REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Fake news, propaganda, and censorship, from both the left and right

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Monday, July 17, 2017 09:35
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2506
PAGE 1 of 2

Sunday, December 11, 2016 1:59 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. Pity would be no more, If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake


The previous thread about FAKE NEWS was just examples of fake news in the mainstream media. http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=61129

But the topic is much greater than the willingness of the MSM to carry fake news: There is fake news on all sides, and also our government's willingness to not only censor news but its willingness to officially counter-propagandize its own people. In addition, Silicon Valley social networks have expressed a willingness to "curate" our internet/ social media "truthiness" for us, which could leave all of us with a serious information deficit. (More about that later)

This isn't a right-left thing, or a Hillary-Trump thing, it's about the First Amendment, critical thinking, and the ability to parse truth from propaganda which is coming at us from all sides.

THE US GOVERNMENT SEEKS MORE MONEY AND INTERNAL EFFICIENCIES FOR PROPAGANDA

Quote:

Senate Quietly Passes The "Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act"

While we wait to see if and when the Senate will pass (and president will sign) Bill "H.R. 6393, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017", which was passed by the House at the end of November with an overwhelming majority and which seeks to crack down on websites suspected of conducting Russian propaganda and calling for the US government to "counter active measures by Russia to exert covert influence … carried out in coordination with, or at the behest of, political leaders or the security services of the Russian Federation and the role of the Russian Federation has been hidden or not acknowledged publicly,” another, perhaps even more dangerous and limiting to civil rights and freedom of speech bill passed on December 8.

Recall that as we reported in early June, "a bill to implement the U.S.’ very own de facto Ministry of Truth has been quietly introduced in Congress.

As with any legislation attempting to dodge the public spotlight the Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act of 2016 marks a further curtailment of press freedom and another avenue to stultify avenues of accurate information. Introduced by Congressmen Adam Kinzinger and Ted Lieu, H.R. 5181 seeks a “whole-government approach without the bureaucratic restrictions” to counter “foreign disinformation and manipulation,” which they believe threaten the world’s

The world's? Why is our heart bleeding about "the world"?

Quote:

“security and stability.”

Also called the Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S. 2692), when introduced in March by Sen. Rob Portman, the legislation represents a dramatic return to Cold War-era government propaganda battles.

“These countries spend vast sums of money on advanced broadcast and digital media capabilities, targeted campaigns, funding of foreign political movements, and other efforts to influence key audiences and populations,” Portman explained, adding that while the U.S. spends a relatively small amount on its Voice of America, the Kremlin provides enormous funding for its news organization, RT.

“Surprisingly,” Portman continued, “there is currently no single U.S. governmental agency or department charged with the national level development, integration and synchronization of whole-of-government strategies to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation.”

With more propaganda and disinformation?

Quote:

Long before the "fake news" meme became a daily topic of extensive conversation on which mainstream fake news portals as CNN and WaPo, H.R. 5181 would task the Secretary of State with coordinating the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Broadcasting Board of Governors to “establish a Center for Information Analysis and Response,” which will pinpoint sources of disinformation, analyze data, and — in true dystopic manner — ‘develop and disseminate’ “fact-based narratives” to counter effrontery propaganda.
About that BBG ...

US Seeks Massive Expansion To Propaganda Budget
Western governments routinely sound the alarm over Russian "propaganda." But President Obama’s new budget calls for a drastic increase in spending to America’s own foreign media arm, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which already spends millions more than its Russian counterpart http://www.mintpressnews.com/213693-2/213693/


Quote:

Fast forward to this past Thursday, December 8, when the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" passed in the Senate, quietly inserted inside the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report.

Here is the full statement issued by the generously funded Senator Rob Portman (R- Ohio) on the passage of a bill that further chips away at press liberties in the US, and which sets the stage for future which hunts and website shutdowns, purely as a result of an accusation that any one media outlet or site is considered as a source of "disinformation and propaganda" and is shut down by the government.

****

Senate Passes Major Portman-Murphy Counter-Propaganda Bill as Part of NDAA

Portman/Murphy Bill Promotes Coordinated Strategy to Defend America, Allies Against Propaganda and Disinformation from Russia, China & Others

U.S. Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) today announced that their Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act – legislation designed to help American allies counter foreign government propaganda from Russia, China, and other nations – has passed the Senate as part of the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report. The bipartisan bill, which was introduced by Senators Portman and Murphy in March, will improve the ability of the United States to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation by establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department [i.e. the CIA- SIGNY] to coordinate and synchronize counter-propaganda efforts throughout the U.S. government. To support these efforts, the bill also creates a grant program for NGOs, think tanks, civil society and other experts outside government who are engaged in counter-propaganda related work ....

