NY Times FINALLY retracts lie about 17 intelligence agencies concurring on Russian hacking

AsianTrumpSupporter

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2017
4,264
1,126
390
Democratic People's Republique de Californie
NYT Finally Retracts Russia-gate Canard

Exclusive: A founding Russia-gate myth is that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies agreed that Russia hacked into and distributed Democratic emails, a falsehood that The New York Times has belatedly retracted, reports Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry (Updated on July 1 with new NYT deception)

The New York Times has finally admitted that one of the favorite Russia-gate canards – that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concurred on the assessment of Russian hacking of Democratic emails – is false.

On Thursday, the Times appended a correction to a June 25 article that had repeated the false claim, which has been used by Democrats and the mainstream media for months to brush aside any doubts about the foundation of the Russia-gate scandal and portray President Trump as delusional for doubting what all 17 intelligence agencies supposedly knew to be true.

In the Times’ White House Memo of June 25, correspondent Maggie Haberman mocked Trump for “still refus[ing] to acknowledge a basic fact agreed upon by 17 American intelligence agencies that he now oversees: Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help get him elected.”

However, on Thursday, the Times – while leaving most of Haberman’s ridicule of Trump in place – noted in a correction that the relevant intelligence “assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.”

The Times’ grudging correction was vindication for some Russia-gate skeptics who had questioned the claim of a full-scale intelligence assessment, which would usually take the form of a National Intelligence Estimate (or NIE), a product that seeks out the views of the entire Intelligence Community and includes dissents.

The reality of a more narrowly based Russia-gate assessment was admitted in May by President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan in sworn congressional testimony...


Also, the NY Times should be renamed The Mexican Times:

Carlos Slim becomes top New York Times shareholder
 
Last edited:
The NYT correction reads:

A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump’s deflections and denials about Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia orchestrated hacking attacks during last year’s presidential election. The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.
The retraction is the result of James Clapper's clarifying Senate testimony with regard to the development and issuance of the Joint Statement from the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security. Clapper's testimony was as follows:

Franken: The intelligence communities have concluded, all 17 of them, that Russia interfered with this election. And we all know how that’s right.

Clapper: Senator, as I pointed out in my statement, Senator Franken, it was- there were only three agencies that directly involved in this assessment plus my office.

Franken: But all 17 signed on to that?

Clapper: Well, we didn’t go through that process. This was a special situation because of the time limits and […] the sensitivity of the information, we decided – it was a conscious judgment – to restrict it to those three. I’m not aware of anyone who dissented, or disagreed when it came out.​

Given the nature of operations conducted by the respective members of the USIC, it's hard to imagine any of them but the four Clapper identified would have any first had basis for concurring with or refuting the findings of the Joint Statement.

Be that as it may, what's relevant is that once Clapper clarified that all 17 agencies didn't have an active role in developing the Joint Statement and its findings, the NYT corrected its story(s) to reflect the clarification. I bid you when, pray tell, do we see the individual most often these days assailed with assertions and descriptions about his nonexistent integrity make a point of correcting himself? One wonders if there have even been enough of them that one needs more than one hand to count them.
 
Given the nature of operations conducted by the respective members of the USIC, it's hard to imagine any of them but the four Clapper identified would have any first had basis for concurring with or refuting the findings of the Joint Statement.

The "joint statement" was a PR document -- not an "Intel Report". At it's core was 3rd hand information derived from private persons and organizations doing POLITICAL opposition research and/or hired by Political orgs.

There WAS NEVER any direct Intel Analysis of the PRIME evidence in this matter. NOT ONE member of the IComm EVER laid hands or eyes on the DNC server or the Podesta devices.

So the REST OF IT -- was "boilerplate" that I read in Intel Reports back in the late 80s about "Russian motives"..

So let's simplify your statement to --- THE REPORT did not include any "first had [sic] basis" for the "findings"...
 
Given the nature of operations conducted by the respective members of the USIC, it's hard to imagine any of them but the four Clapper identified would have any first had basis for concurring with or refuting the findings of the Joint Statement.

The "joint statement" was a PR document -- not an "Intel Report". At it's core was 3rd hand information derived from private persons and organizations doing POLITICAL opposition research and/or hired by Political orgs.

There WAS NEVER any direct Intel Analysis of the PRIME evidence in this matter. NOT ONE member of the IComm EVER laid hands or eyes on the DNC server or the Podesta devices.

So the REST OF IT -- was "boilerplate" that I read in Intel Reports back in the late 80s about "Russian motives"..

So let's simplify your statement to --- THE REPORT did not include any "first had [sic] basis" for the "findings"...
Oh, what? Did you actually think there wasn't something substantive prompting the IC/DNI to issue the press release?

Truly, you and others like you need, the next time you visit D.C., to actually spend some time talking to the "worker bees" in federal government department/agency headquarters rather than visiting museums and gazing at zoo animals.

Assuming you have the classified background you've alluded to, you know as well as I do that the particulars of the methodology and supporting information that led to the assessment publicized in the press release to which I earlier linked are classified and won't be released. The best I can provide is the declassified version which was released sometime after the classified one was highly summarized to compose the press release.
 
Given the nature of operations conducted by the respective members of the USIC, it's hard to imagine any of them but the four Clapper identified would have any first had basis for concurring with or refuting the findings of the Joint Statement.

