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

paulsurovell said:

cramer said:

Paul - Do you think that the NYT story is correct, i.e., that the Russians hacked the DNC?

eta - Perhaps more importantly, should I listen to Ron Paul when he says buy gold?

There is a key passage in the Times piece that distorts the truth and deprives the Times' readers of a central fact in this story -- that Assange has unequivocally stated that the emails were not provided by the Russian government.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/julian-assange-russia-john-podesta-wikileaks-230676

[ quoting Assange ] “Hillary Clinton has stated multiple times, falsely, that 17 U.S.
intelligence agencies had assessed that Russia was the source of our
publications. That’s false — we can say that the Russian government is
not the source.”

Instead, the Times article says:

Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder and editor, has resisted the
conclusion that his site became a pass-through for Russian hackers
working for Mr. Putin’s government or that he was deliberately trying to
undermine Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy. But the evidence on both counts
appears compelling.

This language is deceptive, obviously intended to discourage doubts about the Times' position. As they tell juries, if you find a witness to have testified falsely on one fact, you may disregard his/her entire testimony. The Times and almost all of the corporate media have staked their reputations on the narrative that Putin hacked the Democrats and they are not going to be honest brokers of the truth on this matter.

A more general problem with the story is that it's a compilation of numerous anecdotes that gives the appearance of being comprehensive. But it fails to answer the central question raised in the OP -- if the emails were hacked the details of the hacking would be known and identified by the NSA. The details are not known which means, in my opinion, it's likely that the emails were leaked, not hacked.

The Assange aspect you cite is far from a central point. You exaggerate its importance--and distort the respective accounts.

You work really hard to make sure it gets you off the hook from having to look at the many, many other facts in the story. Sort of an inverted confirmation bias.

Just because Assange says Wikipedia's emails didn't come from Russia, it doesn't mean Russia didn't engage in any hacking or conspire to hack.

To quote your previous post, "As they tell juries, if you find a witness to have testified falsely on one fact, you may disregard his/her entire testimony."

You are using one statement from Assange to dismiss any connection between Russia and the hacking of the DNC or RNC.

I will wait for an investigation before I draw any conclusions about this. But the fact that someone inside the DNC may have leaked the information also doesn't mean Russia wasn't involved. People have been known to spy for other countries for any number of reasons. If the Soviet Union could flip U.S. agents during the Cold War, why wouldn't the Russians be able to flip someone working within the DNC?

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

cramer said:

Paul - Do you think that the NYT story is correct, i.e., that the Russians hacked the DNC?

eta - Perhaps more importantly, should I listen to Ron Paul when he says buy gold?

There is a key passage in the Times piece that distorts the truth and deprives the Times' readers of a central fact in this story -- that Assange has unequivocally stated that the emails were not provided by the Russian government.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/julian-assange-russia-john-podesta-wikileaks-230676

[ quoting Assange ] “Hillary Clinton has stated multiple times, falsely, that 17 U.S.
intelligence agencies had assessed that Russia was the source of our
publications. That’s false — we can say that the Russian government is
not the source.”

Instead, the Times article says:

Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder and editor, has resisted the
conclusion that his site became a pass-through for Russian hackers
working for Mr. Putin’s government or that he was deliberately trying to
undermine Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy. But the evidence on both counts
appears compelling.

This language is deceptive, obviously intended to discourage doubts about the Times' position. As they tell juries, if you find a witness to have testified falsely on one fact, you may disregard his/her entire testimony. The Times and almost all of the corporate media have staked their reputations on the narrative that Putin hacked the Democrats and they are not going to be honest brokers of the truth on this matter.

A more general problem with the story is that it's a compilation of numerous anecdotes that gives the appearance of being comprehensive. But it fails to answer the central question raised in the OP -- if the emails were hacked the details of the hacking would be known and identified by the NSA. The details are not known which means, in my opinion, it's likely that the emails were leaked, not hacked.

The Assange aspect you cite is far from a central point. You exaggerate its importance--and distort the respective accounts.

You work really hard to make sure it gets you off the hook from having to look at the many, many other facts in the story. Sort of an inverted confirmation bias.

