Former US intelligence analysts: CIA allegations of Russian email hacking are baseless
South_Mountaineer said:
paulsurovell said:
Footnote on the new Democratic hero, John "$54-billion-increase-for-defense-is-not-enough-Rand-Paul-is-working-for-Putin" McCain: Rick Davis, McCain's 2008 Presidential campaign manager was Paul Manafort's partner in the lobbying firm Davis Manafort & Freedman. Why has McCain hidden this Russian connection? It all makes perfect sense now. McCain's anti-Russian bluster is a cover for his being a Putin double-agent. Add him to the dots.
The missing piece, of course, is any reference to (or even allegation of) Russian involvement in the 2008 election. Back then, of course, the GOP candidate wasn't so deferential towards Russia. In fact, in those years the GOP was claiming that Mr. Obama was the one who was too deferential towards Russia.
Your attempt to use ridicule to defend Trump isn't working. In your hands it's a boomerang, smacking down your own credibility.
Sorry, I thought it was obvious that I was being facetious. Just showing that using the standards of the media, Dems and Neocons, you can accuse almost anyone of being a Putin agent.
For the record, in 2008 Manafort was advising Yanukovych, who was elected president of Ukraine in 2010. So the timeframe of Manafort's partnership with McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis is highly relevant in my tongue-in-cheek example.
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:
paulsurovell said:
Footnote on the new Democratic hero, John "$54-billion-increase-for-defense-is-not-enough-Rand-Paul-is-working-for-Putin" McCain: Rick Davis, McCain's 2008 Presidential campaign manager was Paul Manafort's partner in the lobbying firm Davis Manafort & Freedman. Why has McCain hidden this Russian connection? It all makes perfect sense now. McCain's anti-Russian bluster is a cover for his being a Putin double-agent. Add him to the dots.
The missing piece, of course, is any reference to (or even allegation of) Russian involvement in the 2008 election. Back then, of course, the GOP candidate wasn't so deferential towards Russia. In fact, in those years the GOP was claiming that Mr. Obama was the one who was too deferential towards Russia.
Your attempt to use ridicule to defend Trump isn't working. In your hands it's a boomerang, smacking down your own credibility.
Sorry, I thought it was obvious that I was being facetious. Just showing that using the standards of the media, Dems and Neocons, you can accuse almost anyone of being a Putin agent.
For the record, in 2008 Manafort was advising Yanukovych, who was elected president of Ukraine in 2010. So the timeframe of Manafort's partnership with McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis is highly relevant in my tongue-in-cheek example.
In the future, please read my posts in their entirety before responding. My post recognized you were being facetious, as the second paragraph recognizes. In the first paragraph, I already explained why your "highly relevant" factoid about Manafort is nothing of the sort.
In light of today's testimony, you, Trump and Spicer seem to be the last three people in denial about Russian hacking and interest in helping Trump.
Edited to add - Since it wasn't clear the first time - I knew you were being facetious and ridiculing any interest in looking into Trump's ties to Russia. Your example (and attempt to ridicule) just doesn't work. The same considerations and context just aren't there, so your example doesn't provide any support for your mocking of legitimate concerns.
you write good.
South_Mountaineer said:
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:
paulsurovell said:
Footnote on the new Democratic hero, John "$54-billion-increase-for-defense-is-not-enough-Rand-Paul-is-working-for-Putin" McCain: Rick Davis, McCain's 2008 Presidential campaign manager was Paul Manafort's partner in the lobbying firm Davis Manafort & Freedman. Why has McCain hidden this Russian connection? It all makes perfect sense now. McCain's anti-Russian bluster is a cover for his being a Putin double-agent. Add him to the dots.
The missing piece, of course, is any reference to (or even allegation of) Russian involvement in the 2008 election. Back then, of course, the GOP candidate wasn't so deferential towards Russia. In fact, in those years the GOP was claiming that Mr. Obama was the one who was too deferential towards Russia.
Your attempt to use ridicule to defend Trump isn't working. In your hands it's a boomerang, smacking down your own credibility.
Sorry, I thought it was obvious that I was being facetious. Just showing that using the standards of the media, Dems and Neocons, you can accuse almost anyone of being a Putin agent.
For the record, in 2008 Manafort was advising Yanukovych, who was elected president of Ukraine in 2010. So the timeframe of Manafort's partnership with McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis is highly relevant in my tongue-in-cheek example.
