The key findings from the US intelligence report on the Russia hack, decoded - VOX.com

[Bill USA]

.. this is a very good article. It really needs to be read in full.

http://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/6/14194986/russia-hack-intelligence-report-election-trump

Late Friday afternoon, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) released a declassified version of its report on Russia’s interference in the US presidential election. The report, which draws on intelligence gathered by the FBI, CIA, and NSA, concludes with “high confidence” that “Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election” that included hacking the personal email accounts of Democratic Party officials and political figures.

~~
~~

All three intel agencies agree that Putin personally ordered the hack, and that the goal was to help Trump

The ODNI report states conclusively that Putin personally ordered the email hacks of Democratic Party officials as part of a broader campaign to influence the US election in Trump’s favor. This seems to have sprung, in part, from Putin’s paranoia concerning perceived US attempts to undermine his government.

The report explains that Putin was incensed about a series of scandals that embarrassed his government, such as the Panama Papers leak, which revealed (among other things) a secret $2 billion account held by Putin personally. The Russian hacking campaign was designed in part to throw a similar kind of dirt on the United States, which he held responsible for his embarrassment.

~~
~~

The campaign was designed to disproportionately target Clinton, whom Putin saw as a threat — he blamed her, in particular, for the 2011 anti-government protests in Russia. So the “consistent goals” of the influence campaign, the report says, were “to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.”

(more)

[Fred Sanders]

1. More evidence that Trump was not legitimately elected. How much more evidence does it take?