First of all, whether you label something as "counter" propaganda or propaganda, it's still propaganda. Secondly, if you ever thought that NGOs, think tanks, and civil societies were neutral, objective, non-partisan organizations, you can throw that idea in the ditch. NPR, which gets much of its funding from the liberal arm of the government, is a reliable bellwether for what the DNC wants to do, and wants us to think.

Quote:

... This will better leverage existing expertise and empower local communities to defend themselves from foreign manipulation.

“The passage of this bill in the Senate today takes us one critical step closer to effectively confronting the extensive, and destabilizing, foreign propaganda and disinformation operations being waged against us. While the propaganda and disinformation threat has grown, the U.S. government has been asleep at the wheel. Today we are finally signaling that enough is enough; the United States will no longer sit on the sidelines. We are going to confront this threat head-on,” said Senator Portman. “With the help of this bipartisan bill, the disinformation and propaganda used against our allies and our interests will fail.”

“Congress has taken a big step in fighting back against fake news and propaganda from countries like Russia. When the president signs this bill into law, the United States will finally have a dedicated set of tools and resources to confront our adversaries’ widespread efforts to spread false narratives that undermine democratic institutions and compromise America’s foreign policy goals,” said Murphy. “I’m proud of what Senator Portman and I accomplished here because it’s long past time for the U.S. to get off the sidelines and confront these growing threats.”

NOTE: The bipartisan Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act is organized around two main priorities to help achieve the goal of combatting the constantly evolving threat of foreign disinformation. They are as follows:

* The first priority is developing a whole-of-government strategy for countering foreign propaganda and disinformation. The bill would increase the authority, resources, and mandate of the Global Engagement Center to include state actors like Russia and China in addition to violent extremists. The Center will be led by the State Department, but with the active senior level participation of the Department of Defense, USAID, the Broadcasting Board of Governors

... USAID - along with the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) - has destabilized many foreign governments (as documented by Wikileaks). They both act like the CIA in that their programs are confidential. Their mission consists mostly of promoting opposition groups in non-friendly nations (which were usually democratically elected) http://www.alternet.org/world/how-usaid-ned-and-iri-destabilize-foreig
n-governments
and "improving" police efficiency in friendly nations but in the past included teaching torture and "advanced counter-insurgnecy techniques".

Quote:

... the Intelligence Community, [CIA, NSA] and other relevant agencies. The Center will develop, integrate, and synchronize whole-of-government initiatives to expose and counter foreign disinformation operations and proactively advance fact-based narratives that support U.S. allies and interests.

Second, the legislation seeks to leverage expertise from outside government to create more adaptive and responsive U.S. strategy options. The legislation establishes a fund to help train local journalists and provide grants and contracts to NGOs, civil society organizations, think tanks, private sector companies, media organizations, and other experts outside the U.S. government with experience in identifying and analyzing the latest trends in foreign government disinformation techniques.

This isn't new. I guess the new thing is that it will be in the open, and get a lot more money.

Quote:

This fund will complement and support the Center’s role by integrating capabilities and expertise available outside the U.S. government into the strategy-making process. It will also empower a decentralized network of private sector experts and integrate their expertise into the strategy-making process.

****

In other words, the Act will i) greenlight the government to crack down with impunity against any media property it deems "propaganda", and ii) provide substantial amounts of money fund an army of "local journalist" counterpropaganda, to make sure the government's own fake news drowns that of the still free "fringes."

So while packaged politely in a veneer of "countering disinformation and propaganda", the bill, once signed by Obama, will effectively give the government a full mandate to punish, shut down or otherwise prosecute, any website it deems offensive and a source of "foreign government propaganda from Russia, China or other nations."

And since there is no formal way of proving whether or not there is indeed a foreign propaganda sponsor, all that will be sufficient to eliminate any "dissenting" website, will be the government's word against that of the website. One can be confident that the US government will almost certainly prevail in every single time.


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-10/senate-quietly-passes-counter
ing-disinformation-and-propaganda-act


CONCLUSION: The government wants us to believe that WE aren't actively engaged in a propaganda war, but have just been helpless, inept, sincere truthtellers in the face of sophisticated well-funded propagandists from "the other side".


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 11, 2016 4:20 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Of all the Fake News I've been hearing about, the reality of all the Fake News from the MSM seemed to have been obfuscated. NBC faking a truck explosion as part of it's "exposure" story, Dan Blather's Fake News about the President, the nonstop fake news form CNN, PMSNBCLSD, and other Libtard websites, yet people just absorb it all as if it is real, with no discernment or attempt to filter out the hogwash.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 12, 2016 3:04 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. Pity would be no more, If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake


More fake news:

A "secret" CIA report which alleges that Russia influenced our elections, from oney of my favorite fake news sources:

Quote:

Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House
The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-re
view-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.582fcdd48d5f


However,

Quote:

FBI disagrees with CIA on Russian influence in the presidential election

The FBI did not corroborate the CIA’s claim that Russia had a hand in the election of President-elect Donald Trump in a meeting with lawmakers last week.

