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


paulsurovell said:



dave23 said:

The last line of the article pretty much sums it all up.

But if the alleged Russian hacking was really "in political terms, the crime of the century" don't you think our Govt would use sanctions to stop this transfer of sensitive cyber security software?

ETA i.e to "punish" Russia?

Not necessarily.

ETA: Though I don't know whether the sanctions bill passed by the Senate and sitting in the House would have any effect on these sorts of deals or not.


"Trump blames Obama for Russian attack he doesn’t believe happened"

Since the OP is the most active apologist for Trump on the Russia issue, on this message board, it would be interesting to hear how this reconciles with the "never happened" line of argument.



South_Mountaineer said:

"Trump blames Obama for Russian attack he doesn’t believe happened"

Since the OP is the most active apologist for Trump on the Russia issue, on this message board, it would be interesting to hear how this reconciles with the "never happened" line of argument.

"Apologist for Trump" is your McCarthyite phrase du jour.  You just can't help yourself.

With regard to your quote from Trump, I have never cited his views as factoring into my position on the evidence-free allegation of Russian hacking and will not do so in the future. And I'm sure the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity will not do so either.

Do you take Trump's statement as confirmation of your position?


paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

"Trump blames Obama for Russian attack he doesn’t believe happened"

Since the OP is the most active apologist for Trump on the Russia issue, on this message board, it would be interesting to hear how this reconciles with the "never happened" line of argument.

"Apologist for Trump" is your McCarthyite phrase du jour.  You just can't help yourself.

With regard to your quote from Trump, I have never cited his views as factoring into my position on the evidence-free allegation of Russian hacking and will not do so in the future. And I'm sure the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity will not do so either.

Do you take Trump's statement as confirmation of your position?

Another misuse of the term "McCarthyism".  No, you're not a victim of "McCarthyism", and it's kind of an insult to the real victims to claim that mantle.  And "apologist" applies to anyone making excuses for Trump regarding all things Russia.  The real "modern day McCarthyism" is being practiced by Trump and his partisans, not inflicted upon them -

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

I take Trump's statement as part of his method - say outrageous things, hopefully confuse the facts, and his apologists don't care.



South_Mountaineer said:


paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

"Trump blames Obama for Russian attack he doesn’t believe happened"

Since the OP is the most active apologist for Trump on the Russia issue, on this message board, it would be interesting to hear how this reconciles with the "never happened" line of argument.

"Apologist for Trump" is your McCarthyite phrase du jour.  You just can't help yourself.

With regard to your quote from Trump, I have never cited his views as factoring into my position on the evidence-free allegation of Russian hacking and will not do so in the future. And I'm sure the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity will not do so either.

Do you take Trump's statement as confirmation of your position?

Another misuse of the term "McCarthyism".  No, you're not a victim of "McCarthyism", and it's kind of an insult to the real victims to claim that mantle.  And "apologist" applies to anyone making excuses for Trump regarding all things Russia.  The real "modern day McCarthyism" is being practiced by Trump and his partisans, not inflicted upon them -

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...


I take Trump's statement as part of his method - say outrageous things, hopefully confuse the facts, and his apologists don't care.

When you try to discredit a dissenter by calling him/her "a Trump apologist" you are engaging in a McCarthyite smear by implying that the dissenter is motivated by support for Trump, rather than the merits of the dissent.

In 2003 when I joined this board, I was called an apologist of Saddam Hussein because I dissented from the Administration Iraq story, supported by the CIA White Paper, that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction to attack the US.

No different than what you are doing now.

McCarthyism then, McCarthyism now.



paulsurovell said:


When you try to discredit a dissenter by calling him/her "a Trump apologist" you are engaging in a McCarthyite smear by implying that the dissenter is motivated by support for Trump, rather than the merits of the dissent.

In 2003 when I joined this board, I was called an apologist of Saddam Hussein because I dissented from the Administration Iraq story, supported by the CIA White Paper, that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction to attack the US.

No different than what you are doing now.

McCarthyism then, McCarthyism now.

