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

No surprise that Sputnik has hired a former Breitbart writer.


Clapper, Morrell and now Feinstein: No evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump campaign:



"Not at this time" is what Senator Feinstein said.  The only people who would view that as conclusive are the Trump fans for whom this excerpt was posted on YouTube by "GOP War Room" - with a misleading title, by the way (picture of the title is at the bottom of this post).

paulsurovell said:

Clapper, Morrell and now Feinstein: No evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump campaign:





South_Mountaineer said:

"Not at this time" is what Senator Feinstein said.  The only people who would view that as conclusive are the Trump fans for whom this excerpt was posted on YouTube by "GOP War Room" - with a misleading title, by the way (picture of the title is at the bottom of this post).
paulsurovell said:

Clapper, Morrell and now Feinstein: No evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump campaign:


Parsing "not at this time" and trying to score points about who posted a CNN video does not speak well for your position.


There's also no evidence that Putin ordered attacks on dissenters.


Outright collusion is a high bar and I'd be surprised if they met it.


Paul - Comey stated the Russian Federation represents "the greatest threat of any nation on earth given their intention and capability" and that its government is still involved in American politics.

Why is he perpetuating this stance?  Do you accept any Russian interference?



paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

"Not at this time" is what Senator Feinstein said.  The only people who would view that as conclusive are the Trump fans for whom this excerpt was posted on YouTube by "GOP War Room" - with a misleading title, by the way (picture of the title is at the bottom of this post).
paulsurovell said:

Clapper, Morrell and now Feinstein: No evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump campaign:



Parsing "not at this time" and trying to score points about who posted a CNN video does not speak well for your position.

If that's how you want to discuss it -

Labeling a direct quote as "parsing", and promoting the GOP spin to describe the video does not speak well for your position.  Unless you are trying to defend Trump, in which case you're doing a great job.



dave23 said:

There's also no evidence that Putin ordered attacks on dissenters.

Are you saying that Senator Feinstein should have said this?


jamie said:

Paul - Comey stated the Russian Federation represents "the greatest threat of any nation on earth given their intention and capability" and that its government is still involved in American politics.

Why is he perpetuating this stance?  Do you accept any Russian interference?

All countries try to influence other countries. We do lots of that in Russia, all the time.  We brag about meeting with Russian dissidents and encouraging their activities.

Russia's alleged -- repeat alleged -- big transgression was sharing DNC emails with Americans. Also programs against fracking and Wall Street greed.

Comey is engaging in old-fashioned FBI Cold War fear-mongering.

Here's a more interesting excerpt from the hearing:



South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

"Not at this time" is what Senator Feinstein said.  The only people who would view that as conclusive are the Trump fans for whom this excerpt was posted on YouTube by "GOP War Room" - with a misleading title, by the way (picture of the title is at the bottom of this post).
paulsurovell said:

Clapper, Morrell and now Feinstein: No evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump campaign:



Parsing "not at this time" and trying to score points about who posted a CNN video does not speak well for your position.

If that's how you want to discuss it -

Labeling a direct quote as "parsing", and promoting the GOP spin to describe the video does not speak well for your position.  Unless you are trying to defend Trump, in which case you're doing a great job.

Back to your McCarthyite ways. You just can't argue on the merits.


paulsurovell said:

Back to your McCarthyite ways. You just can't argue on the merits.

Excuse me, but I did "argue on the merits".  I posted that Feinstein's actual statement should be used, since it doesn't mean, "Nothing to see here", and it doesn't mean that the investigation should stop.  

You, on the other hand, went to the insult ("does not speak well for your position"), and your go-to insult of labeling a disagreement with you as "McCarthyite".  That's not substantive, and not "on the merits".  There's little difference between your approach, and that guy on the thread about the new building in Maplewood, who keeps accusing the Village Green news site of being dishonest.



South_Mountaineer said:
paulsurovell said:

Back to your McCarthyite ways. You just can't argue on the merits.

Excuse me, but I did "argue on the merits".  I posted that Feinstein's actual statement should be used, since it doesn't mean, "Nothing to see here", and it doesn't mean that the investigation should stop.  

You, on the other hand, went to the insult ("does not speak well for your position"), and your go-to insult of labeling a disagreement with you as "McCarthyite".  That's not substantive, and not "on the merits".  There's little difference between your approach, and that guy on the thread about the new building in Maplewood, who keeps accusing the Village Green news site of being dishonest.

You're throwing a lot of dust to distract from Feinstein's clear, simple statement, which is the same statement that James Clapper made in January, that Mike Morrell made in March.  There is no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. And of course all three of these insiders either said explicitly or implied that they were speaking what they knew at the time they spoke.

And when you accuse someone of helping Trump -- as you have done since the Democratic primary -- it's not an insult when it is pointed out that you are engaging in McCarthyism.

Ironically, the bogus Russia story has hurt the Democrats (including Hillary as I pointed out at the time) not Trump, because it is a diversion from the pernicious agenda that Trump is promoting.


paulsurovell said:
You're throwing a lot of dust to distract from Feinstein's clear, simple statement, which is the same statement that James Clapper made in January, that Mike Morrell made in March. 

Actually quoting the actual words (the only one included in the video you posted), "Not at this time" is not "throwing dust".

Repeating a label from the Trump folks, which is NOT what she is quoted as saying, on the other hand ...



paulsurovell said:



dave23 said:

There's also no evidence that Putin ordered attacks on dissenters.

Are you saying that Senator Feinstein should have said this?