In the future, please read my posts in their entirety before responding. My post recognized you were being facetious, as the second paragraph recognizes. In the first paragraph, I already explained why your "highly relevant" factoid about Manafort is nothing of the sort.
In light of today's testimony, you, Trump and Spicer seem to be the last three people in denial about Russian hacking and interest in helping Trump.
Edited to add - Since it wasn't clear the first time - I knew you were being facetious and ridiculing any interest in looking into Trump's ties to Russia. Your example (and attempt to ridicule) just doesn't work. The same considerations and context just aren't there, so your example doesn't provide any support for your mocking of legitimate concerns.
US intelligence agencies don't know who gave Wikileaks the emails:
https://goo.gl/lch03U
This is how it reads in the original Trump-speak: "The 'intelligence' services say anyone could have given Wikileaks the emails. Covering up incompetence by accusing Russia.. Sad."
paulsurovell said:
US intelligence agencies don't know who gave Wikileaks the emails:
https://goo.gl/lch03U
paulsurovell said:
US intelligence agencies don't know who gave Wikileaks the emails:
That's not the same as not knowing who perpetrated the attacks.
What was interesting in that statement is that they DID essentially state that there was no cutout for DC Leaks and Guccifer 2.0 - thus they were operating directly with the Russians. And Stone is known to have had conversations with Guccifer 2.0 directly and not via Wikileaks. He also admitted to contact via an intermediary to Wikileaks.
As the GRU's attack ramped up they switched from dealing information directly to sending information via Wikileaks. Wikileaks also appears to have added servers hosted in Russia around this time, and the information appears to have been more curated after this point. This was also after Guccifer 2.0 was known to have made contact with Roger Stone. There is speculation that he assisted in weaponizing the data, knowing what might be useful to release and when.
dave23 said:
paulsurovell said:
US intelligence agencies don't know who gave Wikileaks the emails:
That's not the same as not knowing who perpetrated the attacks.
dave23 said:
paulsurovell said:
US intelligence agencies don't know who gave Wikileaks the emails:
That's not the same as not knowing who perpetrated the attacks.
Yes, hacking and delivering are not the same.
The assumption that Russia hacked the DNC does not preclude an insider leaker or an intelligence service as being Wikileaks' source for the emails, which is what Assange associate Craig Murray has asserted.
Comey's admission, in my view, lends credence to Murray's assertion.
qrysdonnell said:
Wikileaks also appears to have added servers hosted in Russia around this time
What is the source for this?
paulsurovell said:
dave23 said:
paulsurovell said:
US intelligence agencies don't know who gave Wikileaks the emails:
That's not the same as not knowing who perpetrated the attacks.
Yes, hacking and delivering are not the same.
The assumption that Russia hacked the DNC does not preclude an insider leaker or an intelligence service as being Wikileaks' source for the emails, which is what Assange associate Craig Murray has asserted.
Comey's admission, in my view, lends credence to Murray's assertion.
Yes, of course. It's not like Wikileaks has any agenda other than the truth.
I suppose that the DNC leaks were from an internal source in a sense once the technically illiterate Podesta fell prey to a phishing scheme.
South_Mountaineer said:
This is how it reads in the original Trump-speak: "The 'intelligence' services say anyone could have given Wikileaks the emails. Covering up incompetence by accusing Russia.. Sad."
paulsurovell said:
US intelligence agencies don't know who gave Wikileaks the emails:
https://goo.gl/lch03U
Look who made a "whatabout" post.
It's part of their current hosting set up as visible through the DNS system that the Internet runs on. You can act as your own source here. Follow these steps:
Step 1: Run a 'dig' command on wikileaks.org - You can do this via digwebinterface.com
It'll come back with a list of 6 IP addresses that can answer for wikileaks.org. We're interested in 141.105.65.113 and 141.105.69.239.
Step 2: Do an IP-releated Whois look up to determine where these IPs are registered. You can do this via https://www.ultratools.com/tools/ipWhoisLookupResult
Plug in either of those IPs and it'll come up with a report pointing to Hostkey.ru/Mir Telematiki Ltd. with a Moscow address.
These IPs were added to their DNS/hosting 9/30/2016. The Podesta email releases started on 10/7/2016.
It's been verified that these servers do have the same Wikileaks private keys for encryption that their other servers use as they're able to sign data the same way as their other servers. That's all fact that you can verify independently with proper Internet know how. (Not as simple as the above to show, so I'll leave out the steps.)
