Posted on Dec 13, 2016
Anyone seen a list of the 17 intel agencies who say the Russians hacked the election?
6.57K
16
9
2
2
0
I keep hearing "17 intelligence agencies" w/o once hearing who they are. Do we even have 17 intel agencies, even in our bloated government?
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 6
Yep, and they report to the DNI. Here is his statement.
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/10/james-clapper-we-dont-have-good-insight-potential-/
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/10/james-clapper-we-dont-have-good-insight-potential-/
James Clapper: We ‘don’t have good insight’ into alleged Russian hacking
As recently as Nov. 17, James Clapper, the nation’s top intelligence officer, told Congress his agencies “don’t have good insight” into a direct link between WikiLeaks and the emails supposedly hacked by a Russian operation from Democrats and the Hillary Clinton campaign.
(1)
(0)
SMSgt Lawrence McCarter
Seems only the DNC alleges that connection, but everything that goes wrong its someone else. Maybe they should watch what they have on their Email and if they are trying to hide things not put it out where others can find it better even don't do it in the first place.
(1)
(0)
@MSgt George Cater Can anyone justify that many intelligence agencies? Would we save money with fewer agencies that were chartered gracefully share G-2 with one another?
(1)
(0)
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
Yes, we can. Each of the IC elements have a specific focus and specialty. The 25th Air Force for example is there to do Air Intelligence. NSA handles SIGINT, the NGA does GEOINT, etc... in the end, they all report to the ODNI.
To answer the classification markings question, yes there is a standard to which we are all taught. Each of the IC elements are bound by the same standards.
Going back to the original question, I have yet to see a report from each of the 17 IC elements definitively naming the Russians as the ones responsible for hacking the DNC. It makes no sense as this issue does not fall into each of their lanes. Hacking done within the US would likely involve DHS (because it occurred on US soil against a US org), FBI (because it is a crime), and the NSA (because there is a belief there is a foreign SIGINT connection to the activity). Why would the Coast Guard Intelligence agency for example assess and comment on this subject? The fact is, a report came out where the DNI came out and stated there are similarities to Russian hacking, but he was not ready to name them as the source at this time. The media took that and the fact he is the head of all the other 16 IC elements and assumed they all assessed the same thing and agreed. Another example of the media making news (or making it up) rather than reporting it accurately.
To answer the classification markings question, yes there is a standard to which we are all taught. Each of the IC elements are bound by the same standards.
Going back to the original question, I have yet to see a report from each of the 17 IC elements definitively naming the Russians as the ones responsible for hacking the DNC. It makes no sense as this issue does not fall into each of their lanes. Hacking done within the US would likely involve DHS (because it occurred on US soil against a US org), FBI (because it is a crime), and the NSA (because there is a belief there is a foreign SIGINT connection to the activity). Why would the Coast Guard Intelligence agency for example assess and comment on this subject? The fact is, a report came out where the DNI came out and stated there are similarities to Russian hacking, but he was not ready to name them as the source at this time. The media took that and the fact he is the head of all the other 16 IC elements and assumed they all assessed the same thing and agreed. Another example of the media making news (or making it up) rather than reporting it accurately.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next