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.
This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment. This document’s conclusions are identical to the highly classified assessment, but this document does not include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence on key elements of the influence campaign. Given the redactions, we made minor edits purely for readability and flow.
Thus, while the conclusions in the report are all reflected in the classified assessment, the declassified report does not and cannot include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence and sources and methods
It neglects to mention the negative campaign directed against Trump by US media and others, which is still ongoing and ironically, this report is a part of.
The report gives little insight into the actual hacks and the leaks to Wikileaks. They don't mention Seth Rich, an alleged whistleblower who worked for DNC and who was then shot dead after the leaks.
We see the propaganda! It is being picked apart, and laughed at.
originally posted by: flyingdutchman2112
a reply to: theantediluvian
Hilary Clinton sent Ambassador Stevens to die there. He had learned about to much gun running and probably child trafficking, she made sure they knew where he was and she told the military workers ready to save him to stand down.
It was just past midnight on Feb. 28 in the Moscow studios of RT, Russia’s state-funded international television news network, when word of the assassination reached the staff: Boris Nemtsov, a leading figure in the fractious opposition to President Vladimir Putin, had been shot dead a short walk from Red Square. Later that morning, Putin’s spokesman set the tone for RT’s coverage. “What goes without saying,” said Dmitri Peskov, “is that this is a 100% provocation.” His implication was clear: the Nemtsov shooting was staged by Russia’s enemies, not to silence the victim but to discredit the regime he opposed.
Simonyan, now 34, bristles at suggestions that her media empire is not editorially independent. Is it possible, for instance, that someone from the Kremlin might call her up and demand that she not broadcast a particular story? “How can you imagine such a thing?” she asks, looking genuinely hurt.
And yet on her desk sits an old yellow telephone, a government landline, the sort with no dial pad, the sort usually seen in the offices of senior Russian officials. It is her secure connection, she admits, directly to the Kremlin. What’s it for, then, if not to talk shop? “The phone exists,” she says, “to discuss secret things.”
originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: daftpink
There's nothing particularly "long awaited" about this report. That would imply that this specific report was anticipated. What was released to the public isn't "evidence" but rather essentially a joint statement of conclusions from the FBI, NSA and CIA.
This is mentioned twice in the document:
This report is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment. This document’s conclusions are identical to the highly classified assessment, but this document does not include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence on key elements of the influence campaign. Given the redactions, we made minor edits purely for readability and flow.
Thus, while the conclusions in the report are all reflected in the classified assessment, the declassified report does not and cannot include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence and sources and methods
It neglects to mention the negative campaign directed against Trump by US media and others, which is still ongoing and ironically, this report is a part of.
Why should the document detail the nature of coverage of Trump by the media? The document doesn't mention the GOP's ten plus hours of televised kangaroo court which was little more than a failed publicity stunt where a series of hostile GOP congressman took turns berating and interrogating Clinton on national television either. It doesn't mention the Comey letters nor does it detail Bret Baier's election-week promotion of false rumors from the FBI sourced to unnamed individuals "with knowledge of the investigation" who were almost certainly two long time acquaintances of Donald Trump and active supporters of his campaign — Giuliani and Kallstrom — the former being a surrogate for DJT and recipient of hundreds of thousands of dollars from the pro-Trump Robert Mercer PAC.
Why doesn't it? Because none of that s# is relevant to the topic at hand. We have a guarantee of freedom of the press in the First Amendment and we have libel laws for individuals seeking legal redress for publication of false and damaging claims. All media is biased to some extent because all people have bias.
There is no tradition of strict neutrality in the media nor are there laws seeking to mandate this impossible standard. More to the point, the very nature of a person's behavior and statements will dictate to a degree the nature of the reporting. For example, how very very very few would argue that coverage of John Wayne Gacy was unfairly biased? How about none? In other words, if DJT wasn't a fountain gushing stupid s# and constantly attacking the media for critical reporting up to and including naming specific journalists for attack by the angry mob, perhaps the coverage would have been less critical.
The report gives little insight into the actual hacks and the leaks to Wikileaks. They don't mention Seth Rich, an alleged whistleblower who worked for DNC and who was then shot dead after the leaks.
There is plenty of information about the hacks available publically and in my experience, many have gone to great lengths to dismiss it or even deny its existence. Why should there be any mention of Seth Rich? Because his murder was exploited as a red herring? Even Assange who deliberately encouraged this wouldn't go so far as to make any comment alleging that Seth Rich was in fact a whistleblower let alone the source of the DNC emails.
Furthermore, it's obvious that Seth Rich is a red herring because if he wasn't, why wouldn't Julian Assange name Seth Rich as the source of the DNC emails? Seth Rich is dead. Withholding his identity as the source wouldn't be protecting him from anything and in fact, by not revealing this information plainly, Assange would be abetting murderers and working against the interests of whistleblowers to come.
You keep talking about Seth Rich though. You clearly are buying into a very flimsy and transparent misdirection.
Assange's actions only add to the picture of his williness to deceive. And before anyone responds to me with some bulls# about how "I bet you loved Assange when" — you would be wrong. If anyone can find me saying anything flattering about Assange ever, I will print it out and eat the paper.
We see the propaganda! It is being picked apart, and laughed at.
I see willfully ignorant fools constructing their own bubble of ignorance and laughing at their own manipulation which is pretty damn pathetic.
the report cannot name specific names or sources because that would expose tradecraft secrets.
originally posted by: jimmyx
originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti
This will be part of what defines Obama's legacy. A sore loser who thinks he's more important than the position of the president. He is the first president in my lifetime (starting with Kennedy) who can't let go and will do everything he can to subvert the incoming president.
I can only guess that it is Obama that pushed the agencies to put out this report. I've never seen any single government agency work so fast much less 3 working together. Normally an investigation like this would take many months with a lot more review time.
the investigation has taken months, apparently that is one of the things that you do not know took place
originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: daftpink
Seems to be enough to change Trump's opinion...
You obvioulsy missed that news?
The cool kids are now conceding that Russia did at least try to influence the election.
Jury is still out if it succeeded or not
originally posted by: jimmyx
originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: daftpink
Seems to be enough to change Trump's opinion...
You obvioulsy missed that news?
The cool kids are now conceding that Russia did at least try to influence the election.
Jury is still out if it succeeded or not
Russia can't believe it was this easy....Putin is giddy that Trump himself, doesn't even believe his own intelligence agencies...they now have the true Manchurian candidate...they are laughing about all the stupid Americans that bought into Trumps line of BS
Assange's actions only add to the picture of his williness to deceive.