Former US intelligence analysts: CIA allegations of Russian email hacking are baseless

paulsurovell

There's already a vibrant thread on this topic, started by Shoshannah, but I thought that this development deserves its own headline. The following memo is authored by six former high-level cyber-intelligence and security analysts from the CIA and NSA, including the legendary William Binney. The memo's conclusion -- that CIA allegations of email hacking of Democrats are baseless -- is consistent with the claim of former British Amb. Craig Murray, a close associate of Wikileaks head Julian Assange, who says that the alleged "hacking" of Democratic emails was done by an "insider" -- whom he's met.

Will the Washington Post and NY Times include this story in their coverage? And if so, will they do so fairly? I hope I am pleasantly surprised.

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/12/12/us-intel-vets-dispute-russia-hacking-claims/

US Intel Vets Dispute Russia Hacking Claims
December 12, 2016

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
MEMORANDUM

Allegations of Hacking Election Are Baseless



A New York Times report on Monday alluding to "overwhelming circumstantial evidence” leading the CIA to believe that Russian
President Vladimir Putin “deployed computer hackers with the goal of
tipping the election to Donald J. Trump” is, sadly, evidence-free. This
is no surprise, because harder evidence of a technical nature points to
an inside leak, not hacking – by Russians or anyone else.
Monday’s Washington Post reports that Sen. James Lankford,
R-Oklahoma, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has joined other senators in calling for a bipartisan investigation of suspected cyber-intrusion by Russia. Reading our short memo could save the Senate from endemic partisanship, expense and unnecessary delay.
In what follows, we draw on decades of senior-level experience – with
emphasis on cyber-intelligence and security – to cut through
uninformed, largely partisan fog. Far from hiding behind anonymity, we
are proud to speak out with the hope of gaining an audience appropriate to what we merit – given our long labors in government and other areas of technology. And corny though it may sound these days, our ethos as intelligence professionals remains, simply, to tell it like it is – without fear or favor.
We have gone through the various claims about hacking. For us, it is
child’s play to dismiss them. The email disclosures in question are the
result of a leak, not a hack. Here’s the difference between leaking and
hacking:
Leak: When someone physically takes data out of an
organization and gives it to some other person or organization, as
Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning did.
Hack: When someone in a remote location electronically
penetrates operating systems, firewalls or any other cyber-protection
system and then extracts data.
All signs point to leaking, not hacking. If hacking were involved,
the National Security Agency would know it – and know both sender and recipient.
In short, since leaking requires physically removing data – on a
thumb drive, for example – the only way such data can be copied and
removed, with no electronic trace of what has left the server, is via a
physical storage device.
Awesome Technical Capabilities
Again, NSA is able to identify both the sender and recipient when
hacking is involved. Thanks largely to the material released by Edward
Snowden, we can provide a full picture of NSA’s extensive domestic
data-collection network including Upstream programs like Fairview,
Stormbrew and Blarney. These include at least 30 companies in the U.S. operating the fiber networks that carry the Public Switched Telephone Network as well as the World Wide Web. This gives NSA unparalleled access to data flowing within the U.S. and data going out to the rest of the world, as well as data transiting the U.S.
In other words, any data that is passed from the servers of the
Democratic National Committee (DNC) or of Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) – or any other server in the U.S. – is collected by the NSA. These data transfers carry destination addresses in what are called packets, which enable the transfer to be traced and followed through the network.
Packets: Emails being passed across the World Wide Web are broken
down into smaller segments called packets. These packets are passed into the network to be delivered to a recipient. This means the packets need to be reassembled at the receiving end.
To accomplish this, all the packets that form a message are assigned
an identifying number that enables the receiving end to collect them for
reassembly. Moreover, each packet carries the originator and ultimate
receiver Internet protocol number (either IPV4 or IPV6) that enables the
network to route data.
When email packets leave the U.S., the other “Five Eyes” countries
(the U.K., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) and the seven or eight
additional countries participating with the U.S. in bulk-collection of
everything on the planet would also have a record of where those email
packets went after leaving the U.S.
These collection resources are extensive; they include hundreds of trace route programs that trace the path of packets going across the network and tens of thousands of hardware and software implants in switches and servers that manage the network. Any emails being extracted from one server going to another would be, at least in
part, recognizable and traceable by all these resources.
The bottom line is that the NSA would know where and how any “hacked” emails from the DNC, HRC or any other servers were routed through the network. This process can sometimes require a closer look into the routing to sort out intermediate clients, but in the end sender and recipient can be traced across the network.
The various ways in which usually anonymous spokespeople for U.S.
intelligence agencies are equivocating – saying things like “our best
guess” or “our opinion” or “our estimate” etc. – shows that the emails
alleged to have been “hacked” cannot be traced across the network. Given NSA’s extensive trace capability, we conclude that DNC and HRC servers alleged to have been hacked were, in fact, not hacked.
The evidence that should be there is absent; otherwise, it would
surely be brought forward, since this could be done without any danger
to sources and methods. Thus, we conclude that the emails were leaked by an insider – as was the case with Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning. Such an insider could be anyone in a government department or agency with access to NSA databases, or perhaps someone within the DNC.
As for the comments to the media as to what the CIA believes, the
reality is that CIA is almost totally dependent on NSA for ground truth
in the communications arena. Thus, it remains something of a mystery why the media is being fed strange stories about hacking that have no basis in fact. In sum, given what we know of NSA’s existing capabilities, it beggars belief that NSA would be unable to identify anyone – Russian or not – attempting to interfere in a U.S. election by hacking.
For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
-- William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
-- Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator
-- Larry Johnson, former CIA Intelligence Officer & former State Department Counter-Terrorism Official
-- Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)
-- Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East, CIA (ret.)
-- Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA (ret.)