If you find yourself starting a post with, "Are you saying..." perhaps you should pause and reconsider.


ThrowingsnowjobdustMcCarthyite.



dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:

There's also no evidence that Putin ordered attacks on dissenters.

Are you saying that Senator Feinstein should have said this?

If you find yourself starting a post with, "Are you saying..." perhaps you should pause and reconsider.

Are you saying that your answer is "No?"



South_Mountaineer said:


paulsurovell said:
You're throwing a lot of dust to distract from Feinstein's clear, simple statement, which is the same statement that James Clapper made in January, that Mike Morrell made in March. 

Actually quoting the actual words (the only one included in the video you posted), "Not at this time" is not "throwing dust".

Repeating a label from the Trump folks, which is NOT what she is quoted as saying, on the other hand ...

These are the "actual words" of the video. Feinstein answered a direct question in the context of having had a CIA briefing the day before. You didn't quote the question or the context. You didn't even mention them. That's why it's accurate to say you were parsing and "throwing dust."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRA...

BLITZER: I know that you and some of your colleagues from the Senate
Intelligence Committee drove over to Langley, Virginia, yesterday to CIA
headquarters and you were briefed.

Here's the question.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: And you don't have to provide us with any classified information, Senator.

But do you believe, do you have evidence that there was in fact collusion
between Trump associates and Russia during the campaign?

FEINSTEIN: Not at this time.


paulsurovell said:



dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:

There's also no evidence that Putin ordered attacks on dissenters.

Are you saying that Senator Feinstein should have said this?

If you find yourself starting a post with, "Are you saying..." perhaps you should pause and reconsider.

Are you saying that your answer is "No?"

If I had wanted to say, "Senator Feinstein should have said...," I would have written, "Senator Feinstein should have said...."

But at least you got to avoid the point.



dave23 said:
paulsurovell said:
dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:

There's also no evidence that Putin ordered attacks on dissenters.

Are you saying that Senator Feinstein should have said this?
If you find yourself starting a post with, "Are you saying..." perhaps you should pause and reconsider.
Are you saying that your answer is "No?"
If I had wanted to say, "Senator Feinstein should have said...," I would have written, "Senator Feinstein should have said...."

But at least you got to avoid the point.

Your point is unclear.



paulsurovell said:



dave23 said:


But at least you got to avoid the point.

Your point is unclear.

Just extending your standard response to other Putin ugliness.



dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:

But at least you got to avoid the point.
Your point is unclear.
Just extending your standard response to other Putin ugliness.

It didn't work.


No evidence that the Macron email hack and dump was done by the Russians.


You watch.  Planting hack-bait e-mails in their candidate's digital record is going to become a strategy for campaign managers.  I almost feel sorry for reporters.  


Well, glad that's settled.

These are not the hackers you're looking for.  Move along ...

https://twitter.com/realDonald...


If this story can be believed, Comey misinformed us when he dramatically claimed that Huma Abedin forwarded hundreds of thousands emails to Wiener. Now the story is that only a handful were forwarded. Would that be 10 or less?

But the drama. Where can we generate more drama? Sayinghundreds of thousands or a handful? Attaboy, Comey.

https://www.propublica.org/art...


Keep doing Trump's work for him (you know who you are).

https://twitter.com/realDonald...


For all who have repeatedly invoked "according to 17 intelligence agencies" -- sorry, that was a canard. A glimpse of reality from yesterday's testimony:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/08/full-transcript-sally-yates-and-james-clapper-testify-on-russian-election-interference/?utm_term=.1bfa7e0de5a4

JAMES R. CLAPPER JR., FORMER DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: (OFF MIKE)
. . . . As you know, the I.C. was a coordinated product from three agencies; CIA, NSA, and the FBI not all 17 components of the intelligence community. Those three under the aegis of my former office. Following an extensive intelligence reporting about many Russian efforts to collect on and influence the outcome of the presidential election, President Obama asked us to do this in early December and have it completed before the end of his term.
[ . . . ]
FRANKEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank both you and the ranking member for -- for this hearing and these hearings.
And I want to thank General Clapper and -- and Attorney General Yates for -- for appearing today. We have -- the intelligence communities have concluded all 17 of them that Russia interfered with this election. And we all know how that's right.
CLAPPER: Senator, as I pointed out in my statement Senator Franken, it was there were only three agencies that directly involved in this assessment plus my office...
FRANKEN: But all 17 signed on to that?
CLAPPER: Well, we didn't go through that -- that process, this was a special situation because of the time limits and my -- what I knew to be to who could really contribute to this and the sensitivity of the situation, we decided it was a constant judgment (ph) to restrict it to those three. I'm not aware of anyone who dissented or -- or disagreed when it came out.

Clapper also said this. Does that make your argument that Russia isn't behind the hacking a canard?

"The two dozen or so analysts for this task were hand-picked, seasoned experts from each of the contributing agencies. They were given complete, unfettered mutual access to all sensitive raw intelligence data, and importantly, complete independence to reach their findings. They found that the Russian government pursued a multifaceted influence campaign in the run-up to the election, including aggressive use of cyber capabilities."


dave23 said:

Clapper also said this. Does that make your argument that Russia isn't behind the hacking a canard?

"The two dozen or so analysts for this task were hand-picked, seasoned experts from each of the contributing agencies. They were given complete, unfettered mutual access to all sensitive raw intelligence data, and importantly, complete independence to reach their findings. They found that the Russian government pursued a multifaceted influence campaign in the run-up to the election, including aggressive use of cyber capabilities."

No.


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