Exclusive: Top U.S. spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hacking - sources
Source: Reuters
The overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced a CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election, three American officials said on Monday.
While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named.
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-intelligence-idUSKBN14204E?il=0
Jean-Jacques Roussea
(475 posts)Does he get their coffee or something?
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Spy vs Spy
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)onecaliberal
(32,483 posts)RoccoR2
(90 posts)but they are a private firm not an USA spy agency
OTOH -- may believe a pvt firm over a spy
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)The only thing in dispute, apparently, is Russia's motivation.
And if this were a criminal case, there's more than enough circumstantial evidence to prove intent.
Did Putin personally autograph Russia's actions? Send a thank you note to Trump? Of course not.
Did Russia hack both the RNC and the DNC, yet only release the DNC emails? Yes. Even the FBI (apparently) believes that, as do all the other US intelligence companies, as well as American private security companies.
Do Trump and Company have close personal and financial ties to the Russian government going back decades? Yes.
Did Trump immediately begin nominating entirely pro-Russian cabinet members? Yes.
Have Trump and his people defended Russia -- even threatened to break up NATO -- at every step of the way? Yes.
For any law enforcement agency or prosecutor in the world, this case wouldn't even be close. The only true unknown is the extent of TrumpCo's involvement.
still_one
(91,946 posts)""ODNI is not arguing that the agency (CIA) is wrong, only that they can't prove intent," said one of the three U.S. officials. "Of course they can't, absent agents in on the decision-making in Moscow.""
Response to Nevernose (Reply #10)
Name removed Message auto-removed
C Moon
(12,188 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)stillcool
(32,626 posts)Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Independent agencies
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
United States Department of Defense
Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)
National Security Agency (NSA)
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA)
National Reconnaissance Office (NRO)
Twenty-Fifth Air Force (25 AF)
Army Military Intelligence (MI)
Marine Corps Intelligence Activity (MCIA)
Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI)
United States Department of Energy
Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence (OICI)
United States Department of Homeland Security
Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A)
Coast Guard Intelligence (CGI)
United States Department of Justice
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of National Security Intelligence (DEA/ONSI)
United States Department of State
Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR)
United States Department of the Treasury
Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (TFI)
Response to stillcool (Reply #9)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Calista241
(5,584 posts)I think they did it to weaken Clinton, and they would have continued with the drip drip campaign for years into her Presidency. She would have been effectively handicapped from day 1.
I think they were as shocked as the rest of us when Drumph won.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)An oligarch that rules through racial tension.
malthaussen
(17,065 posts)Three unnamed "officials" in one agency presuming to speak for the "overseers of the U.S. intelligence community" might play in Podunk, but not with me. Furthermore, it doesn't matter if their intent was to "help" Mr Trump or not. The act of interfering with our election is quite sufficient to invalidate it, in a rational world.
-- Mal
Nitram
(22,671 posts)I wonder if the CIA really has a smoking gun such as an email or a recorded phone conversation with someone actually saying they are trying to help Trump win.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)None. Seeing the obvious motivation isn't exactly rocket science.
Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #18)
Name removed Message auto-removed
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)The difference is minor. Whoever did it (and the actual experts are unanimous it was Russia), it was obvious that they meant to sway the election. And they probably did. And it's not just the damned e-mails.
Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #20)
Name removed Message auto-removed
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)So yeah, probably so.
But why the former hard-line anti-Russian party is now opening to door to Putin's invasion, is a mystery. Has Putin paid them ALL?
rockfordfile
(8,682 posts)That's clear. You can't get anymore un-American than TrumpTrash.