Former US intelligence analysts: CIA allegations of Russian email hacking are baseless
paulsurovell said:
On the claims that Trump failed to push Putin on alleged hacking in the election, here's an excellent statement by former Pres Obama:
That's an "excellent statement" for anybody who disregards what President Obama said later. It also disregards anything revealed after that date.
Scott Ritter provides insight into the flawed process used by the Intelligence Community to reach its assessment of alleged Russian hacking and interference in the 2016 election, and how that process (a) was limited to selected analysts rather than assigned across competing groups and (b) resembled the Iraq war process that was based on the intelligence of a single foreign source, "Curveball."
New bombshell memorandum from the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity describes new forensic evidence that contradicts allegations of Russian hacking of the DNC:
https://consortiumnews.com/201...
Excerpt:
[ . . . ] Forensic studies of “Russian hacking” into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2016, data was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computers, and then doctored to incriminate Russia.
After examining metadata from the “Guccifer 2.0” July 5, 2016 intrusion into the DNC server, independent cyber investigators have concluded that an insider copied DNC data onto an external storage device, and that “telltale signs” implicating Russia were then inserted.
Key among the findings of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack. Of equal importance, the forensics show that the copying and doctoring were performed on the East coast of the U.S. Thus far, mainstream media have ignored the findings of these independent studies [see here and here].
Independent analyst Skip Folden, a retired IBM Program Manager for Information Technology US, who examined the recent forensic findings, is a co-author of this Memorandum. He has drafted a more detailed technical report titled “Cyber-Forensic Investigation of ‘Russian Hack’ and Missing Intelligence Community Disclaimers,” and sent it to the offices of the Special Counsel and the Attorney General. VIPS member William Binney, a former Technical Director at the National Security Agency, and other senior NSA “alumni” in VIPS attest to the professionalism of the independent forensic findings.
The recent forensic studies fill in a critical gap. Why the FBI neglected to perform any independent forensics on the original “Guccifer 2.0” material remains a mystery – as does the lack of any sign that the “hand-picked analysts” from the FBI, CIA, and NSA, who wrote the “Intelligence Community Assessment” dated January 6, 2017, gave any attention to forensics [ . . . ]
paulsurovell said:
New bombshell memorandum from the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity describes new forensic evidence that contradicts allegations of Russian hacking of the DNC:
https://consortiumnews.com/201...
The memorandum describes the evidence. When you pored through the Forensicator's evidence itself,* did you find it convincing?
*VIPS refers to plural studies and investigations, but the links led me to only the one.
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:
New bombshell memorandum from the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity describes new forensic evidence that contradicts allegations of Russian hacking of the DNC:
https://consortiumnews.com/201...
The memorandum describes the evidence. When you pored through the Forensicator's evidence itself,* did you find it convincing?
*VIPS refers to plural studies and investigations, but the links led me to only the one.
I don't have the technical expertise to make that judgment, but William Binney and Kirk Wiebe certainly do, and presumably Skip Folden and others who signed the memo also do.
But I do have the expertise, as an American citizen, to assert that the failure of the corporate media to report this memo and the associated studies, as well as the VIPS original memo, is an effort to censor dissenting views on the Russia story from the national discussion. Thus the "unanimity" cited on the other thread (which does not include 30% to 50% of the population depending on which question you ask) is a form of manufactured consent, not an opinion based on open discussion.
Regarding plural studies, presumably they refer to the one linked and the one by Folden.
paulsurovell said:
I don't have the technical expertise to make that judgment, but William Binney and Kirk Wiebe certainly do, and presumably Skip Folden and others who signed the memo also do.
Did you read it anyway? If not, and you decided to yield to the judgment of people you believe know better, that's a reasonable choice. It also sounds like the choice that many here are making in regard to our national intelligence services.
(I don't have the expertise, either, but in reading Ritter's and the Forensicator's evidence I was struck by the preponderance of qualifiers like "most likely" and "could have" and "it appears.")
