text:
After President Obama and Donald Trump were briefed on a classified report explaining the United States Intelligence Community's belief that Russia hacked the Democratic Party, the public has received its own, declassified version. Unfortunately for us, it appears virtually anything new and interesting was removed in the redaction process, leaving us without the conclusive, technical evidence we were hoping for — and that the American people are owed. Failing a last minute change of heart, the next best (and perhaps last) hope for the government to show us its work would be a formal, bipartisan probe.
We assess with high confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election, the consistent goals of which were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.
We don't even get an allusion to NSA SIGINT, or a brief reference to the existence of more evidence — the report is all confidence, no justification. That confidence and consensus has meaning on its own — and, certainly, the claims are serious — but it is no substitute for some public understanding of what caused that confidence.
When it comes to the assessment that "Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him," all three agencies are in agreement, though the NSA believes it with only a "moderate" level of confidence. For this and a thousand other reasons, it would be tremendously helpful to know what led them to these conclusions, the severity of which will likely shape U.S.-Russian relations for decades. Presumably, the classified version presented to the the president, president-elect, and certain members of Congress, would include at least some of the technical material behind the claims. But we can't see that version, the report explains:
The Intelligence Community rarely can publicly reveal the full extent of its knowledge or the precise bases for its assessments, as the release of such information would reveal sensitive sources or methods and imperil the ability to collect critical foreign intelligence in the future. Thus, while the conclusions in the report are all reflected in the classified assessment, the declassified report does not and cannot include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence and sources and methods.
This is a satisfying explanation if you work for the NSA, CIA, or FBI, where the sanctity of "sources and methods" trumps all other epistemological concerns, but less so outside of the intelligence community. Even Susan Hennessey, a former NSA attorney turned blogger and Brookings Institute fellow, criticized the emptiness of the report:
The unclassified report is underwhelming at best. There is essentially no new information for those who have been paying attention.
— Susan Hennessey (@Susan_Hennessey) January 6, 2017
But this is not a courageous document. It is evidence that the typical " oh but sources and methods" types won out.
— Susan Hennessey (@Susan_Hennessey) January 6, 2017
Before the intelligence community briefers left Washington for New York to share their findings with Trump, there was a briefing for the so-called Gang of Eight, the Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate and of the Intelligence Committees.
Immediately after hearing the classified evidence, Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic Leader, called the presentation, "really quite a stunning disclosure."
An update from @NancyPelosi on intelligence briefing this morning. "It was really quite a stunning disclosure." pic.twitter.com/iKGJ1Tnn3n
— RiotWomenn (@riotwomennn) January 6, 2017
But Pelosi, who has called for a bipartisan congressional investigation of the matter, also expressed some frustration with how little of the evidence the intelligence community was willing to make public. "I would hope that we could get more" of the report declassified, she said. "I know we have to respect sources and methods," she added, "but I think that even Congress has the right to know more than they want to disclose to Congress, beyond the Gang of Eight."
The national conversation about the attack on the Democratic party is becoming increasingly locked in absolutism. At one end of the spectrum there are those who credulously claim there's no conceivable doubt the Russian government hacked the Democrats this summer — at the other, those who fatuously deny any possibility Russia did so. No matter where you fall (I personally believe the Russian government is most likely responsible in some way), you should agree on one thing: Making the discussion as public as possible (and reasonable) is in the national interest.
The value of independent, bipartisan probes was raised at this week's cybersecurity hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, when Tim Kaine harkened back to another, now-quaint burglary of the DNC:
"That small event lead to one of the most searching and momentous congressional inquiries in the history of this country. It was not partisan. … It was not an investigation because something affected the election. The 1972 presidential election was the most one-sided the modern era. But it was a high moment for Congress because Congress in a bipartisan way stood for the principle that you couldn't take efforts to influence a presidential election and have no consequence."
This came only one day after a group of intelligence and foreign policy veterans, including Leon Panetta and Madeleine Albright, urged Congress to form a Watergate-style probe:
To understand fully and publicly what happened, how we were so vulnerable, and what we can do to protect our democracy in future elections, we the undersigned strongly encourage the Congress to create an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate efforts by the Russian Federation to influence or interfere with the U.S. presidential election in 2016.
Shortly after the declassified report was published, Senator Dianne Feinstein produced a statement saying she's working to create such a commission:
"I have joined with Senators Cardin and Leahy to introduce a bill that would create an independent commission, modeled after the 9/11 Commission, to investigate Russian hacking. This issue must not be politicized—all Americans should be outraged at Russia's actions, and we must hold them accountable."
In the spirit of the Warren Commission and the 9/11 Commission, we need an independent, resolute inquiry into an apparent attempt to undermine our democracy, as has already been proposed (with little support) by Reps Eric Swalwell and Elijah Cummings. It's hard to imagine who could object to this in good faith: If you believe Russia was set up, the victims of an elaborate ruse, this would be your vindication. Likewise, if you believed steadfastly that Russia was responsible before there was any evidence at all, you should welcome an independent inquiry that would bolster your position. If, like our next president, you simply can't be bothered to think or care about any of this, a congressional investigation would provide an official body to do the thinking and caring for you. And if, like so many Americans, you are confused by the technical opacity of these events and don't believe you should ever be satisfied when the CIA says Just trust us, such a probe would be working to bring you clarity, to push back against an intelligence community too much in love with its classification system, too covetous of its sources and methods.
We've been attacked "not with a MIG, but with a mouse". — Senator Ben Cardin (D-Md).
the internet is a series of tubes…that mouses come through to attack us
Our outdated anti-missile systems will probably not be able to save us from the initial launches of nuclear missiles by the Mad Jong Un of North Korea. We need Russian help in targeting and shooting down those missiles. President Obama is pretty sure it won't happen for the two weeks more that he is around, and moreover he and his extended family stays in the East, so he is not bothered. The only people who will lose are the Democrats whose supporters will be affected by that Mad fellow. Trump is correct in enlisting Russian help, which we desperately need till such time our defenses are properly refurbished with anti-missile capabilities.
Therefore, although Russians may be actually hacking our systems just as we are hacking theirs among all others, we still need Russian help. I am sure Wolf Blitzer won't like any missile traveling in reverse through his alimentary canal after breaching his anal sphincter. The Chinese people are too obliquely inclined in terms of ocularity to be considered sufficiently reliable, so we can't depend on them to rein in the Mad Fellow.
"I am sure Wolf Blitzer won't like any missile traveling in reverse through his alimentary canal after breaching his anal sphincter. " I'm sure you meant that as a compliment. So this site isn't moderated, is it?
"We reserve the right to remove comments that violate these standards or which are disruptive of the community without providing substantive debate."
So Glenn Greenwald and others are claiming that this a very dangerous situation and that the Democrats and liberals are recklessly laying the groundwork for a conflict with Russia. They cite the run up to the Iraq war and the WMD debacle. But how can you compare the actions of an administration that wasn't quite a year into a four-year term with an outgoing administration which had a few months left of a second and final term while most of this was going on? How is a never-going-to-happen Hillary Clinton administration going to prosecute a war? Does it seem likely that the US and Russia will go to war with Trump and Putin both in office? Their mutual admiration is a matter of undisputed public record.
So Glenn Greenwald and others are claiming that this a very dangerous situation and that the Democrats and liberals are recklessly laying the groundwork for a conflict with Russia.
Perhaps you could provide a link for this claim? I don't ever recalling Greenwald (at least) saying this. But it's dubious to lump Greenwald and 'other' journalists together. He disagrees with many of them on so many points.
They cite the run up to the Iraq war and the WMD debacle.
Wrong. Greenwald cites previous government claims of WMD as a reason for demanding evidence of Russian supposed hacking. Not unreasonable given the circumstances.
But how can you compare the actions of an administration that wasn't quite a year into a four-year term with an outgoing administration which had a few months left of a second and final term while most of this was going on?
Comparisons are made upon actions, not timing of incoming/outgoing. It's easy to compare on any basis really.
How is a never-going-to-happen Hillary Clinton administration going to prosecute a war?
Totally irrelevant since Clinton was not elected. Any answer from anyone other than Clinton herself is speculative at best.
Does it seem likely that the US and Russia will go to war with Trump and Putin both in office?
Ask Vegas. They are pretty good at giving odds. Again, speculative. Although I'd admit persons with historical backgrounds on Russia would be best suited to answer such a speculative question.
Their mutual admiration is a matter of undisputed public record.
Well, Trump will dispute anything cuz he's a bullsh*t artist. I wouldn't put it past him.
It's always dangerous and irresponsible to pointlessly ramp up hostilities with foreign nations, particularly large ones.
Oh yeah and it's bad to spread bullshit stories, that's bad too. I'll try to think of some more reasons why this is stupid and bad, you hang on there, don't post anything else until I get back to you again because I don't want you to miss anything.
Vic, your other comments show that you can't engage in a reasoned discussion. Within a few sentences, you'll start with the snarky insults and personal attacks and tee off on this site's pet boogeyman, the urban liberal. Good day to you, sir.
Napoleon's invasion.
7,300 nuclear warheads.
Still have questions?
This site has a pet boogeyman?
President Obama will depart the White House having dropped 26,171 bombs on foreign countries around the world in 2016, 3,027 more than 2015.
Can Ron Paul Liberty Report also tell us the total number of bombs Obama dropped over 8 years.
why just "russian" hacking?? i dont get this at all. if i leave an open brief case of money at the end of my drive way am i supposed to be surprised it gets "stolen"???
Anyone see Glenn Greenwald on Tucker Carlson the other day; is anyone else surprised that Tucker seems to like Glenn and agrees w/ him?
man that's been a lib talking point since the day it happened….I neither know
nor much care about what you find "surprising" about it
Greenwald is a constant and he'll appear anywhere to speak. The partisan hacks are the ones who play musical chairs depending on who benefits and who doesn't.
It's 2017 so it's time for Tucker Carlson to agree with Greenwald, and for lib hacks to tremulously speak of how "troubling" it is for Greenwald to give
credibility to Fox News, yada yada…
Amy Goodman seems to agree with and like Glenn Greenwald.
Tucker Carlson seems to agree with and like Glenn Greenwald.
The only thing surprising here is why I didn't figure out earlier that … Amy Goodman IS Tucker Carlson!
I agree with and like Glenn Greenwald and I am now Amy Goodman and Tucker Carlson.
No news from J.Comey ? why the FBI didn't have access to the DNC server. He seemed such an honest guy.
What's especially funny about the DNC not letting the FBI examine the server is that the DNC is storing/displaying the server literally right next to THE filing cabinet from Watergate.
Is that true? I can't tell satire and reality apart any longer.
Some are so reporting.
And my wife tells me she saw the server at the DNC headquarters next to the Watergate filing cabinet a few days ago.
I cannot independently verify the accuracy of these accounts.
Sorry if this is redundant — I think something ate my earlier reply.
Various sources are reporting that the DNC declined to allow the FBI access to the server — Hannity, the Hill, and CNN. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/01/05/politics/fbi-russia-hacking-dnc-crowdstrike/index.html?client=safari
And my esposa saw the server a few days ago next to the Watergate filing cabinet.
I cannot independently verify any of these "facts." But I was not being satirical — hard to tell in this absurd world.
Here at The Intercept, where no expense has been spared to provide a sophisticated, leading-edge commenting experience, multiple links in a single post will (almost) always result in the post being sent to cyber-Purgatory.
So, if you want to post links to child pornography, snuff films or the top-secret contact info for your North Korean handler, you have to limit them to one per post.
From the Hannity link:
"CrowdStrike is pretty good. There's no reason to believe that anything that they have concluded is not accurate," the intelligence official told Buzzfeed.
Thanks for the tip in links in comments. Now that you mention it, I think I have seen people (maybe you) explain that before.
As for Crowdstrike being pretty good, and there being no reason doubt, does that mean the FBI did or did not actually see whatever Crowdstrike produced (other than what CS posted online)? Any idea what the due diligence was?
There's a picture purporting to show cabinet and server. Check this out:
Yep, that's how it was described to me, the cabinet with the bar lock sitting next to a table with a flat black box in a forlorn corner of the basement. "Sad," as you know who would say.
"the FBI didn't have access to the DNC server"
And how this important fact was suppressed in all the news reports peddling the purported Russia hack evidence.
Even the Intercept articles ignored this smoking gun.
"Suppressed" or maybe just considered so unremarkably normal that it didn't bear saying — which would perhaps be even worse.
But you know how it is when the FBI politely asks for evidence and someone prefers not to provide it. There's not really much the FBI can do when someone doesn't want to provide evidence, and the DNC probably has good reasons, so why should the press — or TI, for that matter — make a thing about it?
Consider that Israel's Netanyahu supported Romney over Obama in 2012, extensively so. And Israel is always running espionage operations against the United States, for example spying on U.S. diplomats over this latest UN resolution on Israeli settlements. Yet Israel is not sanctioned, nor are its diplomats ejected, nor is the military aid cut off. The same is true for Britain and Israel, as in their latest scandal over the Israeli diplomat attempting to intervene in their politics. Can you imagine the howls if some political group in the U.S. during the elections was found to be a Putin front operation?
And yes, Israeli espionage against the United States is a thing:
Three years later, two officials of Aipac, America's most powerful pro-Israel lobby group, were charged with spying, for passing to Israel official documents on US policy towards Iran. The case was dropped in 2009 – but how many others have been, or will be, quietly brushed under the carpet can only be guessed at.
Where are the ejected Israeli diplomats? Where is the cutoff of aid? Why no repercussions?
As far as the DNC leak, note that it took place during the Clinton-Sanders campaign, and had nothing to do with Trump. The whole effort to tie it to Russia is utterly bogus, just the corporate Democrats and neocon Republicans playing political games – namely, the corporate Democrats want an excuse for their gross electoral failure so they can maintain their party leadership positions, and the neocons are still working off the 1998 PNAC script.
Yes, it's pretty obvious that Putin viewed Hillary Clinton as the more dangerous candidate, the one more likely to start a war with Russia in eastern Europe and Syria – and he was right, her foreign policy agenda was pure neocon aggression. But that's not "hacking", that's just rational thinking. It's no different from Obama wishing that Netanyahu would be defeated in Israeli elections.
no holes in that argument. I'd explicitly endorse most of it.
Here's where I would go different if anybody cares: with the quibble
that the HRC starting-a-war-with-Russia was never gonna happen. Apparenty unlike many, I did not spend the early 80s terrified of nuclear war, because I had good history teachers in college those years, and it wasn't hard to figure out that the Cold War was not even a cold war — with the disclaimer that sure, sometimes it looked like something would happen, but not in the fuckin' 80s. Even Reagan's famous "Star Wars" pitch (that followed his "Evil Empire" bit…..man I can't even take people who think Trump's ideas are uniquely stupid in American history seriously!) had this whole bogus "peace" angle too. This history needs to be re-examined.
Post WW2, USA only starts wars with small countries. I suppose they have to act like they would to keep everybody in line (especially the citizenry) but it doesn't happen and I don't think it will happen.
The USA can basically doom a small country, "bomb them into the stone age" etc., but god forbid they actually engage in a fair fight from the outset. The only downfall — also known as a saving grace —- and this happened to both the USA & the Soviets in Afghanistan btw — is that "after" part. Beyond just bombing and killing. Gee, not too easy to occupy, to make peoples you have invaded do what you want.
I suppose at any moment the USA could suddenly forget this and really go full on WWIII, but if it happens nothing about the recent rhetoric suggests that it would: this is just same old same old, a recurring theme in the last 70 years.
No, war w/ Russia wont happen by plan or purpose from either side. But there's the problem that if we continue to be engaged in a constant arm-wrestle with them, it could escalate in a flash before anyone realizes it.
The US is rapidly loosing it's long held power to influence events practically anywhere in the world; but the foreign policy establishment appears to still be living in the sole-superpower world of 20 yrs ago and refuses to accept that we MUST share the globe w/ other major powers.
This could lead to very serious miscalculations on our part in a) the ME if all we decide, for ex, to establish a no-fly zone in Syria; b) in Ukraine if we attempt to provide the govt w/ serious weapons to use against the pro-Russian East; c) in S. China Seas or Taiwan if we threaten what are China's existential interests there; or d) in North Korea if we attempt a to attack preemtively to keep them from further pursuing their nukes/missiles programs.
good post, reasonable concerns
israelis doing some scouting for "taking down" British PM's who want a 2 state solution.
Taking down?
Recruiting for the take down is their undertone.
they didnt mind murdering Americans aboard the USS Liberty.
There are two parts to your statement:
1. Interfering in the election – you make a good point about Netanyahu's interference. I suppose the difference is that it was above-board. But there is certainly a great deal of hypocrisy there.
2. Spying – everyone spies on everyone else, and everyone knows it.
The difference is in subsequently leaking the acquired information to a catspaw third party. I assume they see that as going too far.
I think the case that it was a DNC leak is weak. The evidence (not from the US report, but from a variety of private sector experts) behind the false websites used for the phishing attack just doesn't comport with a leak. It was an outside hack and the finger prints match those with other hack attacks in places like Estonia and other obvious Russia targets. The evidence is not conclusive but I think the preponderance is pretty strong, and the motive is clearly there too. If you want to argue that Israel gets a free ride, I'm all with you. But the fact that the US political structure is unwilling and/or unable to address the situation with Israel is no reason to give the Russians a similar free ride.
