Former US intelligence analysts: CIA allegations of Russian email hacking are baseless
This all gets back to Stephen Cohen's (and Paul's) position that the U.S. is facing the greatest missile crisis with Russia since the Cuban Missile Crisis. Cohen's position is that the U.S. and NATO shouldn't do anything at all that would provoke Russia. Cohen has said that even Obama's statements that Russia was involved in the hacking could be enough to cause Russia to respond with missiles. That is why there is so much effort being used to say that Russia wasn't involved.
cramer said:
This all gets back to Stephen Cohen's (and Paul's) position that the U.S. is facing the greatest missile crisis with Russia since the Cuban Missile Crisis. Cohen's position is that the U.S. and NATO shouldn't do anything at all that would provoke Russia. Cohen has said that even Obama's statements that Russia was involved in the hacking could be enough to cause Russia to respond with missiles. That is why there is so much effort being used to say that Russia wasn't involved.
More accurate to say "NATO shouldn't unncessarily provoke Russia"
CNBC just said the press conference is at 2:15. It had been scheduled for 2:30, so I don't know which is correct. Just a heads- up.
The Washington Post is reporting that the the FBI is now in agreement with the CIA that Russia intervened in the election to help Trump win. (Heard while waiting for press conference to begin.)
This is the most impressive conspiracy of my lifetime. Three intelligence agencies now in agreement, along with the so-called Gang of Eight. (Still no plausible explanation of how this was a "leak.")
paulsurovell said:
tjohn said:
paulsurovell said: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.
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.
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
I believe that there was some sort of understanding in the early 1990's that NATO would not invite nations that were part of the USSR in 1938. So, the mistake was messing around in Georgia and then Ukraine.
Having said that, NATO was well on its way to the old folks home and then Putin started getting agressive and reminding people why NATO was established in the first place.
tjohn said:
paulsurovell said:I believe that there was some sort of understanding in the early 1990's that NATO would not invite nations that were part of the USSR in 1938. So, the mistake was messing around in Georgia and then Ukraine.
tjohn said:Expanding NATO expanding toward the Russian border goes beyond deterrence:
paulsurovell said: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.
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.
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/12/08/504737811/russia-seen-moving-new-missiles-to-eastern-europe
Having said that, NATO was well on its way to the old folks home and then Putin started getting agressive and reminding people why NATO was established in the first place.
As Cramer has pointed out, I think that Stephen Cohen has laid out a balanced view of Putin's policies.
This morning, former British Ambassador Craig Murray made a similarly balanced statement on China's capture of the US underwater drone. One benefit of the Russian "hacking" controversy is the prominence of a rational voice on international affairs:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/right-wrong-south-china-sea/
dave23 said:
This is the most impressive conspiracy of my lifetime. Three intelligence agencies now in agreement, along with the so-called Gang of Eight. (Still no plausible explanation of how this was a "leak.")
Actually, the burden of proof is to show that it was a "hack."
However, we're not going to see the evidence that the VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity) say would be available if it was a hack. Instead, it's going to be "trust us."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/16/transcript-obamas-end-of-year-news-conference-on-syria-russian-hacking-and-more/?utm_term=.160ec4b7b6c7
OBAMA: Declassification. Look, we will provide evidence that we can
safely provide, that does not compromise sources and methods. But I'll
be honest with you, when you are talking about cybersecurity, a lot of
it is classified and we're not going to provide it, because the way we
catch folks is by knowing certain things about them that they may not
want us to know and if we're gonna monitor this stuff effectively going
forward, we don't want them to know that we know.
So, this is one of those situations where, unless the American people genuinely think
that the professionals in the CIA, the FBI, our entire intelligence
infrastructure, many of whom -- by the way, served in previous
administrations and who are Republicans -- are less trustworthy than the
Russians. Then people should pay attention to what our intelligence
agencies say.
paulsurovell said:
dave23 said:
This is the most impressive conspiracy of my lifetime. Three intelligence agencies now in agreement, along with the so-called Gang of Eight. (Still no plausible explanation of how this was a "leak.")
Actually, the burden of proof is to show that it was a "hack."
However, we're not going to see the evidence that the VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity) say would be available if it was a hack. Instead, it's going to be "trust us."
Yeah, intelligence agencies have a way of acting like that. True to form not to show the evidence (sometimes for good reason, sometimes for not-so-good reasons).
