NP - Did Putin Swing the Election to Trump? Of Course He Did. (less bluster, more evidence)

[Mark Kohut]

First...

Make sure that all of these are current in their judgments...I get plenty
since this has been ongoing for months and months that are old after more
and more info and judgment is known. and secrets formerly secret are
articulated....The FBI, with that faction protecting Trump, was one such,
who agreed last.

Second, in the Reuters piece alone, it is stated---and,again, this is not
fully current (Dec 28)  and much is still Top Secret, revealed that not all
17 agencies "participated in preparing the assessment".....happens all the
time that a few do the report preparing while the others sign off...while
the others found out the same stuff but not as much......

I do not want to waste my time exploring the rest of these, given that
timing problem of many such 'refutations", esp not the Moscow Times, NBC or
some others I don't know. Even in the headlines, what is usually stated is
that the report could not reveal its sources and all it knows therby--one
says there is nothing new here (which means, as your quoted Julia Ioffe
sez, the hack has already been known) See Julia Ioffe below:

 "Julia Ioffe, a writer for The Atlantic who watches Russia carefully,
tweeted this about the intelligence community's unclassified report on
Russian hacking released Friday: "It's hard to tell if the thinness of the
#hacking report is because the proof is classified, or because the proof
doesn't exist."*

"Thin" is right. The report is brief — the heart of it is just five
broadly-spaced pages. It is all conclusions and no evidence. In the
introduction, the IC — the collective voice of the CIA, the FBI
<http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/section/fbi>, and the NSA — explains
that it cannot supply evidence to the public, because doing so "would
reveal sensitive sources or methods and imperil the ability to collect
critical foreign intelligence in the future."--this from the conservative
Washington Examiner.

Julia Ioffe:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/seven-reasons-the-new-russian-hack-announcement-is-a-big-deal-214330

Not a slam dunk, okay, I'm not tall enough but a one-hand set shot from
right above the key. Don't want to believe me or this? Okay. As I wrote, we
all get differed with. One of us is wrong; or both of us somehow. The way
it is.






On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Thomas Eckhardt <
thomas.eckhardt at uni-bonn.de> wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 04:54:02 -0500
>  Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There are 17 intelligence agencies and the FBI which have signed off on
>> the truth of Russian hacking.
>>
>
> Reuters says that not all 17 intelligence agencies "participated in
> preparing the assessment".
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-cyber-celebrate-idUSKBN14P2NI
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, Mark, but the report seems to be a product of
> the CIA, the FBI and the DNI only.
>
> DNI Director Clapper is a proven liar (under oath, to Congress), and the
> CIA is, well, the CIA.
>
> Interestingly, the unclassified report does not even convince journalists
> sympathetic to the cause:
>
> Daily Beast: "U.S. Spy Report Blames Putin for Hacks, But Doesn’t Back It
> Up"
>
> Kevin Rothrock (Moscow Times): "I cannot believe my eyes. Is this really
> part of the US government's intelligence case?"
> "I'll say it: the declassified USG report "Assessing Russian Activities
> and Intentions in Recent US Elections" is an embarrassment."
>
> Susan Hennessey (Lawfare, Brookings):
> "The unclassified report is underwhelming at best. There is essentially no
> new information for those who have been paying attention."
>
> Bill Neely (NBCNews):
> "Lots of key judgements but not many key facts & no open proof in US
> Intell. report into alleged Russian hacking."
>
> Stephen Hayes (Weekly Standard):
> "The intel report on Russia is little more than a collection of
> assertions. Understand protecting sources/methods, but it's weak."
>
> Julia Ioffe (The Atlantic):
> "It's hard to tell if the thinness of the #hacking report is because the
> proof is qualified, or because the proof doesn't exist."
>
> Let's just say that it is not a "slam dunk"...
>
> The report is here:
>
> https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20170110/3c8540f7/attachment.html>