The attempted Clinton-CIA coup against Donald Trump

[David Guyatt]

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.

It seems to me Tracy that you're purposely missing the point about Clapper's statement. If US intelligence doesn't know how or when the emails were passed to Wikileaks, then they can't know who passed them either. Ergo, it could have been anybody. No Russian fingerprints involved because no evidence/proof is involved.

I frankly find your additional comments about the various whistleblowers not providing evidence to be bizarre. What are they supposed to do? Provide information that would almost certainly lead to the identity of the leaker/s - just to prove a point? And then walk away and watch him/her/them face the cruel retribution of a failed and vindictive state? Of course they're not going to and I'm really flabbergasted that you are arguing for that to happen.

Besides that, it has been a feature of American law since its beginning that it is the accuser who has to evidence their allegations against the accused - not the other way around. But you're suggesting that the US has now we've reached that stage of their decline where the accused must evidence their innocence against unsubstantiated and unproven allegations. Really?

Meanwhile, isn't it a great pity that our elite, their political managers, their politicized military and intelligence chiefs - who after all have clear financial interests in having a permanent Russian bogeyman hanging over America - and their media shills no longer can be bothered with evidencing the calumny they call news stories -- all they need do these days is to shout an accusation from their front pages and tens of millions of Americans flock down on their knees wailing and accept their words without hesitation. No critical thinking needed. George Orwell eat your heart out.

And based on this post of yours that's all you have, that's all you're presenting.... the self-serving words of a wholly compromised community. There's not a glimmer of fact involved.