Exclusive: Putin-linked think tank drew up plan to sway 2016 U.S. election - document (1 Viewer)

[Moot]

Re: Exclusive: Putin-linked think tank drew up plan to sway 2016 U.S. election - docu

That he was spied on by the Brits. Turned out to be true.

Which came first,...the Trump dossier...or the FISA warrant?

 

[Athanasius68]

Re: Exclusive: Putin-linked think tank drew up plan to sway 2016 U.S. election - docu

You don't understand how hacking into one party's emails, creating and spreading fake news, manipulating voter rolls and sowing distrust of our institutions is undermining democracy? You're really having a hard time with that?

The only thing we know happened is number 1. Number 2 and 3 is pure conjecture, and number 4 requires 2 and 3 to be true, and number 1 to have been false.

 

[Cardinal]

Re: Exclusive: Putin-linked think tank drew up plan to sway 2016 U.S. election - docu

That he was spied on by the Brits. Turned out to be true.

Noooooo, look again.

 

[Athanasius68]

Re: Exclusive: Putin-linked think tank drew up plan to sway 2016 U.S. election - docu

I'm saying full on collusion. Like, they have proof that Trump was coordinating with the Russians to win the election. It's not really complicated. Is it a crime?

Depends what it is. Fixing ballot boxes would be illegal. Taking money from Russia would be illegal. Orchestrating the hack on the Democrats would be illegal.

 

[Moot]

Re: Exclusive: Putin-linked think tank drew up plan to sway 2016 U.S. election - docu

Link 3 is just gibberish.

Links 1 and 2 are a chicken and egg argument. Did Trump do it first or did Russian trolls? Were they in collusion because they were discussing the same things? How do you prove that? Circumstantial at best and easily coincidental. You are reaching as are the media, I mean, you did use ABC, MSNBC and NPR.

My sources are just fine. Too bad you can't rebut them with a rational argument and credible source of your own.

 

[reinoe]

Re: Exclusive: Putin-linked think tank drew up plan to sway 2016 U.S. election - docu

My sources are just fine. Too bad you can't rebut them with a rational argument and credible source of your own.

According to my anonymous sources they're saying that the recent reports are bull****.

 

[hanger4]

Re: Exclusive: Putin-linked think tank drew up plan to sway 2016 U.S. election - docu

Yes, I'm aware he was hacked. But you claimed his password was "password." You shouldn't make up blatant and easily disprovable lies.



Right, he asked them to hack his opponent's emails. You can play the mind reading game if you want, but I won't.



Dude, it was the entire meat of the hearing. Nobody in any level of authority thinks the Russians didn't manipulate the election. Good god, man, what are your sources of information?



Gloat troll fail.



Since you made up the bit about Podesta's password, I can't tell if you're also lying about not knowing that Russia manipulated our election. On the off chance you're being sincere, you need to read the Comey transcript. Russia was balls deep in our election.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ies-on-russian-interference-in-2016-election/

"Right, he asked them to hack his opponent's emails."

Trump's quote;

“I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” the Republican nominee said at a news conference in Florida. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

Nowhere did Trump ask them to hack. Not to mention Clintons server had been out of commission for sometime before his statement.

Must be why you wouldn't substantiate your statement, it's no more than a debunked meme.

 

[Cardinal]

Re: Exclusive: Putin-linked think tank drew up plan to sway 2016 U.S. election - docu

"Right, he asked them to hack his opponent's emails."

Trump's quote;

“I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” the Republican nominee said at a news conference in Florida. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

Nowhere did Trump ask them to hack. Not to mention Clintons server had been out of commission for sometime before his statement.

Must be why you wouldn't substantiate your statement, it's no more than a debunked meme.

Right. After the DNC and Podesta's emails had just been hacked, he obviously wasn't asking Russia to hack Clinton's emails either. He must have been telling them to look behind the sofa.

 

[Moot]

Re: Exclusive: Putin-linked think tank drew up plan to sway 2016 U.S. election - docu

"Hillary was correct...none of the emails she sent or received were marked classified."

This ^^ is not what you said. A refresher;

"No..Clinton always maintained the emails weren't classified when they were sent or received...and she was correct."

As Comey stated their were numerous chains sent and received by Hillary that were classified at the time of sending and receiving.

Clintons story changed day to day concerning the classified state of her emails.

As an aside, technically she's correct in stating none were marked classified. None are, they're marked "Confidential", "Secret", "Top Secret" or "Top Secret SAP". The last of which Comey said her server contained 7 chained. If, as SoS, she was clueless as to what constituted Top Secret SAP, as you content, then you unknowingly made the case for her incompetence handling classified information.

