Here's the WLTaskForce linking to the article you claim is debunked, so whether or not you believe that story, I was correct about them promoting it.
That said, your debunking is a bit off. How would they know it was an intermediary and not the original leaker if they'd never met them before that? He never said that was the only meeting, now, did he? In fact, it'd be damn stupid of the leaker to go about meeting him.
And thus, based on a lot of questionable assumptions, denzacar "decimated" them as you put it. What does that decimation mean, anyhow? That he can argue with maybe one tenth of the things they said? Sounds about right. I mean, I agree that the Daily Mail is a rag, I'll give you that, but we can read Craig's blog which they link to, so I'm not relying on them to be credible. And the guy you link to wants him to out the source? Why don't you ask Manning how that works out.
As for yelling about "conspiracy" in regards to burying news, it's a time honored practice. Bad news is dumped on Fridays, for example. And yes, I'd say that when you can no longer find something from a site's own search engine, it's reasonable to consider it buried. Funny how that screed takes up half the rant, though. Nothing better to talk about?
I believe the Wikileaks dumps because we can do DKIM validation on them. I can pull the keys off of Clinton's & Google's DNS servers (they're simple TEXT records, go read the RFC if you want details). I believe in looking at cui bono (who benefits). It's normally hard to fake that, especially in things that are tightly contested where you can't afford to act against your own interests. I believe in looking at the timing of things, especially in those cases when it can't be faked. I believe in looking at someone's history of truthfulness (or falseness), how well they can explain their mistakes, and how well they come clean when they were wrong about something.
But you're right. They're all playing us for their own benefits right now. That's why I trust cooperation based on mutual self-interest, but I don't think that Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Qatar & co. are looking out for anyone but themselves. But nor am I dumb enough to ignore which interests are opposed and which ones coincide with ours.
So yes, by all means. Be skeptical of all the motives out there, even mine, and look for actions, not words, as proof.
B) The only thing done here was the exposure of U.S. government corruption (selling favors to SA & Qatar, using Clinton Foundation "charity" money on Chelsea's wedding, media manipulation & favor trading, rigging the primaries and debates, etc. etc. etc.). Feel completely free to do the same to Trump, as far as I'm concerned.
The entire point of Wikileaks is that it will get harder and harder to have government corruption the easier it is to expose it. Because the plots will get exposed and people will get in trouble with the people they're conspiring against, it will be harder in general to do such things to begin with. Which is what we want--we don't want a few scumbag politicians and media talking heads to be able to do horrible things like sell us into wars on phony evidence like they've done in the not-so-distant past and will continue to do as long as no one can hold them accountable.
That evidence has been discussed and it's scant. That group was paid by the DNC to do this assessment. The evidence they present is:
* Some IPs are claimed as Russian / used in other attacks (why would Russian intelligence put the staging server in Russia and not some random hosting provider?) * The RATs are claimed to be Russian (but other people point out that you can get them on various underground forums... something I don't believe they ever addressed). * There was some other hack against some other government servers. As if independent hackers don't do such things. Because of course I'm not old enough to remember back when people were doing silly things like hacking NASA to look for evidence of aliens and whatnot.
Moreover, even if you somehow proved the hack part, that doesn't show us who Wikileaks' source is. They could've been owned by multiple parties, including insiders.
Finally, it simply doesn't matter. Frankly, I welcome any hacks that make it difficult for our leaders to conspire against the people.
Feel free to do the same in Russia. Helping them make the government less corrupt by exposing internal corruption is far more moral than shooting Russian diplomats and making ISIS hand signs and ranting about Aleppo. Russia seems to think that Saudi Arabia & Qatar stand to benefit from that one (coincidentally, both are big donors to the Clinton Foundation). Turkey thinks it's that cleric in exile in the USA who they blame for trying to start a coup there. Obama happened to vow revenge on Russia a few days before.
I really hope that's all just coincidental, but it feels like some serious crap is going on behind the scenes that we won't find out the true extent of until people read about it in history books 100 years from now.
See, this kind of bait would be far more effective if I hadn't read the CTR strategy sheets. I should have realized that when your boss called you "nerd virgins", he was implying you came from Slashdot.
I just noticed your clarification below. On that, I agree--there's no good evidence regarding who performed the phishing attack on Podesta.
