Of course we are talking about a "secret assessment", so we really don't know what it says. We only know what the reporter says who talked to an unnamed source.

As I noted above, we do not know Donald Trump's involvement. "What did he know? And when did he stop knowing it?"

For your second point, two wrongs do not make a right. Whatever the US government may have done in the past is not the issue here, and is irrelevant to this discussion. If you want to start a topic, fine. There's a lot of that to talk about, CIA involvement in South America, and much, much more.

Also on that same point, the concern is not for overt influence, but covert involvement. The government of Russia fed information to Wikileaks which publicized it for them.

You are free to discuss whatever you want. Many people have blogged about Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and the manipulation of the Democratic National Committee and its convention processes. Here is a link:
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/

Was Fox News silent? Did Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh cave to pressure? I mean to ask you: Just who is "not discussing" the Clinton situation that you want to be discussing it?

It is important to keep a cool head, and the report given to key US Senators is still secret. So, we do not know for sure. That said, if I thought that it was doubtful, I would have framed the original post differently. I accept it as true prima facie. The only salient questions are whether and to what extent Trump himself was involved. As we said about Richard Nixon and Watergate: "What did he know? And when did he stop knowing it?"

"The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.

Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, according to U.S. officials. Those officials described the individuals as actors known to the intelligence community and part of a wider Russian operation to boost Trump and hurt Clinton’s chances.

“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,” said a senior U.S. official briefed on an intelligence presentation made to U.S. senators. “That’s the consensus view.” -- The Washington Post, December 9, 2016, here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...

Fact checkers at SNOPES concur:
" A key point of evidence was the fact that both Democratic and Republican National Committee servers were hacked, but no information from the latter was released:

As summer turned to fall, Russian hackers turned almost all their attention to the Democrats. Virtually all the emails they released publicly were potentially damaging to Clinton and the Democrats, the official told Reuters.

"That was a major clue to their intent," the official said. "If all they wanted to do was discredit our political system, why publicize the failings of just one party, especially when you have a target like Trump?"" -- SNOPES here: http://www.snopes.com/2016/12/10/cia-...

of course, no one is discussing what the wikileaks brought to our attention. no, that's "fake" all fake

Of course, if Russia actually was attempting to assist Trump that does not mean that Trump was complicit in it. They may well have been worried about what type of things Hillary would cause the U.S. to bumble into.

And, the U.S. has never tried to influence a foreign election? Hell, Obama threatened the people of Britain that if they voted for Brexit the U.S. would put them at the "back of the queue" for trade deals.

" ... if facts there be."

If.

Mike you are definitely a s%^t disturber today. ;^)