It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Exclusive: Top U.S Spy Agency Has Not Ebraced CIA (Ridiculous) Assement On Russian Hacking - Sources

page: 1
25
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+7 more 
posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 10:00 PM
link   
The top U.S. Spy agency, the ODNI which oversees the CIA asserts that the
so called "analysis" by the anonymous "CIA" sources is lacking evidence
ridiculous and continues to assert no evidence implicates Russia in the
cyber attacks that were discovered last year.


The overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced a CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election, three American officials said on Monday. www.reuters.com...


In additon, the FBI rejects the so called "analysis", citing standards
that it would fail to make up a case.


The Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose evidentiary standards require it to make cases that can stand up in court, declined to accept the CIA's analysis - a deductive assessment of the available intelligence - for the same reason, the three officials said.


So, can we conclude that someone in the CIA whom perhaps was paid
a large sum by a Podestan, or a Clintonite is making fodder of the
the U.S. election results as a way to try and legitimize the double
checked, and recounted election results?


edit on 12-12-2016 by burntheships because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-12-2016 by burntheships because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

Perspective matters I suppose.

Evidence pointing to something is not the same as actual evidence. Each side shoring up their statements that the media is obfuscating beyond means.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

The key word being evidence.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

All the while they refuse to release their evidence out of fear of tipping off the Russians. It makes one wonder then what info would be provided to the electors should the ridiculous demand of a briefing occur.

When this gets debunked I wonder what lies they will come up with next when the Russia lies completely fails.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

Absolutely. The narrative is being pushed away from the actual evidence. For example, what was in the wikilieaks. Instead they want to focus on who and why which is not a problem mind you but it's far and away not as big as what was uncovered.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 10:05 PM
link   
They do not deny a Russian hack.

They deny it was done to get the win for Trump.



Those are not the same things.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
They do not deny a Russian hack.

They deny it was done to get the win for Trump.



Those are not the same things.


there is also no evidence that the Russian government was behind it. It would be like blaming the Australian government for the actions of Assange.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

But..but....Russians!

Another tidbit of factual information that is not getting the much needed attention it deserves.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

Hopefully this is good news. Frankly, it is hard for me to trust Clapper after this:

Two U.S. representatives accused Clapper of perjury for telling a congressional committee in March 2013, that the NSA does not collect any type of data at all on millions of Americans.

en.wikipedia.org...

He is boss, let hope he's got nothing to lose.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 10:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
They do not deny a Russian hack.
They deny it was done to get the win for Trump.
Those are not the same things.


Exactly. So this makes the sore losers not only sore losers, it
also by definition makes them dangerous.

Let's look at what she is saying.... about what he sic [she]

is saying and what that means: He is denigrating... is talking down our democracy and I for one am appalled that someone who is the nominee for one of our two major parties would take that position."

www.telegraph.co.uk...


According the their own standards, which of course we know
are nothing more than a fairy tale.
edit on 12-12-2016 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 10:16 PM
link   
From Marc Elias - Clinton campaign counsel


Because we had not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology, we had not planned to exercise this option ourselves, but now that a recount has been initiated in Wisconsin, we intend to participate in order to ensure the process proceeds in a manner that is fair to all sides.



source



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 10:16 PM
link   
I smell fake news...The GOP is getting desperate now.

ODNI themselves said this this Oct. 10th:



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.


You can read their very own words on the dot gov website:

dhs.gov

It's a joint DHS/ODNI statement, so that even adds to the credibility. Oh, that and it being from the actual agency and not a news organization itself...

Yeah, the GOP is desperate to distract people from this with claims of "fake news" when they're the ones twisting the actual reality of events that did happen.
edit on 12-12-2016 by Kettu because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Kettu

From Marc Elias - Clinton campaign counsel


Because we had not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology, we had not planned to exercise this option ourselves, but now that a recount has been initiated in Wisconsin, we intend to participate in order to ensure the process proceeds in a manner that is fair to all sides.



source



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: sad_eyed_lady

Hate to be the one to break it to ya, but The Patriot Act
was put in place by Hillary's brother, G. W. Bush. I suppose
that while Obama has more kills by drone strike than
any other leader in history, people should be thankful
they can at least ( mostly ) walk free.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

Say hello to H.R. 6393


TITLE V--MATTERS RELATING TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES

(Sec. 501) This title establishes an executive branch interagency committee to counter active measures by the Russian Federation to exert covert influence over peoples and governments (with the role of the Russian Federation hidden or not acknowledged publicly) through front groups, covert broadcasting, media manipulation, disinformation or forgeries, funding agents of influence, incitement, offensive counterintelligence, assassinations, or terrorist acts. The committee shall expose falsehoods, agents of influence, corruption, human rights abuses, terrorism, and assassinations carried out by the security services or political elites of the Russian Federation or their proxies.

The committee must report annually on the steps it is taking to counter Russia's active covert influence measures.


Battle lines are being drawn.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

Actually, the ODNI doesn't deny that the intent was to sway the election either. Just like the FBI, the ODNI (which is James Clapper's office btw) supports the consensus view that the hacking was done by the Russians. Where they have split with the CIA is that the CIA has concluded that the intent by the Russians was to assist Donald Trump in being elected.

The FBI, the ODNI and some in Congress who have seen the briefing don't believe that the CIA has enough evidence to support that assertion. They don't deny that it's true, they are saying that there isn't enough solid evidence for them to go that far.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 10:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
They do not deny a Russian hack.

They deny it was done to get the win for Trump.



Those are not the same things.

So , who cares ? I consider it good that someone , somewhere would put out the truth on that lying scum dirtbag of a Clinton....



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Yeah, the FBI is a law enforcement agency. They didn't have video or phone calls or emails of people planning the attack, the kinds of things that can be used in a court of law.

The FBI views things from a prosecutor angle. The CIA views things from an espionage/war/military angle.

You can't prosecute or take someone to trial for spreading propaganda and influencing public opinion.

Duh.

That doesn't mean that Russia didn't meddle in our elections with their trolls, shills, and handing hacked documents via proxy to Wikieaks.

Didn't some guy at the CIA admit that we do the same to other counties and say, "Yeah, and when they find out we meddled with their election, they do it over again!"



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

So maybe the Russians should just hack every US political party, politician, etc and dump all their email? Or do you think this is great only as long as it negatively impacts the "other side?"



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 10:28 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI


Subtitle A--Office of the Director of National Intelligence

(Sec. 401) The Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive is redesignated as the National Counterintelligence and Security Center with a director to be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.


Yeah - no issues there.

/end sarcasm.

when we keep politicizing these positions we create an atmosphere of the "yes man / yes woman" problem. They only tell you what you want to hear in order to keep their job.

Can someone explain to me what this bill changes that our intel services arent already doing? Why must we create more bureaucracy, positions, agencies etc to perform a function they should e doing already?
edit on 12-12-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
25
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join