back to article CIA: Russia hacked election. Trump: I don't believe it! FAKE NEWS!

President-elect Donald Trump has dismissed a report by the CIA claiming that there is proof that Russian government hackers smoothed his route to the White House. On Friday, representatives from the CIA told US Congress that it had evidence that the Russians had hacked the servers of both the Democrats and Republicans, but had …

  1. Eddy Ito

    So nothing new from long before the election except that, OMG, the RNC server may have been hacked as well. I for one am shocked totally nonplussed by the non-news.

    Let me know when they plan the location for the ceremony handing out the PhD's in Duh so I can avoid the entire area.

    1. BillG

      Trust Us - We're the CIA, We Wouldn't Lie to You!

      The CIA - these are the same people that said "No, no, we aren't spying on the American public"?

      Since when has El Reg ever taken the CIA at their word? Is this the very first time?

      Craig Murray, the UK's former man in Uzbekistan and WikiLeaks insider, says that the hacking claims are wrong. The Democratic emails didn't come from hacking, but from an individual in the campaign who leaked the data to WikiLeaks.

      Much more likely. Especially since there was a very, very strong movement inside the DNC to see Hillary lose. Certainly Obama is no fan of hers as she was a royal pain in the arse to the Pres his entire term.

      If you read the Washington Post article, you'll see it states: The bureau [FBI], true to its law enforcement roots, wants facts and tangible evidence to prove something beyond all reasonable doubt. The CIA is more comfortable drawing inferences from behavior.

      From the rest of the article you'll see that the CIA has no facts on their side. "It could have been Russia, sure" becomes "it's Russia, game over'.

      However, saying Russia did the hack does gives a future boost to the budgets of the CIA, DHS, defense, etc. Given that Trump wants to "drain the swamp", claiming Russia hacked the DNC (with zero proof offered) this is a brilliant strategic move on their part.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Trust Us - We're the CIA, We Wouldn't Lie to You!

        "The Democratic emails didn't come from hacking, but from an individual in the campaign who leaked the data to WikiLeaks."

        Mr Assange "seemed" to be saying that at the time, and that the leaker was a DNC staffer who was subsequently murdered in a "robbery" that left his watch, wallet and cash on his body.

        Mr Assange's reward remains unclaimed and the murder unsolved.

        None of the news sources seemed too anxious to cover that particular story.

        I believe Mr Podesta's emails were from a different source?

        1. BillG

          Re: Trust Us - We're the CIA, We Wouldn't Lie to You!

          Meanwhile, members of the Electoral College, which meets on December 19 to vote and confirm Trump into office, have asked for an intelligence briefing on the matter before they vote.

          FAKE NEWS ALERT!

          "members of the Electoral College" sounds like all of them, when in reality ten of the most partisan Democrats (out of 538) in the EC have asked for a briefing that they have absolutely no standing to ask for and will not change anything. 10 out of 538 = 1.7% of electors.

          Thanks for the fake news, Ian! You should work fort CNN!

        2. Ian Michael Gumby

          Re: Trust Us - We're the CIA, We Wouldn't Lie to You!

          The interesting thing is that the CIA has a vested interest in blaming the Russians.

          Its the start of Cold War II. And guess who has their hands out for more money?

          Use Occam's Razor. If the CIA and FBI couldn't say if Clinton's Server was hacked, how can they now say that the Russians hack the DNC? Really?

          And if they could say it, and Congress is acting them to prove it, that would mean that they would have to disclose what they knew and how they knew it. Do you think that they would?

          I mean after all Assange is on Russia's payroll and they paid him to claim it was an inside job as a coverup to hide their hacking.

          As Bolton said, it could be a false flag operation.

          We the public will never know the truth..

          1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

            Re: Trust Us - We're the CIA, We Wouldn't Lie to You!

            The interesting thing is that the CIA has a vested interest in blaming the Russians.

            BIngo. There are pensions, mortgages and kid's college funds at stake here.

            Once upon a time, it was Latin American ops which were providing the safe retirement and the daily bread for the gazillion of parasites dwelling in the building at Langley. Due to the difficulties in operating inside the Soviet Union, it actually did not consume that much manpower and finances during the Cold war.

            Today, it is operations against Russia and its interests are the key cash cow providing safe college funds for the kiddies. As we no longer live in the days of the Iron Curtain, ops can be run and are run on a scale which exceeds USA second half of 20th century LatAm ops. Every second analyst has a pet opposition politician in a small village with 3-4 voters voting for him to feed (*).

            The vested interest in continuing the current cold-war 2 scenario is immense - do not expect the CIA to let go of it.

            (*) Disclaimer: I have been offered a suitcase full of money to help topple the current (too red for US taste) government during my short stint in Eastern European politics many years ago so I know this stuff works first hand.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Trust Us - We're the CIA, We Wouldn't Lie to You!

              It's the only scenario the CIA knows.

              Perhaps Trump has rumbled the Intelligence gravy train. I hope for his sake, he has his own security.

      2. macjules

        Re: Trust Us - We're the CIA, We Wouldn't Lie to You!

        As the (old) joke goes, "How do you know that JFK wasn't assassinated by the CIA or FBI? Because he's dead."

        1. Ian Michael Gumby
          Black Helicopters

          Re: Trust Us - We're the CIA, We Wouldn't Lie to You!

          As the (old) joke goes, "How do you know that JFK wasn't assassinated by the CIA or FBI? Because he's dead."

          That's kinda funny when you consider the historical reference that the CIA couldn't off Castro after so many attempts. (Nor could they get a Coup d'Etat done right either.) And rumor has it that it was the mob that got Kennedy(s).

          The FBI doesn't really have any wet skills either. Not their bag. (black)

          Under Clinton, human Int was reduced in favor of eyes in the sky. This was a bad move and got worse under Obama. Amerikans are great at winning the wars, but lousy in managing the peace.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Trust Us - We're the CIA, We Wouldn't Lie to You!

            "Amerikans are great at winning the wars"

            Citation needed.

            1. Ian Michael Gumby

              Re: Trust Us - We're the CIA, We Wouldn't Lie to You!


              World War I

              World War II

              Desert Storm 1

              Desert Storm 2


              Winning the war, but losing the peace. The last time we got it right was the second world war with the Marshal Plan, although in Desert Storm 1, they didn't have to reconstruct Iraq.