Please explain what you mean by my "distortion" of the respective accounts.

And putting aside your view that Assange's position is not central to the story, that doesn't justify the Times' distortion of what he said. That misleads the reader.

Regarding the "many, many other facts" -- the length of an article should not be a criteria for its reliability. Here's another example of a NY Times article with "many, many facts" that was the basis for the Whitewater "scandal" that culminated with the appointment of independent prosecutor Kenneth Starr.

This NY Times article of "many, many facts" was a primary factor in the hate-Bill-and-Hillary culture that was a much bigger factor in Hillary's defeat in the 2016 election than the Wikileaks documents. See how many "facts" you can count:

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/08/us/1992-campaign-personal-finances-clintons-joined-s-l-operator-ozark-real-estate.html?pagewanted=all

THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: Personal Finances; Clintons Joined S.& L. Operator In an Ozark Real-Estate Venture

By JEFF GERTH,

Published: March 8, 1992

WASHINGTON, March 7— Bill Clinton and his wife were business partners with the owner of a failing savings and loan association that was subject to state regulation early in his tenure as Governor of Arkansas, records show.

The partnership, a real estate joint venture that was developing land in the Ozarks, involved the Clintons and James B. McDougal, a former Clinton aide turned developer. It started in 1978, and at times money from Mr. McDougal's savings and loan was used to subsidize it. The corporation continues to this day, but does not appear to be active.

Mr. McDougal gave a detailed account of his relationship in several interviews in the last two weeks. This account, along with an examination of related local, state and Federal records and interviews with dozens of others in Arkansas, found the following:

*Available records covering the most active period of the real estate corporation, called Whitewater Development, appear to show that Mr. McDougal heavily subsidized it, insuring that the Clintons were under little financial risk in what turned out to be an unsuccessful enterprise. The corporation bought 200 acres of Ozark Mountain vacation property and planned to sell it in lots. During this period, the Clintons appear to have invested little money, so stood to lose little if the venture failed, but might have cashed in on their 50 percent interest if it had done well.

*The Clintons and Mr. McDougal disagree about what happened to Whitewater's records. Mr. McDougal says that at Mr. Clinton's request they were delivered to the Governor's mansion. The Clintons say many of them have disappeared. Many questions about the enterprise cannot be fully answered without the records.

*After Federal regulators found that Mr. McDougal's savings institution, Madison Guaranty, was insolvent, meaning it faced possible closure by the state, Mr. Clinton appointed a new state securities commissioner, who had been a lawyer in a firm that represented the savings and loan. Mr. Clinton and the commissioner deny giving any preferential treatment. The new commissioner approved two novel proposals to help the savings and loan that were offered by Hillary Clinton, Governor Clinton's wife and a lawyer. She and her firm had been retained to represent the association.

*The Clintons improperly deducted at least $5,000 on their personal tax returns in 1984 and 1985 for interest paid on a portion of at least $30,000 in bank loan payments that Whitewater made for them. The deductions saved them about ,000 in taxes, but since the error was more than three years ago, Internal Revenue Service regulations do not require the Clintons to pay.

The complicated relationship between Mr. McDougal and the Clintons came to light in an investigation by The New York Times of the Clintons' tax records and business relationships. It raises questions of whether a governor should be involved in a business deal with the owner of a business regulated by the state and whether, having done so, the governor's wife through her law firm should be receiving legal fees for work done for the business. Confusion Is Cited

Asked about these matters, the Clintons retained two lawyers to answer questions. The lawyers said the improper tax deductions were honest errors, made because there was confusion over who really owned a certain piece of Whitewater property and who was responsible for the loan taken out to buy it, Whitewater or the Clintons.

The deed for the land and the loan papers are all in the Clintons' names.

The lawyers said they were not in a position to answer questions about where the money that went into Whitewater came from. But generally, they said they thought neither the Clintons nor Mr. McDougal had profited from the venture. They also said the Clintons were once liable for about 00,000 in bank loans that financed Whitewater's original purchase of land. But the lawyers have only been able to find original documents showing $5,000 that the Clintons paid.