As far as speculation, if that server was compromised (potentially on purpose, but with potential deniability) by the GRU (which we should presume isn't difficult if it's hosted in Russia) then Russia would obtain the ability to decode all traffic to/from ALL of Wikileaks' servers. One has to assume Russia is allowing the server to operate in Russia for a reason, and that's a reasonable one. (This same host has also known for having a lot of spammers, botnets and has had other hacking groups such as the Syrian Electronic Army working from it. It's likely a 'cutout' for GRU activities. It's potentially 'the' cutout.)
So, as the IC assessment agrees, Wikileaks isn't GRU/Russia, but they're involved together. Either knowingly or trying real hard to appear unknowingly.
paulsurovell said:
qrysdonnell said:
Wikileaks also appears to have added servers hosted in Russia around this time
What is the source for this?
paulsurovell said:Yes, hacking and delivering are not the same.
The assumption that Russia hacked the DNC does not preclude an insider leaker or an intelligence service as being Wikileaks' source for the emails, which is what Assange associate Craig Murray has asserted.
Comey's admission, in my view, lends credence to Murray's assertion.
So you think it's possible that Russia hacked the DNC and there were multiple leakers?
qrysdonnell said:
What was interesting in that statement is that they DID essentially state that there was no cutout for DC Leaks and Guccifer 2.0 - thus they were operating directly with the Russians. And Stone is known to have had conversations with Guccifer 2.0 directly and not via Wikileaks. He also admitted to contact via an intermediary to Wikileaks.
As the GRU's attack ramped up they switched from dealing information directly to sending information via Wikileaks. Wikileaks also appears to have added servers hosted in Russia around this time, and the information appears to have been more curated after this point. This was also after Guccifer 2.0 was known to have made contact with Roger Stone. There is speculation that he assisted in weaponizing the data, knowing what might be useful to release and when.
dave23 said:
paulsurovell said:
US intelligence agencies don't know who gave Wikileaks the emails:
That's not the same as not knowing who perpetrated the attacks.
I've yet to hear a plausible alternative theory to Russia hacking. However, asserting--let alone proving--collusion with the Trump campaign could be a bridge too far. It's clear that the Trump team and Russia wanted the same thing (a Trump victory). And it's pretty clear that Trump is in some way (or ways) indebted to Russia and/or Putin (loans, blackmail, etc.). And it's clear that Trump's campaign tried to cover up their many contacts with various Russian officials. But that is still pretty far from true collusion.
dave23 said:
paulsurovell said: Yes, hacking and delivering are not the same.So you think it's possible that Russia hacked the DNC and there were multiple leakers?
The assumption that Russia hacked the DNC does not preclude an insider leaker or an intelligence service as being Wikileaks' source for the emails, which is what Assange associate Craig Murray has asserted.
Comey's admission, in my view, lends credence to Murray's assertion.
Yes, hacking foreign political parties, including by the US, is not uncommon:
Former CIA and NSA Director Michael Hayden on Tuesday
implied that the United States, too, has hacked foreign political
parties. The difference between the U.S.’s actions and Russia in the 2016
presidential election, Hayden said, was that “once they got that
information, they weaponized it.”
But up until they weaponized information, Hayden said their actions were
par for the course. “I have to admit my definition of what the Russians
did [in hacking the Democratic National Committee] is, unfortunately,
honorable state espionage," Hayden said during an on-stage interview at the Heritage Foundation
"A foreign intelligence service getting the internal emails of a major
political party in a major foreign adversary? Game on. That’s what we
do. By the way, I would not want to be in an American court of law and
be forced to deny that I never did anything like that as director of the
NSA,” he said.
oh look another data point that I'm sure means nothing: Tillerson is skipping an important NATO meeting in April but is finding time to go to Russia.
Nothing to see here.
Move along.
http://www.vox.com/world/2017/3/21/15003466/rex-tillerson-nato-meeting-snub
drummerboy said:
oh look another data point that I'm sure means nothing: Tillerson is skipping an important NATO meeting in April but is finding time to go to Russia.
Nothing to see here.
Move along.
http://www.vox.com/world/2017/3/21/15003466/rex-tillerson-nato-meeting-snub
Tillerson will be in DC to take part in the meetings with Chinese pres Xi, during the NATO meeting. His trip to Russia will take place later in the month. Two unrelated events conflated to stir Russia hysteria.