The domain of the phishing link is obscure, the fake phishing email itself claims there's hacking from the Ukraine, etc. I doubt that any of that information is true and you'll end up like Vizzini if you decide whether or not the phishing emails claims regarding its own origin are factual or counter-factual.
> Where are you getting that from? TFA doesn't mention Wikileaks nor does the Congressional report.
Thank you for helping make the point better than I did.
I just want to help everyone keep this news straight from all the other mentions of Russia, because it's easy to fall into a confirmation bias trap if we fail to.
At least for the Podesta emails, we have good reason to believe that. I've covered this several times previously in comments, but we have some pretty good evidence when you line things up with the timing of it:
Slashdot finally covered this story via thehill.com, some weeks after I had already dissected it in comments and in that they appear to admit to getting phished, blaming it on a "typo" (which is highly suspect, but whatever).
I'd write more submissions about this sort of thing, but there appears to be an organized effort going around marking anything they don't like as "SPAM" in the firehose (like this), as I've also seen happen abusively to other submissions on this site. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm tagging herbal viagra ads as 'binspam', not stories I disagree with. I'd much rather disagree with someone openly than sneak around and try to hide inconvenient facts. If the facts stop agreeing with me, I'd much rather start rethinking my positions than playing blame games.
Finally, for those having trouble keeping all the dumps straight, I left this comment some time ago that will help to clarify. There have been a lot of dumps and there are some people who like to confuse and conflate these issues.
Wikileaks themselves said so in multiple interviews and I believe on Twitter. So, it's on anyone who wants to contradict that to provide evidence to the contrary.
Exactly what does Snowden have to do with Wikileaks, which released the emails leaked to them by the DNC insider and those phished from Podesta's gmail account?
And just what did they think would happen to an NSA whistleblower who got stuck in Russia after the USA cancelled his passport? It's doubly ironic when the NSA watchdog who said that Snowden should have come to him was fired for retaliation against whistleblowers.
This isn't exactly new. The fact that they had to dig up something this old to push tells you they've got nothing.
It's amazing that we live through this twice. Back in 2008, Obama beat Hillary by focusing on delegates when she just kind of assumed she was going to win. Same bad strategy there and assuming her team could just win everything for her. It's amazing she can manage to get the press to go along with the seeming inevitability of her win when she's lost so much.
Speaking of which, for anyone who didn't see the Newsweek special edition that got recalled, one of the articles about her is entitled "Queenmakers." You can't make this stuff up. It's on p. 92-93 if you have a copy. Here's a sample from the end of the article:
If they were men, they might be called kingmakers. Reporters would have encountered them in hotel lobby bars, tossing back scotch as they tried to spin the media. But these queenmakers drink herbal tea (and the occasional martini) and pepper their talk with New Age-isms like.
"We are the wind beneath her wings," says Buell, a graduate of the very '60s, very New Age Esalen Institute, in Big Sur, California. "We will do anything for her, and she knows it."
Snopes says this is just a cover. I have to wonder if the same article is in the Trump version, which I don't have? It's completely focused on her and only mentions him in passing, so I kind of doubt the Trump one is just a cover swap.
I'm amazed, and yet somehow not surprised, that you can find a way to blame Trump for Obama's response to this in a way so divorced from the reality of what just happened.
Your unprincipled essentialism is a defining characteristic of your posts and I honestly wonder if you even know what that is without clicking the link.
He went off to vacation in Hawaii after saying that. Congress isn't even in session. So yeah, he might as well threaten them with a limp noodle.
And even if you somehow believe all of this, the only thing they did was reveal all the corruption: the primaries were rigged, they coordinate with their super PACs, they rigged the debates and then lied about it, Hillary took down every single other Democrat that ran this year via financial means and others, Hillary got funded by Saudi Arabia, Qatar (you remember what they're like from the Olympic slavery scandals, right?) and other distasteful places, they used Clinton Foundation money for Chelsea's wedding and other things I've forgotten and CNN just lies and tells us it's illegal to look.
Even if we assume Putin himself was behind it, I'd have to thank him for exposing the corruption our press seems to be turning a blind eye to. And that's only when they weren't willingly complicit with it. No, I haven't forgotten the "WaPo party" the lawyers were complaining about, Washington Post. All those articles you write and not a damn one about your own involvement here.
You're absolutely right, this sort of scam operation will be a setback to anyone who wants to use similar tactics in court.
