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

paulsurovell said:

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:

Trump has his own people in the CIA,FBI and NSA. None have found anything in the classified info that would cause them to disagree with the IC assessment. 

President Obama had access. I believe him over Trump.

so it comes down to "Trump and VIPS" vs the IC.  Absolutely bizarre.  Like I said - besides Binney - who do you find most credible in VIPS?

jamie said:

so it comes down to "Trump and VIPS" vs Obama's IC and Trump's IC and the Gang of Eight.  Absolutely bizarre.  Like I said - besides Binney - who do you find most credible in VIPS?

Fixed that for you.

"I believe he believes."

All that Trump had to do was say "I told Vlad that our intelligence assessment concluded that Russia interfered in the election and that in the hope that our two countries could have better relations it had to be understood that Russia would not interfere in future elections in the US." Of course, this wouldn't have gotten rid of the cloud that Trump feels is hanging over the legitimacy of his election. Had he done so early on, there would have been no Mueller investigation. But Trump doesn't have it in him. 

jamie said:

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

On intelligence matters I haven't seen anything from VIPS members that hasn't provided information worth considering.  I know you're familiar with Ray McGovern, Matthew Hoh and Scott Ritter.  Did you know that Colin Powell's chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson is an associate member of VIPS?  One of my favorite VIPS members is Coleen Rowley, the former FBI special agent who blew the whistle about how the FBI ignored her office's pleas to investigate 911 co-conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui before 911. There are a lot of American heros in VIPS and they don't need access to confidential information to perceive flaws in US Intel judgments.

I didn't move the goalposts. This thread is on election meddling. Our posts have to do with election meddling. My comment about your views obviously had to do with election meddling. We're not talking about anything else here.

You moved the goalposts, not me. Because your views align completely with Trump's, and you don't want to face up to that fact.

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?

as for conspiracies you believe in that Trump also believes in:

1. VIPS claims the entire intelligence community has conspired to present a false story about election meddling.

2. Binney claims that the DNC has conspired to hide the fact, from the FBI no less,  that their server was not hacked, and even hired an outside firm to help with that conspiracy.

This is probably Paul's stance:

drummerboy said:

as for conspiracies you believe in that Trump also believes in:


1. VIPS claims the entire intelligence community has conspired to present a false story about election meddling.

2. Binney claims that the DNC has conspired to hide the fact, from the FBI no less,  that their server was not hacked, and even hired an outside firm to help with that conspiracy.

(1) VIPS doesn't claim this. VIPS says that a handful of selected analysts provided an "assessment" that 3 Intel agencies endorsed with "high confidence." Not very many members of the Intel community were involved in this.

(2) Refresh my memory.  When did Binney say this?

After you respond to this I'll ask you about the conspiracy theory that Trump colluded with Putin to win the election.

jamie said:

This is probably Paul's stance:

Jamie, this is an hour long. What did Ray say that you think reflects my stance?

His whole argument throughout the whole video sounds like your narrative.  Maybe listen to a couple minutes and a see if you're on the same page.  I also thought you may have been familiar with his assessments by now.

Here's the full transcript:

https://larouchepac.com/20170402/ray-mcgovern-deep-state-assault-elected-government-must-be-stopped

drummerboy said:

I didn't move the goalposts. This thread is on election meddling. Our posts have to do with election meddling. My comment about your views obviously had to do with election meddling. We're not talking about anything else here.

You moved the goalposts, not me. Because your views align completely with Trump's, and you don't want to face up to that fact.

Looks like drummerboy's views align completely with Trump's.

jamie said:

His whole argument throughout the whole video sounds like your narrative.  Maybe listen to a couple minutes and a see if you're on the same page.  I also thought you may have been familiar with his assessments by now.

Here's the full transcript:

https://larouchepac.com/20170402/ray-mcgovern-deep-state-assault-elected-government-must-be-stopped

I generally agree with Ray, but when you post an hour-long video that you say reflects my stance, I think you have an obligation to say what's in the video that makes you say that.

Here's something that Ray wrote that talks about why, based on his personal experience, people inside the Intel agencies fail to speak out when they know that falsehoods are being disseminated in their name.

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/08/20/truth-and-lives-vs-career-and-fame/

I gave Paul a lot of grief for posting entire articles and videos, so for consistency I have to +1 him here -- nut grafs of articles, and summaries (or short transcripts of relevant portions) of videos are more conducive to discussion that long content dumps.

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:

His whole argument throughout the whole video sounds like your narrative.  Maybe listen to a couple minutes and a see if you're on the same page.  I also thought you may have been familiar with his assessments by now.

Here's the full transcript:

https://larouchepac.com/20170402/ray-mcgovern-deep-state-assault-elected-government-must-be-stopped

I generally agree with Ray, but when you post an hour-long video that you say reflects my stance, I think you have an obligation to say what's in the video that makes you say that.

Here's something that Ray wrote that talks about why, based on his personal experience, people inside the Intel agencies fail to speak out when they know that falsehoods are being disseminated in their name.

