sicsempertyrannis | U.S. officials had been
concerned that Russian sources could be at risk of exposure as early as
the fall of 2016, when the Obama administration first confirmed that
Russia had stolen and publicly disclosed emails from the Democratic
National Committee and the account of Hillary Clinton’s campaign
chairman, John Podesta.
In October 2016, the
Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence said in a joint statement that intelligence
agencies were “confident that the Russian Government directed” the
hacking campaign. . . .
In January 2017, the Obama administration
published a detailed assessment that unambiguously laid the blame on
the Kremlin, concluding that “Putin ordered an influence campaign” and
that Russia’s goal was to undermine faith in the U.S. democratic process
and harm Clinton’s chances of winning.
“That’s a pretty remarkable intelligence
community product — much more specific than what you normally see,” one
U.S. official said. “It’s very expected that potential U.S. intelligence
assets in Russia would be under a higher level of scrutiny by their own
intelligence services.”
Sounds official. But there is no actual forensic or documentary
evidence (by that I mean actual corroborating intelligence reports) to
back up these claims by our oxymoronically christened intelligence
community.
Vladimir Putin ordered the hack? Where is the report? It is either in
a piece of intercepted electronics communication and/or in a report
derived from information provided by Mr. Smolenkov. Where is it? Why has
that not been shared in public? Don't have to worry about exposing the
source now. He is already in the open. What did he report? Answer--no
direct evidence.
Then there is the lie that the Russians hacked the DNC. They did not.
Bill Binney, a former Technical Director of the NSA, and I have written
on this subject previously (see here)
and there is no truth to this claim. Let me put it simply--if the DNC
had been hacked by the Russians using spearphising (this is claimed in
the Robert Mueller report) then the NSA would have collected those
messages and would be able to show they were transferred to the
Russians. That did not happen.
This kind of chaotic leaking about an old intel op is symptomatic of
panic. CIA is already officially denying key parts of the story. My
money is on John Brennan and Jim Clapper as the likely impetus for these
reports. They are hoping to paint Trump as a national security threat
and distract from the upcoming revelations from the DOJ Inspector
General report on the FISA warrants and, more threatening, the decisions
that Prosecutor John Durham will take in deciding to indict those who
attempted to launch a coup against Donald Trump, a legitimately elected
President of the United States.
0 comments:
Post a Comment