Home | About | Donate

US Intel Vets Dispute Russia Hacking Claims


US Intel Vets Dispute Russia Hacking Claims

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity


Allegations of Hacking Election Are Baseless

A New York Times report on Monday alluding to “overwhelming circumstantial evidence” leading the CIA to believe that Russian President Vladimir Putin “deployed computer hackers with the goal of tipping the election to Donald J. Trump” is, sadly, evidence-free. This is no surprise, because harder evidence of a technical nature points to an inside leak, not hacking – by Russians or anyone else.

Hypocrisy of Russia-Did-It Stories Is Hard to Stomach
Hypocrisy of Russia-Did-It Stories Is Hard to Stomach

The same people are constantly spreading anti US rhetoric and pro Russian doubt!

Russia is never at fault , US always is! Do not you feel there should be exceptions to your continued bias ? Russia can not be that good and US that bad after all most of you are from US? People who run from Russia usually are pro US, kind of a pattern.


Thanks CD for posting this. I know it has been posted throughout progressive sites but I think it very important to post this as often as possible. The Russians are coming meme is all over the MSM, scary, without a scintilla of proof.


While I appreciate all the good work VIPS has done, my GUESS is that Russians did hack, then send the hack hither and yon to make tracing difficult with assorted anti-bug encryption what-not, then copy it off and feed it to a disgruntled democrat/mole/whatever who gives it to WikiLeaks.
Mother Jones:
"A former high-ranking CIA official, who asked not to be identified, says in an email:
It is nearly certain that [Russian intelligence] would have done some sort of surveillance on him(Trump in Moscow). Could have been low-key physical surveillance (following etc) or deeper surveillance, such as video/audio of hotel room and monitoring of electronics (your [communications] while [in Moscow] is on their network)."
Anyway, my GUESS is that Trump owes big money to Russian mobsters and they have enough info on The Man With No Morals to blackmail him. Thus, Putin in charge of US foreign policy.


That doesn't seem like a pretty large leap of "logic" to anyone else?

Also, hasn't it been pretty conclusively shown that the Podesta emails were accessed through a phishing scam? No mention of that here, though.


" The Russians did it" folks on these boards get desperate ignoring the article entirely to advance theories the article already refutes.

As example a "phishing scam" would still be traceable using these methods. The packets phished still have to exit the country. Added to that Mr Murray has clearly indicated that he flew into the USA and was passed the Podesta and Clinton Emails from a person who got them from a disgruntled DNC insider.

He then flew out of the country with the same. This method can not be traced via the technologies outlined.

None of the rebuttals offered up by the "russians did it crowd" address the points made in the article nor do they address Mr Craig Murray describing how he got those emails or the fact that Wikileaks also states clearly the emails were leaked by an insider.

Desribing how given technologies work and how the NSA is perfectly capable of offering evidence that this hack done by Russia does not suddenly become "pro Russian" or "anti US'. This is just trying to ignore the truth by waving the flag.


This should end all allegations that the leaked emails were given to Wikileaks by Russians or the Russian government or Putin himself. This isn't to say that attempts were not made by someone to hack the DNC's or HRC's servers, just that the WIkileaks leaks were not the result of a hack, by Russians, the Russian government, Putin or anyone else.

From ZeroHedge:
Former UK Ambassador Says Source Of Clinton Emails Was "Disgusted" Democratic Whistleblower

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,' 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.

More here: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-14/former-uk-ambassador-says-source-clinton-emails-was-disgusted-democratic-whistleblow

And here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html


My GUESS is that WikiLeaks did get the info from "a disgruntled DNC insider." But that certainly does not rule out the possibility that the info came from Russia. Mr. Disgruntled could be a mole or a Clinton hater or someone who could use a nice bit of cash from Russia. Too quickly ruling out Russian involvement is simply stupid.


The "info" for WHAT came from Russia?

Mr Murray said that the person who leaked the emails was an insider who had access to those emails. Why would he need to get the info from Russia?

If I have access to a coworkers emails, I can just copy the files to a stick. I do not need to involve Russia.


By they way I know this mentioned before but I think it worthwhile pointing this out again as the hypocrisy of the US Government on this matter is breathtaking. We also have people who continue to insist that the US does not meddle in Russia.

This a link to an article from some 20 years ago printed by Time Magazine. It also shows the COVER of that magazine with the headline of how the US helped Yeltsin win elections.


The headline on the Front Page cover of that magazine reads



Only fools would think the US does not meddle in Russia. We meddle in many places. That does not mean we like outsiders meddling with us. Sanctions on outsiders who meddle with us is appropriate. I reckon they can sanction us if they choose.


Of course the leaker, whoever he was, would never lie I'm ever so certain.


No matter how you look at it, it's a colossal failure of the US intelligence agencies.

