Former US intelligence analysts: CIA allegations of Russian email hacking are baseless
hoops said:
paulsurovell said:that doesnt pass the smell test. Take the cold-war out of this. We are talking specifically about a nation that has a long history of criminality in and out of its own borders, who is integrally involved with the principal and family of the current President of the USA. This is not a nation that is friendly to world interests, they are led by a dictator who murders his opponents in the most violent and visible ways.
hoops said:All you have to do is look at the Cabinet to know that. But that is unrelated to the allegations of Russian interference with the Presidential election which are motivated by (a) pro-Cold-War neocons and (b) scapegoating Hillary's loss.
that was some article you posted db. the depths of the criminality in the white house is off the charts.
A nation which holds extremely capable scientists and engineers, thinking that they were not interested and involved in getting "their man" elected doesnt make sense.
Exactly, hoops. Concern about Russia's actions is based upon those actions, not whatever tangents paulsurovell wants to inject as diversions. It seems that each day, practically, brings information about yet another Russian contact by someone in Trump's inner circle. Some of those Russians are less-than-admirable types, and also are very close to Putin. Given what is known (and given the prospect of Russian involvement and interference in European elections), it would not make sense to ignore that.
And, of course, the dissembling by the Trump folks on this does not inspire thoughts of "nothing to see here."
paulsurovell's insistence that the motivation is "scapegoating Hillary's loss" is revealing, but not in the way he intended. It is revealing because it shows that he's concerned (as is probably most of the "leave Russia alone" crowd) that anything revealed by investigating will detract from their "Hillary stinks" narrative, which they seem unable to let go of.
They just need to keep following the threads, going wherever they may lead. They cannot seek a preordained outcome.
Trump saw the classified version of the intelligence community report "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections" which concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. The classified version contained much more evidence than was included in the unclassified version that was released to the public. Trump has been POTUS for 70 days now and has the power to de-classify the classifed version. If the evidence were not conclusive that Russia interfered in the election, Trump would certainty have said so and made much more of that than accusing Obama of wiretapping him or any of the other distraction that he comes up with.
paulsurovell said:
A quick read of the intelligence community report: "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections" finds zero evidence to support the allegation that Russia hacked the DNC and Podesta emails.
I was, however, struck by one passage in the long section on RT (formerly Russian Television) that is supposed to persuade Americans of Putin's efforts to take over our country:
RT runs anti-fracking programming, highlighting environmental issues and
the impacts on public health. This is likely reflective of the Russian
Government's concern about the impact of fracking and US natural gas
production on the global energy market and the potential challenges to
Gazprom's profitability
So the message here is that Bernie, Mark Ruffalo, Gov Cuomo and even Hillary, or anyone who opposes fracking, are tools of Vladimir Putin and can be considered enemies of the United States.
The report is a disgrace.
It is useless to argue with someone who thinks that RT ran an anti-fracking program because it is concerned about the environment, and not because fracking in the US was responsible for the collapse in oil prices worldwide, with Russia being one of the hardest hit oil producers.
cramer said:
paulsurovell said:
A quick read of the intelligence community report: "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections" finds zero evidence to support the allegation that Russia hacked the DNC and Podesta emails.
I was, however, struck by one passage in the long section on RT (formerly Russian Television) that is supposed to persuade Americans of Putin's efforts to take over our country:
RT runs anti-fracking programming, highlighting environmental issues and
the impacts on public health. This is likely reflective of the Russian
Government's concern about the impact of fracking and US natural gas
production on the global energy market and the potential challenges to
Gazprom's profitability
So the message here is that Bernie, Mark Ruffalo, Gov Cuomo and even Hillary, or anyone who opposes fracking, are tools of Vladimir Putin and can be considered enemies of the United States.
The report is a disgrace.
It is useless to argue with someone who thinks that RT ran an anti-fracking program because it is concerned about the environment, and not because fracking in the US was responsible for the collapse in oil prices worldwide, with Russia being one of the hardest hit oil producers.
Really. I was quite touched to discover that Putin was an environmentalist. I can only think that he cares about groundwater in the European countries with fracking potential.
cramer said:
paulsurovell said:It is useless to argue with someone who thinks that RT ran an anti-fracking program because it is concerned about the environment, and not because fracking in the US was responsible for the collapse in oil prices worldwide, with Russia being one of the hardest hit oil producers.
