.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.