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

jamie said:

Paul - do you concede that Russia interfered with the election at all? Or are you stuck on how hacking is defined? I have to say the revelations that have some out the past week in regards to Russia have been stunning and this is excluding any Trump team collusion (which is starting to appear probable). I don't think Trump understands how he has been played.

Why do you think that Trump would think he has been played. As far as I can tell, the only thing that matters to Trump is that he and his family win. I really don't think he cares about who he hurts as long as he wins. I guess the bright side is that I think he would want to avoid nuclear war as it would ruin his opulent lifestyle

Yeah. If the result of his being "played" is to become the leader of the free world, I'm guessing he'd take that deal, no questions asked.

tjohn said:

jamie said:

Paul - do you concede that Russia interfered with the election at all? Or are you stuck on how hacking is defined? I have to say the revelations that have some out the past week in regards to Russia have been stunning and this is excluding any Trump team collusion (which is starting to appear probable). I don't think Trump understands how he has been played.

Why do you think that Trump would think he has been played. As far as I can tell, the only thing that matters to Trump is that he and his family win. I really don't think he cares about who he hurts as long as he wins. I guess the bright side is that I think he would want to avoid nuclear war as it would ruin his opulent lifestyle

Interestingly enough, Fox News is not covering any of this. They are too focused on immigrants raping white girls and the fact that CNN is not making this a headline story. Although, contrary to impressions conveyed by Wife-beater O'Reilly, CNN did cover this.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/21/us/maryland-undocumented-student-rape/

I believe that when more evidence of collusion with Trump counterparts was uncovered - Nunes sabotaged the investigation by going rogue. This way it will buy the Trump team more time to vet their own independent group.

The problem is that you're trying to cover up collusion with more collusion. So while you might buy some time, are you getting anything other than time. It's very likely there's no way out, so if time is the best you can get.

There's more chatter this morning about damning non-circumstantial intelligence out there, it's likelty that the existence of this is why there may be some panicking from Trump's cohort. Nunes isn't an old hat at this like someone like Manafort, so it wouldn't be surprising that he is potentially making mistakes.

jamie said:

I believe that when more evidence of collusion with Trump counterparts was uncovered - Nunes sabotaged the investigation by going rogue. This way it will buy the Trump team more time to vet their own independent group.

It certainly smelled like that.

jamie said:

I believe that when more evidence of collusion with Trump counterparts was uncovered - Nunes sabotaged the investigation by going rogue.

Here's a nice profile of Louise Mensch, the new hero of the Russia-collusion-conspiracy movement. For starters, she says that Breitbart founder Andrew Breitbart was murdered by Putin to pave the way for Steve Bannon to play a key role in the Trump administration. She also says Huma Abedin's emails were placed on Andrew Weiner's laptop by Putin. Mensch is considered "normal" by collusion-promoters NY Times, which published her op-ed, and by MSNBC, which features her regularly:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4323848/Questions-credibility-Trump-spy-claim-originator.html

paulsurovell said:

Here's a nice profile of Louise Mensch, the new hero of the Russia-collusion-conspiracy movement.

Never heard of her. I guess this means Russia didn't hack those emails after all.

paulsurovell said:

Here's a nice profile of Louise Mensch, the new hero of the Russia-collusion-conspiracy movement.

I haven't dived to into the article yet - got sucked in by the Dailymail's lead story (image attached). Well, I guess if Trump uses the National Enquirer for stories - this can't be much worse.

Other lead stories:

Michael Bloomberg's former maid claims managers at the ex-Mayor's $20million Hamptons mansion had sex all over the home and discussed their 'orgies' in lurid detail

Shocking video shows daycare worker picking a girl, 4, up by the arm and slamming her on the ground before taking her to corner 'to clean up her blood'

'I saw you standing next to your backpack this morning': Teacher, 50, and the 15-year-old girl he abducted wrote love letters for each other and saved them as draft emails on school computer before going on the run

United Airlines is accused of body shaming and sexism after refusing to let girl, 10, board flight because she was wearing spandex leggings

jamie said:

paulsurovell said:

Here's a nice profile of Louise Mensch, the new hero of the Russia-collusion-conspiracy movement.

I haven't dived to into the article yet - got sucked in by the Dailymail's lead story (image attached). Well, I guess if Trump uses the National Enquirer for stories - this can't be much worse.

Other lead stories:

Michael Bloomberg's former maid claims managers at the ex-Mayor's $20million Hamptons mansion had sex all over the home and discussed their 'orgies' in lurid detail

Shocking video shows daycare worker picking a girl, 4, up by the arm and slamming her on the ground before taking her to corner 'to clean up her blood'

'I saw you standing next to your backpack this morning': Teacher, 50, and the 15-year-old girl he abducted wrote love letters for each other and saved them as draft emails on school computer before going on the run

United Airlines is accused of body shaming and sexism after refusing to let girl, 10, board flight because she was wearing spandex leggings

Not surprised you got "sucked in," since these stories could be "teasers" on the Rachel Maddow Show   

I hope you get a chance to dive into the Louise Mensch story. It's fully documented.

