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: 3
25
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Wikileaks has claimed from the beginning that the #DNCleaks were leaks, not hacks, and even implicated former DNC staffer Seth Rich as the source and put up a reward after he was mysteriously murdered outside his home in July.

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




posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Konduit
Wikileaks has claimed from the beginning that the #DNCleaks were leaks, not hacks, and even implicated former DNC staffer Seth Rich as the source and put up a reward after he was mysteriously murdered outside his home in July.




You believe them yet they have offered not proof where the DNC emails came from.
edit on 12-12-2016 by Pyle because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Pyle

Have you read the emails? DNC emails
and Podesta emails?

Whom ever leaked them did not write them!

Isn't that what this is all about?



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 11:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships
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.


You know, I never said he implemented the Patriot Act. My beef was 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. One senator asked for his resignation, and a group of 26 senators complained about Clapper's responses under questioning. Media observers have described Clapper as having lied under oath, having obstructed justice, and having given false testimony.


I watched his testimony and I believe he was lying as well. That is why I say I have a hard time trusting the man.

From your OP article:

In an angry letter sent to ODNI chief Clapper on Monday, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes said he was “dismayed” that the top U.S. intelligence official had not informed the panel of the CIA’s analysis and the difference between its judgment and the FBI’s assessment. Noting that Clapper in November testified that intelligence agencies lacked strong evidence linking Russian cyber attacks to the WikiLeaks disclosures, Nunes asked that Clapper, together with CIA and FBI counterparts, brief the panel by Friday on the latest intelligence assessment of Russian hacking during the election campaign.


So let's see how this thing plays out on Friday.
edit on 12/12/2016 by sad_eyed_lady because: (no reason given)



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

Wikileaks protects the confidentiality of it's sources, which is why they implied that Seth Rich was involved but never said it forthright. But they did put up a 50k reward for anyone with information about his murder, which remains unsolved.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: sad_eyed_lady

I'd agree, It is wise not to trust any of the top spy leaders.
But they just follow the orders of the lawmakers, right?

ETA and to add the FBI also disagrees with this "ridiculous"
assessment. They are not spies, and seemed to gain great
support when they let Sir Hillary off the proverbial hook.











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



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 11:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: Pyle

Have you read the emails? DNC emails
and Podesta emails?

Whom ever leaked them did not write them!

Isn't that what this is all about?



The source of the leaks is what this whole kerfuffle is all about. Wikileaks has offered no proof of who gave them the emails. All we have to go by is Wikileaks claiming it was an inside source and US based private and government sources claiming it was the Russian Government. What is in the emails (as over-hyped as they have been by the right and parts of the left) is not currently the subject of this OP.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 11:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Konduit
a reply to: Pyle

Wikileaks protects the confidentiality of it's sources, which is why they implied that Seth Rich was involved but never said it forthright. But they did put up a 50k reward for anyone with information about his murder, which remains unsolved.


Which could simply be a disinfo campaign to hide the true sources.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 11:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Pyle
Joint Statement from the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security


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.



Funny 2 months ago they were singing a different tune. I wonder what changed?


Obama and Democrats needed a different set of talking points they could use to blame for the loss of the election, senate seats, house seats, governorship, state legislators etc etc etc.

Pelosi summed it up as to why they lost - source

Appearing on CBS' Face the Nation, Pelosi was asked by host John Dickerson, "The Democratic Party is in a moment of questioning about its identity. You were re-elected to lead the Democrats in the House. What do you tell Democrats who want a new direction and then, go to you, what are you going to do differently?"

"Well, I don't think people want a new direction," replied Pelosi. "Our values unify us and our values are about supporting America's working families. That's one that everyone is in agreement on. What we want is a better connection of our message to working families in our country, and that clearly in the election showed that that message wasn't coming through. But we are united in terms of the security of our country, which is our first responsibility. To be smart and strong and not reckless in how we protect the American people, strong in how we protect our economy."


UM DEMs gained seats in the house, senate and had more Americans vote for their presidential candidate.


