One of the most controversial potential nominees for President-Elect Donald Trump just got more controversial. John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has been listed as the possible second in command at State. He previously served as ambassador under a recess appointment because he was heavily opposed by Democrats and some career State Department officials. He can now likely add intelligence officials to his opposition. In an extraordinary interview on Fox News, Bolton dismissed the CIA report finding Russian interference with the election and hacking of emails. Instead, he suggested that the entire controversy could be a “false flag,” or a false story planted by parties in the United States. That would sound like the American intelligence community and specifically the CIA to many. (The FBI was widely criticized by the Clinton supporters for its own alleged influencing of the campaign). It is an entirely unsupported and rather unhinged suggestion, particularly from someone being considered for a high office. It could make an already hot potential nomination into a positively radioactive one.
Bolton told Eric Shawn “It is not at all clear to me, just viewing this from the outside, that this hacking into the DNC and the RNC was not a false flag operation.” Shawn was obviously surprised and gave Bolton an out and asked about whether he really was suggesting a true false flag operation. Bolton responded “We just don’t know.” Of course, we also do not know that it was not a papal conspiracy designed to fight the Illuminati influence in the White House, but most high-ranking diplomats would refrain from raising that possibility in a public interview.
Bolton then followed up with a statement that seemed to confirm that he was speaking of a U.S. intelligence agency creating a false story to influence the election: “But I believe that intelligence has been politicized in the Obama administration to a very significant degree.” That would seem to suggest that the intelligence community may have been at least a willing party to the false flag. Of course, it could be claimed that China or North Korea was behind a hack with the intention to implicate Russia. However, that would be odd since China obviously opposes Trump and this “false flag” clearly undermining Clinton, not Trump. Moreover, it would be incredibly stupid for China to implicate Russia, which his currently coordinating with China on various high value operations and initiatives. In the end, we are still left with the perplexing question of why? Of course, when it comes to North Korea, logic is not a strong suit. Moreover, following this wavering line of logic, it would require the CIA to then cover up for a false flag operation in issuing its report. Why would another country (or an American intelligence agency) create a false flag to help Clinton by releasing massively damaging emails? Even if you consider that both Republican and Democratic emails were hacked, the Democratic emails proved far more damaging politically.
In the end, it is bizarre to think that the CIA or some other intelligence agency would seek to help Clinton with the release of highly damaging emails implicating Democratic leaders and the campaign in dishonest and often unethical dealings. If that is the CIA’s concept of a false flag, we are truly in peril as a nation.
Bolton however did not backdown. He asked “if you think the Russians did this, then why did they leave fingerprints? . . . We would want to know who else might want to influence the election and why they would leave fingerprints that point to the Russians. That’s why I say until we know more about how the intelligence community came to this conclusion we don’t know whether it is Russian inspired or a false flag.”
The suggestion indicates that Bolton believes that the intelligence would engage in illegal activities that undermine the very democratic process in the United States. They did this with a false flag operation that would have been perfectly moronic in undermining the very candidate that they allegedly wanted to put into office. It is like saying that the CIA tried to rig American Idol for Trent Harmon by altering his mike to sound like Daffy Duck. It does not exactly help you garner votes.
Bolton’s interview offers new ammunition for the Deomocrats and some Republicans who are already gunning for Bolton.
It seems a tad hypocritical to criticize foreign governments for allegedly interfering in our elections when we’ve intruded in so many ourselves.
It appears that we have an anonymous source from the CIA claiming that actors at least once removed from the Russian government were the source for Wikileaks. Julian Assange has assured us that the Russian government is not behind it, but he may not know if it was directing his sources. It certainly is not the settled issue that headlines would have you believe, as the media again manipulates public opinion while complaining that a foreign government manipulated foreign opinion.
There are two possibilities – either the Russian government directed the Wikileaks sources, or it didn’t.
Regardless, this underlines the very serious security breech committed by Hillary Clinton in putting all of her email on a private server, uploaded to the Cloud, and insisting on brining her Blackberry into foreign countries infamous for hacking. I guess we can all understand the risks she took now, right?
The way I see it, hacking is a very serious problem in the 21st Century, regardless of whether it’s a foreign government or private individuals. This has had very serious espionage consequences for businesses and inventors for years. For many small businesses, there is absolutely no recourse. Of course we want to learn how the emails were hacked, and see if we can create better safeguards. There is a reason why anti-virus and security software is a booming business, with no end in sight for growth.
