Home Topics in Depth Activism Underwhelming Intel Report Shows Need for Congressional Investigation/ DNC Hack

  • Jefferson23 (4326 posts)
    Profile photo of Jefferson23

    Underwhelming Intel Report Shows Need for Congressional Investigation/ DNC Hack

    Sam Biddle

    January 6 2017, 6:49 p.m.

    After President Obama and Donald Trump were briefed on a classified report explaining the United States Intelligence Community’s belief that Russia hacked the Democratic Party, the public has received its own, declassified version. Unfortunately for us, it appears virtually anything new and interesting was removed in the redaction process, leaving us without the conclusive, technical evidence we were hoping for — and that the American people are owed. Failing a last minute change of heart, the next best (and perhaps last) hope for the government to show us its work would be a formal, bipartisan probe.

    The immensely confident report, based on the combined findings of the NSA, CIA, and FBI, includes virtually no new details about why the nation’s intelligence agencies attributed the attacks to the Russian government (and in some cases, directly to Vladimir Putin), other than a reference to the involvement of the “Guccifer 2.0″ hacker persona, a fact they had been open about since the hacked documents first started spreading. Instead, we’re left with this, which does not move the evidentiary ball forward even an inch:

    We assess with high confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election, the consistent goals of which were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.
    We don’t even get an allusion to NSA SIGINT, or a brief reference to the existence of more evidence — the report is all confidence, no justification. That confidence and consensus has meaning on its own — and, certainly, the claims are serious — but it is no substitute for some public understanding of what caused that confidence.

    https://theintercept.com/2017/01/06/underwhelming-intel-report-shows-need-for-congressional-investigation-of-dnc-hack/

    mrdmk, Pastiche, broiles and 12 othersbbgrunt, Live and Learn, Bearian, jwirr, Ohio Barbarian, azurnoir, Enthusiast, Charles, Two way street, OzoneTom, djean111, Mom Cat like this

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

▼ Hide Reply Index
18 replies
  • Mom Cat (7977 posts)
    Profile photo of Mom Cat Donor

    1. All hat. No cattle!

         NEVER FORGET      BERNIE WON!          
    • Enthusiast (7753 posts)
      Profile photo of Enthusiast Donor

      3. Precisely.

      "The NSA’s capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything. There would be no place to hide."  Frank Church
    • Jefferson23 (4326 posts)
      Profile photo of Jefferson23

      9. Distractions…the goal imo..if they have anything of substance they had better

      put up or shut up…especially the NSA who is on record as only moderately confident. Give me a freakin’ break already.

      • Mom Cat (7977 posts)
        Profile photo of Mom Cat Donor

        11. All bluff and no cards. Looks like their bluff is being called and all they can

        do is yell the same nonsense even louder. TPTB are furiously fighting the transition. They are a cornered rat or rattlesnake that lashes out blindly. Watch out for some false flag operation that can be blamed on Russia or some other way of stopping the transition.

             NEVER FORGET      BERNIE WON!          
  • djean111 (3789 posts)
    Profile photo of djean111 Donor

    2. Yup. Totally devoid of actual content, just assumptions and "assessments",

    based on previous assumed behavior.  And, no doubt, based on what the US does.  Still boils down to, no matter who leaked, how dare anyone tell the truth about Hillary Clinton.  I expect that the murders of Seth Rich, and others, will shortly be blamed on the Russians, too.  What a condescending piece of twaddle to release, and yeah, this is just how stupid and gullible “our” government thinks we are.  Biden gave an interview yesterday (I think) and the oily lies just flowed.

    You think the only reason that people won't vote for a warmongering Third Way fracking-enabling cluster bomb throwing H-1B increasing lying pandering corporate and Wall Street shill who says she has no problem putting abortion rights on the table is because we are mad about Bernie?  Um, nope.
  • Enthusiast (7753 posts)
    Profile photo of Enthusiast Donor

    4. They. Are. Full. Of. Shit.

    "The NSA’s capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything. There would be no place to hide."  Frank Church
  • Enthusiast (7753 posts)
    Profile photo of Enthusiast Donor

    5. Their lies won't work any longer. They're like the little boy that cried wolf.

    Decade upon decade of mountains of lies.

    "The NSA’s capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything. There would be no place to hide."  Frank Church
  • azurnoir (1987 posts)
    Profile photo of azurnoir Donor

    6. Now while a Congressional probe might give them something to keep them busy

    doing stuff besides effing up healthcare, the EPA, cutting SS among other things, it should be realized that Congress certified the EC vote – so really not much will come of it

    why do establishment Democrats appear to be 'progressive' only when dominated by republicans? 
  • Ohio Barbarian (2715 posts)
    Profile photo of Ohio Barbarian Donor

    7. 7 pages of the 25 page report were devoted to denigrating Russia Today.

    RT America responded this morning.  The DNI report alleged that RT was directly controlled by the Kremlin. RT more or less admitted this was the case over 4 years ago, but claim that it certainly isn’t true now. From what I’ve seen, it just couldn’t be. Ed Schultz, Larry King, Keiser, controlled by the Kremlin? That just doesn’t sound plausible.

    It would seem RT’s crime is airing third party presidential candidate debates, and allowing interviewees and journalists to use terms such as “ruling class,” as well as questioning the integrity of the American political system. Well hell! I’ve been questioning the integrity of the American political system since I was old enough to read Time magazine!

    According to the NSA in the DNI report, they must have at least “moderate confidence” that this Navy veteran who had a Top Secret clearance was replaced by a Russian troll pod person in my childhood. Wow. I had no idea.