I am referring to the big picture -

* - Pelosi Re-Elected as Leader Despite Disappointing House Gain

Pelosi had predicted they could pick up more than 20 seats in the 435-seat chamber to significantly reduce their deficit, but instead the party gained just six.


* - NYT - 2016 Senate Election Forecast - The Democrats have a 52% chance of winning the Senate.



The Upshot’s elections model suggests that the Democrats are slight favorites to win the Senate, based on the latest state and national polls.

From now until Election Day, we’ll update our estimates with each new poll, as well as collect the ratings of other news organizations. Here’s how our estimates have changed over time


The Democrats got wrecked in State elections with Republicans controlling 33 Governorship's while also taking both chambers in many state elections.

What I am referring to by their losses is they didnt come close to any of their predictions as to their gains. They did in fact get trounced in this election cycle and we are seeing first hand the temper tantrum by Democrats that followed those losses.

I mean if Democrats cant win at the ballot box they will try the courtroom and intelligence community.

Clinton - Danger to democracy


Hypocrisy and stupidity by clinton (Fl did not win Bush the white house in 2000. W. virginia did. Had Bush not won W. Virginia Gore would have been President. Like Clinton with MI, WI and PA, they thought they had it in the bag and in reality didnt.


Democrats who refuse to accept the result of the election.





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



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 11:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Pyle

I'd respectfully disagree, and have no doubt that this issue
is about the content of the emails.

Who "leaked" them is just a yuugee effort of distraction.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 11:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: Pyle

I'd respectfully disagree, and have no doubt that this issue
is about the content of the emails.

Who "leaked" them is just a yuugee effort of distraction.



If someone leaked your bank accounts and showed you had questionable but legal things in them would you not want to know who leaked them and why?



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 11:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: Xcathdra

Honestly, I guess I initially gave them more credit than
they obviously deserved. I thought they would try and
maintain a shred of dignity, since it is her parting
bid in politics. She is now utterly, completely disgraced
on every level, and those who are supporting her in
this pathetic display of poor showmanship.





It boils down to Clinton / Democratic party's sense of entitlement. They are mortified, not so much because she lost, but because of whom she lost to.

The deplorables elected Trump. Thats a double kidney punch to a person who thinks she is better than everyone else. She cant accept that reality so here we are... She lost because of wikileaks, deplorables, hacking, fake news, Russia.

This skit actually sums up the Democratic-eletist mentality nicely -

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



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 11:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Konduit
a reply to: Pyle

Wikileaks protects the confidentiality of it's sources, which is why they implied that Seth Rich was involved but never said it forthright. But they did put up a 50k reward for anyone with information about his murder, which remains unsolved.


Actually it was a $20,000 reward, but when you put two and two together as to why wikileaks would care about the death of a DNC staffer, what is the logical conclusion?

Speaking of fake news. Rich's death was spun quite a bit. First story claimed his wallet wasn't taken, then later the media said it looked like robbery was the motive.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

That was actually very funny
.

It must be hard to wake up as Hillary Clinton and John Podesta and
realize Donald Trump beat your a**.




posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 11:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Konduit
Wikileaks has claimed from the beginning that the #DNCleaks were leaks, not hacks, and even implicated former DNC staffer Seth Rich as the source and put up a reward after he was mysteriously murdered outside his home in July.


Yeah, the Russians hacked them, and then handed them to a proxy who "leaked" them to Wikileaks.

So, Wikileaks can say with 100% confidence:

1. The "Russians" (as in the government of Russia actual) did not hand them to us personally.

2. These were "leaked" to us.

Yeah, leaked by an intermediary.



posted on Dec, 12 2016 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Konduit

Actually it was a $20k reward and it was bulls#. Assange used the death of Seth Rich as an opportunistic red herring. I'm fairly confident that if Seth Rich were the source of the documents and Wikileaks knew this, they would not let Seth Rich's parents go on not knowing this vital information. In fact, even without the grieving family, Wikileaks would have absolutely no problem blowing the whistle on the assassination of somebody who leaked documents to them.

Why wouldn't they? Would his murderer dig him up, ressurect him and murder him all over again?

It's possible that Wikileaks didn't know the source of the emails and that the Russians were using one or more intermediaries — some might argue that it's likely — but then again, it's also possible that Julian Assange is a liar. If Thordarson and others are to be believed, Assange has already been busted in a number of lies.

Specifically, Thordarson's chatlogs with Sabu are evidence that either Thordarson acting in the name of Wikileaks without authorization was promoting hacking or if Thordarson is to believed, that Assange was aware of what was taking place.

Secondly, Assange & co tried very hard to downplay the involvement of Thordarson but multiple sources refute this including Assange in a roundabout way in court testimony he's given.

The WikiLeaks Mole (January 6, 2014)


And Assange's confounding closeness with Siggi, which bordered on a paternal relationship, was also an issue. "The perception was that Siggi basically got to a level where Julian trusted him in a matter of days," says Snorrason. The core volunteers considered Siggi a dangerous liability, prone to youthful indiscretions and lies. But, as Domscheit-Berg recalls, the rumors were being stoked by Assange himself. "Julian told us we shouldn't speak to Siggi because he couldn't be trusted," he says. "He told me Siggi was a notorious liar, but then again Julian told people I was a notorious liar probably because he's a notorious liar. I think it's psychological. We knew Julian was dealing with Siggi all the time – it all implied Julian was using him. These are all kinds of games children get into."

Jónsdóttir was among those caught in Assange and Siggi's web. "I told Julian, 'There's something weird, I can't explain it, but I have this feeling,'" Jónsdóttir recalls. "'You just be very careful with this guy.' But he didn't believe me." Though she continuously tried to get Siggi removed from projects, Assange stood by the boy. "He might have trusted him with something that he didn't want him to expose," she says.


That would be Birgitta Jónsdóttir, former WL volunteer and member of the Icelandic parliament. I've got some other quotes around here from people from the inner circle from that time who knew both, knew the relationship and know that Assange has flat out lied.

Here's another example of Wikileaks lying in a tweet and generally being misleading.

"Hillary Clinton strategist Bob Beckel called for WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange to be assassinated. #DNCLeak"

Except Bob Beckel was never a strategist for Clinton or in any way affiliated with her campaign. Also, the clip was from 2010, a fact that is conspiciously missing.

You blindly trust Assange because you want to and because you're ignorant of reasons not to.
edit on 2016-12-12 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

Oh they are very dangerous, I think they crawled out of the pits of hell.



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 12:25 AM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

Notice how none of these sources mention Guccifer 2.0? If you remember, he is the one who took credit for the attacks and released the documents. He said anyone can buy the Trojans that the Russians used, which he claims he bought for $1500 on some hacking forums. He throws doubt on the whole conspiracy theory of Russian hackers.

Guccifer FAQ



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 12:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: Pyle

I'd respectfully disagree, and have no doubt that this issue
is about the content of the emails.

Who "leaked" them is just a yuugee effort of distraction.



I think it is more than a distraction effort. It is an attempt to undo the election. Let's make a Trump/Putin/wikileaks connection. I forsee a coup in the making. The swamp snakes are in the attack mode to save their power.

Virgil: The Deep State vs. Donald Trump



posted on Dec, 13 2016 @ 12:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: burntheships

Notice how none of these sources mention Guccifer 2.0? If you remember, he is the one who took credit for the attacks and released the documents. He said anyone can buy the Trojans that the Russians used, which he claims he bought for $1500 on some hacking forums. He throws doubt on the whole conspiracy theory of Russian hackers.

Guccifer FAQ


Yes, and good points. Guccifer 2.0 took credit for the DNC hack, if I recall?

He could really be anyone, even some rougue from the NSA for all anyone
knows. Its all been pretty quiet since that big guy from the NSA was jailed.

Makes ya wonder, really!



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join