  2. Pen-y-gors

    There's a pattern here

    I'm starting to see a pattern here: whenever Trump says something the opposite is true. He has a speech impediment which means that when he tries to say something, the reverse comes out.

    All Mexicans are rapists = Many mexicans are great people

    Climate Change is a Chinese Conspiracy = Climate Change is a serious problem

    Mr Putin is a really nice guy who likes horses = Don't trust Putin

    Russian interference is a CIA conspiracy = I owe my election to my buddy Vlad

    Next off is his decision that letting the sun rise in the East is a Chinese conspiracy and in future it will rise in the West, or possibly shine 24/7 over the mid-West.

    Really, five years ago you couldn't have made this up.

    1. Youngone Silver badge

      Re: There's a pattern here

      @ Pen-y-gors

      I have some sympathy for your position, and agree that Donald is both a buffoon and a liar, I'm not really sure he's wrong this time.

      In the first tweet we are shown he states "WE tried to play the Russia/CIA card. It would be called conspiracy theory!" and I think he's right. At least that would be my default position.

      In the second tweet he makes the point "Unless you catch "hackers" in the act, it is very hard to determine who was doing the hacking." and that is also true.

      In my humble opinion it almost doesn't matter who is "influencing" the US political process, sometimes it's the Oil industry, sometimes it's Hollywood, maybe this time it's the Russians.

      The whole thing is so corrupt that ordinary Americans probably won't even notice.

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: There's a pattern here

        "Donald is both a buffoon and a liar, I'm not really sure he's wrong this time."

        Yes, well, even a stopped clock is right twice per day :-)

    2. Updraft102

      Re: There's a pattern here

      Trump never said anything even somewhat similar to "All Mexicans are rapists."

      1. d3vy

        Re: There's a pattern here

        @updraft.. you're quite right, but he did imply that Mexican immigrants were criminals and rapists...

    3. Tejekion

      Re: There's a pattern here

      And I am starting to see you, like the shit news services that are Pro Hillary and idiot nimrods like you who are thrashing out, blaming Trump for things that are beyond his control, while ignoring EVERYTHING Clinton(Both of them) have done over the past 40 years. I can honestly say, I don't know where this country is heading with Trump. But that's a damn sight better than knowing the sovereignty of the United States has narrowly been saved, at least for the interim, from the very real threat to it from the global elite.

      1. Indolent Wretch

        Re: There's a pattern here

        Every time someone like you says that it makes me chuckle. Trump isn't one of the global elite? That's right the other billionaires don't let him play their reindeer games as yet another Goldman Sachs executive gets given a massively prominent Whitehouse role.

        Wake up sheeple!

        1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge
  3. GrumpyKiwi

    I'd have more faith in this announcement from the CIA if they didn't have such a very long record of out and out lying to the US public - and indeed also to the politicians who are supposed to monitor them.

    Not CIA I know (NSA), but Director James Clapper lied under oath when questioned about whether the NSA was conducting bulk surveillance on US communications. This of course was just before Edward Snowden showed otherwise.

    1. phuzz Silver badge

      Hey now, the CIA do have a lot of experience in rigging elections...

    2. Ian Michael Gumby

      Bulk surveillance?

      Yes and no.

      Depends which project you were talking about. Collecting the phone metadata was in fact legal and how they did it was very legal. Yes, its a bit of an irony. But the law was clear on the fact that the metadata is not considered personal and private data. Meaning there is no expectation of privacy. However this is a case where you can take two public data sets and then create some form of private/restricted data. If you paid attention, the NSA didn't join the metadata data sets en masse to other data sets.

      There's more, but most here would not try to understand it.

  4. veti Silver badge

    This *was* brought up before the election

    Ad nauseam.

    You lying sack of trump.

    1. rfrovarp

      Re: This *was* brought up before the election

      Yes it was. The coverage I was watching election night basically ended with "if only he had used two factor". Pre-election coverage included security researchers digging through things and coming to the conclusion that a Russian group phished members of the DNC out of their gmail credentials. DNC IT told the user that the message looked legit, but that they shouldn't follow the link in the message and they screwed it up. That's also how they got into Powell's account.

      Whether or not Fancy Bear is part of the government or not is more of the question.

  5. dan1980

    Great, isn't it: the man who unashamedly asserts that 'millions of illegals' voted for Clinton - without the barest shred of evidence - finds reports of the US's biggest rival deploying it's vast and technologically-advanced hacking (word used for convenience) capabilities in an attempt to influence foreign politics towards its own benefit just, well, not very credible.

    Not like 'cyber is so big', or anything . . .

    I'm exercising my right to withhold judgement but on no account should the suggestion of foreign meddling with the election be discarded out of hand.

    1. BillG

      Great, isn't it: the man who unashamedly asserts that 'millions of illegals' voted for Clinton - without the barest shred of evidence

      If you live in California and you are in the U.S. illegally, you can get a driver's license. If you are in the U.S. illegally and you have a driver's license you can register to vote (California New Motor Voter Act). Not only that, but in California there was an intense drive this year to get illegals to register to vote.

      In Massachusetts if you have a utility bill in your name, you can register to vote. In most states homeless people can vote. It's simple for anyone in the USA illegally to vote.

      1. Updraft102

        Why the downvotes for BillG's post? It's a simple statement of fact.

        1. dan1980


          BillG's post is misleading.

          The part he leaves out - either through carelessness, ignorance or duplicitousness - is that the licenses available to undocumented immigrants are a special class of license ('AB-60') that are NOT valid as proof of identification, residency, citizenship or anything other than the right to legally operate a vehicle in California.

          People applying for such a license do NOT have their details submitted for voter registration.

          1. caffeine addict

            Also - if that mechanism did exist to allow drivers license holders to vote, there's no proof that they voted "in their millions" or that they voted in a specific way.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward


          You have upset their world view with evidence.

          If they can't succeed with reason and facts, they will harass, insult, downvote, smear. It's the toolkit.

          1. Ian Michael Gumby

            Funny but the truth is actually on BillG's side.

            1) There is no difference from the outward appearance of the DL because they didn't want the ID to be used as a way to identify the illegals.

            2) The goal is to get illegals and undocumented drivers licenses so that they can drive with a license rather than drive without one. (or insurance) .

            Please get your facts straight.

            Or have Dan please tell us the differences in the IDs.

            Or why some states are in trouble because they don't have an embedded RFID chip in their DLs.

            1. This post has been deleted by its author

            2. dan1980

              @Ian Michael Gumby

              "Or have Dan please tell us the differences in the IDs."