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:
I don't have the technical expertise to make that judgment, but William Binney and Kirk Wiebe certainly do, and presumably Skip Folden and others who signed the memo also do.
Did you read it anyway? If not, and you decided to yield to the judgment of people you believe know better, that's a reasonable choice. It also sounds like the choice that many here are making in regard to our national intelligence services.
(I don't have the expertise, either, but in reading Ritter's and the Forensicator's evidence I was struck by the preponderance of qualifiers like "most likely" and "could have" and "it appears.")
If Ritter, VIPS and other dissenting views were covered by the corporate media, the national discussion and the discussion on this thread would be entirely different. Chomsky's theory of Manufacturing Consent is alive and well.
Paul,
Love the picture of Colin Powell. Irrelevant to the discussion, but it does prompt an emotional response.
So what are these maximum internet speeds that this argument is based on?
Has anyone noticed how strangely defensive Trump is about the Russia investigation? Peculiar.
paulsurovell said:
If Ritter, VIPS and other dissenting views were covered by the corporate media, the national discussion and the discussion on this thread would be entirely different.
Why should the corporate media cover VIPS and Ritter? What has VIPS put out of relevance in the past 10 years? Not much at Wiki on them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
As for Ritter - he's had some issues with minors - in 2001 Ritter on two occasions was detained and later arrested on charges of soliciting minors for sex on the Internet that were both dismissed. He was arrested on similar charges in 2010 that led to a conviction and sentence of one and a half to five and a half years.
I can see why Ritter was outspoken on WMDs since he was a weapons inspector - but he's looking like an opportunist here.
dave23 said:
Has anyone noticed how strangely defensive Trump is about the Russia investigation? Peculiar.
Yet, if you lay out the Russia-Trump entanglements since 2016, it's so clear an investigation is warranted...
- Trump refuses to release tax returns (some believe they will reveal financial dealings with Russian entities)
- Mannafort takes money from Russian operatives
- Manafort, Don Jr and Jared Kushner take secret meetings w/ Russian operatives
- AG Sessions take secret meetings w/ Russian operatives
- Flynn has connections to leaked emails from Russian hackers
- Trump threatens Comey to drop Russia investigation
- Trump fires Comey
- Trump threatens to fire Sessions for recusing from Russia investigation
- Trump boasts about ability to pardon anyone he chooses, including himself
- Trump fights for pro-Russia politicies
- Trump has hour-long, private meeting with Putin without US translator or recorder
I'm sure I'm missing some points. But you get it.
paulsurovell said:
Regarding plural studies, presumably they refer to the one linked and the one by Folden.
I read it again, carefully, and it appears to me that Folden's "more detailed technical report" is likely an analysis of the Forensicator's findings, rather than a separate study.
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:
Regarding plural studies, presumably they refer to the one linked and the one by Folden.
I read it again, carefully, and it appears to me that Folden's "more detailed technical report" is likely an analysis of the Forensicator's findings, rather than a separate study.
Well I think the main point VIPS is making is that Folden worked independently of Forensicator and came to the same conclusions. The memo doesn't show us Folden's work product, so we don't know if he performed an independent study (analysis) of the same data used by Forensicator and reached the same findings (conclusions), or whether he merely evaluated the Forensicator study and endorsed their findings/conclusions. It appears to me more likely that he performed a separate study of the data, but I agree that the memo is not clear on this aspect.
In the spirit of full disclosure:
Two sources for the July 24th VIPS memo cited above (Adam Carter and Forensicator) as well as two VIPS members (Scott Ritter and Thomas Drake) have disputed -- or at least raised questions -- about a key point in the memo: the assertion that the apparent speed at which Guccifer 2.0 allegedly copied DNC data was
much faster than what is physically possible with a hack.
The VIPS authors have not responded to these dissents /questions.
