The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.Dante continues:
Some of my concerns is the use of the word "Believe", which I usually associate with what is not in evidence.It's simply amazing that an assertion this weak has become a fact that must be taken as true. I'd ask who benefits from shutting that door?
Also, it is amazing the FBI would concur with this statement, since the FBI has no access to the hacked server.
Also, I'm not certain about the flow of references, either. Does "These Thefts" refer to "methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts" or is it referring to "alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0"?
If it is referring to "alleged" hacked, doesn't that weaken the entire message?
Finally, what is "these activities"? Does it include "hacking the DNC servers?"
I am having a hard time understanding that message. I know the way the way it is meant to be interpreted, but is that what is in fact stated?
The part that seems the most absurd is the assumption "based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities." When was it ever established that private hackers can't do things on a big scope and wouldn't target what is sensitive? And what exactly was so big about what was done here? Why are "senior-most officials" so special when it comes to computer hacking?
We're told what happened in this case is like what happened in other cases because the same "methods and motivations" are present. Even if we assume the "methods and motivations" are so special that they indicate a unique source, did we know in those prior cases who the unique source was?
This statement has been used to impose an indisputable fact on us, but it's so weak on its face. A lot of people must really want that fact to be true. Why — of all whose reputation was bundled into the creation of this fact — has no one come forward to cast doubt on it or pick it apart? The simplest answer (to my mind) is that those in the know know much more, it's more convincing, and they can't tell us why.
Posts
90 comments:
Or it could be that reputation isn't what it perhaps only recently was.
Reputation: what does it mean anymore, in Washington?
"know more" - seems more likely the additional knowledge points to Democratic issues/involvement (the Hillary email fiasco, the Pakistani ITs, the Fusion group, voter fraud, illegal campaign contributions) than to Trump campaign collusion.
Is it fidelity to facts and truth, or to something else?
We've seen a lot of our top men (and women) lately, enough to wonder about what goes into those reputations. How will one's own reputation fare in this cynical time?
This whole Russia thing is playing out like the scenes where Wile E. Coyote has run off the cliff and continues to run in the air, oblivious, until gravity asserts itself and brings his fall.
Example here.
I am Laslo.
""know more" - seems more likely the additional knowledge points to Democratic issues/involvement (the Hillary email fiasco, the Pakistani ITs, the Fusion group, voter fraud, illegal campaign contributions) than to Trump campaign collusion."
I agree that this is a basis for suspicion, and yet, if this suspicion is true, why has no one broken ranks to tell us the truth? If there's some corrupt Democratic party situation, surely there would be people within the group of those in the know who'd be motivated to leak the story -- not just Republicans, but other Democrats. There would be some Democrats who'd hate the corruption and some Democrats who'd be afraid that the story would eventually come out and there would be hell to pay for the coverup.
The statement is dated October 6, 2016, before the election. It is campaign material, and it is a real shame that the intelligence agencies and FBI are campaign arms.
It might have been disgruntled Berniebots who don't want their fingerprints on their work.
Who else cares that the DNC helped the Clinton campaign from the beginning?
"If there's some corrupt Democratic party situation, surely there would be people within the group of those in the know who'd be motivated to leak the story -- not just Republicans, but other Democrats."
The same people who are told every day that Trump is Hitler and is actively conspiring with the Russians to weaken the country?
These people are going to tell the truth that the Obama Administration, the Clinton campaign, and the DNC were corrupt?
Why would they "damage the country" like that? Better to keep quiet and let the pros at the top handle things in the proper way. After all, they know "more" than you do.
"why has no one broken ranks to tell us the truth? "
Intel Vets Challenge ‘Russia Hack’ Evidence
Does this count as such? (Linked by Mike Sylwester yesterday). Not that this is necessarily "the truth", but it does seem like an instance of rank-breaking.
How would one even attribute motivation in a relatively broad data dump? It seems you'd either have to assume an actor (or principal) or have a lot more information from the actor(s). Saying "the motivation was a Russian motivation, so it was probably the Russians" is awfully close to begging the question.
If only some of the reporters who tell you (Althouse) that you should tweet more would read this blog, comment, and/or ask their guests about this.