              Sure - no problem. Given I can't post images directly and people may not believe an assertion made by me, please excuse the response being in the form of several links:



              And here is a link showing the identifying marks on several States' licenses (as California isn't alone):


              Do you know why they have these identifying marks that distinguish that these licenses are not to be used as 'real ID'. As hinted in one of the links above, it's because it's part of Federal law that they must:


              Will a doorman at a club know the difference? Maybe not, but will airline staff? Will the Secretary of State? You bloody bet. And you can be sure that the DHS will because they are the ones who must authorise the design of these licenses and ensure that they meet the requirements. If you didn't read the text of the above link then the summary is that the restricted licenses must state "clearly" that they are restricted both on "the face" of the card and also in a "machine readable zone".

              The point is not, however, whether the license card outwardly shows clear and obvious signs that it is a restricted license (and it most certainly does show it), it's the nature of the license itself and the procedure for its issuance.

              The assertion from BillG, several posts ago, was that the Motor Voter law means that undocumented immigrants can register to vote just by getting their license under AB-60. That is the assertion that I am disputing - not because I am a liberal or lefty or because I want to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. I am disputing it because it's just not true.

              The simple fact is that the license requirements are different, as is the application process. The forms and the processes used when applying for a 'full' license include the portions related to registration under the Motor Voter law; the forms and processes used when applying for a restricted, AB-60 license do not.

              "There is no difference from the outward appearance of the DL because they didn't want the ID to be used as a way to identify the illegals"

              You are partially correct. They don't want the license used to discriminate against or infer the immigration status of any individuals but, as you can see from the links above, they clearly didn't make the license outwardly identical because to do so would be a violation of Federal law. Instead, it is part of the AB-60 Act that it is illegal to discriminate against or infer immigration status of someone holding an AB-60 license. See S2 in the text of the Act, below:


              The truth is not "on BillG's side" and it is not on yours. Please read the above links.

              Oh, and your claim about licenses in Chicago? Given the very clear text of the Federal Act linked above, its should be obvious that the licenses must be "clearly" identifiable as not being a 'real ID' because if they weren't, Illinois would be in violation of the Act. So let's see what an Illinois TVDL (Temporary Visitor Driver’s License) looks like compared to a 'normal' license:


              I see what you're saying - yep, no difference there . . . I hope it is clear that claiming there is NO difference in these restricted licenses is just plain false.

              Police not being able to use a restricted license to discriminate against the holder is not the same thing being able to use it to enroll to vote.

              It doesn't take much to check your facts if you actually want to have an accurate understanding.

      2. John Geek

        to register to vote, you have to certify that you are in fact a citizen, and to do so incorrectly is felony perjury. nowhere is a drivers license accepted as proof of citizenship.

        1. Ian Michael Gumby

          @John Geek

          You must not live in the US.

          Google Motor Voter Law.

          Now if you're an illegal citizen, do you really care about committing a felony and perjury? If caught it meant that you're already on the short list to be deported. Or it could be that you got on the rolls not understanding that you couldn't vote and when they sent you the material, you voted. Or someone voted for you on your behalf. Voter fraud exists.

      3. dan1980


        No. There are two laws: one allows undocumented immigrants the ability to obtain a driver's license. The other allows someone to have an application for voter registration automatically submitted at the same time as they obtain a drivers license.

        There are two very important points here, and these points seems to be missed by people making the claim you are making.

        The first is that the licenses made available to undocumented immigrants are NOT the same as an ordinary drivers license. It is a special class of license, referred to as 'AB-60', after the bill. These are limited-use licenses that, specifically, DO NOT confer proof of identity to the holder and, as such, cannot be used to register to vote.

        The second point pertains to the 'Motor Voter' law. That law simply allows for automatic, electronic submission of voter registration details to the office of the Secretary of State for those license applicants who are eligible to vote.

        If you put these two together, you might see that holders of the special AB-60 license are not eligible to vote and, thus, when they apply for this restricted-use license, their details are not submitted to the office of the Secretary of State for eligibility assessment and they will not be registered to vote.

        For what you are saying to be accurate requires that applicants for a special, limited license created for undocumented immigrants is accepted as valid and sufficient identification for voter registration, despite the fact that it is expressly stated that it can NOT be used for exactly that purpose.

        Is it possible that there have been administrative cock-ups? Sure. But that is plain human error and NOT 'millions of illegals' voting, as is the claim made so bluntly by Trump.

        1. Ian Michael Gumby


          You must not spend any time in the DMV.

          Many illegals get the right to vote when they get their drivers licenses. And no there is no difference. This way they can't be identified as illegals from the drivers license.

          I kid you not. Come to Chicago...

      4. Ian Michael Gumby

        @BillG BINGO

        Its the Motor Voter law.

        It was supposedly enacted. (By Bill Clinton when he was PotUS) to help disenfranchised citizens who had trouble registering to vote.

        Yet its far worse.

        In many Blue States (Illinois included) Illegals can get drivers licenses, include green card holders. And in some cases they get registered to vote and vote.

        Then there's all those convicts who got their sentences commuted so that they could vote. This was the Governor in Va who's in Clinton's pocket...

        The facts are there and one of the reasons Trump was voted in was to help clean this BS up.

        Many voted for Trump because it was ABC... (anybody but Clinton)

      5. BillG

        Voting in California

        If you live in California and you are in the U.S. illegally, you can get a driver's license. If you are in the U.S. illegally and you have a driver's license you can register to vote (California New Motor Voter Act). Not only that, but in California there was an intense drive this year to get illegals to register to vote.

        I stand corrected - you do not need a driver's license in CA to register to vote. All you need to do is go to this website: .

        You do not need a driver's license, or street address, or SS number, you just need to fill out the form, claim to be born in the USA and include a county in CA. I was able to go all the way through the process and received a PDF Voter Registration Receipt with an affidavit number. Anyone mailing that in would be registered to vote in that county.


  6. dmazed


    That will do it.

    Wait, wuh. Now China

    well, that settles it, then.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      The American Mirror?

      The Alt-Right echo chamber, more like...

      1. Eddy Ito

        Re: The American Mirror?

        What does that make CNN, Meta-Left?

        1. Rattus Rattus

          @ Eddy Ito

          I am laughing at the thought of CNN being considered "left". It's merely not quite as hard-right as most of the media... Which of course makes it "commie pinko lefty" in the eyes of conservative Americans.