Thats right...none of the emails were not marked classified when they were sent or received. However, some of the emails were retro-actively classified by the FBI during the investigation until they could be verified by the originating agency which was the State Department...who said the three emails that did contain classified markings were human error and should not have been classified at all. She was not clueless...Comey was, because until a reporter told him..he didn't know that State Department had said the marked emails were mistakes and had already declassified them.

 

[Moot]

Re: Exclusive: Putin-linked think tank drew up plan to sway 2016 U.S. election - docu

According to my anonymous sources they're saying that the recent reports are bull****.

My sources were named in the links I posted.

 

[Moot]

Re: Exclusive: Putin-linked think tank drew up plan to sway 2016 U.S. election - docu

"Right, he asked them to hack his opponent's emails."

Trump's quote;

“I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” the Republican nominee said at a news conference in Florida. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

Nowhere did Trump ask them to hack. Not to mention Clintons server had been out of commission for sometime before his statement.

Must be why you wouldn't substantiate your statement, it's no more than a debunked meme.

If Trump wasn't alluding to hacking, then how did he think the Russians would "find the 30,000 emails" that were allegedly missing?

 

[hanger4]

Re: Exclusive: Putin-linked think tank drew up plan to sway 2016 U.S. election - docu

A chain of emails means nothing if the discussion was about one email.

Thats right...none of the emails were not marked classified when they were sent or received. However, some of the emails were retro-actively classified by the FBI during the investigation until they could be verified by the originating agency which was the State Department...who said the three emails that did contain classified markings were human error and should not have been classified at all. She was not clueless...Comey was, because he didn't know that State Department had said they were mistakes and declassified them until a reporter told him.

What part of Comey's words don't you understand ??

"52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification."

"For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received."

If you wish to harp on "not marked" fine, you only make the case for Hillary's incompetence.

Comey said “Even if information is not marked ‘classified’ in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it,” Also Clinton signed a Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement which state's the same.

Clinton Signed NDA Laying Out Criminal Penalties for Mishandling of Classified Info - Washington Free Beacon

Being marked is irrelevant.

 

[Moot]

Re: Exclusive: Putin-linked think tank drew up plan to sway 2016 U.S. election - docu

What part of Comey's words don't you understand ??

"52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received...."

"For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received."

If you wish to harp on "not marked" fine, you only make the case for Hillary's incompetence.

Comey said “Even if information is not marked ‘classified’ in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it,” Also Clinton signed a Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement which state's the same.

Clinton Signed NDA Laying Out Criminal Penalties for Mishandling of Classified Info - Washington Free Beacon

Being marked is irrelevant.

Don't get snippy.

The State Department would not have classified something that was public knowledge, such as a NYT article...but another agency such as the FBI, CIA or DoD probably would because they have different rules and standards for classification than the State Department. So just because the FBI deemed something classified does not mean the State Department would...

A former intelligence analyst who worked at both the CIA and the State Department explains how different approaches to classifying information sits at the heart of the scandal that threatens to undo Hillary Clinton....

"...Even allowing for those facts, however, the uproar about the Clinton email server ignores the reality that, for very good reasons, the CIA and the State Department have different approaches to classification and classified information. These different approaches result from the different functions of the agencies...

The State Department is different. Unlike the CIA, it faces outward to the public and other countries. In fact, it exists for the very purpose of talking to foreigners, many of them not especially friendly. Department officials must regularly exchange sensitive information or proposals with these foreigners. State Department officials often conduct their diplomacy in unsecure locations such as restaurants, hotel lobbies, or over regular telephone lines because there is no realistic alternative. When a major political figure in a foreign country calls the U.S. ambassador on a commercial telephone, is the ambassador supposed to refuse the call? If a political officer is invited to lunch by an interlocutor, should he or she restrict conversation to the weather? Of course not. Business must be done. Obviously, then, it is not a natural thought that business conducted in a busy restaurant in a foreign country must immediately then be treated as a state secret.

Also, the CIA’s notion that publicly known facts reported in newspapers should be treated as classified does not work well in the State Department’s environment. The State Department usually cannot conceal its interest in a topic because when it is interested in something its diplomats often must go talk to foreigners about the developments. The department has to live in the real world, where news stories — even if they report classified facts about the activities of other agencies of the government — actually exist and have effects that must be dealt with, often by them. The differences continue: Unlike CIA officers, State Department officials are not discouraged from admitting for whom they work. Quite the opposite; they are meant to be proud and attractive representatives of their country. Finally, foreigners and journalists are an everyday presence in the State Department because they have to be if the department is to inform, persuade, and coerce foreign publics and governments while remaining accountable to American taxpayers.

