Are you saying that you don't believe the Russians hacked the election to get Trump elected? It's a conspiracy between the CIA and Obama?

Less than half of America voted. Less than half of those who did vote voted for Trump. That's called Democracy.

The obstacle for Trump (reality) is his own electors, has absolutely nothing to do with the Dems. 

My opinion now is Trump might turn out to be a better president than Hilary. Yes Trump is a liar  but he is at the very least addressing the issue of companies leaving the country. All other politicians give it no attention or give companies a helping hand out. Hilary, militarism fighting over Syria for no reason, a new cold war. yes Russia hacked the election in his favor. But we deserved it because we've been doing the same for decades including the Ukraine which led to war in that country. Also, American government helps to keep Americans stupid with the schools. So if Americans weren't so stupid, we'd see through the BS, and were all the fake news stories manufactured by Russia or were most of them produced by the Republican party, yeah!

But will Americans learn anything from this? Nope

Just, so you'll know:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-10/soft-coup-attempt-imminent-furi...

A "Soft Coup" Attempt: Furious Trump Slams "Secret" CIA Report Russia Helped Him Win

by Tyler Durden

Dec 10, 2016 9:11 AM

Overnight the media propaganda wars escalated after the late Friday release of an article by the Washington Post (which last week admitted to using unverified, or fake, news in an attempt to smear other so-called "fake news" sites) according to which a secret CIA assessment found that Russia sought to tip last month’s U.S. presidential election in Donald Trump’s favor, a conclusion presented without any actual evidence, and which drew an extraordinary, and angry rebuke from the president-elect’s camp. 

“These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,” Trump’s transition team said, launching a broadside against the spy agency. “The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It’s now time to move on and ‘Make America Great Again.’ ”

The Washington Post report comes after outgoing President Barack Obama ordered a review of all cyberattacks that took place during the 2016 election cycle, amid growing calls from Congress for more information on the extent of Russian interference in the campaign. The newspaper cited officials briefed on the matter as saying that individuals with connections to Moscow provided WikiLeaks with email hacked from the Democratic National Committee, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign chief and others. 

Without a shred of evidence provided, and despite Wikileaks' own on the record denial that the source of the emails was Russian, the WaPo attack piece claims the email messages were steadily leaked out via WikiLeaks in the months before the election, damaging Clinton’s White House run. Essentially, according to the WaPo, the Russians’ aim was to help Donald Trump win and not just undermine the U.S. electoral process, hinting at a counter-Hillary intent on the side of Putin.

“It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favor one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” the newspaper quoted a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation last week to key senators as saying. “That’s the consensus view.”

CIA agents told the lawmakers it was “quite clear” - although it was not reported exactly what made it "clear" - that electing Trump was Russia’s goal, according to officials who spoke to the Post, citing growing evidence from multiple sources. 

And yet, key questions remain unanswered, and the CIA’s report fell short of being a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17 intelligence agencies the newspaper said, for two reasons. As we reported in November "The "Fact" That 17 Intelligence Agencies Confirmed Russia is Behind the Email Hacks Isn’t Actually…A "Fact", and then also because aside from so-called "consensus", there is - once again - no evidence, otherwise the appropriate agencies would have long since released it, and this is nothing more than another propaganda attempt to build tension with Russia. In fact, the WaPo admits as much in the following text, which effectively destroys the article's entire argument :

The CIA presentation to senators about Russia’s intentions fell short of a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17 intelligence agencies. A senior U.S. official said there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered.

For example, intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin “directing” the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second senior U.S. official said. Those actors, according to the official, were “one step” removed from the Russian government, rather than government employees. Moscow has in the past used middlemen to participate in sensitive intelligence operations so it has plausible deniability.

* * * 

 “I’ll be the first one to come out and point at Russia if there’s clear evidence, but there is no clear evidence — even now,” said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the Trump transition team. “There’s a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that’s it.”

And since even the WaPo is forced to admit that intelligence agents don’t have the proof that Russian officials directed the identified individuals to supply WikiLeaks with the hacked Democratic emails, the best it can do is speculate based on circumstantial inferences, especially since, as noted above, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has denied links with Russia’s government, putting the burden of proof on the side of those who challenge the Wikileaks narrative. So far that proof has not been provided.

Nonetheless, at the White House, Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz said Obama called for the cyberattacks review earlier this week to ensure “the integrity of our elections.” 

“This report will dig into this pattern of malicious cyberactivity timed to our elections, take stock of our defensive capabilities and capture lessons learned to make sure that we brief members of Congress and stakeholders as appropriate,” Schultz said. 