FBI Quietly Releases 300 Pages Of Hillary Clinton Investigation Records
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/08/fbi-quietly-releases-300-pages-of-hillary-clinton-investigation-records/#ixzz4VEjGpvAQ
Hillary Clinton should continue to be investigated not only for corruption and her email server linked violation of US law, but also for obstruction of justice and for corrupting Loretta Lynch, Comey etc. and thereby subverting the administration of justice.
Hope Judicial Watch does not give up.
So Huma Abedin is not a Saudi agent, but Donald Trump is a Russian agent. Lets compare the evidence cited.
The same can be said about Mrs Clinton and her campaign tools. She owns 2 well established "Online ad/news Agencies"! http://www.capitolcommunicator.com/bully-pulpit-interactive-acquires-the-incite-agency/
So lets consider this: "By releasing ads/articles and posts that would tarnish Mr.Trump and other American political figures, but whose news value compelled coverage, Clintons people exploited the very openness that is the basis of a free press. Their tactics have evolved with each such operation, some of which are still unfolding.( B.P.I. started 2008)
Thomas Rid, a professor of security studies at King's College London who is tracking the Russian influence campaign, said it goes well beyond hacking: "It's political engineering, social engineering on a strategic level." (End of plagerized material)
Now the Clinton Victory Fund funnelled over $40 Million dollars into these 2 "Ad/news" agencies. They do whats called image and conversation "shaping/steering" – by posting news style ads and posts all over the internet. Some on paid space – but the main tool is free open message boards/forumns and news site comment sections. Facbook,twitter,snapchat and others are furtile ground for "Trolling". Trolls are paid to patrol and post – attack any post that doesnt support their client or agenda.
So what was Mrs Hillary Clinton and her agencies doing ? Campaign espionage ?
Unlike certain reporters and intelligence agencies, I'm not able to formulate conclusions with a high degree of certainty without any supporting evidence. I'm not even able to remember what happened in October, but for that I have the internet. So it is interesting to read what the 'experts' were speculating about Putin's motives for supposedly providing the documents to Wikileaks, at a time when even the most rarified of experts could not conceive of the possibility that Mrs. Clinton might actually lose the election. From the CBC (a semi-disreputable government funded news agency from Canada) on Oct 21
One way or another, experts say, if Vladimir Putin is indeed pulling the strings in this U.S. election, the Russian president is likely less interested in propping up Donald Trump's candidacy than in trying to expose American democracy itself as a farce.
From that perspective, it is amusing to see the American Intelligence agencies, Democratic and Republican parties and The Intercept all jumping on-board with this agenda. Apparently exposing American democracy as a farce is a project that overcomes partisan barriers and achieves widespread support from groups with diverse backgrounds and agendas.
…the Russian president is likely less interested in propping up Donald Trump's candidacy than in trying to expose American democracy itself as a farce.
I fail to see the distinction. ..
*I figure Putin is probably just another pissed off Bernie Bro with his own TV show:
RT's (Russia Today, the Kremlin's media arm to the outside world) press coverage of the U.S. presidential primaries has been uniformly favorable towards Bernie Sanders
… RT portrays Sanders as a kindly, grandfatherly figure, an idealist dedicated to equality, justice, fairness, social democracy and a fighter against corporate interests, the military industrial complex, and the wealthy. Sanders followers are pictured as idealists struggling for a just society.
Putin Favors Sanders or Trump … http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/putin-chooses-trump-and-sanders/
I fail to see the distinction. ..
The distinction is that Russia could never have imagined that Trump would win. The point of the propaganda was that in the US, the 'good' candidates (Trump and Sanders according to RT) would lose – proving the US system was corrupt. As the article I linked stated:
The official party line disparaging collusion in America could carry a lot of weight in Mother Russia.
"They might say, 'Look what they're doing in their own country,'" Graham says. "'Why does the U.S. think that it should tender election monitors and determine what's free and fair?'"
Instead, the 'good' candidate won, vindicating US democracy and reducing the Russian propaganda effort to a pile of smoking rubble. They therefore had to call upon their friends in the CIA to hype the hacking that may or may not have occurred in order to deepen political rifts within the US and try to salvage a propaganda victory. Or at least that is one possibility.
The distinction is that Russia could never have imagined that Trump would win.
I don't think Trump could have imagined Trump would win. Anybody on the planet, except Hillary Clinton packing around Obama's big money grip*, should have won in a landslide.
*i.e. suitcase …https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXYAXv09ik8
oh lord, first you say Putin is a Bernie Bro, then you blame Obama
for Hillary Clinton
Fuck all that Vic (h/t maisie), and leave the lord out of it. I assess Putin a 'rational actor' … and Trump ain't.
*sure, Putin will try to work with the Big Crazy (what else can he do?), but he favored Bernie … and despised Clinton/DNC for the democratic 'farce' they represent (h/t benitoe.).
Nor did I "blame Obama for Hillary Clinton". If you do the math: The Clinton's have enough enough baggage to sink the Titanic + "we tortured some folks" x "affordable" Obamacare = Trump
*Now, hush. I'm listening to DN! explain how the Trump transition team is going to skirt criminal financial disclosure laws, ethics requirements … and the ramifications of Ky.'s new Republican super-majority (historically conservative Democrats).
RT portrays Sanders as a kindly, grandfatherly figure, an idealist dedicated to equality, justice, fairness, social democracy and a fighter against corporate interests, the military industrial complex, and the wealthy. Sanders followers are pictured as idealists struggling for a just society.
That RT and their accurate propaganda.
The Warren Commission and the 9/11 Commission were neither independent, nor resolute. An example which might inspire more confidence would be the Church Committee hearings.
Right on. I couldn't believe I was reading an endorsement of the Warren and 9-11 commissions in the Intercept.
final thought
In the spirit of the Warren Commission and the 9/11 Commission…
Considering that the two aforementioned reports were a pile of lies, (warren comm ducks grassy knoll and rapid fire and other witnesses, 911 report does not accurately or scientifically account for loss of evidence and certain anomalies of the twin towers and the collapse of building 7 – http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/736223/9-11-tower-Building-7-collapse-fire-conspiracy) and considering that WMD was a complete fabrication of the executive branch with total co-operation of the CIA and intel agencies, we must assume that the elite establishment who want wars for profits and warriors to die do believe that Americans have been conditioned kneaded and pounded into the submission of accepting and believing any and all lies they put forth. Therefore it is dutiful for Americans to accept the next report pack of lies from the russia-did-it hearings and to have those lies told to your children in public school and to be graded and either rewarded or flunked.
barabbas, right on the money! Another cover-up of a cover -up.
"Priebus said yes the Russians probably did some hacking along with everybody under the sun."
Nuf is right. Hell, with zero legit cyber security deployed or implemented to protect John Podestas emails from himself along with the vast swath of poorly protected DNC servers or even Hillarys "Fuck the FOIA" Private Email Server there were probably scores or hundreds of incursions by Friends and Foes and IT Savvy Journalists of every political stripe. Just like every election that preceded it.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
Kellyanne Conway went to @MeetThePress this morning for an interview with @chucktodd. Dishonest media cut out 9 of her 10 minutes. Terrible!
If you watch Annmarie Conways full interview with an exceedingly militant Chuck Todd in its entirety it becomes pretty clear the Donalds actual "position" on Russia "hacking" the US election hasn't changed one bit. Click below.
In another section of Meet the Press in Andrea Mitchells interview with Rick Santelli he floors our Russophobic NBC (Nobody But Clinton) Shills…"What's going on here is really so politically driven… where was all this uproar in June when the DNC emails were hacked…this wasn't made an issue because it would have put the emails in Hillary's server right in the thick of it… that's why this went under the radar – this is all tied together"
The shocked looks on the faces on Andrea Mitchell, Chuck Todd, and David Brooks was only bettered by their repeated efforts to refocus the narrative on Putin "as the devil and journalist-murderer" and Trump "as a puppet" but Santelli was not done with them…
the second report from the (UN)intelligence agencies that gave us WMD ascribe motives, but that report could just as easily solved the murder of Seth Rich by illuminating the motives of the CIA and the DNC.
this report details the opportunities motives and players in the murders surrounding the Clintons
and Seth Rich was just next in line.
I pointed out two days ago that, according to Hannity, Trump was agreeing that "Russia did it," after his meeting with the Intelligence Community. There was quite the discussion about it here at the time.
Now Priebus is confirming this, and apparently all that we discussed is being ignored for some reason as though this is some new revelation.
I can only suppose this is because people like talking to me and then immediately forgetting what the dialog was, so fuck y'all!
To repeat my earlier opinion (just so you bastards can forget it all over again), that Trump is now no longer denying that Russia was behind the initial dissemination of emails (and it is this present lack of denial that does indeed amount to an admission, considering how adamantly contrary he was up till then) not because he has *seen* any real evidence (he wouldn't know conclusive evidence any more than a child would), BUT BECAUSE HE IS AFRAID OF THE DEEP STATE WHO HAVE INTIMIDATED HIM AWAY FROM ANTI-ESTABLISHMENTARIANISM (if he *was* ever really anti-establishment).
As I said two days ago, this is now all theater to support the Deep State's present encroaching on Russia and the increasing military/defense expenditures (773 BILLION DOLLARS for 2017), a charade of which just about everyone seems to have fallen for one side or the other.
Okay, now forget everything I wrote, as you evidently wish to anyway, and go fuck yourselves. There's obviously little point in my posting, but I just wanted to say this as I'm fucking annoyed.
It doesn't matter that Trump no longer denies it – this is simply good for Deep State business, and he won't challenge that in any real way ever. The fact is there has still been no conclusive evidence shown, nor will there ever be any. Keep arguing among yourselves as though Trump and Obama are on different sides, keep falling for the charade – see if I care!
oh no, rinse peebus said a thing, this changes everything
Exactly. It's precisely my fucking point that this changes nothing.
There is still no conclusive evidence being shown. All we have now is both "sides" agreeing to support the money draining and murderous, corporatist, warmongering imperialism of the braindead United States.
I'm not sure saying "this" (whatever "this" is supposed to be) even
qualifies as a "fucking point."
I'm uttterly lost as to what would have suddenly made you angry this Sunday afternoon. Like, did you just suddenly re-realize all the same things you already realized?
Ranch Pubis spoke & it all made sense, you experienced a resurgence of monotheistic faith in the Single Evil Direction of The Deep State,
and now it's time to preach the hellfire & brimstone for the non-believers?
I feel as though my spending an entire day off discussing this with all of you was a waste of my time, as after in-depth examination of what is now being rehashed it was as though nothing was said.
I don't care if I'm not agreed with, but I give a damn when the fucking obvious benefits to the Deep State are utterly ignored in favor of the reassertion of propagandized Clinton (or Obama)/Trump tribalism.
This comment + replies took under 2 hours.
And you are giving us all no credit for even the slightest brains,
everybody here knows that no spreading of paranoia about
foreign agents was ever bad for business. You can call that
The Deep State if it suits you, I call it standard carny wisdom,
but in any case it hardly warrants you suddenly deciding the
commenters here haven't the faintest clue that this might
be theater. Quite the opposite: I think that's the consensus opinion.
And you are giving us all no credit for even the slightest brains,
everybody here knows that no spreading of paranoia about foreign agents was ever bad for business. You can call that The Deep State if it suits you, I call it standard carny wisdom, but in any case it hardly warrants you suddenly deciding the commenters here haven't the faintest clue that this might be theater. Quite the opposite: I think that's the consensus opinion.
Yeah, sure. I suppose that's why you said "I believe you are on to something, and I've learned from you here" in response to my comment on this two days ago.
it hardly requires a giant conspiracy to explain using this whole Russian hacking thing as an excuse to call for …. uh…. anything "security-related".
The difference between you and me is that I say it's a bunch of
carnies and you say no there's this one Head Carny who Decides Everything and gets all the other carnies to go along with it. And I say that's
monotheistic bullshit.
But it's all speculation you know, you could be right, I could be wrong. I'm going with what I've learned from looking at life on earth, which seems to spring out from all kinds of areas and only subjugates itself temporarily — certainly not reliably!
I've had enough. Fuck this.
leaving is always a good idea, sometimes I come back just so I can leave again
your post ma'am brought a tear to my eye so sad to see you go. on top of that i thought i would care and i don't feel i do – that made me realize i'm not a kind person. using advanced reasoning i also came to a conclusion you suggested fucking in an unpleasant way to which i object. hopefully we enter one day that deep state you seem to mention a lot, i like that term. it sounds deep.
What a fascinating opinion. I hope you know where it goes. Ram it good and hard.
glad to see you're back ma'am. depending on the depth of the state i can't conclude whether there was time enough for you to visit there. regardless, you're here now and that brought a tear to my other eye. i also got confused by the "ram it …" expression. i had to employ the power of google and studied the "ram it down" by judas priest and then "ram" by paul mccartney but i don't think i'm any closer to figuring it out. it seems very deep.
Yes, I was telling you to listen to Paul McCartney. After all, I must be speaking in code, or else people would understand me and remember discussing things. Thanks for paying attention to these posts, at least, even though it was just because you were excited by my appearing to leave.
as though Trump and Obama are on different sides
While I agree it doesn't make sense for the sheep to cheer for which predator gets to eat them, I don't think Trump and Obama are on the same side.
Mr. Obama wants to delegitimize Mr. Trump – not to actually stop him from assuming office, but to prevent him claiming a popular mandate for his programs and to give the Senate committees leverage to reject a good number of Trump's nominees for the new administration and the judiciary. However, I believe Mr. Trump will outmaneuver him, and use this situation to authorize the CIA to collect all the communications of Congress, to ensure they aren't being controlled by the Russians.
But either way, there is a real competition to be the alpha wolf with unfortunate consequences to the loser, even if to the sheep, all the wolves appear to be on the same side.
I'm a bit too steamed to decipher all the satire here. To me all politicians (with very few exceptions) are Republicans. I've no doubt there is infighting to be top wolf, but it is my opinion that this matters little if so much taxpayer money that could well be used for domestic harmony is going to be swallowed up by the corporatist, militarist Deep State – regardless of the theatrical squabbling over cabinet positions.
Obama's cabinet, as the controversial leaks showed, were all selected by Citibank, so I don't see what high ground Barack Obama has in this situation. They are all servants of a corrupt establishment, and the longer people go on refusing to vote no confidence in any of them the closer the nation gets to utter ruination.
To me all politicians (with very few exceptions) are Republicans.
Democratic politicians used to exist (and still do, although they are admittedly rare and have adopted camouflaging techniques that make them appear indistinguishable to Republicans in order to survive). I have submitted a request to the World Wildlife Fund to have them declared an endangered species. Hopefully they will set up a breeding program in zoos to ensure that some survive for posterity.
the closer the nation gets to utter ruination
Utter ruination has an upside. Take for example the upcoming war with Russia and subsequent stock market crash. This actually represents a good opportunity for the rich to acquire the assets of the poor at pennies on the dollar. I'm not saying this is a desirable outcome, just that utter ruination doesn't necessarily affect everyone equally.
When the Trump apocalypse opens the gates of hell in a few days, Maisie won't have time to worry about the Deep State. Mr. Trump will devour the Deep State and defecate Intelligence agencies … for breakfast.
Mere anarchy inherent in State sovereignty will be loosed upon the land. The autonomy and diversity of Nation States, consecrated through the vast milieu of history's ordeal, will be tested. The scourge of its flame will
leave no legitimate allegiances, and undermine all essential loyalties.
Who knows, the forces which united the remedial reactions of so many nations to the sudden onslaught of such a tyranny will demonstrate the imperative necessity of collective unity amongst the Rulers and Kings of the earth.
*In the mean time … go to the gates of hell, and wait for it there.
the Trump apocalypse opens the gates of hell in a few days
So, more or less, business as usual.
ibid; *page 3, The Art of The Deal
Having a good relationship with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. Only "stupid" people, or fools, would think that it is bad! We…..— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 7, 2017
Yo, Maisie! Chill, kid. And then come back and keep raising hell (remembering that you actually have friends and colleagues here who mostly share your views and who also tend to expound with vigor).
Just as a matter of clarification, though, I don't think we actually have evidence that "Trump agrees" that "Russia did it." As I posted below:
This headline:
Priebus claims Trump accepts Russia's role in hack
Is not supported by this quote:
Trump "is not denying that entities in Russia were behind this particular hacking campaign," Priebus said on "Fox News Sunday."
Words have meanings. All of the words in these two snippets have meanings that virtually all English readers either do or should understand easily.
To "accept" is not the same as to "not deny."
"Russia" is not the same as "entities in Russia."
Furthermore, we have seen no indication that the penetrations of John ""p@ssw0rd" Podesta's email and that of the DNC server(s) (if the latter happened) were parts of the same "campaign."
After all his stubbornly adamant denials, this is indeed an admission. I don't see how it could be otherwise. He would still deny it if this were not the case. He never pretended neutrality before.
My point (to repeat) is it changes nothing, and it certainly doesn't prove there is evidence that would convince unbiased experts.
"After all his stubbornly adamant denials, this is indeed an admission."
Please don't be literally the only person in America who actually thinks
that things Donald Trump says matter in an epistemological way.
His careful statement (probably not even composed by him) was a way to save face while still definitively ending his flat-out denials of Russian intervention. And again, he wouldn't know evidence if it walked into his house and bit him.