So, the two agencies of necessity have different approaches to classification. State Department officials are used to operating in discreet but not classified environments, so their first reaction is not to classify things. Moreover, senior State Department authorities are the classifying authorities for their own information, so they exercise their own discretion in making those decisions. Career diplomat, former Ambassador Princeton Lyman, for instance, told the Washington Post that he was chagrined and surprised to find that some of his emails found on the Clinton server were now considered classified. He commented that, “the day-to-day kind of reporting I did about what happened in negotiations did not include information I considered classified....”

https://warontherocks.com/2016/03/w...ied-where-you-stand-depends-on-where-you-sit/


​

 

[hanger4]

Re: Exclusive: Putin-linked think tank drew up plan to sway 2016 U.S. election - docu

Don't get snippy.

The State Department would not have classified something that was public knowledge, such as a NYT article...but another agency such as the FBI, CIA or DoD probably would because they have different rules and standards for classification than the State Department. So just because the FBI deemed something classified does not mean the State Department would...

A former intelligence analyst who worked at both the CIA and the State Department explains how different approaches to classifying information sits at the heart of the scandal that threatens to undo Hillary Clinton....

"...Even allowing for those facts, however, the uproar about the Clinton email server ignores the reality that, for very good reasons, the CIA and the State Department have different approaches to classification and classified information. These different approaches result from the different functions of the agencies...

The State Department is different. Unlike the CIA, it faces outward to the public and other countries. In fact, it exists for the very purpose of talking to foreigners, many of them not especially friendly. Department officials must regularly exchange sensitive information or proposals with these foreigners. State Department officials often conduct their diplomacy in unsecure locations such as restaurants, hotel lobbies, or over regular telephone lines because there is no realistic alternative. When a major political figure in a foreign country calls the U.S. ambassador on a commercial telephone, is the ambassador supposed to refuse the call? If a political officer is invited to lunch by an interlocutor, should he or she restrict conversation to the weather? Of course not. Business must be done. Obviously, then, it is not a natural thought that business conducted in a busy restaurant in a foreign country must immediately then be treated as a state secret.

Also, the CIA’s notion that publicly known facts reported in newspapers should be treated as classified does not work well in the State Department’s environment. The State Department usually cannot conceal its interest in a topic because when it is interested in something its diplomats often must go talk to foreigners about the developments. The department has to live in the real world, where news stories — even if they report classified facts about the activities of other agencies of the government — actually exist and have effects that must be dealt with, often by them. The differences continue: Unlike CIA officers, State Department officials are not discouraged from admitting for whom they work. Quite the opposite; they are meant to be proud and attractive representatives of their country. Finally, foreigners and journalists are an everyday presence in the State Department because they have to be if the department is to inform, persuade, and coerce foreign publics and governments while remaining accountable to American taxpayers.

So, the two agencies of necessity have different approaches to classification. State Department officials are used to operating in discreet but not classified environments, so their first reaction is not to classify things. Moreover, senior State Department authorities are the classifying authorities for their own information, so they exercise their own discretion in making those decisions. Career diplomat, former Ambassador Princeton Lyman, for instance, told the Washington Post that he was chagrined and surprised to find that some of his emails found on the Clinton server were now considered classified. He commented that, “the day-to-day kind of reporting I did about what happened in negotiations did not include information I considered classified....”

https://warontherocks.com/2016/03/w...ied-where-you-stand-depends-on-where-you-sit/


​

Seriously, you're sticking with the 'it wasn't marked and she didn't know' argument ?? 7 chains of Top Secret SAP material. It is the most sensitive of the sensitive, she was SoS how could she not know ??

 

[Moot]

Re: Exclusive: Putin-linked think tank drew up plan to sway 2016 U.S. election - docu

Seriously, you're sticking with the 'it wasn't marked and she didn't know' argument ?? 7 chains of Top Secret SAP material. It is the most sensitive of the sensitive, she was SoS how could she not know ??

The fact that she wasn't indicted more than proves my point. Now we can we get back to the topic of...Putin-linked think tank drew up plan to sway 2016 U.S. election?.

WASHINGTON -- A Russian government think tank controlled by Vladimir Putin developed a plan to swing the 2016 U.S. presidential election to Donald Trump and undermine voters’ faith in the American electoral system, three current and four former U.S. officials told Reuters. They described two confidential documents from the think tank as providing the framework and rationale for what U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded was an intensive effort by Russia to interfere with the Nov. 8 election. U.S. intelligence officials acquired the documents, which were prepared by the Moscow-based Russian Institute for Strategic Studies, after the election. The institute is run by retired senior Russian foreign intelligence officials appointed by Putin’s office. The current and former U.S. officials spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the Russian documents’ classified status. They declined to discuss how the United States obtained them. U.S. intelligence agencies also declined to comment on them. “Putin had the objective in mind all along, and he asked the institute to draw him a road map,” said one of the sources, a former senior U.S. intelligence official.