Jamie

Sounds like we should hire Assange to replace the CIA.

Paul - do you think Russia wanted Trump to win - was it in their best interest? Now we have Putin's buddy, Tillerson.

And these Russian registered Trump companies: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SqqL_KIUv8DOZVtEjglcXCFYYNU0eK6afypmaqT65LQ/edit#gid=0


drummerboy

can someone translate that opening post gobbledy **** into english? I'm a tech guy and I don't understand their rationale. They appear to be saying that because the NSA can snoop on everything that means the DNC wasn't hacked.

what?

10 to 1 paul, you don't understand it (unless you're in IT) - so how can you give it credence?

=====================


I read it again. I understand a bit more, but it only makes them sound more foolish. They seem to be saying that the NSA is omnipotent, therefore any statement indicating less than certainty about an electronic communication is a lie, because all you have to do is ask the NSA.

Someone tell me if that's not what they're saying.


paulsurovell
jamie said:

Sounds like we should hire Assange to replace the CIA.

Paul - do you think Russia wanted Trump to win - was it in their best interest? Now we have Putin's buddy, Tillerson.

And these Russian registered Trump companies: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SqqL_KIUv8DOZVtEjglcXCFYYNU0eK6afypmaqT65LQ/edit#gid=0

I would think Yes, given Trump's repeated calls for the US "to be friends" with Russia.

What's the source for that Excel file and what is known about those companies?

Edited to add: I'm concerned about Tillerson, not because he could establish better relations with Russia -- that's a good thing -- but because he could promote oil and gas investment with devastating effect on global warming.


paulsurovell


drummerboy said:

can someone translate that opening post gobbledy **** into english? I'm a tech guy and I don't understand their rationale. They appear to be saying that because the NSA can snoop on everything that means the DNC wasn't hacked.

what?

10 to 1 paul, you don't understand it (unless you're in IT) - so how can you give it credence?

=====================

I read it again. I understand a bit more, but it only makes them sound more foolish. They seem to be saying that the NSA is omnipotent, therefore any statement indicating less than certainty about an electronic communication is a lie, because all you have to do is ask the NSA.