I also believe that politicians, with the help of the media, are attempting to delegitimize President-elect Trump, and excuse Hillary Clinton’s defeat. By claiming it’s all the Russian’s fault, the Democratic Party will never have to self evaluate or change. By claiming Russians put Trump in power, they disenfranchise all the working middle class who voted against all the policies that hemorrhaged jobs. Their opinion and vote doesn’t matter, because it’s all the Russian’s fault. It’s not the fault of the content of the emails or the actions of the authors. No, it’s all about the Russians.
I can tell you with certainty that we have spied on other countries, including our friends, since the inception of our nation, and we have become covertly involved many times in each others’ business. This is not news. And I’m absolutely sure that whether the Russian government was involved or not, they greatly enjoyed the discombobulation of the high and mighty US.
It does not make sense that they feared Hillary Clinton, with her infamous “Reset Button.” She was part of the administration who drew a firm red line in the sand, and then kept erasing it and moving it over and over again. If they had any problems with her, all they’d have to do is make a huge donation to the Clinton Foundation and then pay Bill Clinton for a $12 million speech. Heck, didn’t the former administration, of which she was a part, scoff at Russia as a threat, saying, “The Eighties wants its foreign policy back?” Hillary Clinton was not an existential threat to Russia, to be taken out at all costs. She’s expressed admiration for Putin multiple times over the years. The alleged motivation that Hillary Clinton was such a tough guy, Arnold Swarzenneger movie action hero that Russia would probably fall to pieces if she was elected does not hold water. Giggling at revealing the sneaky underhandedness of the US politicians, who hold themselves to be the most moral and righteous people in the world, sure. Showing that it’s not really a democracy, but a state run media propaganda machine with Machiavellian deals would have been quite pleasurable viewing.
The point is that Russia did not fabricate the emails. They were out there to be gleaned, and they were, by whichever actor held his or her hand out.
Do we pretend these bad acts revealed by Wikileaks never happened, because they were obtained by hacking? Or do we try to shore up internet security while judging the content revealed?
If someone embezzled from you, would you let him skate because his actions were revealed by hacking? Or would you update your security software and then throw the jerk in jail?
It seems a tad hypocritical to criticize foreign governments for allegedly interfering in our elections when we’ve intruded in so many ourselves.
Which did you have in mind???
Iran, Guatamala, Haiti, Congo, Chile, Indonesia, Honduras…
Obama even obliquely threatened the Brexit vote, claiming the former EU nations could just get in the back of the line. And that’s just overt foreign influence. And don’t forget our overthrow of the Shah of Iran, funneling propaganda against him to the media to get support for the war that toppled the most secular, Westernized leader of Iran. We also carpet North Korea with propaganda about how awesome South Korea and the US are. And we have definitely exerted subtle influence on our allies, as well.
I can’t believe autocorrect changed “bringing” to “brining” Hillary’s phone. A salt and herb brine would definitely ruin that Blackberry better than the hammers they later used.
Hacking is illegal or do you think that should not be the case? Try bringing what happened to the Shah of Iran nearly 40 years ago into the case. You would be laughed out of the room. Doubt defending the brutal dictator in North Korea will get you very far either.
Joe,
Reread the thread to get the whole picture. Our interference in other countries is long-standing.
“Hacking is illegal or do you think that should not be the case?”
It is not either or. What made you conclude that she thinks hacking should not be illegal?
Of course hacking is illegal and should remain so. However, targeting “propaganda” with propaganda should not be the outcome. The government is trying to do just that.
Of course we have. Nothing to dispute about that.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/10/cyber-warfare-international-warfront-161020090216897.html We do need to address cyber warfare.
Not to the extent that dissenting voices are silenced. The manipulation by the DNC and Clinton was exposed. There was no “disinformation”. Their dishonesty destroyed them. Had there been None of the Above on the ballot. That option very likely would have won.
Again, all his examples are nonsense, as addressed above. We did not ‘overthrow’ the Shah of Iran. His regime imploded of its own weight.
StepToad thinks the Church Committee was about hymnals and bibles.
Nick Spinelli thinks the Church Committee, convened in 1975, investigated the fall of the Shah of Iran more than three years after it disbanded.
Yes, Obama talked down the brexit vote but what did he do that was illegal and equivalant to hacking with regards to the brexit vote? Not clear what you are referring to as it seems that the election was held in a fair manner.
