US Intel Vets Demand Obama Show Proof of Russian Hacking or Admit It Doesn’t Exist

What strikes me as odd, is that the Russians did not go to Hillary. She's obviously the more compromised. And if the information was already available before we all voted, why did we not hear about it so that we could make an informed voting decision?

a reply to: apydomis

Who says they didn't.

It was thanks to BIll we were buying the nukes from the collapse.

It was thanks to both of them and their foundation for Uranium one.

a reply to: sad_eyed_lady

HAHAHA! You actually think Obama or the left gives a # about Veterans? Where the hell have you been? Our heroes are the scourge of the left...and Obama.

originally posted by: fencesitter85
Yet trump insisted the election was rigged and also acknowledged the Russian hacking. You people change like the weather.

There wasn't' any Russian "hacking", right?

It was a phishing scam.

You call that hacking?

a reply to: sad_eyed_lady

This has been posted before...

The Group is shell run by a whacko..

I also see he has edited his Wki lately...

He was screaming in 2010 that Israel was going to bomb Iran....and after that he was on a campaign claiming Russia did not invade Crimea...

It's propaganda you are posting..

a reply to: Indigo5

Actually Israel did want to attack Iran in 2010 and +/- 2 years and was lobbying for it in USA.
And Russia didn't invade Crimea since their troops were there for the st 230 years, long before Ukraine was even created. Troops were there and Crimea was taken without a single shot fired. When you invade, troops must go across a border and weapons are used.

a reply to: sad_eyed_lady

Just so you know - I don't actually know. One way or the other - I have no clue what the hell is going on. And - neither do you. Or - your experts

:-)

Anyhow...

For any who continues to buy into the Russia Hacking report the IC and Obama put forth I submit this as expert testimony that there is no evidence.

It isn't testimony - it's an educated opinion and not really a demand. Whoever is writing the headlines is calling it a demand:

As President for a few more days, you have the power to demand concrete evidence of a link between the Russians and WikiLeaks, which published the bulk of the information in question. Lacking that evidence, the American people should be told that there is no fire under the smoke and mirrors of recent weeks.

We urge you to authorize public release of any tangible evidence that takes us beyond the unsubstantiated, “we-assess” judgments by the intelligence agencies. Otherwise, we – as well as other skeptical Americans – will be left with the corrosive suspicion that the intense campaign of accusations is part of a wider attempt to discredit the Russians and those – like Mr. Trump – who wish to deal constructively with them.

Not unreasonable? I wonder if they were always willing to part with information before they were done analyzing it - back when they were wherever it was they all were doing whatever it was they all did. So, they say:

You told Alexander you were reluctant to “compromise sources and methods.” We can understand that concern better than most Americans. We would remind you, though, that at critical junctures in the past, your predecessors made judicious decisions to give higher priority to buttressing the credibility of U.S. intelligence-based policy than to protecting sources and methods. With the Kremlin widely accused by politicians and pundits of “an act of war,” this is the kind of textbook case in which you might seriously consider taking special pains to substantiate serious allegations with hard intelligence – if there is any.

You know - I think everybody is being reasonable. This is a huge story, quite the accusation - and Obama is history tomorrow

Also - I think they focused a little bit too much on the difference between hacking and leaking (in their letter) - when what this is really about is influence - plain and simple. Oh, and possibly collusion. It remains to be seen how much of this ever sees the light of day after his majesty ascends the throne

Old spooks - new spooks. Spy vs. Spy...and diplomats! :-)

God - you could not make this stuff up

a reply to: DJW001

Dividing the American nation is the goal of Russia's interference. Since when do you want America to be the top superpower?

Since somebody decided it would be really cool if Putin and Trump could tag team the rest of the planet

originally posted by: baburak
a reply to: Indigo5

Actually Israel did want to attack Iran in 2010 and +/- 2 years and was lobbying for it in USA.
And Russia didn't invade Crimea since their troops were there for the st 230 years, long before Ukraine was even created. Troops were there and Crimea was taken without a single shot fired. When you invade, troops must go across a border and weapons are used.