Four of the officials said the approach outlined in the June strategy paper was a broadening of an effort the Putin administration launched in March 2016. That month the Kremlin instructed state-backed media outlets, including international platforms Russia Today and Sputnik news agency, to start producing positive reports on Trump’s quest for the U.S. presidency, the officials said. The overt propaganda and covert hacking efforts reinforced each other, according to the officials. Both Russia Today and Sputnik heavily promoted the release of the hacked Democratic Party emails, which often contained embarrassing details. Five of the U.S. officials described the institute as the Kremlin’s in-house foreign policy think tank. On its website, the Russian institute describes itself as providing “expert appraisals,” “recommendations,” and “analytical materials” to the Russian president’s office, cabinet, National Security Council, ministries and parliament.

 

[hanger4]

Re: Exclusive: Putin-linked think tank drew up plan to sway 2016 U.S. election - docu

The fact that she wasn't indicted more than proves my point. Now we can we get back to the topic of...Putin-linked think tank drew up plan to sway 2016 U.S. election?.

OK back to the topic. Reckon the Obama administration had a plan when they meddled in the Israeli election ??

 

[VanceMack]

Re: Exclusive: Putin-linked think tank drew up plan to sway 2016 U.S. election - docu

It isnt a scapegoat, its actually an ongoing official investigation. The truth indeed will come out. Do you not want the truth to come out? It makes no sense to not wait on the results of the investigation. Personally I hope that trump is proven innocent and that Russia didnt get that deep into our inner workings. I do think that at the very least the investigation will show that Trump acted like an idiot.

AT any rate the longer the investigation the more likely that Trump is guilty of treason. If there was nothing to the charges they would have been done a longtime ago. I find that troubling considering that we all depend on the president having integrity. Oh and if the DNC, Hillary and all them idiots did something illegal why isnt the Republicans (and especially trump) not going after them?

Your 'reason' is PRECISELY why you believe HRC is guilty of Treason as well...right? Due to the length of the Benghazi investigations?

 

[reinoe]

Re: Exclusive: Putin-linked think tank drew up plan to sway 2016 U.S. election - docu

OK back to the topic. Reckon the Obama administration had a plan when they meddled in the Israeli election ??

They certainly didn't when Obama flew to England and meddled in British affairs. I wouldn't be surprised if Brexit passed as a repudiation of his interference. Obama was getting rejected left and right throughout all of his presidency. Rejected at the Olympics, rejected at the ballot box: he was rejected the world over.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Re: Exclusive: Putin-linked think tank drew up plan to sway 2016 U.S. election - docu

Do we have evidence of conservative news outlets passing along debate questions to Trump? No? Then there's no comparison.

The point was "did the Trump campaign collaborate with the enemy in the 2016 election", there is no question that it did, Trump himself did so on numerous occasions during the campaign, reading directly from Wikileaks releases.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Re: Exclusive: Putin-linked think tank drew up plan to sway 2016 U.S. election - docu

Your 'reason' is PRECISELY why you believe HRC is guilty of Treason as well...right? Due to the length of the Benghazi investigations?

Dude didnt you even read my post? You just saw that one part and freaked out.

 

[VanceMack]

Re: Exclusive: Putin-linked think tank drew up plan to sway 2016 U.S. election - docu

Dude didnt you even read my post? You just saw that one part and freaked out.

:lamo

I guess that your way of saying "Oh...****...I didnt actually THINK about what I was saying when I made that comment...my bad."

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: Exclusive: Putin-linked think tank drew up plan to sway 2016 U.S. election - docu

My sources are just fine. Too bad you can't rebut them with a rational argument and credible source of your own.

Actually I gave you a rational argument. You just refused to even try to rebut it. You have to give a credible argument that is more than supposition in order for their to be a reason to deny it. Another legal term for you: prima facie as in there isn't that in regards to Trump and Russia.

 

[Moot]

Re: Exclusive: Putin-linked think tank drew up plan to sway 2016 U.S. election - docu

Actually I gave you a rational argument. You just refused to even try to rebut it. You have to give a credible argument that is more than supposition in order for their to be a reason to deny it. Another legal term for you: prima facie as in there isn't that in regards to Trump and Russia.

It was gibberish.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: Exclusive: Putin-linked think tank drew up plan to sway 2016 U.S. election - docu

The fact that she wasn't indicted more than proves my point. Now we can we get back to the topic of...Putin-linked think tank drew up plan to sway 2016 U.S. election?.

Lynch was NEVER going to indict her, don't be ****ing ridiculous. She didn't meet Bill to talk about tee times or theatre. What a joke of an argument.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Re: Exclusive: Putin-linked think tank drew up plan to sway 2016 U.S. election - docu

It was gibberish.

No, it wasn't. Coincidental circumstance is not a case. Similar talking points is not a case. Talking about the same thing still isn't a case. You are basing your dead set positive opinion on cobwebs, supposition and anonymous leaks. As I said, it doesn't even stand up to prima facie examination.