I was also one of a number of posters here questioning the cherry picking of intelligence data leading up to the war. It didn't feel like McCarthyism to me.

Instead of crying McCarthyism, maybe you can provide a plausible explanation for the hacks, the attempted hacks of voting systems and the spearfishing attempts of local officials. (We've already dismissed the NSA theory.)



dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:


When you try to discredit a dissenter by calling him/her "a Trump apologist" you are engaging in a McCarthyite smear by implying that the dissenter is motivated by support for Trump, rather than the merits of the dissent.

In 2003 when I joined this board, I was called an apologist of Saddam Hussein because I dissented from the Administration Iraq story, supported by the CIA White Paper, that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction to attack the US.

No different than what you are doing now.

McCarthyism then, McCarthyism now.

I was also one of a number of posters here questioning the cherry picking of intelligence data leading up to the war. It didn't feel like McCarthyism to me.

Instead of crying McCarthyism, maybe you can provide a plausible explanation for the hacks, the attempted hacks of voting systems and the spearfishing attempts of local officials. (We've already dismissed the NSA theory.)

If you were called an apologist of Saddam Hussein it was McCarthyism.

Your question has been asked and answered, numerous times. Do a search on my comments.



paulsurovell said:

If you were called an apologist of Saddam Hussein it was McCarthyism.

Your question has been asked and answered, numerous times. Do a search on my comments.

McCarthyism as a term is quickly losing its meaning thanks to overuse.

You've posted some skepticism voiced by others. You did suggest it was the NSA at one point, but that was easily dismissed.


paulsurovell said:

When you try to discredit a dissenter by calling him/her "a Trump apologist" you are engaging in a McCarthyite smear by implying that the dissenter is motivated by support for Trump, rather than the merits of the dissent.

In 2003 when I joined this board, I was called an apologist of Saddam Hussein because I dissented from the Administration Iraq story, supported by the CIA White Paper, that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction to attack the US.

No different than what you are doing now.

McCarthyism then, McCarthyism now.

Again, misuse of the term.  I will add, poor analogy in trying to make it like Iraq invasion opposition.  Same criticism of your use of that insult against comments about your positions.  Since Hannity is also accusing those who criticize Trump of "McCarthyism", you might want to look for a new word to describe your perceived victimhood.

Post edited to add - And the whole objection to what word was used is a sidetrack from the discussion.  Whatever term you want, the fact remains that the "Russian hacking is fake news" argument from people agreeing with Trump on that, is now running into "Obama didn't do enough to stop the Russian hacking" argument now burbling from Trump.  It's his method, not caring for any consistency, because he's counting on confusion.  And confusion is a way to motivate some people to press for no investigation.



South_Mountaineer said:


paulsurovell said:

When you try to discredit a dissenter by calling him/her "a Trump apologist" you are engaging in a McCarthyite smear by implying that the dissenter is motivated by support for Trump, rather than the merits of the dissent.

In 2003 when I joined this board, I was called an apologist of Saddam Hussein because I dissented from the Administration Iraq story, supported by the CIA White Paper, that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction to attack the US.

No different than what you are doing now.

McCarthyism then, McCarthyism now.

Again, misuse of the term.  I will add, poor analogy in trying to make it like Iraq invasion opposition.  Same criticism of your use of that insult against comments about your positions.  Since Hannity is also accusing those who criticize Trump of "McCarthyism", you might want to look for a new word to describe your perceived victimhood.

So now you want to give Hannity control over what words are acceptable?


Good commentary in today's NY Times on Oliver Stone, his "The Putin Interviews", and how Trump deals with Putin.

"How Putin Seduced Oliver Stone — and Trump"

Excerpts, but the whole thing is enlightening.

Many Americans have been looking for an explanation for Mr. Trump’s apparent adoration of Mr. Putin. How can a powerful, wealthy American man hold affection for the tyrannical, corrupt leader of a hostile power?

Oddly, “The Putin Interviews” provide psychological and intellectual answers to that question. For Mr. Stone appears to have the same sort of breathless admiration for Mr. Putin as Mr. Trump does. In filming their interaction, he has broadcast the conditions on which this kind of admiration rests. Should you ever wish to experience affection for a dictator, you too should make sure that these conditions are in place.