Someone tell me if that's not what they're saying.

I'm not a techie, but I think it means that if it's "hacked" there were emails transmitted from the hacked accounts to the hacker's accounts. And if emails are transmitted, that information is available to the NSA, which is the CIA's source for such information.

If the CIA doesn't have that information, it means that the NSA doesn't, which means that the emails were not transmitted (hacked). And if that's the case, the only way the "so-called hacked" emails could have been captured -- and delivered to Wikileaks -- was either by someone within NSA who could get into an account and copy them, or from someone with access to the "so-called hacked" accounts internally, like a disgruntled employee.

And the emails would have to have been transferred physically (thumb drive perhaps) to Wikileaks.

Maybe Jamie can help, since he's been on this thread.


Tom

why wouldn't it be possible to zip up archives of emails, then strongly encrypt them? Send it over the internet and nobody has any way of knowing if it's a batch of DNC emails or a bootlegged porn video.


Jamie

Paul - we have 17 intelligence agencies confirming that Russia is behind the hack: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/19/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-blames-russia-putin-wikileaks-rele/

Are you saying we should pay more attention to these 5 former analysts? You're beginning to sound a bit like Trump.

Are these agencies making this up?

Let's face it - we're on a clear path to war with Iran and a trade war with China - which will result in a huge cost to America.


paulsurovell


drummerboy said:


I read it again. I understand a bit more, but it only makes them sound more foolish. They seem to be saying that the NSA is omnipotent, therefore any statement indicating less than certainty about an electronic communication is a lie, because all you have to do is ask the NSA.

Someone tell me if that's not what they're saying.

Edward Snowden described this ACLU comic on Twitter as a "great explainer" of how the govt knows so much about you:

https://www.aclu.org/infographic/abyss-nsas-global-internet-surveillance?redirect=nsa-comic


Jamie

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/05/cybersecurity-expert-proof-russia-behind-dnc-podesta-hacks.html

The issue has come to the fore in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence—a combined 17 intelligence agencies—issued a statement saying Russia was behind the election hacking.

It is pretty clear judging by the indicators of compromise [IOCs]. The binaries that were used to hack the DNC as well as Podesta’s email as well as some other Democratic campaign folks, those IOCs match binaries and also infrastructure that was used in attacks that were previously recorded by others as having Russian origin. That much we can confirm. So if you believe other people’s—primarily government’s—attribution that those previous attacks were Russian, then these attacks are definitely connected. We’re talking about the same binaries, the same tools, the same infrastructure.

I understand you and your firm have spent significant time analyzing the DNC and Podesta hacks. What groups are responsible, and how did you determine attribution?

We’ve analyzed the tools, the binaries, and the infrastructure that was used in the attack, and from that we can confirm that it’s connected to a group that has two names. One is Sofacy, or “Cozy Bear,” and The Dukes, which is also known as “Fancy Bear.” From the binary analysis point of view, I can tell you that the activities of these attackers have been during Russian working hours, either centered on UTC+3 or UTC+4; they don’t work Russian holidays; they work Monday to Friday; there are language identifiers inside that are Russian; when you look at all the victim profiles they would be in interest to the Russian nation-state. So all of that stuff fits the profile. Now, could all those things be false flags? Sure. Other government entities obviously have come out and said it is the Russian state, and the binary forensics would definitely match that.


paulsurovell


jamie said:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/05/cybersecurity-expert-proof-russia-behind-dnc-podesta-hacks.html

The issue has come to the fore in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence—a combined 17 intelligence agencies—issued a statement saying Russia was behind the election hacking.

It is pretty clear judging by the indicators of compromise [IOCs]. The binaries that were used to hack the DNC as well as Podesta’s email as well as some other Democratic campaign folks, those IOCs match binaries and also infrastructure that was used in attacks that were previously recorded by others as having Russian origin. That much we can confirm. So if you believe other people’s—primarily government’s—attribution that those previous attacks were Russian, then these attacks are definitely connected. We’re talking about the same binaries, the same tools, the same infrastructure.