Some questions about the relationship and the Clintons' role in it may be difficult to resolve because of differing accounts and the missing records.

The two lawyers representing the Clintons are Susan P. Thomases, a longtime friend, and Loretta Lynch, a campaign aide, who participated in several hours of interviews at Ms. Thomases' Manhattan offices Thursday and Friday. Payments on Debt

The records that are available, and Mrs. Thomases' account, show that Whitewater made payments between 1982 and 1985 on Mrs. Clinton's $30,000 real estate debt, reducing the debt by about 6,000 while also paying at least 4,000 in interest. At least one of those checks was signed by Mr. McDougal.

Mrs. Clinton originally borrowed the $30,000 from a bank also controlled by Mr. McDougal, Bank of Kingston, but "Hillary took the loan on behalf of the corporation," Ms. Thomases said. That, she explained, is why Whitewater made the payments.

The Clintons' 1984 and 1985 tax returns show that they took deductions for interest payments of $2,811 and $2,322 that Whitewater had made.

"It clearly is an error," Ms. Thomases said. She noted that the tax returns for those years were prepared by accountants in Arkansas.

The Clintons' gross income in 1984, as reported on their tax returns, was about 11,000 and they paid $22,280 in Federal taxes. In 1985, their reported income was about 02,000, and they paid 8,791 in Federal taxes. Longtime Friendship

Mr. Clinton and Mr. McDougal had been friends since the 1960's. When Mr. Clinton became the nation's youngest Governor at 32 years old, he took Mr. McDougal into his administration as an aide for economic development. It was at about this time that the men formed Whitewater.

A few years later Mr. McDougal, having left government in 1979, bought control of a small savings and loan association, Madison Guaranty, and built it into one of the largest state-chartered associations in Arkansas.

But over time, the savings and loan got in trouble, like many others around the country. Finally Federal regulators took the savings and loan away from Mr. McDougal, and a Federal grand jury charged him with fraud, though he was acquitted. The Clintons were not involved in those proceedings.

Mr. McDougal began having personal problems, too. He was found to be suffering from manic-depressive illness, though he was judged competent to stand trial. In the interviews, Mr. McDougal appeared stable, careful and calm.

A year after the Clintons and McDougals bought the Ozark Mountain property and founded Whitewater Development in 1979, the corporation bought a modular house for about $22,000 and placed it on one of its lots. That lot was then conveyed to Mrs. Clinton, and the deed indicates that she paid nothing for it. Ms. Thomases says this was an error by Whitewater. The deed, she said, should have shown the price and said that Mrs. Clinton paid.

But the house was carried on the books as a Whitewater corporate asset and used as a model house to attract other buyers, according to Whitewater records produced by Ms. Thomases. Because the records are incomplete, it is unclear exactly what happened. But about the same time, Mrs. Clinton personally borrowed $30,000 from Mr. McDougal's bank to pay for the house and the lot.

Ms. Thomases said Mrs. Clinton and the corporation regarded this as a corporate debt, though it was in Mrs. Clinton's name. The corporation included no one but the Clintons and the McDougals. It was this debt that Whitewater made payments on until the end of 1985.

One year after acquiring the property, Mrs. Clinton sold it for $27,500, with payments to be made over time, records show. It is not clear who received the buyer's down payment of $3,000. But Ms. Thomases said it was the corporation that took the loss on its books. A few years later, the buyer went bankrupt and stopped making payments, and then he died.

In 1988 Mrs. Clinton bought back the house from the estate of the buyer. Records show that she paid $8,000 and then resold the property a short time later for about $23,000, after closing costs. The Clintons reported a capital gain that year of ,640.

Ms. Thomases explained that the capital gain was small because, as part of that transaction, Mrs. Clinton had to pay off Whitewater's remaining 3,000 debt on the property, originally incurred by Mrs. Clinton. The payments the previous owner had been making to Whitewater before he went bankrupt had been used to help pay off that debt. Account Overdrawn

It was during the period when Whitewater was making the Clintons' loan payments that Madison Guaranty was putting money into Whitewater.

