Nothing But The Truth?

I’ve been reading the unclassified report on the DNC hacking. Given my previous posts on the subject, first here and then here, I was interested in what they said about the disclosure of the information. Here are their claims (emphasis mine):

Public Disclosure of Russian-Collected Data.

We assess with high confidence that the GRU used the Guccifer 20 persona, DCLeaks.com, and Wikileaks to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets.

• Guccifer 2.0, who claimed to be an independent Romanian hacker, made multiple contradictory statements and false claims about his likely Russian identity throughout the election. Press reporting suggests more than one person claiming to be Guccifer 2.0 interacted with journalists.

• Content that we assess was taken from e-mail accounts targeted by the GRU in March 2016 appeared on DCLeaks..com starting in June.

We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks. Moscow most likely chose WikiLeaks because of its self-proclaimed reputation for authenticity. Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries.

• In early September, Putin said publicly it was important the DNC data was exposed to WikiLeaks, calling the search for the source of the leaks a distraction and denying Russian “state-level” involvement.

When I got that far I said whoa, cowboy, stop and consider—this is the very first piece of publicly available information they’ve presented to back up the claim that the Russians gave data to Wikileaks. And here they have Putin himself publicly praising the actions of Wikileaks. What could be more damning than hearing it from the horses mouth?

Well, being a naturally suspicious fellow, I looked up the full transcript of what Putin said in the interview in early September. Here’s what he actually said about the DNC hacking, which is both very interesting and very different from what they would have us believe. This is the entirety of Putin’s comments about the DNC hack:

MICKLETHWAIT: Very quickly: the other accusation you’ve faced — or that they’ve said a lot — is that people connected with Russia or backed by Russia were the people who hacked into the Democratic Party’s database. Is that, you would also say that is completely untrue?

PUTIN: No, I don’t know anything about that. You know how many hackers there are today and they act so delicately and precisely that they can leave their mark at the necessary time and place or even not their own mark, camouflaging their activity as that of some other hackers from other territories or countries. It’s an extremely difficult thing to check, if it’s even possible to check. At any rate, we definitely don’t do this at the state level.

And then, listen, does it even matter who hacked this data from the campaign headquarters of Mrs. Clinton? Is that really important? The important thing is the putin-headshotcontent that was given to the public. There should be a discussion about this, and there’s no need to distract the public’s attention from the essence of the problem by raising some side issues connected with the search for who did it.

But I want to tell you again, I don’t know anything about it, and on a state level Russia has never done this. And to be honest, I couldn’t even imagine that this sort of information is interesting to American society — specifically that the campaign headquarters worked in the interests of one of the candidates, in this case Mrs. Clinton, rather than equally for all of the Democratic Party candidates. It would simply not even occur to me that this could be interesting to anyone. So even from this point of view, we couldn’t have officially penetrated it.

You understand, to do that you need to have a finger on the pulse and understand the specifics of domestic political life in the U.S. I’m not sure that even our Foreign Ministry experts are sensitive enough.

First point … did you find the word “WikiLeaks” in Putin’s comments? Because I sure didn’t … let’s look at the claim of the US intelligence report again. They said:

Putin said publicly it was important the DNC data was exposed to WikiLeaks

In fact, Putin did NOT say that, nor did he say anything even remotely like that. Putin didn’t mention WikiLeaks anywhere in the interview, not once. Search it yourself.

Instead, what Putin said was “the important thing is the content”, which means something entirely different. The intelligence agencies are being deceptive, misleading, and untruthful in this claim, and are banking on our blindly swallowing their fairy tale about Putin praising WikiLeaks … not gonna happen.

Man, I hate it when people lie like that about the small stuff. Yes, it’s just small stuff, but you see, they’re telling us “There’s big stuff, but we can’t show it to you, it’s classified at the sooper-dooper double-secret level, you’ll just have to trust us” … then they lie to us about the small stuff.

How can we trust them about the big stuff after they’ve lied about the small stuff?

In any case, the intelligence agencies lying about what Putin said, that’s just cheap mudslinging. The only good thing I can say about it is another of my rules of thumb, which says:

When a man starts slinging mud … it’s a sure sign he’s out of real ammunition.