Condition No. 1: Ignorance. It helps that Mr. Stone seems to have only the most vague, and largely inaccurate, ideas about Mr. Putin’s biography and Russian history. Mr. Stone’s ignorance of his subject allows him to listen uncritically as Mr. Putin lies. ...

Condition No. 2: A love of power and grandeur. Episode 2 is the story of a courtship, of sorts. Mr. Putin shows Mr. Stone his horse stables (intercut with stills of Mr. Putin riding). Then the two men watch a movie together. Then Mr. Stone watches Mr. Putin play hockey and fawns, praising Mr. Putin’s athletic prowess and vitality.

Then Mr. Stone brings up the thorny subject of L.G.B.T. rights, which Mr. Putin takes as an opportunity to assert both his desirability and his homophobia: He says that he would not enter a shower stall with a gay man because he wouldn’t want to tempt him, and because he is a master of judo. In other words, the hypothetical gay man would find Mr. Putin irresistible, and Mr. Putin would have to beat him up. Both Mr. Putin and Mr. Stone seem to find this scenario entertaining. ...

Condition No. 3: Shared prejudice. Mr. Stone and Mr. Putin are both terrified of Muslims. This shared view facilitates much of their conversation. ...

Condition No. 4: An inability or an unwillingness to distinguish fact from fiction. Throughout the interviews, Mr. Stone appears to ask Mr. Putin prearranged questions, probably written by the Russian president’s staff. Such scripted questions are standard fare for Mr. Putin’s annual news conference with Russian journalists.

In Episode 1, for example, Mr. Stone, after fumbling through a set of inaccurate biographical queries, suddenly asks Mr. Putin about assassination attempts against him. There had been more plots against Mr. Putin, says Mr. Stone, than against Fidel Castro. “There is a legitimate five I’ve heard about,” he says confidently. This is remarkable, because journalists who have covered Mr. Putin — including me — have not heard of five, four or even one attempt to assassinate the Russian president ...

Condition No. 5: Moral neutrality. To exercise ignorance, racist prejudice, a love of power and total disregard for factual accuracy, one has to inhabit a world where everything can mean anything and nothing is certain.


paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

When you try to discredit a dissenter by calling him/her "a Trump apologist" you are engaging in a McCarthyite smear by implying that the dissenter is motivated by support for Trump, rather than the merits of the dissent.

In 2003 when I joined this board, I was called an apologist of Saddam Hussein because I dissented from the Administration Iraq story, supported by the CIA White Paper, that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction to attack the US.

No different than what you are doing now.

McCarthyism then, McCarthyism now.

Again, misuse of the term.  I will add, poor analogy in trying to make it like Iraq invasion opposition.  Same criticism of your use of that insult against comments about your positions.  Since Hannity is also accusing those who criticize Trump of "McCarthyism", you might want to look for a new word to describe your perceived victimhood.
So now you want to give Hannity control over what words are acceptable?

And that obviously is not what I wrote.  I was passing along a fact.  Noting use of the same word for the same purpose by Hannity and yourself is not "McCarthyism", in case that's where you're headed.


I believe Trump is colluding with Russia currently more then at any time in the past.

1) Sessions admits that there hasn't been much discussion in regards to Russian interference.

2) Trump promises a report on hacking within 90 days (January 13, 2017)  Nothing as of yet - why has this been stalled?

3) His main acknowledgement of Russian interference is that it was Obama's fault.  So Trump blames Obama for failing to act on Russian meddling but on his own hardly admits there was any.

This is Trump's ongoing MO - to take both sides of an issue so that he can always take some credit for being right.  If there was interference - the administration does not care to look into it deeper - then this is an absolute dereliction of duty.


There are nearly 3,000 US companies in Russia. Here are some of the most prominent. Let's investigate them all for any contacts with Russian govt officials or Russian nationals:

http://www.aalep.eu/american-c...

