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

this is pretty wrong. do some more research.

breal said:

The "assessors" didn't even have access to the actual evidence--the server and computers.  They were made to rely upon a commercial entity's description of what (part of) the evidence looked like.  

paul,

Do you believe that Russia tried to influence the election at all, or are you just drawing the line at collusion?

drummerboy said:

paul,

Do you believe that Russia tried to influence the election at all, or are you just drawing the line at collusion?

Not any more than we try to influence their elections. Probably a lot less.

At Jon Huntsman's nomination hearing to be ambassador in Moscow:

Huntsman also testified that he would look forward to meeting with the Russian people, leaders of civil society as well as with people opposed to the leadership of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

paulsurovell said:

Not any more than we try to influence their elections. Probably a lot less.

I wouldn’t blame the Russian populace that’s as committed to free elections as we are for bring just as vigilant against and angry about posssible foreign interference as some of us are.

I work in computer security. The Russian connection to the Podesta email hack had never been more than an assertion, as far as public information goes. The attack itself was completely pedestrian, a "spear phish" to Podesta, purportedly from Google, telling him to change his password by following a link in the email. They actually ran this by their IT guy, and he said it was real. Once you can log into a Gmail account you can download the archive and set the account to forward all in and out email to another address. Quite a few high school kids are capable of this level of attack. Certainly that means that the Russians could do it too, but I haven't seen anything that proves to me they were involved. 

elvis said:

I work in computer security. The Russian connection to the Podesta email hack had never been more than an assertion, as far as public information goes. The attack itself was completely pedestrian, a "spear phish" to Podesta, purportedly from Google, telling him to change his password by following a link in the email. They actually ran this by their IT guy, and he said it was real. Once you can log into a Gmail account you can download the archive and set the account to forward all in and out email to another address. Quite a few high school kids are capable of this level of attack. Certainly that means that the Russians could do it too, but I haven't seen anything that proves to me they were involved. 

Based on what I read of Podesta’s emails on reddit, Elvis is correct. 

Edited to add http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/how-john-podesta-got-hacked-839125

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

Not any more than we try to influence their elections. Probably a lot less.

I wouldn’t blame the Russian populace that’s as committed to free elections as we are for bring just as vigilant against and angry about posssible foreign interference as some of us are.

Is your point that the difference between US and Russia is that our interference is good and their interference is bad?

paulsurovell said:

Is your point that the difference between US and Russia is that our interference is good and their interference is bad?

Yes, Paul. You know me. That is precisely the kind of point I’d make.

My point was that we should not abide it any more than pro-democratic Russians should.

paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

Not any more than we try to influence their elections. Probably a lot less.

I wouldn’t blame the Russian populace that’s as committed to free elections as we are for bring just as vigilant against and angry about posssible foreign interference as some of us are.

Is your point that the difference between US and Russia is that our interference is good and their interference is bad?

Remember that time Hillary decided to stop being President and be the Leader of the House instead and let Biden be president for a term because it made her look humble? Clinton totally continued to run the show and Biden was a stooge with no power and then 4 years later, Clinton ran again after having most of her rivals murdered or arrested and then fixed the election so she won.

I totally remember that, which is why there is no difference between US and Russia and how they each influence the other’s elections.

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

Is your point that the difference between US and Russia is that our interference is good and their interference is bad?

Yes, Paul. You know me. That is precisely the kind of point I’d make.

My point was that we should not abide it any more than pro-democratic Russians should.

Sorry for that. But I guess I didn't get it because I'm not sure whether the pro-democratic Russians are the opponents or the beneficiaries of our interference.

paul,

You guys , and other apologists, keep on saying this. But never do you present any evidence that we ever did anything  that was even close to what Russia pretty certainly did in 2016. None.

But you're generally lacking evidence on this subject anyway.

Anyway, it's just another talking point for which you have no support. And which you simply use as a deflection to avoid discussing Russia.

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

paul,

Do you believe that Russia tried to influence the election at all, or are you just drawing the line at collusion?

Not any more than we try to influence their elections. Probably a lot less.

No, that's not why you didn't get it.

paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

Is your point that the difference between US and Russia is that our interference is good and their interference is bad?

Yes, Paul. You know me. That is precisely the kind of point I’d make.

My point was that we should not abide it any more than pro-democratic Russians should.

Sorry for that. But I guess I didn't get it because I'm not sure whether the pro-democratic Russians are the opponents or the beneficiaries of our interference.

drummerboy said:

paul,

You guys , and other apologists, keep on saying this. But never do you present any evidence that we ever did anything  that was even close to what Russia pretty certainly did in 2016. None.

I'm glad to see you used the qualifier "pretty certainly," which has a lot of leeway, including all the way down to zero.