What you seem to miss, though, is that they have access to lobbyists. So if they have a setback in court, they're going to ask for changes to the law again and there really isn't that much opposition to them there, so they tend to get what they want.
I'm finally seeing some media questioning this CIA nonsense as well, citing many, many examples from their own tortured history as well as more recent facts.
This story is clearly planted and I, for one, do not for a moment believe these media shills or their anonymous sources nor can I give them even a shred of credibility. They could, would, and in fact have been the cheerleaders for any number of ill-advised wars, so anyone trying to reheat the Cold War based on anonymous rumors is going to be considered a warmongering shill for that very reason.
And that's ignoring those self-admitted "hacks" like Glenn Thrush who are proven shills. I mean, funny coincidence that, just look at what this "hack" is peddling:
The Kremlin’s canny operatives didn’t change votes; they won them, influencing voters to choose Russia’s preferred outcome by pushing stolen information at just the right time—through slanted, or outright false stories on social media.
So, Glenn, you say that Russia won this for Trump by revealing that you're a self-described hack? Please do go on...
Are you going to then explain how Russia made Donna Brazille rig the debates? Or lie about them being altered, despite the fact that we have DKIM validation to provide cryptographic non-repudiation of the message body? Or were they responsible for all the many ways the Democratic primary was a farce? Did Russia make them adopt the "pied piper" strategy to promote Trump, believing he would lose to Hillary? Did Russia keep them from holding campaign events in their "firewall" states and ignoring their own staffers? Maybe Russia planted that fake news CNN reported about it being illegal to read Wikileaks (lest one find their involvement in the aforementioned debate rigging...). Maybe next time they'll be smarter and simply publish the debate questions for everyone? Did Russia cause Hillary to collapse in the street and get thrown into a van after all that insistence that her health was just fine? Did Russia do the "bird dogging" wherein you staged violence at the Trump rallies and blamed Bernie's supporters for it? Did they hack the FEC to put the operatives on the MoveOn payroll (something my past comments have covered in significant detail)? Did Russia make Zulema tell that tale to the cops outside the Arizona rally that we have plenty of independent, video coverage for? Did Russia give Zulema credits on those "Trump Ducks" photos that only further corroborate O'Keefe's videos? Did Russia funnel all of the money from the state campaigns to Hillary's campaign to make the losses even more painful when she managed to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory?
There's a reason the DNC is fighting this so hard in so many ways. This is a fight for their own survival. By all rights, their leadership should be entirely replaced.... which makes me wonder if there are any actual plans out there to do that. We seem to live in interesting times.
> The CIA went out of their way to cast doubt on the "intelligence" that curveball'Ed the US into Iraq.
So, something like the FBI is doing now?
In telephone conversations with Donald Trump, FBI Director James Comey assured the president-elect there was no credible evidence that Russia influenced the outcome of the recent U.S. presidential election by hacking the Democratic National Committee and the e-mails of John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
Actually, it's more like the Pentagon Papers, which as you might remember were stolen, though they disputed the charge based on him not using them for personal gain and eventually got the charges thrown out due to illegal acts by the prosecution.
Even if we assume the DNC leak was a Russian hack despite the fact that most of the evidence boils down to what can be paraphrased as "trust our anonymous sources, they've got this, it's totally not like that time with the WMDs where we helped cause a war over nothing," the harm from these leaks were the revelations that peoples' votes for Bernie didn't matter and the media will print whatever the DNC tells them to, followed by the media carefully avoiding any actual reporting on the leaks. You saw this on Slashdot where they ignored the important, meaty submissions and posted fluffy crap like the "food groups" of VP candidates (they were sorted by race & sex, with Bernie off by himself in the special group), never mind that we had other leaks showing Tim Kaine was always going to be the VP pick in a quid pro quo arrangement and the entire exercise was a farce where they went through a dance to make it look legitimate.
I mean, just look at how pathetic the media has become:
“Because I have become a hack I will send u the whole section that pertains to u Please don’t share or tell anyone I did this Tell me if I f**ked up anything,” - Politico reporter Glenn Thrush via the Podesta dump
Do you really expect journalism when we have pathetic hacks like this doing our reporting? I do more actual journalism than this and I have a real job and write comments whenever I'm bored or can't sleep.