I know Glenn Greenwald often comments about the current unquestioning respect the intelligence community now gets from the media.
"The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process."
Going from "consistent with" to "These thefts and disclosures are" makes it feel like they are of a piece in factuality..but they're really just surmising, sensing/overlaying similarity of a sort.
A lot of people must really want that fact to be true.
Winner, winner, chicken dinner.
I mean, as far as it having to come from the highest levels of government-- you would think that would be true in this country when the Senate is being bugged by the executive branch, when the Secretary of State is using a private server, and when the IRS is targeting political opponents. Yet our own country teaches us it is quite easy to get away with things without the chief executive knowing!!
We know things can be kept quiet- the LA Times still has a tape of Obama excoriating Israel that the Hillary people gave them. It's never been leaked in 9 years now.
Althouse wrote, "It's simply amazing that an assertion this weak has become a fact that must be taken as true."
This is how the Deep State (Brennan, Rice et al.) works. They issue a statement like that and the MSM spins it out to, "Russia hacked our election." The Deep State knew they would incite a frenzy.
And I would remind everyone that the Dems and MSM still are angry about the failure to find WMD in Iraq after the CIA's slam dunk prediction. Maybe the quoted passage should have used the phrase "slam dunk." The CIA is not reliable; especially under Brennan. Brennan is the guy who just called for a coup against Trump.
"A lot of people must really want that fact to be true."
I think a better statement is: A lot of people must really want us to believe that fact is true.
What's useful is our believing it.
Are the people pushing it wanting us to believe it because it's true or believe it because it might be true and it's best for us to deal with the uncertainty by understanding it that way or or believe it because they know the truth is or probably is something else and they don't want us to know what they know?
Snowden told the truth. They can't wait to try him for treason.
This would be worse.
Obama's intelligence agency has offered an opinion - before the election - of Russian meddling with the election. But the opinion is unsupported by facts. Ergo, it is a very weak opinion.
Historical examples:
In 1962, the Kennedy administration offered the opinion that Cuba was being armed with Soviet nuclear missiles. To support this opinion, Adlai Stevenson showed photographs of the missiles at the UN. The opinion was valid.
In 2003, the Bush administration offered the opinion that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. To support this opinion, Colin Powell offered some photos and recordings at the UN. The evidence was weak, at best, and, after the invasion, did not improve. Ergo, the opinion was not strong.
The Russian "collusion" is more like the 2nd example, than the first.
"What's useful is our believing it."
The sad fact is millions of our fellow Americans immediately signed up.
"There would be some Democrats who'd hate the corruption and some Democrats who'd be afraid that the story would eventually come out and there would be hell to pay for the coverup."
You would hope, but that is an extremely rare commodity among Democratic politicians these days. Look at the way Nunes is being treated, for instance, when there is clearly a significant issue that needs investigation. Or the IRS treatment of conservative groups during the Obama years. Where are the Democrats raising the "Bullshit Flag"? The special interest groups have 99% of the Dem politicians by the short hairs. That occurs to some degree on the Republican side, but to a significantly lesser degree.
Funny, but I don't seem to find the word "collusion" anywhere in the report. There is a huge and unsupported leap between saying that the Russian government hacked the DNC's servers (however weak that conclussion might be in itself) and the allegation that the Trump campaign was involved, which is the basis for the special prosecutor's investigation.
"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that...."
This is all one needs to read to know they have nothing and they're telling lies.
There would be some Democrats who'd hate the corruption and some Democrats who'd be afraid that the story would eventually come out and there would be hell to pay for the coverup.
They must first hate corruption more than they hate Trump. I see no evidence of that.
I suspect that the novelist Ben Rhodes was in on crafting this narrative. Recall how he bragged about his success in conning the MSM on the Iran deal.
There were rumors John Edwards had a love child who was being raised by his campaign manager. Reporters heard the rumors. But none of them leaked. Wikipedia froze his entry rather than let people edit it to add the rumor. Very few democrats ever mentioned it. Once the Enquirer broke the story open, we found out how many kind of knew about it. And then it went away pretty quickly, considering how scandalous it was.
Dems and the media have kept pretty quiet about the Dems IT scandal. Only the Daily Caller covered it for months.