      2. BillG

        Re: The American Mirror?

        The Alt-Right echo chamber, more like...

        FYI, the "alt-right" is a false construct invented by CNN to defame the RNC via bad PR association. It does not exist, it is a media invention.

        Keep in mind that the Right wants a weak central government where the power is kept locally in the states and there is weak corporate oversight. The Left wants a domineering central government that can dictate policy to the weakened states with burdensome corporate oversight. That's why fascism has always, always, historically come from the Left.

        1. Updraft102

          Re: The American Mirror?

          Why the downvotes for BillG's post? It's just a statement...

          ...ah hell, why bother.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: The American Mirror?

            Downvotes because the alt-right is very real, it's just not what the propaganda machine is making it out to be. It's basically the sum of all anti-establishment conservatives worldwide. (And yes, a handful of racists on the fringes. No more than the establishment parties though...)

        2. dan1980

          Re: The American Mirror?


          The 'Alt-Right' is very real and the name is one that they have used for themselves. The question is not whether something called the 'Alt-Right' exists but what set of preferences/beliefs/policies/opinions they hold and how much - if at all - their thinking influences Republican policy.

          Within that group, there are people who would self-identify as 'alt-right' but not necessarily be classified as having all the same leanings and philosophies as others, just as there are Catholics who believe that abortion should be legal and that women should be allowed to be priests.

          On the other hand, there will be those who share the views but reject the label - just as, say, Sam Harris rejects the label 'Atheist' but, by any estimation, he maintains fundamentally the same views as those other who do label themselves as atheist.

          The religious analogy is apropos of nothing - it just came to mind.

        3. Rattus Rattus


          Bill my friend, do you know your right from your left? It doesn't seem like it.

          Fascism, the marriage of government and corporate interests, as pioneered by the hard-right dictator Benito Mussolini.

          Here, have a dictionary definition.




          An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

          synonyms: authoritarianism, totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, autocracy, absolute rule, Nazism, rightism, militarism;

          1. BillG

            Re: @BillG

            Fascism, the marriage of government and corporate interests, as pioneered by the hard-right dictator Benito Mussolini.

            You need to read history instead of using dictionary definitions. Mussolini came from the Italian Socialist Party. His weapon was pure emotion. He eventually denounced orthodox socialism and sought to eliminate individual rights to be replaced by the needs of the masses, much like the DNC is doing today.

            From Wikipedia:

            In 1912 Mussolini was the leading member of the National Directorate of the Italian Socialist Party (PSI).[5] Prior to 1914, he was a keen supporter of the Socialist International, starting the series of meetings in Switzerland[6] that organised the communist revolutions and insurrections that swept through Europe from 1917

            Fascism in theory is much different than it is in practice. It is an extreme leftist philosophy based on emotional manipulation of nationalism that crosses all class lines. In practice, "you will be tolerant of classes or you will be destroyed".

            I grew up listening to my Italian grandfather (immigrated to the US from Italy in 1923) talk about how Benito M. wanted to bring everyone together through social integration, but he FORCED that integration by the extreme left-leaning philosophy of eliminating the rights of the individual to be replaced by the needs of the masses. He did this by threats, intimidation, and murder.

            You can't understand Mussolini's extreme leftist philosophy without reading in detail. Take ten minutes and read this:


            If you have experience that contradicts mine, go ahead, downvote me. But if all you know of fascism is what you read on the internet, may I suggest that you do not have the EXPERIENCE to judge.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: @BillG

              Right, left, fascist, nazi, these are empty words and have been for most if not all of their history.

              I'll agree with you, BillG, that "leftist" collectivist movements often lead to authoritarian governments and policies. But authoritarians come in all stripes.

  7. dalethorn

    "....members of the Electoral College, which meets on December 19 to vote and confirm Trump into office, have asked for an intelligence briefing on the matter before they vote...."

    Talk about fake news! The Reg needs to screen this propaganda first. There IS NO meeting where "members of the Electoral College" can ask for such information.

    1. James 51

      Anyone can ask, it's the getting that's the trick.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Americans, stop blaming the Russians for Trump.

    You lot voted for him.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      No. We fucking did not! Get a clue, before you spew, asswipe.

      1. Updraft102

        Yeah, we did. The "hacked election" accusation consists of release of legitimate emails Democrats were sending to one another. There was no hacking of vote counting machines or anything like that-- at WORST, we got a little bit more information about who the Democrats were than they would have liked. That's it.

        The election was not in any way, shape, or form "hacked". That's sensationalist fake-news clickbait. It doesn't even begin to scratch the surface that the US and international media actively campaigned for Hillary while pretending to be legitimate news outlets. They spread lies (that are believed by many of the people here, unfortunately) and called it "news", but that's okay, apprently. The Russians supposedly released emails sent by Democrats-- in other words, they spread the truth, and that's bad... ?

        The Trump win was a loss for the establishment in both major US parties. The establishment wanted Hillary. The establishment runs the CIA. Get it? It won't be the first time intelligence agencies have been politicized under the direction of their bosses (currently the head boss is Barack Obama).

        1. Indolent Wretch

          Yep the damn establishment... and a majority of American citizens.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Yes, damn the spoilt rotten urban majority and their groupthink. The Constitution is working as designed. This country would be a balkanized clusterfuck like Europe if the less populous states were always overruled by the popular majority.

            This controversy is truly more akin to DeflateGate than WaterGate.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Well I fucking did. It came down to the wire, your team lost, get over it.

  9. Palpy

    Heh, heh.

    No fan of the CIA, but even less of a fan of Trump.

    It seems that Trump-talk and Trump-tweets have no bearing on truth or reality. (The CIA, on the other hand, have been known now and then to produce actionable, real-politik intelligence. And sometimes not so much.)

    I think Trump's statements are, in his mind, similar to negotiating positions. "I will start by asserting that the CIA is wrong, and that I know more about espionage than they do. See how much traction I get. I can either double down (favorite tactic! So much win!) or I can shift as the wind blows." Much like a real-estate mogul throwing out a ridiculous price just to see how big the splash, and who gets wet.

    This is just the usual Trump bluster. But it keeps his name in the headlines, that's for sure.

  10. Kevin McMurtrie Silver badge

    So now what?