A senior FBI counterintelligence official met with Republican and Democrat members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in order to give the bureau’s view of a recent CIA report. The official did not concur with the CIA, frustrating Democrats. ... The different conclusions reached by the two intelligence agencies is a reflection of their different institutional styles. CIA officials often use past behavior and analysis based on gathered intelligence to advise leaders, whereas the FBI comes from a more legalistic background which relies on hard evidence to make a case.


http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/12/12/fbi-disagrees-cia-russian-influ
ence-presidential-election-422763


Because who needs evidence when simple accusation will do?

I see a fight shaping up between the DIA and FBI on the one hand, and the CIA on the other.



-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake


"If I could write inflammatory commentary to scorch the eye brows and lashes off Trump, Signym or 1kiki, I would.- SECOND"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 12, 2016 3:27 PM

G

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

FBI disagrees with CIA on Russian influence in the presidential election

The FBI did not corroborate the CIA’s claim that Russia had a hand in the election of President-elect Donald Trump in a meeting with lawmakers last week.

A senior FBI counterintelligence official met with Republican and Democrat members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in order to give the bureau’s view of a recent CIA report. The official did not concur with the CIA, frustrating Democrats. ... The different conclusions reached by the two intelligence agencies is a reflection of their different institutional styles. CIA officials often use past behavior and analysis based on gathered intelligence to advise leaders, whereas the FBI comes from a more legalistic background which relies on hard evidence to make a case.


http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/12/12/fbi-disagrees-cia-russian-influ
ence-presidential-election-422763


Because who needs evidence when simple accusation will do?

I see a fight shaping up between the DIA and FBI on the one hand, and the CIA on the other.




So much to unpack:

1. At least your source bizpac, is upfront about their bias:

"Conservative News You Can Trust
Based in Palm Beach County, BizPac Review is a privately held, for-profit news and opinion website covering news that matters to conservatives throughout Florida and the United States."

2. This statement: "FBI disagrees with CIA on Russian influence in the presidential election" Disagrees how? Did bizpac say what specifically they disagreed on? No - they teased they would, but fishtailed away from being specific, only citing: "The different conclusions reached by the two intelligence agencies is a reflection of their different institutional styles." Ok, they're different entities so it's normal they would have different styles. On other words - BS article.

3. The money shot from the article only fizzles: "The official did not concur with the CIA, frustrating Democrats..."
Not no concur could mean ANYTHING. Did not think 1% was correct? It's wide open - again, a BS article.

4. Gathered Intelligence versus hard evidence? They're not the same? BS.

5. It is widely known that for many many years those 2 agencies have not played well together. That's messed up, but it explains why these 2 aren't slurping each other's work.

6. "The FBI did not corroborate the CIA’s claim that Russia had a hand in the election of President-elect Donald Trump in a meeting with lawmakers last week." Define: "had a hand in the election of President-elect Donald Trump." I'd like to see what the FBI thought had happened. Do they think there were no Russian hacks of the DNC or connection to Wikileaks? I really need to see a reputable source say that with facts to back it up before I would believe it.

7. It's easy to say Russia is being used by main stream media to sell papers/ads, but that would be true either way, so that proves nothing.

8. You have to ask: isn't it logical that Russia would want to influence our election? Of course.

9. Why would the CIA break a false story now? How would that change anything? What do they have to gain?

10. SIGNYM: "Because who needs evidence when simple accusation will do?"

OR, what you do:

"Because who needs evidence when Fake News will do?"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 12, 2016 3:50 PM

THGRRI

May the Good Lord take a liking to you... but not too soon!


Quote:

Originally posted by G:
Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

FBI disagrees with CIA on Russian influence in the presidential election

The FBI did not corroborate the CIA’s claim that Russia had a hand in the election of President-elect Donald Trump in a meeting with lawmakers last week.

A senior FBI counterintelligence official met with Republican and Democrat members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in order to give the bureau’s view of a recent CIA report. The official did not concur with the CIA, frustrating Democrats. ... The different conclusions reached by the two intelligence agencies is a reflection of their different institutional styles. CIA officials often use past behavior and analysis based on gathered intelligence to advise leaders, whereas the FBI comes from a more legalistic background which relies on hard evidence to make a case.


http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/12/12/fbi-disagrees-cia-russian-influ
ence-presidential-election-422763


Because who needs evidence when simple accusation will do?

I see a fight shaping up between the DIA and FBI on the one hand, and the CIA on the other.




