The CIA:

-Funded and militarized terrorists in foreign countries^6

-Funded Blood and Crips gangs in California through drug smuggling^1

-Facilitated distribution of crack cocaine, contributing to the explosion of crack cocaine in America (The reporter who broke this story was later found to have died to two gunshot wounds to the head. It was ruled a suicide)^2

-Influenced media and created propaganda through Operation Mockingbird^3

-Claimed 'Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.' No such weapons were ever found

-Funded Jihad and Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups^4

-Carried out an illegal and failed invasion of Cuba^5

Sources: 1 https://oig.justice.gov/special/9712/ch01p1.htm 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Webb#Dark_Alliance_series 3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird 4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone 5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion 6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair

Unfortunately, this list only covers errors of the CIA, and while it is far fall inclusive of all of them, there is, however, no doubt that they have also made contributions to the public good. I am merely pointing out that the CIA is not a purely altruistic and infallible source.

This list does not even include their long history of regime change (often of democratically elected governments), torture, forced human experimentation, arms dealing, etc. The CIA is by any definition a criminal gang and terrorist organization, and the Clintons are quite wrapped up in their nasty activities. Any good they've done is likely incidental to their other objectives. I hate Trump as much as anyone, but the word of the CIA means nothing.

The CIA is an "ends justify means" organization. And I don't think the ends for them are anything other than "the good of the country" (whatever that means to them at the time). The shady (sometimes downright horrific) things they have done in the past have fit in with that idea. Within that framework, I don't think that they would make these allegations without either good reason to be worried about interference or good reason to be worried about Trump's ties to Russia.

Also, Bay of Pigs was far from an invasion. We didn't even send in air support!

> The CIA is an "ends justify means" organization.

Yes, so take what they say or do with a grain of salt. For instance, as I wrote, they told us they had proven Iraq had WMDs but that was later found to not be true.

> Also, Bay of Pigs was far from an invasion. We didn't even send in air support!

You're manipulating the definition of invasion. An invasion is an invasion. Yes we did not send air planes.

And I already agreed with your point that the CIA is an organization whose intentions are allied with US national interests, I wrote that in my post actually.

Instead of downvoting, I wish people would say why they disagree

In other words they are experts in what influencing another nation illicitly looks like.

This is my view exactly. The NSA/CIA/Pentagon are not new to the game. This is what it looks like when it's done to everyday people, the kind of thing Snowden was concerned about:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/world/europe/vladimir-puti...

And it looks like the people working in our US intelligence agencies also get toyed with from time to time. Either that or there is a bigger pedophile ring in the intelligence agencies than the Vatican:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6W8H5Z0XAc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf5T1lFyaL4

> The reporter who broke this story was later found to have died to two gunshot wounds to the head. It was ruled a suicide

How was it even ruled suicide? How does one shoot ones own head and then shoot it again for a second time? No, am not going to try it and I mean it, so don't make me suicide for questioning this.

> Funded Jihad and Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups

If CIA did it, then isn't CIA a terrorist organization? And if its doing it with support of the president, then ..?

> When asked by local reporters about the possibility of two gunshots being a suicide, Lyons replied: "It's unusual in a suicide case to have two shots, but it has been done in the past, and it is in fact a distinct possibility." News coverage noted that there were widespread rumors on the Internet at the time that Webb had been killed as retribution for his 'Dark Alliance' series, published eight years before, but Webb's ex-wife Susan Bell told reporters that she believed Webb had committed suicide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Webb#Death

Two self-inflicted gunshot wounds directly through the cranial cavity approaches near impossibility. A gunshot wound to other parts of the head might not be instantly self-incapacitating. It would be incredibly interesting to know more details about what exactly happened, here.

I was unable to find any other details of this case, or of other cases of multiple self-inflicted gunshot wounds to the head.

> Two self-inflicted gunshot wounds directly through the cranial cavity approaches near impossibility.

I'm not sure that's the case. A second round consciously fired would be practically impossible, sure - but if the person is using a semi-automatic handgun (the most common type) and their finger muscles contract automatically upon the disruption to their CNS, I can totally see a second round being fired.

No, an ad hominen attack is a fallacious argument where one party attacks another's character to challenge their argument. The only opinion I wrote about the CIA's character was that they generally contribute to the public good, even if they are not perfect (no one is):

> there is, however, no doubt that they have also made contributions to the public good. I am merely pointing out that the CIA is not a purely altruistic and infallible source.

