13-12-2016, 07:26 PM
David, I no more have the hard evidence that Russia did it than you have any hard evidence that it was leaked by someone in the NSA, or for that matter who exactly killed JFK! On this forum we have to deal with a lot of circumstantial evidence; we have to examine motives, means and opportunity to infer likely suspects.
The quote you gave from Clapper doesn't question that the emails were hacked, only when and how Wikileaks received them. Again, as I said earlier, a foreign intelligence agency is going to hand those off using cut-out organizations to hide their involvement. Clapper also had this to say in October:
"The emails released on sites like WikiLeaks are consistent with methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts," Clapper said before a security summit on Thursday. "We wouldn't have made [the statement] unless we were very confident."
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/ru...per-230085
You think an NSA employee leaked them? Well, the head of the NSA disagrees with that.
On Tuesday, the director of the National Security Agency, Admiral Michael Rogers, was asked about the WikiLeaks release of hacked information during the campaign, and he said, "This was a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect." He added, "This was not something that was done casually. This was not something that was done by chance. This was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily."
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016...6-campaign
That's after Charles Smith wrote in that blog post above:
"On the other side is the Defense Department's own intelligence agencies (D.I.A. et al.), the N.S.A., the F.B.I. and at least a few well-placed civilians who recognize the neocon agenda as a clear and present danger to the security of the nation."
The "dispute" within the intelligence agencies (including the FBI) is not that there was Russian hacking. It's whether Russians intended to merely disrupt the entire election, or if they intended to actively help Trump win.
The quote you gave from Clapper doesn't question that the emails were hacked, only when and how Wikileaks received them. Again, as I said earlier, a foreign intelligence agency is going to hand those off using cut-out organizations to hide their involvement. Clapper also had this to say in October:
"The emails released on sites like WikiLeaks are consistent with methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts," Clapper said before a security summit on Thursday. "We wouldn't have made [the statement] unless we were very confident."
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/ru...per-230085
You think an NSA employee leaked them? Well, the head of the NSA disagrees with that.
On Tuesday, the director of the National Security Agency, Admiral Michael Rogers, was asked about the WikiLeaks release of hacked information during the campaign, and he said, "This was a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect." He added, "This was not something that was done casually. This was not something that was done by chance. This was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily."
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016...6-campaign
That's after Charles Smith wrote in that blog post above:
"On the other side is the Defense Department's own intelligence agencies (D.I.A. et al.), the N.S.A., the F.B.I. and at least a few well-placed civilians who recognize the neocon agenda as a clear and present danger to the security of the nation."
The "dispute" within the intelligence agencies (including the FBI) is not that there was Russian hacking. It's whether Russians intended to merely disrupt the entire election, or if they intended to actively help Trump win.