We still have no idea what Obama was doing the night of Benghazi.
We would never have known Hillary collapsed at the 9/11 memorial if it hadn't been for a private citizen. This when we were being told it was a conspiracy to wonder about her health.
Last week testimony was given to Congress about the Fusion GPS group working on behalf of Russia, but that testimony didn't get a lot of public play.
So it's amazing how "on the same page" Democrats and the media can be when they want to keep things quiet.
Any leaker, or turncoat, from the Democrat side would have to be heroic, as his career would be ruined (even if it is non-government), his personal finances wrecked, his relatives careers put in jeopardy, his personal relationships cut off.
Its not just a job or career on that side, it is a culture and society.
By the way, the Jan. 6 2017 document Background to “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution is a much more detailed document that spells out more of the reasoning behind the intelligence assessment. If you're going to discuss the issue, it would probably be a better place to start.
Julian Assange and Wikileaks has repeatedly stated that the info they leaked came from inside the DNC and that there was no Russian involvement.
Wikileaks offered a reward for information on the murdered DNC IT staffer, Seth Rich.
You connect the dots.
P.S.: Scott Adams said when you know something for a fact, you say you are positive or certain of that fact. "Confidence" from a spy agency means "we don't know"
When I worked for an Air Staff contractor, I helped my boss write the first draft of a letter from Reagan to a Senate committee which tried to keep "our" program alive. We were shown the final version, which had a few phrases we'd sweated over. At the time, the Congress showed considerable deference to formal Presidential correspondence on defense matters.
You can bet that assessment was argued over, hedged, and watered down to cover a few dozen asses.
Restated, the very same people who chanted "Bush lied, people died" now say "Russia hacked our election."
Sure it was the Russians, it's a slam dunk.
"It's simply amazing that an assertion this weak has become a fact that must be taken as true. I'd ask who benefits from shutting that door?" Fair question, but faux amazement, right? I mean, the swamp was out in force; O and his minions did everything possible to stop and then vilify Trump. The Russian collusion had legs, "must be taken as true," because it benefitted everyone--every non-Trumpist. Never mind that it it was mostly false, that it hurt the country, that insofar as the Russians interfered it showed Dem and US incompetence in stopping it.
"A lot of people must really want that fact to be true. Why — of all whose reputation was bundled into the creation of this fact." And why not? It was the perfect tool for a lot of people and agencies.
"The simplest answer (to my mind) is that those in the know know much more, it's more convincing, and they can't tell us why." I'm sure they know more, including that a lot of their colleagues are full of it, that "Russian" interference exposes stupid incompetence by Dem officials, and that the so-called interference mostly consisted of revealing what the Dems were really doing. Exposing the Dems for who they are was the "Russians'" worst offense.
The most incredible (in the sense of "not believable") part of that statement is that, according to a group of intel vets the forensics indicate that the data was transferred too quickly to have been a hack (it had to have been done by someone with direct access, not remotely.)
"If there's some corrupt Democratic party situation, surely there would be people within the group of those in the know who'd be motivated to leak the story"
Leak the stories to whom? These guys?
One year later, journalists exposed by Wikileaks carry on as before.
Even if you wanted to expose the corruption you would be risking your career, and perhaps much more, for no gain. Your story would go nowhere.
Quit wondering why there are no leakers. Look instead for the enforcement mechanisms.
The mechanisms are harder to hide and typically do not defend themselves from diacovery.
If we had anybody looking.
"When you don't know, when you can't prove it your last resort is to try to"Baffle them with bullshit"" A quote from one of my mentors in my forty some years of service...
Ann said: "I agree that this is a basis for suspicion, and yet, if this suspicion is true, why has no one broken ranks to tell us the truth?"
As Boxty suggested: Seth Rich.
For the last time - We don't need Russia to tell us that Hillary Clinton is a corrupt money grubbing liar.
"The simplest answer (to my mind) is that those in the know know much more, it's more convincing, and they can't tell us why." Well Nixon did have a secret plan to end the war.
@Althouse, you can't seem to shake your illusion that somewhere in this mess is a person with honor. After eight years of Obama? The honorable people left years ago.