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/08/20/truth-and-lives-vs-career-and-fame/

really? Show me where Trump says anything close to "Yes, I believe Russia meddled in the election."

Can't?

Didn't think so.

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

I didn't move the goalposts. This thread is on election meddling. Our posts have to do with election meddling. My comment about your views obviously had to do with election meddling. We're not talking about anything else here.

You moved the goalposts, not me. Because your views align completely with Trump's, and you don't want to face up to that fact.

Looks like drummerboy's views align completely with Trump's.

drummerboy said:

really? Show me where Trump says anything close to "Yes, I believe Russia meddled in the election."

Can't?

Didn't think so.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference.html

Trump Says ‘I Think It Was Russia’ That Hacked the Democrats

By MICHAEL D. SHEAR, JONATHAN WEISMAN and MATTHEW ROSENBERG

JAN. 11, 2017

Trump concedes Russia behind election interference

President-elect Trump conceded for the first time that Russia was behind the hacking of Democrats during the presidential election, saying at a news conference that, “I think it was Russia” — though a few minutes later he said perhaps it was another country.

But he vigorously denied the swirl of allegations about his behavior that was published online Tuesday, calling it “fake news” and praising Russian President Vladimir V. Putin for saying it was false. “I respected the fact that he said that,” Mr. Trump told reporters.

“It’s all fake news. Its phony stuff. It didn’t happen,” Mr. Trump said. “It was gotten by opponents of ours. It was a group of opponents that got together. Sick people and they got together and put that crap together.”

Asked what Mr. Trump would say to Mr. Putin about the election hacking, he responded, “He shouldn’t have done it. I don’t believe he will be doing it more.”

Mr. Trump disputed the allegations that he was involved in salacious behavior in a Russian hotel room, saying that he is always highly aware that there are “cameras in the strangest places” in hotel rooms when he travels around the world.

“You can’t see them and you won’t know,” he said. “You better be careful or you will be watching yourself on nightly televisions.”

jamie said:

His whole argument throughout the whole video sounds like your narrative.  Maybe listen to a couple minutes and a see if you're on the same page.  I also thought you may have been familiar with his assessments by now.

Here's the full transcript:

https://larouchepac.com/20170402/ray-mcgovern-deep-state-assault-elected-government-must-be-stopped

Jamie: If you agree to read and comment on my McGovern link, I'll read and comment on your McGovern link. Agreed?

That was almost a year ago, and which he almost repudiated within the same press conference. He has since repudiated that statement at least a dozen times. The most recent was this weekend.

Weak tea, weak tea. You and him are still on the same side.

paulsurovell said:

drummerboy said:

really? Show me where Trump says anything close to "Yes, I believe Russia meddled in the election."

Can't?

Didn't think so.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference.html

Trump Says ‘I Think It Was Russia’ That Hacked the Democrats

By MICHAEL D. SHEAR, JONATHAN WEISMAN and MATTHEW ROSENBERG

JAN. 11, 2017

Trump concedes Russia behind election interference

President-elect Trump conceded for the first time that Russia was behind the hacking of Democrats during the presidential election, saying at a news conference that, “I think it was Russia” — though a few minutes later he said perhaps it was another country.

But he vigorously denied the swirl of allegations about his behavior that was published online Tuesday, calling it “fake news” and praising Russian President Vladimir V. Putin for saying it was false. “I respected the fact that he said that,” Mr. Trump told reporters.

“It’s all fake news. Its phony stuff. It didn’t happen,” Mr. Trump said. “It was gotten by opponents of ours. It was a group of opponents that got together. Sick people and they got together and put that crap together.”

Asked what Mr. Trump would say to Mr. Putin about the election hacking, he responded, “He shouldn’t have done it. I don’t believe he will be doing it more.”

Mr. Trump disputed the allegations that he was involved in salacious behavior in a Russian hotel room, saying that he is always highly aware that there are “cameras in the strangest places” in hotel rooms when he travels around the world.

“You can’t see them and you won’t know,” he said. “You better be careful or you will be watching yourself on nightly televisions.”

Latest news was that Trump Jr and Wikileaks were in direct communication in Sept 2016.

drip, drip, drip

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:

His whole argument throughout the whole video sounds like your narrative.  Maybe listen to a couple minutes and a see if you're on the same page.  I also thought you may have been familiar with his assessments by now.

Here's the full transcript:

https://larouchepac.com/20170402/ray-mcgovern-deep-state-assault-elected-government-must-be-stopped

Jamie: If you agree to read and comment on my McGovern link, I'll read and comment on your McGovern link. Agreed?

I read it - but don't know what to comment on.  What's the takeaway - Intelligence can be wrong?  You pointing me here seems to be whataboutism at the finest level.  My link was relevant to the topic - your link sounds like you're building up a character case study for the defendant.

Is it true McGovern is a 911 truther also?  Are most of the VIPS guys?