On Saturday, the CIA said that Mike Pompeo stands by the US intelligence assessments that Russia meddled in the election, despite Trump saying he believes Putin when he says Russia didn't interfere.

"The Director stands by and has always stood by the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment entitled: Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections," the CIA said in a statement when asked for reaction to the president's remarks. "The intelligence assessment with regard to Russian election meddling has not changed."
The agency said it would have no further comment."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/11/politics/mike-pompeo-cia-donald-trump-white-house-russia-meddling/index.html

paul,

just wondering if it matters at all that your views align perfectly with Trump's?

If I ever agreed with anything Trump said, I'd have to have a serious sit down with myself.

drummerboy said:

paul,

just wondering if it matters at all that your views align perfectly with Trump's?

If I ever agreed with anything Trump said, I'd have to have a serious sit down with myself.

You are ill-informed. My views are diametrically opposite Trump's except for one issue -- his call for better relations with Russia:  His only good position, which the Democrats have decided to spend most of their time and energy opposing.

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

paul,

just wondering if it matters at all that your views align perfectly with Trump's?

If I ever agreed with anything Trump said, I'd have to have a serious sit down with myself.

You are ill-informed. My views are diametrically opposite Trump's except for one issue -- his call for better relations with Russia:  His only good position, which the Democrats have decided to spend most of their time and energy opposing.

The Russian investigation has been a huge drag on the Trump administration, eating up time and focus, and so making things like gutting Obamacare or redistributing all our money upward much harder to accomplish. Even if you aren't bothered by the possibility that a foreign state (and one rather hostile to our interests at that) interfered in the 2016 election, I'd think any Tump opponent would be happy to see the toll the investigation is taking on Trump. Possibly no other single factor has been so effective at dragging down his popularity and ability to push his agenda.

Also, while I'm back on this thread, I'll note what I did several weeks (months?) ago -- of all the people who have actually seen the evidence, the only person who disputes Russian involvement is Trump.  You want to take his word over Obama's? All the other sources you've cited - from VIPS to Alex Jones guests to whoever -- have not seen the evidence and so are definitionally speculating. It's just noise.

Sorry, no, your views on Russian election meddling are pretty much perfectly aligned with Trump's - down to the conspiracy stuff.

And if he does want that, how come he has done such a piss poor job of getting anywhere on it? Do you think he's decimating the State department as means of getting better relations with other countries?

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

paul,

just wondering if it matters at all that your views align perfectly with Trump's?

If I ever agreed with anything Trump said, I'd have to have a serious sit down with myself.

You are ill-informed. My views are diametrically opposite Trump's except for one issue -- his call for better relations with Russia:  His only good position, which the Democrats have decided to spend most of their time and energy opposing.

drummerboy said:

Sorry, no, your views on Russian election meddling are pretty much perfectly aligned with Trump's - down to the conspiracy stuff.
And do you really believe Trump gives a rat's a** about better relations with Russia? (other than how it might benefit him financially?)
And if he does want that, how come he has done such a piss poor job of getting anywhere on it? Do you think he's decimating the State department as means of getting better relations with other countries?

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

paul,

just wondering if it matters at all that your views align perfectly with Trump's?

If I ever agreed with anything Trump said, I'd have to have a serious sit down with myself.

You are ill-informed. My views are diametrically opposite Trump's except for one issue -- his call for better relations with Russia:  His only good position, which the Democrats have decided to spend most of their time and energy opposing.

You've moved the goalposts again.

You asked if it matters that my views align perfectly with Trump's, not my views "on meddling."  Give me a list of Trump's views on meddling and I'll tell you whether I agree them one by one.  Let's start with the "conspiracy stuff."  What "conspiracy" are you referring to?

Maybe we need to revisit the "baseless" allegations - here's the declassified report:

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment. This document’s conclusions are identical to the highly classified assessment, but this document does not include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence on key elements of the influence campaign.

I believe the portion I bolded is the area that Paul probably has issues with and the verbiage "high confidence".  

As I have said many times - the IC probably has more info then the public has to make these assessments, but unfortunately you have people like Bannon and Trump around to rile up their constituency about the "Deep state" and anti-Trump IC insiders.

PVW said:

The Russian investigation has been a huge drag on the Trump administration, eating up time and focus, and so making things like gutting Obamacare or redistributing all our money upward much harder to accomplish.  Even if you aren't bothered by the possibility that a foreign state (and one rather hostile to our interests at that) interfered in the 2016 election, I'd think any Tump opponent would be happy to see the toll the investigation is taking on Trump. Possibly no other single factor has been so effective at dragging down his popularity and ability to push his agenda

I think the legislative stuff has failed because fortunately Trump and the ultra-right are too stupid to compromise with the extreme-right to gut the social safety net, not because of Russiagate.  And Russiagate hasn't stopped Trump from putting our survival at risk by putting us on a fast-track to global warming and pushing us to the bring of nuclear war with North Korea.  However, Russiagate has succeeded in worsening US-Russian relations and communications which have existential ramifications with regard to launch-on-warning scenarios.

