Will you accept the election results?

[Tero]

I can't stand this love fest. Get a room, guys.

[pErvinalia]

But will he accept the erection result?

[Forty Two]

That's what she said.

[Jason]

Obama administration slaps sanctions on Russia, expels 35 diplomats

U.S. President Barack Obama has imposed sanctions on Russian officials and intelligence services in retaliation for Russia's interference in the U.S. presidential election by hacking American political sites and email accounts.

The State Department also has kicked out 35 Russian diplomats from its embassy in Washington and consulate in San Francisco, giving them and their families 72 hours to leave the U.S. The diplomats were declared persona non grata for acting in a "manner inconsistent with their diplomatic status."

Obama said Russians will no longer have access to two Russian government-owned compounds in the United States, in Maryland and in New York.

Russian officials have denied the Obama administration's accusation that the Russian government was trying to influence the election.

U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that Russia's goal was to help Donald Trump win — an assessment Trump has dismissed as ridiculous.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/obama-admi ... -1.3915681

Juicy..

[Jason]

Hmph... so much for Canadian journalism. This article claims the actions taken were a result of Russian harassment of US diplomats in Russia.

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/us- ... spartandhp

[Jason]

There seems to be some confusion here. Now the New York Times is going so far as to call the Russian diplomats "Russian intelligence operatives" and claims these are indeed reprisals for the hacking the CIA has lain at the Russian doorstep - evidence is apparently forthcoming.

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/oba ... spartandhp

[JimC]

There seems to be some confusion here. Now the New York Times is going so far as to call the Russian diplomats "Russian intelligence operatives" and claims these are indeed reprisals for the hacking the CIA has lain at the Russian doorstep - evidence is apparently forthcoming.

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/oba ... spartandhp

Every spy novel I've ever read claimed that 90% of all Russian/Soviet diplomats were really spooks...

[Forty Two]

Obama administration slaps sanctions on Russia, expels 35 diplomats

U.S. President Barack Obama has imposed sanctions on Russian officials and intelligence services in retaliation for Russia's interference in the U.S. presidential election by hacking American political sites and email accounts.

The State Department also has kicked out 35 Russian diplomats from its embassy in Washington and consulate in San Francisco, giving them and their families 72 hours to leave the U.S. The diplomats were declared persona non grata for acting in a "manner inconsistent with their diplomatic status."

Obama said Russians will no longer have access to two Russian government-owned compounds in the United States, in Maryland and in New York.

Russian officials have denied the Obama administration's accusation that the Russian government was trying to influence the election.

U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that Russia's goal was to help Donald Trump win — an assessment Trump has dismissed as ridiculous.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/obama-admi ... -1.3915681

Juicy..

...at least Obama didn't raise a general question about the need for a One China Policy.

[Jason]

Well, no he wouldn't. He's trying to sabotage Trump not the USA.

[Jason]

Report available here: https://www.scribd.com/document/335307386/JAR-16-20296

Actual evidence available... somewhere. Maybe. But it's not in the report.

[Forty Two]

Report available here: https://www.scribd.com/document/335307386/JAR-16-20296

Actual evidence available... somewhere. Maybe. But it's not in the report.

A joint FBI and DHS report on Russia’s alleged hacking of the US presidential election provides no evidence and is a case of fake news and propaganda aimed at undermining the legitimacy of Trump’s win, says former MI5 intelligence officer Annie Machon.
The Obama administration on Thursday imposed a set of unprecedented measures against Russia over its alleged attempts to influence the US presidential campaign this year. The new sanctions were unveiled after the release of the report by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security.

However, the document significantly lacks specifics. It doesn't explain how the two hacking groups described are linked to the Russian government.

RT asked whistleblower, and former MI5 intelligence officer Annie Machon what she makes of the evidence.

“This is very much a case of fake news, shall we say. It seems to serve two ends as well,” Machon said.

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/372268-hacki ... obama-fbi/

“On the day when the ceasefire is announced, which has been brokered by Russia and Turkey – this is a story that will run and run in America, not the ceasefire in Syria. It’s all going to be about these Russians, and hacking the election and things like that. I think this is the first stage – this is why it was announced that the Russian diplomats were going to be expelled,” she said.

“On the second point as well, it is a mass expulsion – 35 diplomats being thrown out of the country with no proof, with no sort of real intelligence. I think that has also been done to gain the idea, to solidify in public’s mind in America that actually Russia was involved in hacking the election. Where has that phrase evolved from? We don’t know. It was originally just hacking the DNC [Democratic National Committee] e-mails. So I think it is a sort of two-pronged attack that has been carried out; that has been carefully announced today to achieve that,” she said.

“One further point from that in terms of trying to solidify the fact that the Russians interfered in the democratic process of America – is part of this ongoing process to try to undermine the legitimacy of the election of Donald Trump – the next president,” Machon said.

The Joint Analysis Report (JAR) on “Russian malicious cyber activity” issued by the FBI and the DHS National Cybersecurity & Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) on Thursday begins with a disclaimer which reads: “This report is provided “as is” for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within.”

