FBI, DHS release report on Russia hacking

[Bill the Cat]

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/us...port.html?_r=0

The simple fact of endorsing or slamming a particular candidate by a foreign leader is influencing the election.

"Barack Obama was elected by the world", "Trump is rejected by the world," and ""We hope for Hillary Clinton for an international relationship"

- French PM Manuel Valls on October 14th 2016 during a pre-dawn breakfast at France's embassy in Canada

[Bill the Cat]

My understanding is that 16 of the agencies agreed that Iraq had built up WMDs. It seems reasonable to be skeptical of their say-so without evidence.

Here's the deal... the "Intelligence Community" is currently comprised of 16 departments and agencies that specialize in particular areas of the government/public. The DNC hack and the subsequent reports were handled by the NSA, the FBI, and the CIA with some minimal input from Homeland Security. The 5 services and the remainder of the agencies were not involved in the investigation or construction of the report. Their concurrence is a formality, as typically the head of the agency, or their designee, sign off on the report, trusting the other active entities to have done their due diligence. So, it is beyond extremely rare that more than 4 or 5 of the members actually get involved in an investigation. Clapper testified that only 3 were directly involved.

[MaxVel]

What Clapper said was that the mechanics of the voting system at the polling stations were not influenced.

Not in what I quoted. Citation needed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/us...port.html?_r=0

But we - according to Clapper - "have no way of gauging the impact". We don't know if even one person changed their vote.





You have provided no specifics of what happened. I'll hold your trembling liberal hand and walk you through it. I know this is hard for you, and you may want your safe space and comfort dolly.

>> Did the Russians hack any votes? Yes or No? If, 'Yes', what is the evidence?

Seems like the answer is 'No', according to the report.


>>Did the Russians release any false information about Clinton or her campaign? Yes or No?

Apparently it is possible that they were behind the release of true stuff obtained from DNC emails and Podesta's P@ssword 'protected' email account. So - Democrats making themselves look bad, Russia possibly pulling back teh curtain.


>>If 'Yes', specifically what information and how do we know it was false?

Unknown. Looks like it was true information


>>Did the Russians corrupt any election officials, Yes or No? If 'Yes', who, and how do we know?

None that are known.


So the total product of the 'Russian hack' of the election was the revealing of poorly secured and embarrassing true information from DNC and Clinton campaign sources.

Storm. in. a. teacup.


Liberals like you can't cope with the fact that Trump won, and anything, no matter how little credibility it has, that passes the responsibility for that win from 'Trump did it better' to 'We wuz robbed' is eagerly lapped up.

[Sparko]

Here's the deal... the "Intelligence Community" is currently comprised of 16 departments and agencies that specialize in particular areas of the government/public. The DNC hack and the subsequent reports were handled by the NSA, the FBI, and the CIA with some minimal input from Homeland Security. The 5 services and the remainder of the agencies were not involved in the investigation or construction of the report. Their concurrence is a formality, as typically the head of the agency, or their designee, sign off on the report, trusting the other active entities to have done their due diligence. So, it is beyond extremely rare that more than 4 or 5 of the members actually get involved in an investigation. Clapper testified that only 3 were directly involved.

yup.

Here are the 16 agencies under the ODNI:


Air Force Intelligence
Army Intelligence
Central Intelligence Agency
Coast Guard Intelligence
Defense Intelligence Agency
Department of Energy
Department of Homeland Security
Department of State
Department of the Treasury
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Marine Corps Intelligence
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
National Reconnaissance Office
National Security Agency
Navy Intelligence

[Joel]

The US Intelligence agencies are maintained at a cost of billions of dollars per year and at the risk of agents lives in the field. If they cannot be relied upon to provide accurate information they should be scrapped; is this what you're suggesting? Alternatively, perhaps they should be taken seriously and acted upon.

The agencies are made up of human beings, who, like all human beings, are fallible, have their own individual desires, agendas, etc. The intelligence agencies have been wrong on important things before, and have lied to the American people on multiple occasions. Consider the power wielded by secretive agencies that won't back up their claims on evidence, if they are blindly trusted and acted upon.

It turned out, for example, that they were wrong about there being credible evidence of WMDs in Iraq. (It's not that they were wrong about the existence of WMDs; it's that they were wrong about the evidence that they had at the time. They never had credible evidence.) They were either unable to assess the evidence they had, or they lied.

The Left is often calling for "evidence-based policy." Great. Show us the evidence.

And are blind trust and completely ignoring/scrapping really the only possibilities?

[Mountain Man]

yup.

Here are the 16 agencies under the ODNI:


Air Force Intelligence
Army Intelligence
Central Intelligence Agency
Coast Guard Intelligence
Defense Intelligence Agency
Department of Energy
Department of Homeland Security
Department of State
Department of the Treasury
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Marine Corps Intelligence
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
National Reconnaissance Office
National Security Agency
Navy Intelligence

Which is to say that the majority of those 16 agencies that liberals keep harping about would have nothing to with analyzing a cyber-attack on a private organization. That's why I've repeatedly asked for the names of the agencies, who from those agencies has gone on record, and what it is, specifically, that the agencies agree about, but I never got an answer. Now we know why.

