Further, I'd like to add that if anyone echoes Trump's stupid assertion that the CIA and the rest of the intelligence community has no idea of who was behind the hacks because there's no way to determine that... You don't know what you're talking about. Hacking activity can be traced, and based on what we know from the CIA, they were able to trace the hacking activity to middlemen that have worked for Russian cyber activity in the past. It's not that complicated to imagine.
Why the hell are Trumpkins even trying to act like they have the authority and the insight to act like they know more than the intelligence community? Absolutely pathetic.
Idk to keep terrorists from attacking American soil and keep your likes safe? Funny thing is they're not even the ones who lied about WMD in Iraq.
CIA literally gave GWB a file titled something like "Bin Laden will atack American soil". Bush admin ignored it and we all know how that turned out.
Bush ignored the intelligence briefings and 9/11 happened. I can only imagine what would/will happen under the "President Elect".
Bush ignored the intelligence briefings and 9/11 happened. I can only imagine what would/will happen under the "President Elect".
That's why the ODNI was created tho.
Quote:
The ODNI was established after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the recommendation of the commission that investigated the attacks. The commission, which identified major intelligence failures, recommended the office's creation to improve coordination among U.S. intelligence agencies.
" Intelligence agencies can't publicly make statements like this if they don't have some proof."
CIA, John, etc have evidence, not proofs. Read the damn title.
When you have evidence there's room for doubt. Again, logic has no language.
If you have evidence that Russia hacked campaigns, that means you have proof that Russia hacked the campaigns. Are you slow? Apparently logic is a language you don't understand.
If you have evidence that Russia hacked campaigns, that means you have proof that Russia hacked the campaigns. Are you slow? Apparently logic is a language you don't understand.
Jesus Christ. Proof is conclusive, but evidence isn't. Evidence is more of a suggestion.
And that's why the ODNI said CIA can't prove it.
"While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence"
"ODNI is not arguing that the agency (CIA) is wrong, only that they can't prove intent,"
The ODNI simply said they can't prove intent, which means absolutely nothing. I can't prove the intent as to why Trump ran for president. Intent, regardless of who it is in regards to, is impossible to prove. That statement means absolute ****.
Also, there's plenty of evidence supporting that Russia interfered in the election. No need to imagine, I was speaking of the legitimacy of being able to trace it back. But, you're desperate to discredit anything hurting the Donald. I get it. We all live in our own realities.
Jesus Christ. Proof is conclusive, but evidence isn't. Evidence is more of a suggestion.
And that's why the ODNI said CIA can't prove it.
"While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence"
"ODNI is not arguing that the agency (CIA) is wrong, only that they can't prove intent,"
For real, stop.
They said they cannot prove INTENT. They have direct evidence that Russia interfered into the election. Meaning that there is tangible, provable pieces of data that show that or strongly suggest that and with all the other pieces of context, makes it a very easy case to make. You investigate to prove, you don't refuse to investigate for lack of proof. If you have evidence, you investigate, which is what the intelligence community is working on. Not that difficult.
They said they cannot prove INTENT. They have direct evidence that Russia interfered into the election. Meaning that there is tangible, provable pieces of data that show that or strongly suggest that and with all the other pieces of context, makes it a very easy case to make. You investigate to prove, you don't refuse to investigate for lack of proof. If you have evidence, you investigate, which is what the intelligence community is working on. Not that difficult.
Exactly. Nowhere in the article says ODNI is not investigating, but as the other poster said.
"Intelligence agencies can't publicly make statements like this if they don't have some proof."
Jesus Christ. Proof is conclusive, but evidence isn't. Evidence is more of a suggestion.
And that's why the ODNI said CIA can't prove it.
"While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence"
"ODNI is not arguing that the agency (CIA) is wrong, only that they can't prove intent,"
For real, stop.
John McCain's own words:
Quote:
"It's obvious that the Russians hacked into our campaigns," McCain said. "But there is no information that they were intending to affect the outcome of our election and that's why we need a congressional investigation," he told Reuters.
Russia hacked the campaigns. That is a conclusive statement. The CIA and several other intelligence agencies are now investigating to conclude why. The investigations are not over; however, the CIA has undisclosed documents, which is why they claim that Russia was trying to sway the election. Do you understand this or not? This literally can't be more obvious.
Exactly. Nowhere in the article says ODNI is not investigating, but as the other poster said.
"Intelligence agencies can't publicly make statements like this if they don't have some proof."
And that's what CIA did. They rushed.
They do have "some proof," which is why they stated that Russia hacked the campaigns.
Exactly. Nowhere in the article says ODNI is not investigating, but as the other poster said.
"Intelligence agencies can't publicly make statements like this if they don't have some proof."
And that's what CIA did. They rushed.
They have some proof. Otherwise they wouldn't have made the statement. That doesn't mean that "some proof" has to be released to the public for you to believe it. There's this thing called classified intelligence and that most certainly would be. Further, most Americans wouldn't understand it anyway because of the technological complexity.
"While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence "
"While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence "
ODNI > Hillary's supporters & CIA. Sorry
They have not endorsed nor have they refuted, because the investigation is still ongoing.
And you have absolutely no credibility to make your second statement when it's completely obvious that you just found out about the ODNI yesterday. I hope you take this much interest in your own country's politics and problems.
That was literally the third or fourth time I had to tell you this. And that means they haven't seen all the evidence that the CIA has. Learn how logic works.
"While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence "
ODNI > Hillary's supporters & CIA. Sorry
So, lack of endorsement means that the CIA's investigation that is still ongoing is entirely moot? Lol, cute.