The "joint statement" was a PR document -- not an "Intel Report". At it's core was 3rd hand information derived from private persons and organizations doing POLITICAL opposition research and/or hired by Political orgs.

There WAS NEVER any direct Intel Analysis of the PRIME evidence in this matter. NOT ONE member of the IComm EVER laid hands or eyes on the DNC server or the Podesta devices.

So the REST OF IT -- was "boilerplate" that I read in Intel Reports back in the late 80s about "Russian motives"..

So let's simplify your statement to --- THE REPORT did not include any "first had [sic] basis" for the "findings"...
Oh, what? Did you actually think there wasn't something substantive prompting the IC/DNI to issue the press release?

Truly, you and others like you need, the next time you visit D.C., to actually spend some time talking to the "worker bees" in federal government department/agency headquarters rather than visiting museums and gazing at zoo animals.

Assuming you have the classified background you've alluded to, you know as well as I do that the particulars of the methodology and supporting information that led to the assessment publicized in the press release to which I earlier linked are classified and won't be released. The best I can provide is the declassified version which was released sometime after the classified one was highly summarized to compose the press release.
Quit thumping your tiny chest, it isn't working the way you think.

Yes, there was a reason, a BIG one. The presidential election. This was pure politics and a prime example of what's wrong with government. It was designed to delegitimize the Republican. Intel agencies are not known for issuing press releases. Dots too far apart for ya? What did we learn? Where was there any Trump involvement? What did the Russians do in particular? If you have an update post it up.
 
Given the nature of operations conducted by the respective members of the USIC, it's hard to imagine any of them but the four Clapper identified would have any first had basis for concurring with or refuting the findings of the Joint Statement.

The "joint statement" was a PR document -- not an "Intel Report". At it's core was 3rd hand information derived from private persons and organizations doing POLITICAL opposition research and/or hired by Political orgs.

There WAS NEVER any direct Intel Analysis of the PRIME evidence in this matter. NOT ONE member of the IComm EVER laid hands or eyes on the DNC server or the Podesta devices.

So the REST OF IT -- was "boilerplate" that I read in Intel Reports back in the late 80s about "Russian motives"..

So let's simplify your statement to --- THE REPORT did not include any "first had [sic] basis" for the "findings"...
Oh, what? Did you actually think there wasn't something substantive prompting the IC/DNI to issue the press release?

Truly, you and others like you need, the next time you visit D.C., to actually spend some time talking to the "worker bees" in federal government department/agency headquarters rather than visiting museums and gazing at zoo animals.

Assuming you have the classified background you've alluded to, you know as well as I do that the particulars of the methodology and supporting information that led to the assessment publicized in the press release to which I earlier linked are classified and won't be released. The best I can provide is the declassified version which was released sometime after the classified one was highly summarized to compose the press release.

Got news for you Bro... My ass was on an airplane twice a month connecting Silicon Valley with Wash DC. I spent 7 years working in the Spying Game. Bringing back money and programs for the best and brightest. The ONLY portion of govt I recognize for extreme COMPETENCE and execution of mission is the Intel agencies.

So cut the personal advice.. You have NO IDEA, what the Classified version of that report looked like. But what I said still stands. ANY FACTS or knowledge came from questionable 3rd party sources with political agendas. If THAT was the quality of Intel being fed to the Prez -- he should have FIRED all the political appointees and sent a personal REP to sit in on the construction of the PDailyBriefings...
 
Given the nature of operations conducted by the respective members of the USIC, it's hard to imagine any of them but the four Clapper identified would have any first had basis for concurring with or refuting the findings of the Joint Statement.

The "joint statement" was a PR document -- not an "Intel Report". At it's core was 3rd hand information derived from private persons and organizations doing POLITICAL opposition research and/or hired by Political orgs.

There WAS NEVER any direct Intel Analysis of the PRIME evidence in this matter. NOT ONE member of the IComm EVER laid hands or eyes on the DNC server or the Podesta devices.

So the REST OF IT -- was "boilerplate" that I read in Intel Reports back in the late 80s about "Russian motives"..

So let's simplify your statement to --- THE REPORT did not include any "first had [sic] basis" for the "findings"...
Oh, what? Did you actually think there wasn't something substantive prompting the IC/DNI to issue the press release?

Truly, you and others like you need, the next time you visit D.C., to actually spend some time talking to the "worker bees" in federal government department/agency headquarters rather than visiting museums and gazing at zoo animals.

Assuming you have the classified background you've alluded to, you know as well as I do that the particulars of the methodology and supporting information that led to the assessment publicized in the press release to which I earlier linked are classified and won't be released. The best I can provide is the declassified version which was released sometime after the classified one was highly summarized to compose the press release.

Got news for you Bro... My ass was on an airplane twice a month connecting Silicon Valley with Wash DC. I spent 7 years working in the Spying Game. Bringing back money and programs for the best and brightest. The ONLY portion of govt I recognize for extreme COMPETENCE and execution of mission is the Intel agencies.

So cut the personal advice.. You have NO IDEA, what the Classified version of that report looked like. But what I said still stands. ANY FACTS or knowledge came from questionable 3rd party sources with political agendas. If THAT was the quality of Intel being fed to the Prez -- he should have FIRED all the political appointees and sent a personal REP to sit in on the construction of the PDailyBriefings...

I see. Now that you've been presented with facts that show the insufficiency of your earlier comment, you have only a normative reply. Fine...
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top