The dissents are unrelated to the main VIPS position that no evidence has been provided to support the Russia hacking allegation which suggests that the DNC emails were leaked not hacked.
If you're interested in looking at the details of the dissents/questions here they are:
The Forensicator:
https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/2017/08/21/if-you-find-yourself-in-a-hole-stop-digging/
Adam Carter:
Scott Ritter:
Thomas Drake:
https://twitter.com/Thomas_Drake1/status/896358380759134208
Background article on the memo:
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/
Does it really matter if the info was obtained remotely vs downloaded? Is it better if the Russians have agents or sympathizers within the DNC or with access to the DNC servers?
Haven't read the links, but from a distance it seems you're hung up on the semantics of "hacking" rather than involvement, kompromat, and the resultant political patronage, etc.
It's very possible there's a finer point I'm missing... or a larger point you are.
n00b said:
Does it really matter if the info was obtained remotely vs downloaded? Is it better if the Russians have agents or sympathizers within the DNC or with access to the DNC servers?
Haven't read the links, but from a distance it seems you're hung up on the semantics of "hacking" rather than involvement, kompromat, and the resultant political patronage, etc.
It's very possible there's a finer point I'm missing... or a larger point you are.
If you haven't followed the discussion, I would suggest you read the OP and then this piece, by Scott Ritter:
The fine point that and the large point that VIPS has made is that the CIA/NSA/FBIS assessment of Jan 2017 that is the source for the Russiagate story makes declarations but contains no evidence that Russia interfered in the 2016 election.
paulsurovell said:
n00b said:
Does it really matter if the info was obtained remotely vs downloaded? Is it better if the Russians have agents or sympathizers within the DNC or with access to the DNC servers?
Haven't read the links, but from a distance it seems you're hung up on the semantics of "hacking" rather than involvement, kompromat, and the resultant political patronage, etc.
It's very possible there's a finer point I'm missing... or a larger point you are.
If you haven't followed the discussion, I would suggest you read the OP and then this piece, by Scott Ritter:
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/time-to-reassess-the-roles-played-by-guccifer-2-0-and-russia-in-the-dnc-hack/
The fine point that and the large point that VIPS has made is that the CIA/NSA/FBIS assessment of Jan 2017 that is the source for the Russiagate story makes declarations but contains no evidence that Russia interfered in the 2016 election.
The VIPS statement in the OP of this thread was released before any assessment released in Jan 2017.
ridski said:
paulsurovell said:
n00b said:If you haven't followed the discussion, I would suggest you read the OP and then this piece, by Scott Ritter:
Does it really matter if the info was obtained remotely vs downloaded? Is it better if the Russians have agents or sympathizers within the DNC or with access to the DNC servers?
Haven't read the links, but from a distance it seems you're hung up on the semantics of "hacking" rather than involvement, kompromat, and the resultant political patronage, etc.
It's very possible there's a finer point I'm missing... or a larger point you are.
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/time-to-reassess-the-roles-played-by-guccifer-2-0-and-russia-in-the-dnc-hack/
The fine point that and the large point that VIPS has made is that the CIA/NSA/FBIS assessment of Jan 2017 that is the source for the Russiagate story makes declarations but contains no evidence that Russia interfered in the 2016 election.
The VIPS statement in the OP of this thread was released before any assessment released in Jan 2017.
True. In December OP, VIPS said Intel Community had failed to provide evidence for hacking allegations up to then by media and politicians as well as an official Intel statement in October. The Jan 6 Intel assessment failed to provide any evidence and VIPS followed up with a second memo on Jan 17 asking Pres Obama to release evidence if any existed.
The differences within VIPS over its July 24 memo which I referenced above, are discussed in detail in a forum published today by The Nation. I'll weigh in soon.
