Bizarre, International, Media, Military, Politics

Bolton: Russian Hacking May Be “False Flag”

John_R._Bolton200px-CIA.svgOne 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.

237 thoughts on “Bolton: Russian Hacking May Be “False Flag””

  1. Obama adm will never create an env for false flag operation , Joe dare anyone suggested that our honorable politicians can even think to politicize the CIA , yeah Jonathan ?

  2. Well, in my view the US was successfully attacked and a “regime change” installed, with hardly anyone noticing. In my view, this is worse than Pearl Harbor. We are going to end up with Manchurian Donald in charge….. I hope enough electors pull support from Trump to throw the election into the House, and that the House can see through the fog of (cyber) war to realize what has gone on, and pick someone who is not a Russian agent.

    1. Jay S – I’m betting you won’t see this, but I’ll comment anyway. Calm down, Trump is not a Russian agent. The FBI has already looked into it and came up with nothing. Sure, Trump has a huge ego and he’s far from perfect, but in my view he has the smarts, the experience and the accomplishments to back it up. Obama has a huge ego, some smarts, and is really good at reading speeches from a teleprompter, but in reality Mr. O has very little in his background to back it up – unless you think doing some community organizing and then spending enough time in the Senate to drink a cup of coffee is impressive.

      Obama sold us his brand of Progressivism which sounded good in speeches but when implemented is in fact awful and the voters rejected it. Trump is 10-steps ahead as the Dems and the MSM are flailing about grasping at ways to stop him with their protests, recounts, and CIA Russian conspiracy theories -and on and on it will go. Trump is about results – which he calls winning. He wants America and her people – esp the working class – to win again.

      And he won’t be bowing to other leaders and apologizing for America everywhere he goes like Mr. O has done for eight long years (when not playing golf). I’m betting Trump will deliver. You can sit on your sofa eating potato chips and getting all in an uproar, or you can get on the Trump train and have a little faith in the guy – give him 100 days and then decide. And just for perspective, I voted for Mr. O in 2008. I turned to Trump this time around and I like what i see -the guy is tough. It’s about time Washington got someone in there to kick some butt and so let’s see what he can do. It’s gonna be way more fun than watching yet another Hillary scandal be plastered all over the news for four years. That was a guaranteed outcome if she was elected.

  3. The Russians didn’t leak anything, we did. Our own intelligence people didn’t want Hilary elected.

  4. “Outgoing Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid lambasted FBI Director James Comey in a Monday interview with CNN, claiming that Comey “single-handedly” cost Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton the election.”

    It’s the Russians, it’s Fake News, it’s Comey and the FBI!

    It’s never gonna be Hillary’s fault is it?

  5. What a fatally flawed analysis. Your ignorance speaks VOLUMES. I have never thought of Jonathan Turley as a “brainwashed MORON” before but now I do.

    For your elucidation:

    1-The CIA has exceedingly close ties to G H W Bush
    2-Bush voted for Clinton and is desperate to get her into power. Why? Drugs and the Clinton Foundation
    3-There are KNOWN rogue elements in the CIA that do NOT obey US laws – ask Diane Feinstein. Her Senate committee wrote about it at length.
    4-This is a ROGUE element of the CIA working for Bush that is planting these stories about Russia. ‘
    5-First, according to Obama, the election was not hacked. Next, when desperation sets in because the attempt to steal the election via disqualifying PA, WI and MI electors isn’t working they pull a
    6- FALSE FLAG! They do that all the time all around the world.

    When will you people WAKE UP! You’re so intelligent and yet so very very DUMB about the way the game is truly played. Turley – you should be ashamed of this STUPID, ILL-INFORMED article.

    1. It’s Groundhog Day all over again. Trump is taking on the CIA. Meanwhile Pres Obama goes on late night talk show and says that Trump refusing his daily intel briefings is like “flying blind”. Really? The question is what does Trump know and how does he know it?

      1. But not to worry America, Pres Obama will be back on the golf course by Saturday — until January when he returns to launch his Farewell tour. I for one cannot wait to hear Pres Obama tell us all, one more time, just how great he is.