I'm inclined to believe it given the broad support by those who have been briefed and Russia's ties with and interest in the incoming administration.
I'm open to a plausible alternative, however. I just haven't heard one. Just easy potshots about the CIA lying in the past and completely unsubstantiated speculation by retired "VIPs" (I liked that one!) that it was a series of leaks. You yourself believe it to be a series of leaks without sharing a shred of insight as to how it might have occurred. (This is different from simply being skeptical of the
I will be listening to any of this with skepticiim until I see real proof of Russian involvement. I hope we all learned from the Iraq War not to immediatley fall in line with what our government and corporate media tell us. If these people are so concerned about election fraud, why don't they do a better job of investigating how the Republicans and Democrats tamper with election?
dave23 said:
paulsurovell said:Yeah, intelligence agencies have a way of acting like that. True to form not to show the evidence (sometimes for good reason, sometimes for not-so-good reasons).
dave23 said:
This is the most impressive conspiracy of my lifetime. Three intelligence agencies now in agreement, along with the so-called Gang of Eight. (Still no plausible explanation of how this was a "leak.")
Actually, the burden of proof is to show that it was a "hack."
However, we're not going to see the evidence that the VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity) say would be available if it was a hack. Instead, it's going to be "trust us."
I'm inclined to believe it given the broad support by those who have been briefed and Russia's ties with and interest in the incoming administration.
I'm open to a plausible alternative, however. I just haven't heard one. Just easy potshots about the CIA lying in the past and completely unsubstantiated speculation by retired "VIPs" (I liked that one!) that it was a series of leaks. You yourself believe it to be a series of leaks without sharing a shred of insight as to how it might have occurred. (This is different from simply being skeptical of the
The opinion of the Intel agencies is based on "a pattern of behavior" which is "circumstantial evidence."
William Binney of VIPS, one of the foremost cyber security experts in the world, says "hard evidence" is available from NSA if it was a hack. That's not speculation.
nan said:
I will be listening to any of this with skepticiim until I see real proof of Russian involvement. I hope we all learned from the Iraq War not to immediatley fall in line with what our government and corporate media tell us. If these people are so concerned about election fraud, why don't they do a better job of investigating how the Republicans and Democrats tamper with election?
In addition, media attention to this issue has completely overwhelmed concerns about Trump's appointments which are a real danger to America. MSNBC uses up more than half its airtime on totally one-sided (and often offensive) reporting on Putin. Meanwhile, Trump's threat to the climate, healthcare, Social Security, civil rights, labor etc. are being given a free ride.
paulsurovell said:
The opinion of the Intel agencies is based on "a pattern of behavior" which is "circumstantial evidence."
It's well more than that.
paulsurovell said:
In addition, media attention to this issue has completely overwhelmed concerns about Trump's appointments which are a real danger to America. MSNBC uses up more than half its airtime on totally one-sided (and often offensive) reporting on Putin. Meanwhile, Trump's threat to the climate, healthcare, Social Security, civil rights, labor etc. are being given a free ride.
I've read and heard a lot of coverage about Trump's threat to the climate, healthcare, Social Security, civil rights, labor, etc.
Apologies if coverage of the murderous Putin was offensive to you.
dave23 said:
paulsurovell said:It's well more than that.
The opinion of the Intel agencies is based on "a pattern of behavior" which is "circumstantial evidence."
Such as . . .
Paul - I think that it's safe to say that you are in agreement with Trump about Russia - that the relationship between the US and Russia should be improved. How far would you be willing to go in improving that relationship and avoiding any confrontation with Russia - would you be willing for Trump to make a "grand bargain" with Russia and allow the Baltic states to once again come under the influence of Russia?
dave23 said:
paulsurovell said:
In addition, media attention to this issue has completely overwhelmed concerns about Trump's appointments which are a real danger to America. MSNBC uses up more than half its airtime on totally one-sided (and often offensive) reporting on Putin. Meanwhile, Trump's threat to the climate, healthcare, Social Security, civil rights, labor etc. are being given a free ride.
I've read and heard a lot of coverage about Trump's threat to the climate, healthcare, Social Security, civil rights, labor, etc.
At least half of MSNBC's coverage has been on Putin during the last few weeks.
dave23 said:
Apologies if coverage of the murderous Putin was offensive to you.
Just curious -- How many times have you used the term "murderous Bush?" or "murderous LBJ" or "murderous Nixon? How do their numbers compare with Putin's?
