Background:
On Friday, The US intelligence community released a "declassified" version of their ongoing investigation into the US elections and potential tampering with a focus on Russia. The report itself in our opinion was more of a revelation on the growing influence of social media in the press, and less of an indictment on Russian hacking. Further, to release something in this way seemed a reaction to pressure, which implies politicized agency behavior. placater
Finally, it does seem some info Wiki got was Russian in origin, but not the source who gave them the info. How is that any different than any other leaked info that Pols use to distance themselves from DISinformation? We capitalize the DIS because despite the 1000s of leaks, not one has been denied by the DNC or anyone related. What wikileaks published was INFORMATION previously here:US Intel: Russia was the WikiLeaks Source
The following article makes the point that the current allegations remain unproven.
US Intel Chief Cites Phantom Evidence on ‘Russian Hacking’
via Jason Ditz- The new, and apparently seminal report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on putative Russian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election has finally been released, providing a 25-page glimpse into the thinking that underpins an allegation which remains the sum total of US electoral politics in recent months.
This appears to be the report that the Obama Administration was heavily pressured to proffer by Congressional Democrats as a way to end public skepticism of the allegations, and attempts to do so, as officials have been for weeks, by declaring Russian intervention, hacking, and what have you as an absolute confirmed fact.
But like the previous reports, evidence to substantiate the claims is wholly lacking. The big difference in the new report is an acknowledgement that they aren’t providing any evidence of what they are alleging, complete with a disclaimer at the top of every page that as a declassified report it “does not include the full supporting information” that some secret other report might.
[Soren]- Relevant from our quick analysis Friday:
Did WikiLeaks Know?
WikiLeaks Assange stated yesterday in an interview that WikiLeaks didn't receive documents from any one affiliated with the Russian State, or a state representative. That answer implied a go-between apparently, as his answer was carefully worded. Conclusion is Assange didn't "know" but suspected in the least who the origin source was. This all being relevant if the CIA Intel is accurate.
CIA is Fighting for its Life Now
The CIA and other intelligence communities are under attack for their roles in getting the US into Iraq and have weak credibility as of late.
Add to that Trump's statements to the effect he will shrink the agencies and you have a fight for relevance and survival.
So we're saying... maybe the intel is regarded as highly probable of being accurate, but are the people producing the intel objective or competent to make such a self-distinction on their perceptions? They can hardly be seen as objective. Conversely, they want to make sure theyare right this time as their budget may just depend on it. We will see.
Finally, Why is noone pointing out that the info published by WikiLeaks has yet to be denied by the DNC? Why are we focusing on the how it was gotten? Focus on that if you will, but let's remember what was revealed about our 2 party system. Our Pols are really no different than any other political system that has been corrupted and encased in a protective bubble of arrogance for decades. Out of touch and out of control. Read our full assessment HERE
The evidence-free version was still sufficient to get ample media coverage once again echoing the claims unquestioned, declaring that Putin was driven by “hatred” and warned to “denigrate Secretary Clinton.” The report’s claims largely amount to a collection of the myriad allegations in an easy-to-follow form, but break no new ground.
Once again, the report claims the DNC hacker Guccifer 2.0 was actually the Russian military, providing no evidence for this, and claims DCLeaks.com was the military as well. They claimed the military directly gave WikiLeaks the documents because Putin thought WikiLeaks’ history of accuracy was valuable. No evidence for any of this, but the report did at the very least note that all the WikiLeaks documents appear to have been authentic.
Beyond a very brief rehash of the narrative, and a claim that Putin was bent on destroying the Western liberal order simply to spite Hillary Clinton, the report then gets into by far the deepest section, alleging state-funding media outlet RT America “disparaged” Clinton and wanted Trump to win.
Interestingly in that it’s the part with the most meat, this “propaganda” section is also the part with the most glaring contradiction, arguing on the one hand that Putin was just anti-Clinton and warmed to Trump relatively late in the campaign while at the same time arguing that Russia had hired a bunch of “social media trolls” and that they were all pro-Trump from before the primaries began.
The report also faults RT for covering the Clinton email leaks so extensively, presenting that as proof of their “consistently negative” attitude toward the candidate. US media outlets, of course, largely focused on Clinton’s allegations of Russian plots above the actual email releases.
As has often been the case in previous reports, this one begins with its conclusion and then figures out ways in which the facts could conceivably fit that conclusion. For example, the report notes that Putin did not publicly praise Trump ahead of the election, and then concludes this was a savvy move on the part of the Kremlin because they thought it would “backfire” and hurt Trump’s election chances.
With no existing publicly available evidence for the allegations, and no new evidence emerging from today’s report, it’s not clear that anyone new will be convinced, and President-elect Donald Trump appears to have the same doubts he always did. Ultimately, the only ones likely to be happy with the report are those who were already sold on the allegations before.
Read more by Soren K.Group
