monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Originally we were told that 17 intelligence agencies believed we were hacked by Russians. It turned out to be a very few people in a few agencies.

President Donald Trump, speaking in Poland July 6, downplayed the strength of the intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia meddled in the election to his benefit.

He justified his doubt by noting that the New York Times and the Associated Press recently corrected stories to clarify that four agencies, rather than 17, were directly involved in the January intelligence assessment about Russia’s interference in the election.

"I heard it was 17 agencies. I said, boy, that’s a lot. Do we even have that many intelligence agencies? Right, let’s check that," Trump told NBC’s Hallie Jackson. "We did some heavy research. It turned out to be three or four. It wasn’t 17. ... I agree, I think it was Russia, but I think it was probably other people and/or countries, and I see nothing wrong with that statement. Nobody really knows. Nobody really knows for sure."

It’s valid for Trump to criticize news organizations for not being specific enough in their reports (more on that in a bit). But this does not invalidate the report by the CIA, FBI, NSA and Director of National Intelligence, nor their "high confidence" in their judgment that Russia engaged in an influence campaign directed at the election.
Relevance over quantity

Trump asked if the federal government really does have 17 intelligence organizations. Yes, it does.

They are as follows: Air Force Intelligence, Army Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Coast Guard Intelligence, Defense Intelligence Agency, Energy Department, Homeland Security Department, State Department, Treasury Department, Drug Enforcement Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Marine Corps Intelligence, National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, National Security Agency, Navy Intelligence and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Some of these are large, independent agencies, like the FBI, CIA and NSA. Others are smaller offices within agencies whose main focus is not intelligence, like the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research or the Treasury’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis.

Four out of the 17 were involved in the January assessment about Russia: CIA, FBI, NSA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which is an umbrella agency that oversees all 17 organizations.

This doesn’t mean the remaining 13 intelligence organizations disagree with the January assessment, nor does it mean the report was insufficient, according to multiple national security experts.

The 17 organizations differ on their missions and scope, so they wouldn’t all be expected to contribute to every intelligence assessment, including one of this import.

"What matters is the agencies that (were involved) and whether, based on their mandate and collection responsibilities, those are the agencies best positioned to make the assessment," said Carrie Cordero, counsel at law firm ZwillGen and former counsel for various federal agencies focusing on national security.

For example, the intelligence arms of the Drug Enforcement Agency or the Coast Guard would not be expected to collect intelligence related to Russian interference in an election, said Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists.

"So their endorsement or non-endorsement basically means nothing in this case," Aftergood said, adding, "In this context, the assessments that count the most are those of CIA, NSA, FBI and ODNI."

The intelligence community likely limited the Russia assessment to those four agencies because they have the most to contribute on this topic, and because they wanted to contain the highly sensitive intelligence as much as possible, said Paul Pillar, senior fellow at Georgetown University’s Center for Security Studies who served in the intelligence community for 28 years.

"The ones that participated are the ones you’d expect on this," Pillar said. "It’s hard to see any of the others having something to contribute."

"That does not vitiate the conclusions. It does not mean the jury is still out," he added.

A do think that Cohen has a very close relation to Russia ... and share many of his views.

Republican tax cut bill opens up oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge:
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/365022-time-running-out-for-opponents-of-arctic-drilling

More on Prof. Cohen — from 2014:


The Nation’s Stephen F. Cohen Denies Existence of Ukraine

Putin's Pal

from 2015:

Has "The Nation" Turned into a Putin Propaganda Forum?

It's amusing the way rightwingers like to identify Cohen as being a "leftist" — after smearing them as unpatriotic communist sympathizers for most of the previous century. But this one, he tells the truth.

Thank you for being so kind as to immediately and completely prove Cohen's point--which is basically that there is no discussion or debate...

--just McCarthy-like denouncement.

But it's questionable how much of a debate can actually occur when Cohen makes statements which fail to comport with reality.

The scheme is "more than unrealistic,” one Congressional shipbuilding expert told me on condition of anonymity, as they were not authorized to speak to the press. “It would be impossible."

Quote:

But it's questionable how much of a debate can actually occur when Cohen makes statements which fail to comport with reality.

This particular video is an extended discussion of russia/western relations. This guy strikes me as intelligent, well-informed, and calm, not manic.

I neither know nor care a lot about many of these issues, but I have no problem listening to what he has to say.

Typically, you want to portray yourself as the ultimate arbiter of all truth and fact, and I seriously doubt that you have, or would be willing to, listen(ed) to his comments.

I meant to add that, on the basis of the information I have available, this guy probably knows 1000 times more about the "reality" of the situation than you do, notwithstanding your claim to superior knowledge.

I do know that Ukraine is an actual nation and knew so at the time of the Russian invasion.

—Fallacy No. 2: There exists a nation called “Ukraine” and a “Ukrainian people” who yearn to escape centuries of Russian influence and to join the West.

Fact: As every informed person knows, Ukraine is a country long divided by ethnic, linguistic, religious, cultural, economic and political differences—particularly its western and eastern regions, but not only. When the current crisis began in 2013, Ukraine had one state, but it was not a single people or a united nation. Some of these divisions were made worse after 1991 by corrupt elite, but most of them had developed over centuries.

There, in fact, a nation called “Ukraine”? Yes, there is. You can look it up. It’s right there on the U.N. member state list, between Uganda and United Arab Emirates.

And that really ought to settle the question.

Trump's 'Impossible' Plan for a 350-Ship Navy Is Sinking Fast

One of the top executives of a consulting firm that the Environmental Protection Agency has recently hired to help it with media affairs has spent the past year investigating agency employees who have been critical of the Trump administration, federal records show.

You really should read THE AMERICAN WHO DARED MAKE PUTIN’S CASE ...

In his article “Distorting Russia,” Cohen wrote that American “demonization” of Putin in news coverage amounts to “toxic” “media malpractice” that verges on the alarmist language of the Cold War.

I'm in the process of reading it now.