A quick read of the intelligence community report: "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections" finds zero evidence to support the allegation that Russia hacked the DNC and Podesta emails.
I was, however, struck by one passage in the long section on RT (formerly Russian Television) that is supposed to persuade Americans of Putin's efforts to take over our country:
RT runs anti-fracking programming, highlighting environmental issues and
the impacts on public health. This is likely reflective of the Russian
Government's concern about the impact of fracking and US natural gas
production on the global energy market and the potential challenges to
Gazprom's profitability
So the message here is that Bernie, Mark Ruffalo, Gov Cuomo and even Hillary, or anyone who opposes fracking, are tools of Vladimir Putin and can be considered enemies of the United States.
The report is a disgrace.
Not what I said. Read again.
cramer said:
Trump saw the classified version of the intelligence community report "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections" which concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. The classified version contained much more evidence than was included in the unclassified version that was released to the public. Trump has been POTUS for 70 days now and has the power to de-classify the classifed version. If the evidence were not conclusive that Russia interfered in the election, Trump would certainty have said so and made much more of that than accusing Obama of wiretapping him or any of the other distraction that he comes up with.
Paul - Would you like to respond to this?
cramer said:
cramer said:
Trump saw the classified version of the intelligence community report "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections" which concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. The classified version contained much more evidence than was included in the unclassified version that was released to the public. Trump has been POTUS for 70 days now and has the power to declassify the classifed version. If the evidence were not conclusive that Russia interfered in the election, Trump would certainty have said so and made much more of that than accusing Obama of wiretapping him or any of the other distraction that he comes up with.
Paul - Would you like to respond to this?
Yes, this evening.
Edited to Add:
I think you're right.
Could he ask the CIA/NSA/FBI themselves to do a re-assessment? He could, but there's no way that insiders are going to challenge the official assessment, and Trump is probably smart enough to understand that.
If he wanted a truly independent re-assessment, he could ask William Binney and Jeffrey Carr to head up a technical team and Stephen Cohen and Glenn Greenwald to head up a political team, but they're not Trump's kind of people.
Could he de-classify the unclassified assessment? He could, and that would be a good solution, but the Deep State won't let that happen.
tjohn said:
cramer said:
paulsurovell said:
A quick read of the intelligence community report: "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections" finds zero evidence to support the allegation that Russia hacked the DNC and Podesta emails.
I was, however, struck by one passage in the long section on RT (formerly Russian Television) that is supposed to persuade Americans of Putin's efforts to take over our country:
RT runs anti-fracking programming, highlighting environmental issues and
the impacts on public health. This is likely reflective of the Russian
Government's concern about the impact of fracking and US natural gas
production on the global energy market and the potential challenges to
Gazprom's profitability
So the message here is that Bernie, Mark Ruffalo, Gov Cuomo and even Hillary, or anyone who opposes fracking, are tools of Vladimir Putin and can be considered enemies of the United States.
The report is a disgrace.
It is useless to argue with someone who thinks that RT ran an anti-fracking program because it is concerned about the environment, and not because fracking in the US was responsible for the collapse in oil prices worldwide, with Russia being one of the hardest hit oil producers.
Really. I was quite touched to discover that Putin was an environmentalist. I can only think that he cares about groundwater in the European countries with fracking potential.
It's also notable that the Intel "assessment" cites an RT anti-fracking program to show how Putin tried to help Trump win the election. Trump was the pro-fracking candidate. So the RT program was actually pro-Clinton and anti-Trump. Speaks volumes about the quality of the Intel "assessment."
Paul,
You keep going off on these irrelevant tangents. What we need is an adult investigation of the relationship of the Trump-Kushner crime family with Russians oligarchs and their role in facilitating money laundering.
We already know that Russia worked to influence our election and we know that the Russians are experts in disinformation. These are problems for which we need good defenses and not knee-jerk retaliatory responses.