Obvious questions:

  1. If the NSA etc could detect any Russian extraction of information, can't they also know the "leaker" by the same token unless he used a sneaker-ware method like Snowden? But even in the latter case that person must surely be known by now, there must be some trace of downloading all the emails, some electronic signature.

  2. If the person referreed to in 1 above is known, why hasn't he/she been exposed?

  3. Isn''t the real scandal that intelligence agencies, irrespsective of which country, can go through all the electronic information exchanges of any powerful politician, so they are all indeed compromised to secret state agencies?

  4. Do the secret stage agencies actually collude in the above?

  5. What are the VIPS answers to the above?


Do you have a fondness for legacy red baiting propaganda? (Why do you 'always' say that Russia is good....that the US is bad?) The propaganda 'always' ignores the content. It's the loyalty batting average that counts. Isn't it?


'Sneaker-ware' has nothing to do with any type of electronic communications. Your presumption that the leaker “...must 'surely' be known by now...” Known by whom? Remember, the leaker passed the information via 'sneaker-ware', and not by traceable electronic methods. Since the leaks were an 'inside job', sources with the most insight as to who could be doing the leaking would be the DNC/Clinton groups themselves. So you tell us why the DNC/Clinton people haven't revealed whom they suspect is the source of the leaks.

You conjecture the possibility of a shadow government within the US government colluding with a shadow government within the Russian government. Now the $64,000 question would be: For what purpose? To add a Rube Goldberg touch to what already exists?


Thank you vet intel guys and gals.
Leaks, ever more likely than hacking given what is stated in the article.
Silicon valley tech buds confirm this as well.
But hey, "the Russkies did it", "Putin did it", is so weirdly cold-war-ish and this meme whips up the 24/7 nuz, eh?
We live in a hot mess of outright lies, stupidity, massive greed and hypocrisy with a capital H.


'Twasn't a hack, 'twas a leak.


The Plan:
1. Prevent Hillary Clinton, who is completely corrupt, from achieving White House power.

  1. Prevent Donald Trump, who is a psychopath, from achieving White House power.

  2. Get the House to put someone in there who is at least sane.

Seems like someone might have a plan to save us from the corrupt and compromised DNC, FBI, Justice Department, and a few hundred million low information voters who had little else in the way of choices.


"a key mystery is why U.S. intelligence would rely on “circumstantial evidence” when it has the capability for hard evidence, say U.S. intelligence veterans"

BULL if that was the case those alleged U.S. Intelligence veterans will in the current state of the world for serf-serving publicity would be on the Hannity Show along with Rupert Murdoch Australian cousin Julian Assange there is no such thing as the Republicans and those supporting them including a chorus alleged lefties.

Since these are uncharted waters I would guess since a decision regarding nuclear war must be made within 5 minutes that a strong cause of war exists between Russia and the USA so I would appreciate that the foolish American commenters are arrested and shot if need arises.

As for hacking I regard the issue very seriously where as members of the two party system do not where I single out especially the Republicans for their graceless self-serving BS.

Where my experience regarding hackers tells me Russia is one ofthe few parties most capable of such hacking crimes with of without direct evidence and that the Russian Trump and Republican responses to date were inappropriate and unacceptable.,


McGovern was a CIA analyst from 1963 to 1990 - he left 26 years ago and four years before the WWW was created.

DOS was still the major Operating System in 1990.

Things worked differently back then and new technologies have been developed since.

The way I understand it is:

  • The Clinton campaign system was breached
  • The FBI called the help desk guy and said we see disturbing activity.
  • The help desk guy thought it was a prank call
  • The FBI called the same guy a few times, for a few months.

Why didn't the FBI get in touch with someone higher up in the campaign?
The offices were only about 10 minutes apart, why didn't the FBI show up in person?

Yes, the help desk person wasn't much help, but I don't think he held a senior position either.

Seven months later, the servers are checked and they found finger prints of the intrusion.

Too late !
Email accounts had been accessed, email had been read and saved to a email client and the rest is history. Once someone has access to your account, login & password, they can stroll around or sync the account wholesale.

It does not matter if the agencies can track the packets Where would that lead them - to a Starbucks in DC or NY?

We all choose what we believe.
McCartyism, CointelPro, Watergate, Iran/Contra, Whitewater, WMDs, BHO citizenship ... whatever.
(Whitewater, WMDs, and BHO citizenship were not real issues - just in case)

Believe retired spooks or believe active spooks,
believe the Russians or believe Trump,
believe the journalists or believe the pundits,
believe the news or believe the propaganda.

I'm going to go with the assessment of the US Intelligence agencies (CIA & FBI)
--> they use current methodology and up-to-date forensic software.

You can distrust everyone and everything, but where does that leave you? It leaves you alone and miserable.