I understand you and your firm have spent significant time analyzing the DNC and Podesta hacks. What groups are responsible, and how did you determine attribution?

We’ve analyzed the tools, the binaries, and the infrastructure that was used in the attack, and from that we can confirm that it’s connected to a group that has two names. One is Sofacy, or “Cozy Bear,” and The Dukes, which is also known as “Fancy Bear.” From the binary analysis point of view, I can tell you that the activities of these attackers have been during Russian working hours, either centered on UTC+3 or UTC+4; they don’t work Russian holidays; they work Monday to Friday; there are language identifiers inside that are Russian; when you look at all the victim profiles they would be in interest to the Russian nation-state. So all of that stuff fits the profile. Now, could all those things be false flags? Sure. Other government entities obviously have come out and said it is the Russian state, and the binary forensics would definitely match that.

Not a techie, but I'm intrigued by the phrase "So if you believe other people’s—primarily government’s—attribution that those previous attacks were Russian, then these attacks are definitely connected." So, is the starting point the assumption that there were Russian attacks?

I'm also intrigued by the comment, "Now, could all those things be false flags? Sure."

At any rate, the quote doesn't address the main point of the veteran US intelligence analysts: why is the CIA talking about circumstantial evidence when hard evidence is available?

I'd be interested to hear Chien's take on the analysts's memorandum. But more important, will the analysts's views be given a space in the corporate media?


paulsurovell


jamie said:

Paul - we have 17 intelligence agencies confirming that Russia is behind the hack: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/19/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-blames-russia-putin-wikileaks-rele/

Are you saying we should pay more attention to these 5 former analysts? You're beginning to sound a bit like Trump.

Are these agencies making this up?

Let's face it - we're on a clear path to war with Iran and a trade war with China - which will result in a huge cost to America.

Not saying we should pay more attention to the 5 former analysts, I'm asking whether their analysis will be allowed into the mainstream (corporate) media.

One aspect of this campaign that I've found particularly unfortunate, is the name-calling that is emanating from the Democratic side against people who question whether (a) Putin is our enemy or (b) Trump is a tool of Putin. I find the second proposition to be ill-informed and the first proposition to be misguided and dangerous.

I'm concerned about the aggressive anti-Iran rhetoric coming out of Trump and Flynn. That has to be one of the primary targets of the peace movement. I oppose Tillerson as indicated above because of his threat to the environment, especially the Arctic, but if he gets the job, his interest in doing business in Iran might be a moderating force in that area.


Jamie

Paul - what's your take in regards to Crowdstrike's findings?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cyber-researchers-confirm-russian-government-hack-of-democratic-national-committee/2016/06/20/e7375bc0-3719-11e6-9ccd-d6005beac8b3_story.html

This is beginning to feel like the Benghazi witch hunt.

Now we have Fiorina as possible director of national intelligence? Whaaaaaaaaaaaaa? After meeting with Trump - she can't praise him enough - gets a kick out of Shaq's shoes - singles out China as "probably our most important adversary and a rising adversary." And in regards to the hacking: "We talked about hacking, whether it’s Chinese hacking or purported Russian hacking".

Like I've said before - Trump is a master at persuasion. The problem is - Trump has so many issues, when you start to focus on one - you get distracted to another. With Hillary - Trump was able to focus solely on the email server. Trump had probably around 2 dozen issues - but they got diluted with coverage. Just a short list of things Trump doesn't seem to need: CIA, security briefs (call him if something important changes), Christie, Giulianni, Muslims, everyone who voted for him (he'll only need them in 4 years), China, women in the military, Mexicans, SNL, Boeing and the media. Things trump is embracing: Putin, oil, billionaires and whoever believes in the opposite of their cabinet position or has no knowledge of.