[ Law firms, Consulting firms, Real Estate firms not included ]


Paul - can you identify which of these 3,000+ companies are currently President of the United States?

I believe the President is the one who should be protecting the country.  There's an issue - he needs to address it - not blame Obama.



South_Mountaineer said:

Good commentary in today's NY Times on Oliver Stone, his "The Putin Interviews", and how Trump deals with Putin.

"How Putin Seduced Oliver Stone — and Trump"

Excerpts, but the whole thing is enlightening.


Many Americans have been looking for an explanation for Mr. Trump’s apparent adoration of Mr. Putin. How can a powerful, wealthy American man hold affection for the tyrannical, corrupt leader of a hostile power?

Oddly, “The Putin Interviews” provide psychological and intellectual answers to that question. For Mr. Stone appears to have the same sort of breathless admiration for Mr. Putin as Mr. Trump does. In filming their interaction, he has broadcast the conditions on which this kind of admiration rests. Should you ever wish to experience affection for a dictator, you too should make sure that these conditions are in place.


Condition No. 4: An inability or an unwillingness to distinguish fact from fiction. 

No Kidding! Have you seen his movies?


jamie said:

Paul - can you identify which of these 3,000+ companies are currently President of the United States?

I believe the President is the one who should be protecting the country.  There's an issue - he needs to address it - not blame Obama.

Exactly. It is a deliberate misrepresentation of the issue to say that "doing business in Russia" is the sole reason for investigating.  




South_Mountaineer said:


jamie said:

Paul - can you identify which of these 3,000+ companies are currently President of the United States?

I believe the President is the one who should be protecting the country.  There's an issue - he needs to address it - not blame Obama.

Exactly. It is a deliberate misrepresentation of the issue to say that "doing business in Russia" is the sole reason for investigating.  

Except that the only "evidence" found by the "investigation" is "doing business in Russia" or having "contacts" with the Russian govt or Russian citizens.  CNN talking head Carl Bernstein wants to extend the investigation to all "Ethno-Russians"


The response to my comment is missing the point.

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

jamie said:

Paul - can you identify which of these 3,000+ companies are currently President of the United States?

I believe the President is the one who should be protecting the country.  There's an issue - he needs to address it - not blame Obama.

Exactly. It is a deliberate misrepresentation of the issue to say that "doing business in Russia" is the sole reason for investigating.  

Except that the only "evidence" found by the "investigation" is "doing business in Russia" or having "contacts" with the Russian govt or Russian citizens.  CNN talking head Carl Bernstein wants to extend the investigation to all "Ethno-Russians"



Cute how you had to dig back to 2002 in sad attempt to refute my point. Everything you've written in this thread = consistent with RT.com/Russian Embassy messaging. Which means you're a sucker, Paul. 

paulsurovell said:



0dollars2cents said:

Paul you need to stop talking about Assange and his circle like their words at face value mean jack s***. If you're naive enough to believe this fairy tale, keep it to yourself it will be less embarrassing that way. 

pro tip: never believe a word by anyone who does a RT exclusive. In fact- assume the opposite is true. 
paulsurovell said:

The IT manager of an organization doesn't have access to personal emails, but the NSA does and what Assange associate Craig Murray intimates is that he has direct knowledge that the Podesta emails were leaked by an "insider" who had access to Podesta's emails collected by the NSA:

. . . and never accept at face value what the CIA says unless it provides proof.




0dollars2cents said:

Cute how you had to dig back to 2002 in sad attempt to refute my point. Everything you've written in this thread = consistent with RT.com/Russian Embassy messaging. Which means you're a sucker, Paul. 
paulsurovell said:

0dollars2cents said:

Paul you need to stop talking about Assange and his circle like their words at face value mean jack s***. If you're naive enough to believe this fairy tale, keep it to yourself it will be less embarrassing that way. 

pro tip: never believe a word by anyone who does a RT exclusive. In fact- assume the opposite is true. 
paulsurovell said:

The IT manager of an organization doesn't have access to personal emails, but the NSA does and what Assange associate Craig Murray intimates is that he has direct knowledge that the Podesta emails were leaked by an "insider" who had access to Podesta's emails collected by the NSA:

. . . and never accept at face value what the CIA says unless it provides proof.
 