Great point, Karen, on the Brexit vote by Obama.
I’ve dealt with every single example you cite. You don’t know what you’re talking about and you should keep silent until you learn somthing.
Try Foreign Policy:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/20/mapped-the-7-governments-the-u-s-has-overthrown/amp/
Man, that darn Church Committee:
” Though the gunman who shot Trujillo maintained that “Nobody told me to go and kill Trujillo,” he did in fact have the support of the CIA. The Church Committee found that “Material support, consisting of three pistols and three carbines, was supplied to various dissidents…. United States’ officials knew that the dissidents intended to overthrow Trujillo, probably by assassination…”
Among other countries…
You keep throwing up chaff. Again, the charge was ‘rigged elections’. There were no elections in the Dominican Republic under Rafael Trujillo. The Church Committee concluded that the CIA had encouraged Dominican plotters to assassinate Trujillo, but the plotters were working on their own account. Trujillo is, of course, unmourned in the Dominican Republic.
Further, let’s bring out the magic wand and consider the idea that intelligence agencies are pure as the driven snow. We will assume they never lie, that they never have bad motives. We will believe they just want the bestest for the US and other nations around the world! We then come to the question of; could they be wrong? Have they ever been wrong in the past? The answers to these questions are, yes and yes.
Questioning intelligence agencies is being presented as treason. That means we are to disregard evidence of both past incorrect assessments and actual lies. To me, this is fascism in progress. We are being told that “patriots” do not question the govt.–that the govt. never lies nor is it ever wrong. Yet, to believe this is to be untethered from reality.
Assange has said these were leaks, not hacks. The head of the Republican party said their servers were not hacked. He invited the NYTimes to come see the evidence for what he was saying and they refused to do so. They NYTimes is not looking at evidence. Therefore there is no reason to take them at their word about this subject.
Here is an article about the e-mail leaks: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/
I truly resent the propagation of the idea that it is treason not to bow down to this govt and unquestioning believe they never lie, nor do they err. That is one of the most dangerous ideas a govt. can propagate in a society. It is unworthy of a free people and we should reject it immediately.
Along w/ the classic irony of the McCarthyite Dems blaming the Russians for everything, including their utter incompetence, you have to also appreciate the irony of the CIA casting aspersions on ANYONE rigging elections. That was/is their specialty in Central and South America back in their salad days. Now the CIA can’t even find their own a-hole w/ both hands.
That was/is their specialty in Central and South America back in their salad days.
Which competitive election in Central or South America was rigged by the Central Intelligence Agency between 1947 and 1991?
“The most infamous episodes include the ousting of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 — whose government was replaced by an authoritarian monarchy favorable to Washington — the removal and assassination of Congolese leader Patrice Lumumba in 1961, and the violent toppling of socialist Chilean President Salvador Allende, whose government was swept aside in 1973 by a military coup led by the ruthless Gen. Augusto Pinochet.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/10/13/the-long-history-of-the-u-s-interfering-with-elections-elsewhere/?utm_term=.3609939a89ab
And, Guatamala, Haiti, Indonesia…
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57983b85e4b02d5d5ed382bd
Iran is not in Central America and no one has ever alleged any CIA rigging of the few competitive elections Iran has ever had. The complaint re Iran was that the CIA aided the Shah of Iran in removing Mossadegh from office. Again, the Shah had every right to remove Mossadegh from office and Mossadegh’s position was of dubious constitutionality anyway because the Iranian parliament had been prorogued. The question in 1953 was whether Mossadegh could defy the Shah and disestablish the Monarchy.
No clue what you have in mind re Haiti. Between the foundation of the CIA and 1990, there were no competitive elections in Haiti and the CIA has never rigged any elections held in Haiti in 25 years. As for Indonesia, the same applies. The only competitive elections ever held there between 1947 and 1998 were in 1955, and, no, they were not rigged by the CIA. We had weak contacts with the Indonesian government at the time. As for Guatemala, we never rigged any elections there, either. The Guatemalan military stuffed the ballot boxes several times (in 1957, 1974, 1978, and 1982) twice over the objections of US officials). That was not the CIA’s doing.
Should we be concerned with foreign governments hacking operations? Absolutely. However, if we don’t want foreign governments influencing our elections, there is a very simple remedy: teach Americans critical-thinking skills. By creating generations of voters that do not have the capacity for reason, we end up with an electorate that is susceptible to manipulation by any number of sources. For instance, they might actually believe it is far more important HOW those emails were collected rather than WHAT those emails revealed.
