DNI disputes wth CIA regarding Russia hack assessment

[anatta]

he nation’s top intelligence office is not on the same page as the CIA regarding its assessment that Russia interfered in the U.S. elections in a bid to help Donald Trump, a U.S. government source confirmed to Fox News on Tuesday.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which oversees the U.S. intelligence community, has not fully embraced the CIA finding.

Fox News is told that several U.S. election-related hacking incidents are being wrongly lumped together, when they should be treated as separate events -- these cover breaches at the Democratic National Committee and another campaign arm; in a top Hillary Clinton campaign official’s email account; and at state election boards.

Reuters reports that while the ODNI does not dispute the CIA’s general analysis on Russia hacking, the office is not convinced of the evidence that Moscow sought specifically to help Trump defeat Democratic opponent Clinton.

The government source told Fox News the discrepancy comes down to Russia’s intent.

One official also told Reuters that the CIA’s judgment was based on the fact that only Democratic information was leaked.
The official called this a “thin reed upon which to base an analytical judgment.”

The developments further underscore how U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies are at odds over an assessment that has fueled Democratic complaints and questions about the race -- and spurred bipartisan calls for deeper congressional investigation.

The Clinton campaign chairman who was hacked, John Podesta, even backed calls for electors -- who are set to formally choose the president next week, based on the results of the Nov. 8 election -- to get an intelligence briefing on Russian interference in the race.

Trump, though, has pushed back hard at the reported assessment, calling it “ridiculous” in an interview with “Fox News Sunday.”

Potential space between the CIA and the ODNI on the matter was first revealed in a letter Monday from House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.
The letter, obtained by Fox News, noted that the CIA finding conflicts with Clapper’s mid-November public testimony.

"On November 17, 2016, you told the Committee during an open hearing that the IC (Intelligence Community) lacked strong evidence connecting Russian government cyberattacks and WikiLeaks disclosures,” Nunes wrote.

In response to a question at the time from ranking Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, Clapper had said,

“As far as the WikiLeaks connection, the evidence there is not as strong and we don't have good insight into the sequencing of the releases or when the data may have been provided. We don't have as good insight into that.”

The Nunes letter continued,

“

According to new press reports, this is no longer the CIA’s position

… I was dismayed that we did not learn earlier, from you directly about the reported conflicting assessments and the CIA’s reported revision of information previously conveyed to this Committee.”

Nunes is requesting a briefing from the CIA and FBI on the current assessment of alleged Russian involvement related to the U.S. election no later than Dec. 16.

The Washington Post first reported Friday that the CIA concluded in a secret assessment that Russia interfered in the race to boost Trump, not just undermine confidence in the system.
Intelligence agencies reportedly found individuals connected to the Russian government gave WikiLeaks hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee, as well as from Podesta – though the agencies did not have “specific intelligence” showing Kremlin officials directed the activity.

The Post reported, however, that the FBI also gave a differing account on potential Russian interference.

The Post reported Tuesday that the CIA assessment was based in part on intelligence indicating Moscow’s hacking disproportionately affected Democratic targets.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-as-cia-regarding-russia-hack-assessment.html

 

[anatta]

DNI is rational that we don'tknow Russian "intent" and just because WIKI only released DNC/Podesta Emails -
it doesn't show that Russia was trying to push Trump .

(My own opinion is Russia -or Russian NGO state actors were just flexing their muscle -doing it "because we can")

see Nunes letter above: that Clappers testimony conflicts with WaPO's reports

 

[Darth Omar]

A few things: the first is discerning intent is difficult even in conventional investigations---I'm not even sure it's possible in hacking unless it involves a bank account. So Clappers conclusion, which conflicts with his own November conclusion is suspect.

Second: clearly, the CIA has been politicized.

Third, even assuming Russia's intent was to help Trump our own intelligence people assert that that Russia couldn't affect the outcome of the election.

So with respect to overturning the election or somehow delegitimizating Trump, case, closed.

 

[Celticguy]

So let's recap. CIA says the red menace wanted trump to win, FBI says you have no evidence, DNI agrees with FBI.

CIA does a pretty good job but ask any career military guy who has had to rely on them and they will tell you they are not perfect. Granted it's often reading tea leaves but there is as much circumstances evidence for disgruntled employees as anything else.
Party is over lefties.