> Which is why the credibility of the reporter quoting the anonymous source matters.
No, it doesn't. I give credit to factual evidence, not anonymous rumors.
Yay, we finally get something like a fact. You should really point here though as it has more details.
But when we get to the bottom of it, we find it's mostly assumed because of a few RATs (remote access trojans). Problems with that:
- Guccifer 2.0 took credit for it. There were allegations made about his use of Russian language, but nobody bothered to give quotes. - The RATs were widely available on underground forums.
The timing doesn't work out either, because Trump was still a dark horse candidate during the first leaks and the DNC itself was asking its media allies to support Trump as one of the "pied piper" candidates, as you can see in the PDF attached to this email.
So this pretty much looks like a case of confirmation bias to me.
That was in reference to who the 17 agencies (actually the two directors) the report was from. The Coast Guard & co. are not known for their hacking expertise, even if they do have a group dedicated to that sort of thing nowadays.
Yes, the FBI, though they only allude to that in passing. There have been other random anonymous people quoted as disagreeing too. I don't think there's much point in playing the "my anonymous source can beat up your anonymous source" game though. I don't believe any of them, it's been the standard way to fabricate evidence in the press since before any of us were born. So there's no point going down that route to begin with.
> Because a lot of the evidence comes from confidential sources like CIA spies.
Yeah, no. See, I got over the secret evidence thing back when they used it to manufacture the war in Iraq. I've adopted the put up or shut up motto.
> Because that's been well established for months.
If by "well established" you mean that the press keeps reporting that it's true without giving us even one single verifiable fact we could hang our hat on. Or links to other articles saying the same thing, which link to more articles in a giant web of lies. Go follow them, look for actual, verifiable statements. Something you can actually corroborate with public records or such.
I have yet to find one single damned shred of evidence. So point me to hard evidence, I'm done with anonymous insiders spreading unverifiable rumors.
> He simply dismissed all of the evidence of the hacking group intruding to the DNC network.
There wasn't any evidence he could dismiss, nothing was ever presented. That's kind of the point here. You didn't link us to anything, either. It's really easy to prove this wrong. Just point me to an actual fact that can be corroborated somehow. I've done that dozens of times referencing specific facts, leaks, DKIM signatures, etc. It's not even hard.
The only evidence we have of hacking is the phishing email that got Podesta, whereas that article was discussing the DNC leaks, a completely different thing. And I'm the one who keeps linking that! You lot never even noticed that the phishing email claimed there were hack attempts from the Ukraine (of course, that was as fake as the bit.ly reset link Podesta used...).
> And you really think that not only did 17 directors all endorse a false statement, but that no one in any of their agencies leaked evidence to the contrary?
Read it again. There are only two directors endorsing that who happen to be in charge of a lot of people at different agencies. It's only right at the top of the thing. And quoted in my post....
But yes, I absolutely refuse to believe this secret crap. I'm old enough to remember the WMDs and the yellowcake that were used to manufacture a war out of nothing last time. I also remember that being called out for a lack of evidence (and rightfully so).
I mean, if someone as incompetent as Bush can get the intelligence community to lie to us to start a war, you can't seriously expect me to buy this sort of thing again.
The emperor has no clothes. These are naked rumors and the people peddling them are full of crap.
Just for fun, go look up the bylines on these stories (not just this one, all of them in general). Then search for those names in the Podesta or the DNC leak dumps on Wikileaks.
There's a damned good reason they never bother to link you to these.
I don't remember anyone saying she was in danger of immanent death, but Hillary did get chucked into a van by her staff and her health was reported as being just fine... until that very public collapse. The foreign press was far less kind when they made a little re-enactment. I haven't even heard the other ones, so feel free to link me to the Tweets.
But yes, I'd be happy to have more people posting verifiable facts rather than ill-informed speculation, no matter who they are.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the WLTaskForce linking to the article you claim is debunked, so whether or not you believe that story, I was correct about them promoting it.
That said, your debunking is a bit off. How would they know it was an intermediary and not the original leaker if they'd never met them before that? He never said that was the only meeting, now, did he? In fact, it'd be damn stupid of the leaker to go about meeting him.