So much to unpack:

1. At least your source bizpac, is upfront about their bias:

"Conservative News You Can Trust
Based in Palm Beach County, BizPac Review is a privately held, for-profit news and opinion website covering news that matters to conservatives throughout Florida and the United States."

2. This statement: "FBI disagrees with CIA on Russian influence in the presidential election" Disagrees how? Did bizpac say what specifically they disagreed on? No - they teased they would, but fishtailed away from being specific, only citing: "The different conclusions reached by the two intelligence agencies is a reflection of their different institutional styles." Ok, they're different entities so it's normal they would have different styles. On other words - BS article.

3. The money shot from the article only fizzles: "The official did not concur with the CIA, frustrating Democrats..."
Not no concur could mean ANYTHING. Did not think 1% was correct? It's wide open - again, a BS article.

4. Gathered Intelligence versus hard evidence? They're not the same? BS.

5. It is widely known that for many many years those 2 agencies have not played well together. That's messed up, but it explains why these 2 aren't slurping each other's work.

6. "The FBI did not corroborate the CIA’s claim that Russia had a hand in the election of President-elect Donald Trump in a meeting with lawmakers last week." Define: "had a hand in the election of President-elect Donald Trump." I'd like to see what the FBI thought had happened. Do they think there were no Russian hacks of the DNC or connection to Wikileaks? I really need to see a reputable source say that with facts to back it up before I would believe it.

7. It's easy to say Russia is being used by main stream media to sell papers/ads, but that would be true either way, so that proves nothing.

8. You have to ask: isn't it logical that Russia would want to influence our election? Of course.

9. Why would the CIA break a false story now? How would that change anything? What do they have to gain?

10. SIGNYM: "Because who needs evidence when simple accusation will do?"

OR, what you do:

"Because who needs evidence when Fake News will do?"



I see our Russian troll is still at it. With her it's spin, spin, spin.

____________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 12, 2016 3:54 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. Pity would be no more, If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake


Specifically

Quote:

The FBI hasn't concluded that the RNC itself was directly breached, a law enforcement official said Sunday. FBI investigators did find that a breach of a third-party entity that held data belonging to the RNC. But the data appears to have been outdated and of little value to the hackers. The FBI also found that some conservative groups and pundits were hacked. The FBI also hasn't found conclusive evidence to show that it was done to help Trump.

"At this point, there appears to have been a combination of motivations," one US law enforcement official said. "They wanted to sow discord and undermine our systems. It's clear not even the Russians thought he would win."

Officials familiar with the briefings given to Congress say the CIA assessment wasn't as definitive as has been portrayed in news reports this weekend. The agency developed new information in recent weeks, based on intelligence sources, which prompted a new assessment of the Russian hack. That assessment "leans" toward the view that the Russians were trying to hurt Clinton and help Trump. But the CIA assessment wasn't definitive, the officials said. http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/11/politics/russia-hacking-conclusions-dona
ld-trump
/

I often choose quotes for brevity. Seeing as some peeps have a 140-character attention span, I try not to overwhelm with detail. Here is more detail.



-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake


"If I could write inflammatory commentary to scorch the eye brows and lashes off Trump, Signym or 1kiki, I would.- SECOND"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 12, 2016 4:15 PM

DEVERSE

Hey, Ive been in a firefight before! Well, I was in a fire. Actually, I was fired from a fry-cook opportunity.


"Fake news" discussions always remind me of this




Consider how life in North America is going....

social media
hatred of cops
racism
media distrust
etc.

Makes one wonder

Oh let the sun beat down upon my face;
With stars to fill my dream;
I am a traveler of both time and space;
To be where I have been

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 12, 2016 4:42 PM

RIVERLOVE


Oh those damn pesky Russians! It's amazing what they can force people to do.


Wikileaks publishes 1000's of e-mails - Why?

Debbie Wasserman Schultz conspires against Bernie at DNC - Why?

Donna Brazile gives debate questions in advance to Hillary campaign - Why?

Hillary deletes e-mails from her bathroom closet server after subpoena issued for them - Why?

Hillary uses vulnerable private server for classified info that a Russian 6-year old could hack - Why?

Hillary tells FBI she didn't know that the BIG "C" on govt. docs meant classified - Why?

Podesta coordinates with news media to pre-approve debate and interview questions - Why?


So how'd the Russians make all those smart and honest people do so many dumb and naughty things? >>>>> Mind Control using genetically altered Beluga Caviar!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 12, 2016 6:51 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
More fake news:

A "secret" CIA report which alleges that Russia influenced our elections, from oney of my favorite fake news sources:

Quote:

Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House
The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-re
view-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.582fcdd48d5f


However,

Quote:

FBI disagrees with CIA on Russian influence in the presidential election

The FBI did not corroborate the CIA’s claim that Russia had a hand in the election of President-elect Donald Trump in a meeting with lawmakers last week.

