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

In an interview with NPR's Steve Inskeep that will air Friday on Morning Edition, President Obama vowed to take action against Russia for trying to influence the election with cyberattacks. He said that his goal is to have a definitive White House report before Trump takes office.

http://www.npr.org/2016/12/15/505775550/obama-on-russian-hacking-we-need-to-take-action-and-we-will


Julian Assange on Hannity. Says Russia did not provide emails. Hannity reads from Daily Mail article about Craig Murray.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/12/15/julian-assange-hannity-wikileaks-our-source-not-russian-government


Paul - why do you believe Assange so much over US intel?



jamie said:

Paul - why do you believe Assange so much over US intel?

He knows who provided him with the emails.


paulsurovell said:



jamie said:

Paul - why do you believe Assange so much over US intel?

He knows who provided him with the emails.

and? You believe him - he has no reason to lie? Perhaps we could give him a cabinet post.


The person you quoted has a real hatred for Hillary:
http://freebeacon.com/author/alana-goodman/

Is Alana your "go to" source for investigative reporting?




jamie said:
paulsurovell said:

jamie said:

Paul - why do you believe Assange so much over US intel?
He knows who provided him with the emails.
and? You believe him - he has no reason to lie? Perhaps we could give him a cabinet post.

I think his views should be part of the story. One-sided reporting isn't journalism, it's brainwashing.



jamie said:

The person you quoted has a real hatred for Hillary:
http://freebeacon.com/author/alana-goodman/

Is Alana your "go to" source for investigative reporting?

The facts details reported in the Daily Mail piece provided more detail to the statement by Craig Murray on his website that I posted previously. Reporting that leaves out Assange and Murray's statements as well as that of former NSA expert William Binney et all is one-sided reporting that is fundamentally dishonest. And, as I said above, constitutes brainwashing.

No different than the reporting in 2002 and 2003 that left out the views of Scott Ritter and others that Iraq had no WMDs. The consequences of the one-sided reporting then along with the failure to question CIA reports should have taught us a lesson.


This is where the brainwashing and hysteria leads.

How will Russia respond? And how will we respond to Russia? etc.

And keep in mind the context.


There are no facts in a Daily Mail story. That's what makes it a Daily Mail story.



paulsurovell said:



No different than the reporting in 2002 and 2003 that left out the views of Scott Ritter and others that Iraq had no WMDs. The consequences of the one-sided reporting then along with the failure to question CIA reports should have taught us a lesson.

The vote to essentially rubber stamp our invasion of Iraq was based on politics and not facts. It was a case study in political expediency (or, in plain language, cowardice) by our Senate. There were any number of reasons for a reasonable person to question our rush to war.

In the case of Russia's involvement in hacking, I find the reports credible. The question to me is what to do about it besides getting serious about cyber security.



paulsurovell said:

This is where the brainwashing and hysteria leads.

How will Russia respond? And how will we respond to Russia? etc.


And keep in mind the context.

You do understand that Russia seeks to reincorporate Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania into the Empire and, failing that, reduce them to the status of vassals not permitted to criticize Russia, don't you?. I think having NATO as a credible deterrent is a good idea.


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.


"President Obama says that the United States will respond to Russian cyberattacks that the intelligence community has concluded were part of
an effort to influence the 2016 presidential election.
In an interview with NPR's Steve Inskeep that will air Friday on Morning Edition,
Obama said, "I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government
tries to impact the integrity of our elections ... we need to take
action. And we will — at a time and place of our own choosing. Some of
it may be explicit and publicized; some of it may not be."

. . . . . . .

"There are still a whole range of assessments taking place among the
agencies," Obama told NPR, referring to an order he has given the U.S.
intelligence community to conduct a full review of the cyberattacks
before Inauguration Day. "And so when I receive a final report, you
know, we'll be able to, I think, give us a comprehensive and best guess
as to those motivations. But that does not in any way, I think, detract
from the basic point that everyone during the election perceived
accurately — that in fact what the Russian hack had done was create more
problems for the Clinton campaign than it had for the Trump campaign."

"There's no doubt that it contributed to an atmosphere in which the
only focus for weeks at a time, months at a time were Hillary's emails,
the Clinton Foundation, political gossip surrounding the DNC," Obama
said."

http://www.npr.org/2016/12/15/505775550/obama-on-russian-hacking-we-need-to-take-action-and-we-will











Here's the link to NPR's Steve Inskeep's interview with Obama:

http://www.npr.org/


Obama seems to be the only adult in the room (in light of what's coming out of the tr*mp** transition effort).


**I don't think I'll ever be able to address that dope as our pres.


Obama has a press conference scheduled this afternoon where it is expected that he will be asked questions about the Russian hacking.