Taking the absurdity to a whole new level, Obama wants the report completed before his term ends on January 20, by none other than a proven and confirmed liar: "The review will be led by James Clapper, the outgoing director of national intelligence, officials said." In other words, the report that the Kremlin stole the election should be prepared by the time Trump is expected to be sworn in.

“We are going to make public as much as we can,” the spokesman added. “This is a major priority for the president.”

The move comes after Democrats in Congress pressed the White House to reveal details, to Congress or to the public, of Russian hacking and disinformation in the election. 

On Oct. 7, one month before the election, the Department of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence announced that “the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations.” “These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the U.S. election process,” they said. 

Trump dismissed those findings in an interview published Wednesday by Time magazine for its “Person of the Year” award. Asked if the intelligence was politicized, Trump answered: “I think so.” 

“I don’t believe they interfered,” he said. “It could be Russia. And it could be China. And it could be some guy in his home in New Jersey.” 

Worried that Trump will sweep the issue under the rug after his inauguration, seven Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee called on Nov. 29 for the White House to declassify what it knows about Russian interference. The seven have already been briefed on the classified details, suggesting they believe there is more information the public should know. On Tuesday this week, leading House Democrats called on Obama to give members of the entire Congress a classified briefing on Russian interference, from hacking to the spreading of fake news stories to mislead U.S. voters. 

Republicans in Congress have also promised hearings into Russian activities once the new administration comes in. 

Obama’s homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco said the cyberinterference goes back to the 2008 presidential race, when both the Obama and John McCain campaigns were hit by malicious computer intrusions.

* * * *

An interesting aside to emerge from last night's hit piece and the Trump team response is that there is now a full blown turf war between Trump and the CIA, as NBC's Chuck Todd observed in a series of late Friday tweets:

The implication in the Trump transition statement is that he doesn't believe a single thing from the CIA.

— Chuck Todd (@chucktodd) December 10, 2016

Is the next Commander-in-Chief is signaling that the CIA won't be a major player in his national security team?

— Chuck Todd (@chucktodd) December 10, 2016

So stunned by the Trump transition statement on the Post-CIA-Russia story that I half expect a walk back by tomorrow

— Chuck Todd (@chucktodd) December 10, 2016

How helpful is it for the CIA's reputation around the world if the next US questions their findings so publicly? Good luck Mike Pompeo

— Chuck Todd (@chucktodd) December 10, 2016

To which Glenn Greenwald provided the best counterargument:

Yes, the CIA's sterling reputation around the world for truth-telling and integrity might be sullied if someone doubts their claims... https://t.co/2uyQXvFdOK

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 10, 2016

When is it hardest to get people not to blindly accept anonymous, evidence-free CIA claims? When it's very pleasing to believe them.

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 10, 2016

However, of the mini Tweetstorm, this was the most important aspect: the veiled suggestion that in addition to Russia, both the FBI and the Obama presidency prevented Hillary from becoming the next US president... 

While Obama's FBI director smeared Hillary, Obama sat on evidence of Russian efforts to elect Trump that had basis in evidence.

— Franklin Foer (@FranklinFoer) December 10, 2016

... which in light of these stunning new unproven and baseless allegations, she may very well have renewed aspirations toward. 

* * * 

So while there is no "there" there following the WaPo's latest attempt to fan the rarging fires of evidence-free propaganda, or as the WaPo itself would say "fake news", here is why the story has dramatic implications. First, the only two quotes which matter:

"...there is no clear evidence — even now,” said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of the Trump transition team. “There’s a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that’s it.”

* * * 

"...Obama wants the report before he leaves office Jan. 20, Monaco said. The review will be led by [PROVEN LIAR] James Clapper, the outgoing director of national intelligence, officials said."

And then the summary:

1. 1. Announce "consensus" (not unanimous) "conclusion" based in circumstantial evidence now, before the Electoral College vote, then write a report with actual details due by Jan 20.
2. 2. Put a proven liar in charge of writing the report on Russian hacking.
3. 3. Fail to mention that not one of the leaked DNC or Podesta emails has been shown to be inauthentic. So the supposed Russian hacking simply revealed truth about Hillary, DNC, and MSM collusion and corruption.
4. 4. Fail to mention that if hacking was done by or for US government to stop Hillary, blaming the Russians would be the most likely disinformation used by US agencies.
5. 5. Expect every pro-Hillary lapdog journalist - which is virtually all of them - in America will hyperventilate (Twitter is currently on fire) about this latest fact-free, anti-Trump political stunt for the next nine days.