For example, Whitewater's check ledger shows that Whitewater's account at Madison was overdrawn in 1984, when the corporation was making payments on the Clintons' loan. Money was deposited to make up the shortage from Madison Marketing, an affiliate of the savings and loan that derived its revenues from the institution, records also show.

It was also in 1984 that Madison started getting into trouble. Federal examiners studied its books that year, found that it was violating Arkansas regulations and determined that correcting the books to adjust improperly inflated profits would "result in an insolvent position," records of the 1984 examination show.

Arkansas regulators received the Federal report later that year, and under state law the securities commissioner was supposed to close any insolvent institution.

As the Governor is free to do at any time, Mr. Clinton appointed a new securities commissioner in January 1985. He chose Beverly Bassett Schaffer, a lawyer in one of the firms that had been representing Madison. Fund-Raising Ideas

Ms. Thomases, after talking to Mr. Clinton this week, said the Governor chose her because they were friends, and because he wanted to appoint a well qualified woman to an important post.

In interviews, Mrs. Schaffer, now a Fayetteville lawyer, said she did not remember the Federal examination of Madison but added that in her view, the findings were not "definitive proof of insolvency."

In 1985, Mrs. Clinton and her Little Rock law firm, the Rose firm, twice applied to the Securities Commission on behalf of Madison, asking that the savings and loan be allowed to try two novel plans to raise money.

Mrs. Schaffer wrote to Mrs. Clinton and another lawyer at the firm approving the ideas. "I never gave anybody special treatment," she said.

Madison was not able to raise additional capital. And by 1986 Federal regulators, who insured Madison's deposits, took control of the institution and ousted Mr. McDougal. Mrs. Schaffer supported the action.

"Facts are stubborn things"

John Adams

“Reality is a crutch for people who can't cope with drugs.”

― Lily Tomlin

paulsurovell said:

Regarding the "many, many other facts" -- the length of an article should not be a criteria for its reliability. Here's another example of a NY Times article with "many, many facts" that was the basis for the Whitewater "scandal" that culminated with the appointment of independent prosecutor Kenneth Starr.

When I referred to the many other facts--"allegations" is probably a better word--I wasn't referring to the length of the article. I was referring to the actual content. That's a weak dodge (to go along with the weak tea).

There is very little daylight between what Assange says and what the Times writes. And it's certainly not a worthy rabbit hole to go down with you, since your goal is to deflect.

Instead of responding, you once again revert to pasting large swaths of text completely unrelated to the topic at hand. (The Times got Whitewater wrong, but that doesn't mean every story since has been incorrect.)

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

Regarding the "many, many other facts" -- the length of an article should not be a criteria for its reliability. Here's another example of a NY Times article with "many, many facts" that was the basis for the Whitewater "scandal" that culminated with the appointment of independent prosecutor Kenneth Starr.

When I referred to the many other facts--"allegations" is probably a better word--I wasn't referring to the length of the article. I was referring to the actual content. That's a weak dodge (to go along with the weak tea).

There is very little daylight between what Assange says and what the Times writes. And it's certainly not a worthy rabbit hole to go down with you, since your goal is to deflect.

Instead of responding, you once again revert to pasting large swaths of text completely unrelated to the topic at hand. (The Times got Whitewater wrong, but that doesn't mean every story since has been incorrect.)

The large swath of text provided a visual example of why your reference to "many, many other facts" is irrelevant to the reliability of the article.

To reiterate the point I made about the article (which you did not address):

But it fails to answer the central question raised in the OP -- if the
emails were hacked the details of the hacking would be known and
identified by the NSA. The details are not known which means, in my
opinion, it's likely that the emails were leaked, not hacked.

Paul - Do you think that the NYT account that Special Agent Adrian Hawkins contacted the DNC and told them that Russia had hacked their computer system was not based on fact? The NYT published Hawkins' name - did he lie? The NYT doesn't say who gave them this information, but even if it wasn't Hawkins, would the NYT have published Hawkins name without being 100% certain that this information was correct. Even for the NYT, this is unbelievable.

paulsurovell said:
"Very little daylight" is a rationalization to avoid the obvious -- the NY Times deliberately distorted Assange's position. There's a big difference between -->

[ Assange ] "we can say that the Russian government is not the source” and

[ NY Times ] "Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder and editor, has resisted the conclusion that his site became a pass-through for Russian hackers working for Mr. Putin’s government"

The large swath of text provided a visual example of why your reference to "many, many other facts" is irrelevant to the reliability of the article.