Trump is waiting till the inauguration until he is in charge and Obama can no longer target him. Then Trump will say what he wants to.
LOL sucker
Of course it changes nothing wrt to the absence of evidence.
However, if Trump truly, publicly "accepts" that "Russia did it," it will change a great deal in terms of the dynamics of domestic politics and public opinion. And it will be a dangerous change — or, at least, a dangerous step along the most dangerous of all paths.
And Reince Priebus may speak for Trump, but he does so specifically to minimize the effects of Trump's political Tourette's Syndrome on the public and the Establishment. We haven't heard The Donald, himself, yet. He may actually believe that Bernie Sanders, Chelsea Clinton or the Vogons are responsible — today, anyway.
Trump can't flat-out accept it, for that would humiliate both him and his supporters. But he has to signal to the Powers That Be that he will no longer dispute this conclusion, and he did.
When was the last time the effort to establish the truth of anything was assisted in any way by Donald Trump's people agreeing?
We have just lost cabin pressure.
You're looking at this from a very strange pov and perspective. As Vic stated, it doesn't matter that no one believes these clowns but you? The team grumpf can see that push back on his carny entourage will come from redumblicans of almost every stripe. I'm pretty sure he knows exactly who leaked that info. As I think that person has been a double agent inside the dnc and working with him for about 6 years. But Im a shallow anarchist so maybe I have no idea. Either way, Orange aint even the prez yet and there are already people who've worked together at one anothers' throats, and 'adversaries' who you call deep? Will reveal their lizard-like need for heat lamps of the variety you spew. They're all the same on your day off.
It's OK to take a break from any discussion board Maisy. I didn't even comment here until the Snowden document flow slowed.
Snuggle Alert. Snuggle Alert :-( :-)
All the 'hacker' did was informing the US voters as to the functioning of the DNC. If I remember correctly even Hillary fired some people for unappropriate behaviour when she learned about some of those facts. So instead of playing the blame game , US democracy was helped by the publication of these e-mails.
"But it's not as if we haven't been bombarded by propaganda by our own media and not been swayed"
We have been bombarded with propaganda by our own media,Government and Professional Politicians.
Are Dems trying to say that even though Mrs Clinton owns and uses 2 online ad agencies – that that does not influence voters – steer conversations or shape images in the minds of voters ?
But that's OK for "Our People"
And 501(c)(4)s and PACs. But that's OK, too. And media supported by revenue from multinational corporations, unlike media supported by revenue from (foreign) state enterprises, also OK.
Being properly educated means knowing when to look the other way.
I have come to the conclusion that nothing…and I mean nothing will convince some people…
if evidence is presented it is obviously fake,
doesn't go far enough,
if sources are cited, they are stenographers, patsies
if agencies are referenced, they are not credible, ever….
if the leadership of the entire US government states something, it is a lie.
on the other hand…some people assert:
Russia didn't do it.
Russia is just like everyone, so it's cool if they did it.
Trump didn't actually request the hack…
Trump has no incentive to help Russia
Russia has no incentive to hurt HRC and help Trump
and if they do… well it's cool.
What's this?
Now Trump states he agrees with the Senate, Congress, Intel, etc?
well…. that can only mean he's been duped.
Got it.
sir i used advanced reasoning to examine your fine points. let me throw in my two rubles.
evidence presented is fake or not depending on its amount. detractors argue it's fake because amount equals zero. that's my guess
sources is loaded term sir are you referring to source code for hack or a woman using typewriter
agencies screwed up, the fine links you provided in a previous post took over
the government can lie but the leadership of its entirety cannot, that's a given
i wanted to address the rest of the bullet points but my screen has scrolled and i can no longer see them. i remember it's trump/russia/trump/russia. there's a strange hrc acronym i don't recognize but i'm not against it getting hurt, it sounds mean.
So where's this compelling evidence that we're ignoring? You believe the Russians did it because you WANT to believe they did. You require no proof and are willing to take it on faith.
The Democrats have been saying the Russians are responsible for any number of nefarious actions for months, all without evidence, because Putin makes a convenient bogeyman and serves as distraction from the Democrats' corruption and failings.
You can't draw the conclusion you want, then desperately scrabble to find (or manufacture) evidence that will validate your biases. Sensible people want verifiable evidence before concluding anything.
Sensible people want verifiable evidence before concluding anything.
Where is the evidence that supports this contention?
still no evidence that would bear cross examination, just anonymous sources or known liars like clapper, catapulted by known stenographers to power (nyt, washpo). so people rightly demand more than this from the corrupt scumbags that enabled the iraq war with their lies.
the statement has been made by others and addressed…so, I'm merely repeating.
three tiers of intelligence reporting have been presented, the most compelling, according to Senators and now Trump, is not available to the public for reasons owing to need to protect sources, methods…
some folks don't accept that… and rightly point to previous deceptions [WMD, others]
I agree, the history of being deceived is a long one and really problematic.
how the country resolves the need for evidence while protecting sources, methods, is key.
It is not that evidence hasn't been presented….it is that it hasn't been presented to the public, fully.
i have full respect for your sir knowing evidence has been presented, albeit not to the public. i'm impressed sir your being privy to the act of presentation itself even though it's likely been secret.
Maybe you're right that some people will deny evidence when presented, but here's the problem: No concrete evidence for the major claims has been presented, so how do you know?
To be clear, confident assertions are not evidence. Nor is the apparent nationality of hackers evidence of state actor involvement or Wikileaks sourcing.
confirmation bias is everywhere: religion, politics, business, even science research.
More than bias, outright suppression of data is even more widespread.
Look at the rampant use of NDAs, the labeling of everything as a corporate secret, company confidential…and in government, labeling everything confidential.
Under Reagan suppression of science, destruction of data, was a tactic followed by claims to 'not knowing…or 'more study is needed' …and then eliminating the department doing the study. (see: Acid Rain)
It is a preferred tactic of Republicans and their corporate owners.
Eliminate funding. make it illegal to discuss or disclose findings, (see: NIH and CDC prohibitions from studying and publishing data on gun deaths)
Wikileaks claims not to know who their sources are. masking and use of third parties are tactics for shielding identities of suppliers of information.
there is no debate, this is a labyrinthine, complex.
If someone from outer space did an analysis of the earth's composition and provided facts… but not all the facts. … that showed that the earth is covered with water…they'd be correct in a manner of speaking… and their selected data would show lots of water covering the earth.
One might ask why would they withhold the other facts about land.
Email hacks say they're all water.
I wonder about what they don't reveal.
I think there's a lot of land mass undisclosed.
I wonder why the skew?
keep digging fool
oh dear.
"well it's cool"
I can't speak for others here but I take the general tenor here to be more like if it's true, it's not exactly "cool" but more like "same sh*t, different bucket."
I hope it won't come as a shock, but I'm partial to the United States… and am deeply suspicious of Russia, based on reams of evidence.
I am not a citizen of Pluto, indifferent to either nation.
here's those reams of evidence from those links from earlier, thank you sir they're golden. pluto is nice by the way just visited there the other day. clean air no fracking. not even that other thing maisie suggested.
Pluto is the best. I want one thing from the Trump administration & that
is a crony-led effort to re-establish Pluto as a proper planet. I have
in mind a nationalistic appeal: Pluto was the only planet discovered by
Americans. The effort to discredit Pluto as a planet was probably really
a plot against America. Let's make America Great Again by
Making Pluto A Planet Again.
(I only appear to be kidding)
Priebus claims Trump accepts Russia's role in hack
Incoming White House chief of staff Reince Priebus said Sunday that President-elect Donald Trump accepts that Russia played a role in hacking the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta.
Trump "is not denying that entities in Russia were behind this particular hacking campaign," Priebus said on "Fox News Sunday."
David Remnick, The New Yorker
And yet how is it possible, if these intelligence reports are true, to count the 2016 Presidential election as unsullied?
thanks much rmd for providing the two links detailing the evidence that finally convinced that dummy trump russia did it. at last we have reporting that hears us when we ask give us evidence. i argue "the agencies" and politico/newyorker should switch places so we wouldn't have that useless report and these two links instead. the ti's commenting system would not be stressed with so many silly posts either. well done sir.
I'm disappointed that The New Yorker is publishing such vapid nonsense.
And yet how is it possible, if these intelligence reports are true, to count the 2016 Presidential election as unsullied?
It's not only possible, it's easy and should be obvious: Elections are not "sullied" by providing voters with true and accurate information about a candidate, her/his campaign and party.
And neither the source of the information nor the motives of those who provide it change that crystal clear truth.
Yeah, but we aint gonna let no stinkin' Russian provide true and accurate info abt OUR elections. That's an act of war.
How is it possible, even if these intelligence reports are complete fakes, to count any presidential election as unsullied? The NYT must have a funny definition of "sully."
It is, of course, impossible to see American presidential elections as much more than bread and circuses. But there's a rule against discussing that, and our MSM are very good rule-followers.
Are you just following your master Putin's order to say that? Now that Castro and bin Laden and Qaddafi and Chavez are dead, Ortega defanged, and Hudson Austin god knows where, only Putin would be evil enough to tell you to say the unsayable.
fine senator mccain was eager to spread arab spring to russia way back:
Mr McCain's tweet read: "Dear Vlad, The Arab Spring is coming to a neighbourhood near you."
to which evil putin had this answer: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/8958294/Vladimir-Putin-calls-John-McCain-nuts-in-outspoken-attack.html
McCain is an American hero who was grossly mistreated by the people he was trying to kill. If they had avoided extremist news sources and listened to the objective "middle" of American discourse, they would have accepted even been grateful for, the natural justice and rightness of McCain's bombing missions.
Serious question… are you adopting the stance of pretending no to know about the conclusion of the US Intel is that Russia sought to influence the election to discredit one candidate while withholding disclosure of information about their preferred candidate?
are you saying that targeted disclosure of private emails, sustained over time, that feature exclusive leaks from one party while shielding and withholding content from their favored candidate… has no effect on public perceptions about the candidates?
Is that your contention?
…the release of information was one sided deliberately.
what has been obtained about Trump and the Republican party was withheld.
Some are incurious.
I wonder why they are.
A year ago, the problem for the CIA was that Russia allegedly preferred Labour to the Tories. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/12103602/America-to-investigate-Russian-meddling-in-EU.html
Four years ago, the CIA's complaints included:
"The RT hosts asserted that the US two-party system does not represent the views of at least one-third of the population and is a 'sham.'"
"RT framed the [Occupy] movement as a fight against 'the ruling class' and described the current US political system as corrupt and dominated by corporations."
"RT's reports often characterize the United States as a 'surveillance state' and allege widespread infringements of civil liberties, police brutality, and drone use."
"RT runs anti-fracking programming, highlighting environmental issues and the impacts on public health. This is likely reflective of the Russian Government's concern about the impact of fracking and US natural gas production on the global energy market and the potential challenges to Gazprom's profitability."
Deliberate one-sidedness in politics! Shocked, shocked.
Some are incurious, though, about why the CIA should be upset by a report critical of fracking or supportive of Occupy Wall Street.
I wonder why they are.
I agree… now that I think of it…
what on earth would anyone find in Trump's dealings and private communications with Russia and campaign staff.
I have to admit I was reaching…
clearly, Trump is above wrongdoing, misdeeds, business or character issues… so … what would anyone find?
Clearly, HRC is the only concern.
My bad.
I wouldn't mind seeing Trump's dealings and private communications with Russia, etc., and I have no doubt that it would confirm that he is scum, just as his dealings and communications with everyone else show him to be. I take that for granted, just as I take for granted that HRC is scum. And Putin and Obama for that matter.
Serious question… are you adopting the stance of pretending no to know about the conclusion of the US Intel is that Russia sought to influence the election to discredit one candidate while withholding disclosure of information about their preferred candidate?
Well, I hadn't heard that US spies have accused Russia of withholding info on the Republicans, if they are, I want to see the evidence of that, too.
I certainly know that the spooks are telling us they've concluded. As they've been lying like rugs throughout my entire lifetime, while busily engaging in interference with other nations and their governments and elections, I'm not even slightly inclined to believe them without solid evidence. We've seen no real evidence at all.
are you saying that targeted disclosure of private emails, sustained over time, that feature exclusive leaks from one party while shielding and withholding content from their favored candidate… has no effect on public perceptions about the candidates?
Once again, I haven't even heard an official claim that information relating to Trump or his campaign or party was withheld. I have heard various conspiranoids jump to that conclusion, but I pay not attention to that.
There's really no well-documented indication that the release of the DNC and Podesta material had a significant effect on the election but, if it did, that would be perfectly OK with me. After all, it's authenticity is unchallenged and it consists of information that is perfectly appropriate for voters to be informed about.
Some are incurious.
I wonder why they are.
Actually, some are curious about solid evidence — does it exist and what does it look like?
I wonder why some are not?
Sheesh. All those typos.
I'll have to take remedial proofreading classes — after I buy a pair of younger eyes..
I 'don't deny' that a chimpanzee could have concocted the spear phishing attack that fooled John Podesta into giving up his e-mail password. This doesn't mean that I 'accept' that a chimpanzee did so.
Priebus said yes the Russians probably did some hacking along with everybody under the sun.
He also pointed out Podesta's password was password.
Little Georgy Stephanopopopolus is just gushing all over Obama.
Obama noted how the news stories these days are so full of conflicting reports there is no way to sort things out …
it's the latest version of 'look forward not back' at the disaster we caused …
"Priebus said yes the Russians probably did some hacking along with everybody under the sun."
Nuf is right. And then there's this…
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
Kellyanne Conway went to @MeetThePress this morning for an interview with @chucktodd. Dishonest media cut out 9 of her 10 minutes. Terrible!
If you can see her interview with an exceedingly militant Chuck Todd in its entirety it becomes pretty clear the Donalds actual "position" on Russia "hacking" the US election hasn't changed one bit. Click below.
In another section of Meet the Press in Andrea Mitchells interview with Rick Santelli "What's going on here is really so politically driven… where was all this uproar in June when the DNC emails were hacked…this wasn't made an issue because it would have put the emails in Hillary's server right in the thick of it… that's why this went under the radar – this is all tied together"
The shocked looks on the faces on Andrea Mitchell, Chuck Todd, and David Brooks was only bettered by their repeated efforts to refocus the narrative on Putin "as the devil and journalist-murderer" and Trump "as a puppet" but Santelli was not done with them…
This headline:
Priebus claims Trump accepts Russia's role in hack
Is not supported by this quote:
Trump "is not denying that entities in Russia were behind this particular hacking campaign. . ."
This headline:
Priebus claims Trump accepts Russia's role in hack
Is not supported by this quote:
Trump "is not denying that entities in Russia were behind this particular hacking campaign," Priebus said on "Fox News Sunday."
Words have meanings. All of the words in these two snippets have meanings that virtually all English readers either do or should understand easily.
To "accept" is not the same as to "not deny."
"Russia" is not the same as "entities in Russia."
Furthermore, we have seen no indication that the penetrations of John ""p@assw0rd" Podesta's email and that of the DNC server(s) (if the latter happened) were parts of the same "campaign."
Typo. That should read "p@ssw0rd." Giggle.
i have observed much more secure version of this password, namely: "p@$$w0rd". if only john p knew that one.
Yeah, the "Russians" would never think of that one; they only know about rubles.
Of course, Trump's 10-yr-old kid still would have nailed in the first ten minutes of his attack.
The Report…no evidence, just conclusions. And you just jump to conclusions, 'cuz you want it to be true soooo bad…
come on.
what I have said is absolutely unremarkable.
evidence has been presented. and more has been presented in secret meetings.
and it seems that no one posting here acknowledges or accepts the legitimacy of stated needs to protect secrets, sources, methods.
I am saying that I see this as a genuine issue.
are you saying it's not?
Sometimes belief is an act of obedience (or obeisance) and skepticism an act of disobedience.
Posted below by Robert; so pithy and true it bears repeating.
Sometimes what appears as an act of disobedience is really obedience to a different master.
You may be an ambassador to England or France,
You may like to gamble, you may like to dance . . . .
exactly. hey you're not that robert by any chance?
It may be the Devil of Credulity and Deception or the Lord of Evidence and Truth.
(Sorry, Zimmy.)
Devil = "them"
Lord = "us"
Be skeptical of them and believe us.
Believe us when we tell you who is the "them" to be disbelieved and the "us" to be believed.
Be outraged at what they do (or tell you they do), especially if it is what they say we do.
Suggesting that anyone on "our" side is dishonest, disingenuous, or even merely mistaken is treasonous disloyalty and, worse, a false equivalency because we know that's what they are.
We are the chosen people, the citizens of the New Jerusalem, the shining city on the hill, and they, more to the point, are not.
so true gilg (i couldn't abbreviate to gg as that is glenn's trademarked acronym). i heard atheism is a religion too.
and sometimes there is evidence supporting that conclusion. but not here.
If you mean "here" as in the case of Russian hacking, you may be right. If you mean "here" as in TI and most of the posters I disagree.
People are quick to believe what that confirms their existing opinions and more are more skeptical sometimes to the point of denial of real evidence about things that don't. A good number of the folks on this board are ready to jump on any conspiracy without any conclusive facts if it somehow agrees with their already arrived at views of the world, and demand conclusive evidence when it doesn't.