    So what if the election was rigged? It probably was, so what does the country do about it? Everything went to hell long enough ago that there was no good candidate to vote for. Nobody can bear starting the election over from the beginning because we're tired and everyone hates each other. At this point I think the best option is keeping Trump too distracted to break anything. More Twitter, please.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Well done El Reg...

    for quoting Craig Murray... he's a good blogger, and usually ignored by mainstream media, and has significantly more credibility IMHO than the people shouting loudest about the origins of these leaks...

  12. Yves Kurisaki

    The CIA has fuck all, as Craig Murray reasons here

    Doesn't stop the corporate media from spreading the crap though.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Main Stream Media, Liberal Media, Corporate Media. Why don't you say what you mean; "My Name is Yves Kurisaki and I write and read fake news!"


      I've been suspicious of the news since I was five years old and was the designated "remote control" for our family. Seemed suspicious to me that every single channel, and we had but three, had their news in sync and even went to commercial at the same time. And every time a plane crashed was reported they had to single out victims by saying "there were no Americans aboard' or some other shithead copy that some asshole wrote for them. But the thing was; the news was the news. It came from several known orgs who disseminated the info in a non-partisan way. It was fair, and balanced. [sic] Now, it's fucking free-for-all for anyone with a computer and a credit card. I can smell bullshit news a mile away. So, I stick with the known proper news outlets. And weed through the fluff and read more news than I watch. It's not rocket science, it's easy. The waters are getting murky, but the ability to spot the bullshit from the real is still there. So, good luck asshole fake news web pages, because some of us are still not buying it!

      Stupid people will always be stupid and unsuccessful, mostly. Nothing has changed. Except that for once Fox (Faux) News in the US is starting to become less idiotic, and more reasonable. When we got Roger, THAT was a good thing. He can go a rape some other secretaries that are stupid enough to work for him. Same thing with Bill O-Really; he paid mucho $$$ to silence his victim. He kept his stupid mouth shut for once. It's a start.

      Personally, I read BBC news. That's good enough for me. It's from a country that I don't completely hate, and they don't have any vested interest in making up nonsense to get me to read it. It's real news, from people who still know how to cover it. Bob's Bait & Tackle & News is not going to be here very long. Fake news is nothing to look at.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward


      FYI folks: that's no random link, it's from the Reg article. Yves Kurisaki was merely highlighting it.

  13. Anonymous Coward

    3... 2... 1... Correction

    Next week they'll be saying "It wasn't Russia, it was North Korea", am I right?

  14. RealityisntReal

    This is the same CIA that told Bush that Saddam Hussain had weapons of mass destruction to use against the US. Why would any sane person take what they have to say at face value? I for one will question anything they say, and ignore it unless there is other corroborating evidence to support it.

    1. Palpy

      NSA, Homeland Security --

      -- both agree with the CIA: Russia hacked both the DNC and the RNC, and tried to throw the game to Trump.

      Probably the most convincing to me is the NSA. They at least know hacking -- as Snowden revealed, they do rather more of it than we suspected.

      1. fragglerock

        Re: NSA, Homeland Security --

        Didn't the FBI also agree Russia did the hacking? They just didn't agree on the motive if I recall, which is what most people seem to be arguing about - did they do it to help Trump etc.

        Also some of the top cybersecurity companies in the world (CrowdStrike, ThreatConnect, SecureWorks) did their own analysis and came to the same conclusion.

        When most of the independent experts come to the same conclusion I tend to side with them.

        1. Anonymous Coward


          Who really believes these "hacking" claims from the CIA, FBI, or NSA? Of course there was hacking. Every computer connected to the internet gets "hacked at" constantly by botnets with IPs in any country you wish. That's fact. Beyond that, draw your own conclusions.

          CrowdStrike, ThreatConnect, SecureWorks? Unless they were all running security for the systems in question when they were breached, they're just guessing or making it up. "Cybersecurity companies", lol. All US-based by the way, probably with a revolving door between them and the TLAs.

    2. Robert 22

      Actually, the CIA did not entirely play along with the script written by the Bush administration - look up Joe Wilson. In any case, the Bush administration ended up creating multiple parallel intelligence channels, each of which had incentives to outdo the others in conjuring up intelligence supporting the case for invasion.

    3. James 51

      They told him that because we sold him the weapons and he used wmd against his own people.

    4. G.Y.

      other way round

      The CIA didn't tell Bush; Bush &Cheney told the CIA

  15. Winkypop Silver badge
    Thumb Down

    A useful fool

    Definition: Donald Trump

  16. a_yank_lurker


    There are couple possibilities for this. First the Russians did hack and throw the elections. Or the donkeys are smoking some good weed.

    Russian hacking is risky for the Russians. If proven, it could be a legitimate causus belli. It would more likely anger Americans and unite the country for a war against Russia much like Pearl Harbor did in WWII against the Japanese. Ask the Japanese how that turned out. I am inclined to think Russians would not be so stupid as to risk a war with a very angry US. Putin seems to have a good grasp of history.

    Donkeys smoking weed is possible as they do not want to admit they lost the election to a buffoon because the "rubes and other assorted white trash" voted for him. It's to shattering to their delicate egos to admit they have a problem. Regardless of the fact the donkeys have written off the "rubes and white trash" as scum whose only purpose is to obey their minders. And the "rubes and white trash" decided to remind them who is boss - the voters.

    1. Palpy

      Re: Possibilities: The Donkeys did it!

      I really don't like these dumb-arse political threads. To much of teh stupid happens.

      But. As much as you may wish it to be so, A_Yank, the CIA and NSA are not adjuncts of the Democratic Party. In fact, Dems like Senator Wyden (whose name sometimes appears on this very website) are quite likely to be thorns in the respective sides of those agencies, rather than their kiss-arses.

      The Dems did not make the allegations about Russian hacking.

      The CIA did.

      And the NSA and Homeland Security concur.

      Blame the Dems if you want, but that's bone-stupid. Just sayin'.

      1. a_yank_lurker

        Re: Possibilities: The Donkeys did it!

        Read the opinion of the federal judge in PA who told Stein to bugger off. The PA system does not connect to the Internet, ever. Plus some PA counties use optical scanning of paper ballots, apparently each county can use whatever state approved system they want. Basically for the Russians to throw PA to Trump would require physical access to the equipment. In one county, the estimate was it would take 4 months for Allegheny County's machines to be hacked. The claim the PA is antiquated may be true but it is so antiquated that it does not connect to the Internet.