MayBee
Add this to the list:
We would not know about Lynch/Clinton rendezvous on the tarmac if it wasn't for a local Phoenix AZ reporter
Blogger buwaya said...
Any leaker, or turncoat, from the Democrat side would have to be heroic, as his career would be ruined (even if it is non-government), his personal finances wrecked, his relatives careers put in jeopardy, his personal relationships cut off.
Sounds a bit like Stalin's USSR or Mao's China. It's funny how the progressives always end up using those tactics.
Even when people want to expose the truth, the only journalists willing to cover it* are rightwing outfits, which then get discredited by the MSM.
Google Craig Murray, who claims to be the intermediary between the leaker and Julian Asante. He gave an interview to the Guardian, which had quotes from him up for 3 hours before the story was scrubbed.
And at best, a whistleblower can expect to have their reputation destroyed. At worst, well, what really did happen to Seth Rich?
*that is, report on it There are certainly many journalists who will, as Iowahawk brilliantly quipped, "cover it...with a pillow...until it stops moving."
Putin won. He has completely paralyzed our political system. Recall the riots and demonstrations. We are at each other's throats more than ever. Note well that not a single Dem would cross over on the health care vote.
Why isn't this page one of the NYT?
Well played Vlad!
At worst, well, what really did happen to Seth Rich?
A low-tech lynching to encourage the others.
I agree that this is a basis for suspicion, and yet, if this suspicion is true, why has no one broken ranks to tell us the truth?
Early days yet. But if I were in the ranks, and had been observing how many fuck-ups and how much flagrant corruption among the securely embedded-and-connected had been given a pass, I'd think that brassing it out was still the better part of valor right now. (Well, maybe not if I were DWS right now, but who knows?)
If by this time next year all the sound and fury has died, and all the players are still serenely up to business as usual (i.e., running the country into the ground)...I wouldn't be the least surprised.
"The most incredible (in the sense of "not believable") part of that statement is that, according to a group of intel vets the forensics indicate that the data was transferred too quickly to have been a hack (it had to have been done by someone with direct access, not remotely.)"
This, of course, possibly corroborates Wikileaks claiming that it was an inside job, likely a dissatisfied employee, all along. Much easier to accomplsh. And, remember, the Feds, including the FBI and all those alphabet spy agencies, never had physical access to the server. This was denIed them by the DNC. All they had was the analysis of the DNC contractor (the DNC having no motive, of course, of defeating Trump). and the contents dumped by Wikileaks (presumably with the same time stamps that show an inside job). And, from this these intelligence agencies, run by Democratic President Obama's appointees, and staffed primarily by Democrats, determined that the Russians hacked their National Committee's servers in order to help their Republican opponents. And, of course, from this, Trump should be impeached and/or destroyed, and their loss of the election redone.
Russians seemed to play both sides, and their only goal was to cause chaos.
And they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.
Articles from Tablet news on Fusion and how they are super successful at manufacturing news.
FUSION GPS ILLUMINATES THE BRAVE NEW WORLD OF MANUFACTURED NEWS FOR HIRE
Article link
NEWS-FOR-HIRE SCANDAL DEEPENS: ‘FUSION GPS’ SLEAZY VENEZUELA LINKS SHED NEW LIGHT ON TRUMP DOSSIER
second article
"I agree that this is a basis for suspicion, and yet, if this suspicion is true, why has no one broken ranks to tell us the truth? "
Well, here, I'll break ranks and tell the truth; I have not seen any evidence supporting these claims.
Of course, that doesn't prove the people making the claims haven't seen that evidence. Only they can tell us whether they have seen such evidence. So your question is really, "Why haven't the liars telling this lie come forward to tell us that they're lying?". I'm guessing they have their reasons.
"Sounds a bit like Stalin's USSR or Mao's China. It's funny how the progressives always end up using those tactics."
Once you believe your side has a monopoly on goodness what's to stop you?
Adding to the above point about the DNC emails - they were apparently, or at least ostensibly, dumped from the Eastern Tie Zone - which very, very, likely means the east coast of the US. Which would be "consistent" with it having been done by an insider (since the servers were, most likely, coincidentally, physically located on our east coast, such as in the DC or NYC metropolitan areas).