The world is a complicated place and we all depend on the expertise of others to explain it sometimes. Every 9/11 truther claims that the physics make what happened impossible without controlled demolition yet 99.9 % of them know nothing about physics. They choose to believe the few people with physics degrees who hold their view, even though the vast majority of PhD physicists don't. These same people will swear their science is correct and everyone else just blindly following even though they themselves really know nothing about physics.
When it comes to politics and history things are rarely as black or white as extremists make them out to be. I try to depend on the versions of history and current events from reporters and journalists in the middle that don't have an extremist political agenda that shadows what they write. I like to think that keeps me more open minded.
"I try to depend on the versions of history and current events from reporters and journalists in the middle that don't have an extremist political agenda that shadows what they write. I like to think that keeps me more open minded."
Because the "middle" — particularly the "middle" between the two dominant political parties in the United States at the current moment in history — is without black-and-white, without agendas, and without shadows. The middle's narrative of the "news" is virtually indistinguishable from a physicist reciting the laws of mechanics but not in a black-and-white way. Rejecting non-middle narratives is the very definition of open-mindedness.
I would say the middle narrative has a much greater chance at being non biased than the extremes. Certainly I want to hear all sides or else I wouldn't read TI. I get your point about the laws of physics but that is a topic that lends itself more to black and white then does current events and history where extremists tend to be selective in the "facts" they report which can lead one to a distorted view.
When you frame it as "middle" versus "extremes," you've made the question of bias a matter of definition. To the extent, however, that truth is a social enterprise, you are right. By definition.
I used to think the middle was automatically the sensible place. Until I realized that it only gets defined by the extremes.
Which means defining yourself by whatever the "middle" is = letting other people decide your positions. Those extremists you disdain, specifically.
no the middle leaves you open to hearing both sides and making a choice. my experience with the extremists is they are interested only one point of view and depend on zealotry rather than a nuanced opinion based on hearing both sides.
In other words, you have nothing to add to the political discussion. Having actual positions is kind of extremist, dude.
Just listen to the positions from those two "extremes" and then precisely calibrate your opinion to whatever you would imagine the "middle" of those "extremes" is.
Pat yourself on the back for thus arriving at your "nuanced opinion" and your day is done.
That isn't what I said at all. Why do you feel the need to put words in my mouth? Where did I say anything about precisely calibrating my position?
I think I have and do have plenty to add to the discussion. I find it interesting how apoplectic many get when the orthodoxy of what is considered accepted opinion on TI is questioned.
Nobody has put words in your mouth. You argue the middle is sensible by definition. It isn't.
so your claim is I said I " precisely calibrating my position" by listening to the two sides. My argument is and has the the middle allows you to hear arguments and point on both sides. Your misstating of my view simply confirms this.
The number of sides is always exactly two. How did anyone ever come to an opinion in the entire history of humanity before the existence of two and exactly two political parties in the United States? Fortunately, the two and only two sides of any question have never been wrong about anything, ever.
No, Gil G, you didn't say you listen from a middle position, you said you prefer "the middle narrative."
What I said was:
"the middle narrative has a much greater chance at being non biased than the extremes. "
Yes, as I indicated, you indicated a preference for the "middle narrative," based (thank you for reminding me) on a naive and linear understanding of biases. But we all need articles of faith.
So, what's the "middle narrative" on the GG article you keep going on about?
The DNC leaks where a Inside Job ! The CIA has been infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood and they are subservient to Geroge Soros & Barack Ovomit and other corrupt Elite New World Order Globalist this is all Bull-Shit nothing but lies and subterfuge in a attempt to keep the same corrupt people in there positions f power !! Hillary Clinton was given Millions of dollars by the Muslim State & other New World Order Pundits in efforts to buy American sovereignty ! Clinton Lost and now these illegal foreign donors want there money back or the things Clinton promised them !! And if these corrupt horrible assholes dont knock of there shit they won't have to go to Russia to get a War because there will be such an American Uprising That Washington DC wont be left standing ! ….. Wake Up My Fellow Americans the Bloated American Government is Gearing up to go to War with its Citizens! And this is why our Founding Fathers gave us the right to bear arms !
"We assess Russian intelligence services collected against the US primary campaigns, think tanks, and lobbying groups they viewed as likely to shape future US policies." This sentence seems grammatically incorrect, or at least doesn't make sense to me. Anyone make sense of it?
After the word "collected" insert "intelligence" or "data."
Hmmm, they "Hacked the DNC" and spilled out all the devious truth of their operations, i.e. colluding with the National Press, conspiring against Bernie Sanders, insulting Chelsea Clinton, all because Podesta uses the password "password". Give me a break, this is not a hack of the election, this is a comedy of DNC errors.
"we need an independent, resolute inquiry into an apparent attempt to undermine our democracy"
This sentence is so "American".
Your democracy is not being "undermined" unless you can prove they actually manipulated the voting machines.
People were made aware of facts during the campaign and made their choice. Clinton won the popular vote but started with not so democratic more superdelegates and was defeated with electoral college.
Your democracy is undermined by the same rules it's made of
Watching what is going on here in Europe these days I presume: it is too late already:
"What is envisaged is a scenario of a possible ground war against Russia:
Ships began unloading U.S. tanks, self-propelled howitzers and hundreds of other fighting vehicles Friday in the northern German port of Bremerhaven, to be moved into Eastern Europe to bolster NATO's deterrence against possible Russian aggression.
The U.S. also plans to move in a combat aviation brigade … from Fort Bliss, Texas. They'll be headquartered in Germany with some aircraft positioned in Latvia, Romania and Poland.
…Britain [is] sending fighter jets to the Black Sea area, while a battalion of troops, tanks and light armor will deploy in Estonia in the spring, backed by French and Danish troops. Germany also plans to send troops and tanks to Lithuania.
Albania, Belgium, Canada, Croatia, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Romania and Slovenia are also playing roles in what NATO has dubbed its Enhanced Forward Presence. The U.S. plans to relocate a Stryker unit from Germany to Poland as part of that group." GlobalResearch (proofed by many alongside Bremerhaven and Railroads)
The article basically says that informing the public of backroom corruption undermines democracy. That would involve an interesting definition of democracy, one in which 'majority rule' was only about appearances, and voting was just a pretense with a pre-determined result.
Forget about the public, only 8 of the 535 members of congress can be trusted to view the "evidence." If I follow the logic of the unclassified report, it primarily is concerned that Russian media outlets were using factual information from hacked DNC emails to make a case against Clinton–as opposed to the US media outlets which were universally opposed to Trump and would not bother to investigate the corruption implied by the emails? Whatever man.
I see your point, but there's a counterpoint. Suppose the CIA does the same thing in some country X, but only to help one side. Basically, their intention is not to inform, but to tilt the playing field. That's clearly a form of external interference that violates the principle of self-determination, even if citizens became more informed as a result.
I realize the CIA and the US government engage in far more serious interference as a matter of course, but I'm describing a principle.
Bah. I say that it is America's national interest to have BOTH parties hacked next time around. It's impossible for me to be outraged about being handed true information about a candidate.
the Dumb&Dumbers russia-did-it hearings is nothing more than a formal flim flam to "permit Americans to believe a lie" rather than Americans having to suffer to go thru the struggle of getting the truth out of these whores. They did this with the 911 hearings and they did this with the JFK hearings – just to give Americans permission to believe their lies.
Imagine the same latest intel report instead making an estimate on WHO KILLED SETH RICH. They could ascribe methods and motives in a most revealing fashion. But it would likely implicate the CIA and DNC so they are not at all interested on WHO MURDERED SETH RICH.
Agreeing with Trump, Rickard said that "the CIA needs to be held in check," arguing that "they have provided false information in the past purposely to engage in criminal warfare around the world."
Who executed Seth Rich? Who gained by his death?
A "supposed to look like a robbery" that didn't means that a professional operative found some local "doit's" who "blew-its".
"I personally believe the Russian government is most likely responsible in some way."
Why spoil an article with a sideswipe like that? I, for one , care as much about what you believe as I do about what Obama, Clinton or the CIA believe.
Surely, the whole point of this affair is to step aside from what you believe to look at the evidence. Imagine how a defendant on trial might feel if – in face of all the evidence – a judge suddenly remarked to the jury: "I personally believe Sam Biddle is most likely responsible in some way" ?
Any personal opinions on matters as important as these – that are not based on evidence – are irrelevant.
It is now more important than ever for journalists to realize their readers are the jury. They must judge on the evidence presented, not on their personal opinions. Don't make the same mistakes the corporate media are making.
Wished there was a chance to upvote. Couldn't agree more. It seemed to be a nod to the mainstream press to keep up a good rapport more than what could be derived from the evidence.
Thank you for saying this. I couldn't agree more.
This is the city, Los Angeles, California, I work here. I carry a badge.
Just the facts, Biddle. I don't care about your opinion, no one cares.
With the capitalist coup now complete, the thing that concerns them most is keeping the established orthodoxy (RNC/DNC) the only game in town.
With the absolutism of mass ignorance now distracted into duopolistic indoctrination, these unaccountabe, profit over people, planet and democracy forces will continue the unbridled galloping of authoritarianism.
Capitalistism and it's lords, reign.
clinically, it's called a delusion.
…shout the established order, as that misrepresented narrative helps me to feel so much better about myself.
Welcome to the new Dark Ages, complete with market feudalism. Everything old is new again.
the system we have today that is detroying the country is NOT capitalism. It is, how about CANCERISM?
Scuse me; is this whining USA, the same USA that hacks Allies heads of government and heads of state? The same USA that hacks into machines and destroys them in Iran and whose JSOC assassination squads and drones murder at will, world wide? The USA is Israel, writ large, murdering and corrupting on a global scale. Your time is almost up; unfortunately, you are taking the rest of us down with you, a pox on you! Obomber makes Putin look like a good guy and get a Nobel but of course, so did Dr. "Bomb them back to the stone age" Killinger. Me thinks thou doth protest too much.
Inside job. DNC leaks. Public documents on Private servers. Portable media. Thumb drives. Swimming pools. Movie stars. Zero Russians. Zero bears. 435 newly Russophobic clowns whose elected leadership openly admits being spooked by their CIA and Russel Tices NSA overseers.
i listened carefully. He appears to be a SCOUT. What these guys do is advertise for like minds will to spill talk. The long term objective of these zionist pos is to find a patsy for a "who cares what how" play. So this creep fields names that he would pass up to his boss for followup. He is probably a low level mossad operative.
Britain should be alarmed at the possibility that the US WOULD DID IT – providing $38 billion dollars to finance perhaps radical zionist terrorism that appears as if their interest in british PM's is not a face to face but an unknown public to face which is a recipe for murder. Perhaps this is how SETH RICH WAS SET UP TO BE MURDERED.
here's another gem
This is while Facebook has withheld action against Israeli politicians and soldiers. Sami Abu Zuhri, another Hamas spokesman, said last July that the regime has, on numerous occasions, used the network to express "pride at the killing of Palestinians."
According to Ma'an, Knesset, the Israeli parliament, is, meanwhile, advancing proposed legislation, empowering Tel Aviv to force Facebook to act against pro-Palestinian content.
the hits just keep on coming
Borsh, an engineer working for the United Nations Development Programme, was arrested in July on suspicion of having deliberately diverted rubble to a Gazan port to be used for building a purported Hamas jetty.
By Thomas Frank, one of the very few articles on the DNC and Podesta leaks which describes the content of those emails and what they say about the modern Democatic Party:
They are the comfortable and well-educated mainstay of our modern Democratic party. They are also the grandees of our national media; the architects of our software; the designers of our streets; the high officials of our banking system; the authors of just about every plan to fix social security or fine-tune the Middle East with precision droning. They are, they think, not a class at all but rather the enlightened ones, the people who must be answered to but who need never explain themselves.
A Trump victory was the comeuppance they oh-so-richly deserved; but if the Democratic Party ever hopes to recover from their gross electoral failure, they'll also have to reform the DNC – but that means the current Democratic leadership will fall from power and influence into obscurity, perhaps even have to move over to the lobbyist section. They'd rather have their Republican partners stay in power than have that happen.
All the ways RT 'influenced' American politics ? it's not what the ODNI thinks
Published time: 7 Jan, 2017 06:25 Edited time: 7 Jan, 2017 16:44
= = = = =
These guys are much more fun to read than The US MSM or the official spook reports — they actually have a sense of humor. Of course, you'll have to watch carefully, as you scroll, to pick out the juicy bits, but it's definitely worth it.
WARNING: reading RT may get you on some official US government watch list, but, personally, I've been on one or another such list since about age 19 and I'd be ashamed to be left off this one.
i wonder what the deceptive lying intel agencies would have "reported" about WMD – which they should have done, failed to do, and allowed criminal politicians to crash the economy and get hundreds of thousands killed and murdered.
Ignorance has steadily become the sole measure of loyalty to country.
Here's an amusing compare-and-contrast article, raising the interesting question of who interferes more in American domestic politics, Israel or Russia?
The time may finally have arrived for a review of AIPAC's status, and for Israel's government to recognize that interference in our domestic politics will not be tolerated. No other country acts this way. Neither is any other country the recipient of the massive amount of U.S. taxpayer money Israel has received — and continues to receive, more than $3 billion annually.
Read more at http://www.commdiginews.com/politics-2/israels-unprecedented-interference-in-american-politics-46570/
Similar issues were involved in the 2012 presidential election:
Still, the current case is brimming with indicators that one of Netanyahu's private goals may be to shape the US presidential election. For one, he has a fraught relationship with the incumbent and a longstanding connection with the challenger.
"What Netanyahu's meddling in US election means for Obama, Romney, and diplomacy", csmonitor
Yet we still keep dumping billions to Israel, and of course no Israeli diplomats were kicked out of the country in response. As far as electronic espionage, which Russia is accused of over the DNC hack, without confirming evidence, Foreign Policy reports:
"Mar 24, 2015 – According to numerous books, former officials, and media accounts, Israel mounts more aggressive espionage efforts against the United States than almost any other nation on the planet. . ."
Take the recent issue of the US position on Israeli settlements in the West Bank, with Israel claiming it has evidence that U.S. diplomats backed the resolution behind the scenes – evidence collected by hacking, one would guess. Where are the leaked intelligence reports on that one?
Why are people so attached to our government, still? It's an addiction. I'm giving it up as a New Year's resolution. It's a parasite like fungus or scabies that feeds off the general population.
The government only cares about the elite agenda, nothing to do with most people. The government should have been shunned years ago. I'm shunning the government.
I can admit it might have been an ego thing for me; me wanting to control it, as if I could: negative ego. I think it also sucks us in because it still is associated with the myth that somehow we have any control over it at all, or that it represents us. We don't; it doesn't. It's a waste of energy/money in my estimation.
The sooner we let go of it, the better, and the sooner the parasite stops sucking off our good graces.
That is a very healthy attitude.
I've lost track of the signaling. Is LOO a brilliant ironic or a dumb libertarian?
Could be anything. Maybe someone with better things to do with his/her one and only life. There is a reason people consider the Serenity Prayer good advice. I used to ignore the government, politics, and newspapers . . . then I fell off the wagon.
I see people protesting things, thinking the government will do something, which to me will achieve nothing like it usually does–they are left standing there and ignored basically. It's like the police killing people, nothing ever gets done.
I think at this point, our only viable option for protest would be: "End the useless/unresponsive government. All politicians leave now." If people stopped paying taxes, it would be good, or just quite the government: All soldiers and employees.
Or maybe polls on how many people give a crap about the government? Or think it is viable? I am done with it because it has no more relevancy for me.
It is irrelevant.
Well, I understand your attitude. On the other hand, I'm not sure the government is irrelevant to everyone; if it never did anything, there wouldn't be such interest among the 0.01% in who runs it.
But I frequently wonder what might happen if there were any way for people to ignore or stop watching the kabuki theatre/soap opera . . . . Intermediate institutions and "civil society" would have to be a lot more robust, I think, for that to be possible.
I guess I don't understand your reasoning. Have a nice night.
Political parties stopped holding any allure for me ages ago. I am more happy with neutrality and non-labeling. We have a chance, as humans to enter a different era of thinking, and I choose something different for the sake of change.
Like Einstein said: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results."
avoidance of politics is perfectly sensible, I did it for years.
On the other hand, here you are. Why.
And here you are talking about political parties, still. Why are you here?
The establishment promote doing the same thing over and over, and are absolutely delighted to see it always gets them the same results.
new law
the ___________________________ ACT
(write your law! the constitution shall be upgraded.)
My feeling: Screw the constitution and the politicians.
I think it's time for a new way of life, which may include a new form of government, where people actually start taking responsibility for their own rule and their own lives and show some maturity and start being stewards for the planet and humanity and human rights, so there kids have a future that isn't totally screwed.
Politicians have absolutely no wisdom or common sense or vision. They are some of the most selfish beings alive. They have no sense of integrity either, and I don't want them dictating what my future looks like, and I can't imagine anyone else wanting that either.
I am not willing to put my future and the planet's future in their hands. I think we need a totally new system because the old one isn't viable. It's flawed and no longer works.
You still need a legal framework and it must be written. No two ways about it. GET BUSY.
I wish you understood more, but you don't. I can't help that. We are basically no longer a government, but a corporation being run by corporations and banks.
Screw the constitution and the politicians. It's time for something new where we actually take responsibility for our own rule, and stop giving it up to the elite.