If they had real ammunition against Wikileaks, they’d be firing i.

Now, here’s what I find to be the most curious part of Putin’s answer to the question. It’s the part where he says:

But I want to tell you again, I don’t know anything about it, and on a state level Russia has never done this. And to be honest, I couldn’t even imagine that this sort of information is interesting to American society — specifically that the campaign headquarters worked in the interests of one of the candidates, in this case Mrs. Clinton, rather than equally for all of the Democratic Party candidates. It would simply not even occur to me that this could be interesting to anyone. 

How odd, and how very revealing of the vast gulf between Russia and the US. In Putin’s mind, if there is a Democratic campaign headquarters, of course they would work in favor of one candidate over another! It’s not even questioned, it’s no surprise at all, that’s how the power structure works in Russia. I guess it’s true what they say … “In Russia, you don’t pick a party. In Russia, the Party picks you!”

There’s more to unpack in the report, but that will do for now. Everyone should remember that DNI James Clapper flat-out lied under oath to the US Congress about the NSA spying on all of us, and had to go back and apologize for his lies … so nobody should be surprised that he is lying to us now about Putin and WikiLeaks.

My best to everyone,

w.

Yes, I’ve said it before: Please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU ARE REFERRING TO  in your comment, so we can all understand what you’re talking about.

32 thoughts on “Nothing But The Truth?

  1. You ve stated the facts better than most ,if not all ,in the msm. Total bs to make Trump look bad. Dnc and obama are pathetic

    Like

    • I like Trump’s tweet after being fed a classified version of the report: “Gross negligence by the Democratic National Committee allowed hacking to take place.The Republican National Committee had strong defense!”

      Like

  2. Considering the history between Russia and England, I find this statement by Putin most interesting:

    No, I don’t know anything about that. You know how many hackers there are today and they act so delicately and precisely that they can leave their mark at the necessary time and place or even not their own mark, camouflaging their activity as that of some other hackers from other territories or countries. It’s an extremely difficult thing to check, if it’s even possible to check.

    So perhaps our dear friends in British intelligence have played us to block Russia. Again. When governments play games within games behind the scenes, we have no way of knowing who’s getting screwed by whom, except that in the end, we end up paying the price.

    And then, perhaps Angela Merkel got pissed at Obama for listening in on her phone calls. How many other countries has Obama managed to tick off? This sounds more like setting an agenda in place to stymie Trump.

    Like

  3. When James Clapper told a bald-faced lie under oath at a congressional hearing and then was caught red-handed, I could never understand why nothing was made of it. But I guess I shouldn’t have been surprised at our Attorney General’s office failure to do anything–they do nothing so often.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Putin “I couldn’t even imagine that this sort of information is interesting to American society — specifically that the campaign headquarters worked in the interests of one of the candidates, in this case Mrs. Clinton, rather than equally for all of the Democratic Party candidates.”

    I took it another way, Putin finding it odd that the information applied to one candidate only. He (to my eyes) is viewing the US and the DNC as democratic.

    Putin “You understand, to do that you need to have a finger on the pulse and understand the specifics of domestic political life in the U.S. I’m not sure that even our Foreign Ministry experts are sensitive enough.”
    He really is a one man band.

    There is an odd language construction here in Putin’s comments that could reflect what he did say exactly or more likely a misinterpretation.

    I enjoy reading your thoughtful comments, good to see you on twitter too, Willis..

    Like

  5. Pingback: Nothing But The Truth? | gwfenimore

  6. The public report reveals that the CIA assessment is interpretive. The “high degree of confidence” is the interpreter giving his own assessment of his own work. Shades of the IPCC and their “95% confidence”.The whole “assessment” needs to be carefully parsed. Trump needs to have all of the data reviewed and assessed independently of Clapper and the CIA.

    The DNC server was a private server, not a government server. The Democrats are using the intelligence agencies to serve their own political purposes. Had it been the RNC server instead of the DNC server, it all would have been forgotten by now. A politicized intelligence service is not trustworthy.

    Like

  7. Hope Mr Trump is following your analysis here Willis? However, from here in UK it sounds as though he has dismissed the whole thing.

