Rudimentary analysis - the primary reason for a country not to disclose any information about foreign spies or their activity is to protect its own counter-intelligence system. When a disclosure is made, that means that either the other side already knows about the breach into their methods, personnel and activities, or the information is so important that own counter-intelligence efforts are deemed expendable. So, in this case, the Administration is publicizing that the Russians [supposedly] did some covert activities, but the the US counter-intelligence figured it out. Thus, whatever methods the Russians used [supposedly] have now been jeopardized and cannot be used again. Furthermore, there must be a flaw in the attacker's method (human, electronic, etc.), which the other side will correct. So, by publicizing the flaw, the attacker has been warned, given a chance to eliminate or correct the problem and the US services lost their lead. It follows, then, that further protecting the alleged source is pointless, as the attacking side already knows all about it. By not disclosing the alleged source, at this point, "protects" only from the American public. Add to that this Administration's history of protecting and, frankly, being concerned only about itself, can anyone seriously believe that the details are hidden by the Administration to protect US intelligence sources? Seriously?
This entire claim is so bogus that a kid should be able to see through it. Of course, as usual, it is aimed at adulting American public, which has less critical thinking skills than a kid.

recently Snopes has been accused by the Daily Caller Foundation of biasing a well researched article on Kerry's daughter's foundation receiving major contracts and international travel through the State department and Peace Corps. Investigative journalism set out to prove that her org was not the most qualified to receive the money totaling many millions and as well, shoddy work resulted in contracts being amended to keep the foundation working. The first Snopes' line was to accuse TDC of accusing Kerry's involvement. In fact the article(s) were clear there was no proof that Kerry was in any way involved with the contract awarding. They also refused to provide a link to the story. Here is a link to TDC response: http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/09/cau...

Washington Post, NYT, Huffington Post, LA Times. Note they trust the CIA but see the FBI director, an Obama appointee, as suspicious. The first person I heard conjecture Russian govt involvement was HRC herself. If CIA is so snappy at their job, why was this announced AFTER the election? If she had won, it wouldn't be an issue right? If the russian govt is behind Wikileaks, which Assange denies, then let's look at ourselves. hmmm-the US does not ever try to effect the outcome of elections in the world. I'm no Trump supporter but her own secretiveness and hubris made her an easy target. so was she ever Presidential material? would she have run the WH from a private server as well?

Mike:

I always respect your thoughts and opinions.

My only comment to your article is contained at the conclusion of an article I recently sent to my email distribution list. It follows this response.

Respectfully,

Dave

Friends:

I have previously published articles wherein I urged that we end the on-going wars in which America finds itself endlessly engaged. Contrary to what comes to mind with many readers, I am NOT thinking of the many and seemingly endless military engagements with which we also now seem to struggle. Yes, they too should be ended.

I tend not to mention them however because they are more obvious in their negative consequences, and require little emphasis as to their folly. No, the wars to be ended are "The Big Three:" 1) The War on Poverty; 2) The War on Drugs; and 3) The War on “Terror,

There is now appearing on the horizon the initial stirring of several new wars consistent with the attributes of the three above. They involve the usual suspects taking the initial intellectual/political steps necessary to set the stage for their actual unleashing. Should these wars actually materialize, they will embody varying combinations of attributes as do their three brethren I cite above. 1) They will further destroy freedom and the political institutions and protections created by our founders; 2) they will further bankrupt us economically; and 3) they will remain unending in their on-going failure.

These potential new “wars” are: The War on Cash (freedom of commerce); the War on Automobiles (i.e. freedom of travel); the War on the Internet (freedom of information); the War on Undesirable News, Literature, and Speech (freedom of dissent)

1. The War on Cash

Under the guise of reducing/eliminating crime, this war would possess two actual goals. First and foremost is that it assures that another “undeclared” war gains a critical ally. The undeclared War on Privacy will gain the means to essentially “win” said war. Should the elimination of cash become successful, literally every transaction in which each of us engage can be tracked and stored in a database for future “analysis” and use - for whatever purpose.

As its logical corollary, should any transactions become deemed as “suspect” or “undesirable,” and further, should SOMEONE be deemed, by some definition, to be on a financial version of the “No Fly List,” then ALL of that person’s attempted transactions can be easily prevented. In today’s political climate I need not spell out the vast potential such an eventuality precipitates.

2. The War on Automobiles

I have nothing against technology that enhances freedom by enabling automobiles (and whatever else) to be “self-driving.” What I rationally fear however is the political mandating that ALL vehicles become such, with someone taking control of their automobile becoming illegal. Illegal because such behavior is again, "suspect" or "undesirable." It takes little imagination to envision where such an eventuality will lead. Just apply the same principles as I cite above in the war on cash, to travel.

3. The War on the Internet

Actually this war is the “lead-in” to #4, The War on Undesirable News, Literature, and Speech. Google, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo News and other internet gatekeepers have declared war on the internet in an attempt to control and suppress information they don’t want you to see.

For years, nearly all independent media organizations — the only real “free press” in the western world — have been banned from Google News and Yahoo News. Now, Google is blacklisting independent media websites from its Adsense program as a tactic to deny revenues to websites that publish information who those at Google decide they prefer not be read.

Facebook, too, has announced a new strategy to highlight “hand-picked” news publishers such as CNN, MSNBC, NYT, Washington Post and others that have demonstrated they knowingly, deliberately and maliciously fabricate fake news. In doing this, Facebook has decided to diminish and suppress independent media news websites, effectively driving their visibility into the margins of public consciousness.

Twitter, similarly, has already threatened to ban Donald Trump’s account if he gets out of line, and Yahoo News has systematically removed nearly all conservative news websites from its index.

I’ll close this article with a reminder and a footnote.

When you decide, for whatever claimed purpose, whether useful, necessary, or noble, to erect the machinery of potential tyranny, that machinery will be used – for whatever purpose those empowered to use it deem to be in their interest. The human nature from which our founders tried to protect us, assures it. It also assures that whatever those so empowered deem as "in their interest," they will somehow justify as being in "our" interest. Recent events have reminded us of this incontrovertible certainty through several uncontested facts.

1. The IRS(ervice) has been demonstrated to have become a tool of political tyranny wherein selected categories of Americans have been targeted for persecution.

2. The Justice (for all) Department has demonstrated that it will not prosecute selected actual and potential criminals, depending on the political ramifications. To anyone with even a modicum of awareness, the decision by Comey, and those for whom he toils, not to prosecute Hillary after meticulously documenting the instances of her criminal behavior, becomes obvious. To do so he/they would have had to pursue those to whom Hillary criminally communicated. Take a wild guess where that would have immediately led.

3. The Bureaucracy at the VA has reached the point where it knowingly allows its “customers” to die while awaiting the care it is charged with providing them.

4. The fact that an on-going list of obvious Wall Street criminals have gone uncharged or not prosecuted by the SEC. John Corzine, remains but one example of a list of bankers, investment bankers, brokers, etc., all who have remained free from prosecution.

As a footnote to this article, consider this. In view of the examples above of agency/department/commission tyranny, what do you think the likelihood that the alleged “Russian hacking” supposedly responsible for “tilting” the election against Hillary and the Democrats was actually, if it indeed occurred - of which I am in no way yet convinced, was instead actually done by our own security services? Services which in recent years have gained incredible power to wreak havoc on several of the first ten Bill of Rights? Potential machinery of tyranny as I have cited above, used "in the interests" of those empowered to determine such things.

If such a speculation were true, then a thorough investigation into “Russian hacking” will never occur. It would heighten the possible risk that were indeed the election “hacked,” and the revelations by Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning, and others, NOT the means whereby John Pedesta, the Democratic Party, and the “Mainstream Media,” were exposed in their “fake news” and other shabby behavior, then who might come to light as perpetrating such exposes'?

I seriously doubt it was the Russians……….

Dave

Regardless, better for the US than Hillary.

If he turns out to me a monger, he'll be controlled by the rest of the government, and ousted handily in the next election, if not sooner. That part will be bad for the Constitution.

We say, colloquially, that he lacks principles, but without specifics. Such a position has a way of sobering a person. I am very encouraged by his cabinet. Time will tell.

Exactly. Even if it was the Russians (and I'm not convinced at all), all of their "involvement" is based on the fact that they showed America what the Democrats really thought.

As Trump pointed out, the CIA is the group that said Iraq had WMDs --- which proved to be false and the group feeding wrong info to Obama. I do not understand why people who distrust government in virtually all other areas, suddenly grant government a pass when it comes to war. So far the Trump cabinet looks like the Dream Team he says wants it to be with military people in the war positions and civilians in the peace positions.

1) Obama wants the investigation completed by the time he leaves office so that he can potentially damage the new president. And we PAY this guy? Obama is a racist, is inexperienced, and the worst president I have seen in my lifetime.
2) What about CNN and the other media influencing the presidential election?? They did far worse than any whistleblower to slant the vote.
3) I like whistleblowers. They bring out the truths that the crooked people try to hide from us. If the democrats were hacked and they didnt like what came out, maybe they shouldnt have done those things in the first place !!
4) I hope Trump does "drain the swamp". I am willing to give him a chance to do what he promised. He seems to be doing just that already, and he isnt even president yet.

What's interesting about the CIA claim is that the FBI dismissed it as nothing but speculation, based on an anonymous tip, with no supporting evidence.
Wikileaks has denied the Russians provided them any information, and that the DNC hack came from an American source.

I've worked with the intelligence agencies, and I can tell you that cybersecurity and investigation are weak spots for them. Ever since the Carter era, intelligence gathering has emphasized sensor detection and communications intercepts. Digital invasive efforts have been considered a diplomatic time bomb, so they may be lacking in the skills to find a foreign hacker with any degree of certainty.

If this is proven true we owe Russia a great debt.

A side note - "Charlie Wilson's War" - forget the movie. It has no value other than entertainment; the real criminal story is in the book.

I think this is idiotic.

Mike, while I respect your opinions, I cannot find anything that disparages Trump to the extent that you do. Can you provide something to me (us) that backs up your opinion?

This matters only if the info was fake, no one has proven that any email was not real. Second, this matters only if American voters were swayed by fake Wikileaks; if these are true, Wikileaks's info merely informed, not persuasion is what we call learning.

Good points. Another exercise in Leftist intellectuals rearranging reality semantically to fit their agenda of thought control.

Howls of outrage coming from Democrats over alleged Russian "hacking of the election" are a thinly veiled effort to refocus the American public away from WikiLeaks revelations of corruption and connivance at the DNC and Clinton Foundation. Far easier to attack and discredit the messenger, and, by so doing, get everyone to forget about the message while simultaneously calling unfavorable election results into question.

Yes, WikiLeaks truths (were they ever denied?) were obtained without DNC permission. But, given this fact, even the semantics/phraseology in "hacking the election" is a gross and purposeful obfuscation-- almost on a par with semantically converting wholesale border invasion into "immigration."

After 8 years executive orders circumventing the constitution, it is a great breath of fresh air to have someone like Donald Trump in office who will erase all those executive orders and put the constitution in its rightful place. As for fake news, there is no news about it. It's been there and will be there long after our generation. Case in point, MSM during these past elections. Yet, it always amazes me that those MSM outlets engaging in fake news to supplement a desired narrative are the ones most outraged when they are called out for engaging in fake news.

Me dino knew Trump was flawed when I voted for him.
I'll take a blowhard American-loving blundering bulldozer over a bribed and totally corrupt self-loving evil hag of the Teflon Democrat elite any day.
Especially if it saves the Supreme Court from being capsized by life-long appointments!

Again, this is not much like US support for Chiang Kai-shek or our invasion of Russia in 1918. It is more like the XYZ Affair. The actions of the Russian government were at a distance and plausibly deniable. We just watched Charlie Wilson's War and I got the book from the library.

For a history of US intervention in China in World War II, see The Soong Dynasty by Sterling Seagrave. Chiang Kai-shek was an admirer of Hitler and Mussolini. Italy sent aviators to train the Chinese air force. They lost five planes on graduation day. So, Madame Chiang, who was educated at a small Christian college in Georgia, came here and hired the pilots who became the Flying Tigers. Meanwhile... anyone who fought in Spain on behalf of that government risked losing their American citizenship. So, yes, the histories are replete with examples of perfidy.

Of course, if you look for "Trump lacks principles" you are going to find a lot of junk, and perhaps some truth. My recommendation is to read his own words: The Art of the Deal. Many books under his name have come out since, but I do not trust them as his own heartfelt expressions. They may have been publicity works created by ghost writers, albeit with the Trump imprimatur.

Find Trump's own statement of principles and post it. (Triple dog dare.)

"Where's the outrage over Russia's hack of the US election?"
By Paul Waldman
Updated 7:34 PM ET, Sat December 10, 2016
"Paul Waldman is a senior writer with The American Prospect, a left-leaning magazine, and a blogger for The Washington Post. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/10/opinion...

You have your axe, he has his. Blog away...

Bill Casey "We will know our disinformation program is a success when everything the American public thinks is wrong http://www.activistpost.com/2015/01/c...

Snopes is biased.
http://yournewswire.com/snopes-caught...
"Especially when you have a target like Trump" the official said. That inference is typical of Clinton collectivist statist backers .Where is the substance?

Maybe you could expand on your statement of Trumps lack of principals. I did a search for that as you recommend and didn't come up with much except for the same anti trump biased media trolls.

"The government of Russia fed information to wiki leaks" http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2...
Not according to Assange of wiki leaks.
But I suppose a unnamed senior official would know more than wiki leaks about their source.
Same CIA that said WMD's In Iraq.

Just a question about reciprocity. How many times have we attempted to tip the scales of an election or revolution to suit us? We tried in Russia during the Bolshevik era. We tried by supporting Shang Kia Shek (nationalist China) during their revolution and how many time in Central and South America?
That does not make Russian interference (if any)correct or acceptable, but the fein shock and dismay that it happens is ridiculous. It happens all of the time. It seems this could be another Democrat ploy to delegitimize the Trump victory.
and a second comment here. If you don't want your dirty laundry out in public, then don't put it into an e-mail or better yet, don't have any in the first place. Then it won't matter who hacks your servdr, because there is nothing there.