A senior FBI counterintelligence official met with Republican and Democrat members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in order to give the bureau’s view of a recent CIA report. The official did not concur with the CIA, frustrating Democrats. ... The different conclusions reached by the two intelligence agencies is a reflection of their different institutional styles. CIA officials often use past behavior and analysis based on gathered intelligence to advise leaders, whereas the FBI comes from a more legalistic background which relies on hard evidence to make a case.


http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/12/12/fbi-disagrees-cia-russian-influ
ence-presidential-election-422763


Because who needs evidence when simple accusation will do?

I see a fight shaping up between the DIA and FBI on the one hand, and the CIA on the other.


Golly, another whopper from the dweebs who came up with Benghazi excuses like non-ISIS terrorists wandering around non-ISIS streets with non-ISIS RPGs in their back pockets who wish to have a non-ISIS backed riot because of some non-ISIS related obscure video that nobody within 1,000 miles of non-ISIS occupied Benghazi had seen.

Shockers that DIA and FBI didn't fall for such a sham, nor did they support such hogwash. Ever since Obama had the CIA whip up some excellent forgeries of "birth certificates" the foggy bottom tards have been off the deep end.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 12, 2016 6:54 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Riverlove:
Oh those damn pesky Russians! It's amazing what they can force people to do.


Wikileaks publishes 1000's of e-mails - Why?

Debbie Wasserman Schultz conspires against Bernie at DNC - Why?

Donna Brazile gives debate questions in advance to Hillary campaign - Why?

Hillary deletes e-mails from her bathroom closet server after subpoena issued for them - Why?

Hillary uses vulnerable private server for classified info that a Russian 6-year old could hack - Why?

Hillary tells FBI she didn't know that the BIG "C" on govt. docs meant classified - Why?

Podesta coordinates with news media to pre-approve debate and interview questions - Why?


So how'd the Russians make all those smart and honest people do so many dumb and naughty things? >>>>> Mind Control using genetically altered Beluga Caviar!


I am wondering if this is the best post you have ever made in RWED.
Bravo.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 12, 2016 9:49 PM

RIVERLOVE


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by Riverlove:
Oh those damn pesky Russians! It's amazing what they can force people to do.


Wikileaks publishes 1000's of e-mails - Why?

Debbie Wasserman Schultz conspires against Bernie at DNC - Why?

Donna Brazile gives debate questions in advance to Hillary campaign - Why?

Hillary deletes e-mails from her bathroom closet server after subpoena issued for them - Why?

Hillary uses vulnerable private server for classified info that a Russian 6-year old could hack - Why?

Hillary tells FBI she didn't know that the BIG "C" on govt. docs meant classified - Why?

Podesta coordinates with news media to pre-approve debate and interview questions - Why?


So how'd the Russians make all those smart and honest people do so many dumb and naughty things? >>>>> Mind Control using genetically altered Beluga Caviar!


I am wondering if this is the best post you have ever made in RWED.
Bravo.


The Russians made me do it. They influenced me. I never saw it comin'!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 13, 2016 12:57 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. Pity would be no more, If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake


WOW the WaPo is taking a beating!

Quote:

Exclusive: Top U.S. spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hacking - sources

The overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced a CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election, three American officials said on Monday.

While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named.

The position of the ODNI, which oversees the 17 agency-strong U.S. intelligence community, could give Trump fresh ammunition to dispute the CIA assessment, which he rejected as "ridiculous" in weekend remarks, and press his assertion that no evidence implicates Russia in the cyber attacks.


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-intelligence-idUSKBN14204E

If anything, the CIA is the agency which is attempting to subvert our election. The CIA needs its balls broken, the fuckers.



-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake


"If I could write inflammatory commentary to scorch the eye brows and lashes off Trump, Signym or 1kiki, I would.- SECOND"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 13, 2016 1:03 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. Pity would be no more, If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake


Quote:

"Fake news" discussions always remind me of this



Consider how life in North America is going....
social media
hatred of cops
racism
media distrust
etc.
Makes one wonder



You should watch some of this, DEVERSE. I think we let the ad agencies and government propagandists subvert us. And we did it all on our own.



From "Amazing Documentary Century of Self"

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=61023



http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=61023





-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake


"If I could write inflammatory commentary to scorch the eye brows and lashes off Trump, Signym or 1kiki, I would.- SECOND"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 13, 2016 8:24 AM

G

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
WOW the WaPo is taking a beating!

Quote:

Exclusive: Top U.S. spy agency has not embraced CIA assessment on Russia hacking - sources

The overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced a CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election, three American officials said on Monday.