 

[anatta]

^ excellent summarization DARTH.
I'm suspect about the whole thing since it was broken by a WaPo "intelligence agency" source.
WaPo has been shown to be journalistically untrustworthy...

But none of this is new - we all
saw the Wikileaks during the campaign, ( though Assange denied Russian involvement) -and it was all factored into the election results.

It's WaPo/Dems digging up old stuff and telling us there is something new. We already saw this movie

 

[archives]

So let's recap. CIA says the red menace wanted trump to win, FBI says you have no evidence, DNI agrees with FBI.

CIA does a pretty good job but ask any career military guy who has had to rely on them and they will tell you they are not perfect. Granted it's often reading tea leaves but there is as much circumstances evidence for disgruntled employees as anything else.
Party is over lefties.

So what about the other sixteen intelligence agencies? And to clarify it for you, the FBI, being legalistic by definition, didn't deny the CIA's conclusions, rather commented that they were reasonable but without enough proof to make it illegal at this point

 

[Buckly J. Ewer]

The Electoral College now has the CIA intel ...
scared?

 

[Darth Omar]

^ excellent summarization DARTH.
I'm suspect about the whole thing since it was broken by a WaPo "intelligence agency" source.
WaPo has been shown to be journalistically untrustworthy...

But none of this is new - we all
saw the Wikileaks during the campaign, ( though Assange denied Russian involvement) -and it was all factored into the election results.

It's WaPo/Dems digging up old stuff and telling us there is something new. We already saw this movie

Assange doesn't have a dog in the fight; he's probably the only one who knows and nobody listens to him lol.

 

[Darth Omar]

So what about the other sixteen intelligence agencies? And to clarify it for you, the FBI, being legalistic by definition, didn't deny the CIA's conclusions, rather commented that they were reasonable but without enough proof to make it illegal at this point

Which sort of makes it a conspiracy theory lol?

 

[archives]

Which sort of makes it a conspiracy theory lol?

Hardly, seventeen intelligence agencies aren't quite the same as Alan Jones

 

[Darth Omar]

Hardly, seventeen intelligence agencies aren't quite the same as Alan Jones

It doesn't matter how many people believe it or even who they are, it's a theory [hence, conspiracy] until they have actual evidence. I can name half a dozen conspiracy theories that are 'reasonable' but lack evidence.

 

[anatta]

DNI oversees the entire Intelligence community. .CIA of course operates separately - not supposed to operate in the USA

The developments further underscore how U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies are at odds over an assessment that has fueled Democratic complaints and questions about the race -- and spurred bipartisan calls for deeper congressional investigation.

it's dog whistle politics for the Dems..nothing really new here except for Russian "intent" and that only is because WIKI only released Democratic emails. ( Which we all knew anyways).
Assange had it in for Clinton -no doubt about it. But can "Russian hackers" (sic)control Assange's releases

 

[canceled.2021.3]

A few things: the first is discerning intent is difficult even in conventional investigations---I'm not even sure it's possible in hacking unless it involves a bank account. So Clappers conclusion, which conflicts with his own November conclusion is suspect.

Second: clearly, the CIA has been politicized.

Third, even assuming Russia's intent was to help Trump our own intelligence people assert that that Russia couldn't affect the outcome of the election.

So with respect to overturning the election or somehow delegitimizating Trump, case, closed.

In July weren't the lefties on this board heralding Comey when he said Clinton's server wasn't hacked by outside sources? Now they believe she was?

The lefties don't care whether Russia hacked or didn't hack. This is sour grapes over losing and trying to delegitimize Trump.

 

[anatta]

In July weren't the lefties on this board heralding Comey when he said Clinton's server wasn't hacked by outside sources? Now they believe she was?

The lefties don't care whether Russia hacked or didn't hack. This is sour grapes over losing and trying to delegitimize Trump.

Comey could find "no evidence" of foreign hacking into the Clinton Emails. This is about DNC/States/Podesta.

these cover breaches at the Democratic National Committee and another campaign arm; in a top Hillary Clinton campaign official’s email account; and at state election boards.

also to your point - no evidence" does not mean Clinton wasn't hacked.

 

[Darth Omar]

Comey could find "no evidence" of foreign hacking into the Clinton Emails. This is about DNC/States/Podesta.
also to your point - no evidence" does not mean Clinton wasn't hacked.

Evidence can be tricky when dealing with hackers. I forget who it was I watching, but they said Russian involvement could be a false flag; that is, some party or actor wanted to make it look like Russia was involved.