Did the assessment (why the scare quotes?) really say that the RT anti-fracking program was done to support Trump? Somehow I doubt it.
paulsurovell said:
It's also notable that the Intel "assessment" cites an RT anti-fracking program to show how Putin tried to help Trump win the election. Trump was the pro-fracking candidate. So the RT program was actually pro-Clinton and anti-Trump. Speaks volumes about the quality of the Intel "assessment."
drummerboy said:
Did the assessment (why the scare quotes?) really say that the RT anti-fracking program was done to support Trump? Somehow I doubt it.
paulsurovell said:
It's also notable that the Intel "assessment" cites an RT anti-fracking program to show how Putin tried to help Trump win the election. Trump was the pro-fracking candidate. So the RT program was actually pro-Clinton and anti-Trump. Speaks volumes about the quality of the Intel "assessment."
It did not say that. Your doubting is correct.
Paul - what is your thoughts (and Greenwald's) on the "experts" testifying today? Should we accept their testimony - or aren't they credible?
I gave a short response to drummerboy's question about the statement quoted below. After that, I looked back at the document, and thought it might be useful to look at what's actually in there. Simply put, it is hard to see why someone who looked at the document would make this statement:
paulsurovell said:
It's also notable that the Intel "assessment" cites an RT anti-fracking program to show how Putin tried to help Trump win the election. Trump was the pro-fracking candidate. So the RT program was actually pro-Clinton and anti-Trump. Speaks volumes about the quality of the Intel "assessment."
Pages 3-4 of the Intelligence Community Assessment contain a section entitled “Russian Propaganda Efforts”. After detailing examples from the past election, it concludes: “For more on Russia’s past media efforts—including portraying the 2012 US electoral process as undemocratic—please see Annex A: Russia—Kremlin's TV Seeks To Influence Politics, Fuel Discontent in US.”
That Annex A has a footnote on the first page, stating: “This annex was originally published on 11 December 2012 by the Open Source Center, now the Open Source Enterprise.”
And it is part of that Annex that reference is made to the RT “anti-fracking” programming, in a list of activities under the heading: “RT broadcasts support for other Russian interests in areas such as foreign and energy policy”.
So, by the clear meaning of the text, the Intelligent Community Assessment does not "cite an RT anti-fracking program to show how Putin tried to help Trump win the election". It does discuss how Russia conducts propaganda through the news, and identifies instances from this past year. It then cites a document from 2012, for examples of what it calls "past media efforts".
But claiming that the document refers to the anti-fracking program as part of the ""pro-Trump" propaganda efforts is not correct. The document is available here:
https://www.intelligence.senat...
A reminder of what we "knew" in 2003:
tjohn said:
Paul,
You keep going off on these irrelevant tangents. What we need is an adult investigation of the relationship of the Trump-Kushner crime family with Russians oligarchs and their role in facilitating money laundering.
We already know that Russia worked to influence our election and we know that the Russians are experts in disinformation. These are problems for which we need good defenses and not knee-jerk retaliatory responses.
Numerous intelligence and cyber security experts, cited on this thread, don't "know" these things. As noted recently, Comey admitted that Intel doesn't know who gave Wikileaks the DNC/Podesta emails.
And it's always important to recall the lessons of history, especially what we "knew" was "irrefutable" in 2003:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Washington Post Editorial
February 6, 2003
Irrefutable
AFTER SECRETARY OF STATE Colin L. Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council yesterday, it is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Powell left no room to argue seriously that Iraq has accepted the Security Council's offer of a "final opportunity" to disarm. And he offered a powerful new case that Saddam Hussein's regime is cooperating with a branch of the al Qaeda organization that is trying to acquire chemical weapons and stage attacks in Europe. Mr. Powell's evidence, including satellite photographs, audio recordings and reports from detainees and other informants, was overwhelming. Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., the senior Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, called it "powerful and irrefutable." Revealing those tapes and photographs had a cost, as Iraq will surely take countermeasures. But the decision to make so much evidence public will prove invaluable if it sways public opinion here and abroad. At a minimum, it will stand as a worthy last effort to engage the United Nations in facing a threat that the United States could, if necessary, address alone or with an ad-hoc coalition [ . . ]
jamie said:
Paul - what is your thoughts (and Greenwald's) on the "experts" testifying today? Should we accept their testimony - or aren't they credible?
What do you have in mind?
Thanks for doing the research, south_mountaineer.
I'm sure Paul is just repeating what is said by folks like Greenwald, and it's just another example of how intellectually dishonest their position is.