According to Machon, the FBI and DHS are “just covering their backs.”

“They know it’s much rubbish…they are trying to blind people with science, but there’s no real evidence,” she said.

“Running in parallel to this is a more serious investigation that Barack Obama apparently asked the CIA to carry out into this alleged Russian hacking of the election. That report is due to be announced no later than January 20 next year,” Machon said, adding that the timing is “interesting” since it’s the date of President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration.

The report by the FBI and DHS doesn’t give any warranties, which “points to the fact that it is pure propaganda and they know it,” Machon told RT.

[Brian Peacock]

How can anyone make a declarative assertion about the truth or falsity of the reports conclusion's without direct scrutiny of evidence which, frankly, is not going to be forthcoming while it may compromise intelligence operations? The people declaring this bunkum have nothing but moral outrage with which to bolster their assertions. If the security services cannot be trusted, nor the committees that oversee their work, then the US's problems are probably more serious and deep rooted than the hacking allegations themselves might suggest.

[Forty Two]

How can anyone make a declarative assertion about the truth or falsity of the reports conclusion's without direct scrutiny of evidence which, frankly, is not going to be forthcoming while it may compromise intelligence operations?

That's a fine statement, but there are a lot of people making declarative assertions that Russia hacked the election, and/or the DNC. My point is exactly that - we haven't been shown any evidence. So, I don't believe the source at their word. I need some proof. And, I would like to see the source actually say "we have concrete evidence, but we can't show it to you because it may compromise intelligence operations," which they have not said (not even words to that effect).

The people declaring this bunkum have nothing but moral outrage with which to bolster their assertions. If the security services cannot be trusted, nor the committees that oversee their work, then the US's problems are probably more serious and deep rooted than the hacking allegations themselves might suggest.

No, we have nothing but a lack of evidence being presented. It may or may not be bunkum. I'm open to it being true. I just don't believe the source without evidence.

And as far as not trusting security sources, have there not been times where you did not trust our security sources? The "WMD in Iraq" thing was based on security sources. “We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it will probably have a nuclear weapon with this decade.” 2002 CIA Report. https://www.scribd.com/doc/259216899/Ir ... pactradius

In September 2015, 50 intelligence analysts complained that they were being pressured to distort information in order to present a rosier picture of the fight against ISIS. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ooked.html

So, well... show me the proof, or it's a nice assertion that I'll give the weight it deserves.

[Brian Peacock]

How can anyone make a declarative assertion about the truth or falsity of the reports conclusion's without direct scrutiny of evidence which, frankly, is not going to be forthcoming while it may compromise intelligence operations?

That's a fine statement, but there are a lot of people making declarative assertions that Russia hacked the election, and/or the DNC. My point is exactly that - we haven't been shown any evidence. So, I don't believe the source at their word. I need some proof. And, I would like to see the source actually say "we have concrete evidence, but we can't show it to you because it may compromise intelligence operations," which they have not said (not even words to that effect).

The people declaring this bunkum have nothing but moral outrage with which to bolster their assertions. If the security services cannot be trusted, nor the committees that oversee their work, then the US's problems are probably more serious and deep rooted than the hacking allegations themselves might suggest.

No, we have nothing but a lack of evidence being presented. It may or may not be bunkum. I'm open to it being true. I just don't believe the source without evidence.

And as far as not trusting security sources, have there not been times where you did not trust our security sources? The "WMD in Iraq" thing was based on security sources. “We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it will probably have a nuclear weapon with this decade.” 2002 CIA Report. https://www.scribd.com/doc/259216899/Ir ... pactradius

In September 2015, 50 intelligence analysts complained that they were being pressured to distort information in order to present a rosier picture of the fight against ISIS. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ooked.html

So, well... show me the proof, or it's a nice assertion that I'll give the weight it deserves.

I think a clue to the problem of this issue is to be found in the word 'secret' in 'secret services.' If you don't trust the secret services to do their secret work secretly, and perhaps you shouldn't post-Snowden, then what's to do?

[Jason]

I didn't say the conclusions are false, only unsupported by evidence. I don't find US intelligence services particularly trustworthy, they have shown, in the past, that they are not above providing "actionable intelligence" in the interest of expediting the political agenda of the day. "Actionable intelligence" which has later proved to be false - Trump wasn't out of line to point of the most egregious of these incidents when he referred to the findings of the US intelligence community on the question of Iraq's possession of WMDs. It isn't conspiracy nutter level stuff to suspect their findings when they provide zero evidence, attempt to blind the public to that fact with a technical report (the contents of which are hardly analyzed in the media), and then finally seem to hide behind the convenient barrier of the supposed classified nature of the evidence - so highly volatile that even a general description of its nature might damage future operations, or so we're left to believe.

An accusation of this magnitude demands at least a general outline of the evidence in hand supporting their accusation. It sets a very dangerous precedent indeed to take something so significantly damaging to foreign relations, not just between the US and Russia, but Russia and the rest of the world, without so much as an outline of proof.