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

cramer said:

Where do you disagree with Murray?

If as you say, he's glad that Clinton didn't win, that's a point of disagreement.

I

paulsurovell said:

cramer said:

Where do you disagree with Murray?

If as you say, he's glad that Clinton didn't win, that's a point of disagreement.

My apologies. I'll post the link again because it is a very interesting interview for anyone who doesn't have anything better to do:

http://dissentradio.com/radio/16_12_13_murray.mp3

"Murray’s interview is well worth the listen, as he has nowhere near
the same personal stakes in this story as Assange and — as he makes
clear in the interview — because he seems to have had a role in handing
over the second batch of emails. Ultimately, his description is
unconvincing. But it is an important indication of what he claims to
believe (which must reflect what Assange has told him, whether Assange
believes it or not). Importantly, Murray admits that “It’s perfectly
possible that WikiLeaks themselves don’t know what is going on,” which
admits one possibility I’ve always suspected: that whoever dealt the
documents did so in a way that credibly obscured their source.

Murray explained that the two sets of documents handed over to
Wikileaks came via two different American sources, both of whom had
legal access to them.

He describes a lot more about the Podesta emails, of which he said he
had “first hand knowledge,” because of something he did or learned on a
trip to DC in September. In this interview, he says “The material was
already, I think, safely with WikiLeaks before I got there in
September,” though other outlets have suggested (with maps included!)
that’s when the hand-off happened. In that account, Murray admits he
did not meet with the person with legal access; he instead met with an
intermediary. That means the intermediary may have made false claims
about the provenance.

And even the claims about the provenance don’t make sense. Murray
claimed the documents came from someone in the national security
establishment, and implied they had come from legal monitoring of John Podesta because he (meaning John) is a lobbyist for Saudi Arabia.

Again, the key point to remember, in answering that
question, is that the DNC leak and the Podesta leak are two different
things and the answer is very probably not going to be the same in both
cases. I also want you to consider that John Podesta was a paid lobbyist
for the Saudi government — that’s open and declared, it’s not secret or
a leak in a sense. John Podesta was paid a very substantial sum every
month by the Saudi government to lobby for their interests in
Washington. And if the American security services were not watching the
communications of the Saudi government paid lobbyist then the American
intelligence services would not be doing their job. Of course it’s also
true that the Saudis’ man, the Saudis’ lobbyist in Washington, his
communications are going to be of interest to a great many other
intelligence services as well.

As a threshold matter, no national security agency is going to
monitor an American registered to work as an agent for the Saudis.
That’s all the more true if the agent has the last name Podesta.

But that brings us to another problem. John Podesta isn’t the lobbyist here. His brother Tony is. So even assuming the FBI was collecting all
the emails of registered agent for the Saudis, Tony Podesta, even
assuming someone in national security wanted to blow that collection by
revealing it via Wikileaks, they would pick up just a tiny fraction of John Podesta’s emails. So this doesn’t explain the source of the emails at all."

https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/12/15/craig-murrays-description-of-wikileaks-sources/#comments

cramer said:
[ . . . ]
https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/12/15/craig-murrays-description-of-wikileaks-sources/#comments

My comment for now is that people should read the article's comments section as well as the article. I'll have more to say tomorrow.

These are the lead-in paragraphs to the analysis of Craig Murray's description quoted above:

"One of the weaknesses of my post on the evidence needed to prove the Russian DNC hack
(one I’ll fix when I move it into a page) is that I didn’t include a
step where the intelligence community had to dismiss alternative
theories. It is not enough to prove that tools associated with Russian
intelligence hacked the DNC (whether or not you’re convinced they
necessarily are used exclusively by GRU), but you also have to prove
that no one else either hacked the known sources of leaked documents or
otherwise obtained them. That was particularly important given early
reports that FBI wasn’t sure that the documents stolen by hackers presumed to be GRU were the same documents dealt to WikiLeaks. "

This is the link to the post on the evidence needed to prove the Russian hack:

https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/12/10/evidence-prove-russian-hack/

paulsurovell said:

cramer said:

Paul - It seems that you're suggesting that Obama is either lying or being misled by the intelligence community. If it's the latter, then you have to believe that Obama is a stooge and not intelligent enough to know that he is being used.