To reiterate the point I made about the article (which you did not address):

But it fails to answer the central question raised in the OP -- if the
emails were hacked the details of the hacking would be known and
identified by the NSA. The details are not known which means, in my
opinion, it's likely that the emails were leaked, not hacked.

Well, if the Russians hacked it, he did become the pass-through. "Useful idiot" is a phrase that some used. Or he could be lying. Just because Assange said he didn't get it directly from Russians doesn't mean it didn't originate with the Russians. (It's a useless point to argue since you clearly trust Assange.)

Apologies for not addressing the NSA issue. You to tend to throw a lot of dust in the air (such as pasting an entire article about Whitewater) that it can be hard to identify salience. Like I said, Murray's association with Assange doesn't make him a more credible source. Has the NSA publicly stated that they don't know where it came from or that they think it was a leak?

ETA: documents came from the DNC, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and John Podesta. So if it was a leak, was it coordinated by three leakers? Or was it one leaker (Podesta?).

dave23 said:

Well, if the Russians hacked it, he did become the pass-through. "Useful idiot" is a phrase that some used. Or he could be lying. Just because Assange said he didn't get it directly from Russians doesn't mean it didn't originate with the Russians. (It's a useless point to argue since you clearly trust Assange.)

What I'm saying is that the NY Times did not report what Assange said. They distorted what he said. The issue is not whether one should "trust" Assange, it's whether we should know what he said.

dave23 said:


Apologies for not addressing the NSA issue. You to tend to throw a lot of dust in the air (such as pasting an entire article about Whitewater) that it can be hard to identify salience. Like I said, Murray's association with Assange doesn't make him a more credible source. Has the NSA publicly stated that they don't know where it came from or that they think it was a leak?

This is the OP which explains what I'm saying with regard to the NSA:

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/12/12/us-intel-vets-dispute-russia-hacking-claims/

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:


Apologies for not addressing the NSA issue. You to tend to throw a lot of dust in the air (such as pasting an entire article about Whitewater) that it can be hard to identify salience. Like I said, Murray's association with Assange doesn't make him a more credible source. Has the NSA publicly stated that they don't know where it came from or that they think it was a leak?

This is the OP which explains what I'm saying with regard to the NSA:

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/12/12/us-intel-vets-dispute-russia-hacking-claims/

Yes, I know. And the head of the NSA said this: "This was a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect."

I added this, but we probably cross-posted: The documents came from the DNC, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and John Podesta. If it was a leak, was it coordinated by three leakers? Or was it one leaker? Perhaps Podesta?

cramer said:

Paul - Do you think that the NYT account that Special Agent Adrian Hawkins contacted the DNC and told them that Russia had hacked their computer system was not based on fact? The NYT published Hawkins' name - did he lie? The NYT doesn't say who gave them this information, but even if it wasn't Hawkins, would the NYT have published Hawkins name without being 100% certain that this information was correct. Even for the NYT, this is unbelievable.

The account raises more questions than it answers, for example:

Does the FBI convey information to strangers over the phone about alleged Russian government hacking? Hard to believe.

The FBI purportedly knew that these same alleged Russian government hackers ("the Dukes") had been inside the email systems of the White House, State Dept and Joint Chiefs of Staff over "the last few years."

If the executive branch could not block the Dukes from its emails were penetrated, how would the DNC do so?

If the FBI knew that the executive branch was compromised by the Russian government, why did they allow this to go on for "the last few years" without retaliation?

paulsurovell said:

cramer said:

Paul - Do you think that the NYT account that Special Agent Adrian Hawkins contacted the DNC and told them that Russia had hacked their computer system was not based on fact? The NYT published Hawkins' name - did he lie? The NYT doesn't say who gave them this information, but even if it wasn't Hawkins, would the NYT have published Hawkins name without being 100% certain that this information was correct. Even for the NYT, this is unbelievable.