    Like

    • In the grand scheme of things, what Russia has allegedly done is pretty much what they’ve been doing for the past 20 years. I’d guess that the US intel community has been doing the same stuff. They snoop where they can get access, then use the information they find to their best advantage.

      I doubt that Trump is simply dismissing the debacle, and will be talking to his own national security advisors about how best to address the identified problems. His statements after the TS briefing are clearly equivocal, and do not reverse his previous positions, despite what the MSM would like us to believe.

      Like

  8. Denial is a way of life when attempting to interfere with another country. So let’s not take Putin;s comments as truthful. But my attention is centered on whether the DNC actually denied the FBI access to their servers. If this is indeed true then the investigation should turn to address WHY they denied access.

    Like

  9. In other words, a cohort of our Elites is declaring a hair-on-fire emergency over this, in order to 1) Delegitimize the Trump presidency, and 2) To avoid any discussion at all about the information that was released.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Off Topic:

    Willis,

    I’m a quest to understand why CH4 is said to be so many times more powerful than CO2 as a Green House Gas. Here’s a link to your “Urban Legends” post on the topic over at Watts Up With That:
    _______________________________________________

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/11/scientific-urban-legends/

    So I wondered … How much change would there be from a doubling of the methane levels? … I went to the wondrous MODTRAN site. Using todays values for CO2 (~ 400 ppmv) and methane (~1.81 ppmv) gives me upwelling radiation of 287.5 watts per square metre (W/m2).

    Then I doubled the methane to 3.62 ppmv, re-ran the calculations, and got 286.7 W/m2 emitted from the TOA … which means that if … the methane levels were to double … the total effect would be … Less than a quarter of the effect of a doubling of CO2
    _______________________________________________

    And the effect of doubling CO2 without regard to feedbacks is about 1.2K and quarter of that is 0.3K So less than that.

    OK, so much for the preamble to my question and an answer:
    _______________________________________________

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/11/methane-the-irrelevant-greenhouse-gas/#comment-1611114

    Steve Case says:
    “The climate sensitivity of CO2 is about 1.2C° per doubling in the atmosphere
    The climate sensitivity of CH4 is about (___)C° per doubling in the atmosphere
    Can anyone fill in the blank?”

    The climate sensitivity of CH4 is about (_0.11)C° per doubling in the atmosphere.
    _______________________________________________

    OK that was still preamble:

    Do you think Ken Gregory’s 0.11C° is a good value for CH4 Climate Sensitivity?
    Or is CH4 Climate Sensitivity even a proper concept?

    Steve Case – Milwaukee, WI

    Like

    • Steve, thanks for the question. I can see that I need an “Open Thread” page.

      The short answer is that the concept of “climate sensitivity” does not apply to the globe at the general thermal steady-state which is typical of the climate. Here’s a cut at an explanation of why, from an unpublished post I’ll get back to some day …

      ==============

      To explain how the mainstream paradigm can be wrong, let me offer up the example of a house with a thermostatically-controlled gas heater. Let’s suppose the house is cold to start with. I turn on the heater and I start taking data. Once an hour, I record the amount of gas used, and I record the temperature. It’s a big house, so it takes a while to warm up. I continue to take temperature and gas usage data.

      At this point, I can develop a formula that shows that on average, the change in temperature is equal to the change in forcing times some constant. In other words, the change in temperature of the house is a linear function of the change in incoming energy (forcing). Using the data, I can define a “house sensitivity”, a constant that relates house temperature and gas use.
      This, of course, is the central paradigm of modern climate science, that the change in surface temperature is a linear function of the change in forcing.

      Now, let’s consider what happens when the house finally gets up to the temperature that was set on the thermostat. For the sake of the example, let’s say that once the house reaches the set temperature, after that the furnace kicks in periodically and runs for five to ten minutes before shutting off to maintain the temperature.

      I continue my same data taking process, recording temperatures and gas volumes once an hour. But unlike before, as I continue my measurements I find now find that gas use goes up and down, but the temperature hardly varies at all. I find that now the temperature of the house is no longer a function of incoming energy (forcing). The temperature of the house is now decoupled from gas use.