I believe Col. Jessup was correct, “You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth!”
For instance, they [a public educated in critical thought] might actually believe it is far more important HOW those emails were collected rather than WHAT those emails revealed.
An excellent point that has been missing from virtually any discussion in the main stream media since this whole sorry excuse to crack down on free speech started in earnest. The next thing such a public might being suspecting is that the hacking and other forms of thought/belief manipulation is coming far more from our own government (working for the interests of giant international corporations and financial interests) than from foreign (BRIC) ones.
So if the Russians wanted Trump to win they must have undermined all of the GOP primaries, right?
The objective of the hacking story is to discredit Russia which is nearing victory in Aleppo thereby putting the US government’s position on Syria, as well as on Isis in that territory, to shame. The media reports over and over via statements from the US lackey in the UN on the Syria file that Russia is killing women and children in Aleppo, via the CIA that Russia helped Trump, their friend, to victory in the US elections, via the US lackey at the Us olympics committee, that Russia sent doped athletes to the Olympics and cheated in the tests, that Trump is virtually a stand-in for Putin, etc. etc.
More importantly, Israeli television has been reporting on Israeli airstrikes on air bases inside Syrian territory, signalling a major change in the don’t bother us and we wont bother you strategy until now. As well, Israel took shipment yesterday of a fleet of the latest fighter jets from the US yesterday which gives the Israeli air force a strategic military advantage in the area.
All of the
propoganda attacks may simply have the purpose of guiding opinion against Russia in preparation for a military effort when Syria wins its battle in Aleppo. The US military are bad losers, a mental set shared by the Democrats in the US. Russia has,so far shown a great deal of discretion and restraint notwithstanding continued provocation by the US and its allies (remember the Russian fighter jet shot down by Turkey). Let us hope the aging neo-cons in the US administration are booted out before they get a chance to start a larger war. This is just my opinion.
Thanks for the input. That is something you haven’t heard about. I have seen in on some of the Posts’ “fake newz” sites, but don’t have much detail. I know Putin has been to Israel a few times and they seem to be getting along fine. Of course, Egypt is planning maneuvers with the Russian military coming up. Almost feels like no one wants to dance with us anymore… (could it be because when you do you generally wind up dead?)
Another excellent comment. An inundation of them today. Thanks !
Bolton should not be anywhere near a govt. post. That’s one point. Another point is made above by people who listened to the interview and did not hear Bolton claim this. A third point to address is the disbelief that the govt. would ever engage in a false flag against the American people. We know that they would do so as operation Northwoods has been declassified. It’s not speculation that they would do so. It’s absolutely true that they would do so.
Most importantly, there is no proof openly presented by any intelligence agencies that Russia hacked our elections. This story is being hyped. The basis of the assertion is unnamed intelligence sources who, even anonymously, cannot say this is 100% certainty.
If we look back, we see that the intelligence community told us many lies in order to start a war with Iraq. As we now know, this intelligence was made up by our own, Germany and the UK’s “services”. They knew it was a lie because they were the ones who made it up. Yet, Powell was at the UN repeating the lies. Cheney and Rice were talking about mushroom clouds. This was all a lie and they knew it to be one.
It is mystifying to me why agencies who have lied many times over to the people of the US are not asked to provide proof of what they are saying. That proof should be submitted and fact checked. Glenn Greenwald has written many excellent post on this subject at his twitter feed.
People are being accused of treason for saying they want evidence. That isn’t treason. It is our right as citizens. Clearly a war with Russia is being hyped. I’d like some evidence that is checkable. Then, if there is evidence, I would like this govt. to take a peaceful method of conflict resolution. But demanding evidence being called traitorous is dangerous and deranged. If we don’t learn from the past we will repeat it.
It has been interesting to see one party beat down the other party for these perceived transgressions. The republicans were quick to jump into Iraq, and not Democrats are quick to jump into a confrontation with Russia. Both bad, but jumping into a conflict with Russia should take a little more than some “unnammed CIA operative reports” and John Kerry YouTube videos. Actually, you would think rational people would be smarter than this, but I guess not.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/syrias_aleppo_falling_the_government_russia_actually_turned_20161212 “By Monday morning Syrian time, the large and important district of Shaikh Saeed in southeastern Aleppo had completely fallen to the Syrian Arab Army and its allies among the Shiite militias of Lebanon and Iraq.