We've gone through the rabbit hole. Citing a Hannity interview to prove a Daily Mail/Washington Times story?



cramer said:

Obama has a press conference scheduled this afternoon where it is expected that he will be asked questions about the Russian hacking.

The press conference is scheduled for 2:30 pm. C-Span is carrying it and CNN & MSNBC will probably carry it. This could be a big one. There is speculation that Obama is going to go directly at Trump who has said essentially that the White House is making up all these cyberattacks. and who the WH views as waging a outright war on the intelligence community and is worried about the implications of his statements on national security going forward.



tom
said:

We've gone through the rabbit hole. Citing a Hannity interview to prove a Daily Mail/Washington Times story?

Hannity is also the only one who truly know Donny's position on the Iraq war. I think in future, everyone needs to call Sean first to verify facts.




dave said:

There are no facts in a Daily Mail story. That's what makes it a Daily Mail story.

I changed the word "facts" to "details."

The refusal to report the views of Murray, Assange and Binney et al in this story is one-side reporting which is fundamentally dishonest.



paulsurovell said:



dave said:

There are no facts in a Daily Mail story. That's what makes it a Daily Mail story.

I changed the word "facts" to "details."

The refusal to report the views of Murray, Assange and Binney et al in this story is one-side reporting which is fundamentally dishonest.

Do you believe Obama when he says the Russians hacked the DNC?


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.


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.

Just to clear - it's in between lying and being foolish enough to be misled by the intelligence community? Perhaps we'll know in the fullness of time - or not. I'm interested in what Obama says this afternoon.




tom said:

We've gone through the rabbit hole. Citing a Hannity interview to prove a Daily Mail/Washington Times story?

Hannity's interview of Assange and his reporting of Murray's interview by the Daily Mail are good journalism, regardless of his motivation. Why don't the NY Times and Washington Post interview Assange and Murray? Because it conflicts with their narrative which is based on dishonest journalism.



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.

Just to clear - it's in between lying and being foolish enough to be misled by the intelligence community. Perhaps we'll know in the fullness of time - or not. I'm interested in what Obama says this afternoon.

Yes, as well as trying to finesse the enormous political pressure he's under to validate the narrative being promoted by Democratic Party leadership.



cramer said:

paulsurovell said:

dave said:

There are no facts in a Daily Mail story. That's what makes it a Daily Mail story.
I changed the word "facts" to "details."

The refusal to report the views of Murray, Assange and Binney et al in this story is one-side reporting which is fundamentally dishonest.
Do you believe Obama when he says the Russians hacked the DNC?

I think the position of Assange, Murray and Binney et al that the Russians did not hack the DNC -- and that the emails were leaked -- has at least as much credibility as the position that the Russians hacked the DNC.



paulsurovell said:



tom said:

We've gone through the rabbit hole. Citing a Hannity interview to prove a Daily Mail/Washington Times story?

Hannity's interview of Assange and his reporting of Murray's interview by the Daily Mail are good journalism, regardless of his motivation. Why don't the NY Times and Washington Post interview Assange and Murray? Because it conflicts with their narrative which is based on dishonest journalism.

I'm pretty sure that if Assange got in touch with the NY Times or Washington Post, they would jump at the chance to interview him.



tjohn said:

paulsurovell said:

No different than the reporting in 2002 and 2003 that left out the views of Scott Ritter and others that Iraq had no WMDs. The consequences of the one-sided reporting then along with the failure to question CIA reports should have taught us a lesson.
The vote to essentially rubber stamp our invasion of Iraq was based on politics and not facts. It was a case study in political expediency (or, in plain language, cowardice) by our Senate. There were any number of reasons for a reasonable person to question our rush to war.

In the case of Russia's involvement in hacking, I find the reports credible. The question to me is what to do about it besides getting serious about cyber security.

The politics were based on biased, propagandistic reporting that was based on intelligence sources. The Congressional vote to approve the use of military force in Iraq was heavily influenced by the CIA National Intelligence Estimate and misleading reporting by the NY Times:



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.

So you're saying that he's being forced to perpetuate the CIA lies? Thanks for the update!



tjohn said:

paulsurovell said:

This is where the brainwashing and hysteria leads.

How will Russia respond? And how will we respond to Russia? etc.

And keep in mind the context.
You do understand that Russia seeks to reincorporate Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania into the Empire and, failing that, reduce them to the status of vassals not permitted to criticize Russia, don't you?. I think having NATO as a credible deterrent is a good idea.

Expanding NATO expanding toward the Russian border goes beyond deterrence:

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/12/08/504737811/russia-seen-moving-new-missiles-to-eastern-europe


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.