The constitution and politicians have brought us to a bad ending to our story on this planet. The constitution was their tool, and it won't serve us any longer, unless we want the same thing to happen again.
if you are not aware, you should know that around 1917 the American Bar Assoc created new instructions for criminal court proceedings that citizens of the US should disregard any consideration of constitutionality, or legal fuzziness or confusion. Effectively, they stripped America of the right to be personally connected to the constitution and of common sense.
Over the decades, the rules of evidence have also been attacked to strip Americans of power of defence. The consitution is not the enemy.
I think it is you who isn't aware. You have no idea what is really going on. Not a clue. I wish you did, but you are so stuck in mental constructs that you are completely grounded in unreality. Have a good night, and thank you for your input.
From RT (yell, cheer, giggle, chuckle), with love, of course:
How RT became the star of CIA, FBI & NSA's anticlimactic 'big reveal'
The eagerly awaited Director Of National Intelligence's (DNI) report "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections" didn't need such a long winded title. They could have just called it: "We Really Don't Like RT."
Almost every major western news outlet splashed this story. But it was probably the New York Times' report which was the most amusing. America's "paper of record" hailed the DNI's homework as "damning and surprisingly detailed." Then a few paragraphs later admitted the analysis contained no actual evidence.
Thus, in a few column inches, the Gray Lady went from describing the DNI's release as something conclusive to conceding how it was all conjecture. "The declassified report contained no information about how the agencies had collected their data or had come to their conclusions," the reporter, one David E. Sanger, told us. He then reached further into his bag of tricks to warn how it is "bound to be attacked by skeptics."
Wallstreet media aka MSM aka WMD media – being the propaganda arm of the criminal foreign policy network who wanted to subjugate the soveriegnty f the US to the TPP – insist on lynching Russia in a Clinton fashion.. "Accuse others of doing the bad things you do".
Having read some of the Oirish author's output before, Doug, he goes OK at the rapidly diminishing art of thinking critically, and then being able to write about it.
I particularly enjoyed the DNI report's inclusion of the 2 defunct RT (a.k.a. Vladvision) shows- "over 2 years ago" – as evidence of election tampering.
A little something Jeffrey St.Clair wrote in late December:
"The Russian Game is a chess strategy developed in the mid-19th Century by Alexander Petrov, a grand master from St. Petersburg. Petrov's thinking about chess was deeply influenced by Napoleon's invasion of Russia. Essentially, Petrov viewed chess as a kind of military exercise and his Russian Game was a defensive plan to protect the "homeland" of the chessboard from attack by an overwhelming imperial force through deception, misdirection and infiltration.
Petrov's Defense, as the Russian Game is also known, is a devious scheme of counterpunching, where the movements of your opposition are mirrored, creating the illusion that your opponent's pieces are fighting themselves, until a line of counter-attack opens with devastating consequences. When played by a master, the Russian Game is meant to confuse, disorient and induce a feeling of paranoia in the invading force of pawns, rooks and knights
Has Vladimir Putin deployed a Petrov Defense operation against the American electoral system? Has he mirrored decades of CIA and State Department-sponsored meddling in elections in eastern Europe, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America by unleashing a cyber-hack on the Democratic National Committee? Did the Russians hack the voting machines themselves, the way American operations once stuffed ballot boxes? Or is it all one big psy-op, an elaborate con out of a LeCarré novel, meant to make the American political and intelligence establishment re-enact the self-consuming witch-hunts of the McCarthy era?"
Craig Murray the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, and a self-proclaimed recipient of Podesta emails, which he said were received from a Democratic Party insider, called the report released on Friday by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence 'hilarious' and 'devoid of evidence.'
Ambassador Murray said the leaked DNC emails came from 'disgusted' whistleblower, not Russian hackers.
"When I saw the report the other night I genuinely believed that was The Daily Mash or some other humorous site that had done a spoof. It seems such a mockery of what we've had, which is weeks and weeks of assertion without evidence. And it was so totally devoid of evidence, that I thought it must be a joke," he told RT.
"[The report] makes it seem illegitimate and wrong for a media organization to broadcast any information that doesn't go along with the American government's wishes. One example is that the report states that RT broadcast a program critical of fracking, and that it proves that RT was setting up to undermine the American economy," he said.
"That's an astonishing assertion. There are millions of Americans, who are against fracking! It's a blatant attack on the freedom of the press and an attempt to limit the area of legitimate debate."
Actually, Murray's claim abt the Podesta e-mails is the one that best explains how Assange can be 1000% sure that they didnt come from the Russians.
After all, if it was Hillary's campaing office janitor, or some such, who gave them to WikiL then it's a pretty good bet the Kremlin had nothing to do w/ them.
it was Hellary Clinton who attacked Russia to influence their elections.
Hellary did so not for American citizens, no, she did so for the US gov run by the Dumb&Dumbers. And she said so.
in reality – it was and is Hellary Clinton who supports election rigging
Hellary wanted to determine the outcome of elections in Palestine.
Hellary wanted to determine the outcome of her race with Bernie Sanders – and did so.
Hellary is critisizing Russia for attempting to do WHAT SHE DID.
"Only STUPID PEOPLE and fools would not want a good relationship with Russia"
And the fraudulent lying US intel agencies who sold America on the death and destruction of Americans and hundreds of thousands of lies now seek to sell America on another pack of rubbish. Sorry, i'm not a buyer of rubbish.
the CIA allowed bush and cheney to falsify WMD for the illegal invasion of iraq. The CIA wants Russia be be a real threat to the US, now that iraq and libya and syria are all screwed up from their "fix stuff" methods. The CIA needed Hellary – their biggest face for "the enemy is russia" campaign – they really needed Hellary. It is possible that Seth Rich, the computer guy for the DNC, was murdered because of what he knew and what else he could find out. THE CIA DID IT.
JFK put a muzzle on the CIA and he was murdered. Now Donald Trump is calling out the CIA for their BS and he wants personal body guards. I SUPPORT THAT no matter what color their outfits.
Dianne Feinstein says "This issue must not be politicized—all Americans should be outraged at Russia's actions, and we must hold them accountable."
But how is that not politicizing the issue? She says we must hold Russia accountable for their actions BEFORE the investigation to determine guilt has even commenced. Isn't that the very essence of politicization?
That's our DiFI. She doesn't have a nonpartisan bone in her body.
Dianne is full of it.
This is one nasty hypocrit who wants to zionise Americans and spy on all of US and cries foul when she is spied on. And she is a TRAITOR for advocating penalising and criminalising persons advocating BDS contrary to the Freedom of Speech in the US. This UNAMERICAN radical extremist needs to grab a gun and fly to syria and fight her battle on her own, like real leaders do, instead of sending Americans to their deaths for her profiteering pimps.
Rationality has left the building along with Elvis: Let me quote the charge:
We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him.
The charge is so absurd it needs no proof against it. The Obama administration and our version of the KGB, are criminalizing what the entire nation and foreign elites and governments were doing during the election cycle. Almost every leader in Europe denounces Trump and praises Hillary. Ukraine discovers receipts of illicit payments to one of Trump's advisers. Looks like German banks gave out financial information about Trump.
I denounced Hillary over her war record, and like the Russians had no effect on the outcome of my state's results–as Clapper has admitted–our version of the KGB could not identify what political revelations caused Hillary to lose the election. Let me repeat in other words: the democrats and their lackies are impinging normal political activity as potentially criminal. Ask Nancy Pelosi about that.
This bipartisan committee needs to investigate why our democracy is so weak, unstable, fragile, and incompetent in is management, that something like the revelation of Clinton's position supporting fracking shook the entire nation to its knees.
This isn't politics anymore–its the Salem witch trials in the making. Or a massive sick projection of Clinton narcissism about her victimhood and betrayal.
Obama is not a bad fellow, though there are rumors that he wasn't the religious and pious kind as Senator from Chicago. After all, now he is the Grand POTUS, and if he tells Putin, "Cut it out", Putin should oblige instead of doubling down. But Putin seems to have very little regard for us. So what if we are also hacking him, it's our obligation to ensure the safety of everybody. But that doesn't mean Putin hacks Donna Brazile and finds out she is hacking Bernie. Poor Bernie, no one even considers hacking him being any kind of hacking.
I'm thinking of inviting the Clintons for a talk, and now I think I can afford them to come together, and also bring the hapless Huma Abedin along. Does anyone know what's their current rates?
Far below, Gil G speaks for those who demand of skeptical techies that we tell the world what would be found if a hack had occurred (and, presumably if 'the Russians did it'). The answer is really simple and, I would have thought, obvious — but it doesn't seem to be obvious to many people, so I reproduce one of the challenges/accusations and my response here.
Gil G ? robert
January 7 2017, 2:41 p.m.
. . .Bill asked an honest question about what kind of evidence would be left behind. All of the sudden all those self proclaimed computer experts had no real response.
Doug Salzmann ? Gil G
January 7 2017, 3:04 p.m.
We have no response as to what traces may have been left behind because we have no idea what sort of hack, if there was one, was executed on what machine or machines and on what type(s) of data store(s). And we have no idea how the machine(s) in question may have been configured or what security measures (if any) may have been active.
And so on. We don't read hacker minds, or hard drives, or router logs, or whatever, via Vulcan mind-melding. We have to see and touch stuff and we ain't got nuthin to see or touch.
Sometimes belief is an act of obedience (or obeisance) and skepticism an act of disobedience.
WOW. American democracy is endangered !!!
That's new. Last time I heard it was that the union is strong, now I hear it is dying because of some hacking of elections even Clapper himself denied it changed the outcome. So which is it?
When I opposed the entire US political regime including electoral system as deeply undemocratic and rigged in multitude of dimensions as I described in my comments, I was met with deafening silence or worse from all these "patriots" from both parties [and third parties] who were all consumed with unquenched lust and frenzy of "winning", no matter what as long as their stooge gets to W.H.
No holds barred, no matter of massive one sided propaganda by fused MSM devoid of any political merit or repugnant qualities of character or criminal involvement, no matter viscous mutual attacks and that even included meek third party candidates who were simply gagged and derided.
Nobody was interested in a democratic process just six ago, now they are crying crocodile tears, burned streets and behaved the same way as Trump fanatics would have behaved if Hillary was anointed. Neither side interested in American people's political will and democratic process that is necessary to enable true expression of it.
Nobody wanted to hear about such a boring subject as deep concern about inherent and by design, inability of the electoral system to express true democratic will of American people, all American people, all citizen with their civil rights to be heard, including those 135 millions who rightly declared they preference of none of the above abhorrent candidates and boycotted the elections, instead of being coerced into an political mafia extortion racket of corrupted duopoly where ordinary people can only loose. And they did.
As long as it is all about winning and not about democracy and true people's will we all will be loosing and hacking is the least problem we have to face.
It is time to overturn this corrupted political system of influence peddling for money that is aimed and designed to divide us, confuse us and make us act against our own vital interests as 99%.
Who cares who did it. The US has no cause to complain; they do exactly the same thing to other countries all the time.
How much of the CIA's secret evidence, which can't be shared without jeopardizing sources and methods, comes down to "yeah, that's the way we do it"?
You keep calling it a hack. Do you not understand the difference between that and a leak? At the Intercept? Really?
So all the millions of accounts, government and private, credit cards, etc previously hacked by the Russians don't live up to the level of the DNC hack?
It's my opinion, ultimately the Democrats want to pin the Russian hack as the reason they lost the election, versus they actually lost fair and square. I'm probably right.
Assume every allegation of every Russian hack is true. Surely you can see that the goring of the DNC's ox is much more serious than the goring of oxen belonging to hoi poloi.
Sam, it may be that the greater value here is found in the "absolutism".
Max Boot, "Trump's plan to shake-up the intelligence
community is a serious threat to American
security", Foreign Policy:
"Given Trump's dispute with the intelligence agencies, there is a good chance that any restructuring he implements will be seen, rightly or wrongly, not as a way to optimize the agencies' performance but rather as payback for what he sees as a personal affront. There is a real risk that after Jan. 20 the intelligence community will experience a crisis of confidence the likes of which we have not seen since the witch hunts of the 1970s led by the Church and Pike Committees in Congress and by various muckrakers in the media who delighted in publishing the names of CIA operatives and uncovering CIA front organizations."
There is a real risk that after Jan. 20 the intelligence community will experience a crisis of confidence the likes of which we have not seen since the witch hunts of the 1970s led by the Church and Pike Committees in Congress and by various muckrakers in the media who delighted in publishing the names of CIA operatives and uncovering CIA front organizations.
OMG! That would be catastrophic!
"various muckrakers in the media who delighted in publishing the names of CIA operatives"
There is no need to publish the names of CIA operatives; Gen. Petraus gave the entire roster to whoever was handling Ms Broadwell. My money is on the Israelis but Putin could have done it too …
Paula was married at the time they were handling her? Mrs. She was?
Pelosi calls it "a stunning disclosure". Where have I heard that before? Oh, right. From Colin Powell at the U.N., waving around his little phial of white powder and talking about bomb factories on wheels. This situation is beyond surreal. No evidence presented, but the American people (and the people of the world) are expected to believe the "assessments" of the intelligence agencies? And the likes of James Clapper, a known perjuror? They must think we were born yesterday.
Ha. Reminds me of the guy who asks "Why do they keep playing me for a chump?"
Then again, the "American people" is a certain kind of karass, isn't it?
Then again, the "American people" is a certain kind of karass, isn't it?
Yes, a kind the members of which are connected in "seemingly inconsequential ways."
Until, that is, the ice-nine man cometh.
Any nation, anytime, anywhere. Our non-Bokoninist friends, unfortunately, like Mr. Bartlett, think the priests of one karass are more credible than those of another.
Snowden explained this simply: "Public policy requires public evidence."
Until we develop a mindset and the related mechanisms in government that fully express this view, we'll making these same mistakes. Maddening.
Not just born yesterday, but at 11:59PM
meanwhile the msm doubles down on russia
guardian hasn't opened up comments, natch.
The Guardian has gotten so pathetic on the comments thing lately; it's like they appear on the balcony every now and then, hoping people are throwing roses at them. But people are throwing rocks, so it's time to go back inside again.
ha! i was thinking of whack a mole, but your analogy is better.
They just cut almost a third of their US staff. Not sure what's happening at King's Cross, but the murmurings suggest trouble.
They may not be able to afford mole-whacker wages these days.
well there are those constant little popups asking me to support fearless, independent journalism, and asking me, if i like it, why don't i support it. so i sent a contribution to naked capitalism.
CiF: "Comment is Frightening"
So, let's shut it down.
I laughed out loud Doug.
Practically all of our intelligence collection is SigInt. Practically all the NSAs "sources" are SigInt technology or IT hardware software based.
If the IC can't make a case with "Collect it All" SigInt after six months using XKeyscore and the myriad methods detailed ad nauseum at http://www.cjfe.org/snowden they have no evidence.
Riddle Me This: Hypothetically (to keep well within the substance and spirit of the "evidence" submitted to date) what "evidence" specifically might unattributed untested unverified HumInt testimony provide that could possibly offset the remarkably inconclusive SigInt "evidence" to date?
As for protecting the identity of whomever might testify or release a public statement proving Wikileaks collusion with "a third party" to receive Hillarys emails from a Russian source (the ICs current theory) drop them in a scif with Justin Amash.
On a more serious note our own congressional oversight committees (really all of Capitol Hill) leak constantly and in this case there with near bipartisan unanimity around the ICs evidence free assertions I'll have to go with the needs of the many (7 billion) outweigh the needs of the few (435).
If the US Congresses entire case against Russia (in the complete absence of legitimate verifiable NSA SigInt evidence) boils down to the contents of that last "report", RT mind control and the PropOrNot Fake News blacklist they better have some PROFOUND HumInt up their sleave that they are willing to disclose.
Methinks if they had any sort of serious evidence, Sigint or Humint, of Russian hacking they wouldnt be mentioning laughable evidence such as the Russians celebrating Trump's victory (along w/ several dozen or hundred of million non-Russians) or that the hacks took place during Kremlin working hours, which overlap working hours in all of Europe and the ME, from Madrid to Tehran.
Evidence? You want evidence? How about RT running a piece critical of fracking?!
Yeah. It appears that some of the rocks (not pebbbles) that we'll soon be throwing at the Russians are intended to prevent RT & Sputnik to say things abt us. They must stop disparaging our core beliefs, such as fracking, guns-4-all and representative electoral-college democracy.
Wonder how well that's gonna work.
Yep. Don't forget that the shock, shock at a large and malevolent and distant organization's influence in US elections distracts attention from the large and malevolent and near organizations' influence in US elections.
Work? It will work about as well as it ever does.
"…evidence such as the Russians celebrating Trump's victory… "
Here in Louisiana, one of my neighbors was shooting off fireworks very late on election night. To whom should I report the dastardly Russian mole?
I prefer the old fashioned HumInt. One can never be sure with SigInt, too many variables … and, ultimately, it's only as good/reliable as the next 12yr. old they promote to System Admin.
Ambassador Murray's HumInt is completely unambiguous (h/t Pedinska … staying warm I hope!). A disgruntled DNC employee leaked the DNC files to WikiLeaks, eom. Some-body is lying…most likely Clapper, again.
Q: I can do more damage with my laptop in the morning over a cup of old grey than you can in the field.
James Bond: Then why do you need me?
Q: Sometimes we need someone to pull the trigger.
James Bond: Or not pull the trigger.
