CIA says "High Confidence" that Putin involved with Hacking

[fromderinside]

Julian Assage again states WIKI LEAKS didn't come from the Russians, so the 'investigation' should identify the actual source.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/assange-russian-government-was-not-wikileaks-source-163633069.html



WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange claimed in a new interview that he is completely confident that the Russian government was not the source of the hacked emails that his organization released leading up to the U.S. presidential election. He also shrugged off the question of whether the politically damaging emails affected the outcome of the race.

The publisher of classified and private information released embarrassing emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

Inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, Fox News political pundit Sean Hannity asked Assange to address the allegation that WikiLeaks was a tool employed by Moscow to interfere with the U.S. election.

“Can you say to the American people, unequivocally, that you did not get this information about the DNC, John Podesta’s emails, can you tell the American people 1,000 percent that you did not get it from Russia or anybody associated with Russia?” Hannity inquired.

“We can say, we have said repeatedly that over the last two months, that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party,” Assange responded.

Democrats have argued that the WikiLeaks email dumps were conducted as part of an orchestrated plot to tilt the election in favor of Donald Trump, who frequently showers praise on Russia and its leaders. Despite Assange’s claims, the U.S. intelligence community has said it is certain that Russia was behind the cyberattacks that led to the WikiLeaks disclosures. Experts have also linked “Guccifer 2,” the hacker who claims to have leaked the DNC emails, to the Kremlin.



And

Assange said he believes the Obama administration is trying to delegitimize Trump before his predecessor enters the White House.

“They are trying to say that President-elect Trump is not a legitimate president,” he said.

According to Democrats, the leak of thousands of Podesta’s emails were particularly damaging to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. An earlier hack this summer led to the resignation of DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and renewed distrust of the Democratic establishment among supporters of Bernie Sanders’ primary campaign.

When asked if the emails WikiLeaks published changed the outcome of the election, Assange said, “Who knows?” He also argued that if they had, the responsibility lies not with WikiLeaks but the people who penned the emails in the first place.

Will the 'investigation' consider this evidence?

Whether the wikileaks material came from a source other than the Russian hackers isn't relevant. The original material is known to have been obtained by Russian hackers as determined by analysis of the hacked sites. Who gives a shit whether Assange's material came from whatever. That is not the source of the leaks nor is it the source of the hacking. Those were taken and released independently of wikileaks.

Remember wikileaks is an intermediary not a hacker.

 

[J842P]

Julian Assage again states WIKI LEAKS didn't come from the Russians, so the 'investigation' should identify the actual source.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/assange-russian-government-was-not-wikileaks-source-163633069.html



WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange claimed in a new interview that he is completely confident that the Russian government was not the source of the hacked emails that his organization released leading up to the U.S. presidential election. He also shrugged off the question of whether the politically damaging emails affected the outcome of the race.

The publisher of classified and private information released embarrassing emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

Inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, Fox News political pundit Sean Hannity asked Assange to address the allegation that WikiLeaks was a tool employed by Moscow to interfere with the U.S. election.

“Can you say to the American people, unequivocally, that you did not get this information about the DNC, John Podesta’s emails, can you tell the American people 1,000 percent that you did not get it from Russia or anybody associated with Russia?” Hannity inquired.

“We can say, we have said repeatedly that over the last two months, that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party,” Assange responded.

Democrats have argued that the WikiLeaks email dumps were conducted as part of an orchestrated plot to tilt the election in favor of Donald Trump, who frequently showers praise on Russia and its leaders. Despite Assange’s claims, the U.S. intelligence community has said it is certain that Russia was behind the cyberattacks that led to the WikiLeaks disclosures. Experts have also linked “Guccifer 2,” the hacker who claims to have leaked the DNC emails, to the Kremlin.



And

Assange said he believes the Obama administration is trying to delegitimize Trump before his predecessor enters the White House.

“They are trying to say that President-elect Trump is not a legitimate president,” he said.

According to Democrats, the leak of thousands of Podesta’s emails were particularly damaging to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. An earlier hack this summer led to the resignation of DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and renewed distrust of the Democratic establishment among supporters of Bernie Sanders’ primary campaign.

When asked if the emails WikiLeaks published changed the outcome of the election, Assange said, “Who knows?” He also argued that if they had, the responsibility lies not with WikiLeaks but the people who penned the emails in the first place.