We really need to focus most of our energy on one main issue - if it were me I really think we need to dedicate more time to the Emoluments Clause. Should probably focus on this in it's own thread - I'll get to this soon.


max_weisenfeld

"The various ways in which usually anonymous spokespeople for U.S. intelligence agencies are equivocating – saying things like “our best guess” or “our opinion” or “our estimate” etc. – shows that the emails alleged to have been “hacked” cannot be traced across the network. Given NSA’s extensive trace capability, we conclude that DNC and HRC servers alleged to have been hacked were, in fact, not hacked."

Seems pretty weak tea. Worth about one line and a modest dismissal in a proper news story.


dave23

Well if Julian Assange's friend said it is so, it is so.


paulsurovell
max_weisenfeld said:

"The various ways in which usually anonymous spokespeople for U.S. intelligence agencies are equivocating – saying things like “our best guess” or “our opinion” or “our estimate” etc. – shows that the emails alleged to have been “hacked” cannot be traced across the network. Given NSA’s extensive trace capability, we conclude that DNC and HRC servers alleged to have been hacked were, in fact, not hacked."

Seems pretty weak tea. Worth about one line and a modest dismissal in a proper news story.

James Clapper, Nov 17, 2016



cramer


paulsurovell said:


max_weisenfeld said:

"The various ways in which usually anonymous spokespeople for U.S. intelligence agencies are equivocating – saying things like “our best guess” or “our opinion” or “our estimate” etc. – shows that the emails alleged to have been “hacked” cannot be traced across the network. Given NSA’s extensive trace capability, we conclude that DNC and HRC servers alleged to have been hacked were, in fact, not hacked."

Seems pretty weak tea. Worth about one line and a modest dismissal in a proper news story.

James Clapper, Nov 17, 2016


You have to go back to the beginning of Clapper's responses to Schiff to understand what Clapper is responding to. Adam Schiff first stated that a month earlier, Clapper said that they had enough evidence to conclude that Russia was hacking and interfering with the election. Schiff then asks Clapper if there is any reason to believe that if rapprochement doesn't work out between the Trump administration and Russia, Russia might once again hack communications. In his response, Clapper does not change his opinion that he previously had - that Russia had hacked communications and interfered with the election. He does say that after his statement a month prior, Russia had curtailed its activities. Here's the clip of Clapper's responses to Schiff from the beginning:




cramer

"WASHINGTON (AP) — Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
said Thursday that Russia curtailed its election-related cyberactivity
after the Obama administration accused Moscow of trying to interfere
with the presidential race. The top U.S. intelligence official also said
he had formally submitted a resignation letter effective at the end of
President Barack Obama's term.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/e0c7a5888102450385773a7fbfa20e80/national-intelligence-director-has-submitted-his


paulsurovell
cramer said:

You have to go back to the beginning of Clapper's responses to Schiff to understand what Clapper is responding to. Adam Schiff first stated that a month earlier, Clapper said that they had enough evidence to conclude that Russia was hacking and interfering with the election. Schiff then asks Clapper if there is any reason to believe that if rapprochement doesn't work out between the Trump administration and Russia, Russia might once again hack communications. In his response, Clapper does not change his opinion that he previously had - that Russia had hacked communications and interfered with the election. He does say that after his statement a month prior, Russia had curtailed its activities. Here's the clip of Clapper's responses to Schiff from the beginning:




In October 2016 Clapper issued a statement on behalf of the intelligence community (IC) that expressed "confidence" that Russians hacked the DNC and Podesta based on the "pattern" that was observed.

In the videos (Nov 17) Clapper says that after the statement was released and after conversations with Russia cyber activity which he refers to as "reconnaissance" against US states "curtailed." When Rep. Schiff asks him if the deliveries of documents to Wikileaks was also curtailed after the October statement, he responds by saying that evidence on who, when and how Wikileaks obtained its documents is "not strong."