The other thing is that, maybe in retaliation for the politization of the supposed alleged Russian hacking to help Trump narrative, CIA hacking tools were leaked/dumped, tools that showed how to, and apparently routinely did, create Russian or eastern European "signatures". The very same Russian "signatures" that supposedly prove that the hacking of the DNC was done by Russians, and thus (despite the logical jump there), by Putin to help his buddy Trump. So, we have the CIA, and other alphabet intelligence agencies, claiming that the Russian "signatures" prove Russian hacking, when they, themselves, use those very same Russian "signatures" to cover their own hacking.
Ann writes, "I agree that this is a basis for suspicion, and yet, if this suspicion is true, why has no one broken ranks to tell us the truth?"
Why hasn't anyone broken ranks to show us evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians?
Ann Althouse said...There would be some Democrats who'd hate the corruption and some Democrats who'd be afraid that the story would eventually come out and there would be hell to pay for the coverup.
That's precious. That's so sweet. Bless your heart, Professor A!
Look at the DWS story. Look at how hard the Media is working to not cover it. Same with the Fusion GPS story, now that it involves Dems. The Dems aren't going to "break ranks" and even if they wanted to there's no one in the Media that'll run they story!
The "hacking" of Democrats' email was in fact the most basic of phishing scams that any tech-savvy teenager would be capable of pulling off. It's absurd to say such a thing would require high-level Russian-government approval. It's the kind of thing kids do when they're bored.
Ann Althouse said...If there's some corrupt Democratic party situation, surely there would be people within the group of those in the know who'd be motivated to leak the story -- not just Republicans, but other Democrats.
That "if" is maybe a little much. I mean, how many Dems voted for Bernie in the primary last year? Are you telling them that there's no evidence of Dem party corruption? THE EMALIZ! We know the Dem party leaders pushed hard to get Hillary nominated, so we know there's at least that much corruption in the Dem party apparatus. Which, you know, is quite a lot since a core function of the party leadership is supposed to be the facilitation of a fair nominating process (at least according to their own statements, etc).
But, again, notice how little of a story that is! We know the Dem nominating process was influenced by Dem leaders putting their thumbs on the scale for Hillary. We know Dem leaders worked hard to give Hillary every advantage they could (slipping her debate questions in advance, etc). We know that lots of Bernie-supporting Dems were unhappy with that "cheating..." and yet even now nice centrist people like Professor A. talk about "if" there's corruption in the Dem party! DWS bailed out and the story just...died.
Must have been one bad apple, I guess. Nothing to see here, move along, move along...and the Media turns away.
I have to think that the authors of an analysis like this can express the degree of their confidence, e.g. "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident/somewhat confident/very confident that...." In this case, the authors did not express any high degree of confidence. Is that significant?
I expect that sometime this fall, republicans on the hill will begin to hold hearings on some of these issues. It is also possible that investigations are taking place within the justice dept, or perhaps a grand jury has been empaneled.
Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there.
Influence public opinion with factually accurate reports disclosing authentic documents.
Isn't that what the mainstream media does, well, except for the factually accurate reports and authentic documents part?
There's some aphorism about the absence of evidence not being evidence of absence, but I'm not good with logical thought. Maybe one of you law-types can apply it here.
The news story that must be broken is how the enforcement mechanisms work. Discipline like what we observe is only maintained by use of serious, credible threats of enforcement.
RICO would break the omerta, I am suggesting. People reconsider their options facing 25 to Life. Even hardened criminals facing mob retaliation break when RICO is an option.
D.C. folks would break.
Conspiracy to deprive US citizens of civil liberties, like southern sheriffs did in the 1960s, is a predicate offense, right?
Bafflegab.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
The DNC
Hush money
And hard drives
Can't wait!
"The "hacking" of Democrats' email was in fact the most basic of phishing scams that any tech-savvy teenager would be capable of pulling off. It's absurd to say such a thing would require high-level Russian-government approval. It's the kind of thing kids do when they're bored."