PVW said:

Also, while I'm back on this thread, I'll note what I did several weeks (months?) ago -- of all the people who have actually seen the evidence, the only person who disputes Russian involvement is Trump.  You want to take his word over Obama's? All the other sources you've cited - from VIPS to Alex Jones guests to whoever -- have not seen the evidence and so are definitionally speculating. It's just noise.

With regard to collusion, no one with access to confidential information has claimed they've seen evidence. So they are effectively in agreement with Trump.

With regard to hacking, the Intel report is an "assessment" not a proof based on evidence. I'm not aware of anyone who has seen the classified information say anything other than "All of our intelligence agencies agree, so how can anyone disagree with that?" Nothing about why they were convinced because of "the evidence" they have seen.

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

Sorry, no, your views on Russian election meddling are pretty much perfectly aligned with Trump's - down to the conspiracy stuff.
And do you really believe Trump gives a rat's a** about better relations with Russia? (other than how it might benefit him financially?)
And if he does want that, how come he has done such a piss poor job of getting anywhere on it? Do you think he's decimating the State department as means of getting better relations with other countries?

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

paul,

just wondering if it matters at all that your views align perfectly with Trump's?

If I ever agreed with anything Trump said, I'd have to have a serious sit down with myself.

You are ill-informed. My views are diametrically opposite Trump's except for one issue -- his call for better relations with Russia:  His only good position, which the Democrats have decided to spend most of their time and energy opposing.

You've moved the goalposts again.

You asked if it matters that my views align perfectly with Trump's, not my views "on meddling."  Give me a list of Trump's views on meddling and I'll tell you whether I agree them one by one.  Let's start with the "conspiracy stuff."  What "conspiracy" are you referring to?

That's not the starting point. The starting point is your OP, which quotes the VIPS memo that says there was a leak instead of the IC's assessment that the DNC had been hacked. You haven't changed your opinion since your OP.

Do you still agree with VIPS that there wasn't any hacking?

eta - The only person who has seen the classified information and doesn't agree that Russia hacked is Trump. 

cramer said:

That's not the starting point. The starting point is your OP, which quotes the VIPS memo that says that there was a leak instead of the IC's assessment that the DNC had been hacked. You haven't changed your opinion since your OP.

Do you still agree with VIPS that there wasn't any hacking?

eta - The only person who has seen the classified information and doesn't agree that Russia hacked is Trump. 

We cross-posted see my reply to PVW.

With regard to VIPS, I think you've asked before about my view on the VIPS memo in the OP. What evidence has emerged since then that you think might change my mind?

Paul - other then Binney - who else in the VIPS group do you have high confidence in?

paulsurovell said:

 What evidence has emerged since then that you think might change my mind?

We don't have access to classified info - does VIPS?

cramer said:

On Saturday, the CIA said that Mike Pompeo stands by the US intelligence assessments that Russia meddled in the election, despite Trump saying he believes Putin when he says Russia didn't interfere.

"The Director stands by and has always stood by the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment entitled: Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections," the CIA said in a statement when asked for reaction to the president's remarks. "The intelligence assessment with regard to Russian election meddling has not changed."
The agency said it would have no further comment."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/11/politics/mike-pompeo-cia-donald-trump-white-house-russia-meddling/index.html

Kevin Spacey was criticized for attempting to divert attention from the allegations against him by coming out.

George Takei is now being criticized for attempting to divert attention from the allegations against him by blaming Russia.

Reminds me of how Hillary for America blamed Donna Brazile's concern about Hillary's health on Russia.

And how Senator Shaheen blamed a protest by Dreamers against Nancy Pelosi on Russia.

Putin is everywhere.

jamie said:

paulsurovell said:

 What evidence has emerged since then that you think might change my mind?

We don't have access to classified info - does VIPS?

Trump's own CIA director, who has had access to the classified information, stands by the Intelligence community's assessment that Russia hacked. 

paulsurovell said:

Kevin Spacey was criticized for attempting to divert attention from the allegations against him by coming out.

George Takei is now being criticized for attempting to divert attention from the allegations against him by blaming Russia.

Reminds me of how Hillary for America blamed Donna Brazile's concern about Hillary's health on Russia.

And how Senator Shaheen blamed a protest by Dreamers against Nancy Pelosi on Russia.

Talk about diversion.

jamie said:

paulsurovell said:

 What evidence has emerged since then that you think might change my mind?

We don't have access to classified info - does VIPS?

Barry Crimmins, like Jimmy Dore, is a great political comedian: