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.

 

Ambassador Craig Murray: “I’ve met the person who leaked them [Podesta emails], not Russian

page: 6
86
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

I think you are confusing leaks with publishing.

Somebody leaked the documents or they were hacked - we don't know when.
Then wikileaks published the information.
I was just making sure your mistake in thinking the leak happened in July was corrected.

There is no evidence of the Kremlin or 'Russia' being involved. The only claim is that known Russian hacker(s) were trying to access email accounts and servers. These same hackers turn up regularly and have done over some time. There is no evidence that they are the only ones and no evidence that the actual information released from wikileaks came form these people or another hacker, or indeed from a Washington insider (which is the most credible evidence we have so far from Mr Murray)

If that is your 100% proof, then your analysis lacks credibility.
edit on 15/12/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)

edit on 15/12/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: UKTruth
The CIA refused to turn up for a House Intelligence Committee briefing on the alleged Russian influence. They were too busy.


www.foxnews.com...



congress was briefed on Russian hacking in September....www.thedailybeast.com... are now busy putting all the data together into a THOROUGH report, the committee will get it when it's done....

but what you say is so much more juicy than the actual truth


The actual truth is the the House Intelligence Committee cancelled a briefing because the CIA would not turn up. This has nothing to do with a briefing 3 months ago.



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Indigo5

There is no evidence of the Kremlin or 'Russia' being involved. The only claim is that a known Russian hacker(s) were trying to access email accounts and servers. These same hackers turn up regularly and have done over some time. There is no evidence that they are the only ones and no evidence that the actual information released from wikileaks came form these people or another hacker, or indeed from a Washington insider (which is the most credible evidence we have so far from Mr Murray)

If that is your 100% proof, then your analysis lacks credibility.


you have no idea what you are talking about....unless you know the CLASSIFIED information that has already been given to congress....your analysis lacks evidence as does all civilians without classified clearance......tell all of us here, your classified security status



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Indigo5

There is no evidence of the Kremlin or 'Russia' being involved. The only claim is that a known Russian hacker(s) were trying to access email accounts and servers. These same hackers turn up regularly and have done over some time. There is no evidence that they are the only ones and no evidence that the actual information released from wikileaks came form these people or another hacker, or indeed from a Washington insider (which is the most credible evidence we have so far from Mr Murray)

If that is your 100% proof, then your analysis lacks credibility.


you have no idea what you are talking about....unless you know the CLASSIFIED information that has already been given to congress....your analysis lacks evidence as does all civilians without classified clearance......tell all of us here, your classified security status


The House Intelligence Committee asked to be briefed and scheduled a meeting for it. It is they who wanted more information obviously, or they would not have requested the meeting. The CIA would not attend. That's all.

This, from today, will help you:


From the video:



Rep Devin Nunes (R-CA) - House Intelligence Chairman

Statement on canceled Intel Briefing
... the CIA has a new assessment that it has not shared with us


I think my 'security clearance' is good for reading public statements form the very people who want to be updated.

edit on 15/12/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Indigo5

I think you are confusing leaks with publishing.

Somebody leaked the documents or they were hacked - we don't know when.




And I think you are replacing facts with BS...we know precisely when and how...right down to the exact bitly link used for the ploy that Podesta responded to...traced right back to Russian FSB..

motherboard.vice.com...




edit on 15-12-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Indigo5

There is no evidence of the Kremlin or 'Russia' being involved. The only claim is that a known Russian hacker(s) were trying to access email accounts and servers. These same hackers turn up regularly and have done over some time. There is no evidence that they are the only ones and no evidence that the actual information released from wikileaks came form these people or another hacker, or indeed from a Washington insider (which is the most credible evidence we have so far from Mr Murray)

If that is your 100% proof, then your analysis lacks credibility.


you have no idea what you are talking about....unless you know the CLASSIFIED information that has already been given to congress....your analysis lacks evidence as does all civilians without classified clearance......tell all of us here, your classified security status


Strawman.



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: UKTruth
The CIA refused to turn up for a House Intelligence Committee briefing on the alleged Russian influence. They were too busy.


www.foxnews.com...



congress was briefed on Russian hacking in September....www.thedailybeast.com... are now busy putting all the data together into a THOROUGH report, the committee will get it when it's done....

but what you say is so much more juicy than the actual truth


The actual truth is the the House Intelligence Committee cancelled a briefing because the CIA would not turn up. This has nothing to do with a briefing 3 months ago.


yes, and they have good reason....but you don't care about that, because you have an agenda to turn Americans against Americans....why don't you go stick your nose into the inner workings of British intelligence, I'm sure they will appreciate your vigorous concern as well.



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Indigo5

There is no evidence of the Kremlin or 'Russia' being involved. The only claim is that a known Russian hacker(s) were trying to access email accounts and servers. These same hackers turn up regularly and have done over some time. There is no evidence that they are the only ones and no evidence that the actual information released from wikileaks came form these people or another hacker, or indeed from a Washington insider (which is the most credible evidence we have so far from Mr Murray)

If that is your 100% proof, then your analysis lacks credibility.





you have no idea what you are talking about....unless you know the CLASSIFIED information that has already been given to congress....your analysis lacks evidence as does all civilians without classified clearance......tell all of us here, your classified security status


Strawman.


explain
edit on 15-12-2016 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Indigo5

I think you are confusing leaks with publishing.

Somebody leaked the documents or they were hacked - we don't know when.




And I think you are replacing facts with BS...we know precisely when and how...right down to the exact bitly link used for the ploy that Podesta responded to...traced right back to Russian FSB..

motherboard.vice.com...





There is zero evidence at all that this server event is the 'hack' that led to all the wikileaks information.
You have concluded based on a shred of evidence. Even James Clapper has refused to nail down the specific timings.

I am still waiting for you to retract your disinformation about Craig Murray not being in Washington when he said he was... or were you hoping that fake news would slide by unnoticed?



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Indigo5

There is no evidence of the Kremlin or 'Russia' being involved. The only claim is that a known Russian hacker(s) were trying to access email accounts and servers. These same hackers turn up regularly and have done over some time. There is no evidence that they are the only ones and no evidence that the actual information released from wikileaks came form these people or another hacker, or indeed from a Washington insider (which is the most credible evidence we have so far from Mr Murray)

If that is your 100% proof, then your analysis lacks credibility.





you have no idea what you are talking about....unless you know the CLASSIFIED information that has already been given to congress....your analysis lacks evidence as does all civilians without classified clearance......tell all of us here, your classified security status


Strawman.


explain



A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

Whether UKTruth, or anyone else here, has a security classification is irrelevant (and demanding it is actually against site T&C's). You 2 were discussing the CIA refusal to appear before their congressional oversight committee. We don't need clearance to know that it happened. If there is evidence of hacking...the people's representatives have asked for proof. And they ignored their constitutionally required duty to even engage in conversation over it.
edit on 12/15/2016 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Indigo5

There is no evidence of the Kremlin or 'Russia' being involved. The only claim is that a known Russian hacker(s) were trying to access email accounts and servers. These same hackers turn up regularly and have done over some time. There is no evidence that they are the only ones and no evidence that the actual information released from wikileaks came form these people or another hacker, or indeed from a Washington insider (which is the most credible evidence we have so far from Mr Murray)

If that is your 100% proof, then your analysis lacks credibility.


you have no idea what you are talking about....unless you know the CLASSIFIED information that has already been given to congress....your analysis lacks evidence as does all civilians without classified clearance......tell all of us here, your classified security status


The House Intelligence Committee asked to be briefed and scheduled a meeting for it. It is they who wanted more information obviously, or they would not have requested the meeting. The CIA would not attend. That's all.



RIght...and the CIA is busy preparing a report to be released to the WH, Congress, the committee and as much as possible the Public...



President Obama has directed the intelligence community to conduct “a full review” of the 2016 election in light of reports of Russian interference, homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco said Friday.

The report is expected to be completed and transmitted to Congress before he leaves office Jan. 20.

thehill.com...

So the GOP in Congress who have been compromised via hacks themselves can get the full report in a few days.

Should be interesting



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Indigo5

I think you are confusing leaks with publishing.

Somebody leaked the documents or they were hacked - we don't know when.




And I think you are replacing facts with BS...we know precisely when and how...right down to the exact bitly link used for the ploy that Podesta responded to...traced right back to Russian FSB..

motherboard.vice.com...





There is zero evidence at all that this server event is the 'hack' that led to all the wikileaks information.
You have concluded based on a shred of evidence. Even James Clapper has refused to nail down the specific timings.

I am still waiting for you to retract your disinformation about Craig Murray not being in Washington when he said he was... or were you hoping that fake news would slide by unnoticed?


well, get use to waiting...why?...because classified information is none of your damn business



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Indigo5

There is no evidence of the Kremlin or 'Russia' being involved. The only claim is that a known Russian hacker(s) were trying to access email accounts and servers. These same hackers turn up regularly and have done over some time. There is no evidence that they are the only ones and no evidence that the actual information released from wikileaks came form these people or another hacker, or indeed from a Washington insider (which is the most credible evidence we have so far from Mr Murray)

If that is your 100% proof, then your analysis lacks credibility.


you have no idea what you are talking about....unless you know the CLASSIFIED information that has already been given to congress....your analysis lacks evidence as does all civilians without classified clearance......tell all of us here, your classified security status


The House Intelligence Committee asked to be briefed and scheduled a meeting for it. It is they who wanted more information obviously, or they would not have requested the meeting. The CIA would not attend. That's all.



RIght...and the CIA is busy preparing a report to be released to the WH, Congress, the committee and as much as possible the Public...



President Obama has directed the intelligence community to conduct “a full review” of the 2016 election in light of reports of Russian interference, homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco said Friday.

The report is expected to be completed and transmitted to Congress before he leaves office Jan. 20.

thehill.com...

So the GOP in Congress who have been compromised via hacks themselves can get the full report in a few days.

Should be interesting


You have claimed that the GOP House Intelligence Committee have been hacked and earlier on that they are involved with Russia. Do you have any evidence for this or is it more fake news like the disinformation about Craig Murray not being in Washington that you posted earlier?

I think any report into spying and methods of spying and dissemination of information should be very useful, as long as it covers all areas and is not partisan. I think it is something that Trump will support once he is sworn in.
edit on 15/12/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

If our governemtnw ould stop using "national security" to hide their misdeeds, i could swallow this.

But those clowns have lost the luxury of public trust. Unfortunately for all of us.



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Indigo5

I think you are confusing leaks with publishing.

Somebody leaked the documents or they were hacked - we don't know when.




And I think you are replacing facts with BS...we know precisely when and how...right down to the exact bitly link used for the ploy that Podesta responded to...traced right back to Russian FSB..

motherboard.vice.com...





There is zero evidence at all that this server event is the 'hack' that led to all the wikileaks information.
You have concluded based on a shred of evidence. Even James Clapper has refused to nail down the specific timings.

I am still waiting for you to retract your disinformation about Craig Murray not being in Washington when he said he was... or were you hoping that fake news would slide by unnoticed?


well, get use to waiting...why?...because classified information is none of your damn business


I am not waiting for any classified information.
I am waiting for a retraction of disinformation relating to this thread that was posted earlier by another poster. None of that is classified.



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: jimmyx

Whether UKTruth, or anyone else here, has a security classification is irrelevant (and demanding it is actually against site T&C's). You 2 were discussing the CIA refusal to appear before their congressional oversight committee. We don't need clearance to know that it happened. If there is evidence of hacking...the people's representatives have asked for proof. And they ignored their constitutionally required duty to even engage in conversation over it.


so, you are ignoring the article I cited above from the daily beast, where the "gang of 12" in congress were briefed in September? you do know the "gang of 12" includes the top ranking republicans in congress, right?....do you think this is also false?



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: jimmyx

Whether UKTruth, or anyone else here, has a security classification is irrelevant (and demanding it is actually against site T&C's). You 2 were discussing the CIA refusal to appear before their congressional oversight committee. We don't need clearance to know that it happened. If there is evidence of hacking...the people's representatives have asked for proof. And they ignored their constitutionally required duty to even engage in conversation over it.



