One of the horrors of Russiagate is that the Democrats have becoming huge supporters of the intelligence agencies, spies who the American people need to know about, and be protected from when it comes the worldwide sneaky-sneak, and surveillance of American citizens. Can we believe the CIA, I don't know but I don't thinks so, do you? When someone tells you 'I cannot tell you because it's secret and the knowing will damage you. It is classified and you may not know.' Don't trust them. This is today's CIA, and likely the rest of our intelligence agencies who operate outside the vision of the American people. It is time for a New Church Committee to declassify the CIA, the NSA --and the whole dam 'all seventeen of them' while limiting their sneak, power and influence in and on our nation. Enough with the heroes and duty and serving the country clap trap. The CIA and the rest of them, have again become a bunch of dissemblers and sneaks, who are all over television and out of control, lying to congress, lying on MSNBC, lying, while operating without oversite or knowledge of the American people. A Danger to our Democracy, if we were one. The Church Committee tried to stop this in and did for a while. But that was 1975, a long time ago, and long before the American people lost so many freedoms after 9-11, before smartphones, and the 1984 surveillance technology of today. That was when they were still using invisible ink and exploding cigars.
Is everyone already convinced that Russia was responsible for the hack? I always felt like those claims were backed by heavy assertion but never hard evidence. The guccifer2 story just seemed like complete bullshit on the surface. And given Crowdstrike's ties to a former cybersec analyst under Mueller and a virulently antiRussian Atlantic Council member, it always just seemed like such a small chain of custody for the evidence to make such an extraordinary claim. Crowdstrike royally fucked an analysis of Ukrainian missile systems, falsely blaming Russia. This part of the story has always bothered me; so has the steadfast refusal to interview ANYONE from Wikileaks, from Assange to Craig Murray.
One thing I just noticed recently: Obama's meeting with the intelligence chiefs was on Jan 5, 2017, and then Comey briefed Trump the next day. Susan Rice's goofy memo saying "On Jan 5 we did nothing wrong at all, nothing to see there, Obama said go by the book" referred to that meeting, a red flag that there were things discussed that she wanted to cover for. Comey says they discussed the dossier there, Brennan has previously said they did not. Something very shady about that meeting.
“Russiagate has always been two stories. One is about foreign cyber-incursion. The other is a shaggy dog tale about half-smart intelligence goons who spent years whispering to reporters about their heroic efforts to stop a conspiracy that apparently was never there.”
The reality of Russiagate is certainly far more sinister than the above sentence admits. Many “buy” the DNC “hack” even tho it is not factually proven, some may even buy the overly soft “keystone cops” analogy Taibbi uses to describe the “Intel community” involvement in American domestic politics, but the far stronger likelihood – some would say – “the real story” -- driven by the CIA, FBI, and DOJ folks who lost out on continued “gubmint” work as a result of the Clinton loss to the absurd Trumpster – was a collaborative effort (along with MI6 of course) to surveil and find ways to “tar” Trump & Co as Russian dupes or even agents (the 3/6/2017 ICA Report, etc.) in order to possibly remove him, or at least to strip away his “Russia” friendly aids and “turn” him into a neocon supporter of Cold War II, which, of course, has now happened.
Perhaps the sentence above could be re-worked to include Three, not just "two stories" . . . the "Russia did it" hyped absent real proof story, the B.S. "our well-meaning intel people got it wrong" story, and what many professional analysts outside the "corporate media" call "the real story . . ." ETC.
One of the horrors of Russiagate is that the Democrats have becoming huge supporters of the intelligence agencies, spies who the American people need to know about, and be protected from when it comes the worldwide sneaky-sneak, and surveillance of American citizens. Can we believe the CIA, I don't know but I don't thinks so, do you? When someone tells you 'I cannot tell you because it's secret and the knowing will damage you. It is classified and you may not know.' Don't trust them. This is today's CIA, and likely the rest of our intelligence agencies who operate outside the vision of the American people. It is time for a New Church Committee to declassify the CIA, the NSA --and the whole dam 'all seventeen of them' while limiting their sneak, power and influence in and on our nation. Enough with the heroes and duty and serving the country clap trap. The CIA and the rest of them, have again become a bunch of dissemblers and sneaks, who are all over television and out of control, lying to congress, lying on MSNBC, lying, while operating without oversite or knowledge of the American people. A Danger to our Democracy, if we were one. The Church Committee tried to stop this in and did for a while. But that was 1975, a long time ago, and long before the American people lost so many freedoms after 9-11, before smartphones, and the 1984 surveillance technology of today. That was when they were still using invisible ink and exploding cigars.
Is everyone already convinced that Russia was responsible for the hack? I always felt like those claims were backed by heavy assertion but never hard evidence. The guccifer2 story just seemed like complete bullshit on the surface. And given Crowdstrike's ties to a former cybersec analyst under Mueller and a virulently antiRussian Atlantic Council member, it always just seemed like such a small chain of custody for the evidence to make such an extraordinary claim. Crowdstrike royally fucked an analysis of Ukrainian missile systems, falsely blaming Russia. This part of the story has always bothered me; so has the steadfast refusal to interview ANYONE from Wikileaks, from Assange to Craig Murray.
One thing I just noticed recently: Obama's meeting with the intelligence chiefs was on Jan 5, 2017, and then Comey briefed Trump the next day. Susan Rice's goofy memo saying "On Jan 5 we did nothing wrong at all, nothing to see there, Obama said go by the book" referred to that meeting, a red flag that there were things discussed that she wanted to cover for. Comey says they discussed the dossier there, Brennan has previously said they did not. Something very shady about that meeting.
QUESTIONING A MATT STATEMENT ABOUT RUSSIAGATE:
“Russiagate has always been two stories. One is about foreign cyber-incursion. The other is a shaggy dog tale about half-smart intelligence goons who spent years whispering to reporters about their heroic efforts to stop a conspiracy that apparently was never there.”
The reality of Russiagate is certainly far more sinister than the above sentence admits. Many “buy” the DNC “hack” even tho it is not factually proven, some may even buy the overly soft “keystone cops” analogy Taibbi uses to describe the “Intel community” involvement in American domestic politics, but the far stronger likelihood – some would say – “the real story” -- driven by the CIA, FBI, and DOJ folks who lost out on continued “gubmint” work as a result of the Clinton loss to the absurd Trumpster – was a collaborative effort (along with MI6 of course) to surveil and find ways to “tar” Trump & Co as Russian dupes or even agents (the 3/6/2017 ICA Report, etc.) in order to possibly remove him, or at least to strip away his “Russia” friendly aids and “turn” him into a neocon supporter of Cold War II, which, of course, has now happened.
Perhaps the sentence above could be re-worked to include Three, not just "two stories" . . . the "Russia did it" hyped absent real proof story, the B.S. "our well-meaning intel people got it wrong" story, and what many professional analysts outside the "corporate media" call "the real story . . ." ETC.
I believe John Huber is from Utah. John Durham is our USA here in CT.