The phishing was of Leon Podesta's email, and not probably of the DNC servers. Podesta, of course, is a long time high level Clintonista, who, most recently, was Crooked Hillary's campaign chair. Not to be confused with Debbie Blabbermouth Shultz, who was DNC chair at the time, and the hacking (supposedly by the Ruskies, but probably more likely by the late Seth Rich) of their servers exposed that they were cheating like crazy to give the nomination to Clinton. Getting back to the infamous Podesta - Bill Clinton's WH chief of staff, and Hillary's campaign chair, hadn't bothered to change his password, and then opened a questionable email after being told by IT not to. The famous Clinton brain trust. And note that his ties to Russia appear to be far closer than Trump's, and esp his brother, Tony Podesta.
Note well that not a single Dem would cross over on the health care vote.
?????
Why would you expect any of them to?
Amidst all this "chaos," Trump is getting things done where he can.
Ann Althouse at 7:03 AM
... why has no one broken ranks to tell us the truth?
Everyone is counting on Robert "The FBI White-Washer" Mueller to maintain the cover-up.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz arranged for her Pakistani IT employees to insert fake indicators of Russia into the DNC e-mail data on July 5, 2016.
That is why "Crazy Comey the Leaker" ordered the FBI not to examine the DNC hardware.
If the truth comes out, it will be an **ABSOLUTE CATASTROPHE** for all the Trump-haters.
For Mueller and his big team of Trump-hating lawyers, it's all hands on deck. He will not abandon his ship.
> The simplest answer (to my mind) is that those in the know know much more, it's more convincing, and they can't tell us why.
Yes, they know they are Democrats. But that is a state secret.
Ever notice Inga never shows up on threads where Althouse starts it off by expressing skepticism of the Russian story? You know she's here lurking.
Julian Assange has said explicitly that he did NOT receive the DNC emails from the Russian government. Whatever you think of Assange, he has has not been caught passing off fake emails as real, or - in my experience - lying about facts that can be independently confirmed. Therefore, I find Assange more believable than the CIA or other govt agencies that have repeatedly lied to the public and Congress. Does anyone have examples of Assange being verifiably untruthful?
> There's some aphorism about the absence of evidence not being evidence of absence,
How Aristotelian. A Bayesian would call upon the weak syllogism and conclude: the absence of evidence is evidence that absence is more likely.
Putin won. He has completely paralyzed our political system. Recall the riots and demonstrations. We are at each other's throats more than ever.
Riots and demonstrations caused by MSM and dems:
Trayvon Martin, Micheal Brown lies upset blacks
Repubs gonna cancel Roe vs Wade and kill Planned Parenthood pissed off womwn
Repubs gonna deport innocent Mexicans and build a wall, frightens Mexicans
White boomers, who had everything so easy, using up all dollars for Social Security and MediCare pisses off young people.
Evil men keeping women down pisses off feminists
And, of course, some people will march peacefully for any cause, kind of like a
hobby.
That was, and is the problem. It ain't Russia causing MSM and celebrities to spread the hate.
I have written it several times over the last couple of months- the entire Russian/Trump collusion story rests on the claim by the DNC that the Russians hacked the DNC servers, and the Trump Dossier prepared at the behest of GPSFusion. I think all of it started the day Trump made that joke about the Russians leaking the e-mails Clinton scrubbed from her servers after Congress had subpoenaed them. When it became clear that Wikileaks had DNC e-mails, someone decided it would be a good idea to blame the Russians because of the joke Trump had made- everything else flowed from that point forward, and accelerated the day after the election. The Democrats have been trying to put lipstick on that pig ever since.
If someone can definitively prove that Veselnitskaya was linked to GPSFusion, you can then explain the June 2016 meeting between her and Trump Jr. as an attempt to present the Trump Campaign with a honey-pot.
Is this the same intelligence community that was convinced Saddam had ceased his development of WMD and then was convinced that he had started again, and then was convinced that he hadn't?
... why has no one broken ranks to tell us the truth?
How many people in high positions of the Intelligence Community knew that all 17 intelligence agencies did NOT concur that Russia meddled in our election?
Dozens and dozens knew, but not one of them moved a finger to clarify that issue for the electorate during the election race.