Can you tell me why we're looking into her? Did she provide false evidence to the 17 Intel agencies that concluded Russia hacked our election?

What are your thoughts on Schiff? How about Nunes going to Trump before his committee? Should we start pointing out and vetting every single person that appears on TV?

jamie said:

Can you tell me why we're looking into her? Did she provide false evidence to the 17 Intel agencies that concluded Russia hacked our election?

We're looking into her because she's promoting false information to millions of Americans.

jamie said:

What are your thoughts on Schiff? How about Nunes going to Trump before his committee? Should we start pointing out and vetting every single person that appears on TV?

What are your thoughts on Mensch? Does Schiff share everything he knows with the committee? What is his "evidence" that he claims is "more than circumstantial?"

What makes you think Schiff is hiding anything from the rest of the committee?

Completely unwarranted accusation.

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:

Can you tell me why we're looking into her? Did she provide false evidence to the 17 Intel agencies that concluded Russia hacked our election?

We're looking into her because she's promoting false information to millions of Americans.
Glad you used the word "concluded" since Comey has admitted that the 17 Intel agencies don't know who gave Wikileaks the emails.

jamie said:

What are your thoughts on Schiff? How about Nunes going to Trump before his committee? Should we start pointing out and vetting every single person that appears on TV?

What are your thoughts on Mensch? Does Schiff share everything he knows with the committee? What is his "evidence" that he claims is "more than circumstantial?"

paulsurovell said:

We're looking into her because she's promoting false information to millions of Americans.
Glad you used the word "concluded" since Comey has admitted that the 17 Intel agencies don't know who gave Wikileaks the emails.

jamie said:

What are your thoughts on Schiff? How about Nunes going to Trump before his committee? Should we start pointing out and vetting every single person that appears on TV?

What are your thoughts on Mensch? Does Schiff share everything he knows with the committee? What is his "evidence" that he claims is "more than circumstantial?"

Huh? Trump is providing false information as well. Bringing up Mensch is Trump 101 - Distraction. To me looking into Trump's team is a bit more important then looking into Mensch - perhaps if you feel so strong - we should start a new thread about her.

Wikileaks is probably a fraction of the evidence that Russia interfered with our election. Again - I trust our Intel over Greenwald - don't quite understand your allegiance.

Currently, I am shocked that Nunes went to the White House and the press prior to discussing his findings with his own committee. Why? THIS is the current issue. And why are all of the hearings postponed?

Trump tried to block Yates from testifying at the hearing that's been postponed because of Nunes' sneaking around the White House. Peculiar.

ETA: So it probably wasn't because of Nunes' late night excursions. Turns out Yates’ lawyer sent letter Friday to WH saying she intended to provide House Intel Cmte info re Flynn. Committee then canceled.

This just in: Trump administration sought to block Sally Yates from testifying to Congress on Russia

Does this make sense to you Paul if true? Is Yeates corrupt also? Can you provide info as to why Yeates testimony shouldn't be heard?

Some days you just have to love Senator Lindsey Graham, like this morning when he commented on Rep. Nunes and his going to the White House by himself to look at some documents that someone there wanted him to see and talk about.

“I think it’s a little bizarre. There’s nothing been revealed to suggest the Obama administration surveilled the Trump campaign. That’s not even what Nunes is saying. He’s saying there’s incidental collection outside of Russia,” Graham said. "The problem he’s created is he’s gone out on a lark by himself, sort of an Inspector Clouseau investigation here, trying to find some unmasking information about collection incidental with the Trump campaign and some foreign agent outside of Russia. I think the only way this can be repaired is if he tells his colleagues on the House Intelligence committee who he met with and what he saw.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/326085-graham-mocks-nunes-over-inspector-clouseau-investigation

drummerboy said:

What makes you think Schiff is hiding anything from the rest of the committee?

Completely unwarranted accusation.

I guess only one side gets to make unwarranted accusations.

jamie said:

paulsurovell said:

We're looking into her because she's promoting false information to millions of Americans.
Glad you used the word "concluded" since Comey has admitted that the 17 Intel agencies don't know who gave Wikileaks the emails.

jamie said:

What are your thoughts on Schiff? How about Nunes going to Trump before his committee? Should we start pointing out and vetting every single person that appears on TV?

What are your thoughts on Mensch? Does Schiff share everything he knows with the committee? What is his "evidence" that he claims is "more than circumstantial?"

