That is misrepresenting even that teeny tiny public summary of that data that was reported there. That detail about some of them being congratulatory is rather important and goes beyond "officials react to news". Russian officials saying "Trump won, yay!" is MUCH different than Russian officials saying "Trump won, good work guys!".
Ugh, THINK about what you´re saying there.
No it isn´t. Because the statement is that it supports the claim that Russia was behind the hacking. It says absolutely NOTHING about that and simply cannot be used as evidence for it.
And then there´s the fact that we don´t even know context. I can quote a Swedish official saying something almost identical, does that mean he was involved in the hacking?
Nope, he just said thanks to the man who had kept him up to date with information during the election ( and predicted the end result much closer to what happened than the majority of media managed ).
You do understand that the VAST bulk of the evidence we are talking about here is in the classified report, not a CNN article, right? Even the declassified portion of the public report isn't out yet, this is a *sliver* of the evidence. A freaking teaser.
Yes, funny thing that you know, exactly the same style of gradual presentation of evidence, with a constant baahrrage of nonsense propaganda in between to keep the flames hot, as in the years preceeding the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. How very strange!
Actually, you´re being gullible here. If there was any reason to actually retain secrecy on this, you would not hear ANY OF THIS until years later(if ever).
The fact that things like this is allowed to leak so easily, yet incompletely means it´s almost certainly a controlled leak, 100% intentional. Or in other words, propaganda.
They identified the Russian groups that performed the hack. They identified the go between that brought the data from those groups to Assange.
Really... How interesting then that their statements does not align with the rest of reality, isn´t it?
And funny thing about this you know? If that was actually true, it happened within hours after locating people, because that kind of linking today is quick.
This piecemeal halfassery just shows VERY CLEARLY that it´s an intentional media circus, while the fact that the "Big Revelations" keep contradicting known information suggests that their grounding in facts is fragile at best and outright lies more likely.
Again, go over the media war campaign that prepared for the Iraqi invasion. It´s painfully similar to this crap.
And we just had a US bigwig start talking about how "Russia is a threat".
Oh and they´re discrediting wikileaks as a bonus while they´re at it. Something official USA have wanted sooo bad for years now.
(Also, the detail that there are reports Trump's public skepticism is disconnected from his behavior in intel briefings suggests Trump doesn't actually have substantive objections to the evidence he's being given he's just publicly grandstanding to protect his ego with no regard for the consequences to the nation like the overgrown 6 year old he has always been. )
No, that´s a cute little trick to discredit Trump AND try to make the "evidence" look more real at the same time.
You fell for it so easily, most others will as well.
