Replies

The problem with that theory is that both Rogers and Comey would have seen this document by the time they testified before the Senate, and they still agreed that they had seen no evidence that Russia had successfully manipulated any votes.

And in fact, if you read the article, you will discover that there isn't really anything new in it. Most of this stuff is either generic in nature, or was known through open source material as far back uas the end of last summer. There is nothing here that establishes that any significant penetration occurred, and, interestingly, the document (by The Intercept's own admission) either did not contain methodology and sources, or they were redacted by the publication.

NSA claims to know the specific directorate of GRU responsible for the spear-phishing attempt. That is new. But the method by which NSA claims to "know" this is not revealed.

Now that last bit is also interesting if you believe this whole thing is a setup, because the document the NSA put in front of potential leakers such as Reality Winner could not do any significant damage to US national security even in the event that it was leaked, and, as a matter of fact, it also cannot be used to either reinforce or rebut Democrat claims, because we still have no idea how four (not seventeen, as lyingly claimed by Hillary) agencies came to the conclusion of "Russia."

My guess on this last bit: it "looked" like Russia. So the DNI sent word to the CIA, FBI and NSA that they needed to reinforce the legend. But we still have NO convincing evidence that the equally likely source of this legend was not, in fact, the CIA; and we probably never will.