With regard to MSNBC's offensive coverage of Putin, here's a quote from its main intelligence "expert" this morning, former Naval intelligence officer Malcom Nance.
Nance has an offensive habit of challenging the patriotism of those who doubt the pronouncements of the intelligence community. He justifies this by citing the personal risks and sacrifices that intel officers take.
In the following segment, Nance goes further, and suggests that Trump should be put on trial for "treason" for embracing "the dictatorial ideology" of Putin.
Putting aside whether Trump has done this, the notion that Trump or anyone else is should be tried for treason for embracing a "dictatorial ideology" is offensive.
On the same segment (a clip appears on the link) someone says -- unchallenged -- that Putin is the richest man in the world, without any evidence.
But MSNBC -- as is much of the Democratic leadership -- is in hysteria mode and anything -- as long as it's negative -- can be said about Putin. No different than Fox's coverage of Clinton or Obama.
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/intelligence-expert-10-years-ago-trump-would-have-faced-a-treason-trial-after-being-co-opted-by-putin/
“I’m not sure he [Trump] has heard of Voice of America,
that’s not a joke,” Nance said. “Let’s not laugh at it, it’s actually
scary. But for the most part, if he finds out that he can have his own
version of Russia Today, his own version of Sputnik, two propaganda arms that took over from the Soviet Union’s Pravda, it could be exceptionally damaging.”
“But I want to come to a point that was made a little bit
earlier,” he added. “When did all of this happen to Donald Trump, right?
He met Gorbachev. He was a big supporter of glasnost. At some point, he was co-opted by Vladimir Putin. and that means he bought into and
embraced the dictatorial ideology that was done by a spy master of the
KGB. Ten years ago, 20 years ago,there would be treason trials. I would like to bring one point up. because long ago there was a guy named Yuri Bezmenov, a KGB officer, and he wrote,’This is who the KGB targeted and recruited, egocentric people who lack moral principles and who are too greedy or who suffer from exaggerated self-importance. These are the people the KGB wants and finds easiest to recruit.'”
“Vladimir Putin went to the Yuri Andropov school of
intelligence, he learned how to manipulate people, and at some point we need to find out when did Donald Trump’s ideology shift from western capitalism to Russian authoritarianism,” Nance concluded.
cramer said:
Paul - I think that it's safe to say that you are in agreement with Trump about Russia - that the relationship between the US and Russia should be improved. How far would you be willing to go in improving that relationship and avoiding any confrontation with Russia - would you be willing for Trump to make a "grand bargain" with Russia and allow the Baltic states to once again come under the influence of Russia?
No, but he should assure the Russians that NATO will not move further toward Russia's border.
paulsurovell said:
cramer said:
Paul - I think that it's safe to say that you are in agreement with Trump about Russia - that the relationship between the US and Russia should be improved. How far would you be willing to go in improving that relationship and avoiding any confrontation with Russia - would you be willing for Trump to make a "grand bargain" with Russia and allow the Baltic states to once again come under the influence of Russia?
No, but he should assure the Russians that NATO will not move further toward Russia's border.
Oh, I see, comrade. You want Russia calling the shots.
If a nation and its people geographically close to Russia want to join NATO, to enjoy the protection of NATO, why should they be denied? Because Russia says so?
Russia would love to keep the Baltic nations hanging on their own. Grapes to be plucked like Georgia and the Ukraine. To be reabsorbed one by one into Greater Russia with the help of a know-nothing feckless US president and his weak foreign policy.
Won't that be fun for them. Just like after WW 2.
paulsurovell said:
cramer said:
Paul - I think that it's safe to say that you are in agreement with Trump about Russia - that the relationship between the US and Russia should be improved. How far would you be willing to go in improving that relationship and avoiding any confrontation with Russia - would you be willing for Trump to make a "grand bargain" with Russia and allow the Baltic states to once again come under the influence of Russia?
No, but he should assure the Russians that NATO will not move further toward Russia's border.
I think this could form the basis for starting negotiations. It means that NATO will never include Belarus, Ukraine and the Transcaucasian nations. The Baltic States are already NATO members.
tjohn said:No, but he should assure the Russians that NATO will not move further toward Russia's border.
I think this could form the basis for starting negotiations. It means that NATO will never include Belarus, Ukraine and the Transcaucasian nations. The Baltic States are already NATO members.
