Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mongo2116 who wrote (1243587)	7/1/2020 9:36:46 AM
From: RetiredNow	1 Recommendation Recommended By Mick Mørmøny Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573994

Fake news. More B.S. from the liberal MSM. Trump was not briefed on it, because the NSA and Pentagon could not corroborate that intel and the NSA in particular believed that it did not happen. So it never made Trump's Intel Briefings. But of course, the MSM will play up any old B.S. to try to smear Trump. What's next? Are you going to say that Trump is hiding evidence of spaceships and alien technology in Area 51? ------ Pentagon cites ‘no corroborating evidence’ to support Russian bounty payments to Taliban by Jamie McIntyre \| June 30, 2020 07:01 AM ‘NO CORROBORATING EVIDENCE’: The Pentagon said late Monday night that while the jury is still out, so far, it has been unable to confirm the explosive allegations that Russia paid the Taliban cash bounties to target and kill U.S. troops in Afghanistan. “The Department of Defense continues to evaluate intelligence that Russian GRU operatives were engaged in malign activity against United States and coalition forces in Afghanistan. To date, DOD has no corroborating evidence to validate the recent allegations found in open-source reports,” said chief Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman in a statement issued just before midnight. “Regardless, we always take the safety and security of our forces in Afghanistan — and around the world — most seriously and therefore continuously adopt measures to prevent harm from potential threats,” Hoffman said. SPYMASTERS WARN LEAKS HARMFUL: Both CIA Director Gina Haspel and Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe released statements Monday warning that leaking raw intelligence that is still being evaluated hampers the ability of intelligence agencies to do their jobs. “Leaks compromise and disrupt the critical interagency work to collect, assess, and ascribe culpability,” said Haspel in a statement. “When developing intelligence assessments, initial tactical reports often require additional collection and validation.” “This is the analytic process working the way it should. Unfortunately unauthorized disclosures now jeopardized our ability to ever find out the full story,” said Ratcliffe in a tweeted statement. “We are still investigating the alleged intelligence referenced in recent media reporting and we will brief the President and Congressional leaders at the appropriate time,” he said. LOST IN THE FINE PRINT: The New York Times reported Monday that U.S. intelligence suggesting that a Russian military intelligence unit was paying the Taliban to kill U.S. troops was included in a written summary, known as the President’s Daily Brief, provided to President Trump in late February. But congressional Republicans who were briefed by administration officials Monday said it appears the information was never highlighted to Trump in his oral briefings. “The question is: Was it in the briefing book, or was it briefed to him? Because it's two separate things,” said Illinois Rep. Adam Kinzinger, one of eight Republicans briefed Monday. “Everything I understand is that the president was not briefed about this. Now, if it was in his book, that's one thing. Maybe he didn't read it — most presidents don't read the entire book every day. They rely on intel to brief them,” Kinzinger added. He said that based on what he heard, the intelligence was not actionable. “It shouldn't have been told to the president,” Kinzinger said on CNN. “That's where you have to make a decision, especially on something as big as Russia. Do you want to present the president with the idea that Russia has put bounties out on U.S. troops if you don't fully know yet and if there's conflicting intelligence, or is it better to gather the rest of that?” DEMOCRATS TO BE BRIEFED TUESDAY: House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff, who led the impeachment effort against Trump, is among the Democrats due to be briefed at the White House Tuesday, a day after the Republicans. “We need to get an explanation. We need to get an explanation, a briefing from the intelligence community leadership,” Schiff said on MSNBC. “What do they know of these allegations? What kind of confidence do they have in what they may or may not know about these allegations? And have there been policy debates within the administration about what they're planning to do?” Schiff was also among the Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who suggested that Trump advisers were afraid to share in the intelligence with the president. “If they're going to sit on their hands because this president can't stand up to Vladimir Putin, Congress needs to take steps to protect our troops and to protect our national interest.” “If they had this intelligence, they should have briefed the president. Why didn't they? Because they know it makes him very unhappy,” said Pelosi on CNN. “And all roads, for him, as you know, lead to Putin.” Good Tuesday morning and welcome to Jamie McIntyre’s Daily on Defense, written and compiled by Washington Examiner National Security Senior Writer Jamie McIntyre ( @jamiejmcintyre) and edited by David Sivak and Tyler Van Dyke. Email here with tips, suggestions, calendar items, and anything else. Sign up or read current and back issues at DailyonDefense.com. If signing up doesn’t work, shoot us an email and we’ll add you to our list. And be sure to follow us on Twitter: @dailyondefense.