Ambassador Murrays' account is more credible than the CIAs or FBIs (strong confidence) and certainly the NSAs (moderate confidence) assessments.
That self admitted "moderate" rating by the NSA (the IC agency charged with "Collecting it All") confirms few records in their possession support
or justify the strong confidence asserted by the CIA and FBI.
Why would the former Ambassador (who sacrificed a cush British diplomatic role for Uzbekhan and Uzbekhi transparency) lie about flying to America to meet with a Clinton email source?
As Galactus-36215 Reminded Us Recently…
January 4 2017, 4:18 p.m.
Craig Murray, a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, said in the report by the Daily Mail that he flew to Washington for a clandestine handoff with one of the email sources in September.
Da … it would be difficult to not wittingly lie about flying to the States to meet the leaker in person.
*Clapper … otoh.
after selling US on the WMD, even harder evidence would be very suspect at this stage of "their game plan".
Independent commision? How exactly can that be achieved? Add to that, what information will it be privy to? Even if a commision with sufficient non-partisan bona fides could be empaneled(political eunuchs), will it have the requisite security clearance to render an informed judgement? Democracy at its finest.
Thought experiment:
What if the intelligence community's evidence was obtained via hacking the Russian Government/official's emails? And the reticence to reveal this source is actually to avoid directly revealing the absurd hypocrisy of this whole situation.
Russia does shady shit. USA does shady shit. They're almost mirror images of each other. They have more in common than they don't. I'm sure there's some sort of Freudian concept about narcissism and the hate of one's self when seen in the face of the other. For the war crimes Russian commits in Afghanistan and Syria and the Ukraine, we have the war crimes the US commits in Iraq and Yemen and Africa. We're witnesses to a spat between Russians elite vs. the US elite and if it gets hot enough, both sides are going to start sacrificing their wretched in the name of the exact same thing – profit. Sad!
from what i read years ago, humint was the cia's weakest area. is the coast guard (one of the famed 17 intelligence agencies) any better at it? believe curveball (probably cause cheney told them to but still), can't catch ames, but hey we can believe them without any evidence.
Meanwhile, back on planet earth, Debbie Wasserman..aka ; scumbag of scumbags; is rolling on the floor in gutsplittin laughter, after writing a check made out to James Clappers offshore retirement fund.
Bill Bartlett writes:
"……..Putin is a murderer. He has killed journalists and rivals. Jailed other rivals and appropriated their assets on his way to becoming, probably, the richest man in the world……."
And Bill didn't even get to the war that Russia is conducting in Eastern Ukraine. Thousands have been killed. Indeed, Putin is propping up one of the biggest terrorist on the planet in Syria. Oh did I mention the bombing campaign in Aleppo, the targeting of an aid convoy and the targeting of hospitals also in Aleppo?
Bill may be overwhelmingly understating "Putin is a murderer". I certainly have to agree with Bill on that issue.
Murderers and warmongers and self-enrichers and proppers-up of repressive Middle Eastern regimes are not to be trusted and should allowed no influence in US politics.
"repressive Middle Eastern regimes"?
Are you being coy? Are the only countries in the Middle East called repressive regimes when they aren't in line with us or serve our "interests"? The list is crowded with our own puppet repressive regimes, but they don't fit the narrative.
Yes, coy or ironic or sardonic or whatever you please to call it. I meant to suggest not only that the humans who run the US government not only prop up repressive Middle Eastern regimes but that they also include among their number murderers, warmongers, and self-enrichers.
sorry, sarcasm detector wasn't up to snuff, unwarranted shot at you was unwarranted…
No worries. If I meant what you thought I meant, I'd've had it coming.
Let's not forget that if we hadnt invaded Iraq there would be no ISIS and if we hadnt provided weapons to the Syrian opposition thru Turkey and the Saudis, there would be no Syrian civil war.
In other words, ultimately the source of all the death and destruction in the ME today — compared to which Saddam's and Assad's victims pale in numbers — was Washington, DC.
Huh. Weird how that works.
To shortcircuit the reply you are going to get from someone accusing you of some treason or other, I am assuming you don't mean to say that Saddam or Assad are good in any way but rather that you have the moral sophistication to see that just because one side of conflict has person A being bad and doing bad things doesn't make person A's enemy good. Which I agree with. Regard Putin with a much contempt as you like (as the head of a state, he deserves it) but don't reserve your contempt for Putin, nor assume his statements are lies and Obama's or other American's are truths.
Are we talking about Putin or those influencing (or frankly, running) our own government? Because any honest assessment could conclude that we are doing each of those things. Funny that the report talked about trolls, yet no one ever discusses how heavily paid trolls were used by scum like the Correct the Record. It was hilarious how they would swarm all over certain MSM stories, spouting the latest Clinton talking point, often with a cute little 'call and response' approach where one troll would do a 'gee, Bitsy Perkins, great comment, Bernie Bros… blah blah blah' in response to another paid troll, always within minutes of each other. Same names, all with hidden FB profiles, parroting the same mindless drivel. Hmm, seems familiar, wonder why….
"Because any honest assessment could conclude that we are doing each of those things."
Yes, that was my point, absolutely, except that I hope the "we" you are referring to means the people who run the US government. I am pretty sure I have not personally murdered, warmongered, or propped up any regime all day.
Yes, people object to murder, for example, when done by a "them" against an "us" and conveniently ignore the same done by "us." They then find "their" murders and "our" not-murders to be sufficient grounds to suspect "them" and to place their faith in "us." Sorry I was oblique.
It is interesting that in a battle between the baathist government, on one side, and AlQaeda and Islamic State on the other you characterise the former as "the biggest terrorist on the planet."
Less interesting is your rehearsal of "the bombing campaign in Aleppo" , the "targeting of an aid convoy and hospitals"- all thoroughly discredited propaganda memes.
But then you support the neo-nazi cause in Ukraine, too, so all is par for the fascistic course.
But didn't Nancy Pelosi also support the Intel for the phony war against Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, Syria , Yemen etc. So why trust her or anyone in the government establishment. Didn't she and Hillary also support putting Chelsea Manning in jail and of prosecuting Edward Snowden, Julian Assange etc. Hasn't she also approved of Enhanced Interrogation (torture) renditions, assassinations and massive surveillance of US citizens.
Wait. You're saying knowledge and truth do not come from powerful Republicans or from powerful Democrats? What kind of dangerous nihilism are you peddling here? Pick a side and believe what they tell you. That's how we do things in America and if you don't like it you can move to Rus — aha!
Donald J. Trump Verified account
Having a good relationship with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. Only "stupid" people, or fools, would think that it is bad! We…..
7:02 AM – 7 Jan 2017
See? Even the bloviating short-fingered vulgarian is smarter about some (pretty fucking obvious) things than the Holy Mainstream Establishment.
the bloviating short-fingered vulgarian
Read someone referring to him somewhere this morning as the Fanta Fuhrer. Made me snort my coffee. ;-}
He stole his foreign policy line from Barack Obama in 2008, who was willing to sit down with our adversaries. Remember the "with/without preconditions" argument?
short-fingered vulgarian – Agent Orange – they're all good.
Not everything Agent Orange says is original, although his exclamation points remind me of a fifteen yo girl.
Speaking of motive, the blithe presumption that Putin obviously wanted Trump to win, has yet to be adequately supported.
Hint: It won't do to simultaneously say Putin lies about everything but then selectively choose quotes by him as sincere statements of position.
It is the Clinton Foundation that needs properly investigating, and lets not forget the corruption, and the Lolita Express, the pizza references, and child hot tub parties, and all the other Podesta email revelations.Lets disinfect the sewer of Washington, and not get distracted by a few anti Russian Fake News propagandists.I hope all this latest bullshit annoys Trump so much that he goes through these lying criminal, corrupt scum bags like a dose of salt.He needs to de-politicise the CIA and the other Intelligence Agencies by removing those appointed at the top who are Democrats.
It's a privilege to read this. Let me summarize:
A guy named "Anon" sticks the words "let's not get distracted"
into the middle of a 100-200 word epithalamium to his cerebral marriage of
3-card-monte sucker gullibility and glow-in-the-dark,
artificially-banana-scented insanity. He suggests
that Donald Trump should swim "like a dose of salt"
through the intestines of various bad people. This is a good idea.
Ride the Clinton Foundation. Ride it for eternity.
In the spirit of the Warren Commission and the 9/11 Commission, we need an independent, resolute inquiry into an apparent attempt to undermine our democracy
Sam Biddle and Robert Mackey… now there is a pair that would challenge even Plato's faith in the Socratic method. How can one even suggest that either the Warren or the 911 commission reports were independent or resolute. Let's begin with NPR's 50 year review of the Warren Commission's report that led to the its publication entitled, "Inconsistencies Haunt Official Record Of Kennedy's Death" which was written by Marcus D. Rosenbaum. In spite of its consistant bias, NPR could hardly be accused of entertaining conspiracy theories.
Speaking of conspiracy theorists…
The Church Committee found that the FBI, on orders from the White House, kept files on Warren Commission critics – American citizens who were demanding a further probe into the assassination of John F. Kennedy (JFK). FBI tactics included surveillance and keeping files on their sex lives, it was said to be similar to the actions taken against members of the Civil Rights movement.
Released in response to a 1976 FOIA request by the New York Times, CIA Document 1035-960 offers advice to its assets in the media on "countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists", and suggests that they " employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics [through b]ook reviews and feature articles…" The list of techniques suggested in the memorandum, which together provide a catalogue of fallacies for convenient use, includes:
Imagine that, an orchestrated campaign to undermine and discredit those who could not swallow 26 volumes of obfuscating bullshit.
CIA Director McCone was "complicit" in a Central Intelligence Agency "benign cover-up" by withholding information from the Warren Commission, according to a report by the CIA Chief Historian David Robarge released to the public in 2014.[24] According to this CIA report, CIA officers had been instructed to give only "passive, reactive, and selective" assistance to the commission, in order to keep the commission focused on "what the Agency believed at the time was the 'best truth' — that Lee Harvey Oswald, for as yet undetermined motives, had acted alone in killing John Kennedy." The CIA was also covering up evidence that the CIA may have been in communication with Oswald before 1963, according to the CIA findings. (Wikipedia: Warren Commission)
Don't even get me started on the phony science that attempted to explain away the collapse of three high rise, steel framed buildings into their own footprints at free fall speed in a single day.
Yes let's spend oodles of tax payer money to create an "independent" commission which is comprised of career political hacks and revolving door, sycophantic experts of the corporatocracy. I am sure that they will provide the American people with the best assurances that money can buy.
Great story that you linked to, but here's a better fleshed-out one: ww.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-23/1967-he-cia-created-phrase-conspiracy-theorists-and-ways-attack-anyone-who-challenge
The person (or people) almost never mentioned is Allan and J Foster Dulles. Considering that they ruled not too long ago in the recent past (mid-century, like poodle skirts) the Dulles brothers' lack of inclusion in all of these discussions is itself a conspiracy. Stephen Kinzer suggests bringing back the bust of Allan Dulles and Diego Rivera's mural, Gloriosa Victoria, to serve as a reminder.
I'm holding out hope that Assange and the obtainer hold a joint press conference and make all these liars look even sillier.
But I'll second the astonishment that so many are willing to believe known liars despite zero evidence and the long list of those who are tangibly benefiting from the releases… Trump, Republicans, Wall Street (arms makers, oil companies, insurers, etc.), Israel (thanks for the Chomsky link rr), etc…
Even Hillary is benefiting more than Russia at this point. She gets to play the victim instead of being called the Loser that she is… with attention shifted fully away from her loser record, her loser actions, her loser policies, her loser statements, her loser campaign, her loser character and her loser friends.
If motive is the thing driving these "conclusions" aka empty assertions, shouldn't those who are actually benefitting be the main suspects?
In the spirit of the Warren Commission and the 9/11 Commission, . . .
These are two of the most nefarious and despised commissions in recent US history.
. . . such a probe would be working to bring you clarity
Having watched a few congressional hearings, this seems very doubtful to me.
The election is over. Trump won. Time to move on.
"In the spirit of the Warren Commission" – Really, Putin will end up being the "lone" hacker.
Read Vincent Bugliosi's Four Days in November: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
Read JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE by James W. Douglass. It's just common knowledge the Warren commission was so flawed.
Yes, the Warren Commission investigation and report were deeply flawed and compromised. And Lee Harvey Oswald was almost certainly the lone assassin.
Read JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE by James W. Douglass.
Jim Douglass is a good man, a knowledgeable and humane theologian and an exemplar of Catholic Worker values. His book on JFK is shaped, far too much, by his religio-philosophical beliefs and desires.
The "CIA did it because Kennedy wanted peace" theory is old and feeble.
Now, let's get back to the subject at hand. But do read Bugliosi. It is, so far, the definitive work on the subject.
Every perspective is shaped by some force – fact, fiction, beliefs and desires. "Religio-philosophical beliefs and desires" do not make things false.
"The "CIA did it because Kennedy wanted peace" theory is old and feeble". Wow, you really think that pronouncement works. I think Curtis Lemay would have agreed with you. If you read the book, it seems to surmise that the CIA coordinated the deed, but our military was behind it.
Yes and back to the question at hand, should we have another Warren type commission for this Russian domination of democracy. I don't think so – it was "deeply flawed and compromised".
I will consider reading Bugliosi's book, but will have my eyes open – https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/bugliosi-vincent-reclaiming-history-aguilar
The least interesting aspect of the Kennedy assassination is who killed Kennedy.
One of the more interesting things is that the government insisted that sources and methods were more important than democracy (sound familiar?). That idea didn't sit well with a lot of people, and it still doesn't.
The Kennedy assassination is not a murder mystery, but a perfect storm that forced into the sunlight a huge amount of classified documents and sins of the president and intel community. The Church and Pike Committees were direct responses to the government assertion that sources and methods were more important than democracy.
The Kennedy assassination is important because it forced the government's hand.
Just chanting sources, methods and the supremacy of secrecy didn't work anymore (at least when it came to the assassination), and the government had a nervous breakdown because of it. That breakdown is ongoing, and the government is still trying to recover and put that genie back in the bottle.
The Kennedy assassination is not about Colonel Mustard with the Candlestick–it's about the idea that it is much harder to lie about your affair when your wife has been murdered.
Oswald's lone guilt very quickly became a proxy for the idea that the government shouldn't have to answer anymore questions, and we should just believe the government again, move on, and put the genie back in the bottle. That wasn't a very popular option with the people.
The key to understanding the Kennedy assassination is not as a murder mystery, but as a moment when every contradictory lie the government ever told caught up with them Costanza style and they were forced to pretend that the Intelligence State was subservient to the elected government–if only for a moment.
But the gov't didn't lie in this case and the suggestion that the Warren commission be created was: "The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large".
What lie caught up to them in this case?
This was a great piece, until this line:
"I personally believe the attacks were ordered by the Russian government in some way."
What? The whole point of the article is that *evidence* is needed, and *beliefs* are irrelevant. Why would you pollute your otherwise good piece with a parenthetical, unfounded hunch?
TI's argument thus far has been: Show us real evidence of Russian hacking. Please don't walk that back with conjecture.
Last night Mr. Greenwald tweeted: "NYT is explicitly pointing out key fact about "new" report: it contains only assertions, literally *no evidence*" To which I replied and asked: "They're not going to give up sources. I've been a fan of yours for years. Please tell me what evidence would satisfy you." To which he gave me a final response; "You expect journalists to accept govt claims as true without seeing evidence for it? That's what you think journalism is?" Any journalist should tell you that this is simply answering a question with a question. Deflection. Not to mention patronizing. It's a legitimate question however.
Before I go any further, just a tiny bit of background on me. I have worked in the financial technology industry (payments etc.) for over 20 years. The industry is, of course, very aware of cybercrime, which these hacks were and they fit that legal definition. When designing systems and software, defending against such attacks is paramount. I won't say that I am a cybersecurity expert, but I work hand in hand with them. I am also not a Clinton apologist. I maxed out donations to Bernie Sanders and volunteered where I could for his campaign. Happy to say he won my state. I also voted for Clinton in the general because the prospect of a compete buffoon with the maturity of an 8yr old being POTUS was inconceivable.
In cybercrimes the technical evidence is always very ephemeral. IP addresses are only a starting point. But these are very easy to mask and alter. Be it Network Address Translation ('nat' ing) the use of a Virtual Private Network (VPN) or more commonly the use of TOR nodes, the so-called "dark web." In this case "dark" means opaque, not inherently evil. Malware used in hacking can be very sophisticated. Often it is installed and is dormant until some trigger activates it. Once it's job is done, it shuts down and deletes itself and all traces. If you know the right people, you can buy it yourself. A capable developer can also reverse engineer these programs. I'll stipulate that most technical evidence of this nature is easily assailable for the reasons mentioned above. Knowing about all of this made me a skeptic in the beginning.