        Now, take the PA situation and multiply 51 times (50 states plus DC) and Russian hacking seems rather unlikely. Also, the hacking would likely have to started about the time of the first caucuses and primaries. Apply Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is the US voters in key states voted for Trump over Clinton and the results are accurate. And Clinton ran an incompetent campaign at best.

        1. Eddy Ito

          Re: Possibilities: The Donkeys did it!

          Oh that's just it. Nobody has said the voting machines were hacked or tampered with in any way, well, other than Stein and a handful of crack pots. What the CIA et al. are saying is that the hacking resulted in altering the vote by 'hacking' peoples minds with information like emails taken from DNC servers and phished accounts. It's a lot like the 'fake news' rant which makes assertions that large portions of the public changed their vote because they mistakenly clicked a Facebook link. Everyone is being very careful to step around the actual vote and instead is saying people were misinformed and didn't really want to vote the way they did and wouldn't have voted that way if it weren't for those meddling kids durn Russkies sticking their noses where it doesn't belong.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Possibilities: The Donkeys did it!

            Right. The leaked emails are real, nobody's denied it, it's not misinformation. If it's propaganda, it's the best kind.

            Furthermore, while it caused a few heads to roll at the DNC, it had ZERO influence on the vote. The leaks only confirmed what Clinton opponents already knew or suspected. Clinton supporters were not swayed by the evidence that - shocker!! - politics is dirty. I happen to know a lot of Clinton supporters, and NONE defected to Trump, even though most of them were all like "Feel the Bern!! Hillary for Prison! Anybody but Clinton!!" until the bitter end.

            Tempest in a teapot.

  17. MrDamage Silver badge

    The Tribble on his head is sucking out his brain.

    >> "Unless you catch "hackers" in the act, it is very hard to determine who was doing the hacking. Why wasn't this brought up before election?

    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 12, 2016"

    Remind me again who was the one raving on and on about the election being rigged, before the polls had even opened?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The Tribble on his head is sucking out his brain.

      Well, the media coverage and party machinery were blatantly rigged against him and Sanders. And without verifiable evidence, I presume these new allegations of pro-Trump rigging are a continuation of that pattern.

      Another swamp to drain...

    2. AIBailey

      Re: The Tribble on his head is sucking out his brain.

      That's gonna be one disappointed, hungry Tribble.

    3. John H Woods Silver badge

      Re: The Tribble on his head is sucking out his brain.

      "Unless you catch "hackers" in the act, it is very hard to determine who was doing the hacking" --- DJT

      Is this true? I'm not a security expert, but off the top of my head I'd have thought determining potential identities of hackers requires painstaking and perhaps computationally intense analysis of collated logs and captured traffic. In that case, wouldn't it be easier to determine who was doing the hacking after the event than in realtime?

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    the cyber

    Something about "The Cyber"...

  19. tom dial Silver badge

    It very well may be true that the Russian government tried to influence the presidential election outcome, and that they tried to influence it in favor of Trump. And he won. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?

    "Tried" doesn't cut it. Hillary, along with all of those who endorsed her, and all of those, quite a few of them professional Republicans, who went out of their way to trash Trump, tried to influence the election. And they all failed.

    What is lacking, and will continue to be lacking given the state of Political Science, so called, is any evidence that the Russians (or whoever stole or leaked the emails to Wikileaks) actually succeeded in swaying the outcome. Hillary Clinton's evident deficiencies and baggage, her overbearing sense of entitlement and overconfidence, and her lackluster campaign are what did her in. The belief the Russians did it may comfort the Democrats during their two or more additional years in the wilderness without even a President to ease their pain with executive orders, but there is no need whatever to suppose that is true, nor is there any reason.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      The result is irrelevant

      It doesn't matter whether they succeeded, what matters is the attempt. Unless you would be OK with China hacking Trump's and the RNC's emails in 2020 and putting them out in Wikileaks to make them look bad, hoping for the democrat to win that election because they don't like Trump "getting tough with China". If they did that, there would be no proof that such an act actually made a difference in the end result, but I suspect you would mind that more than what the Russians did to Hillary because this time you approved of the outcome.

      Of course, we did worse in influencing the election in Ukraine, so rather than "let's swing the election to Trump because he's so easily manipulated by saying nice things about him" perhaps it is more "let's make sure Hillary doesn't win because it was her state department that got rid of our guy in Ukraine and got them talking about joining NATO"

      1. tom dial Silver badge

        Re: The result is irrelevant

        "I suspect you would mind that more than what the Russians did to Hillary because this time you approved of the outcome".

        You would be quite wrong. I never have written and posted, or spoken, anything that indicated either support for Donald Trump or a preference for him over Hillary Clinton as US president, and I did not vote for him, although I often have expressed great disapproval of Ms. Clinton's inexcusable behavior in matters of IT governance as Secretary of State, to the point of asserting her unfitness for any public responsibility position.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Refusing to elect Trump"

    Well first of all enough electors in the electoral collect changing their votes to refuse to elect Trump would be totally unprecedented. But for those outside the US who may not be aware, unless enough of them switched to Hillary to elect her (which they probably wouldn't) the lack of anyone getting a majority would send the election to the House of Representatives.

    The republican majority would be free to elect ANYONE, but likely would vote in Trump citing "will of the people" and due to fear that Trump voters would vote them out in 2018 if they went against him. But there would be a lot of drama, and possibly room for a compromise between democrats who don't want to see Trump and republicans from districts where they don't have to be afraid of the Trump voters electing a third candidate, like Paul Ryan.

    But I doubt they could get enough democrats on board for such a thing - they'd need pretty much all of them, and there are enough of them who would stubbornly vote for Hillary knowing she couldn't win and knowing that it would mean they'd get Trump. Though that might not be a bad idea, since they'd have to like their odds of beating Trump in 2020 a lot more than the odds of beating Ryan.

    1. tom dial Silver badge

      Re: "Refusing to elect Trump"

      Not quite. When no presidential candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes, the House of Representatives is required to choose from the three candidates with the highest number of electoral votes, with each state delegation having one vote. They cannot choose "anyone." Choice of vice-president is done similarly.

      This is in the twelfth amendment, which was a fixup for the situation that occurred in 1800, when the rule was that the candidate with the highest number of votes was to be president and the one with the next highest number vice-president. Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr were tied for electoral votes, and the House of Representatives had to sort it out.

  21. Dr.Flay

    ...and the proof is...

    The CIA very recently explained their criteria for establishing blame.

