What do you think of PE Trump's response to the IC report regarding Russian attempts to influence our presidential election?

CW3 Cherif L. — Sun, 08 Jan 2017 19:19:57 -0500

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 8 at 2017 7:20 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Jan 2017 19:20:59 -0500

Putin was right. Putin did not sway the house and Senate and it was Hilllary's fault for being dumb and secretive! Had she kept her siper or niprnet from the US GOV., then we the world would not know crap and she would have won! its her fault! FSB and anonymous or any other hacker would be in the dark and not have penetrated but HILLARYCLINTON.ORG or .com was too easy a target!

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Jan 8 at 2017 8:22 PM

CAPT Kevin B. — Sun, 08 Jan 2017 20:22:46 -0500

If the UNCLAS report is any indication, there are problems. Three agencies, NOT 17, and not jointly coauthored by DHS/DIA. Two authors have high confidence something happened. No dissenting views. Lots of uncovered relevant topics. In other words, the spin the WH wanted to see. Looks like another in the long series of "directed outcomes". Hope it doesn't turn out that Obama fragged Trump such that he's stuck with the apology. It'll be tough anyways as this points to Russia at most soft pushing the political landscape wherein we have a long history of more directly involving ourselves in other nation's internal affairs. Some of them involved direct military action. Can you say Bay of Pigs? Perhaps we're better off paying more attention to the rash of incompetence that plagues our political system.

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Jan 8 at 2017 8:45 PM

SSG Roger Ayscue — Sun, 08 Jan 2017 20:45:24 -0500

I could care less who released the information.
The bottom line upfront: Hillary Clinton is guilty of everything she is accused of. She lied under oath to Congress. The DNC was unfair to Bernie Sanders. She is guilty of Pay for Play with the Clinton Foundation. She did reveal Classified information to unauthorized individuals.
SHE IS GUILTY...who gives a rat's ass where the information came from? Thank GOD she will not be back in the White House because she deserves to be in the Big House (Federal Prison)

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Jan 8 at 2017 8:54 PM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Sun, 08 Jan 2017 20:54:35 -0500

I think its too late to place blame. Hillary lost due to saying stupid stuff like, "we're going to raise taxes on the middle class" and "coal miners are going to be out of a job". She also judged thousands of voters who supported PE Trump. I also think her people did not listen to Bill who is a political campaign genius. There are also reports about illegal immigrants voting. All these schemes and recounts did not help Killary win.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 8 at 2017 11:36 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Jan 2017 23:36:03 -0500

I think PE Trump is going to learn some seriously hard facts as time goes on- good and bad

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 9 at 2017 8:52 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 09 Jan 2017 08:52:27 -0500

First the only reason why this is a such a big deal is the liberal media needs something to discredit Trump. Hacking has been going on for years by all countries. China has done more damage by hacking our industrial and military plans for weapons systems than releasing a few DNC emails would ever do. Heck pretty sure the U.S. hacked the Iranian nuclear program and sent it a virus that set that program back years and we cheered the success.

Response by SGT William Howell made Jan 9 at 2017 4:24 PM

SGT William Howell — Mon, 09 Jan 2017 16:24:37 -0500

I could care less about Trumps response. I want answers. We have accused another country of interfering in our voting processes. I want some damn proof. Something...anything.

Response by 1stSgt Matthew Olivolo made Jan 9 at 2017 7:23 PM

1stSgt Matthew Olivolo — Mon, 09 Jan 2017 19:23:06 -0500

We know the Russians hacked the DNC e-mails. However, now what can we do to thwart future attempts by any foreign country to do so. And if Trump can work with Putin then even better. If we continue Obama's failed foreign policies nothing would stop Russia from taking over even more countries.

Response by SFC Everett Oliver made Jan 9 at 2017 9:21 PM

SFC Everett Oliver — Mon, 09 Jan 2017 21:21:28 -0500

I read the unclassified version of the report that the FBI, CIA, and NSA supposedly gave to Trump. First thing they said was that they made no assessment on whether or not the Russians actually affected the election.
Then they went into a lengthy discussion about terminology.
then they described how everything or most things seemed to fit the Russians M.O. They described two new Russian TV programs that were anti American. (we were supposed to see those?) Basically after wasting an hour reading this report I came away thinking, "Damn, the classified report better have a lot stronger theme than this did." It fits their M.O.????????? Really????

Response by CPT Jim Schwebach made Jan 10 at 2017 12:20 PM

CPT Jim Schwebach — Tue, 10 Jan 2017 12:20:21 -0500

I believe the question here is what members of the RP community think of DJT's response to the Intelligence Community's(represented by the the three largest agencies) assessment of Russia's activities surrounding the recent election. It's not whether the Democrats failed to secure their information, or whether the Republicans used information gathered from suspicious sources or whether the Greens read tea leaves(I'm assuming GREEN tea leaves here) to come up with their positions.
An intelligence assessment is a statement that reflects the reporting agency(ies)'s best informed position on the action considered. They are based on the credibility of the sources, the prior activities of the subjects, the methods observed, and INT's (SIGINT, HUMINT, etcInt). The agencies present, the recipient interprets and decides on a position based on his own influencers. He is under no obligation to accept any of the information presented.
To use an example in ancient history, there were numerous indicators reported in late '67 and early '68 by intelligence gathering units(comm intercepts and trail observations among others) that indicated that a significant enemy attack was in the works. We reported it, the powers that be listened and decided that the enemy didn't have the capability to launch such an attack and discounted the reports. That was their prerogative. The effect was that the brass got surprised, the troops did their job, the enemy got handed his ass and the intelligence community in that theater gained a lot of credibility.
So DJT did pretty much as expected - he listened to the assessment and responded based on his own influencers. His response indicated he may have believed the part about Russia's activities but not the part about the motives. And that is as it is supposed to work.