Will the 'investigation' consider this evidence?

Whether the wikileaks material came from a source other than the Russian hackers isn't relevant. The original material is known to have been obtained by Russian hackers as determined by analysis of the hacked sites.

I'm curious, but how is this known?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Julian Assage again states WIKI LEAKS didn't come from the Russians, so the 'investigation' should identify the actual source.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/assange-russian-government-was-not-wikileaks-source-163633069.html



WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange claimed in a new interview that he is completely confident that the Russian government was not the source of the hacked emails that his organization released leading up to the U.S. presidential election. He also shrugged off the question of whether the politically damaging emails affected the outcome of the race.

The publisher of classified and private information released embarrassing emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

Inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, Fox News political pundit Sean Hannity asked Assange to address the allegation that WikiLeaks was a tool employed by Moscow to interfere with the U.S. election.

“Can you say to the American people, unequivocally, that you did not get this information about the DNC, John Podesta’s emails, can you tell the American people 1,000 percent that you did not get it from Russia or anybody associated with Russia?” Hannity inquired.

“We can say, we have said repeatedly that over the last two months, that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party,” Assange responded.

Democrats have argued that the WikiLeaks email dumps were conducted as part of an orchestrated plot to tilt the election in favor of Donald Trump, who frequently showers praise on Russia and its leaders. Despite Assange’s claims, the U.S. intelligence community has said it is certain that Russia was behind the cyberattacks that led to the WikiLeaks disclosures. Experts have also linked “Guccifer 2,” the hacker who claims to have leaked the DNC emails, to the Kremlin.



And

Assange said he believes the Obama administration is trying to delegitimize Trump before his predecessor enters the White House.

“They are trying to say that President-elect Trump is not a legitimate president,” he said.

According to Democrats, the leak of thousands of Podesta’s emails were particularly damaging to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. An earlier hack this summer led to the resignation of DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and renewed distrust of the Democratic establishment among supporters of Bernie Sanders’ primary campaign.

When asked if the emails WikiLeaks published changed the outcome of the election, Assange said, “Who knows?” He also argued that if they had, the responsibility lies not with WikiLeaks but the people who penned the emails in the first place.

Will the 'investigation' consider this evidence?

Whether the wikileaks material came from a source other than the Russian hackers isn't relevant. The original material is known to have been obtained by Russian hackers as determined by analysis of the hacked sites. Who gives a shit whether Assange's material came from whatever. That is not the source of the leaks nor is it the source of the hacking. Those were taken and released independently of wikileaks.

Remember wikileaks is an intermediary not a hacker.

Snowdon suggests some hacking is traced to Russia. He of course blew the whistle on the NSA activities hence he is also out of the U.S.A. However there seem to be several directions hacking is taking place. Wiki Leaks state it is not.
Everyone hacks each other as I suggested. However it seems there are several versions of what happened.
Also how do you 'prove' any particular hacked data was responsible for Clinton losing (by way of the number of States) when we can also note there was so much negative stuff about both candidates who were also not that popular it's difficult to provide any serious evaluation of this issue.

 

[Elixir]

how do you 'prove' any particular hacked data was responsible for Clinton losing

You don't. Nobody is even trying to do that. Pay attention, WP - it's about finding out what happened, in order to close - or at least mitigate that particular avenue for foreign meddling. Why would anyone be opposed to that? Even Trumpy's biggest fans should be heartily endorsing a thorough investigation; after all, it could be Trump who becomes the next victim of such shenanigans. Unless of course, they suspect that Trump was complicit in aiding foreign meddling, and don't want that to come to light...

 

[Elixir]

Snowdon suggests some hacking is traced to Russia. He of course blew the whistle on the NSA activities hence he is also out of the U.S.A. However there seem to be several directions hacking is taking place. Wiki Leaks state it is not.

I find it beyond weird that you give weight to what Snowden or Wikileaks say, and summarily dismiss the stated findings of not one, not two or three, but at least SEVENTEEN intelligence agencies, without so much as an attempt to explain the reason for which they are supposedly colluding.

 

[barbos]

Snowdon suggests some hacking is traced to Russia. He of course blew the whistle on the NSA activities hence he is also out of the U.S.A. However there seem to be several directions hacking is taking place. Wiki Leaks state it is not.