Shaikh Saeed collapsed under the weight of extremely intensive aerial bombardment by Russian fighter jets, which aided ground advances by the Syrian Arab Army and its Shiite militia allies.. Amid talk of Russian interference in the US elections, it should be remembered that Russia decided some 15 months ago to become the arbiter of Syria’s fate in a very serious way.”
I have pointed out in comments before that as of the last election in Syria (2014), Assad, was reelected by a large majority (and non US agencies found the election to be fair), so Russian “interference” could also be viewed as Russian assistance to the will people of Syria.
What people have a hard time grasping is that almost everything we read in WaPo and NYT and almost all media is consistently false or at a minimum tailored to the perceived interests of the government. Not just this business of Russia hacking our election (which first appeared, btw, not from the CIA or the FBI but rather from Hillary’s campaign manager of all things)
Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald 10m10 minutes ago
One of the most overlooked aspects of what’s going on is the political fight between CIA (which was vehemently pro-Clinton) & pro-Trump FBI. Not a good situation……
I’m no champion for John Bolton, but I don’t know he should be held to a higher standard than all of the other players in this mess. I defy you or anyone else to name a single public accuser who has not politicized this. The WaPo and the Times have given no credible reason why we should believe that the undisclosed sources are not politicizing it. Nobody has claimed that there is a “smoking gun” that absolutely confirms that the Russian government hacked the DNC or the RNC. Without that “smoking gun”, why impute politics to the government agencies and not to the “moles” who serve the interests of a press that is openly hostile to Trump?
This is the kind of thinking they want to make illegal. Good comment!
I listened to that interview and he in no way accused our intelligence agencies of planting a false flag. He, in fact specifically said he was not suggesting that, although the interviewer attempted to twist his words to say that. He did point out that a government that infiltrates our system regularly is unlikely to be so clumsy as to leave obvious fingerprints behind and that it was more likely another government would leave false clues behind to create problems between Russia and the US.
Yes, he did say that he believed the current administration was politicizing the situation, which is not an accusation against the intelligence agencies, but against the political operatives in the administration. The accusation was of them using the situation politically, not of them having created the situation. And, that is obviously true.
As Bolton said in another interview this morning, this is just typically bad reporting.
I am no Bolton fan, but that’s how I heard it too. He thinks it is odd that if Russia were the hacker they would leave behind evidence implicating themselves. Therefore, he thinks the evidence implicating Russia is suspicious. That’s what I think he meant by “false flag”.
He called for a through investigation. Why would he rule anybody in or out before the investigation is completed? Just because he did not explicitly rule out a U.S. agency does not mean he thinks one is involved.
Bolton’s skepticism seems well placed and your lack of it seems wobbly at best.
Chiguy, Good comment. You’re a welcome new addition here. On the specific point of identifying hackers. It is extremely difficult. Hackers share techniques and coding. They piggyback on each other. They use other hackers techniques to make it look like someone else. But, Joe McCarthy is smiling seeing his former liberal rivals using his techniques in blaming the Russians for everything.
Virginia Dare
@vdare
“Vladimir Putin is far less of an enemy to the American nation than Lindsey Graham.” The alt right is clearly showing a preference for the murderous dictator Putin.
The alt right likes Putin for his white christian nationalism.
Joe – between Lindsay Graham and Putin, I would have a hard time making choice.
While not one of my favorites either, as far as I know Lindsey Graham has not poisoned his opposition or exiled them to Siberia.
Better check to see if your own house is in order before you start declaring other people murderous dictators.
Lindsey Graham sees nothing wrong with the AUMF being used as the pretense for going into every country possible “to fight terrorists”.
Read the transcript or watch the video exchange:
http://m.democracynow.org/stories/13648
I am tired of the constant wars essentially created by our own interference. Libya, Syria, Iraq, heck, the Gulf of Tonkin incident was designed to get us in to Vietnam.
Putin is not a good guy, but our government sure likes getting us into wars or destabilizing whole regions.
Putin can be as ruthless as any head of state including ours so indeed, he is not a “good” guy. But of all heads of state, including ours and those of Europe, the Mid East, and Asia, Putin is being exceptionally reasonable by most any standard..
It would be the height of naivete to imagine that the US wants to build “democracies” anywhere. The only reason it does not like Putin, is because he refuses to play ball and let our banks and investors pillage his country.