      And once the gas use and house temperature are decoupled, there is no “sensitivity” relating the gas use (forcing) to the house temperature. The “sensitivity” concept has no meaning at all in a thermoregulated system at steady-state.

      Let me stop here and note some characteristics of this system:

      The incoming gas energy (forcing) is definitely the reason that the house runs at higher than ambient temperature.

      When the house is far from thermal steady-state, there is a roughly linear relationship between gas use (forcing) and temperature. During this time, the concept of the “sensitivity” of the temperature to the forcing is valid and useful.

      Once the house warms up to the setting on the thermostat, gas use (forcing) is decoupled from temperature. Gas use varies, but the temperature remains the same. During this time, the concept of a “sensitivity” of the temperature to the forcing is both meaningless and misleading.

      ===============

      I’ll get back to that one someday … HTH.

      w.

      Like

      • Thanks for the very quick reply

        The short answer is that the concept of “climate sensitivity” does not apply to the globe at the general thermal steady-state which is typical of the climate.

        Then it shouldn’t apply to CO2 either, or did I miss something?

        Well anyway, I understand where the “Eleventy” times as effective as CO2 comes from; if you add 2 ppm of CH4, effectively doubling it, to the atmosphere you will get a bigger bump in temperature than if you add 2 ppm of CO2 which increases its concentration by only half a percent. But of course you will have to add 4 ppm to get a similar bump-up and so on. Hence the fallacy – but more importantly, CH4 is going up in PPB not PPM which makes a significant run-up methane bomb status far far off in the future. Here’s a chart

        from a short search that shows that CH4 is increasing about 6 or 7 ppb per year which will take about 300 years to get a 0.1K bump.

        Like

  11. Willis, the blog theme change looks great and readable now on mobile. Good job!

    Nice post also. The spinmasters are hard at work at the end of their shift. Let’s hope the new crew slices and dices this tangled web the current admin is spinning in their last few weeks. Moving all those US tanks into position in the EU a few days ago does not sit well with me.

    Like

    • ossqss January 7, 2017 at 11:40 am Edit

      Willis, the blog theme change looks great and readable now on mobile. Good job!

      Thanks, amigo. It’s my first blog and I’m still learning, just found the controls for tweaking the mobile view. Much more readable now.

      Nice post also. The spinmasters are hard at work at the end of their shift. Let’s hope the new crew slices and dices this tangled web the current admin is spinning in their last few weeks. Moving all those US tanks into position in the EU a few days ago does not sit well with me.

      I find Obamas actions in these last few weeks curious, as though he’s trying to cooper up all of the mistakes of his presidency in the waning days. For me, his presidency has been a modern tragedy—so much goodwill squandered.

      w.

      Like

  12. @realDonaldTrump

    “I am asking the chairs of the House and Senate committees to investigate top secret intelligence shared with NBC prior to me seeing it”.

    This, I think, is where some rubber may hit the road. It is, after all, treason even if there is nothing to see – “top secret intelligence” was leaked to unauthorized parties.

    Like

  13. The claim the report lies is thin gruel. Putin said:

    The important thing is the content that was given to the public.

    Which says the content was what was important, not the fact anything was released. The report says:

    • In early September, Putin said publicly it was important the DNC data was exposed to WikiLeaks, calling the search for the source of the leaks a distraction and denying Russian “state-level” involvement.

    The difference between saying the content was important and it is important the content was released is not irrelevant, but it also isn’t essesntial. I imagine that’s why this post focuses on the report saying “WikiLeaks.” Maybe not. Regardless, whether the report said “WikiLeaks” or not is largely immaterial.

    If Putin had said it was important the material was released, it wouldn’t matter if he said “to WikiLeaks” or not. The material was released to WikiLeaks. If it was important that the material was released, then it was important that it was released to WikiLeaks. Adding “to WikiLeaks” doesn’t mean one is praising WikiLeaks. It’s just recognizing who the material was released to.

    Labeling this a “lie” seems inappropriate to me. Yeah, if you intentionally read the statement in the worst way imaginable, it’s a lie. There’s no reason to do that though. A much more reasonable interpretation is the report made a mildly inaccurate statement. That’s not a big deal. I’d wager we could find even greater inaccuracies on this blog. I know we could find far worse inaccuracies in posts our host has written on other sites.