The rest were just facts that are in the public domain already, not opinions or personal attacks.

If you are being asked to take someone's or an organization's word on something, their credibility is a reasonable thing to address, so that's why the post is relevant.

Your post, however, comes across as attacking the argument with insult without substantiation.

No matter what you're replying to, personal attacks like this are not OK on Hacker News.

"Idiot" in Greek means one who is idiosyncratic in his ways and opinion. Basically, one who isn't using common sense. What's wrong with saying that?

The guidelines have made this crystal clear:

> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

> Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Well, "idiot" has rich, historic semantic content that I think fit really well for the occasion. It's not my fault that it's a blacklisted word according to the book of HackerNews Ethics.

Sure. But wouldn't the CIA be more likely to side with the Republican?

A couple of takes on these leaks, which seem to be at odds with FBI conclusions:

https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/12/09/unpacking-new-cia-leak...

https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10/anonymous-leaks-to-the-w...

Another take from a former British diplomat and ambassador (Craig Murray): https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence...

EmptyWheel (good article) is comparing consensus vs formal U.S. assessment (unanimity?).

FWIW, the FBI is one of the 17 agencies in the Intelligence Community and Comey+FBI were definitely tipping the election.

Very relevant: See Hypernormalization 2016.

I am mindful about all the hoopla about the CIA not being the most reliable source, but, I have to be honest, I see it and I'm sure a lot of us see it everywhere, on any article that is critical of putin or Russia, floods of comments that extol Putin's strength or simply try to discredit the messenger. This is similar to their MO, confuse and make the public unsure of what is true or false.

This sounds conspiratorial, but I feel I've seen this sort of astroturfing first hand.

Has anyone seen anything resembling a fact or evidence in all of this?

It wouldn't shock me, given the poor state of the political party's email security, if the emails had been retrieved by multiple entities. I haven't seen anything that illustrates evidence of Russian gov involvement, anything that connects it to an information release, or anything that connects that to intentional election tampering.

It seems more than a little speculative at this point.

The last time the CIA went to the media with supposedly incontrovertible evidence we ended up invading Iraq over WMD's that didn't exist. Food for thought.

Also http://prospect.org/article/pentagon-muzzles-cia

Didn't the CIA provide the evidence that Benghazi was caused by protests over a video? Or, was that fabrication purely the administration's work?

"the CIA protesting a right wing president being installed by a foreign power might be the funniest thing that has ever happened"

Sadly nothing will actually come of this because we're all too lazy and comfortable to care.

I wouldn't say lazy quite yet. I'm still in shock that Republicans have done this to the country. Their infatuation with Putin and Trump's open collusion with him are stunning.

> Trump's open collusion with him

Can you provide some proof of this 'collusion'?

“I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” the Republican nominee said at a news conference in Florida. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/trump-putin-no-relatio...

The linked article?

Also, this is probably nothing that severe, but Ivanka Trump vacationed with Putin's girlfriend[0]...they have indirect personal ties, at least.

[0] http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/291465-ivan...

Putin girlfriend is Chinese married woman? LOL

Russia will eat Putin alive if this is true. Do you have any evidences for that, please?

@dang: Curious to see if the "no political posts" guideline applies to this -- why or why not.

> If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.

The experiment was official concluded two days ago.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13131251

It's still in the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

That's the same rule that has been there for years and not related to the "experiment".

Russians are aimed to elect Clinton, because republicans are natural enemies of Russian dictatorship, while democrats allowed them to start war and capture part of Ukraine despite Budapest memorandum.

How, exactly, does TFA fit in to this theory of yours?

I have no idea what is «TFA». However, I am in war with Russia and I welcome republicans, so I assume that Russians are opposite to me.

TFA = "The Fucking Article". The article that this comment thread is attached to.

OMG. Downvoted to bottom in less than 10 minutes without any comments. :-[ ]

Of all the people that disagree with me, I'm wiling to engage in a conversation with a certain fraction that is closest to my position, because then I have at least some common baseline from which I can start. I belive many people have the same approach. Your comment does not seem to be in that fraction.

I'm OK with that, I will find someone who has better knowledge about situation in the world and USA. Just don't downvote when you are simply disagree.