Thank you rallies by pass the press. Hard for them to lie when the people can hear him talk themselves without the filter.
But I don't recall his dismissing out of hand information from the entire intelligence community (i.e., in Trump's case, the hacking attributed to the highest levels of the Russian government), and skipping intelligence briefings apparently in favor of media fanfare. Whatever else you may wish to say about Obama, I don't think anyone can honestly say he didn't take his job seriously and devote himself to it fully.
Please, Freddie. The intelligence community saying that hacking was attributed to the highest levels of the Russian government is being claimed by the CIA. The FBI does not agree, and the CIA has shown no proof whatsoever. If I were Trump, I'd be saying the same thing. If the CIA has evidence, wouldn't they show that to Trump?? It is likely that the folks inside the CIA saying this stuff are the very same partisan and appointed folks that will get replaced by Trump. No conflict of interest there, is there. As for Obama taking his job seriously, I'm not going to say he didn't, or that Trump won't. But there were many times during Obama's administration I saw him go golfing or on some show when he should have been doing something "Presidential" during a crisis. While he may have been on the ball in those instances, he obviously didn't consider the optics of the situation. What you're talking about now is just that: Optics. With the one exception that Trump isn't even in office yet.
Attending intelligence briefings is also done without a media filter. Trump is in it for the adulation, plain and simple. If audiences are not watching him, he's not sure he exists.
As I recall, 17 intelligence agencies arrived at that conclusion. As for the FBI, I didn't think that was in their direct purview. Regardless, Comey showed his colors earlier, so I would expect his agency to be a bit more...obtuse, shall we say? At least until the evidence is overwhelming. Attending intelligence briefing so that he can hit the ground running when he gets into office goes beyond mere optics. And what about the web of potential conflicts of interest that the Trumps are now weaving? Remember his favorite phrase, "Crooked Hillary?" How about them optics?
Please back up the claim of 17 intelligence agencies with a reputable link of some sort. I'd love to read up on it. With so many agencies supposedly believing this, there's bound to be proof somewhere. Why haven't we seen it? Why isn't it being blasted by CNN/MSNBC and every other main stream media outlet that hates Trump?
And now back to reality. DNI Clapper: We ‘don’t have good insight’ into alleged Russian hacking By Rowan Scarborough As recently as Nov. 17, James Clapper, the nation’s top intelligence officer, told Congress his agencies “don’t have good insight” into a direct link between WikiLeaks and the emails supposedly hacked by a Russian operation from Democrats and the Hillary Clinton campaign. During the campaign, Wikileaks released reams of embarrassing internal emails between campaign chairman John Podesta, other campaign officials and the Democratic National Committee. One emailed showed candidate Clinton was provided the questions ahead of a CNN town hall appearance. Democrats are now on a campaign implying that the hacking won the election for Donald Trump and have pressed the Obama administration for a far reaching investigation. The Washington Post reported Friday that the CIA has secretly concluded that the Vladimir Putin regime directed hackers to penetrate the Democrats’ emails expressly to help Republican Trump win the election. The Post said the CIA has identified people with connections to the Russia government who supplied the stolen emails to Wikileaks. That is not what Mr. Clapper, the director of national intelligence, told the House Intelligence Committee at an open hearing on Nov. 17. Asked about Russia and Wikileaks, Mr. Clapper said, “As far as the WikiLeaks connection, the evidence there is not as strong and we don’t have good insight into the sequencing of the releases or when the data may have been provided. We don’t have as good insight into that.” Julian Assange, who founded the anti-secrecy Wikileaks, has denied receiving the emails from people connected to the Putin government. Mr. Assange is himself a hacking expert and directs a cadre of such computer thieves around the world. Republicans are generally skeptical about the intelligence to date. But it seems clear there will be congressional investigations next year into the extent to which the anti-West Mr. Putin is attempting to influence American elections and policymaking. Mr. Putin, an elected, but autocratic ruler, is conducting information warfare against European states, using hacking and propaganda to instill a lack of citizen confidence in the western democracies while at home preaching the rise of Russia. During the election, Mr. Clapper issued a statement on Oct. 7 saying the intelligence community is confident “that the Russian government directed the recent compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations.” He said the disclosures by Wikileaks and two other sites “are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts.” But more than a month later on Nov. 17, he told the House committee his agencies “don’t have good insight” on whether Russia-directed people provided the actual emails to Wikileaks. It is possible new information has arisen. The DNI headquarters had no immediate comment on Saturday. Mr. Putin’s motivation for trying to interfere in the U.S. election might be the praise he has heard from Mr. Trump, who called him a “strong” leader.” “I don’t believe they interfered. That became a laughing point, not a talking point, a laughing point. Any time I do something, they say, ‘Oh, Russia interfered,’” Mr. Trump told Time magazine in an interview published Wednesday. “It could be Russia. And it could be China. And it could be some guy in his home in New Jersey.” President Obama has ordered intelligence agencies to do a review of Russian hacking during the election and report back before he leaves office Jan. 20. Some Republicans believe the Democrats drumbeat on a Russian connection is part of an overall campaign to delegitimize Mr. Trump’s upcoming presidency. “Russia had nothing to do with the fact that Hillary Clinton didn’t resonate with the right voters the same way Donald trump did,” said Rep. Duncan Hunter, California Republican and an early congressional backer of the winner. “The idea that Trump’s victory, and thereby voter judgment, was guided by Russia is a slap in the face of the American electorate. Trump won because he had a winning message and he’s got the backbone to see it through.” House Intelligence committee Chairman Devin Nunes, California Republican and a member of Trump’s transition team, said on Friday: “Russia’s cyber-attacks are no surprise to the House Intelligence Committee, which has been closely monitoring Russia’s belligerence for years—as I’ve said many times, the Intelligence Community has repeatedly failed to anticipate Putin’s hostile