And guess what lol, they can make just as strong a case as those saying Russia did it.

It's all political maneuvering by left wing democrats to delegitimize Trump. That's the strongest fact in this whole thing. And it's reprehensible the WH is involved in it.

I get the sense Trump isn't going to forget this.

 

[NOVA]

Hardly, seventeen intelligence agencies aren't quite the same as Alan Jones

Reasonable question....what about the other agency's?....we've only heard from three, the CIA, ODNI and FBI...who seem to have disagreements on the degree of actual proof and motive of the 'suspected' party being accussed.

CTIIC is the newest of four multi-agency intelligence centers under the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center and his assessment , reported by Reuters was that while the ODNI does not dispute the CIA’s general analysis on Russia hacking, the office is not convinced of the evidence that Moscow sought specifically to help Trump defeat Democratic opponent Clinton.

The FBI questions the accused party.
The ODNI questions the motive
The CIA has no solid proof of either.

Its still a guessing game with no consensus....

The voters heard the truth from Wikileaks...not even one DNC email was contested as not being factual, so the source of the truth is
irrelevant to me and probably is to most people....The message was more important than the messenger....

 

[canceled.2021.3]

Comey could find "no evidence" of foreign hacking into the Clinton Emails. This is about DNC/States/Podesta.
also to your point - no evidence" does not mean Clinton wasn't hacked.

That's true. For the record I believe she was hacked. I am just pointing out left wing hypocrisy

My opinion is that it is more likely a DNC insider spilled the beans on Podesta than him being hacked.

Other states trying to hack our systems is nothing new. In fact we try to hack other states as well.

If I thought the lefties were serious and not just weeping over spilled milk it would give them a little more credence.

 

[WillReadmore]

A few things: the first is discerning intent is difficult even in conventional investigations---I'm not even sure it's possible in hacking unless it involves a bank account. So Clappers conclusion, which conflicts with his own November conclusion is suspect.

Second: clearly, the CIA has been politicized.

Third, even assuming Russia's intent was to help Trump our own intelligence people assert that that Russia couldn't affect the outcome of the election.

So with respect to overturning the election or somehow delegitimizating Trump, case, closed.

Your second point is obviously ridiculous.

Your third point seems to accurately state what they said. Changing our elections by hacking the election itself is quite unlikely.

However, the suspicion is that Russia DID take action to change the election outcome - such as promoting false information within the US. I haven't heard a CIA statement on that direction, which is quite obviously possible - especially in light of the false information being promoted during the last month or so.


The more important part here is that a foreign nation hacked out election in a way that was essentially the same as the Nixon burglary at the Watergate that led to his resignation in the face of impeachment.

As for this election, we don't have a tie between Russia's acts and Trump. That is, there isn't an indication that Trump knew about or contributed to Russia's activity. If that connection were ever made, then it would be more than sufficient grounds for impeachment.

 

[WillReadmore]

In July weren't the lefties on this board heralding Comey when he said Clinton's server wasn't hacked by outside sources? Now they believe she was?

The lefties don't care whether Russia hacked or didn't hack. This is sour grapes over losing and trying to delegitimize Trump.

You're confused on a couple points here.

Comey made statements about Clinton's Sec State email - not the DNC.

One doesn't always know if one is hacked, so one can certainly think one is not being hacked and then find out later that there was hacking going on.


Finally, Russia hacking elements of our democracy is a national security issue and a direct assault on our democracy.

Pitching that as "sour grapes" is not just stupid - it is seriously anti-American.

 

[canceled.2021.3]

You're confused on a couple points here.

Comey made statements about Clinton's Sec State email - not the DNC.

One doesn't always know if one is hacked, so one can certainly think one is not being hacked and then find out later that there was hacking going on.


Finally, Russia hacking elements of our democracy is a national security issue and a direct assault on our democracy.

Pitching that as "sour grapes" is not just stupid - it is seriously anti-American.

It is sour grapes. States hacking states is nothing new. Are you saying we don't do it?

Get off your high fucking horse.

Yeah the Russians wanted to learn about Podestas risotto. If they really wanted to hurt that cunt Hillary, Wiki would have released them during the primary. It highlights more how the democrat party screwed Bernie.

All along the lefties said the Podesta emails had no effect. But now that the cunt lost you are all of a sudden cold warriors.

Spare me your feigned indignation.