And they have the never to call Trump xenophobic, racist, etc
The irony of your post is probably lost on you. Ironically, you can't prove that my intent - pun intended - was to be xenophobic. It wasn't. However, Trump has a documented past of racist, sexist, and xenophobic behavior. Intent. Again, pun intended.
Every agency has officials that can be named, and why should I discredit this agency? The officials clearly state that they aren't accusing the CIA of lying. When I hear a public statement from the proper officials at this agency, then we can go somewhere with this. The agency is not collectively making a statement considering the spokesman declined to comment, lol. Reading comprehension?
Quote:
"In an angry letter sent to ODNI chief Clapper on Monday, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes said he was “dismayed” that the top U.S. intelligence official had not informed the panel of the CIA’s analysis and the difference between its judgment and the FBI’s assessment.
Noting that Clapper (ODNI chief)in November testified that intelligence agencies lacked strong evidence linking Russian cyber attacks to the WikiLeaks disclosures, Nunes asked that Clapper, together with CIA and FBI counterparts, brief the panel by Friday on the latest intelligence assessment of Russian hacking during the election campaign"
You're not reading yourself. There is evidence. That's why the ODNI is not rejecting the CIA's findings. Is that too hard to understand? I'll go back to my precious example: this isn't worse than the FBI failing to find evidence to convict Hillary. There is evidence here. Strong is a relative term here. I'm sure the FBI thought it had strong evidence to re-open the case against HRC, but what came about that? Wow, lol.
You're not reading yourself. There is evidence. That's why the ODNI is not rejecting the CIA's findings. Is that too hard to understand? I'll go back to my precious example: this isn't worse than the FBI failing to find evidence to convict Hillary. There is evidence here. Strong is a relative term here. I'm sure the FBI thought it had strong evidence to re-open the case against HRC, but what came about that? Wow, lol.
"CIA officials told US media they had "high confidence" that Russian hackers had attempted to sway the US election in Mr Trump's favour"
First you tried to discredit ODNI, later asked for name (and completely ignored them when I gave them), and I'm the one making things up?
Are you serious? They are obviously not gonna call them just like that.
CIA didn't say they was some/enough evidence, they said Russia did it. (“high confidence”)
ODNI: CIA can't prove it was Russia.
You never gave the names of the three officials who talked to Reuters anonymously. Strike one. The ODNI spokesman declined to comment when asked about the comments these officials made. Strike two. The ODNI and Clapper never said the CIA did not have evidence. Strike three. Intelligence agencies agree that Russians hacked our campaigns. The Reuters article you linked has a quote from John McCain clearly stating this. The ODNI is suggesting that intent hasn't been proven, but the CIA has not publicly disclosed its findings, and the investigation isn't complete. Strike four.
Shall I keep going? If you're suggesting that Russians weren't involved in hacking our campaigns, you're wrong. That's just one of the reasons why the ODNI is not rejecting the CIA's findings as false. Intelligence agencies can't publicly make statements like this if they don't have some proof.
CIA is prob the least trustworthy govt agency dunno why people keep believing them.
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.
You never gave the names of the three officials who talked to Reuters anonymously. Strike one. The ODNI spokesman declined to comment when asked about the comments these officials made. Strike two. The ODNI and Clapper never said the CIA did not have evidence. Strike three. Intelligence agencies agree that Russians hacked our campaigns. The Reuters article you linked has a quote from John McCain clearly stating this. The ODNI is suggesting that intent hasn't been proven, but the CIA has not publicly disclosed its findings, and the investigation isn't complete. Strike four.
Shall I keep going? If you're suggesting that Russians weren't involved in hacking our campaigns, you're wrong. That's just one of the reasons why the ODNI is not rejecting the CIA's findings as false. Intelligence agencies can't publicly make statements like this if they don't have some proof.
And that's exactly what CIA did
The one that's saying its not complete is the ODNI.
And that's exactly what CIA did
The one that's saying its not complete is the ODNI.
How is it so hard to understand?
You really have some reading comprehension problems. The CIA, John McCain, and many other intelligence agencies have all stated that Russia hacked the campaigns. The ODNI does not discredit this. The CIA has proof of Russian hacking. What is so hard to understand about that?
You really have some reading comprehension problems. The CIA, John McCain, and many other intelligence agencies have all stated that Russia hacked the campaigns. The ODNI does not discredit this. The CIA has proof of Russian hacking. What is so hard to understand about that?
" 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 FBI and CIA can't agree on this why would people expect much more.
It's clear that this was put out AFTER Trump won because they thought he wouldn't win and didn't bring it to the surface before the election.
This would be a cute little theory and all if it weren't for Donald himself requesting that the Russians hack into Hillary's emails and then emails from Democratic (exclusively) suddenly being leaked online. Also, the CIA confirmed that Russians hacked into voter registration systems in August. This isn't new. Also, the 17 intelligence agents confirming Russian interference took place before the election. If only a candidate had mentioned that... Oh, wait...
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.
Actually he didn't win. People who were inclined to take his side said they couldn't determine motive but the CIA is correct that Russia was behind the hacks that Trump keeps denying. You have to read the fine print....and if the FBI can just on a whim make accusations on a candidate based on demonstrably false information the CIA can make claims backed up by a paper trail evidence.
The CIA, John McCain, and many other intelligence agencies have all stated that Russia hacked the campaigns. The ODNI does not discredit this. The CIA has proof of Russian hacking. What is so hard to understand about that?