        1. Hope for your sake that you have some deep pockets. Your enthusiasm for Trump would then make more sense.

        2. Lee –
          just when does or has Obama said “how great he is”? By comparison, Trump does it all the time.

          1. Good point. I know some will be chanting ‘four more years’ at his farewell rallies, but eight is enough for me.

          2. Jay S – Obama tells us all the time how great his is ad nauseum. He is about to go on a goodbye tour to repeat so we won’t forget.

            1. Paul –
              Can you point to ANY of these “nauseums”? Every time I have ever heard Obama speak, he has always spoken in a measured and objective tone, and kept to discussing issues and not himself. Never engaged in bragging about himself. Where are these clips with Obama discussing his greatness? And Gasbag Donald DOESN’T ever say how “great” he is? How smart his brain is? How big his not-finger is? How much money he supposedly has? How many contractors he has stiffed?

              1. Jay S – on Hillary’s campaign trail, supposedly trying to get votes for Hillary, he referred to himself either as I or me over 100 times each in two different speeches.

                1. …. and just how many of these were coupled with the term “great” or “wonderful,” referencing himself? If Obama said (for example) “I urge you to vote for Hillary,” does that mean that Obama was boasting about himself?

                  It would save a lot of typing if you could just keep repeating, “I hate Obama, I hate Hillary.”

                  1. Jay S – I don’t hate anyone. Hating takes energy. I don’t like to waste energy.

                  2. Jay S – I’m sorry I made the comment. I was being more figurative than literal so I don’t have specific quotes of Obama saying “I am great” over and over again in speeches – it’s more nuanced than that.

                    I’ll save a lot more typing and just say: I hate Obama’s policies, but I am a card-carrying Hillary hater.

                  3. They are Trump bots, Jay. Their mission is to paint every democrat in a negative light. If you say anything negative about Trump they will swarm.

                    1. Not my mission Dave. That’s the Progressive Democrats mission to profile us and put all Trump voters and/or Republicans into their basket of hate-filled, ignorant, racist, deplorables that Hillary and Mr. O and Hollywood and the media ‘actually believe’ we are. It’s a big piece of why they are losing.

      2. McConnell on Tillerson: “I look forward to supporting his nomination.” McConnell will do at best a lukewarm investigation as his wife is in Trump’s cabinet. The fix is in and Exxon will prevail.

  6. Glenn Greenwald ‏@ggreenwald 8m8 minutes ago

    Yes, the hunger among some key appointees for conflict with Iran is genuinely alarming.

  7. Here is an excellent analysis by a group of high level American Intellegence Officials that have no need for anyonymity and state publicly who they are.

    There conclusion is that a “hack” would be impossible with out the NSA being able to determine the hacker and that therefore this is a leak. They also give a good distinction between hack and leak for those who might question it.

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/12/64139.html#more-64139

      1. Hard for the oligarchy to marginalize Trump since he an oligarch that seems to be consumed with getting even richer. He has filled his cabinet with oligarchs, big oil men, generals and Goldman officials. I think they will be able to march on pretty much unfettered and plunder the earth’s resources along with Social Security and Medicare. Those that think he is not just for the billionaire class have been conned as the hedge fund guys have pointed out.. The investigation of the hacks will end up amounting to nothing because that is what the oligarchy wants. The billionaire class has had too much power and now they have more……..not much anyone can do about it and really not much reason to even discuss it. Dissent will be frowned upon.

        1. In addition, if Exxon does not want these investigations and they don’t, there won’t be any. Enough said……

        2. Trump has more money than he could ever know what to do with. You can deny to yourself that he is bucking the set course more or less followed by both parties, but that would be your error. Besides, what does a man want who already has everything? A historical narrative. I don’t like his choices so far, but as I stated yesterday, there may be method to his madness.

          1. Donald Rumsfeld Verified account
            ‏@RumsfeldOffice

            W/ the addition of Tillerson, a talented exec & skillful negotiator, @realDonaldTrump seems to be assembling an accomplished & able cabinet.
            Doubt there is is a method to his madness. Bush gators returning to the swamp.

          2. ” Besides, what does a man want who already has everything?”
            Even more busty women from eastern Europe?