    Like

    • Since Putin never said one single word about WikiLeaks, and never mentioned the name once, claiming that he said that “it was important that the DNC data was exposed to WikiLeaks” is indeed a lie …

      w.

      Like

      • Brandon S, If there were a report out there that claimed that “Putin said that it was important that the data was exposed to Brandon S” would that be a lie?

        Yes, because Putin never said your name. Nor did Putin say Wikileaks, but the report LIED and said he did talk about Wikileaks.

        How that is not clear to you I don’t know. but I’ll keep repeating myself in new and different ways until you understand that it is a LIE that Putin said anything about either Brandon S or about Wikileaks in his interview. Putin said NOTHING about WikiLeaks, and the report lied and said he did say something about WikiLeaks.

        It is a cheap attempt at guilt by association, made worse by the fact that there was no association, it was all made up about Putin mentioning Wikileaks.

        w.

        Like

  14. The MSM and Obama et al are all annoyed the DNC servers were hacked by ‘Russia/Putin’. Such selective outrage – disparaging the messenger (whoever it really is) but ignoring the message – truly a sad state of affairs. I truly hope Trump has advisors that can break it down succinctly as Willis.

    Like

  15. From my pov, I was interested to see that the UK Gov said that GCHQ confirmed that the Russians had accessed the DNC computers. So I ask myself, how does GCHQ “know” the Ruskies are in the DNC pooters? ‘Cos they (GCHQ) were already there and spotted the (other) intruder.

    Like

  16. The important link that certain media are trying to create is the idea that the hacks ‘affected the outcome of the election’, meaning Trump would not have been elected if the Russians or someone else had not revealed what a bunch of lying, manipulative and venal bunch the DNC leaders are. The Podesta emails are nothing short of breath-taking.

    But that is not what HRC complained about. She said that the reopening of the investigation into her emails recently discovered on Anthony Wiener’s computer, hundreds of thousands of them, ten days before the election stumped her run. That discovery had nothing to do with hacking or Russians or Wikileaks. It was because the New York City Police investigation into Wiener turned up hundreds of thousands of State Department emails in an Outlook account on his laptop. That information was given to the FBI whose leader had promised the email-investigating committee that he would tell them if anything new came up. He sat on it for three weeks, eventually forced to tell the public because if he didn’t, the NYC Police were going to. That would have been the end of him in public service. He was already on notice.

    So, notice how the ‘the election was swayed’ message has gone from ‘it was those damn emails again’ to ‘the Russians hacked the DNC’. Expert misdirection.

    Nothing emerging from the DNC hacks and any effect on the contents of Wiener’s laptop. The election was affected by that revelation, and it wasn’t Reds under the beds. Just plain old constable Plod doing his work in NYC protecting minors from sexting.

    Like

  17. OFF Topic

    Hi Willis I’m back.

    You know what’s going on? The left is controlling the language, they say, “… methane warms the planet by 86 times as much as CO2, …” Here’s the link to Scientific American:

    How Bad Is Methane?

    And a lot of people on this side of the issue try to shoot that down. Don’t try, it’s a good number. The proper response is to ask:

    Considering that methane is increasing by about 7 parts per billion every year. How much in degrees Celsius will that run up Earth’s temperature? The answer is, “Less than one one thousandth (0.001) of a degree or nearly nothing. And you know what? Nearly nothing can easily be 86 times nothing which is about how much CO2 goes up when you increase it by 7 ppb from 400 ppm to 400.007 ppm.

    Cheers
    Steve Case – Milwaukee, WI

    Like

  18. If someone whose job it is to analyze intelligence and present clear, logical summaries of it makes this kind of obvious error, why does he still have a job? And if he purposely put words in Putin’s mouth to cast doubt on Trump for partisan political reasons, why does he still have job?

    I’ve never liked Trump much but I’m impressed with some of the things he’s good at. I look forward to him saying his signature phrase repeatedly: “you’re fired!” Drain the swamp.

    Like

You are invited to add your comments.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s