The account raises more questions than it answers, for example:

Does the FBI convey information to strangers over the phone about alleged Russian government hacking? Hard to believe.


The FBI purportedly knew that these same alleged Russian government hackers ("the Dukes") had been inside the email systems of the White House, State Dept and Joint Chiefs of Staff over "the last few years."

If the executive branch could not block the Dukes from its emails were penetrated, how would the DNC do so?

If the FBI knew that the executive branch was compromised by the Russian government, why did they allow this to go on for "the last few years" without retaliation?

You didn't answer the questions I posed to you.

btw - Neither did Stephen Cohen when asked about the NYT story by Brian Leher this morning. He even mentioned the Veteran Intelligence Professionals memo. I know that you have linked to Stephen Cohen in the past and his arguments are the same as yours (or vice versa.) Come to think of it, I've never seen the two of you in the same place at the same time.

cramer said:

paulsurovell said:

cramer said:

Paul - Do you think that the NYT account that Special Agent Adrian Hawkins contacted the DNC and told them that Russia had hacked their computer system was not based on fact? The NYT published Hawkins' name - did he lie? The NYT doesn't say who gave them this information, but even if it wasn't Hawkins, would the NYT have published Hawkins name without being 100% certain that this information was correct. Even for the NYT, this is unbelievable.

The account raises more questions than it answers, for example:

Does the FBI convey information to strangers over the phone about alleged Russian government hacking? Hard to believe.

The FBI purportedly knew that these same alleged Russian government hackers ("the Dukes") had been inside the email systems of the White House, State Dept and Joint Chiefs of Staff over "the last few years."

If the executive branch could not block the Dukes from its emails were penetrated, how would the DNC do so?

If the FBI knew that the executive branch was compromised by the Russian government, why did they allow this to go on for "the last few years" without retaliation?

You didn't answer the questions I posed to you.

btw - Neither did Stephen Cohen when asked about the NYT story by Brian Leher this morning. He even mentioned the Veteran Intelligence Professionals memo. I know that you have linked to Stephen Cohen in the past and his arguments are the same as yours (or vice versa.) Come to think of it, I've never seen the two of you in the same place at the same time.

Maybe I'll invite him to speak in Maplewood, then you can see us together. Glad to hear that he was on WNYC.

With regard to FBI agent Hawkins -- I guess it's possible that he spoke to strangers by phone at the DNC to report they were being hacked by the Russian government. But the lack of professionalism is mind boggling.

The stuff about the inability to stop the penetration of the executive branch by the Dukes, which is not attributed to Hawkins, is hard to believe on its face.

Edited to Add: Had Lehrer heard about the Veteran Intelligence Professionals (VIP) analysis? And if so, did he say he'd like to interview them on the air?

dave23 said:
paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:

Apologies for not addressing the NSA issue. You to tend to throw a lot of dust in the air (such as pasting an entire article about Whitewater) that it can be hard to identify salience. Like I said, Murray's association with Assange doesn't make him a more credible source. Has the NSA publicly stated that they don't know where it came from or that they think it was a leak?

This is the OP which explains what I'm saying with regard to the NSA:

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/12/12/us-intel-vets-dispute-russia-hacking-claims/

Yes, I know. And the head of the NSA said this: "This was a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect."

I added this, but we probably cross-posted: The documents came from the DNC, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and John Podesta. If it was a leak, was it coordinated by three leakers? Or was it one leaker? Perhaps Podesta?

Apparently the head of the NSA didn't say: "we know who did it and here's the hard evidence." Which he would have been able to say if it had been a hack.

My information about the likelihood that it was a leak is limited to the VIP report in the OP and the statement by Assange's close associate Craig Murray posted previously.

paulsurovell said:

btw - Neither did Stephen Cohen when asked about the NYT story by Brian Leher this morning. He even mentioned the Veteran Intelligence Professionals memo. I know that you have linked to Stephen Cohen in the past and his arguments are the same as yours (or vice versa.) Come to think of it, I've never seen the two of you in the same place at the same time.