To: Mongo2116 who wrote (1243587)	7/1/2020 9:40:44 AM
From: RetiredNow	1 Recommendation Recommended By Mick Mørmøny Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573994

NSA Differed From CIA, Others on Russia Bounty Intelligence Updated June 30, 2020 7:38 pm ET WASHINGTON—The National Security Agency strongly dissented from other intelligence agencies’ assessment that Russia paid bounties for the killing of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, according to people familiar with the matter. The disclosure of the dissent by the NSA, which specializes in electronic eavesdropping, comes as the White House has played down the revelations, saying that the information wasn’t verified and that intelligence officials didn’t agree on it. ...

To: Mongo2116 who wrote (1243587)	7/1/2020 9:42:53 AM
From: RetiredNow	1 Recommendation Recommended By Mick Mørmøny Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573994

Why the NSA is skeptical about the Russia-Taliban bounties \| June 30, 2020 02:21 PM What's going on with the National Security Agency's skepticism over the apparent Russian bounty plot to pay the Taliban to attack U.S. soldiers? As I noted on Monday, while the CIA has very compelling intelligence (some very closely guarded) that lends to this plot being real, "the other keystone Russia-collection agency, the NSA, appears to have been unable to corroborate the CIA’s reporting with its own signal collection efforts. This means that the United States currently lacks a direct operational link from the plot to the Kremlin (which would figure because communicating with Moscow would trigger attention from various U.S. intelligence capabilities) having been established." On Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal extended this understanding, explaining that the NSA has "strongly dissented" from the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency assessments that the bounty plot is credible and real. But the report continued, "The people familiar with the dissent by the NSA either declined or were unable to say why the agency differed from [other agencies]." As I understand it, there are two reasons why the NSA differs here. First, because the NSA's Afghanistan focus lines of effort have not detected Russian GRU officers discussing the bounty plot. While the GRU officers behind this plot have been operating separately from the GRU's Kabul station, the NSA would have expected them to leave crumbs of evidence. Second, the NSA's vast signal intercept apparatus — checking calls, texts, emails, and other communication emanations — has been unable to establish a direct line between the GRU officers in Afghanistan to GRU headquarters in Moscow to the Kremlin officers who handle operational direction for Russian President Vladimir Putin. Considering the sensitivity of a plot to pay for the killing of U.S. soldiers, the NSA assessed that it would have found some line of control evidence here. While Putin, a former KGB lieutenant colonel, is ( normally) clever enough to avoid being directly linked to a plot, a plot as significant as this one would be expected to generate data patterns indicative of top-level authorization and monitoring from Moscow. To be clear, Russia's operational intelligence control system means this plot could not go forward without Putin's signoff and regular Kremlin monitoring. Of course, such monitoring can be done by in-person message delivery (beyond the reach of most NSA platforms). Another point of note here is that the GRU, and the Russian security apparatus per se, like to engage in extensive counterintelligence efforts to divert listening ears. This involves saying false things on encrypted lines that the U.S. might believe the Russians believe are secure, the intent being to mislead the U.S. as to the reality of a particular operation. This is not to say that the evidence in favor of the bounty plot is weak. The CIA and Pentagon/DIA are confident in their own collection on the issue. It is to say that the NSA worships data, patterns, voices, and sounds above all else, and where it can't find telltale emanations of that effect on critical issues such as this one (something the NSA is exceptionally good at doing), it believes something is amiss. Where does this leave us? I suspect that, as time goes on — and now, thanks to the New York Times's original reporting, the Russians have been spurred to chat about this plot — the intelligence community, the NSA included, will come to assess it as high-confidence credible.