South_Mountaineer said:
I gave a short response to drummerboy's question about the statement quoted below. After that, I looked back at the document, and thought it might be useful to look at what's actually in there. Simply put, it is hard to see why someone who looked at the document would make this statement:
paulsurovell said:
It's also notable that the Intel "assessment" cites an RT anti-fracking program to show how Putin tried to help Trump win the election. Trump was the pro-fracking candidate. So the RT program was actually pro-Clinton and anti-Trump. Speaks volumes about the quality of the Intel "assessment."
Pages 3-4 of the Intelligence Community Assessment contain a section entitled “Russian Propaganda Efforts”. After detailing examples from the past election, it concludes: “For more on Russia’s past media efforts—including portraying the 2012 US electoral process as undemocratic—please see Annex A: Russia—Kremlin's TV Seeks To Influence Politics, Fuel Discontent in US.”
That Annex A has a footnote on the first page, stating: “This annex was originally published on 11 December 2012 by the Open Source Center, now the Open Source Enterprise.”
And it is part of that Annex that reference is made to the RT “anti-fracking” programming, in a list of activities under the heading: “RT broadcasts support for other Russian interests in areas such as foreign and energy policy”.
So, by the clear meaning of the text, the Intelligent Community Assessment does not "cite an RT anti-fracking program to show how Putin tried to help Trump win the election". It does discuss how Russia conducts propaganda through the news, and identifies instances from this past year. It then cites a document from 2012, for examples of what it calls "past media efforts".
But claiming that the document refers to the anti-fracking program as part of the ""pro-Trump" propaganda efforts is not correct. The document is available here:
https://www.intelligence.senat...
drummerboy said:
Thanks for doing the research, south_mountaineer.
I'm sure Paul is just repeating what is said by folks like Greenwald, and it's just another example of how intellectually dishonest their position is.
Interesting. Who do you mean by "folks like Greenwald?"
South_Mountaineer said:
Exactly, hoops. Concern about Russia's actions is based upon those actions, not whatever tangents paulsurovell wants to inject as diversions. It seems that each day, practically, brings information about yet another Russian contact by someone in Trump's inner circle. Some of those Russians are less-than-admirable types, and also are very close to Putin. Given what is known (and given the prospect of Russian involvement and interference in European elections), it would not make sense to ignore that.
And, of course, the dissembling by the Trump folks on this does not inspire thoughts of "nothing to see here."
paulsurovell's insistence that the motivation is "scapegoating Hillary's loss" is revealing, but not in the way he intended. It is revealing because it shows that he's concerned (as is probably most of the "leave Russia alone" crowd) that anything revealed by investigating will detract from their "Hillary stinks" narrative, which they seem unable to let go of.
Have you cited any acts of collusion between Trump associates and Russia to influence the 2016 election?
Are you suggesting that Democrats have not blamed Russia for Hillary's loss?
South_Mountaineer said:
paulsurovell said:
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.
Since I realized that I was one of the people who called "whataboutism" a "sleazy tactic: -
First off, you're not using the term correctly. Jamie was going back on topic, which is the exact opposite "tactic", and certainly not "sleazy".
The topic in the exchange was Mensch. Jamie asked:
Mar 26, 2017 at 05:44pm
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?
and I responded:
We're looking into her because she's promoting false information to millions of Americans.
and then Jamie responded:
Huh? Trump is providing false information as well. Bringing up Mensch isJamie wasn't returning to the topic -- which was Mensch -- he was diverting from the topic by
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.
stating a "whataboutism."
South_Mountaineer said:
I gave a short response to drummerboy's question about the statement quoted below. After that, I looked back at the document, and thought it might be useful to look at what's actually in there. Simply put, it is hard to see why someone who looked at the document would make this statement:
paulsurovell said:
It's also notable that the Intel "assessment" cites an RT anti-fracking program to show how Putin tried to help Trump win the election. Trump was the pro-fracking candidate. So the RT program was actually pro-Clinton and anti-Trump. Speaks volumes about the quality of the Intel "assessment."
Pages 3-4 of the Intelligence Community Assessment contain a section entitled “Russian Propaganda Efforts”. After detailing examples from the past election, it concludes: “For more on Russia’s past media efforts—including portraying the 2012 US electoral process as undemocratic—please see Annex A: Russia—Kremlin's TV Seeks To Influence Politics, Fuel Discontent in US.”