The technical evidence is the starting point, or corroborating evidence. To make positive connections you must rely on humans. In financial cybercrime you rely on humans (law enforcement) finding suspicious 'post hack' purchases. Where did they originate? Who received the goods? And so on. When the actor is a state, we rely on the input of human intelligence (HumInt). Colloquially "spies." These are assets that have infiltrated high enough into the state apparatus to make observation of activities. They could be US citizens, foreign intelligence assets, or locals who have agreed to work with us. The classified version (that we'll never see) purports to have this information. I believe if it didn't, Trump would have said so after the briefing. Given that technical evidence (methods) is always suspect, this leaves only sources. It's basically why I asked the question of Mr. Greenwald. What evidence will satisfy you? The public disclosures of these names? That would be a death warrant. I know people will point to the Iraq war. In my view it was Dick Cheney and the rest of the neocons that cherry picked the data, used raw data, and testimony from 'curveball' (who was promised the Presidency if the invasion worked) that is most to blame. They manipulated the intelligence community. Say what you will about President Obama (and I disagree with him on several issues) it simply isn't how he operates.
The report, along with other actions by Trump have allowed me to accept this determination. Trump has surrounded himself with people with major Russian connections. Paul Manafort an adviser to the pro-Russian Ukrainian President. Rick Gates, a Manafort employee who was also involved in Ukraine. Michael Flynn, a complete kook who was a paid speaker for RT. Rex Tillerson, who stands to make boatloads of money when sanctions are lifted, and is a close personal friend of Putin. Wilbur Ross, a business partner with Russian oligarch, Viktor Vekselberg. Carter Page who has extensive Russian connections and was an investment banker for years there. Then there was the insistence that the GOP platform included planks to soften the stance on Russia, the sanctions, and the annex of Crimea.
Putin is a murderer. He has killed journalists and rivals. Jailed other rivals and appropriated their assets on his way to becoming, probably, the richest man in the world. Maybe we need to reframe this for a clearer understanding. Maybe this isn't about Dem v. GOP, the US v. Russia. We already see that oligarchs are taking over our country. Oligarchs (Putin being the biggest) are running Russia. Maybe this is a case of oligarchs on both sides that want to join forces and consolidate their empires globally.
Agreed: You are not a cyber-security expert.
I'm sorry, you are….?? It's easy just to throw a turd like that. Like monkeys in the zoo.
…an actual cyber-security expert. And if you're gonna act like a silly monkey, a turd in the face is coming your way.
Make the evidence of your claim public.
Meh. If I thought it were worth doing, I already would have. Plus, it sounds like a lot of work. You asked; I answered. Now, go back to being silly.
Of course, you are hiding behind an alias, you could say you were anyone.
As Wait, Wut? observed, you are quite correct about not being a cyber-security expert.
The technical evidence is the starting point, or corroborating evidence.
No. If we're talking about hacking a server or servers, as we are here, the technical evidence (if it exists) is the key evidence and other evidence (if it exists) may serve to guide us to the attackers and/or their methods, thus corroborating a narrative about, or explanation of, the technical evidence
We. Have. Not. Seen. Either. Type. Of. Evidence.
Maybe we need to reframe this for a clearer understanding.
You certainly need to do something if you want to understand the questions about these claims of "Russian hacking."
Motive, means, and opportunity on the part of a character who has been introduced earlier in the story works in detective stories and whodunnits, so what's your beef here? Embrace structuralism.
So, your contention is that in an environment where IPs can be altered, malware can be made to delete itself, or is so readily available to others, that is the defining evidence? I am admittedly not an expert, but your credentials are…..? Of course, I don't know you and you could always say you were the director of a secret cyber security org. All I can say is, I have worked with such experts on financial hacks, and this is what I get from them. Like I said, this kind of evidence will ALWAYS be suspect and many will poke holes in it. It's why we also rely heavily on human intelligenve
My credentials include more than thirty (30) years of systems architecture, engineering and administration utilizing more operating systems and classes of hardware than you have even heard of. Regulars here know that.
I'm certainly not going to argue details with you. But I'll repeat this, because it's the critical point:
We. Have. Not. Seen. Either. Type. Of. Evidence.
The name of an undercover source will never be revealed. You should know that. Maybe if those sources are dead within a month, we'll know more.
It becomes ever more apparent that you're just another credulous Russophobe.
Silly, dumb and boring.
In other words Bill, Doug has no refute so he is just going to call you names.
Your comments are somewhat compelling, so have chosen to reply to you. My concern is with "Gang of Eight" and whether or not those individuals would even be capable of examining and understanding whatever 'evidence' they were shown to the extent they would be capable of evaluating it. I am acquainted with a few people who know quite a lot about computers and the Internet generally, but this sort of activity and evidence would be far beyond their competence level. In such areas, the People should have their own intelligence ombudsman to reassure them of the validity, or lack thereof, of the basis for the serious accusations that have been leveled. I believe that Julian Assange has offered to take a look at what they have and let us (the public) know whether it backs up the claims. That will never happen, but it is very difficult to believe anything any U.S. administration says any longer. Maybe Russia had a hand in some of this, maybe not, but I doubt Putin and his aides would be so clumsy as to allow anyone access to direct orders from Putin himself. Personally, I think they are bluffing, and unless more unaligned experts weigh in, I will continue to think that.
My concern is with "Gang of Eight" and whether or not those individuals would even be capable of examining and understanding whatever 'evidence' they were shown to the extent they would be capable of evaluating it.
No, they'd have no clue. Unless they had their own independent (and honest and unbiased) specialists, and unless those specialists were provided with all the evidence (and a convincing chain of custody and other assurances to establish that it was unaltered), they would either have to accept the explanation of the presenters — or reject it for personal, political or ideological reasons (or maybe just because heartburn was making them grumpy).
In such areas, the People should have their own intelligence ombudsman to reassure them of the validity, or lack thereof, of the basis for the serious accusations that have been leveled.
Absolutely correct and, unless and until we have such a person/entity, it would be silly, reckless and dangerous to believe the claims of institutional inveterate liars.
Thank you Beverly. That's a tough one. I keep thinking about how to adjudicate this and similar issues (who within or outside the US GOV could assess such evidence impartially with approaching zero risk of disclosure) but never address it. A patient impartial observer or arbiter whose critical thinking is untainted by a fickle or disingenuous press with enough tech skills to separate the wheat from the chaff and enough people skills to separate the Kremlin idiots from the Capitol clown.
OK. I'll do it! Dear Nancy (you don't want to mess with the CIA) Pelosi and Chuck (you don't want the CIA to mess with you) Schumer I would like to volunteer to have our ever expanding team here at julianassangehasmorecredibilitythanthewholelotofya.com review all intelligence to date regarding DNC insider threat. We will also while work closely with the Capitol Police to chase Washinton DCs imaginary Grizzly from the Capitol Steppes in two (not three) shakes of a lambs tail…
Having members of Congress investigate a subject (Wikileaks got Clinton Files from Putin via third party) in which their over the top (and painfully on the record) confirmation bias has been so clearly illustrated should clearly preclude the vast majority of from weighing the evidence or rendering a decision on Wikileaks and Vlad Putins guilt or innocence. Perhaps the International Criminal Court?
We. Have. Not. Seen. Either. Type. Of. Evidence.
Given what Bill described please tell us what evidence would be lefy behind?
<. . .please tell us what evidence would be lefy behind?
Obviously, that depends. . . ;^)
Honestly, Gil, I keep telling myself to ignore your mean-spirited nonsense, but you're such an easy target. . .
It's mean spirited to ask a question? Face it Doug if you had an answer you'd give it. And if I was an easy target you would hit me. But you don't and you can't .
"Given that technical evidence (methods) is always suspect, this leaves only sources. It's basically why I asked the question of Mr. Greenwald. What evidence will satisfy you?"
SOURCES: The NSAs "sources" are like stars in the sky – there are to many to count. The NSA has so many sources willing or unwilling one need not reveal a specific "source" be it liveware or hardware to count packets traveling between ANY two exchange points.
METHODS: Snowden has already revealed the NSAs "methods" (HELLO MCFLY IS THERE ANYBODY THERE) and the NSAs "methods" (which are improving) are in the public fucking domain at this site and worldwide.
So, living human beings should have their names revealed. Like Valerie Plame?
Cheneys (Scooter Libbys) retaliatory disclosure. Interesting choice Bill. Practically all of our intelligence collection is SigInt. Practically all the NSAs "sources" are SigInt technology or IT hardware software based.
If the IC can't make a case with "Collect it All" SigInt after six months using XKeyscore and the myriad methods detailed ad nauseum at http://www.cjfe.org/snowden they have no evidence.
Riddle Me This Bill: Hypothetically (to keep well within the substance and spirit of the "evidence" submitted to date) what "evidence" specifically might unattributed untested unverified HumInt testimony provide that could possibly offset the remarkably inconclusive SigInt "evidence" to date?
As for protecting the identity of whomever might testify or release a public statement proving Wikileaks collusion with "a third party" to receive Hillarys emails from a Russian source (the ICs current theory) drop them in a scif with Justin Amash. Ha Ha. On a more serious note our own congressional oversight committees (really all of Capitol Hill) leak constantly and in this case there with near bipartisan unanimity around the ICs evidence free assertions I'll have to go with the needs of the many (7 billion) outweigh the needs of the few (435).
Well, gee, if you're convinced without any evidence, we should all be convinced too.
After all, you work with people who know stuff… and Putin bad!
I am considering ALL the evidence, which I explained above. You an choose to ignore whatever you like. And yes, Putin is a bad guy. Ask any of the close to 100 journalists who have died as a result of homicide during the Putin years. This is public record. Ask the eastern Ukraine. You think he's not a bad guy?
And yes, Putin is a bad guy. . . Ask the eastern Ukraine.
Boy, you're even more confused than was first apparent.
Your idea of evidence requires my faith. I have none in you or the others asking… maxing out to Bernie almost created some… but then didn't.
Can I borrow your Ouija board to ask the dead journalists? Or did you use a different method?
"This is public record"? The homicides or Putin being convicted of them?
Is there only one bad guy? I think there are many… and some bad women too. Why do you choose to ignore the other possibilities?
To make positive connections you must rely on humans. In financial cybercrime you rely on humans (law enforcement) finding suspicious 'post hack' purchases. Where did they originate? Who received the goods? And so on.
Which begs the question of why anyone should trust the spies that have lied to us repeatedly versus the words of someone like former UK Ambassador Craig Murray, who has a track record of, well, not lying.
The Kremlin has rejected the hacking accusations, while the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has previously said the DNC leaks were not linked to Russia. A second senior official cited by the Washington Post conceded that intelligence agencies did not have specific proof that the Kremlin was "directing" the hackers, who were said to be one step removed from the Russian government.
Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims "bullshit", adding: "They are absolutely making it up."
"I know who leaked them," Murray said. "I've met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it's an insider. It's a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.
"If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA's statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States.
"America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it's not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever."
Now both Julian Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia. Do we credibly have access? Yes, very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access to the source of the leak. The people saying it is not Russia are those who do have access. After access, you consider truthfulness. Do Julian Assange and I have a reputation for truthfulness? Well in 10 years not one of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks has released has had its authenticity successfully challenged. As for me, I have a reputation for inconvenient truth telling.
Contrast this to the "credible sources" Freedland relies on. What access do they have to the whistleblower? Zero. They have not the faintest idea who the whistleblower is. Otherwise they would have arrested them. What reputation do they have for truthfulness? It's the Clinton gang and the US government, for goodness sake.
In fact, the sources any serious journalist would view as "credible" give the opposite answer to the one Freedland wants. But in what passes for Freedland's mind, "credible" is 100% synonymous with "establishment". When he says "credible sources" he means "establishment sources". That is the truth of the "fake news" meme. You are not to read anything unless it is officially approved by the elite and their disgusting, crawling whores of stenographers like Freedland.
Given all of the qualifiers you placed in your comment, the things that made you a skeptic in the beginning, and given that The classified version (that we'll never see) only purports to have this information , and given that you view Trump as a compete buffoon with the maturity of an 8yr old and who, I will add, can't stay within the lines of any story he wants to tell any better than a 5yr old with crayons and a coloring book, and given there are other sources – sources willing to forego hiding behind anonymity – why do you find any of the above any more convincing without the firm evidence that Greenwald and a few others still insist on?
Murray says a "leak." By whom? The CIA? A DNC insider? An HRC insider? Why doesn't he reveal his sources? It would certainly end a lot of controversy. And if WL is so sensitive about it's sources, how does he know for sure. Assange has said his SOURCE (who he got this from) was not Russian. Of course no one would go to the Ecuadorian embassy with an RU uniform and a satchel of docs. Or submit them with any identifying Russian credentials. I contend that it is entirely possible that Assange does not know the real progenitor of the purloined documents. These docs possibly changed hands many times between the genesis and the distribution. And if Russian state was the originator, this is certainly how they would have been transferred to avoid international incident. The classified version claims to have all the connective tissue. Does it? We'll never know. But I do believe that if it didn't, Trump would probably have publicized that. For me, I believe that you have to have some baseline of trust, however that can be flexible and vary from situation to situation. I did not trust the intelligence in the lead up to the Iraq war. That Saddam was building WMD while under crippling sanctions that killed as many as 500,000 was laughable on it's face. The Downing Street memo, Italian intelligence which said the "yellowcake" docs were forgeries, Blix's lack of finding any evidence of WMD. These all cast serious doubts. But in this case, it seems that the only counter is "you haven't convinced me." You presented Murray's statement, but without the compelling evidence. The kind of evidence Mr. Greenwald would apparently want. And as far as me being convinced, I tried to explain that above. When taken in the context of the people populating Trump's team, the billions of dollars of personal gain (Russia/Exxon) and basically the general conciliatory tone with someone who undoubtedly has had some 100 journos killed, has invaded and occupied a sovereign nation, jailed political opponents and stolen their assets, I tend to come down on the side of "yes, it's possible he did this." The question I asked of Mr. Greenwald, and will now ask you is, please describe the nature of the evidence to be made publicly available that would satisfy you. This is a serious question, and not meant to be confrontational, as i tried to explain to Mr. Greenwald last night. I know comments can seem that way.
I know, right? Isn't it irritating when people claim to know things and won't reveal their sources? Fortunately, the politically loyal psyche fills in the gaps of credibility. IANNAL but in court, I am given to understand, lawyers get to ask juries what evidence would persuade them before the lawyers have to show what they've got. Works better that way.
In one organization I am familiar with, which has trillions of dollars of revenue each year, is rather computer-dependent, and is targeted by cyber so-and-sos just about every second, it is pretty much common knowledge that the computer people could say ANYTHING about what is happening with respect to any aspect of the computer systems — one of crossbeams gone out of skew on treadle — and the non-computer people would pretty much need to take it on faith.
"Given that technical evidence (methods) is always suspect, this leaves only [human] sources."
This entire screed, as well as the governments position papers, are simply an attempt at rationalizing the bad behavior of intelligence agencies. The idea that disregarding physical evidence in lieu of human observations can somehow be the answer to providing us with an answer here denies that human beings are unreliable as hell as witnesses and selfless advocates of the truth, even moreso if they work for the largely unanswerable and secretive intelligence agencies.
What's happening here is a struggle for control over protecting 'how-things-are' – not in trying to decide 'how-things-should-be' and the over-reliance on classified and secret information to inform and guide public policy has proven itself to be a shambles – in both protecting us from harm (not a lot of evidence that's happened) and in guiding our nations public policy forward in ways that don't rely on war and violence as the answer (and there's plenty of evidence for that).
Looking at the historical record, societies don't remain intact long performing this balancing act, and if as a nation we don't choose a course that relies less on warmongering and more on dialog and peacemaking, it's likely to get much worse before it gets better.
"The idea that disregarding physical evidence in lieu of human observations can somehow be the answer to providing us with an answer here denies that human beings are unreliable as hell as witnesses and selfless advocates of the truth, even moreso if they work for the largely unanswerable and secretive intelligence agencies."
Exactly. Given the NSAs Full Take capabilities its safe to assume Julian Assange can't go to the loo without generating a record of the event. I fear Bills lack of HumInt proof by design may be in the Yorkshire pudding but its inaccessible disposition belies its relevance in the face of zero evidence to date.
Putin is a murderer. He has killed journalists and rivals. Jailed other rivals and appropriated their assets on his way to becoming, probably, the richest man in the world.
It's funny how you have absolutely zero evidence for the above. It's even funnier that you would find similar accusations except that many of them are backed with some factual evidence made by the 'vast right wing conspiracy' concerning the Clintons and their alleged crime empire.
You ARE aware, I'm sure that there's a list of almost 50 people who mysteriously died while working for the Clintons and shortly thereafter, aren't you? And you ARE up to date with Clinton's foundation's activities in Haiti and you know who ended up with the billions in aid and who got the more lucrative contracts there, right? And, of course, Whitewater, the Mena affair is old history to you right? And you fully understand why Clinton bombed some pharma factory in Sudan out of the blue, without a doubt. And, of course, there was a good reason for Hillary to hold totally secret meetings with the big pharmas as she was drafting a healthcare bill for her husband and to totally refuse to make the transcripts public. And Clinton's bombing Serbia into near stone age prior to ripping one of its province (Kosovo) only to turn it into Europe's capital of organs, sex slave and drug traffic was benign and humanitarian as it was her humanitarian intervention in Libya.
And, since Hillary's attempt to instigate a color revolution in Moscow after Putin was elected failed was no big deal and it's Putin's fault because he didn't get the joke.
I therefore understand why you would enthusiastically support your babushka goddess. It's not just because she's got no longer working ovaries. It's the entire package or, to paraphrase Hillary's paraphrasing someone else:
She came (so to speak), she saw, she got f___d big time and now she's a nobody loser. Even though I'm sure she'll give it another try for the 2020.