And thus, based on a lot of questionable assumptions, denzacar "decimated" them as you put it. What does that decimation mean, anyhow? That he can argue with maybe one tenth of the things they said? Sounds about right. I mean, I agree that the Daily Mail is a rag, I'll give you that, but we can read Craig's blog which they link to, so I'm not relying on them to be credible. And the guy you link to wants him to out the source? Why don't you ask Manning how that works out.
As for yelling about "conspiracy" in regards to burying news, it's a time honored practice. Bad news is dumped on Fridays, for example. And yes, I'd say that when you can no longer find something from a site's own search engine, it's reasonable to consider it buried. Funny how that screed takes up half the rant, though. Nothing better to talk about?
I believe evidence. Actual, verifiable evidence.
I believe the Wikileaks dumps because we can do DKIM validation on them. I can pull the keys off of Clinton's & Google's DNS servers (they're simple TEXT records, go read the RFC if you want details). I believe in looking at cui bono (who benefits). It's normally hard to fake that, especially in things that are tightly contested where you can't afford to act against your own interests. I believe in looking at the timing of things, especially in those cases when it can't be faked. I believe in looking at someone's history of truthfulness (or falseness), how well they can explain their mistakes, and how well they come clean when they were wrong about something.
But you're right. They're all playing us for their own benefits right now. That's why I trust cooperation based on mutual self-interest, but I don't think that Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Qatar & co. are looking out for anyone but themselves. But nor am I dumb enough to ignore which interests are opposed and which ones coincide with ours.
So yes, by all means. Be skeptical of all the motives out there, even mine, and look for actions, not words, as proof.
A) There's no real proof of Russian hacking.
B) The only thing done here was the exposure of U.S. government corruption (selling favors to SA & Qatar, using Clinton Foundation "charity" money on Chelsea's wedding, media manipulation & favor trading, rigging the primaries and debates, etc. etc. etc.). Feel completely free to do the same to Trump, as far as I'm concerned.
The entire point of Wikileaks is that it will get harder and harder to have government corruption the easier it is to expose it. Because the plots will get exposed and people will get in trouble with the people they're conspiring against, it will be harder in general to do such things to begin with. Which is what we want--we don't want a few scumbag politicians and media talking heads to be able to do horrible things like sell us into wars on phony evidence like they've done in the not-so-distant past and will continue to do as long as no one can hold them accountable.
It's a PR campaign.
Sadly they'll get less easy to spot as they learn from their mistakes here.
That evidence has been discussed and it's scant. That group was paid by the DNC to do this assessment. The evidence they present is:
* Some IPs are claimed as Russian / used in other attacks (why would Russian intelligence put the staging server in Russia and not some random hosting provider?)
* The RATs are claimed to be Russian (but other people point out that you can get them on various underground forums... something I don't believe they ever addressed).
* There was some other hack against some other government servers. As if independent hackers don't do such things. Because of course I'm not old enough to remember back when people were doing silly things like hacking NASA to look for evidence of aliens and whatnot.
Moreover, even if you somehow proved the hack part, that doesn't show us who Wikileaks' source is. They could've been owned by multiple parties, including insiders.
Finally, it simply doesn't matter. Frankly, I welcome any hacks that make it difficult for our leaders to conspire against the people.
Feel free to do the same in Russia. Helping them make the government less corrupt by exposing internal corruption is far more moral than shooting Russian diplomats and making ISIS hand signs and ranting about Aleppo. Russia seems to think that Saudi Arabia & Qatar stand to benefit from that one (coincidentally, both are big donors to the Clinton Foundation). Turkey thinks it's that cleric in exile in the USA who they blame for trying to start a coup there. Obama happened to vow revenge on Russia a few days before.
I really hope that's all just coincidental, but it feels like some serious crap is going on behind the scenes that we won't find out the true extent of until people read about it in history books 100 years from now.
See, this kind of bait would be far more effective if I hadn't read the CTR strategy sheets. I should have realized that when your boss called you "nerd virgins", he was implying you came from Slashdot.
It's pretty obvious in retrospect, no?
I just noticed your clarification below. On that, I agree--there's no good evidence regarding who performed the phishing attack on Podesta.
The domain of the phishing link is obscure, the fake phishing email itself claims there's hacking from the Ukraine, etc. I doubt that any of that information is true and you'll end up like Vizzini if you decide whether or not the phishing emails claims regarding its own origin are factual or counter-factual.
> Where are you getting that from? TFA doesn't mention Wikileaks nor does the Congressional report.