    3. If, as Pres Obama and the Dems want us to believe, the Russians have now “hacked our election” – doesn’t it make you wonder how they can say so confidently that Hillary Clinton’s private, unsecured email server showed no conclusive evidence of having been hacked? Please.

      1. Regarding that full investigation Mr O has ordered into the Russian hacking of our election: Pres Obama says he made it clear to intell agencies, their reports shall not be subject to politics: “I want it straight without spin.”

        Right.

        1. Really don’t think it will make any difference as Obama has a month left. All power to Exxon.That is the calculation Trump Tower has made.

  9. Bolton is right. There is an internal battle going on within our govt right now. The CIA has long been corrupt. Look how they attempted to deny Trump the state of Utah in the election. Iraq War and Saddam? The CIA needs to be torn down. Start with another Church Committee

  10. Bolton’s charge is, dare I say it, audacious.

    But it’s no more audacious than an Obama administration that has repeatedly lied to the American people, and in two specific instances, with ObamaCare and the Iran Nuke Deal, done an end-zone dance and taunt of the people of this country in the aftermath.

    And, just for good measure in the putting a bow on the Iran negotiations, the administration bragged also about how it duped the elite leading lights of the mainstream media, too.

    So, I don’t think the brand of audacious that Bolton outlines is in any way a heavy lift for Barry’s crew.

  12. “Deplorable” worked well for Hillary!! The Canadian is doubling down on stupid. I think the Canadian is upset because he knows he can never be President of the US, being foreign born. So, he hates on the US and lectures us incessantly. There will be a Prime Minister job opening up REAL soon in Canada. Give it a shot.

  13. The only foreign interference in our government is by DDT or Deplorable Donald Trump. DDT is as foreign to what America should be about as can be. Typically a politician gets called a liar after not being able to perform or make good on campaign promises. When else in the history of America has a person won the Presidency with a campaign wholly based on lies? President DDT, America is strong enough to suffer this a**hole but is that the way to illustrate power and strength?

    1. issac…..when you say “won the Presidency with a campaign wholly based on lies” what lies are you referring to?

    2. Isaac is a real, true, HRC die hard, who claims Trump is Hitler reincarnated, or thereabouts. In his defense, I doubt Isaac is a DNC shill, I think he’s just someone who swallows the DNC lies, hook, line, and sinker

      Now check this out about John Podesta, HRC’s campaign leader. Among Podesta’s many offenses is that he typed out AN ACCOUNT PASSWORD ON HIS GMAIL ACCOUNT. AGAIN: THE GENIUS JOHN PODESTA TYPED AN ACCOUNT PASSWORD ON HIS GMAIL ACCOUNT.

      Podesta was HRC’s closest and most long term confidant. Now I know Johnny boy is old, even older than me. I know he did not grow up w/computer savvy. But really, truly, how God forsaken dumb, lazy, and/or stupid must one be to do what Podesta did?

      HRC thought Podesta was the smartest guy in the room. Isaac wants HRC to run the free world. Please, Isaac, give it up. There’s few to no dummies here to swallow your horse manure.

  14. Should read:

    The e-mails showed illegal behavior called “pay to play”. There was plenty of foreign interference in our election referenced in the Podesta e-mails. Unfortunately for the govt.’s Russian narrative, the interference took the form of an illegal donation scam as a way to get Clinton elected. Two prominent states which interfered in our election in this manner were Qatar and Saudi Arabia–nations with some of the finest human rights records on earth! Why isn’t this being investigated.

  15. Here are some facts we do know.

    There was interference in the 2016 election. It was conducted by DWS and other Democratic minions at the behest of Hillary Clinton. By interfering in the primary election in an illegal manner, she stole the primary from Sanders. Why is no one investigating this?

    The e-mails should illegal behavior called pay to play. There was plenty of foreign interference reference in the e-mails. Unfortunately for the govt.’s narrative, this illegal donation scam was a way to get Clinton elected by states such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia–two of the nations which some of the finest human rights records on earth. Why isn’t this being investigated.

    We know that John Podesta misplaced his phone at least twice and that his password was–“password”.

    We know that Clinton sent classified information over non-classified servers, a crime for which others are doing hard time. Why isn’t this being investigated?