Find the enforcement mechanisms and you reveal the conspiracy.
the absence of evidence is evidence that absence is more likely.
No, it depends entirely on how much effort has been put into the search for evidence.
In the link I posted above, it refers to Technical Director at NSA William Binney who pointed out that the NSA is well able to trace the hacking, had one actually occurred- The fact that they have not done so is evidence of absence of evidence. It's the dog that didn't bark.
"Why hasn't anyone broken ranks to get the real story out?" asks the nice centrist. "Surely if there were something to all of these dark stories then the truth would have come out by now!" lots of seemingly well-meaning people say.
Does anyone remember how the Lewinsky story broke? You nice centrist people read Drudge, right? Newsweek had the Lewinsky story, almost all of it. Isikoff was at Newsweek and had the story, but Newsweek spiked it. Drudge broke the news that Newsweek was refusing to run the story...and that's what got the story out there. Isikoff, interestingly, was also one of the few reporters to dig into the Paula Jones story back when he was with the Washington Post--he allegedly had trouble getting the WashPo to run that story, so he left and ended up at Newsweek!
Anyway the point here is that even when they've got the story and want to run it reporters are up against Left-leaning organizations that have little interest in pursuing stories that hurt Leftists.
Now this was back in the Before Time, the Long Long Ago of the late 90's and even then there was a large institution bias against stories and narratives that harm the Left. Try to imagine how much worse that problem is today--you've got a more-Leftist corp of journalists, more ideological "bubbling" where the people who run the Media are alienated from non-urban non-Leftist generally, more "JournoList" type collusion, etc. Ask yourself what it actually takes to break a story that's harmful to the Left!
Lets assume the worst: Putin personally gave Trump all of the Democrat emails. So what. Since no one has actually come out to say they emails are fake what are we dealing with here? Exposing the Democrats as criminals isn't a crime, its a public service. Speaking of collusion, there is that little mater of the DNC colluding with the Clinton campaign to undermine the Sanders campaign. Then there is the conspiracy of then President Obama and his AG's and FBI directors and his heads of intelligence agencies in perpetrating and aiding and abetting numerous felonies.
When haven't the Democrats done Russia's biding. The Russians have been influencing American domestic, foreign and academic politics for a hundred years, the Left has always been useful idiots.
So far as I can tell, NONE of the leaked DNC emails changed a single vote. None of that material gave any reason for a voter who was ready to vote for Hillary to vote for Trump instead. Or even to stay home. ALL of this stuff only confirmed what was already public knowledge.
If the Russian Government actually tried to swing the election from Hillary to Trump, then they were even more stupid than I thought. If they could have had Ms. Restart Button, the follower of Pres. More Flexibility, why would they favor Trump? Could the Russian oligarchs really be that stupid and ignorant? Well, maybe so. Oligarchs aren't picked for their intellect.
I bet they're sorry now.
two years ago, "China" hacked my federal personnel file, along with 15 million other folk's private information. So why do "they" assume that only Russia had the skills to hack unsecure DNC servers that any 15 year old kid could hack?
Ann Althouse said...There would be some Democrats who'd hate the corruption and some Democrats who'd be afraid that the story would eventually come out and there would be hell to pay for the coverup.
Seth Rich to the white courtesy harp,
Seth Rich to the white courtesy harp.
"based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities."
Assumes facts not in evidence. There is no proof of an organized campaign, nor proof that it was government directed. Hence no need for authorization, by officials or anyone else.
" The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts."
"Consistent with" is not evidence. You couldn't give someone a speeding ticket based on something that flimsy.
This report was released by DHS and said to have been written by DHS. And who was the Director of DHS at that time?
"Why — of all whose reputation was bundled into the creation of this fact — has no one come forward to cast doubt on it or pick it apart?"
You mean like this?
James Clapper on Chuck Todd:
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/full-clapper-no-evidence-of-collusion-between-trump-and-russia-890509379597
watch carefully, or better yet, read the transcript. todd focuses on collusion and doesn't ask specific questions about evidence of russian interference, taking for granted the "conclusions" of the report. maybe people would come forward if the media were asking the right questions, rather than taking certain things for granted. it would take a real hero to step up in this environment.
Post a Comment