No one has yet to mention the source of that clip. LaRouche? They're still a thing?

Those VIPS sure keep great company. Fox News, Infowars, LaRouchePac. Pillars of journalistic integritude!

jamie said:

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:

His whole argument throughout the whole video sounds like your narrative.  Maybe listen to a couple minutes and a see if you're on the same page.  I also thought you may have been familiar with his assessments by now.

Here's the full transcript:

https://larouchepac.com/20170402/ray-mcgovern-deep-state-assault-elected-government-must-be-stopped

Jamie: If you agree to read and comment on my McGovern link, I'll read and comment on your McGovern link. Agreed?

I read it - but don't know what to comment on.  What's the takeaway - Intelligence can be wrong?  You pointing me here seems to be whataboutism at the finest level.  My link was relevant to the topic - your link sounds like you're building up a character case study for the defendant.

Is it true McGovern is a 911 truther also?  Are most of the VIPS guys?

I need to know what you mean by a "911 truther."

Does it include former Senator Bob Graham who wants another investigation?  Are you OK with Bob Mueller's refusal to allow an informant who had a relationship with one (maybe two) of the hijackers to testify before Graham's Congressional committee its subpoena?

Does it include anyone who says some questions about 911 haven't been answered?

Does it include the 911 families who accuse Saudi Arabia of involvement and are fighting for the right to sue?

I think if you throw around a label you're obligated to say what it means and why it applies to someone.  You haven't done that yet.  Here's your opportunity.

drummerboy said:

That was almost a year ago, and which he almost repudiated within the same press conference. He has since repudiated that statement at least a dozen times. The most recent was this weekend.

Weak tea, weak tea. You and him are still on the same side.

You made a false statement but you won't own up to it.  You just move the goalposts.

why do you play these semantic games Paul? Everyone knows what a 911 truther means. Merely calling for more investigation is not the sign of a "truther". 

Calling for more investigation because you think the towers or Building 7 fell by controlled demolition, or claiming that the pentagon didn't get hit by a plane, is. I don't know where the VIPS stand on this, but I wouldn't be surprised if they're of the latter sort.

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:

His whole argument throughout the whole video sounds like your narrative.  Maybe listen to a couple minutes and a see if you're on the same page.  I also thought you may have been familiar with his assessments by now.

Here's the full transcript:

https://larouchepac.com/20170402/ray-mcgovern-deep-state-assault-elected-government-must-be-stopped

Jamie: If you agree to read and comment on my McGovern link, I'll read and comment on your McGovern link. Agreed?

I read it - but don't know what to comment on.  What's the takeaway - Intelligence can be wrong?  You pointing me here seems to be whataboutism at the finest level.  My link was relevant to the topic - your link sounds like you're building up a character case study for the defendant.

Is it true McGovern is a 911 truther also?  Are most of the VIPS guys?

I need to know what you mean by a "911 truther."

Does it include former Senator Bob Graham who wants another investigation?  Are you OK with Bob Mueller's refusal to allow an informant who had a relationship with one (maybe two) of the hijackers to testify before Graham's Congressional committee its subpoena?

Does it include anyone who says some questions about 911 haven't been answered?

Does it include the 911 families who accuse Saudi Arabia of involvement and are fighting for the right to sue?

I think if you throw around a label you're obligated to say what it means and why it applies to someone.  You haven't done that yet.  Here's your opportunity.

I found a definition.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Truther

ahh, conservapedia, where knowledge goes to die.

they're still a thing?

ridski said:

I found a definition.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Truther

TO EXPOSE the official lies and cover-up surrounding the events of September 11th, 2001 in a way that inspires the people to overcome denial and understand the truth; namely, that elements within the US government and covert policy apparatus must have orchestrated or participated in the execution of the attacks for these to have happened in the way that they did.

http://911truth.org/mission/

drummerboy said:

ahh, conservapedia, where knowledge goes to die.

they're still a thing?

ridski said:

I found a definition.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Truther

Michael Moore and Van Jones in that reasonable definition. Two VIPs but no VIPS.

drummerboy said:

No one has yet to mention the source of that clip. LaRouche? They're still a thing?

Those VIPS sure keep great company. Fox News, Infowars, LaRouchePac. Pillars of journalistic integritude!

I agree that Infowars and LaRouche are toxic and Fox pushes a right-wing agenda. However, on the Russia issue -- out of self-interest -- they are more reliable than MSNBC or CNN whose coverage embodies what Barry Crimmins said (above) "worships on the altar of the intelligence community." One example of how Fox and MSNBC/CNN differ, is that the Fox format allows divergent views on Russia, but MSNBC/CNN do not.

But with regard to your implication that an appearance on Fox, Infowars or LaRouche discredits an individual, I've already shown that credible people have appeared on Infowars (Chomsky, et al). With regard to Fox, one of the leading members of The Resistance and point man of Russiagate Eric Swallwell has appeared repeatedly, for example:

And there's always:

With regard to LaRouche, there's this: