US intelligence has no proof of anything - Ron Paul on 'Russian hacking'

[jct74]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcOiGzYxQWU

[oyarde]

Pretty much what I have thought all along .

[Dr.3D]

Pretty much what I have thought all along .

Yep, much ado about nothing.

[Brian4Liberty]

4chan dupes entire establishment...

[AZJoe]

Allegations Less and Less Credible by the Day
http://worldbeyondwar.org/allegation...ble-every-day/
http://www.strategic-culture.org/new...every-day.html

[R]eports on Russians’ motives for their alleged crimes (as well as for their non-criminal public actions, such as running a television network) are purely guesses. … the U.S. government is not even claiming to have any evidence that Russia was a source for WikiLeaks. … the U.S. government is not claiming to have any actual evidence of the Russian government hacking Democratic emails. Even the NSA will commit only to “moderate” confidence in what millions of Democrats will now stake their lives (and potentially everybody else’s) on. Former top NSA expert on this stuff William Binney swears the claims are utter nonsense. …

When the “17 intelligence organizations” put their collective multi-billion-dollar brains together and report on anything that’s publicly available, they tend to get it wrong. The facts about Russia’s television network in this latest “report” misidentify personnel, describe old programs as new ones, and screw up dates by failing to recognize that in some parts of the world people list the day before the month. Yet we are supposed to believe that anything they say about topics not publicly available must be true — despite having proved false over and over again for decades. …

Craig Murray, a diplomat with a stellar reputation for honesty, claims to know at least one source and to place them in either the NSA or the Democratic Party. …

we can go ahead and declare the CIA’s story less and less likely with each passing day. … It is safe to assume that if the NSA had evidence of it, some outline of that evidence would have been made public by now, rather than all the fluff, nonsense, and incompetent false attributions …
the latest report doesn’t just produce no evidence of hacking and providing to WikiLeaks. It also tries to change the subject to things Russia openly and publicly did, that nobody disputes, but that the “intelligence” agencies still manage to screw up all the details on. …

The accusations against Russia in the latest “overwhelming” report include: favoring proposals to work with Russia over proposals to build hostility (shocking!), and running a television network that many people in the United States choose to watch (the outrage! how capitalistic!). And the television network is accused of cheering for Trump’s election — as if the British media wouldn’t have cheered for Clinton’s — as if the U.S. media doesn’t cheer for election winners abroad all the time. This network, RT, is also accused of covering third-party candidates, fracking, Occupy, vote suppression, flaws in the U.S. election system, and other forbidden topics.

Well why do you think people watch it? If the U.S. media gave good time to third-party candidates, would people have to turn elsewhere to learn about them? If the U.S. media could be trusted not to claim a U.S. government report was “damning” in the same article that would later admit it was devoid of evidence, would people in the U.S. search for alternative sources of information? If the U.S. media allowed honest reporting on Occupy or fracking, if it opened itself up to a wide range of points of view and debate, if it allowed serious criticism of U.S. government policies supported by both big parties, would people despise it the way they do? …

When I go on RT and suggest that the United States should end all its wars, and that Russia should too, I’m invited back on. The last U.S. network to have me on was MSNBC, and I opposed U.S. war-making and was never heard from again. Perhaps most people watching U.S. media don’t quite realize that there are no antiwar voices allowed, no voices that actually want to abolish war. Yet most people feel there is something missing, on this and most topics. There’s lots of supposed debate on U.S. media, yet a dim — or glaring — awareness among viewers and readers that the debate is severely limited. …

Whoever revealed to the U.S. public additional evidence that the Democratic Party had slanted its primary against Bernie Sanders did us all a favor. … An informed public is a more democratic one, not less. Whoever informed us aided our democracy. They didn’t damage it. And whoever informed us was not themselves responsible for rigging the primary against Sanders. That was the Democratic Party. But this point of view is neither permitted in the U.S. media nor consciously missed, because the topic has been focused on whodunit rather than what-did-they-do. …

Those in the U.S. government pushing for greater cold, if not hot, war with Russia, with increased desperation during these next two weeks will be benefitting weapons profiteers and perhaps “news” profiteers, but just about nobody else, while risking incredible death and destruction. If I were an “intelligence” agency, I would “assess” with “high confidence” that corruption was afoot. And I’d get 16 friends to join me in calling that “assessment” a “report” if it helped you to take it seriously.