    Not one of these security breaks or interference in the election has anything to do with Russia. There’s nothing to speculate about this information, it’s all openly available to anyone who would like to look into the matter. So why aren’t these known knowns being investigated. Could it be because it is perfectly acceptable for Clinton to steal an election and for her to have foreign nations interfere in the election on her behalf?

    It certainly appears to be the case.

    1. Election laws do not apply to primary elections because a political party is a “private organization” and can set whatever laws it wants. What Wasserman Schultz did was unethical in my opinion but not illegal. No one around here knows a thing about election law it appears.

      1. State election laws do apply to primary elections and primary elections are conducted under the aegis of state election law. A party state committee might have an argument in court if it elected to defy the state law on some procedural issue. In New York, to take one example, primary elections are run by local Boards of Elections. The Board of Elections is a public agency.

      2. Hi Dave,

        Thanks for letting me know the Clinton camp is scared of this issue. They should be!

      3. Dave (and all) –

        A “political party is a “private organization””, huh?

        So, WHY THE F*** am I and other voters who are NOT members of, or affiliated with or connected in any way to that “political party / private organization” compelled under penalty of imprisonment (the ultimate penalty for not paying taxes) to fund their internal workings ?????

      4. Are you saying any “quid pro quo” is absolutely legal for primary vote in 50 States? HRC can stand IFO polling place handing out money? I call pure, unadulterated hog wash. Some one around here is full of baloney.

        1. Toad Stepper:
          If HRC could legally buy primary votes, there would be a lot money changing hands over the past year. Really, are you that dumb, a troll, or a paid DNC shill?

          I’ll place $50 on you being a DNC shill, and this is what I base it on. I noticed that a very high ratio of persons who post nonsense and lies like yours, especially w/extreme self-righteousness, employ the most offensive, obnoxious screen names on the net, I mean, way, way over the top, and yours is a perfect example. Why don’t you try “Live Baby Eater” next time?

          You shills are totally sick, demented scum bags, and can’t help but use such type of names.

    2. Jill –
      What are your sources for these supposed “facts”? Fox news? “Somebody on the internet”?

      As for Clinton having “sent classified information over non-classified servers” – no she didn’t. Who decided that this information was supposedly classified? Are you claiming it was the FBI? Hint – the FBI does NOT have classification authority over internal correspondence within other Executive Branch departments or agencies. What makes you think that they do? The ultimate classification authority within DOS was the Secretary of State. If she thought something was classified, it was. It she didn’t, it wasn’t. The only classification authority superior to that was the President.

      Can a major league baseball umpire go into an NFL game and call touchdowns and penalties?

      1. Jay S – if you have been following the email scandal via Judicial Watch, you get a different look at Hillary and the emails. For one thing we learned that some emails a born classified. In fact, the emails shown to the House Comm were redacted because they were classified. According to the Inspector General at least 1000 emails sent over her system were classified at some level with at least two at tippy top level classified.

        1. Emails are only “born classified” if someone classifies them. And which Inspector General are you referring to? Someone within DOS? And whether within or without DOS, what authority would this inspector general have to decide classification issues within DOS? The ultimate classification authority within DOS is the Secretary of State.

          1. Gee, either “Jay S” is a liar and/or dumb, or Dr. Turley is correct in his 20 or so articles covering HRC’s server crimes over the past year. Wow, this is a hard one.

            I’ll place $50k on Dr. Turley.