Reality and history dispute your first claim.

On the second claim, Putin admitted months ago how he sent troops into Ukraine.

The Propagandist cited in the OP was part of a campaign at the time saying it was not happening (despite Russian Spec Ops being captured by Ukraine and talking on camera as prisoners etc. etc.)..as part of an effort to delay international reaction to the invasion.

Once Putin had fully occupied Crimea, he admitted proudly that he had sent in troops.

The OP source has been consistent over the years feeding Russian Propaganda memes.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

No, I don't think Obama & Co. care one hoot about what the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity have to say. I'm sure the VIPS are wise enough to know this as well.

By writing this letter and making it known to the public they are attempting to educate others who still don't know how to separate truth from fiction. Writing it 3 days before the inauguration was for the benefit of the public. How the public chooses to use it will be determined in the future, if need be.

I put it here in hopes to open the minds of people who have difficulty discerning the truth and need to hear it from experts in the IC community.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: infolurker

MSM is not forwarding a story that votes were hacked. None of them.
Get real.
That is fake news.

When they use terms like "hacked the election" they are being deliberately misleading. "hacked the DNC" just doesn't carry the same weight, and they know that, so they stick with "hacked the election" or "election hacking". They know damn well most people won't take the time to read down into the nuts and bolts of the issue and understand all the nuances. Most people get their impressions from the headline or the first few paragraphs, and the media outlets know this. When they use headlines and lead-ins like that, it leaves people that don't have the time or inclination to dig in with the impression that Russia actually hacked the election. It may not be "lying" or "fake news" by your book, but they know exactly the effect it will have and seem to be fine with it. That's disgraceful. The election was not hacked. Using the term "hacked the election" or "election hacking" is dishonest, incorrect and inaccurate. What's fake news again?

originally posted by: sad_eyed_lady
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

No, I don't think Obama & Co. care one hoot about what the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity have to say.

Neither do I...the founder is a loony who has consistently sold debunked propaganda in the past...all of it aimed at supporting Putin's agenda.

originally posted by: angryproctologist
a reply to: Snarl



At least,in 48 or so more hours (if Obama doesn't order a nuclear event during that time in an extremely sissified temper tantrum) we can shake the liberal lice and excrement out of the government that has been collecting for the past few decades.

"if Obama doesn't order a nuclear event"

good lord, seriously?

what a puss.

a reply to: sad_eyed_lady

I put it here in hopes to open the minds of people who have difficulty discerning the truth and need to hear it from experts in the IC community.

What is the truth that they've given us?

So let me get this straight. These ex-intelligence officers think the NSA, CIA, and FBI should release classified information to the public? Information that the vast majority of people couldn't even begin to comprehend, but that would be valuable to anyone who wanted to know how our intelligence agencies identify cyber targets?

Information that wouldn't satisfy anyone bitching about a lack of evidence? Because let's face it, all you guys whining about a lack of evidence would simply accuse the U.S. intelligence agencies of fabricating it if they did release it.

Yeah, this makes a lot of sense.

Even Trump acknowledges the Russians were involved in the Hack.

Seriously, you people need to grow up. At some point, most people learn to differentiate fantasy from reality.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: sad_eyed_lady
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

No, I don't think Obama & Co. care one hoot about what the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity have to say.

Neither do I...the founder is a loony who has consistently sold debunked propaganda in the past...all of it aimed at supporting Putin's agenda.

Who is the founder? If you are going to call him/her a looney. I think we are entitled to know who this person is.

Waiting for your response. I could find no founder via search engine.

Their website with listed memorandums is:

War Is A Crime .org HumansForPeace.org -- AfterDowningStreet.org

I see no evidence of selling debunked propaganda aimed at supporting Putin here.

a reply to: sad_eyed_lady

How would Obama know if our intel offices don't?