While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named.

The position of the ODNI, which oversees the 17 agency-strong U.S. intelligence community, could give Trump fresh ammunition to dispute the CIA assessment, which he rejected as "ridiculous" in weekend remarks, and press his assertion that no evidence implicates Russia in the cyber attacks.


http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-intelligence-idUSKBN14204E

If anything, the CIA is the agency which is attempting to subvert our election. The CIA needs its balls broken, the fuckers.

"If I could write inflammatory commentary to scorch the eye brows and lashes off Trump, Signym or 1kiki, I would.- SECOND"



What's this have to do with WaPo? I think in your zeal to attack anything negative about Russia and Putin you mixed up your stories and targets.

A- R - I - C - E - P - T. Clinically tested, proven results - start living today.

SIGNYM: "If anything, the CIA is the agency which is attempting to subvert our election."

Come on - throw in the FBI and Comey while you're at it - why leave any US agency out?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 13, 2016 2:31 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. Pity would be no more, If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake


Quote:

What's this have to do with WaPo?- GSTRING
Are you that uninformed?

I have to say, whatever ails you, son ... there's no pill for it. Maybe an enema would help.



-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake


"If I could write inflammatory commentary to scorch the eye brows and lashes off Trump, Signym or 1kiki, I would.- SECOND"

Hillary knew all about the Electoral College when she ran for office. All of this after-the-fact bitching is still just an attempt to rewrite history. I guess you're all still in various stages of grief, including anger, denial, and bargaining, all rol

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 14, 2016 7:34 AM

G

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

What's this have to do with WaPo?- GSTRING
Are you that uninformed?

I have to say, whatever ails you, son ... there's no pill for it. Maybe an enema would help.



Aww, mom's mad again :(

Surely even you in a moment of weakness - when you are briefly honest with yourself - surely then you realize your cognitive dissonance of late - right?

Usually, when someone makes a bold statement to start a post: "Wow! The WaPo is sure taking a beating!" they follow that up with information that supports it, that helps them substantiate that statement. Maybe you thought you were on the other thread? The one you started to bash the WaPo? That kind of mental disconnect of mistaking physical spaces, is one of the first signs - take it seriously.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 14, 2016 12:15 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. Pity would be no more, If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake


Quote:

Usually, when someone makes a bold statement to start a post: "Wow! The WaPo is sure taking a beating!" they follow that up with information that supports it- GSTRING


HEY STUPID!
Over here!
Now focus .... focus....

It was the WaPo that published the article Prop or Not? which had to withdraw support for the findings of the "anonymous" organization which listed roughly 200 sites as sources of "Russian propaganda" ...

... and which bannered Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House.

Through the entire election, WaPo has been consistently pushing the "but Putin!" meme, whipping up pointless and strikingly evidence-free hysteria. (Yanno, kind of like you.) When people have to amp up the FUD* factor, you know they don't have a case.

*fear, uncertainty, and doubt

In any case WaPo was throughly debunked by Glenn Greenwald, a darling of the liberal left, so I assume you approve of this source:

Quote:

Anonymous Leaks to the WashPost About the CIA’s Russia Beliefs Are No Substitute for Evidence
The Washington Post late Friday night published an explosive story that, in many ways, is classic American journalism of the worst sort: The key claims are based exclusively on the unverified assertions of anonymous officials, who in turn are disseminating their own claims about what the CIA purportedly believes, all based on evidence that remains completely secret. https://theintercept.com/2016/12/10/anonymous-leaks-to-the-washpost-ab
out-the-cias-russia-beliefs-are-no-substitute-for-evidence
/






-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake


"If I could write inflammatory commentary to scorch the eye brows and lashes off Trump, Signym or 1kiki, I would.- SECOND"

Hillary knew all about the Electoral College when she ran for office. All of this after-the-fact bitching is still just an attempt to rewrite history. I guess you're all still in various stages of grief, including anger, denial, and bargaining, all rol

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 14, 2016 3:30 PM

G

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

Usually, when someone makes a bold statement to start a post: "Wow! The WaPo is sure taking a beating!" they follow that up with information that supports it- GSTRING


HEY STUPID!
Over here!
Now focus .... focus....



HEY DUMBASS!
You're confused again! I swear it's like being at the old folks home.

Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
It was the WaPo that published the article Prop or Not? which had to withdraw support for the findings of the "anonymous" organization which listed roughly 200 sites as sources of "Russian propaganda" ...



That's a different Russia story dearie - yanno, about Russian trolls disseminating misinformation not the CIA super secret report - ring any bells?

Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
... and which bannered Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House.


As did many media outlets, even rt.com - so not "WaPo is taking a beating!"

Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Through the entire election, WaPo has been consistently pushing the "but Putin!" meme, whipping up pointless and strikingly evidence-free hysteria. (Yanno, kind of like you.) When people have to amp up the FUD* factor, you know they don't have a case.



FUD factor? You mean like "Hillary is going to start WWIII? HIllary is near death?" Like that?
Face it, you hate WaPo because they were denied press credentials early on by Trump, so their reporting on Herr Trump has been especially pointed and you can't handle seeing Putin's BFF get mud in his eye. Yeah, it's that obvious.

There is some good news though - A generic version of Razadyne has been approved by the FDA.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 15, 2016 12:01 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Quote:

"Hillary is going to start WWIII? HIllary is near death?"
Those are QUITE OBVIOUSLY OPINIONS, not presented as, or meant to be taken as, fact.




How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 15, 2016 1:39 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Now THIS, otoh, is a recent and very elaboration form of fake news. NONE of the vital claims made are linked to any source or evidence, while many completely trivial items (company home web-pages for example) are.
Quote:


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc
.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0


The Perfect Weapon: How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the US.

Yep, it was Russian, it was cyberpower, and it invaded the US. It must be true because the paper says so.
Quote:


By ERIC LIPTON, DAVID E. SANGER and SCOTT SHANEDEC. 13, 2016

WASHINGTON — When Special Agent Adrian Hawkins of the Federal Bureau of Investigation called the Democratic National Committee in September 2015 to pass along some troubling news about its computer network, he was transferred, naturally, to the help desk.
His message was brief, if alarming. At least one computer system belonging to the DNC had been compromised by hackers federal investigators had named “the Dukes,”* https://labsblog.f-secure.com/2015/09/17/the-dukes-7-years-of-russian-
cyber-espionage
/ a cyberespionage team linked to the Russian government.
The FBI knew it well: The bureau had spent the last few years trying to kick the Dukes out of the unclassified email systems of the White House, the State Department and even the Joint Chiefs of Staff, one of the government’s best-protected networks.
Yared Tamene, the tech-support contractor at the DNC who fielded the call, was no expert in cyberattacks. His first moves were to check Google for “the Dukes” and conduct a cursory search of the DNC computer system logs to look for hints of such a cyberintrusion. By his own account, he did not look too hard even after Special Agent Hawkins called back repeatedly over the next several weeks — in part because he wasn’t certain the caller was a real FBI agent and not an impostor.
“I had no way of differentiating the call I just received from a prank call,” Mr. Tamene wrote in an internal memo, obtained by The New York Times, that detailed his contact with the FBI.

This is just mind-boggling. Tamene could have asked for directions on how to call in to the FBI using a number he knew to be valid - a govt directory search for example, on how to work his way over to Hawkins from there.
Quote:


It was the cryptic first sign of a cyberespionage and information-warfare campaign devised to disrupt the 2016 presidential election,

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

the first such attempt by a foreign power in American history. What started as an information-gathering operation, intelligence officials believe, ultimately morphed into an effort to harm one candidate, Hillary Clinton, and tip the election to her opponent, Donald J. Trump.
Like another famous American election scandal, it started with a break-in at the DNC The first time, 44 years ago at the committee’s old offices in the Watergate complex, the burglars planted listening devices and jimmied a filing cabinet. This time, the burglary was conducted from afar, directed by the Kremlin, with spear-phishing emails and zeros and ones.

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:


What is phishing?
Phishing uses an innocent-looking email to entice unwary recipients to click on a deceptive link, giving hackers access to their information or a network. In “spear-phishing,” the email is tailored to fool a specific person.
An examination by The Times of the Russian operation

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

— based on interviews with dozens of players targeted in the attack, intelligence officials who investigated it and Obama administration officials who deliberated over the best response — reveals a series of missed signals, slow responses and a continuing underestimation of the seriousness of the cyberattack.
The DNC’s fumbling encounter

thanks to disinterest, lack of effort, and lack of basic skills
Quote:

with the FBI meant the best chance to halt the Russian intrusion was lost. The failure to grasp the scope of the attacks undercut efforts to minimize their impact. And the White House’s reluctance to respond forcefully meant the Russians have not paid a heavy price for their actions,
claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

a decision that could prove critical in deterring future cyberattacks.
claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:


The low-key approach of the FBI meant that Russian hackers could roam freely through the committee’s network for nearly seven months before top DNC officials were alerted to the attack and hired cyberexperts to protect their systems.