Excellent post. But if you are expecting honest answers to your questions you have come to the wrong place.
Honest answers are supported by the facts. No on here trying to honestly "answer" Bills "question" (absent any SigInt evidence how might we publicly review HumInt evidence without revealing their identity) has the facts. "We don't have the facts" and "They havent provided any facts" are two of the most frequently occurring assertions in this thread and similar recent threads.
Well informed people who say don't have the facts are quite frequently receptive to documenting them and those people are the very ones you'd want in YOUR jury pool Gil? Bill?
A prosecutor might consider Bill and Gil excellent members of the jury in the case of The People v. Someone We Want You To Convict on Secret Evidence. Maybe in The Inquisition v. Galileo. Of course, before they were allowed on the jury they'd have to specify just exactly what evidence they'd need.
Except this isn't a trial and no one has been arrested. Bill asked an honest question about what kind of evidence would be left behind. All of the sudden all those self proclaimed computer experts had no real response.
We have no response as to what traces may have been left behind because we have no idea what sort of hack, if there was one, was executed on what machine or machines and on what type(s) of data store(s). And we have no idea how the machine(s) in question may have been configured or what security measures (if any) may have been active.
And so on. We don't read hacker minds, or hard drives, or router logs, or whatever, via Vulcan mind-melding. We have to see and touch stuff and we ain't got nuthin to see or touch.
I apologize if I was confused or not following the thread. I was still on the (rather dumb) question of what evidence skeptics need to see to be persuaded. On the question of evidence left behind, I offer nothing and nothing I would offer could have any value.
Well played.
Isn't it the first job of journalists to be skeptical – especially with a controversial announcement coming out of the CIA right after an unexpected presidential election outcome? Should not the first question be, why this and why now?
Let's take a step back and see the background. A bombshell report comes out of the CIA right after a shocking win by the most unpredictable candidate since Andrew Jackson, a man who threatens to "drain the swamp", a man who criticizes the foundational tenets of US foreign policy (e.g., bringing democracy to the world). Why, this is arguably the most threatening moment in recent history to the institutionalized cold warriors in Foggy Bottom, the very heart of the swamp.
And yet, not a word about this in the mainstream media. The universal acceptance of this story (does anybody remember Judith Miller?) – a clear clue that there may be a deeper story here.
The report is deeply depressing. I expected there would at least be SOMETHING there! Instead, it's an analysis of RT video views and Tweets.
I'm I supposed to trust — to have 'faith' — that the classified version has something more? I can easily see them stuffing the classified version with a bunch of techno-mumbo-jumbo and code that none of the recipients of that version are capable of understanding, and they wouldn't be able to turn to outside consultants to help them parse things. It's all smoke and mirrors.
What is depressing though is that people chose to believe or disbelieve all of this based entirely on personal political ideology. Nobody is reading this report or even cares about the contents. All that matters is a report of some kind exists. I sent links to the report to a few friends of mine and they simply refused to read it. It doesn't matter what the report says or doesn't say — they've made up their minds and that's that.
"Nobody is reading this report or even cares about the contents. All that matters is a report of some kind exists."
I am given to understand that Russian fake news spreads on Facebook because people like and share based solely on the headlines of articles people don't actually read. Fortunately, that only happens with RT stories and only on Facebook.
What is a bipartisan probe going to accomplish? Provide proof that foreign governments try to influence American politics, just as our government does to theirs? BFD!
Putin likes Trump better than Killary and did his damnedest to make it happen by releasing actual e-mails. BFD!!
Get over your exceptional selves.
Journalists and former lawyers are the wrong sorts of people to be examining the DNI report.
Bring on the Derridean literary critics: il n'y a pas de hors-texte.
Russia may or may not have been involved, but the important fact is that someone was, and someone or other always will be. We do the same ourselves to others.
The lesson that should be learned has to do with security, which took up about 95% of the original report, but is being totally ignored by the media. The Democrats were hacked because they used unsecured private servers (Hillary) and poor security (Podesta). Further, if the emails had been encrypted, even if hacked they would be useless. Has anything changed? I doubt it. Most people are just too lazy to use encryption or other security.
Making an international incident out of this was counter-productive, and only happened because the Democrats are desperate to blame someone besides themselves for their loss, and the neocons want an enemy to get money for both intelligence agencies and the military. It has taken attention away from the real issue and politicized it.
"We do the same ourselves to others."
And we do the same ourselves to ourself.
Whatever happened to that report released a couple of weeks ago by that group of concerned techies headed by William Biddle, I believe his name is? Their report suggests the possibility of the leaker actually being a disgruntled DNC insider. This is something about which I'm feeling a little vindicated, thank you, as I made that very suggestion in my comments to a separate article weeks before the concerned group gave its analysis.
I hate it when I'm right. At any rate, I saw almost nothing on this group's report anywhere except on progressive sites. The subservient msm lapdogs simply buried the report for it not adhering to their anti-Russian propaganda line.
The consensus is that a talented junior high kid could have busted into the DNC servers, no problem. So, what remains for me is the idea that these people, these best and brightest, who can't protect their own stuff–fumbled a Mickey Mouse email scandal, for crying fucking out loud–thought America was going to put them at the controls.
What's even more striking is the Democrats, rather than show an ounce of remorse, shame or humility, or, god forbid, give reason to hope for even incremental change in their intractable righteousness, have instead doubled down on the dumb, clinging desperately to their own bullshit excuses and rationalizations for their historic asskicking.
This mentality and behavior of the Democrats themselves, far more than anything the Russians could have dreamed up, is how they got their heads handed to them. It's a character issue.
William Binney, RJ, and he is a member of 'Veteran Intelligence Professionals for sanity'
A little something he co-wrote with Ray McGovern, a day or two back;
And, given there has been mention of the claims of Craig Murray, the former Brit diplomat, re having had some involvement in the leak(s), something Ray McGovern said a short while back;
"Also, former ambassador Craig Murray just stated that he knows and met the source of one of these leaks. I know Murray and I can substantiate his claim."
You can see him saying it here – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yz_55hRvixw
I advise exercising care when watching – that's probably Vladvision's most diabolical mind control program, with a Moscow based American hosting a show with 3 home based American guests.
Be vigilant and you will survive as a better informed citizen.
And perhaps TPTB should be forced to reveal to the American public all the, often very successful and sometimes deadly, efforts that have been made over the last several decades by the US intelligence community to undermine the democratic processes of other countries around the world. Would we then see the utter hypocrisy in all this overwrought drama?
A dangerous consistency is the hobgoblin of people who are a threat to American exceptionalism.
Well done, Robert.
Aw, shucks.
The Professional Terrorism Bureau? Total Propaganda Toward Believers? The Pettier the Better?
Any of those will work…
Seriously, what's TPTB?
Thank you. Generation gap on full display.
Generation gap on full display.
Is that anything like plumber's cleavage? If so, I'm not gonna look. ;-}
I deserve everything you and Wait, Wut? can bring. :)
I usually recommend duckduckgo.com instead of google. DDG doesn't track your searches and try to use that info to sell you. Neither sell things to you nor sell you as the product. Period.
Neither does LMGTFY track or display ads. And while LMGFTY doesn't have the popularity of other search engines, I find it returns the highest-quality results – much better than, say, Google. I use it for all my web searching needs.
Thanks! Will bookmark. Always good to have alternatives. :-)
Oh, no! I mean, it's great to bookmark for flippant forum replies, but it's not an actual search engine. I was just being facetious. Stop listening to my nonsense. You're better than that.
Oh, silly me. :-)
Still, it's a good reply for folk who, unlike robert, come in here demanding everyone supply them with information they won't even consider once it's offered.
robert, I'm right there with you on the acronyms. Took me forever to get beyond IANAL and ROFLMAO. Nowadays I'm decent as long as they don't get beyond 5-7 letters. And I often find that my own inventions for what they stand for are more interesting than reality. :-)
You have me wrong, sir. ICNIOIO.
Which, for the uninitiated, means "I consider no information once it's offered."
Wait, Wut?'s flippant reply did the search for me so I had no choice but to learn what it revealed but I am doing my best to purge that information.
OMG, btw, I did not know IANAL was a "thing" nor what it was.
Within the week or so, I searched for additional private (non-tracking) search engines. I use DDG, StartPage secondly, and Privatelee third. The last two results are almost disembodied and weird in comparison, so I use DDG 90% of the time. I recently installed unbubble : https://www.unbubble.eu/en-US/ – so I am still in the test phase.
I just tried LMGTFY. Nowhere in "about" does it say that it doesn't track. I can see why you might like it, but it would drive me crazy (no settings to turn off images, etc.). Thank you for the suggestion, though.
At the risk of explaining away any comedy in the punch line, LMGTFY stands for "Let Me Google That for You". It merely forwards search strings to Google, after a brief animation for theatrical effect. Are you sure you actually read the about page, where all of this is all plainly disclosed in the first sentence?
Well done, by the way.
The powers that be.
Sorry, yes it usually means The Powers That Be. However, I think your guesses work just fine too.
Yes, thanks, I see that now. I will add that to the list of 21st century acronyms that I now know. I'm up to three now because I recently learned LOL.
Weather the Russians put a heavy hand, light pinky or were just will wishers to the chaos the corruption of our own Republic by our own governance has ultimately spawned is the question? This could also be very bad for the Russians. They are for sure very much in danger of laughing their nuts off. Be well Putin and may we all have a Happy New Year. I am also laughing but not happy laughter.
What all of y'all fail to understand is that the CIA and FBI are merely doing their job, which is and always has been to investigate, undermine, and oppose any person or group of people who disseminate any information that in any way runs counter to the orthodox Washington narrative. That includes Communists, socialists, Martin Luther King, the Black Panthers, SDS, Sandinistas, "radicalizers," Julian Assange, etc. (There are other purveyors of counter-narratives on the right.) "Good citizens" will therefore be more likely to reject the content of the counter-narrative; only disaffected skeptics and paranoid losers will be inclined to seek out or believe this forbidden knowledge. Journalists are obligated to play their assigned role by announcing the official opposition to these counter-narratives. And when the CIA/FBI opposition is not persuasive or somehow fails to have the desired effect, it is important to call for a do-over in the form of Congressional inquiry, so that then Congress's official disapproval of the counter-narrative can also be announced. Official disapproval of the counter-narrative can therefore be kept in front of the "pursaps" — I mean voters. So it is unfair of you people (yes, I said "you people") to criticize anyone for performing their determined and overdetermined function in the system.
" Journalists are obligated to play their assigned role by announcing the official opposition to these counter-narratives. "
Actually this case proves the falsehood of this claim. You have guys like Hannity and Carlson taking the opposite side of what the CIA and FBI are claiming. Assange is appearing of Fox News. So I think "you people" should realize that the world is not as black and white as you think.
Journalists, I said.
Oh I see, so you are not making any claims regarding the MSM role in this just journalists.
Well, you've got me. "Journalists" is a value-laden word and there are apparent exceptions to every generalization.
I amend: "Journalists are obligated to play their assigned role by announcing the official opposition to these counter-narratives, subject to short-term tactical advantage within political duopoly, the need to generate ratings, the channelling of dissent, individual idiosyncrasy, and other things that make the world more complicated than any single sentence can encompass."
Oh, so they have to do "their job" except when they dont. I get it.
If you have a larger point you'd like to elaborate, I am waiting to hear it.
woah dude "all of y'all fail to understand" it's SO true Robert
you're the first person commenting here, EVER, to doubt a government official. most of us commenting at the Intercept really look up to the
FBI and CIA, I think I can speak for all of us when I say that we do indeed
blindly trust everything they say
I don't think I can deal with the heavy truths you are laying down. I'm shocked, shocked. Give me a minute to process this.
As Steve Martin noted, irony can be so ironic at times.
let me regift my miscomprehension as a compliment now
My bad. I figured Intercept commenters would have the most finely tuned irony detectors as the only way to figure out what Benito Mussolini means. :)
Pretty finely tuned; still I took a couple of comments for me to get Benito.
Took me a bit. My irony meter is still puzzling out others.
The intel agencies just do not get their current situation. Much intelligence always has a big moderately/MAYBE attached. Sometimes getting it wrong is part of the process. However, after screw-ups such as WMD and the "littlest lie" they must bring hard proof or their reports should be written on toilet paper so they they can be useful. We are engaged in a righteous discussion that should be embraced by every citizen that demands truth from governance.
Representatives, Senators, Presidents, the Press and Spooks:
"an apparent attempt to undermine our democracy"
Those bleating about 'their democracy' being hacked, are they capable of standing up and delivering a short 10-15 minute meaningful speech (without the help of professional teleprompters) about what democracy means and how democracy can be damaged by:
A) revelations of widespread corruption, and
B) revelations of widespread deception campaigns
C) revelations of collusion between mainstream media and one corrupt political party?
Representatives, Senators, Presidents, the Press and Spooks are blatant acting asParody of themselves. They are robing comedians of materials to make a living.
The ghost of Bill Hicks just spit out his drink. :)
Excellent article, the only one I've seen that intelligently discusses the situation.
Keep it up!
Mr. Biddle
There is obviously no smoking gun. The conclusions by US intelligence are based on a body of evidence which includes experience with Russian intelligence methodology. In any criminal trial, conclusive evidence may not be present to convict. In that case, a body of evidence along with the motive may be used to convict a defendant. It's just as clear (and for good reasons) that the US intelligence agencies are not going to divulge their methods. On the other hand, it took private contractor, Crowdstrike, all of one day to reach the conclusion that Russians were behind the DNC hack. Crowdstrike has a successful history of exposing the origin of cyber-attacks including the Sony Pictures attack by North Korea. They also have well-documented experience in dealing with the same Russian hackers.
In addition, (unsurprisingly) the intelligence report indicates that there was a collaborative effort between WikiLeaks and RT (essentially the Russian government):
"………The Kremlin's principal international propaganda outlet RT (formerly Russia Today) has actively collaborated with WikiLeaks. RT's editor-in-chief visited WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in August 2013, where they discussed renewing his broadcast contract with RT, according to Russian and Western media. Russian media subsequently announced that RT had become "the only Russian media company" to partner with WikiLeaks and had received access to "new leaks of secret information." RT routinely gives Assange sympathetic coverage and provides him a platform to denounce the United States……….."
RT and Assange have a partnership based on mutual interests. It wasn't (likely) just by chance that Edward Snowden boarded a plane to Moscow accompanied by a representative from WikiLeaks. Julian Assange has a history of anti-western (anti-US) activity (Independent, 2012, "Julian Assange launches talk show on Kremlin-backed broadcaster Russia" http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/julian-assange-launches-talk-show-on-kremlin-backed-broadcaster-russia-today-7654690.html):
"…….Asked why he had chosen Russia Today Mr. Assange said: "In the case we are in at the moment, where our major confrontation is with the West, although we have published material from many countries, RT is the natural partner." He added that the relationship might not be so comfortable if WikiLeaks had published large amounts of compromising data on Russia….."
In time, it might become apparent that there was a collaborative effort between the Russian government and Assange. I certainly would not rule it out. As it is, the credibility of Assange has taken a big hit. He clearly operated to influence the election to undermine HRC. In addition, if the Intercept was really interested in investigative journalism outside of their political agenda, they might consider investigating WikiLeaks for their (possible) collusion with the Russian government.
Hear! Assange is accused of publishing uncritically what a government gave him (and which it may have acquired through clandestine means) because it suited his business model and/or preconceived worldview! Let no man live who is the mouthpiece of any government!
Now, tell us again what the CIA has to say about this.
I personally believe the Russian government is most likely responsible in some way
This is virtually the same statement made by Micah Lee in a previous article. I approve of these authors undercutting their own arguments this way.
Too many journalists, like Mr. Greenwald, adopt an uncompromising posture of "show me the evidence". I believe the more reasonable and humble approach of "I believe you, I believe you, now would you care to show us some evidence, that is if it's not too much trouble", is more likely to be successful. There is nothing which intimidates the powerful so much as a display of meekness. The mainstream media grasped this truth decades ago and it is nice to see The Intercept coming round to the same conclusion. In their early days, they showed signs of wishing to challenge the assertions of the government, and it is nice to see they are maturing and becoming more reasonable.
Nicely administered riposte!! Thanks
It's probably a generational thing. Mr. Greenwald is not old, but he adopts an old school, hard bitten cynical stance in his reporting. More modern reporters practice hard to believe as many as six impossible things the government tells them, before breakfast. They realize that reporting is a collaborative exercise, where the government tells them the truth and their job is to find facts to support it.
This is why I am somewhat distressed at the lazy attitude that leads them to demand the government tell them the truth and provide evidence to support it. If the government does all the work, then why are reporters necessary at all? It is the reporter's job to find evidence to support the government's story, or else, as the mainstream press does when no facts are available, report that the truth is so self evident that no evidence is necessary.
In my view, two principled stances are possible: skepticism or faith. Demanding evidence while expressing faith is an attempt to have it both ways.
Mr Greenwald only adopts the show me the evidence posture when he is defending an already existing political stance. When it comes to disseminating news for which there is no evidence that backs his political view he has no problem with a lack of evidence.
Yeah, remember that time GG released a bullshit report on Russian propaganda in 2012 and then used that same report to bootstrap his accusations against Russia in 2017? That was awesome.
When it comes to disseminating news for which there is no evidence that backs his political view he has no problem with a lack of evidence.
Got cite?