Thank you for helping make the point better than I did.
I just want to help everyone keep this news straight from all the other mentions of Russia, because it's easy to fall into a confirmation bias trap if we fail to.
> purportedly phished
At least for the Podesta emails, we have good reason to believe that. I've covered this several times previously in comments, but we have some pretty good evidence when you line things up with the timing of it:
* A spear phishing email to Podesta conveniently dated not long before the dump ends.
* The stats page for the bit.ly phishing link says the link was used twice in the right time frame.
Slashdot finally covered this story via thehill.com, some weeks after I had already dissected it in comments and in that they appear to admit to getting phished, blaming it on a "typo" (which is highly suspect, but whatever).
I'd write more submissions about this sort of thing, but there appears to be an organized effort going around marking anything they don't like as "SPAM" in the firehose (like this), as I've also seen happen abusively to other submissions on this site. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm tagging herbal viagra ads as 'binspam', not stories I disagree with. I'd much rather disagree with someone openly than sneak around and try to hide inconvenient facts. If the facts stop agreeing with me, I'd much rather start rethinking my positions than playing blame games.
Finally, for those having trouble keeping all the dumps straight, I left this comment some time ago that will help to clarify. There have been a lot of dumps and there are some people who like to confuse and conflate these issues.
Wikileaks themselves said so in multiple interviews and I believe on Twitter. So, it's on anyone who wants to contradict that to provide evidence to the contrary.
Exactly what does Snowden have to do with Wikileaks, which released the emails leaked to them by the DNC insider and those phished from Podesta's gmail account?
And just what did they think would happen to an NSA whistleblower who got stuck in Russia after the USA cancelled his passport? It's doubly ironic when the NSA watchdog who said that Snowden should have come to him was fired for retaliation against whistleblowers.
This isn't exactly new. The fact that they had to dig up something this old to push tells you they've got nothing.
It's amazing that we live through this twice. Back in 2008, Obama beat Hillary by focusing on delegates when she just kind of assumed she was going to win. Same bad strategy there and assuming her team could just win everything for her. It's amazing she can manage to get the press to go along with the seeming inevitability of her win when she's lost so much.
Speaking of which, for anyone who didn't see the Newsweek special edition that got recalled, one of the articles about her is entitled "Queenmakers." You can't make this stuff up. It's on p. 92-93 if you have a copy. Here's a sample from the end of the article:
Snopes says this is just a cover. I have to wonder if the same article is in the Trump version, which I don't have? It's completely focused on her and only mentions him in passing, so I kind of doubt the Trump one is just a cover swap.
I'm amazed, and yet somehow not surprised, that you can find a way to blame Trump for Obama's response to this in a way so divorced from the reality of what just happened.
Your unprincipled essentialism is a defining characteristic of your posts and I honestly wonder if you even know what that is without clicking the link.
He went off to vacation in Hawaii after saying that. Congress isn't even in session. So yeah, he might as well threaten them with a limp noodle.
And even if you somehow believe all of this, the only thing they did was reveal all the corruption: the primaries were rigged, they coordinate with their super PACs, they rigged the debates and then lied about it, Hillary took down every single other Democrat that ran this year via financial means and others, Hillary got funded by Saudi Arabia, Qatar (you remember what they're like from the Olympic slavery scandals, right?) and other distasteful places, they used Clinton Foundation money for Chelsea's wedding and other things I've forgotten and CNN just lies and tells us it's illegal to look.
Even if we assume Putin himself was behind it, I'd have to thank him for exposing the corruption our press seems to be turning a blind eye to. And that's only when they weren't willingly complicit with it. No, I haven't forgotten the "WaPo party" the lawyers were complaining about, Washington Post. All those articles you write and not a damn one about your own involvement here.
You're absolutely right, this sort of scam operation will be a setback to anyone who wants to use similar tactics in court.
What you seem to miss, though, is that they have access to lobbyists. So if they have a setback in court, they're going to ask for changes to the law again and there really isn't that much opposition to them there, so they tend to get what they want.
> I'm fuzzy on what's actually illegal?
See, this is why I'm glad the submitter actually included the indictment because it goes over everything law the government believes these guys broke.
Some of the more damning allegations are the different ways they've been charged with lying to the courts.
There's more good coverage of this on Popehat which has been covering this since the very start if you look through their archives.
