K.itchen S.ink N.ews:
Once again, another compilation of News, headlines, videos, and links followed with a summation of “Just what have we learned?”
Certain so-called Conservatives, Alt-Right, and other assorted Fascists, Socialists, Liberals and Marxists in an unusual cabal of political inanity are still saying there is “no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion in the last election”.
These R.I.N.O.s, Alt-Right, and assorted Leftists are tripping and stumbling over mountains of evidence from ALL sources- Conservative, MSM, Liberal, Independent, and even EYE-WITNESSES- to carry the swamp water for a man who is nothing but a New York Liberal, Liar, Con-Man, Fraud, Egomaniac, and Arrogant Blow-Hard, Donnie El Trampo.
Why do they do it?
Some are bought off, the R.I.N.O.s/Faux Conservatives, Populists, talk-show hosts…
Some have been bullied, senators, reps, pundits…
Others are deluded, many from the aforementioned groups, along with Bernie Sanders and HRC followers who see NO difference on many issues…
And some are willful, in-the-know followers who share DT’s “vision” for America, David Duke, The KKK, White-Nationalists and the Russian Mob…
For those still skeptical…there’s the following-
Putin: It’s Possible Private Russian Hackers Interfered In US Elections
“Modern technologies allow to do that kind of thing …”
Russian President Vladimir Putin said it was “theoretically possible” that “patriotically minded” private Russian citizens could have taken it upon themselves to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
“If they are patriotically minded, they start making their contributions — which are right, from their point of view — to the fight against those who say bad things about Russia,” Putin said Thursday.
The Russian president, however, insisted the Kremlin was not directly involved in any coordinated hacking efforts.
“We’re not doing this on the state level,” Putin said.
U.S. intelligence agencies in January assessed with high confidence that the Russian president personally ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at harming then-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
What Intelligence Agencies Concluded About the Russian Attack on the U.S. Election
The office of the director of national intelligence on Friday released a long-awaited unclassified version of its report for President Obama on what the intelligence agencies said was a multifaceted attempt to influence the 2016 presidential election. The report included only the agencies’ conclusions, not the actual intelligence or technical information on which they were based.
Here are some major findings, with comments by The New York Times. The full report is available here.
A strong statement from three intelligence agencies.
• In unequivocal language, the report pins responsibility for the election attack directly on President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, ruling out the possibility that it was ordered by intelligence officials or simply carried out by Kremlin supporters.
• United States officials believe Mr. Putin wants to damage the image of American democracy to make it less attractive to Russians and their neighbors.
Russia took sides in the U.S. election.
• Notably, the report concludes that Russia sought not only to damage Hillary Clinton, whom it thought likely to win, but actually tried to help elect Donald J. Trump.
• The C.I.A., F.B.I. and N.S.A. agreed on nearly everything in the report, but here we see that the N.S.A. was less certain than the other agencies that Russia was trying to help Mr. Trump.
Putin saw this attack as payback.
• An important insight into Mr. Putin’s thinking: He already blamed the United States for multiple campaigns against Russia, including the release of the Panama Papers, showing offshore accounts hiding the fortunes of some of his closest friends and allies, and the exposure of Russian athletes for doping. For him, this was payback.
• There is no evidence suggesting that the United States government had a role in releasing the Panama Papers, and while American officials complained of Russian doping, there is no basis to suggest that they fabricated evidence of it.
Putin held a grudge against Clinton.
• The election attack was personal, the report concludes: Mr. Putin thought Mrs. Clinton had insulted him and encouraged demonstrations against him in Russia.
Trump’s business background appealed to Putin.
• A new observation: Mr. Putin has enjoyed close relations with some Western leaders who had personal business ties to Russia. The report suggests he may have seen Mr. Trump in a similar light, though the Trump Organization has no major projects in Russia.
The election attack was part of a larger campaign.
• While the intelligence agencies see the leak of hacked materials to influence the election as “unprecedented,” they view it as part of a familiar Russian information strategy using every form of contemporary media to influence public opinion.