    1) if hackers ask for money they are criminals (bad actors)

    2) if hackers give it away they are state sponsored actors.

    Case closed.

    No room for the vast majority of mischief makers and vandals or those hacker types that join Anonymous, or just do it because of the challenge.

    Wonderful to have such a black and white view of hackers.

    Shame people have forgotten how Venn diagrams work.

    1. John H Woods Silver badge

      Re: ...and the proof is...

      "No room for the vast majority of mischief makers" --- Dr.Flay

      Not saying you're wrong, but what's the evidence? My instinct would be that the majority of hackers are interested in making money, whether through criminality or state sponsorship, that it is a smaller group who are interested in hacktivisim, and perhaps an even smaller group that genuinely just does it for the challenge.

      1. Eddy Ito

        Re: ...and the proof is...

        I haven't seen any evidence there was a monetary motive for the various DDoS attacks on the post office and Talk Talk, Dyn, or Russian banks. I also don't see them as being state sponsored. I suppose it's possible they were attacks for hire but then it's a question of who benefits from them.

  22. drmaddogs2

    some PEOPLE MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER THAT THE 'UN-NAMED', CIA officials.. are like the unnamed original officials that discerned Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

    The so called 'Finger print' that is the entire 'evidence' as to the DNC hacking is a 'rootkit' 'left behind' code and that the direction the server came from was from the 'East'.

    These hacking 'rootkits' are abundant on the net. One can find 'rootkits' from a lot of countries, on the net.. THEY"VE ALL BEEN "HACKED"... Even the NSA had their servers hacked last year!

    Stating the 'Russians hacked' is definitely a politicized statement and before you think the CIA isn't politicized, would you consider the FBI- Comey- Comey's brother doing the Clinton Foundation reviews to restrain the IRS from doing an actual audit... just possibly.. political? The IRS from doing an actual audit of the Clinton Foundation isn't in the cards, anymore than the CIA admitting they have their spying 'rootkits, circa 2015 HACKED, these are 'National Security' items..

    Trump is completely correct on saying 'we don't know whom hacked', as anyone with a FORIEGN ROOTKIT' would leave behind 'Foreign' 'telltales'.. whether the hacker was FORIEGN or not...

    As Priebus mentioned, their, RNC, wasn't hacked according to the FBI. While some say that one cannot tell if a system has been hacked, it is entirely evident the same 'Rootkit' wasn't used against the RNC as that 'kit' would have been discovered because the FBI would have looked for the same code..

    or ANY KNOWN CODES.. from rootkits left behind..

    We have a false story about Russian Hacking here folks and if you don't think the CIA isn't capable and willing to put forward an agenda by a two or three 'unnamed sources' I suggest you remember 'Weapons of mass destruction, the Tonkin incident, Project TP-Ajax,,,

    The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950's to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister.

    In 1960, American Senator George Smathers suggested that the U.S. launch "a false attack made on Guantanamo Bay which would give us the excuse of actually fomenting a fight which would then give us the excuse to go in and [overthrow Castro]".

    Official State Department documents show that, in 1961, the head of the Joint Chiefs and other high-level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. The plans were not carried out, but they were all discussed as serious proposals.

    As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in 1962, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba.

    In 1963, the U.S. Department of Defense wrote a paper promoting attacks on nations within the Organization of American States - such as Trinidad-Tobago or Jamaica - and then falsely blaming them on Cuba.

    The U.S. Department of Defense even suggested covertly paying a person in the Castro government to attack the United States: "The only area remaining for consideration then would be to bribe one of Castro's subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on Guantanamo."

    The NSA admits that it lied about what really happened in the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 ... manipulating data to make it look like North Vietnamese boats fired on a U.S. ship so as to create a false justification for the Vietnam war.

    A U.S. Congressional committee admitted that - as part of its "Cointelpro" campaign - the FBI had used many provocateurs in the 1950s through 1970s to carry out violent acts and falsely blame them on political activists.

    The United States Army's 1994 publication Special Forces Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces - updated in 2004 - recommends employing terrorists and using false flag operations to destabilize leftist regimes in Latin America. False flag terrorist attacks were carried out in Latin America and other regions as part of the CIA's "Dirty Wars"

    Similarly, a CIA "psychological operations" manual prepared by a CIA contractor for the Nicaraguan Contra rebels noted the value of assassinating someone on your own side to create a "martyr" for the cause. The manual was authenticated by the U.S. government. The manual received so much publicity from Associated Press, Washington Post and other news coverage that - during the 1984 presidential debate - President Reagan was confronted with the following question on national television.

    The U.S. falsely blamed Iraq for playing a role in the 9/11 attacks - as shown by a memo from the defense secretary - as one of the main justifications for launching the Iraq war. Even after the 9/11 Commission admitted that there was no connection, Dick Cheney said that the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime, that Cheney "probably" had information unavailable to the Commission...(from the CIA!)

    Although the FBI now admits that the 2001 anthrax attacks were carried out by one or more U.S. government scientists, a senior FBI official says that the FBI was actually told to blame the Anthrax attacks on Al Qaeda by White House officials (remember what the anthrax letters looked like). Government officials also confirm that the white House tried to link the anthrax to Iraq as a justification for regime change in that country.

    2008 US Army special operations field manual recommends that the U.S. military use surrogate non-state groups such as "paramilitary forces, individuals, businesses, foreign political organizations, resistant or insurgent organizations, expatriates, transnational terrorism adversaries, disillusioned transnational terrorism members, black marketers, and other social or political 'undesirables.'" The manual specifically acknowledged that U.S. special operations can involve both counterterrorism and "Terrorism" (as well as "transnational criminal activities, including narco-trafficking, illicit arms-dealing, and illegal financial transactions.")

    A former U.S. intelligence officer recently alleged:

    'Most terrorists are false flag terrorists or are created by our own security services'.

    We need to understand that every Department under the Obama administration has been politicized and the 'Russian hacking' is a false flag, generated by a President in office, directly or indirectly and is now taking advantage of the 'Flag' as many are.

    I highly doubt Russia is thrilled to see a bunch of Generals now in this administration and would have been thrilled to see 'Obama two point O- Hillary'/ 'I have more flexibility after the elections..'(After I beat Romney I can draw down U.S. Nuclear stock piles and rescind the planned interceptor missile plan for Europe.)