I'm glad to see the submitter linked to the actual indictment.
I'm finally seeing some media questioning this CIA nonsense as well, citing many, many examples from their own tortured history as well as more recent facts.
This story is clearly planted and I, for one, do not for a moment believe these media shills or their anonymous sources nor can I give them even a shred of credibility. They could, would, and in fact have been the cheerleaders for any number of ill-advised wars, so anyone trying to reheat the Cold War based on anonymous rumors is going to be considered a warmongering shill for that very reason.
And that's ignoring those self-admitted "hacks" like Glenn Thrush who are proven shills. I mean, funny coincidence that, just look at what this "hack" is peddling:
So, Glenn, you say that Russia won this for Trump by revealing that you're a self-described hack? Please do go on...
Are you going to then explain how Russia made Donna Brazille rig the debates? Or lie about them being altered, despite the fact that we have DKIM validation to provide cryptographic non-repudiation of the message body? Or were they responsible for all the many ways the Democratic primary was a farce? Did Russia make them adopt the "pied piper" strategy to promote Trump, believing he would lose to Hillary? Did Russia keep them from holding campaign events in their "firewall" states and ignoring their own staffers? Maybe Russia planted that fake news CNN reported about it being illegal to read Wikileaks (lest one find their involvement in the aforementioned debate rigging...). Maybe next time they'll be smarter and simply publish the debate questions for everyone? Did Russia cause Hillary to collapse in the street and get thrown into a van after all that insistence that her health was just fine? Did Russia do the "bird dogging" wherein you staged violence at the Trump rallies and blamed Bernie's supporters for it? Did they hack the FEC to put the operatives on the MoveOn payroll (something my past comments have covered in significant detail)? Did Russia make Zulema tell that tale to the cops outside the Arizona rally that we have plenty of independent, video coverage for? Did Russia give Zulema credits on those "Trump Ducks" photos that only further corroborate O'Keefe's videos? Did Russia funnel all of the money from the state campaigns to Hillary's campaign to make the losses even more painful when she managed to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory?
There's a reason the DNC is fighting this so hard in so many ways. This is a fight for their own survival. By all rights, their leadership should be entirely replaced.... which makes me wonder if there are any actual plans out there to do that. We seem to live in interesting times.
> FFS the WMD was 100% Cheney stovepipe to fit his predetermined actions.
So, kinda like this?
Source email from 2015-12-21 12:09
> The CIA went out of their way to cast doubt on the "intelligence" that curveball'Ed the US into Iraq.
So, something like the FBI is doing now?
Source
I bet someone is going to blame him for quietly informing Congress of his actions right before the election, but remember this is the same guy who refused to recommend prosecution of Hillary even after this hearing. Feel free to watch the full hearing if you prefer.
Actually, it's more like the Pentagon Papers, which as you might remember were stolen, though they disputed the charge based on him not using them for personal gain and eventually got the charges thrown out due to illegal acts by the prosecution.
Even if we assume the DNC leak was a Russian hack despite the fact that most of the evidence boils down to what can be paraphrased as "trust our anonymous sources, they've got this, it's totally not like that time with the WMDs where we helped cause a war over nothing," the harm from these leaks were the revelations that peoples' votes for Bernie didn't matter and the media will print whatever the DNC tells them to, followed by the media carefully avoiding any actual reporting on the leaks. You saw this on Slashdot where they ignored the important, meaty submissions and posted fluffy crap like the "food groups" of VP candidates (they were sorted by race & sex, with Bernie off by himself in the special group), never mind that we had other leaks showing Tim Kaine was always going to be the VP pick in a quid pro quo arrangement and the entire exercise was a farce where they went through a dance to make it look legitimate.
I mean, just look at how pathetic the media has become:
“Because I have become a hack I will send u the whole section that pertains to u Please don’t share or tell anyone I did this Tell me if I f**ked up anything,”
- Politico reporter Glenn Thrush via the Podesta dump
Do you really expect journalism when we have pathetic hacks like this doing our reporting? I do more actual journalism than this and I have a real job and write comments whenever I'm bored or can't sleep.
With that heuristic, how about the part where Wikileaks hasn't released any documents that were proven to be fake?