[Sparko]

Which is to say that the majority of those 16 agencies that liberals keep harping about would have nothing to with analyzing a cyber-attack on a private organization. That's why I've repeatedly asked for the names of the agencies, who from those agencies has gone on record, and what it is, specifically, that the agencies agree about, but I never got an answer. Now we know why.

I bet Gibbs and his NCIS team were all over it. Abby probably cracked the case in 5 minutes and traced it right back to Putin's laptop.

Gibbs' Rule number 634: Never trust the Russians.

[Mountain Man]

I bet Gibbs and his NCIS team were all over it. Abby probably cracked the case in 5 minutes and traced it right back to Putin's laptop.

Gibbs' Rule number 634: Never trust the Russians.

Oh, no, Abby couldn't have done it alone. It would have taken the dynamic duo of Abby and McGee to beat the Russians.

[Tassman]

The agencies are made up of human beings, who, like all human beings, are fallible, have their own individual desires, agendas, etc. The intelligence agencies have been wrong on important things before, and have lied to the American people on multiple occasions. Consider the power wielded by secretive agencies that won't back up their claims on evidence, if they are blindly trusted and acted upon.

If the Intelligence agencies cannot be relied upon to provide accurate information they should be scrapped. But it's a sad day when the public trusts the word of a declared enemy of the USA, Putin, over and above the Intelligence-based assessments of the agencies whose role it is tho protect the nation.

It turned out, for example, that they were wrong about there being credible evidence of WMDs in Iraq. (It's not that they were wrong about the existence of WMDs; it's that they were wrong about the evidence that they had at the time. They never had credible evidence.) They were either unable to assess the evidence they had, or they lied.

The Left is often calling for "evidence-based policy." Great. Show us the evidence.

Intelligence agencies cannot provide sources or methodology without compromising themselves and their agents in the field.

And are blind trust and completely ignoring/scrapping really the only possibilities?

The Intelligence agencies are apolitical and the public, has no choice other than to trust them.

[Tassman]

The simple fact of endorsing or slamming a particular candidate by a foreign leader is influencing the election.

"Barack Obama was elected by the world", "Trump is rejected by the world," and ""We hope for Hillary Clinton for an international relationship"

- French PM Manuel Valls on October 14th 2016 during a pre-dawn breakfast at France's embassy in Canada

What Russia has done is far more than simply endorse a particular candidate. The US Intelligence agencies state with a high level of confidence that Putin ordered an entire 'influence campaign' to help Trump and harm Clinton.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/u...port.html?_r=0

[JonathanL]

If the Intelligence agencies cannot be relied upon to provide accurate information they should be scrapped. But it's a sad day when the public trusts the word of a declared enemy of the USA, Putin, over and above the Intelligence-based assessments of the agencies whose role it is tho protect the nation.

Iraq's weapon of mass destruction program.

CIA torture report


What a fine bunch of honest and upright fellows you're putting your trust in, Tassman.


And as an aside, it's not about trusting the word of Putin over the reports of the intelligence agencies of the US, it's about trusting Julian Assange and former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray over the intelligence agencies of the US.

[Darth Ovious]

She was wrong to use an illegal server, she admitted as much, and it was found not to be a prosecutorial offence.

As someone who has worked with classified info in the past I need to say that if I did that I would be in jail. There is also the question of losing security clearance as well. If Hilliary did win I can't imagine how security clerance could ever be granted to her.

[Tassman]

What a fine bunch of honest and upright fellows you're putting your trust in, Tassman.


And as an aside, it's not about trusting the word of Putin over the reports of the intelligence agencies of the US, it's about trusting Julian Assange and former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray over the intelligence agencies of the US.

It seems you prefer to trust the word of anyone (including a traitor like Assange, who put the live of Intelligence agents in the field at risk with his leaks), rather than trust the Agencies actually charged with taking care of US National Security...and all for a self-centred moral reprobate like Trump.

[JonathanL]

It seems you prefer to trust the word of anyone (including a traitor like Assange, who put the live of Intelligence agents in the field at risk with his leaks), rather than trust the Agencies actually charged with taking care of US National Security...and all for a self-centred moral reprobate like Trump.

I bet you decided Assange was a traitor around the same time that WikiLeaks published the Podesta emails...

[Bill the Cat]

As someone who has worked with classified info in the past I need to say that if I did that I would be in jail. There is also the question of losing security clearance as well. If Hilliary did win I can't imagine how security clerance could ever be granted to her.

The grantor, namely the chief of the NSA, would have to draft a letter for her file taking responsibility for a waiver for her clearance. It's not that hard to get around if you have the right people in your pocket.