If you read my link, which you apparently did not, you would see that Tillerson's absence from the NATO meeting is quite significant. He's not just skipping some photo op, as they are making it out to be. It's one of the two working biennial meetings of NATO, in which they figure out what they'll actually be doing for the next year.
But fine, dismiss it. Like you dismiss everything else vis a vis Russia..
paulsurovell said:
maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/drummerboy">drummerboy said:
oh look another data point that I'm sure means nothing: Tillerson is skipping an important NATO meeting in April but is finding time to go to Russia.
Nothing to see here.
Move along.
www.vox.com/world/2017/3/21/15003466/rex-tillerson-nato-meeting-snub" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"> http://www.vox.com/world/2017/3/21/15003466/rex-tillerson-nato-meeting-snub
Tillerson will be in DC to take part in the meetings with Chinese pres Xi, during the NATO meeting. His trip to Russia will take place later in the month. Two unrelated events conflated to stir Russia hysteria.
my goodness, more dots to connect that probably lead nowhere.
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, secretly worked for a Russian billionaire to advance the interests of Russian President Vladimir Putin a decade ago and proposed an ambitious political strategy to undermine anti-Russian opposition across former Soviet republics, The Associated Press has learned. The work appears to contradict assertions by the Trump administration and Manafort himself that he never worked for Russian interests.
paulsurovell said:Yes, hacking foreign political parties, including by the US, is not uncommon:
Correct. Does that mean you finally accept that Russia was probably responsible for the hacks?
"My GAWD Devin Nunes doesn't know fuckall about the surveillance he oversees. Can we have a hearing on THAT?"
https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/844616911598108684
Didn't want to start a new thread:
"AFK for a few minutes. Has @TGowdySC condemned Devin Nunes' "felonious leaking" yet?"
cramer said:
Didn't want to start a new thread:
"AFK for a few minutes. Has @TGowdySC condemned Devin Nunes' "felonious leaking" yet?"
https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/844623026691997701" target="_blank"> https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/844623026691997701
Gowdy is awful.
The previous posts are referring to the statement made by Devin Nunes at a press conference today about communications that he received in which members of Trump's transition and maybe Trump himself (Nunes' statement was full of innuendos) were "incidentally" picked-up in wiretaps of foreign persons under lawfully ordered warrants, and the names of the US persons were "unmasked."
"Devin Nunes Commits 'Felonious Leaking.' "
https://www.emptywheel.net/2017/03/22/devin-nunes-commits-felonious-leaking/
Nunes definitely went off the deep end with whatever he was trying to do today. If anything, he's shown that he's complicit in whatever the Trump team is up to. Prior to today there was still at least the possibility he wasn't.
You are very generous. Along with Gowdy, he was doing back flips from the beginning to cover for Trump.
qrysdonnell said:
Nunes definitely went off the deep end with whatever he was trying to do today. If anything, he's shown that he's complicit in whatever the Trump team is up to. Prior to today there was still at least the possibility he wasn't.
There was at least a chance that it was just partisan garbage though. For instance, I don't think too many people think Gowdy is implicated in whatever Trump is doing. He's obviously not what I'd consider a patriot, but prior to today Nunes and Gowdy were in the same camp. After today it's clear there's something beyond partisanship.
tjohn said:
You are very generous. Along with Gowdy, he was doing back flips from the beginning to cover for Trump.
qrysdonnell said:
Nunes definitely went off the deep end with whatever he was trying to do today. If anything, he's shown that he's complicit in whatever the Trump team is up to. Prior to today there was still at least the possibility he wasn't.
drip drip drip
The FBI has information that indicates associates of President Donald Trump communicated with suspected Russian operatives to possibly coordinate the release of information damaging to Hillary Clinton's campaign, US officials told CNN.This is partly what FBI Director James Comey was referring to when he made a bombshell announcement Monday before Congress that the FBI is investigating the Trump campaign's ties to Russia, according to one source.
The FBI is now reviewing that information, which includes human intelligence, travel, business and phone records and accounts of in-person meetings, according to those U.S. officials. The information is raising the suspicions of FBI counterintelligence investigators that the coordination may have taken place, though officials cautioned that the information was not conclusive and that the investigation is ongoing.
Paul - do you concede that Russia interfered with the election at all? Or are you stuck on how hacking is defined? I have to say the revelations that have some out the past week in regards to Russia have been stunning and this is excluding any Trump team collusion (which is starting to appear probable). I don't think Trump understands how he has been played.
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Advertisement
And that Russia used an intermediary to deliver the hacked emails to Wikileaks.