Maybe I'll invite him to speak in Maplewood, then you can see us together. Glad to hear that he was on WNYC.

I did check to see if there was a link to Brian Leher's conversation with Cohen, but no such luck.

paulsurovell said:


Apparently the head of the NSA didn't say: "we know who did it and here's the hard evidence." Which he would have been able to say if it had been a hack.

My information about the likelihood that it was a leak is limited to the VIP report in the OP and the statement by Assange's close associate Craig Murray posted previously.

If you had one-tenth of the skepticism toward the retired speculators and Assange's crony as you do toward the Times, you might not be so certain. You seemed so convinced of a leak ("the details are not known which means, in my opinion, it's likely that the emails were leaked, not hacked"), but couldn't answer a very simple question about how a singular leak is handled across three sources. That, at the very least, should be answerable.

However, you shall remain unconvinced since the NSA will never release the level of detail you desire. And you know that. It's an easy place to remain.

Paul - Serious question: Setting aside your environmental concerns (and Trump didn't need to nominate Tillerson to further his anti-environmental agenda anymore that he has already done with his other cabinet nominations) shouldn't you be supportive of Tillerson's approval as SOS because he could well help with Trump's declared intention to improve relations between the US and Russia? Isn't that what Cohen's and your attack on the way that the NYT and MSM has handled the Trump/Putin issue is all about - that they've demonized Putin?

eta - I should add that Cohen's concern is that the US is on the brink of a missle crisis with Russia not seen since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

dave23 said:

If you had one-tenth of the skepticism toward the retired speculators and Assange's crony as you do toward the Times, you might not be so certain. You seemed so convinced of a leak ("the details are not known which means, in my opinion, it's likely that the emails were leaked, not hacked"), but couldn't answer a very simple question about how a singular leak is handled across three sources. That, at the very least, should be answerable.

I've said that the position that the emails were leaked -- expressed by former cyber experts of the NSA and CIA and a close associate of Julian Assange who claims to know who the leaker is -- has at least as much credibility as the secret CIA report which is not supported by hard evidence (confirmed by Clapper in his Nov 17 testimony).

I can't prove that the emails were leaked and I'm not trying to. What I'm advocating is that the dissenters who claim that the emails were leaked by given a fair hearing in the mainstream media. As I wrote in the OP:

"Will the Washington Post and NY Times include this story in their coverage? And if so, will they do so fairly? I hope I am pleasantly surprised."

With regard to a "singular leak" -- that is something that you are positing, not something that the analysts, Assange, Murray or I have suggested. Perhaps there were three leaks, or two leaks or one leak. In either case the leaks would have consisted of copies of emails from three sources (assuming there were three sources).

cramer said:

Paul - Serious question: Setting aside your environmental concerns (and Trump didn't need to nominate Tillerson to further his anti-environmental agenda anymore that he has already done with his other cabinet nominations) shouldn't you be supportive of Tillerson's approval as SOS because he could well help with Trump's declared intention to improve relations between the US and Russia? Isn't that what Cohen's and your attack on the way that the NYT and MSM has handled the Trump/Putin issue is all about - that they've demonized Putin?

eta - I should add that Cohen's concern is that the US is on the brink of a missle crisis with Russia not seen since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

I hope Trump is serious about wanting to improve relations with Russia. Tillerson would appear to share that goal and to be open to defusing tensions in Europe and possibly Iran. Of all the names that are out there, yes, he appears to be the best, unless Corker is still under consideration.

Former British Amb. Craig Murray elaborates on his claim that Wikileaks received copies of the DNC and Podesta emails from a non-Russian source who had access to the emails and did not hack them.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html

EXCLUSIVE: Ex-British ambassador who is now a WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Clinton emails - they were handed over to him at a D.C. park by an intermediary for 'disgusted' Democratic whistleblowers

'Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,' said Murray in an interview with Dailymail.com on Tuesday. 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.'

His account contradicts directly the version of how thousands of Democratic emails were published before the election being advanced by U.S. intelligence.

Murray is a controversial figure who was removed from his post as a British ambassador amid allegations of misconduct. He was cleared of those but left the diplomatic service in acrimony.