I think it's somewhere in between. I think he thought the issue would blow over, but now that the corporate media (apart from Fox) and the foreign policy establishment are "all in" he's forced to try to finesse a response before he gets out of the White House.

Is it just too much common sense to ask why Obama, who will still be a young man when he leaves the White House, who has left a wonderful legacy behind him, who would not do anything to jeopardize that legacy, nor would he do anything that would be painful to Michelle and his two daughters, would do anything that he is not 100% sure of? What's in it for him? Why risk that legacy and damage to his reputation? Surely the downside is much worse than any possible upside. Is he really that foolish?

paulsurovell said:

The potential attack on the First Amendment is one of the underlying themes of the "Russian hacking" story and, as in the days of McCarthy, liberals have been enthusiastic participants.

I see your McCarthy and raise you a Nixon.

Stealing private material is not covered by the First Amendment. But the media covered this issue to death and they had every right to do so.

dave23 said:

Stealing private material is not covered by the First Amendment.

But publishing it is.

cramer said:

paulsurovell said:

cramer said:

Paul - It seems that you're suggesting that Obama is either lying or being misled by the intelligence community. If it's the latter, then you have to believe that Obama is a stooge and not intelligent enough to know that he is being used.

I think it's somewhere in between. I think he thought the issue would blow over, but now that the corporate media (apart from Fox) and the foreign policy establishment are "all in" he's forced to try to finesse a response before he gets out of the White House.

Is it just too much common sense to ask why Obama, who will still be a young man when he leaves the White House, who has left a wonderful legacy behind him, who would not do anything to jeopardize that legacy, nor would he do anything that would be painful to Michelle and his two daughters, would do anything that he is not 100% sure of? What's in it for him? Why risk that legacy and damage to his reputation? Surely the downside is much worse than any possible upside. Is he really that foolish?

He knows a couple of things. First, he can blame it on faulty intelligence. Second, he knows that the media which is totally invested in the Russian role, will do everything possible to discredit the actual leaker(s) if and when they come forward -- including not reporting that information.

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:

Stealing private material is not covered by the First Amendment.

But publishing it is.

Exactly. That's not been harmed one bit. That was my point.

paulsurovell said:

cramer said:

paulsurovell said:

cramer said:

He knows a couple of things. First, he can blame it on faulty intelligence. Second, he knows that the media which is totally invested in the Russian role, will do everything possible to discredit the actual leaker(s) if and when they come forward -- including not reporting that information.

C'mon Paul. Really?

eta - Trump takes office Jan. 20. You can bet that he will try to find out if there was a leak, and if there was one, he will see that it's publicized far and wide to show that it wasn't Russia. It's in his interest.

.

How is this different than Donald Trump's position that we should cooperate with Russia to destroy ISIS?

Audio interview with former NSA cyber expert William Binney explains in detail the memo, "Allegations of Hacking Election Are Baseless" cited in the OP:

https://twitter.com/gardgoldsmith/status/809641099161702400

paulsurovell said:

How is this different than Donald Trump's position that we should cooperate with Russia to destroy ISIS?

That's a tough one. Did the NSC also compare Putin favorably to Obama? Did the NSC invite Russia to hack the Democrats? I can't remember, but perhaps you can before you start comparing boilerplate condolences to Trump's embrace of Putin. Of course, I suppose that once Trump realizes that Putin thinks of him as a useful idiot, things will change.

paulsurovell said:

How is this different than Donald Trump's position that we should cooperate with Russia to destroy ISIS?

It's not. The Obama administration has worked with Russia to combat ISIS. Foreign affairs are complex.

I heard a rumor that Russia will combat ISIS once they destroy all other opposition to Assad's regime.

tjohn said:

I heard a rumor that Russia will combat ISIS once they destroy all other opposition to Assad's regime.

And anyone within a 500 mile radius of such people.

paulsurovell said:

How is this different than Donald Trump's position that we should cooperate with Russia to destroy ISIS?

Nobody disagreed with the general principle to cooperate with allies against ISIS. If your statement was intended to suggest otherwise, it is incorrect.

[Edited to add] Especially since the official United States statement you quote is specifically addressing the murder of the Russian ambassador.

