America’s Intelligence Services Report is Ridiculous
Apparently Russia’s President Putin is running America according to the CIA.
Nothing in the report claims what was revealed by WikiLeaks was false, it that level the CIA seems to agree that Clinton Obama and the DNC are completely reprehensible.
WikiLeaks have repeatedly said Russia did not supply any data, the White House has aggressively attacked individuals that have leaked information, but the CIA believes it was all Putin.
The Clinton Email leaks reveal a number of very serious crimes that the CIA, FBI and White House have not prosecuted.
Not since the “Weapons of Mass Destruction” story has America’s Intelligence Service looked so inept.
The US intelligence community has released the ridiculous unclassified findings of its so called investigation into what it says was Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, hours after President-elect Donald Trump received a briefing on the probe.
The report claimed with “high confidence in these judgments” that Russian President Vladimir Putin “ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election.” The goals of the campaign were “to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.” The Russian government, under Putin, like most Americans, “developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.”
The Russian campaign didn’t just use RT, however. It was “multifaceted” that blended covert intelligence operations, including cyber activity, with official efforts by the government, third-party intermediaries and “paid social media users or ‘trolls.’”
The ODNI accused the General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) ‒ Russia’s military intelligence agency ‒ of directing the hacks into the personal emails of Democratic Party officials through Guccifer 2.0, DCLeaks.com and Wikileaks. The cyber operation began in March 2016, and by May, the GRU had “exfiltrated large volumes of data” from the Democratic National Committee (DNC).
“Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries,” the report said, contradicting claims by Clinton campaign officials that the documents were tampered with.
The intelligence community warned that much of its findings were not included because it is “a declassified version of a highly classified assessment.” Releasing more information would “reveal sensitive sources or methods and imperil the ability to collect critical foreign intelligence in the future,” the report explained.
The ODNI devoted seven pages to RT and its influence on the election “by serving as a platform for Kremlin messaging to Russian and international audiences.” The report claimed “Russian media made increasingly favorable comments about President-elect Trump as the 2016 US general and primary election campaigns progressed while consistently offering negative coverage of Secretary Clinton.”
RT’s pro-Trump campaign began in March 2016, according to the ODNI, by “consistently” casting Trump “as the target of unfair coverage from traditional US media outlets” that were “subservient to a corrupt political establishment.”
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) released the report called “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections” on Friday afternoon.
The report did not provide any hard evidence of Russian interference, relying instead on analyses from the CIA, FBI and NSA that drew on intelligence collected by the three agencies. The CIA and FBI have “high confidence” in the results of the report, while the NSA only has “moderate confidence.”
The key judgments made by the US intelligence community came from “a body of reporting from multiple sources that are consistent with our understanding of Russian behavior,” which was based on “the behavior of Kremlin-loyal political figures, state media, and pro-Kremlin social media actors, all of whom the Kremlin either directly uses to convey messages or who are answerable to the Kremlin.” Similar tactics, the ODNI concluded, were also used to drive “consistent, self-reinforcing narratives” about Ukraine and Syria.
As per the report, high confidence is defined as judgments “based on high-quality information from multiple sources,” while moderate confidence means the information is “credibly sourced and plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence.”
Latest posts by Shayne Heffernan (see all)
- Islamic Terrorist Attack Cover Up in Melbourne, Australia - January 21, 2017
- China Data: Retail is on the Rise - January 20, 2017
- The Hong Kong Classic Mile: Our Selections - January 20, 2017