I find it beyond weird that you give weight to what Snowden or Wikileaks say, and summarily dismiss the stated findings of not one, not two or three, but at least SEVENTEEN intelligence agencies, without so much as an attempt to explain the reason for which they are supposedly colluding.

You can't come up with obvious reasons yourself?
Let me help you. Trump is a one term president, in 4 years he and his gang of deplorable clowns will be gone.
And people in these agencies would have to deal with usual republican-democratic establishment.

 

[Elixir]

I find it beyond weird that you give weight to what Snowden or Wikileaks say, and summarily dismiss the stated findings of not one, not two or three, but at least SEVENTEEN intelligence agencies, without so much as an attempt to explain the reason for which they are supposedly colluding.

You can't come up with obvious reasons yourself?
Let me help you. Trump is a one term president, in 4 years he and his gang of deplorable clowns will be gone.
And people in these agencies would have to deal with usual republican-democratic establishment.

So according to you they're colluding to protect their phony baloney jobs four years from now? Oh, to be a fly on the wall in one of the massive clandestine planning meetings!

 

[barbos]

You can't come up with obvious reasons yourself?
Let me help you. Trump is a one term president, in 4 years he and his gang of deplorable clowns will be gone.
And people in these agencies would have to deal with usual republican-democratic establishment.

So according to you they're colluding to protect their phony baloney jobs four years from now? Oh, to be a fly on the wall in one of the massive clandestine planning meetings!

How many people in NSA knew about about spying? I would say a lot, and only one decided to leak it.
You underestimate the power of team play and GroupThink. Truth is, people bend the truth all the time. And in this particular case these agencies know who their enemy is - Trump. And it's not as if they are legally lying they just use language creatively. I mean , how can you interpret expression like "high confidence"?
Is 1% chance high? 10%? what is "high" here?

 

[Elixir]

these agencies know who their enemy is - Trump.

They are supposed to work on his behalf, keeping him informed of whatever facts come their way. How did they turn Trump into their "enemy"? By trying to tell him the truth? (That seems to do the trick for everyone else.)

 

[barbos]

these agencies know who their enemy is - Trump.

They are supposed to work on his behalf, keeping him informed of whatever facts come their way. How did they turn Trump into their "enemy"? By trying to tell him the truth? (That seems to do the trick for everyone else.)

They can't work for him because Trump does not need opinions which differs from his. He does not listen to them and that's why in the long run he is an enemy for them.

 

[Elixir]

They are supposed to work on his behalf, keeping him informed of whatever facts come their way. How did they turn Trump into their "enemy"? By trying to tell him the truth? (That seems to do the trick for everyone else.)

They can't work for him because Trump does not need opinions which differs from his. He does not listen to them and that's why in the long run he is an enemy for them.

That doesn't exactly support the charge of 17 agencies in collusion - it could be that they all came up with the same story because it's the truth.
Could get interesting though (as usual)... what happens when it's a truly critical matter, they know it, the military knows it - everybody but Don the Con knows it, and some action is warranted. But DtC orders some other, totally counterproductive action based on known falsehoods to be taken. Do they listen to/obey him? Do they take a walk and go public?
To some extent that is exactly what happened with Bush and the Iraqi WMD situation.. and the military did indeed keep their mouths shut and obey him.

 

[barbos]

They can't work for him because Trump does not need opinions which differs from his. He does not listen to them and that's why in the long run he is an enemy for them.

That doesn't exactly support the charge of 17 agencies in collusion - it could be that they all came up with the same story because it's the truth.
Could get interesting though (as usual)... what happens when it's a truly critical matter, they know it, the military knows it - everybody but Don the Con knows it, and some action is warranted. But DtC orders some other, totally counterproductive action based on known falsehoods to be taken. Do they listen to/obey him? Do they take a walk and go public?
To some extent that is exactly what happened with Bush and the Iraqi WMD situation.. and the military did indeed keep their mouths shut and obey him.

Read on Groupthink. The fact they somehow "unanimously" agreed and yet ended up with whimsical and weaselly "high confidence" suggests that there a lot of groupthink going on.

 

[Elixir]

That doesn't exactly support the charge of 17 agencies in collusion - it could be that they all came up with the same story because it's the truth.
Could get interesting though (as usual)... what happens when it's a truly critical matter, they know it, the military knows it - everybody but Don the Con knows it, and some action is warranted. But DtC orders some other, totally counterproductive action based on known falsehoods to be taken. Do they listen to/obey him? Do they take a walk and go public?
To some extent that is exactly what happened with Bush and the Iraqi WMD situation.. and the military did indeed keep their mouths shut and obey him.