I see they've recently put up a response to this: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/russian-bear-uses-keyboard/
There are other sources claiming Craig picked up the emails in a park in DC and that the main motive was how Bernie Sanders was thoroughly shafted in the primaries. I'd prefer a better source than the Daily Mail, but that's who interviewed him: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html
> Which is why the credibility of the reporter quoting the anonymous source matters.
No, it doesn't. I give credit to factual evidence, not anonymous rumors.
Yay, we finally get something like a fact. You should really point here though as it has more details.
But when we get to the bottom of it, we find it's mostly assumed because of a few RATs (remote access trojans). Problems with that:
- Guccifer 2.0 took credit for it. There were allegations made about his use of Russian language, but nobody bothered to give quotes.
- The RATs were widely available on underground forums.
See also: https://www.sovereignman.com/trends/former-intelligence-officer-on-the-bogus-russian-hack-20578/
And one last note, but they were planning to blame Trump for being too cozy to Russia from the beginning.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/25651
The timing doesn't work out either, because Trump was still a dark horse candidate during the first leaks and the DNC itself was asking its media allies to support Trump as one of the "pied piper" candidates, as you can see in the PDF attached to this email.
So this pretty much looks like a case of confirmation bias to me.
> Spooks don't like being named
That was in reference to who the 17 agencies (actually the two directors) the report was from. The Coast Guard & co. are not known for their hacking expertise, even if they do have a group dedicated to that sort of thing nowadays.
> No there aren't, at least not in this article.
Yes, the FBI, though they only allude to that in passing. There have been other random anonymous people quoted as disagreeing too. I don't think there's much point in playing the "my anonymous source can beat up your anonymous source" game though. I don't believe any of them, it's been the standard way to fabricate evidence in the press since before any of us were born. So there's no point going down that route to begin with.
> Because a lot of the evidence comes from confidential sources like CIA spies.
Yeah, no. See, I got over the secret evidence thing back when they used it to manufacture the war in Iraq. I've adopted the put up or shut up motto.
> Because that's been well established for months.
If by "well established" you mean that the press keeps reporting that it's true without giving us even one single verifiable fact we could hang our hat on. Or links to other articles saying the same thing, which link to more articles in a giant web of lies. Go follow them, look for actual, verifiable statements. Something you can actually corroborate with public records or such.
I have yet to find one single damned shred of evidence. So point me to hard evidence, I'm done with anonymous insiders spreading unverifiable rumors.
> He simply dismissed all of the evidence of the hacking group intruding to the DNC network.
There wasn't any evidence he could dismiss, nothing was ever presented. That's kind of the point here. You didn't link us to anything, either. It's really easy to prove this wrong. Just point me to an actual fact that can be corroborated somehow. I've done that dozens of times referencing specific facts, leaks, DKIM signatures, etc. It's not even hard.
The only evidence we have of hacking is the phishing email that got Podesta, whereas that article was discussing the DNC leaks, a completely different thing. And I'm the one who keeps linking that! You lot never even noticed that the phishing email claimed there were hack attempts from the Ukraine (of course, that was as fake as the bit.ly reset link Podesta used...).
> And you really think that not only did 17 directors all endorse a false statement, but that no one in any of their agencies leaked evidence to the contrary?
Read it again. There are only two directors endorsing that who happen to be in charge of a lot of people at different agencies. It's only right at the top of the thing. And quoted in my post....
But yes, I absolutely refuse to believe this secret crap. I'm old enough to remember the WMDs and the yellowcake that were used to manufacture a war out of nothing last time. I also remember that being called out for a lack of evidence (and rightfully so).
I mean, if someone as incompetent as Bush can get the intelligence community to lie to us to start a war, you can't seriously expect me to buy this sort of thing again.
Doesn't anyone remember how that evidence was fabricated?
The emperor has no clothes. These are naked rumors and the people peddling them are full of crap.
Just for fun, go look up the bylines on these stories (not just this one, all of them in general). Then search for those names in the Podesta or the DNC leak dumps on Wikileaks.
There's a damned good reason they never bother to link you to these.
I don't remember anyone saying she was in danger of immanent death, but Hillary did get chucked into a van by her staff and her health was reported as being just fine... until that very public collapse. The foreign press was far less kind when they made a little re-enactment. I haven't even heard the other ones, so feel free to link me to the Tweets.
But yes, I'd be happy to have more people posting verifiable facts rather than ill-informed speculation, no matter who they are.