actions. Unfortunately the Obama administration, dedicated to delusions of ‘resetting’ relations with Russia, ignored pleas by numerous Intelligence Committee members to take more forceful action against the Kremlin’s aggression. It appears, however, that after eight years the administration has suddenly awoken to the threat.” CIA Director John Brennan advised Mr. Obama’s 2008 president campaign and worked in the White House before going to CIA. Weeks before the 2012 election, the CIA concluded there was a protest outside the burned U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, as an explanation for the deadly attack. That message was delivered to the American people, when in fact no protest had occurred. Internal White House emails showed aides wanted talking points to say the attack was not related to any Obama policies. The Washington Post ran a story Nov. 24 quoting a secretive research group, with no identities of its experts, as saying the Russians had infiltrated a number of news sites with “fake news” stories that tilted the election to Mr. Trump. Other liberal media outlets have slammed the story as weakly sourced and unfair to reputable news organizations. The “fake news” campaign by Democrats is another attempt to damage Mr. Trump, Republicans say. Mr. Obama raised the fake news issue. It was picked up by losing candidate Clinton and has been embraced by the liberal media. Trump people have rebutted by saying the mainstream media published lots of “fake news” against their candidate during the campaign. In other moves against the president-elect, Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein, aided by the Clinton campaign, has demanded recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, though no evidence of fraud or malpractice has emerged. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/10/james-clapper-we-dont-have-good-insight-potential-/
Did you bother to read this? Clinton made the claim, according to the article, and... "The 17 separate agencies did not independently declare Russia the perpetrator behind the hacks. Trump spokesman Steven Cheung said that this cuts against Clinton’s point, saying, "It is unlikely that all 16 of the agencies had looked independently at the Russian connection, which is what Clinton seemed to indicate." However, as the head of the 17-agency intelligence community, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, headed by James Clapper, speaks on behalf of the group. So one guy who speaks for the intelligence agency, and who is appointed by Obama made the claim back in October before the election took place. I see. Gets clearer and clearer. So where is the proof, then? They've had several months to show proof.
Former UK Ambassador Says Source Of Clinton Emails Was "Disgusted" Democratic Whistleblower Russia's involvement in the election jumps the shark with fact-less accusations of Putin's personal involvement, The Daily Mail blows the entire 'hack' meme out of the water. As an evoy for Wikileaks, former UK ambassador Craig Murray claims he flew to Washington for a clandestine handoff with one source, who "had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks... Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians." Murray, who blasted The CIA's "blatant lies" in a recent op-ed, has now come forward with more details on how he knows they are lying... (as The Daily Mail reports) Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, told Dailymail.com that he flew to Washington, D.C. for a clandestine hand-off with one of the email sources in September. 'Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,' said Murray in an interview with Dailymail.com on Tuesday. 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.' While Murray is a controversial figure who was removed from his post as a British ambassador amid allegations of misconduct. He was cleared of those but left the diplomatic service in acrimony. His links to Wikileaks are well known. His account contradicts directly the version of how thousands of Democratic emails were published before the election being advanced by U.S. intelligence. Murray insisted that the DNC and Podesta emails published by Wikileaks did not come from the Russians, and were given to the whistleblowing group by Americans who had authorized access to the information. 'Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,' Murray said. 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.' He said the leakers were motivated by 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.' Murray said he retrieved the package from a source during a clandestine meeting in a wooded area near American University, in northwest D.C. He said the individual he met with was not the original person who obtained the information, but an intermediary. His account cannot be independently verified but is in line with previous statements by Wikileaks - which was the organization that published the Podesta and DNC emails. Murray declined to say where the sources worked and how they had access to the information, to shield their identities. He suggested that Podesta's emails might be 'of legitimate interest to the security services' in the U.S., due to his communications with Saudi Arabia lobbyists and foreign officials. Murray said he was speaking out due to claims from intelligence officials that Wikileaks was given the documents by Russian hackers as part of an effort to help Donald Trump win the U.S. presidential election. 'I don't understand why the CIA would say the information came from Russian hackers when they must know that isn't true,' he said. 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that.' Assange has similarly disputed that charges that Wikileaks received the leaked emails from Russian sources. 'The Clinton camp has been able to project a neo-McCarthyist hysteria that Russia is responsible for everything,'Assange told John Pilger during an interview in November. 'Hillary Clinton has stated multiple times, falsely, that 17 US intelligence agencies had assessed that Russia was the source of our publications. That's false – we can say that the Russian government is not the source.' As Murray concluded in his recent op-ed, the continued ability of the mainstream media to claim the leaks lost Clinton the election because of “Russia”, while still never acknowledging the truths the leaks reveal, is Kafkaesque. It is terrible that the prime conduit for this paranoid nonsense is a once great newspaper, the Washington Post, which far from investigating executive power, now is a sounding board for totally evidence free anonymous source briefing of utter bullshit from the executive. The worst thing about all this is that it is aimed at promoting further conflict with Russia. This puts everyone in danger for the sake of more profits for the arms and security industries – including of course bigger budgets for the CIA. As thankfully the four year agony of Aleppo comes swiftly to a close today, the Saudi and US armed and trained ISIS forces counter by moving to retake Palmyra. This game kills people, on a massive scale, and goes on and on.