None of the above remarks have addressed the language of the White House statement:

"we stand united with Russia"

paulsurovell said:

None of the above remarks have addressed the language of the White House statement:

"we stand united with Russia"

If you cut the press release into random phrases, you could make a mint selling Diplomacy Word Magnets. Just in time for Christmas!

paulsurovell said:

None of the above remarks have addressed the language of the White House statement:

"we stand united with Russia"

I apologize, but I guess I don't understand your point. I commented on the statement, and added the reference to the murder of the Russian ambassador even before your last comment. If there is some other point to address, it is not clear to me.

[Edited to add] The "stand united with Russia" snippet is part of a larger thought, "our determination to confront terrorism in all its forms". I'm sure we can all agree that there are other things with which we do not "stand united with Russia".

Thus far, most Americans haven't swallowed the Russian hacking Kool-aid

https://morningconsult.com/2016/12/20/almost-half-u-s-voters-arent-sure-russia-engaged-election-related-hacks/

tjohn said:

I heard a rumor that Russia will combat ISIS once they destroy all other opposition to Assad's regime.

Not a rumor, Russia openly supports Assad's determination to restore control over all of Syria.

paulsurovell said:

Thus far, most Americans haven't swallowed the Russian hacking Kool-aid

https://morningconsult.com/2016/12/20/almost-half-u-s-voters-arent-sure-russia-engaged-election-related-hacks/

I wouldn't put a lot of stock in the collective wisdom of a plurality of America. These are the same people who just elected a sociopathic con man believing he will make their lives better. And, of course, Trump is in denial because he will deny anything that tarnishes his image of being a winner.

Now, back to Russia and the hacking. It strikes me as being perfectly believable that Russia is involved in the hacking. They have been doing it to their neighbors for years. It is consistent with their m.o. of having lots of irons in lots of fires to see which ones will work to their advantage. Right now, it would appear that their hacking of the DNC has worked out better than they could have imagined.

The question, to me, is how to react to this hacking. I would hope that above all, we learn to secure things better, because hacking, whether by criminals, bored people or spies, isn't going to stop.

You know what else is consistent with Russia's m.o. - their desire to rebuild their empire after yet another of their periodic collapses. That is what the Baltic States and Ukraine are afraid of - being reduced to vassals yet again, if not outright occupied.

"A caddy at the Mid-Pacific Country Club in Kailua, where President Obama has been vacationing with his family, reportedly heard President Obama say to one of his golf partners that he completely forgot that Donald Trump will have access to all of the intelligence information that Obama has when Trump takes office January 20. Supposedly he said ' How could I have been so stupid?' and told the golfing partner that he would have to clarify what he meant when he accused Russia of hacking the DNC when he returns to the White House after his vacation. He also was reported to have told his golf partner that they could have probably blamed it on the media except for the press conference."

tjohn said:

paulsurovell said:

Thus far, most Americans haven't swallowed the Russian hacking Kool-aid

https://morningconsult.com/2016/12/20/almost-half-u-s-voters-arent-sure-russia-engaged-election-related-hacks/

I wouldn't put a lot of stock in the collective wisdom of a plurality of America. These are the same people who just elected a sociopathic con man believing he will make their lives better. And, of course, Trump is in denial because he will deny anything that tarnishes his image of being a winner.

tjohn said:

Now, back to Russia and the hacking. It strikes me as being perfectly believable that Russia is involved in the hacking. They have been doing it to their neighbors for years. It is consistent with their m.o. of having lots of irons in lots of fires to see which ones will work to their advantage. Right now, it would appear that their hacking of the DNC has worked out better than they could have imagined.

tjohn said:

You know what else is consistent with Russia's m.o. - their desire to rebuild their empire after yet another of their periodic collapses. That is what the Baltic States and Ukraine are afraid of - being reduced to vassals yet again, if not outright occupied.

I agree with this. But part of the analysis is that Russia has legitimate interests in (a) the Russian populations of those countries and (b) opposing NATO from moving toward her border.

Any resolution of the concerns on both sides has to take into account Russian concerns as well as those of the Baltics and Ukraine. It's not Black and White, Good and Bad.

First crack in MSNBC's monolithic coverage of the alleged Russia hacking story:

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/811728086936981506

Trump, Michael Flynn and others will see all of the evidence when Trump takes office Jan. 20. If the evidence doesn't support a Russian hacking, I'm sure that we'll hear about it, contrary to some who think otherwise.

All of this "How dare you accuse the Russians" stuff is serving as a distraction from the very disturbing personnel and policy initiatives of our President-elect.