If Trump keeps to his promise of deescallating the wars we are in, refusing trade deals that shift major power from nation states to international corporations and investors, and treating other foreign countries with respect, by that alone he will have gone beyond any other US leader since Eisenhower in general and FDR for breadth of vision.
I’m not holding my breath, though I suspect those may have been among his original ideas.
We are almost entirely in agreement.
“refusing trade deals that shift major power from nation states to international corporations and investors”
While I am concerned about trade deals, I do not want the power directed to international corporations that already wield too much corporatist influence.
You have no doubt heard about the particular section of all these “evil sibling” trade deals, namely the ISDS section or something similar. Investor State Dispute Settlement (system), this is really the crux of these so called “trade deals.” Indeed, they are not trade deals per se. We already have massive trade agreements and very generous/lax tariffs in place – so it’s obvious these aren’t really about more free trade.
What the ISDS says (in a thumb nail) is that any foreign corporation can sue any signatory country (including local governments) for potentially lost profits and the case will be arbitrated in finality and legally binding by corporate agents within a corporate controlled tribunal. No elected representatives, no judicial recourse by any national or even international court of law. Just an industry set up tribunal where the judges and lawyers actually swap places every so often in an incestuous and entirely non representative manner.
Even NAFTA had a similar mechanism which Canada is using this minute to sue the United States for non completion of the Keystone pipe line. Under another such treaty, a tobacco company is currently suing Australia for putting warning signs on cigarette packages.
These sums can really add up as they may be applied as long as the condition remains. Also note – how chilling- that these companies can sue and win for projected loss of profit, not just actual loss. So it can obviously really get out of hand. The net result is to chill local and national governments from doing anything the corporate world does not like – hence my assertion of a major power shift from nation state to international corporations/financial institutions.
I misread you earlier.
Thank you for the info on the lawsuits. That is scary stuff! The corporatists are running the show practically. I will look into it.
Democrats will be chairing no committees and holding no hearings. It is clearly up to the republicans to pursue this.
Joe – the Democrats are quite capable of holding their own hearings. They have done it before.
The hearings will be held by one of the republican subcommittee chairs in the Senate or House. Marco Rubio’s subcommittee is a possibility.
McConnell: “It defies belief” some Senate Republicans are reluctant to “review Russian tactics or ignore them”. Looks like the republicans will be holding the hearings after all.
Joe – are they going to hold the hearings this year or next? I would hold them now. Put the CIA on the spot against the FBI. They can shoot it out in the Congressional parking lot.
McConnell says he wants the Senate Foreign Intelligence Committee to handle it which is chaired by Richard Burr, a Trump supporter. Looks like the lead will be taken by McCain. He is also on that committee and no longer has to worry about reprisals from the Trump voters.
Joe – McCain has the ability to make it a show trial, which I hope it isn’t. McCain was just re-elected, but he can still be recalled.
Will be interesting to see if Trump goes ahead and nominates the Exxon CEO and Bolton. This combo will face opposition. What a crazy time……..
I’d say. I was hoping for Scooby Doo for the Intelligence post, but I was probably asking for too much.
slohrss29 – Scobby Doo has limited communication skills.
Huh???
slohrss29 – All Scooby Doo says is ruf ruf.
Wasn’t that the name of Hillary’s big black van?
Paul,
When it comes to Intelligence, communication skills are overrated. It’s the gathering skills that are more important. Scooby Doo has great instincts in that regard. 😉
Olly – most of what I know about Scooby Doo is from watching Buffy.
Both the RNC and the DNC were hacked. Only the DNC’s information was published. Why was that? Now they still have the RNC’s information they say. They can use it in the future. What a crazy mess.
Joe – I wouldn’t bet on anything the CIA said.
And we should always bet on what the FBI says?
Jay S – the FBI have not directly lied to Congress. The CIA has.
And didn’t the CIA get caught hacking into Senate computers in 2014?
Bob – didn’t the CIA just use a backdoor to get into the computers. They had set up the computers for the Senate.
Just curious…. Does a “false flag” operation have to be by US government forces? Could it be by some other government? If China hacked the DNC using “borrowed” Russian software and techniques, would that be considered a false flag operation?
Just more insanity. Didn’t we all know this was coming? It’s all part of the “shoot the messenger” operation. Someone has to give us the straight up story, since our defense contractor very good official state media doesn’t.