This is consistent with the analysis by the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIP) which says the absence of hard evidence about how and when Wikileaks obtained its documents suggests that they were not likely obtained via a "hack" -- which can be identified by the NSA -- but instead by a "leak" in which emails are copied on a thumb drive and delivered physically to Wikileaks.


cramer

“The emails released on sites like WikiLeaks are consistent with
methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts,” Clapper said
before a security summit on Thursday. “We wouldn’t have made [the
statement] unless we were very confident."

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/russia-hacking-james-clapper-230085


paulsurovell
jamie said:

Paul - what's your take in regards to Crowdstrike's findings?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cyber-researchers-confirm-russian-government-hack-of-democratic-national-committee/2016/06/20/e7375bc0-3719-11e6-9ccd-d6005beac8b3_story.html
Here's an article that raised questions about Crowdstrike shortly after its initial findings were released: http://fair.org/home/allegedly-disappears-as-russians-blamed-for-dnc-hack/

jamie said:

This is beginning to feel like the Benghazi witch hunt.

Now we have Fiorina as possible director of national intelligence? Whaaaaaaaaaaaaa? After meeting with Trump - she can't praise him enough - gets a kick out of Shaq's shoes - singles out China as "probably our most important adversary and a rising adversary." And in regards to the hacking: "We talked about hacking, whether it’s Chinese hacking or purported Russian hacking".

Like I've said before - Trump is a master at persuasion. The problem is - Trump has so many issues, when you start to focus on one - you get distracted to another. With Hillary - Trump was able to focus solely on the email server. Trump had probably around 2 dozen issues - but they got diluted with coverage. Just a short list of things Trump doesn't seem to need: CIA, security briefs (call him if something important changes), Christie, Giulianni, Muslims, everyone who voted for him (he'll only need them in 4 years), China, women in the military, Mexicans, SNL, Boeing and the media. Things trump is embracing: Putin, oil, billionaires and whoever believes in the opposite of their cabinet position or has no knowledge of.

We really need to focus most of our energy on one main issue - if it were me I really think we need to dedicate more time to the Emoluments Clause. Should probably focus on this in it's own thread - I'll get to this soon.

Trump's appointments pose serious -- existential -- dangers on every front.

The "Russia-Putin" issue, however, is a canard and a distraction from where we really need to concentrate our energies. I'm most concerned about climate change, Iran, medicare and medicaid, social security, public schools and social justice. I'll be there at the barricades.


drummerboy

exactly

max_weisenfeld said:

"The various ways in which usually anonymous spokespeople for U.S. intelligence agencies are equivocating – saying things like “our best guess” or “our opinion” or “our estimate” etc. – shows that the emails alleged to have been “hacked” cannot be traced across the network. Given NSA’s extensive trace capability, we conclude that DNC and HRC servers alleged to have been hacked were, in fact, not hacked."

Seems pretty weak tea. Worth about one line and a modest dismissal in a proper news story.



cramer

"WASHINGTON
— When Special Agent Adrian Hawkins of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation called the Democratic National Committee in September 2015
to pass along some troubling news about its computer network, he was
transferred, naturally, to the help desk.

His message was brief, if alarming. At least one computer system belonging
to the D.N.C. had been compromised by hackers federal investigators had
named “the Dukes,” a cyberespionage team linked to the Russian government.

The F.B.I. knew it well: The bureau had spent the last few years trying to
kick the Dukes out of the unclassified email systems of the White House,
the State Department and even the Joint Chiefs of Staff, one of the
government’s best-protected networks.

Yared Tamene, the tech-support contractor at the D.N.C. who fielded the call,
was no expert in cyberattacks. His first moves were to check Google for
“the Dukes” and conduct a cursory search of the D.N.C. computer system
logs to look for hints of such a cyberintrusion. By his own account, he
did not look too hard even after Special Agent Hawkins called back
repeatedly over the next several weeks — in part because he wasn’t
certain the caller was a real F.B.I. agent and not an impostor."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html

The article then goes on to explain why nothing was done for almost a year and why Obama didn't want to do anything that would seem political. .