After all, from Obama's own mouth, he gets the news at the same time and from the same source as most Americans do... the TV.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

No evidence has been given and we are supposed to be fat, dumb and happy with that.

First off let's get this in our minds:

You said at your press conference on Dec. 16 “the intelligence that I have seen gives me great confidence in their [U.S. intelligence agencies’] assessment that the Russians carried out this hack.” “Which hack?” you were asked. “The hack of the DNC and the hack of John Podesta,” you answered.

Earlier during the press conference you alluded to the fact that “the information was in the hands of WikiLeaks.” The key question is how the material from “Russian hacking” got to WikiLeaks, because it was WikiLeaks that published the DNC and Podesta emails. Our VIPS colleague William Binney, who was Technical Director of NSA and created many of the collection systems still in use, assures us that NSA’s “cast-iron” coverage – particularly surrounding Julian Assange and other people associated with WikiLeaks – would almost certainly have yielded a record of any electronic transfer from Russia to WikiLeaks. Binney has used some of the highly classified slides released by Edward Snowden to demonstrate precisely how NSA accomplishes this using trace mechanisms embedded throughout the network.

(taken from VIP letter to Obama in OP)


Letter links to: US Intel Vets Dispute Russia Hacking Claims
Dated Dec. 12, 2016

VIPS says it was a hack.

We have gone through the various claims about hacking. For us, it is child’s play to dismiss them. The email disclosures in question are the result of a leak, not a hack. Here’s the difference between leaking and hacking:

Leak: When someone physically takes data out of an organization and gives it to some other person or organization, as Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning did.

Hack: When someone in a remote location electronically penetrates operating systems, firewalls or any other cyber-protection system and then extracts data.

All signs point to leaking, not hacking. If hacking were involved, the National Security Agency would know it – and know both sender and recipient. In short, since leaking requires physically removing data – on a thumb drive, for example – the only way such data can be copied and removed, with no electronic trace of what has left the server, is via a physical storage device.

The bottom line is that the NSA would know where and how any “hacked” emails from the DNC, HRC or any other servers were routed through the network. This process can sometimes require a closer look into the routing to sort out intermediate clients, but in the end sender and recipient can be traced across the network......any data that is passed from the servers of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) or of Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) – or any other server in the U.S. – is collected by the NSA. These data transfers carry destination addresses in what are called packets, which enable the transfer to be traced and followed through the network.

Back to the letter:

We strongly suggest that you ask NSA for any evidence it may have indicating that the results of Russian hacking were given to WikiLeaks. If NSA can produce such evidence, you may wish to order whatever declassification may be needed and then release the evidence. This would go a long way toward allaying suspicions that no evidence exists. If NSA cannot give you that information – and quickly – this would probably mean it does not have any.

If I didn't give you enough information to make it clear the link is above.

And if you still insist on trusting the govt let this story soak in:

EXCLUSIVE – NSA Whistleblower: Agency Has All of Clinton’s Deleted Emails

PHILADELPHIA – The National Security Agency (NSA) has “all” of Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails and the FBI could gain access to them if they so desired, William Binney, a former highly placed NSA official, declared in a radio interview broadcast on Sunday.

William Binney was the first signature on the VIPS letter to Obama.
William Binney (U.S. intelligence official) Wikipedia

She whose name should never be mentioned lied her butt off and we got to watch the congressional dog and pony show when all the while the NSA could have produced every single email.

We the people have been conned once again. Thank God this group is speaking up to let us know.

a reply to: sad_eyed_lady

BBC documentary says it has proof of hacking ?

Panorama the Kremlin candidate

originally posted by: six67seven
a reply to: sad_eyed_lady

How would Obama know if our intel offices don't?

After all, from Obama's own mouth, he gets the news at the same time and from the same source as most Americans do... the TV.

That's what he would like you to think.

We Control the News Media - Anita Dunn Barack Obama's Communications Whitehouse Director