Or, as a reader put it, this is a soft coup attempt by leaders of Intel community and Obama Admin to influence the Electoral College vote, similar to the 1960s novel "Seven Days in May."

If the actual CIA report is delivered to all 538 Electoral College voters, then no, Trump is not the next POTUS.

I think it's absolutely disgusting how one country can try to manipulate the election processes of another sovereign nation!

(it's so much more ethical to invade the country after funding, training and supporting insurgents and creating a civil war, so that the democratically elected president gets deposed (and, often, shot)! Then put your own puppet in control)

US electors expected to confirm Trump win
RAW By RAW
WATCH NOW
Donald Trump has taken aim at the CIA after they released a report claiming Russian hackers tried to help get him elected.
FTBA
The US Electoral College is expected to officially select Republican Donald Trump as the next president in a vote that is usually routine but takes place this year amid allegations of Russian hacking to try to influence the election.

At meetings scheduled on Monday in every state and the District of Columbia, the institution's 538 electors, generally chosen by state parties, will cast official ballots for president and vice president.

It is highly unlikely the vote will change the outcome of the November 8 election, which gave the White House to Trump after he won a majority of Electoral College votes. The popular vote went to Democrat Hillary Clinton.

But the conclusion by US intelligence agencies that Russia hacked into the emails of the Democratic National Committee in an attempt to sway the election for Trump has prompted Democrats to urge some electors not to vote as directed by their state's popular ballot.

WATCH NOW
A group of Hollywood celebrities have joined forces to urge Republican members of the Electoral College to not vote for President-elect Donald Trump. (YouTube: Unite For America)
The leaked emails disclosed details of Clinton's paid speeches to Wall Street, party infighting and inside criticism about Clinton's use of a private server to send emails while US secretary of state.

The disclosures led to embarrassing media coverage and prompted some party officials to resign.

Trump and his team dismiss intelligence claims of Russian interference, accusing Democrats and their allies of trying to undermine the legitimacy of his election victory.

Russian officials have denied accusations of interfering in the election.

On Sunday, Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta, said it was an open question whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia about the emails, an allegation that Trump's incoming White House chief of staff, Reince Priebus, denied.

WATCH NOW
December 14, 2016: Kanye West refused to answer reporter’s questions after speaking with US President-elect Donald Trump.
A bipartisan group of US senators called for a special committee probe of cyber attacks by Russia and other countries.

The number of Electoral College electors equals the number of representatives and senators in congress, with each state receiving a share roughly proportional to its population size.

When voters go to the polls to cast a ballot for president, they are actually choosing a presidential candidate's preferred slate for their state.

A candidate must secure 270 votes to win. Trump won 306 electors from 30 states.

The electors convene meetings in each state to cast ballots about six weeks after each presidential election.

If no candidate reaches 270 in the Electoral College, the president is chosen by the US House of Representatives, currently controlled by Republicans.

Read more at http://www.9news.com.au/world/2016/12/19/17/16/us-electors-expected-to-c...

I think it's incredibly unlikely that the electoral college doesn't confirm the election.

I didn't vote for trump, very tepidly voted for clinton, but you know I only hope for the best that Trump was sincere about good things he promised and can deliver on them.

But i think it's been in incredibly bad taste the way people on the left have behaved since the election. Endorsing proposal after proposal to reverse a democratic election conducted under rules by which both sides were aware.

The electoral college might be a stupid system, but it's not as though it was something that both campaigns weren't intimately aware of. It's like a team loses to the Warriors and complains that they hit more baskets it's just not fair that half the Warriors baskets were worth 3 points. 

I think it's the left that has become radicalized and angry...equating their political beliefs with morality itself and refusing to even allow the other side to speak. And that's a shame because i'm basically a liberal.

Should the Electoral College vote against a Trump presidency?
Yes
54%
9008
No
46%
7523
This is from a pole on Australian msn

and as expected trump has been confirmed as the president elect. Much ado about nothing.

http://www.foxnews.com/live-coverage/transition-to-trump

so more electors abandoned hillary than trump, so much for traitors

more votes for trump after a recount

sometimes when you have lost, digging the hole deeper is a very bad idea.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gates-russia-took-advantage-of-obamas-weak-leadership/article/2609940

russians outsmarting the brilliant, nobel prize winner of hope and change, the black savior of america, must be fake news, can't be true.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443188/donald-trumps-cunning-animal-instinct

the best article on trump i have ever read.