His links to Wikileaks are well known and while his account is likely to be seen as both unprovable and possibly biased, it is also the first intervention by Wikileaks since reports surfaced last week that the CIA believed Russia hacked the Clinton emails to help hand the election to Donald Trump.

Murray's claims about the origins of the Clinton campaign emails comes as U.S. intelligence officials are increasingly confident that Russian hackers infiltrated both the Democratic National Committee and the email account of top Clinton aide John Podesta.

In Podesta's case, his account appeared to have been compromised through a basic 'phishing' scheme, the New York Times reported on Wednesday.

U.S. intelligence officials have reportedly told members of Congress during classified briefings that they believe Russians passed the documents on to Wikileaks as part of an influence operation to swing the election in favor of Donald Trump.

But Murray insisted that the DNC and Podesta emails published by Wikileaks did not come from the Russians, and were given to the whistleblowing group by Americans who had authorized access to the information.

'Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,' Murray said. 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.'

He said the leakers were motivated by 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.'

Murray said he retrieved the package from a source during a clandestine meeting in a wooded area near American University, in northwest D.C. He said the individual he met with was not the original person who obtained the information, but an intermediary.

His account cannot be independently verified but is in line with previous statements by Wikileaks - which was the organization that published the Podesta and DNC emails.

Wikileaks published the DNC messages in July and the Podesta messages in October. The messages revealed efforts by some DNC officials to undermine the presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders, who was running against Hillary Clinton.

Others revealed that Clinton aides were concerned about potential conflicts and mismanagement at the Clinton Foundation.

Murray declined to say where the sources worked and how they had access to the information, to shield their identities.

[ . . . ]

Craig Murray comments on the Crowdstrike report on DNC hacking:

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/

[ . . . ]
Of course there were hacking and phishing attacks on the DNC. Such attacks happen every day to pretty well all of us. There were over 1,050 attacks on my own server two days ago, and many of them often appear to originate in Russia – though more appear to originate in the USA.
[ . . . ]

We're down to Daily Mail links now? Really?

dave said:

We're down to Daily Mail links now? Really?

Story picked up by Washington Times.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/14/craig-murray-says-source-of-hillary-clinton-campai/

CIA refuses to brief House Intelligence Committee on media reports that CIA believes Russia sought to tilt election toward Trump

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article120987908.html

What's up with that?

ctrzaska said:

What's up with that?

The Miami Herald headline was wrong. It wasn't solely the CIA. It was the Intelligence Community, who cited an ongoing investigation of the matter requested by Obama. It said that once the review is complete, it stands ready to brief Congress and make public its findings.

"The Intelligence Community (IC) is refusing to provide the
House Intelligence Committee with a requested Thursday briefing on
Russian interference with the U.S. election, citing an ongoing review of
the matter requested by President Obama.

According to a statement, the IC will not be offering comment to Congress until it
completes that review, which will cover foreign interference in the
electoral process since 2008.

"Once the review is complete in the coming weeks, the Intelligence Community stands ready to brief
Congress — and will make those findings available to the public
consistent with protecting intelligence sources and methods," the Office
of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) said in a statement."

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/310495-intel-head-ic-agencies-refused-to-brief-committee-on-russian-hacking

paulsurovell said:

dave said:

We're down to Daily Mail links now? Really?

Story picked up by Washington Times.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/14/craig-murray-says-source-of-hillary-clinton-campai/

We were down to the Daily Mail, but you haven't gotten close to the bottom until the Washington Times is cited.

tom said:

paulsurovell said:

dave said:

We're down to Daily Mail links now? Really?

Story picked up by Washington Times.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/14/craig-murray-says-source-of-hillary-clinton-campai/

We were down to the Daily Mail, but you haven't gotten close to the bottom until the Washington Times is cited.

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/12/15/wikileaks-figure-says-disgusted-democrat-leaked-clinton-campaign-emails

Anyone who cites Wikileaks to make a pro-Russia point = useful idiot. Hi, Paul.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

dave23 said:

Well if Julian Assange's friend said it is so, it is so.