The FBI had already checked to see if there was interference in the election by the Russians and found none. Now ‘anonymous sources’ from the CIA leak to the WaPo that the Russian govt is doing it. However, even the CIA ‘anonymous sources’ are saying it’s players outside the Russian govt. It is not how WaPo is reporting it, but the Democrats are jumping on this to save themselves.
There is no reason to believe that an insider did not do the DNC job after what was happening to Bernie. Podesta got spear phished and that was entirely his fault for getting caught. All someone needed was Podesda’s email address, which had already shown up on a lot of Hillary’s documents.
We also know that Hillary and the Democrats have tried to attach Putin and the Russians to whichever opponent was giving them problems: Bernie, Stein, Trump. We also know the head of the CIA is a vocal supporter of Hillary. And we know the CIA lies for a living.
Right now I would say it has as much chance of being a ‘false flag’ as being a Russian hack.
FBI was in the bag for Trump.
And we know Clinton HAS NEVER DONE ANYTHING WRONG, TOO! Bwahahaaaaaa….
The Trump folks believe the FBI and not the CIA.
The Trump dupes believe whomever backs their position. The CIA made there position based on ‘overwhelming’ circumstantial evidence, which means designed. The question is why? Perhaps it was to focus on the need to tighten up security over all in that department. Perhaps it was a urinating contest. It means nothing regarding the election because those who voted for Trump were already under the spell of his orange glow.
We are in for several years of this sort of sh*t. Trump will lie like the rug on his head, taking credit for any and everything that happens positively regardless of whether or not Obama initiated it or it is simply that the sun came out that day. Trump will blame everything that is bad on Obama and others. The ‘confidence’ as with Reagan and Bush along with the tax breaks and endless BS will buoy up the economy by the simple fact that money is moving around. The rest of the world will adjust, the bills will come due, and just as with Reagan and Bush, we will have a recession.
I remember when these folks said that Sandy Hook was a false flag. Everything they are in denial of is a false flag. This Trump insanity will go on until Paul Ryan can’t take it anymore and does something to stabilize the country.
Well said!
For whatever reason the FBI acted inappropriately in discussing the Clinton case. Don’t think the deep state if there is one wanted her. Now we have Trump and he has pissed off the CIA. What a mess…….
You know, at this point, I have begun to trust Donald Trump’s instincts. I’ll give him the edge here.
A monkey throwing a dart does as well as the highest ranked financial advisors. No matter how dysfunctional he is, Trump will be right in some cases as a matter of chance.
Trump’s instincts for winning the election turned out to be relatively sharp. However, 80,000 votes in three states with well over 2,000,000 against him includes a vast contribution of luck. Luck is the major ingredient in business. Trump has failed at more ventures than where he succeeded. His only successful ventures have included: luxury stuff, the uber rich, and OPM. Even with this he does not have a stellar track record.
Trump’s greatest wealth is in his branding which includes: lying, irresponsibly targeting opponents, bullying, connections with whomever and however, and other attributes necessary to win a poker game.
Now that we have had a glimpse into how he will position himself it is clear that there will be lots of big initial bucks for the uber rich. How that costs the ‘everyman’ is yet to be seen. However history, recent American history has illustrated, to those with half a brain or more, that it is lots of money movement followed by recession. Like Reagan said on TV when his Reaganomics had proved to be a failure and Bush senior had lost to Clinton, you can’t reduce income and increase spending. Reagan was supposed to generate beaucoup bucks also by giving the rich more money. They just spent it elsewhere. Anybody that believes that by reducing taxes the rich will hire more Americans is simply several bricks short a load. Why would they hire more people? However if you funnel more money to the lower and middle classes then they spend more at home and the fat cats make lots of money.
Yep, that’s how I understood it. Got to love those anonymous sources. Once again, divert from the real matter. And like I told Olly yesterday, things are going to get a lot weirder before all is said and done. I think we know Bolton would have been sloshing saliva all over his friends at the possibility of ramping up hostilities against Russia.
Maybe the hack came from very far north Siberia–OMG–maybe it was Santa himself!!!
Obviously, Chelsea Clinton did it. Or maybe her baby.
Jay S – I give you the straight scoop and you want to play silly games? Well, we know Hillary didn’t do it because she cannot operate a computer (Wikileaks email).
Paul, this is an excellent excellent comment! Glen Greenwald discusses many of the points you bring up as well as others. His article is an easy 5-10 min. read, and as well reasoned as your comment.