The hacking was done by Russian intelligence.
• The report’s most specific finding on hacking tracks with what cybersecurity experts have said: that two different hacking groups attacked Democratic targets, one described here as “Russian intelligence,” the other more specifically as the G.R.U., Russian military intelligence.
• Contrary to expectations, the report says nothing about the forensic analysis or American spying on which the conclusions are based.
The key was not hacking but leaking.
• Here the report accuses the Russian government of going beyond standard cyberespionage, in which hacking is used to get information, to an attack by releasing the information to influence the election.
• As expected, the agencies accuse the G.R.U. of being behind Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks.com, two outlets that released hacked emails and documents, and with supplying hacked emails to WikiLeaks, though it does not suggest WikiLeaks editors necessarily knew the source.
Evidence that Russia was happy Trump won.
• The report cites positive Russian news coverage of Mr. Trump’s victory as confirmation that Mr. Putin’s government took sides in the election.
• In the agencies’ view, the Russian government sees Mr. Trump’s victory as one in a series of wins for populist movements championed by Mr. Putin.
This will happen again.
• The report suggests that Mr. Putin believes the combination of hacking and leaks is a low-risk, high-impact way to influence other countries — and that Russia is likely to keep trying the same methods against the United States and other countries.
SUMMATION OF THE FIRST TWO ARTICLES.
Our intel said back in January that there is a LOT of evidence showing the Trump-Putin connection. We saw that evidence HERE, K.S.N. : Volume II, The Real Reason DT Fired Comey: REAL Conservatives KNEW This Already, (REAL) Conservatives Against Trump,
Now that Putin is admitting the possibility/likelihood (the reality) that it happened…and the report ties it TO Putin…only those who willfully choose to be deaf and blind to truth reject it.
WASHINGTON — In the aftermath of the GOP health care debacle came a revealing act of candor. House Speaker Paul Ryan admitted that his party, which controls the House, Senate and White House, is not yet a “governing party” because it could not “get 216 people to agree with each other on how we do things.”
Since the rise of the tea party, there have been perhaps 30 members of the House — the Freedom Caucus — who have been consistently unwilling to vote for center-right policy because their anti-government convictions are unappeasable. Incited and abetted by conservative media, they made Speaker John Boehner’s life a living hell, and have greeted Ryan with sharpened pitchforks.
So a party at the peak of its political fortunes is utterly paralyzed. A caucus in control of everything is itself uncontrollable.
Heading into the 2016 election, Republicans knew that this problem — the tea party predicament, the Freedom Caucus conundrum, the Boehner bog — had to be dealt with. The GOP needed a large and capable leader who could either unite the whole party (at least temporarily) with a bold, unifying conservative vision, or peel off some centrist Democratic support with innovative policy. They needed an above-average president.
What they got is unimaginably distant from any of these goals. They got a leader who is empty — devoid of even moderately detailed preferences and incapable of using policy details in the course of political persuasion.
Republicans got a leader who is impatient and easily distracted — by cable news on the Russian scandal or by Arnold Schwarzenegger’s TV ratings. The content and consequences of his tweets are bad enough; worse is the disordered personality traits they reveal — vindictiveness, shallowness and lack of discipline. Trump spent a total of 18 days on his health care bill before demanding a vote. And he made no speech to the nation to advance his ideas — as every other recent president would have done.
Republicans got an administration that is incompetent. The White House policy process has been erratic and disorganized. It has failed to provide expert analysis and assistance to Congress and did little to effectively advocate the president’s policy in ways that unite the party.
Republicans got an administration that is morally small. Trump’s proposed budget would require massive cuts in disease research, global development and agricultural programs — just as a famine gathers a hideous strength. The proposed budget practices random acts of gratuitous cruelty.
There is MUCH MORE that could be added…stay tuned, more IS forthcoming!
-Rev. Larry Wallenmeyer.