Huh? Trump is providing false information as well. Bringing up Mensch is Trump 101 - Distraction.

Paul,

Can you take a step back and let us know what point you are trying to make. I lost the plot at about post 3 of the gazillion posts you have made on this topic.

You brought up Mensch who is someone completely unrelated. I didn't mean to bring up a whataboutism - but I was trying to bring focus back to the actual parties involved in the investigation.

jamie said:

You brought up Mensch who is someone completely unrelated. I didn't mean to bring up a whataboutism - but I was trying to bring focus back to the actual parties involved in the investigation.

When you say, "Trump is providing false information as well," that's classic "whataboutism."

I don't think there's anything wrong with that, I'm just calling attention to the "whataboutism" police on this thread who claim that it's a "sleazy" tactic and "the refuge of the desperate."

But maybe they won't go after your "whataboutism" since you're on the same side of the "Russia-collusion-conspiracy" issue as them.

Do you agree that there's a slight difference between some random reporter spreading lies and the President of the United States spreading lies? Can we at least agree on that?

Sorry, I just haven't seen Mensch used to collaborate info in this thread - I guess I need to re-read. Didn't understand why we're taking her apart.

Bottom line is that we need answers. The WH should not interfere. Are we on page with this also?

tjohn said:

Paul,

Can you take a step back and let us know what point you are trying to make. I lost the plot at about post 3 of the gazillion posts you have made on this topic.

I haven't counted, but I'm guessing that at least 3 of every 4 of my posts (like this one) is a response to someone's question.

(1) Russian hacking of the DNC

(2) Russian influence over the election

(3) Collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia

. . . have no bases in fact.

I've noted parallels between this controversy and the CIA / Intel false narratives on Iraq WMDs. But the response is, that was then, we're different now. Really?

and you've said that the Democrats' lies are worse than Trump's.

What reasonable people want is a proper investigation. That's all. Points 1 and 2 are not really questioned by people of intelligence. Point 3 is not really believed by people of intelligence. My guess would be that Trump is linked to the Russians via dirty money invested in his properties and dirty money bank loans. That is why we should get to the bottom on this.

paulsurovell said:

tjohn said:

Paul,

Can you take a step back and let us know what point you are trying to make. I lost the plot at about post 3 of the gazillion posts you have made on this topic.

I haven't counted, but I'm guessing that at least 3 of every 4 of my posts (like this one) is a response to someone's question.

My point, in short, is that the hype and hysteria over allegations of . . .

(1) Russian hacking of the DNC

(2) Russian influence over the election

(3) Collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia

. . . have no basis in fact.

I've noted parallels between this controversy and the CIA / Intel false narratives on Iraq WMDs. But the response is, that was then, we're different now. Really?

cramer said:

and you've said that the Democrats lies are worse than Trump's.

You're falling down on your role as lurker-in-chief. I said "scarier" not "worse."

And that's because I expect better of Democrats.

tjohn said:

What reasonable people want is a proper investigation. That's all. Points 1 and 2 are not really questioned by people of intelligence. Point 3 is not really believed by people of intelligence. My guess would be that Trump is linked to the Russians via dirty money invested in his properties and dirty money bank loans. That is why we should get to the bottom on this.

paulsurovell said:

tjohn said:

Paul,

Can you take a step back and let us know what point you are trying to make. I lost the plot at about post 3 of the gazillion posts you have made on this topic.

I haven't counted, but I'm guessing that at least 3 of every 4 of my posts (like this one) is a response to someone's question.

My point, in short, is that the hype and hysteria over allegations of . . .

(1) Russian hacking of the DNC

(2) Russian influence over the election

(3) Collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia

. . . have no basis in fact.

I've noted parallels between this controversy and the CIA / Intel false narratives on Iraq WMDs. But the response is, that was then, we're different now. Really?

A "proper" investigation would include testimony by all points of view, including the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, cyber experts who dissent from the official story like Jeffrey Carr, critics like Glenn Greenwald and Stephen Cohen, and eyewitnesses like Craig Murray and Julian Assange.

I would support such an investigation.

Without dissenting voices, the exercise is a whitewash, not an investigation.

http://www.voanews.com/a/cyber-firm-rewrites-part-disputed-russian-hacking-report/3781411.html

U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has revised and retracted
statements it used to buttress claims of Russian hacking during last
year's American presidential election campaign. The shift followed a
VOA report that the company misrepresented data published by an
influential British think tank.
[ . . . ]

CrowdStrike was first to link hacks of Democratic Party computers to
Russian actors last year, but some cybersecurity experts have questioned
its evidence.

I rather doubt that we will find incontrovertible linkages between the Russian government and DNC hacking. That doesn't mean it didn't happen.