    A 'False Flag' from an administration that spied/hacked Germany's election, Israel's and quite a few others, now has 'unnamed souses' in the CIA, headed up by a known lying CIA Director..

    CIA Director John Brennan lied when he denied ordering agency employees to search Senate computers to trace a leak. Frustrated with his unwillingness to admit the obvious, three Senate Democrats on Friday called on Brennan to admit that his agency crossed the line.

    The Senate Intelligence Committee was preparing a report on the CIA's Bush-era torture programs when the spy agency discovered that the committee had somehow acquired an internal CIA report on the program. To determine how the report had leaked, Brennan ordered CIA officers to pry into the computers used by committee staffers.

    Brennan initially denied accusations of hacking, but an investigation by the CIA's inspector general showed his denial to be false.

    Trump is absolutely correct in his assessment of. 'We don't know whom hacked..' and I might add, there are many that could have including many Americans and American Agencies..

    And all one needs, in this case, is to succeed in using rootkits from a chosen State.. to infer anything one wants to infer..

  23. drmaddogs2

    CIA Director John Brennan lied when he denied ordering agency employees to search Senate computers to trace a leak. Frustrated with his unwillingness to admit the obvious, three Senate Democrats on Friday called on Brennan to admit that his agency crossed the line.

    The Senate Intelligence Committee was preparing a report on the CIA's Bush-era torture programs when the spy agency discovered that the committee had somehow acquired an internal CIA report on the program. To determine how the report had leaked, Brennan ordered CIA officers to pry into the computers used by committee staffers.

    Brennan initially denied accusations of hacking, but an investigation by the CIA's inspector general showed his denial to be false.

    This is proof? That determining a 'rootkit' originally made in Russia that left behind a couple lines of code, was a definitive indication that Russia hacked our systems? I've got some news for you folks, the NSA rootkits have been hacked, China's.. most States spy rootkits.. one can leave behind code from ant country's developers and get any inference one wants.

    Trump is absolutely correct in saying 'we don't know' and the false narrative that the so called 'fingerprints' left behind means the Russians did it is avoiding where it is also entirely a likelihood a State Sponsored attempt to hack, wouldn't use their own developed rootkits to hack with..

  24. WaveyDavey


    *IF* you choose to associate yourself with the label alt-right, you are choosing, of your own volition, to associate yourself with racist shitbags, the KKK, the neo-nazis and white supremacists, and the frothing neo-fascists who love this label precisely because it avoids calling them the scumbag titles they would wish to avoid.

    Thus you are tarred by association, and I for one, want nothing to do with you. By choosing that label, you have identified yourself to me as a member of the coalition who espouses everything I loathe.

    I am generally a peaceful person, but any harm that comes your way pleases me deeply.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      *IF* you choose to associate yourself with the label alt-right

      Well, you're a delight, you are.

      Would it be more accurate to start out that sentence with "*IF* I choose to associate you with the label <insert label here>" blah blah blah?

      Saves having to actually think, doesn't it?

      1. WaveyDavey

        Re: *IF* you choose to associate yourself with the label alt-right

        Oh, I have been thinking a great deal about the dumpster-fire that the american election has turned out to be. At least I have the stones to put my name to my opinion, not like some anonymous drive-by dicksplash.

        My sincerest hope is that the US doesn;t drag the rest of us down too badly as it careers madly towards becoming a third-world shithole.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: *IF* you choose to associate yourself with the label alt-right

          I, for one, proudly identify with the non-racist non-fascist vast majority of the alt-right. But I have friends who must remain anonymous for fear of employer retribution, so AC is understandable.

          I like the alt-left too. They're socialists, but the alt-right isn't fundamentally opposed to that. We all want a working safety net at some level, solid public infrastructure, and a government that looks out for the little guy. And of course we're all anti-establishment at this point :)

          > My sincerest hope is that the US doesn;t drag the rest of us down too badly as it careers madly towards becoming a third-world shithole.

          So you don't live here. I got news for you: it's already a third-world shithole, and it got that way under Obama, Clinton, and both Bushes - hence the demise of the old-guard GOP and the rise of the alt-right.

  25. Tom Paine

    I, for one,... deeply impressed by the number of experts in the details of the operations of "the IC", and in particular the number who seem to know things that must surely be classified Top Secret, posting here.

  26. Anonymous Coward

    Welp! Doesnt even look like anyone is buying this!

    Fake news, fake news, fake news!

    Then they do this, push it out on all mainstream media and no one believes them *lmao*

    You are all just Russian Agents right? *lmao*

  27. Anonymous Coward

    Oops! Voter Fraud has been detected...

    Kind of reminds me of how an area in Texas had to remove their voting machines as they kept giving incorrect results (in favor of Hillary as it turned out) and had to switch to paper ballots before the US election.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Oops! Voter Fraud has been detected...

      I'm seeing that 37% of the precincts in Detroit reported more votes than voters.

      You have to admire that kind of productivity - it makes me proud to be an American.

  28. Aodhhan

    Obama... the idiot

    President Obama's statement is an admission of how his administration has failed to protect the American people against cyber attacks.

    I do believe this is the first time he's admitted to something!

    Perhaps the new administration will budget proper funds towards the defense of the country.

  29. captain_solo

    In the Tucker Carlson interview with Adam Schiff who is the one who pushes this agenda the hardest in congress, Schiff refused to answer several specific questions and basically just said "it's settled, you refuse to look at the evidence" which he also refused to provide.

    It seemed to me that he was indicating the hacking of election orgs in several states were the hacks he was claiming were Russia, when even before the election the consensus was that those hacks were interesting, but really had no impact on the outcome of an election, they were more important for the protection of voter records. He refused to answer whether "The Russians" hacked John Podesta's emails, the DNC, or any of the other exposures that were actually relevant to the election and its outcome. The refusal to specifically attribute and the insistence that Carlson was "ignoring evidence" which has not been made public indicates to me clearly that he is spinning a yarn.

  30. Chris Jasper


    "although Russia had interfered on one side of the election, it wasn't clear what its intentions were"

    The words 'interfered on one side of the election' should be the key phrase here...............

  31. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Criticize Donald Trump, get your site smashed offline from Russia" -The Register

    At least all of the Russian hackers supported him. He should be grateful to them and Facebook-Google's Rabbi news algorithms:-)

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "Criticize Donald Trump, get your site smashed offline from Russia"-The Register

      So what? Any idiot can DoS a WordPress site. Oh, Newsweek runs Drupal. Close enough!

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like