Chris Mathews interviewed Anthony Scaramucci this evening. Scaramucci is a big-shot on the Trump Transition Committee. With a lot of prodding, Scaramucci said the story was probably correct.


paulsurovell

Excellent insights by Ron Paul:


cramer

Paul - Do you think that the NYT story is correct, i.e., that the Russians hacked the DNC?

eta - Perhaps more importantly, should I listen to Ron Paul when he says buy gold?


nohero


paulsurovell said:

Excellent insights by Ron Paul:

When Paul is citing and linking to Ron Paul, that is a sign of the Apocalypse.

Or of Trump being President. Same thing.


drummerboy

this is kind of a simple problem.

what's more likely - that Obama is to be believed, or Putin?

anyway, I don't have 21 minutes to devote to Dr. Paul, so maybe paulsurovell can tell us where in the clip I might find some insights.

paulsurovell said:

Excellent insights by Ron Paul:



paulsurovell


nohero said:
paulsurovell said:

Excellent insights by Ron Paul:


When Paul is citing and linking to Ron Paul, that is a sign of the Apocalypse.

Or of Trump being President. Same thing.

As perhaps the most antiwar and pro-civil liberties member of Congress until he retired, I've cited Ron Paul many times. I made a video of antiwar statements he made in a Republican Presidential campaign debate I linked to the South Mountain Peace Action website:



paulsurovell


drummerboy said:

this is kind of a simple problem.

what's more likely - that Obama is to be believed, or Putin?

anyway, I don't have 21 minutes to devote to Dr. Paul, so maybe paulsurovell can tell us where in the clip I might find some insights.
paulsurovell said:

Excellent insights by Ron Paul:

He discusses the reliance on third-party sourcing for the CIA stories, the neocon agenda of McCain and Graham and the history of the CIA's manufactured evidence, regime-change and assassination. American hypocrisy is an ongoing theme.

It's hard to isolate the best parts, but if you're only going to watch a brief snippet, I would suggest starting at 12:00 which flows into a very brief segment on Chuck Todd's questioning of Reince Preibus on whether he believes the CIA.


paulsurovell
cramer said:

Paul - Do you think that the NYT story is correct, i.e., that the Russians hacked the DNC?

eta - Perhaps more importantly, should I listen to Ron Paul when he says buy gold?

There is a key passage in the Times piece that distorts the truth and deprives the Times' readers of a central fact in this story -- that Assange has unequivocally stated that the emails were not provided by the Russian government.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/julian-assange-russia-john-podesta-wikileaks-230676

[ quoting Assange ] “Hillary Clinton has stated multiple times, falsely, that 17 U.S.
intelligence agencies had assessed that Russia was the source of our
publications. That’s false — we can say that the Russian government is
not the source.”

Instead, the Times article says:

Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder and editor, has resisted the
conclusion that his site became a pass-through for Russian hackers
working for Mr. Putin’s government or that he was deliberately trying to
undermine Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy. But the evidence on both counts
appears compelling.
This language is deceptive, obviously intended to discourage doubts about the Times' position. As they tell juries, if you find a witness to have testified falsely on one fact, you may disregard his/her entire testimony. The Times and almost all of the corporate media have staked their reputations on the narrative that Putin hacked the Democrats and they are not going to be honest brokers of the truth on this matter.

A more general problem with the story is that it's a compilation of numerous anecdotes that gives the appearance of being comprehensive. But it fails to answer the central question raised in the OP -- if the emails were hacked the details of the hacking would be known and identified by the NSA. The details are not known which means, in my opinion, it's likely that the emails were leaked, not hacked.

Dave

This seems to be the textbook Russia is using to destabilize the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics



In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.