Trying to blame Russia for leaks right before the elections is a very political and opportunistic move designed to make people stop thinking about evidence, not to mention the contents of the correspondence, experts say.
Hackers have been a major theme in the US presidential election, with the mainstream
media portraying Russia - without any evidence - as a key cyber-war adversary.
US intelligence officials claimed Russia is behind the hacks and leaks that targeted Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. The Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a statement on Friday afternoon, saying that US intelligence was“ confident that the Russian government directed” the hacks of emails and documents.
Coleen Rowley, former FBI agent and whistleblower: If we were to see evidence it would not be buried on a Friday afternoon, not even the lead story in the Washington Post. The accusation is lacking evidence. It only says there is no new news in it. It says that “it is consistent with the motives and methods” of the Russian state. So, that is really saying nothing more than what has already been said many times.
My interpretation of this so-called breaking news is that they are trying to close the investigation. NSA experts have said that there really is no way that they can get hard evidence that would show that this was actually prompted by or ordered by the Russian government. So, since they can’t get it, they leak a story on a Friday afternoon, and the assertion itself is very lackadaisical, it doesn’t really say anything.
Our intelligence agencies are not known for having a track record ever since 9/11. I was a whistleblower when they claimed that they had no way of knowing any information before the 9/11 attacks and that was proven wrong. Then they presented intelligence about weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein had, that was wrong. They claimed they didn’t torture, then afterwards they claimed they did torture but that the torture was valuable in getting information. They claimed they did not spy - this was an outright statement by the same director of National intelligence who claimed he didn’t spy on Americans - and that was proven incorrect and then they said that the intelligence was valuable, and they had 54 cases and that was proven wrong.
You could really list a whole long series of misinformation that our intelligence agencies have put out. And this one is pretty carefully said that it is just consistent with motive and methods, but obviously that says nothing.
0 comments:
Post a Comment