          2. Jay S – “Born secret” and “born classified” are both terms which refer to a policy of information being classified from the moment of its inception, usually regardless of where it was being created, usually in reference to specific laws in the United States that are related to information that describes the operation of nuclear weapons.
            It has been extensively used in reference to a clause in the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, which specified that all information about nuclear weapons and nuclear energy was to be considered “Restricted Data” (RD) until it had been officially declassified.
            In the 1954 revision of the Act, the United States Atomic Energy Commission was given the power to declassify entire categories of information.
            The “born secret” policy was created under the assumption that nuclear information could be so important to national security that it would need classification before it could be formally evaluated. The wording of the 1954 act specified:
            All data concerning (1) design, manufacture, or utilization of atomic weapons; (2) the production of special nuclear material; or (3) the use of special nuclear material in the production of energy, but shall not include data declassified or removed from the Restricted Data category pursuant to section 2162 of this title.[1]
            Whether or not it is constitutional to declare entire categories of information preemptively classified has not been definitively tested in the courts.
            The legality of the ‘born secret’ doctrine was directly challenged in a freedom of the press case in 1979 (United States v. The Progressive). In that case, a magazine attempted to publish an account of the so-called “secret of the hydrogen bomb” (the Teller-Ulam design), which was apparently created without recourse to classified information. Many analysts predicted that the US Supreme Court would, if it heard the case, reject the ‘born secret’ clause as being an unconstitutional restraint on speech. However, the government dropped the case as moot before it was resolved.[2] – Wikipedia

      2. Sorry, you sorry loser. Maybe you’re new here. The man whose name adorns the mast here only wrote about twenty solid articles filled w/reference to US Federal Law, proving your claim of HRC innocence is pure hog wash. As did former Federal Judge Andrew Napolitano.

        BTW, Comey even stated she broke the law, adding (without explanation, none needed, Obama his boss is in the DNC w/HRC) that no one in the current Justice Dept. would press charges now. Certainly Trump’s FBI could, and he could also appoint an Independent Prosecutor, which should have happened the day after HRC gave the middle finger to Congress she’d not turn over her server. Are you glad that was her attitude, sweaty?

        Our dear, lovely Dr. Turley’s resume is about five glorious pages, plus he has Federal Security Clearance for the absolutely highest, top top secret level. Do you have a driver’s license yet, honey?

        Try again.

        1. Mr. Jones-
          Your insults not withstanding, I reiterate my view that the FBI and others outside of DOS have no legal basis to classify internal memoranda generated and circulated within DOS. The FBI can say that, in their shop, they would have classified such a memo. They can opine that they think DOS should have classified some memo.
          But please cite for me what laws you think give one federal agency or department the right to overturn and supersede the decisions of a different department or agency. Do you claim there is a pecking order within departments and agencies? If so, what is it? Can someone in (say) the Agriculture Department classify a memo circulating within the FBI? If not, why not?
          Executive Order 13526 clearly establishes that the head of each department or agency is the ultimate classification authority within that department or agency.
          As for your slurs about my background, I worked for over 35 years for government defense contractors and held (at various times) many security clearances up to and including TS.
          So, stop the insults and just enumerate what laws give one federal agency or department the right to overturn and suepersede the decisions of a different department or agency.

  17. This whole argument is like blaming the kicker for questionably using a steel toed shoe that allowed him to win the Super Bowl with a game ending field goal while not ever once questioning the failure of the offense to score more points.

  19. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz.
    Are all or any of these guys victims of Russia interference?
    If so we are f*cked, if not, wasn’t Clinton just a crappy candidate?
    You can’t have it both ways.
    You either give the Russians credit for the full Monte or go the F*ck away.

        1. False-“Patriot”–your one note samba is clear. Instead of posting your nonsense, simply say the following:

          “I hate Israel. I hate the U.S.A. And I hate Civilization. But oh do I love Islamoterrorism.”

          There, that captures everything you could possibly say.

      2. For the record, there are, same as other religious “leaders,” some really bad, evil, bigoted, war mongering Rabbis. OTOH, consistent w/your lovely image (thank you!), some smaller ratio of Rabbis rabidly (no pun intended) abhor Zionism, and state so at public rallies, even in Israel, at great risk of life, limb, and financial health. G_d bless those Rabbis!

        For some years now, Israel considers law requiring every citizen to swear oath of allegiance to Israel as a racial/religious so-called “Judaic” State. Such law is strictly forbidden in the USA. Anyone that supports the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution must practice cognitive dissonance to support Israel’s proposed law. You either support and believe in separation of Church and State, or you don’t, period.

        A perfect analogy: “I don’t believe in slavery, but what my neighbor does (the Israeli government) is his business.”

    2. it it is now simultaneously becoming illegal to criticize the Israeli government and not be seen as anti-Semitic.

      Someone else in the dayroom wants to use the computer.

Comments are closed.