    "Identity politics is the last refuge of the politically incompetent."  --Me, with a hat tip to Isaac Asimov  
  • jwirr (3279 posts)
    Profile photo of jwirr Donor

    8. And the low information people in this country have no idea we are not in the

    early 1950s anymore.

    • Depaysement (711 posts)
      Profile photo of Depaysement Donor

      12. Though they think they are brilliant

      many reside at SV.

      "White youth, black youth Better find another solution Why not phone up Robin Hood And ask him for some wealth distribution" White Man in Hammersmith Palais (1978)
      • jwirr (3279 posts)
        Profile photo of jwirr Donor

        13. Exactly. Too many people latch onto a site and think they have the truth only

        the truth and nothing but the truth. Of course we do that also but at least we examine data from a lot of sites we do not trust. We search for the truth.

  • jdpriestly (5547 posts)
    Profile photo of jdpriestly Donor

    14. We have no evidence either way.

    Could have been an insider leaking or could have been the Russians or some other pretty sophisticated hacker hacking.

    We each have our opinions about how the e-mails got into Wikileaks hands but we don’t really know.  We are guessing.  Our guesses may be educated but we are guessing.

    We may have a more educated guess if we watch the reactions of all those who become privy to the private, classified briefings by the intelligence agencies to members of Congress.  Most of the Republicans have a vested interest in believing that the Russians are not the source of the e-mails.  So I will be watching their reactions.

    For me, the argument against believing the Russians gave Wikileaks the e-mails is the fact that it is such a stupid thing to do.  The US, our government, has, in the past, interfered in the elections of a number of countries.  Iran, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Chile, the list is too long to write here.  In almost every case, the results have been disastrous not only for the countries affected but for our relationship with those countries.  The results have been bad for us, worse than many probably realize.  So I don’t think Russia’s government is so stupid as to follow our example and meddle in the choices of citizens in other countries.

    But there are arguments for believing that the Russians gave Wikileaks the e-mails.  Soros Open Society was also hacked and the e-mails were published somehow.  Soros funded democratic movements in Eastern Europe, and Russia has reasons to dislike him.  Somehow I don’t think a Western bunch of hackers would be interested in risking life or liberty to hack the Open Society.  So that fact points to Russia.

    Another possibility that is not a fact known to me but may be the case is that our government actually has a way to trace on the internet where information that goes to the Wikileaks account comes from.  That cannot be completely discounted.  Further, they may be able to tell in other ways.

    Then there is the complication that the Russians may have hacked the e-mails but not provided them to Wikileaks.  I think that the argument against that is that the e-mails were published not in date order but in some other order.  I don’t know what order they were published in so I don’t know whether that is a good argument.

    I am inclined to believe (but not based on solid evidence) that the e-mails were provided to Wikileaks by an insider.  But I could be entirely wrong.

    No Truth!  No Trust!  Bernie or Bust!
    • Jefferson23 (4326 posts)
      Profile photo of Jefferson23

      15. I see it this way, even if they tried, that is a world away from succeeding.

      We spy, they spy…and if the agencies want credibility they need to declassify the goods..where is the beef or drop it. Until then any pretense for further action against Russia will be seen as provocative in the extreme, imo.

    • mrdmk (314 posts)
      Profile photo of mrdmk

      16. Here is my problem, what about the information that was presented?

      So far, there has been no attempt to falsify the information and add facts to the discussion. In fact, the information presented has been devastating, a low of lows. The manipulation and corruption put forth by these e-mails and other information has tainted the election process to the point of almost hopelessness. Of course the election process, which is not being discussed (just my opinion), is the actual problem. Another-words, we are being caught up in the tripe of the tripe.

      • jdpriestly (5547 posts)
        Profile photo of jdpriestly Donor

        17. Yes. But I think Hillary would have lost no matter what.

        No matter who opposed her and no matter whether the e-mails were released or not.

        She was not a strong candidate.  She did not create a bond with enough of her potential supporters.  And she came across as very greedy and secretive.

        Trump, of course is in fact just as if not more greedy and secretive.   But his voters don’t care about his greed and secrecy.  Many of them are very anti-trade agreements (and I agree with those voters).  In addition, Trump brought out a lot of angry haters.

        Hillary was not an inspiring speaker or candidate.  Both she and Trump are vindictive and vengeful in my opinion.

        No Truth!  No Trust!  Bernie or Bust!
        • mrdmk (314 posts)
          Profile photo of mrdmk

          18. Agreed! The first thought that came to my head when Hillary announce

          her candidacy for the Presidency was dynasty politics. That was in the year of 2007. Prior to that, in the year of 1999, her run for the Senate and resulting term was unimpressive at best. Then Hillary’s service as Secretary of State was revolting and destructive. That is me, but I am sure I was not the only one with those thoughts.

          In the first primary debate, Senator Bernie Sanders threw a wet blanket on Hillary’s e-mail scandal. Subsequently, Bernie proceeded to condemn the media about fixating on the e-mails rather than the issues. Then Bernie proclaimed to fix this issue was to break-up the media monopoly (which I thought to be a mistake, that is for a later discussion). After Bernie’s proclamation concerning the media problem all Hillary could do was talk about herself and only herself. Out of the millions of viewers of this debate, I am sure I was not to notice the transaction, even on a sub-conscience level leaving most people to think something is terribly wrong here.

          I did not vote for Hillary in 2008, now with her record, was not about to vote for her in 2016. That is the truth.