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10/anonymous-leaks-to-the-washpost-about-the-cias-russia-beliefs-are-no-substitute-for-evidence/ – Anonymous Leaks to the WashPost About the CIA’s Russia Beliefs Are No Substitute for Evidence by Glen Greenwald
It’s important to point out, as Greenwald does, that so far we still do not have a shred of proof from either the CIA (whose job is NOT foreign countries, btw), or the FBI that there is any Russian involvement beyond the usual hacking that the US does just as much as any other foreign country.
All we have is anonymous leaks (allegedly from the CIA – but no certainty) that allege Russia is complicit in some of the email hacks but can’t say who or what part of the Russian government. It’s a farce.
Also, it appears the CIA is in bed with Hillary whereas the FBI is either neutral or sides somewhat with Trump. In either case, it appears likely that some in the FBI were enraged at the light treatment Hillary got since they know the facts far more intimately than we can.
I need to re-read Turley’s post; I do not quite understand his concern that Bolton’s false flag theory doesn’t add up. If the CIA is indeed in the tank for HIllary, it would make perfect sense for them to leak these allegations that the WaPo and the NYT then spin into what sounds like hard facts (though they are careful to counch the terms such that they have legal outs). Perhaps what puzzles Professor Turley is the fact that Bolton would admit this publicly since it seems hard to see where it will do him any good (that is a somewhat cynical view of the benefits of telling the truth in Washinton – not that I disagree).
I would love to see HIllary face the consequences of what she does and I would love the current government to have a ton of egg on it’s face for passing legislation giving themselves truly freaky control over the media – stuff I imagine none of us ever thought possible even 15 years ago – particular the alternate media which is the only place one can find the truth. I suspect I will feel the same way about Trump and have little illusion now (other than that I would love to be wrong) that he has about as much difference from Hillary as one pea in a neoliberal pod does from another in the same pod.
Note, my point in the last paragraph above re Clinton and Trump’s similarity has nothing to do with your comment, nor with Greenwald’s article – for that matter – but is the way I see it.
It would probably be more accurate to say, “Trump may not know who he is working for yet, but he’ll find out soon enough and it’s the same people Hillary would have been working for and while they are releived at Trump’s initial bait and switch tactics that suggest he will be a player after all, they don’t like surprises one little bit which is why they want to crack down on alternate media and freedom of speech in general.”
When ever they want to do something that is absurdly unconstitutional, they wrap it in patriotism. Works like a charm every damned time.
Having re-read Professor Turley’s article, I get what he means about “unhinged.” Indeed, if Bolton is saying the CIA leaked the emails, that is hardly a way of saying the CIA is in the tank for HIllary..
Other than disliking Bolton’s extreme Imperial and war thumping rhetoric, I know little about him. He sounds a little like he shoots first and then looks to see who might have been hit. Perhaps what he wanted to imply (if indeed his remarks were aimed at the CIA) was simply that the CIA’s involvement is only about who hacked the emails and the false flag activity of actually doing the hacking is some other agency inside the US but not the CIA itself. Then again, that may be a stretch.
Rand Paul has threatened to block the crazy warmonger, Bolton, if Trump does indeed nominate him.
From the WSJ’s editorial today:
“If the CIA really does have “high confidence” about Mr. Putin’s motives, this would also be the first time in recent history. These are the same seers who missed the Russian invasion of Crimea, missed the incursion into southern Ukraine, and missed Mr. Putin’s foray into Syria. The intelligence community also claimed “high confidence” in 2008 for its judgment that Iran had suspended its nuclear-weapons program. That judgment conveniently shut down any further Bush Administration action against Iran. But a year later, in the Obama Administration, our highly confident spooks disclosed Iran’s secret Fordo underground facility.”
I think that our intelligence services are as politicized as any other government agency in Washington.
And probably have the same degree of competence.
With the billions of $$ spent on “intelligence”, it is astonishing how little is actually known about anything.
I agree Doglover. We have the best Monday morning intelligence agencies on the planet though.
I suspect both the CIA and the FBI know perfectly well this wasn’t a hack. There is a big difference between what these agencies know -a lot- and what we know -nothing- who actually pay for those $$ billions for it.
Actually, it’s an inverse relationship between what one pays and the information he/she gets in return. Or, a one to one relation between what one pays and the dis-information or propaganda one is bombarded with.
Brooklin Bridge – Podesta was hacked. He was spear phished by someone who knew his email address. I think someone just shipped emails from Donna Braisle to Wikileaks.