A tacit admission that you swallowed the 2002 CIA fraud hook, line and sinker?


Yesterday the NYT finally corrected the "17 Intel agencies" canard.

Robert Parry makes the following point:

https://consortiumnews.com/201...

Clapper testified before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on May 8 that the Russia-hacking claim came from a “special intelligence community assessment” (or ICA) produced by selected analysts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, “a coordinated product from three agencies – CIA, NSA, and the FBI – not all 17 components of the intelligence community,” the former DNI said.
Clapper further acknowledged that the analysts who produced the Jan. 6 assessment on alleged Russian hacking were “hand-picked” from the CIA, FBI and NSA.
Yet, as any intelligence expert will tell you, if you “hand-pick” the analysts, you are really hand-picking the conclusion. For instance, if the analysts were known to be hard-liners on Russia or supporters of Hillary Clinton, they could be expected to deliver the one-sided report that they did.

Turning Clapper's words into an "acknowledgement" that it was designed to be skewed is dishonest, at best. Here are Clapper's words:

"The two dozen or so analysts for this task were hand-picked, seasoned experts from each of the contributing agencies. They were given complete, unfettered mutual access to all sensitive raw intelligence data, and importantly, complete independence to reach their findings. They found that the Russian government pursued a multifaceted influence campaign in the run-up to the election, including aggressive use of cyber capabilities."


Great analysis of Veritas video on CNN and Rachel Maddow on dossier by one of America's funniest and astute political comedians:



So is the new take: Russia didn't do it but who cares if the did? That we ought not try to prevent it in future elections? That it's okay if they succeed next time in hacking the voting machines?




paulsurovell said:

Great analysis of Veritas video on CNN and Rachel Maddow on dossier by one of America's funniest and astute political comedian

Wow - you're using Jimmy Dore for your rebuttals now?  OMG - another Hillary hater.  You really tend to go for this group.

Have you read the latest? http://thehill.com/business-a-... More fake news?  Would you like to hear from Flynn - would you give him immunity?  How about Manafort finally registering as a foreign agent?



jamie said:



paulsurovell said:

Great analysis of Veritas video on CNN and Rachel Maddow on dossier by one of America's funniest and astute political comedian

Wow - you're using Jimmy Dore for your rebuttals now?  OMG - another Hillary hater.  You really tend to go for this group.


Have you read the latest? http://thehill.com/business-a-... More fake news?  Would you like to hear from Flynn - would you give him immunity?  How about Manafort finally registering as a foreign agent?

Have you lost your sense of humor?  Dore is a very funny guy.  Where do you get that he's a "Hillary hater?"

Did you watch the video? His point is that CNN knows that there's nothing to the Russia story but they're pushing it because it makes money.  And that by doing so they turned James O'Keefe from a sleaze into "Walter Cronkite."

CNN boss Jeff Zucker told the staff that they did enough on climate change (after a day and a half) and they had to get back to Russia?  That's journalism?

My favorite line of the video:

The corporate media is so sh_tty that it can make a racist-billionaire-snakeoil-salesman-reality-TV-star almost look like a victim.

With regard to the WSJ article, from what I read I have no reason to think it's "fake" I just don't see any significance. A guy thought the Russians might have Hillary's missing emails so he tried to find some Russians who might know but he didn't find any . . . that's what we learned after 12 months of investigation?


Do you have a timeline on investigations?  Should we bother to wait and hear what the current investigations find?  Should we assume there is nothing because something hasn't leaked from the current investigations yet?  Should the current investigation stop - since you and Trump has proven there's nothing?

Ok, Hillary hater may have been strong - but he was pushing Bernie just as much after Bernie's defeat and did not do much for Hillary.  Did he ever support her?  All these Bernie or Bust people did very little for Hillary - which in effect helped Trump.  


Here's an excellent summary by cybersecurity expert Jeffrey Carr on the absence of public evidence of Russian "hacking" in the election:

https://medium.com/@jeffreycar...


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