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-leak-or-a-hack-a-forum-on-the-vips-memo/#independent-review
VIPS member Bill Binney has met with CIA Dir. Mike Pompeo, at Trump's request, to discuss his view that the DNC / Podesta emails were not hacked but leaked
https://theintercept.com/2017/11/07/dnc-hack-trump-cia-director-william-binney-nsa/
You actually think this is a good thing, don't you.
paulsurovell said:
VIPS member Bill Binney has met with CIA Dir. Mike Pompeo, at Trump's request, to discuss his view that the DNC / Podesta emails were not hacked but leaked
https://theintercept.com/2017/11/07/dnc-hack-trump-cia-director-william-binney-nsa/
drummerboy said:
You actually think this is a good thing, don't you.
paulsurovell said:
VIPS member Bill Binney has met with CIA Dir. Mike Pompeo, at Trump's request, to discuss his view that the DNC / Podesta emails were not hacked but leaked
https://theintercept.com/2017/11/07/dnc-hack-trump-cia-director-william-binney-nsa/
He needs to testify before the House and Senate committees and be interviewed by the media so that the Congress and public can learn that there is an alternative theory of the "hacking" that is equally if not more plausible than the official "assessment."
Bill Binney is an American hero.
paulsurovell said:
VIPS member Bill Binney has met with CIA Dir. Mike Pompeo, at Trump's request, to discuss his view that the DNC / Podesta emails were not hacked but leaked
https://theintercept.com/2017/11/07/dnc-hack-trump-cia-director-william-binney-nsa/
The paranoid left and the paranoid right are merging.
ayup
dave23 said:
paulsurovell said:
VIPS member Bill Binney has met with CIA Dir. Mike Pompeo, at Trump's request, to discuss his view that the DNC / Podesta emails were not hacked but leaked
https://theintercept.com/2017/11/07/dnc-hack-trump-cia-director-william-binney-nsa/
The paranoid left and the paranoid right are merging.
drummerboy said:
ayup
dave23 said:
paulsurovell said:The paranoid left and the paranoid right are merging.
VIPS member Bill Binney has met with CIA Dir. Mike Pompeo, at Trump's request, to discuss his view that the DNC / Podesta emails were not hacked but leaked
https://theintercept.com/2017/11/07/dnc-hack-trump-cia-director-william-binney-nsa/
. . . as you look under your beds for Russians.
Why has Binney only appeared on Fox to promote his theories? There's something about this whistleblower that isn't adding up.
"Binney’s claim that the email theft was committed by an insider at the DNC also helps fuel one of the more bizarre conspiracy theories that has gained traction on the right: that the murder of a young DNC staffer last year was somehow connected to the data theft. Binney said he mentioned the case of Seth Rich to Pompeo during their meeting.
The meeting raises questions about Pompeo’s willingness to act as an honest broker between the intelligence community and the White House, and his apparent refusal to push back against efforts by the president to bend the intelligence process to suit his political purposes. Instead of acting as a filter between Trump and the intelligence community, Pompeo’s decision to meet with Binney raises the possibility that right-wing theories aired on Fox News and in other conservative media can now move not just from conservative pundits to Trump, but also from Trump to Pompeo and into the bloodstream of the intelligence community."
https://theintercept.com/2017/11/07/dnc-hack-trump-cia-director-william-binney-nsa/
"With Coats largely out of the picture and Pompeo actively siding with Trump, the intelligence community is effectively leaderless as it struggles to come to grips with its role in the Trump-Russia inquiry. The lack of aggressive support from the intelligence community could hamper the ongoing investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller into possible collusion between Trump and Russia. Eventually, that lack of support could make it more difficult for Mueller’s team to glean information from inside Russia."
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
For Sale
Garage Sales
-
HUGE Rummage sale to benefit the Bloomfield High School Robotics Team Sale Date: Apr 27, 2024
More info
Advertisement
On the claims that Trump failed to push Putin on alleged hacking in the election, here's an excellent statement by former Pres Obama:
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/11/20/press-conference-president-obama-lima-peru