Read on Groupthink. The fact they somehow "unanimously" agreed and yet ended up with whimsical and weaselly "high confidence" suggests that there a lot of groupthink going on.

It's certainly possible to infer that if one is so determined. Occam would posit that a complex conspiracy between 17 different agencies to co-ordinate their responses with all the attendant required communications, debate and wrangling resulting in a 100% unified outcome, is a far less likely scenario than the idea that they are simply telling the truth. Add the fact that there is no significant denial of the facts found by republican senators, and it looks like a slam-dunk.

 

[ksen]

Except that experts in cybersecurity have said the report given so far is bullshit and led to the vermont powergrid fiasco.

 

[barbos]

Read on Groupthink. The fact they somehow "unanimously" agreed and yet ended up with whimsical and weaselly "high confidence" suggests that there a lot of groupthink going on.

It's certainly possible to infer that if one is so determined. Occam would posit that a complex conspiracy between 17 different agencies to co-ordinate their responses with all the attendant required communications, debate and wrangling resulting in a 100% unified outcome, is a far less likely scenario than the idea that they are simply telling the truth. Add the fact that there is no significant denial of the facts found by republican senators, and it looks like a slam-dunk.

You keep repeating the same thing over and over.

 

[repoman]

So if Seth Rich was responsible for an inside job on the DNC leak, who killed him and why?

I think that someone from the DNC related team would make sense. First Seth could have gone to the news and confessed and give sympathy to the Sanders side. He even could have left the country and done it like Snowden. Also, his death would make the blame Russia gambit plausible.

Perhaps Seth Rich did it knowingly or not for a Russian handler that killed him, to tie up loose ends.

This short video is interesting:



at 1:03 he nods his head to say yes...

I don't know if Seth Rich had access to the emails at all. Also fuzzy on the timeline of when the info was released by Wikileaks.

-------------------------------------------

If Assange know that Seth Rich for sure released the info to Wiki then this statement makes sense, but Still I am not sure if he should have done it.

If Assange knew it was a DNC worker, but not sure if Rich then a judgment call.

If Assange knew it was not a DNC worker who gave wiki the info, then Assange is a major asshole.

 

[barbos]

I highly doubt DNC started assassinating people. Most likely he was murdered in robbery attempt. As for whether or not he was a source it is very convenient to have a dead man you can point to. Assange should realize without hard evidence he would look like an ass even if he knows for sure dead guy was a leak.

 

[Elixir]

It's certainly possible to infer that if one is so determined. Occam would posit that a complex conspiracy between 17 different agencies to co-ordinate their responses with all the attendant required communications, debate and wrangling resulting in a 100% unified outcome, is a far less likely scenario than the idea that they are simply telling the truth. Add the fact that there is no significant denial of the facts found by republican senators, and it looks like a slam-dunk.

You keep repeating the same thing over and over.

Must be "goupthink", right? Lol! I saw a republican hack breaking out that mantra this morning...
Guess that could be right - after all, accused sex offenders Assange and Trump both agree - Russia didn't do it.
Oh, wait - GROUPTHINK!

 

[ksen]

Now it's coming out that the FBI didn't even examine the DNC servers.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The only thing that repeats itself is the accusation how the Russians lost the election for the Democrats but no clear case presented. The group-think is trying to convince people (hereinafter sheeple) on what seems to be little more than hot air and circumstantial evidence of what we know anyway.

Assage is accused of a sex offence. But that does not detract from the fact he is saying the source of the hacking is not the Russians. There again we do know that everyone is hacking each other, and the US per Snowdon is no better than anyone else.

There again be pleased that Snowdon provided a little comfort blanket by suggesting the Russians in at least one case were hacking.
Of course the Russians hack, just like the Americans , British, French, Israelis, Chinese and others do.

Now why did the CIA fail to host a briefing for the President elect? This is a question but if it had a smoking gun it would be pleased to flash it around.
Now this opinion below is reflective of other reports on this.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/14/craig-murray-says-source-of-hillary-clinton-campai/

The accusation is that Russia hacked and leaked information from the Democrats that directly caused it to lose the election.

The conclusive proof required is hacking (with malice as intent) to obtain information that would lose the Democrats the election.

So far there is no case.