That Annex A has a footnote on the first page, stating: “This annex was originally published on 11 December 2012 by the Open Source Center, now the Open Source Enterprise.”
And it is part of that Annex that reference is made to the RT “anti-fracking” programming, in a list of activities under the heading: “RT broadcasts support for other Russian interests in areas such as foreign and energy policy”.
So, by the clear meaning of the text, the Intelligent Community Assessment does not "cite an RT anti-fracking program to show how Putin tried to help Trump win the election". It does discuss how Russia conducts propaganda through the news, and identifies instances from this past year. It then cites a document from 2012, for examples of what it calls "past media efforts".
But claiming that the document refers to the anti-fracking program as part of the ""pro-Trump" propaganda efforts is not correct. The document is available here:
https://www.intelligence.senat...
I missed the reference to Appendix A and the footnote, and you are correct that the Appendix, written in 2012, does not contain examples of alleged RT attempts to favor Trump over Clinton.
However, most of the 2012 examples of US affairs cited in the Appendix are from a left-perspective, including coverage of the anti-fracking and Occupy Wall Street movements, the lack of participation in US democracy, government surveillance and corporate greed.
This begs the question -- did RT cover US events from a similar left perspective during the election, and if did, could it have favored Donald Trump?
The only specific reference in the Assessment on RT coverage of the election is:
RT and Sputnik another government-funded outlet producing pro-Kremlin radio and online content in a variety of languages for international audiences — consistently cast President-elect Trump as the target of unfair coverage from traditional US media outlets that they claimed were subservient to a corrupt political establishment.
The assessment provides no examples of this.
For the record, RT appears to have continued its anti-fracking coverage during the campaign. Here are three examples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9OuYj899hY
Texas earthquakes likely linked to fracking activity - US environmental agency
https://www.rt.com/news/340752-australian-mp-river-fracking/
‘People should be terrified fracking is spreading’ – Australian MP who set river on fire to RT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOs730sSPpM
Frack this! FBI uses email surveillance & informants to spy on environmental activists
One point I won't retract -- regardless of the timeframe, citing RT's coverage of the anti-fracking movement and other causes of the left as an examples of Russian efforts to undermine US democracy, speaks volumes about the nature and quality of the assessment.
Trump doesn't want proof of Russian interference because it undermines his legitimacy.
Paul Surovell doesn''t want proof or Russian interference because it undermines his argument that HRC was awful and that we should have run Bernie.
Strange times we live in seem to make for strange bedfellows.
tjohn said:
Trump doesn't want proof of Russian interference because it undermines his legitimacy.
Paul Surovell doesn''t want proof or Russian interference because it undermines his argument that HRC was awful and that we should have run Bernie.
Strange times we live in seem to make for strange bedfellows.
Happy to see proof if it exists, not happy to see Cold War hysteria that's drowning out issues that matter. I've said this numerous times before.
It's hardly Cold War hysteria. This sort of electronic interference, misinformation and hacking are tried in proven methods in the Russian toolbox. The hysteria part lies in how we choose to respond. So, calling it an act of war is hysteria. Coming up with other ways to counter misinformation and bolstering cyber security is not hysteria.
it "speaks volumes" only if you consider rt.com to be an honest broker and not a Putin propaganda arm. Just because an anti-fracking viewpoint happens to agree with yours doesn't mean there is no nefarious purpose to it.
paulsurovell said:
One point I won't retract -- regardless of the timeframe, citing RT's coverage of the anti-fracking movement and other causes of the left as an examples of Russian efforts to undermine US democracy, speaks volumes about the nature and quality of the assessment.
paulsurovell said:
jamie said:
Paul - what is your thoughts (and Greenwald's) on the "experts" testifying today? Should we accept their testimony - or aren't they credible?
What do you have in mind?
Just seeing if you found their testimony credible. Do you accept that some of the fake news Trump's team pushed could have originated from
that doesnt pass the smell test. Take the cold-war out of this. We are talking specifically about a nation that has a long history of criminality in and out of its own borders, who is integrally involved with the principal and family of the current President of the USA. This is not a nation that is friendly to world interests, they are led by a dictator who murders his opponents in the most violent and visible ways.
A nation which holds extremely capable scientists and engineers, thinking that they were not interested and involved in getting "their man" elected doesnt make sense.