You're correct about that. I don't know why I had Baltic in my brain.
BG9 said:
paulsurovell said:
cramer said:
Paul - I think that it's safe to say that you are in agreement with Trump about Russia - that the relationship between the US and Russia should be improved. How far would you be willing to go in improving that relationship and avoiding any confrontation with Russia - would you be willing for Trump to make a "grand bargain" with Russia and allow the Baltic states to once again come under the influence of Russia?
No, but he should assure the Russians that NATO will not move further toward Russia's border.
Oh, I see, comrade. You want Russia calling the shots.
If a nation and its people geographically close to Russia want to join NATO, to enjoy the protection of NATO, why should they be denied? Because Russia says so?
Russia would love to keep the Baltic nations hanging on their own. Grapes to be plucked like Georgia and the Ukraine. To be reabsorbed one by one into Greater Russia with the help of a know-nothing feckless US president and his weak foreign policy.
Won't that be fun for them. Just like after WW 2.
Are you suggesting that it's OK for Russia to establish establish military bases in Mexico and Canada? Or Cuba? And may I also call you "comrade?"
paulsurovell said:
dave23 said:
paulsurovell said:
It's well more than that.
The opinion of the Intel agencies is based on "a pattern of behavior" which is "circumstantial evidence."
Such as . . .
I have no interest in getting into one of your spaghetti threads. If you haven't seen it by now, I'm certain I won't be able to convince you. So far, Russian involvement is the most plausible explanation I've heard. I'm all ears for your leakers theory.
paulsurovell said:
dave23 said:
paulsurovell said:
In addition, media attention to this issue has completely overwhelmed concerns about Trump's appointments which are a real danger to America. MSNBC uses up more than half its airtime on totally one-sided (and often offensive) reporting on Putin. Meanwhile, Trump's threat to the climate, healthcare, Social Security, civil rights, labor etc. are being given a free ride.
I've read and heard a lot of coverage about Trump's threat to the climate, healthcare, Social Security, civil rights, labor, etc.
At least half of MSNBC's coverage has been on Putin during the last few weeks.
dave23 said:
Apologies if coverage of the murderous Putin was offensive to you.
Just curious -- How many times have you used the term "murderous Bush?" or "murderous LBJ" or "murderous Nixon? How do their numbers compare with Putin's?
I watch MSNBC only sporadically, but have seen lots of topics covered. But if you've been timing the coverage, I'll take your word for it. And I don't give two s***s about Malcom Nance. Not sure why you brought him up.
I don't know of any journalists and dissenters that Nixon, LBJ and Bush had murdered, but what do I know?
But we agree that Trump's policies--including those around Russia--are dangerous. It's also newsworthy if Russia helped tip the scales in his direction.
dave23 said:I brought Nance up as an example of why I said MSNBC's coverage of the "hacking" story is offensive, which you questioned.
And I don't give two s***s about Malcom Nance. Not sure why you brought him up.
Nance is the primary cyber-security expert of MSNBC. He appears on MSNBC daily and on all shows. One of his themes is that it's unpatriotic to doubt the CIA. His suggestion that embracing the ideology of Putin is treasonous takes this one step further.
When Congress decides to investigate the "Russian hack" one area of investigation that has been suggested is sources and websites that are "apologists" of Putin. The Washington Post published a major story about such alleged websites, which include a mix of well-known dissident websites, from Drudge Report to Truthdig. The story was widely covered in the major media, but criticism of the story was not. Another example of the one-sided reporting of this story.
If Congress takes this step in its investigation, we will literally be back to the days of McCarthy when Americans were accused by the government of disloyalty because of their views and associations.
The potential attack on the First Amendment is one of the underlying themes of the "Russian hacking" story and, as in the days of McCarthy, liberals have been enthusiastic participants.
Paul - Based on you support of Craig Murray, whose views are identical to yours, it seems that you are glad that Clinton didn't win. Here is the interview that Craig Murray had with Scott Horton.
cramer said:
Paul - Based on you support of Craig Murray, whose views are identical to yours, it seems that you are glad that Clinton didn't win. Here is the interview that Craig Murray had with Scott Horton.
http://dissentradio.com/radio/16_12_13_murray.mp3
No, this is incorrect. My views are not identical to Murray and I am not glad that Clinton didn't win.
You don't think the NY Times and WaPo have the ability to get in touch with Assange? Journalists are not shy.