If the CIA has assets in-field they need to pull before sharing sensitive intelligence to a very leaky and a potentially compromised (Reports are the Russians hacked GOP in Congress emails) committee...they have a right and responsibility to do so.

They are preparing the full report now and will release versions to the WH, Congress, the committee and the public before Dec. 20th when Pres. Obama officially checks out.

BTW - The CIA Reports to the Director of National Intelligence...who reports to the Executive Branch (POTUS)

The Select Intelligence Committee holds the purse strings and can choose to defund the CIA...Or pass laws and legislation empowering or depowering them...but the CIA reports to the President, not the Select Oversight Committee on Intelligence..

They are not obligated scuttle an ongoing investigation and report because the committee prematurely demands they do so. Their first obligation is to the executive branch which demanded they report back before his term ends in 5 days.



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: jimmyx

Whether UKTruth, or anyone else here, has a security classification is irrelevant (and demanding it is actually against site T&C's). You 2 were discussing the CIA refusal to appear before their congressional oversight committee. We don't need clearance to know that it happened. If there is evidence of hacking...the people's representatives have asked for proof. And they ignored their constitutionally required duty to even engage in conversation over it.



If the CIA has assets in-field they need to pull before sharing sensitive intelligence to a very leaky and a potentially compromised (Reports are the Russians hacked GOP in Congress emails) committee...they have a right and responsibility to do so.

They are preparing the full report now and will release versions to the WH, Congress, the committee and the public before Dec. 20th when Pres. Obama officially checks out.

BTW - The CIA Reports to the Director of National Intelligence...who reports to the Executive Branch (POTUS)

The Select Intelligence Committee holds the purse strings and can choose to defund the CIA...Or pass laws and legislation empowering or depowering them...but the CIA reports to the President, not the Select Oversight Committee on Intelligence..

They are not obligated scuttle an ongoing investigation and report because the committee prematurely demands they do so. Their first obligation is to the executive branch which demanded they report back before his term ends in 5 days.


Which kills the notion that they will brief the Electoral College before Monday. After all, they are too busy.
It's Jan 20th by the way when Obama checks out.
I am sure by then, the most credible evidence so far made public, from Mr Murray, will be included in the report.
edit on 15/12/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2016 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Indigo5

There is no evidence of the Kremlin or 'Russia' being involved. The only claim is that a known Russian hacker(s) were trying to access email accounts and servers. These same hackers turn up regularly and have done over some time. There is no evidence that they are the only ones and no evidence that the actual information released from wikileaks came form these people or another hacker, or indeed from a Washington insider (which is the most credible evidence we have so far from Mr Murray)

If that is your 100% proof, then your analysis lacks credibility.


you have no idea what you are talking about....unless you know the CLASSIFIED information that has already been given to congress....your analysis lacks evidence as does all civilians without classified clearance......tell all of us here, your classified security status


The House Intelligence Committee asked to be briefed and scheduled a meeting for it. It is they who wanted more information obviously, or they would not have requested the meeting. The CIA would not attend. That's all.



RIght...and the CIA is busy preparing a report to be released to the WH, Congress, the committee and as much as possible the Public...



President Obama has directed the intelligence community to conduct “a full review” of the 2016 election in light of reports of Russian interference, homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco said Friday.

The report is expected to be completed and transmitted to Congress before he leaves office Jan. 20.

thehill.com...

So the GOP in Congress who have been compromised via hacks themselves can get the full report in a few days.

Should be interesting


You have claimed that the GOP House Intelligence Committee have been hacked and earlier on that they are involved with Russia.


No I said they very well could be compromised because GOP in Congress were hacked by the Russians, but that data was not released...which infers the Russians are mining for blackmail leverage...



Do you have any evidence for this or is it more fake news.


Oh...I am sure it qualifies as Fake News to you?...And you will continue to claim so even when the CIA report emerges..

But here you go...



Russian hackers breached accounts of GOP individuals and organizations prior to the election -- including GOP House members,

www.cnn.com...




top topics



 
86
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join