Isn't that like locking the barn door AFTER the horses are stolen? And, uh - why not do it before?
Quote:

In the meantime, the hackers moved on to targets outside the DNC, including Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, John D. Podesta, whose private email account was hacked months later.
claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:


Even Mr. Podesta, a savvy Washington insider who had written a 2014 report on cyberprivacy for President Obama * https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/big_data_privacy_r
eport_may_1_2014.pdf
, did not truly understand the gravity of the hacking. Charles Delavan, a Clinton campaign aide, incorrectly legitimized a phishing email sent to the personal account of John D. Podesta, the campaign chairman.
By last summer, Democrats watched in helpless fury as their private emails and confidential documents appeared online day after day — procured by Russian intelligence agents

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

, posted on WikiLeaks and other websites, then eagerly reported on by the American media, including The Times. Mr. Trump gleefully cited many of the purloined emails on the campaign trail.
The fallout included the resignations of Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida * http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/us/politics/debbie-wasserman-schultz
-dnc-wikileaks-emails.html?_r=0
, the chairwoman of the DNC, and most of her top party aides. Leading Democrats were sidelined at the height of the campaign, silenced by revelations of embarrassing emails or consumed by the scramble to deal with the hacking. Though little-noticed by the public, confidential documents taken by the Russian hackers

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

from the DNC’s sister organization * https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2016/08/15/dccc-internal-docs-on-prima
ries-in-florida
/ , the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, turned up in congressional races in a dozen states, tainting some of them with accusations of scandal * . http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/house-democrats-hacking-
dccc.html?_r=0

In recent days, a skeptical president-elect, the nation’s intelligence agencies and the two major parties have become embroiled in an extraordinary public dispute over what evidence exists that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia moved beyond mere espionage to deliberately try to subvert American democracy and pick the winner of the presidential election.
Many of Mrs. Clinton’s closest aides believe that the Russian assault had a profound impact on the election

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

, while conceding that other factors — Mrs. Clinton’s weaknesses as a candidate; her private email server; the public statements of the FBI director, James B. Comey, about her handling of classified information — were also important.
While there’s no way to be certain of the ultimate impact of the hack, this much is clear

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

: A low-cost, high-impact weapon that Russia had test-fired in elections from Ukraine to Europe was trained on the United States, with devastating effectiveness.


For Russia, with an enfeebled economy

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

and a nuclear arsenal it cannot use short of all-out war, cyberpower proved the perfect weapon: cheap, hard to see coming, hard to trace.
“There shouldn’t be any doubt in anybody’s mind,” Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency and commander of United States Cyber Command, said at a postelection conference. “This was not something that was done casually, this was not something that was done by chance, this was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily,” he said. “This was a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect.”

I spent some time tracking this item down, because this is a pivotal claim, made without links or evidence. What was the entire context of this statement?

Looking for other instances of that quote, one of the first sources I got was Business Insider. http://www.businessinsider.com/nsa-chief-nation-state-swayed-president
-election-2016-11
Rogers did not specify the nation-state or the specific effect, though US intelligence officials say they suspect Russia provided * the emails to WikiLeaks after hackers stole them from DNC servers and the personal email account of Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta. So, the NYTimes points the finger at Russia and takes an out of context quote from Rogers to mislead people into thinking he was talking about Russia - WHEN HE WAS NOT.

In the Business Insider statement "though US intelligence officials say they suspect Russia provided * the emails to WikiLeaks" "suspect Russia provided" * was actively linked to another article at CNN, presumably to buttress the idea that "US intelligence officials say". http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/13/politics/russia-us-election/ The methods of the disclosures "suggest Moscow is at least providing the information or is possibly directly responsible for the leaks," one US official said.

But in fact it was only ONE anonymous official of unknown capacity who said anything about Russia.

High school gossip is more factually reliable than this.

And IN THE END, THE NYTIMES IMPLICATION THAT THE DIRECTOR OF THE NSA SAID THAT THEY SUSPECT RUSSIA OF THE HACK IS REFUTED IN TWO LINKS.
Quote:




For the people whose emails were stolen, this new form of political sabotage has left a trail of shock and professional damage. Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress and a key Clinton supporter, recalls walking into the busy Clinton transition offices, humiliated to see her face on television screens as pundits discussed a leaked email in which she had called Mrs. Clinton’s instincts “suboptimal.” http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/18/politics/clinton-staffers-frustrated-hil
lary-clinton-bill-clinton-chelsea-clinton
/
“It was just a sucker punch to the gut every day,” Ms. Tanden said. “It was the worst professional experience of my life.”
The United States, too, has carried out cyberattacks, and in decades past the CIA. tried to subvert foreign elections. But the Russian attack is increasingly understood across the political spectrum as an ominous historic landmark

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

— with one notable exception: Mr. Trump has rejected the findings of the intelligence agencies he will soon oversee as “ridiculous,” insisting that the hacker may be American, or Chinese, but that “they have no idea.”
For all the evidence provided, it sure LOOKS like they truly have NO idea.
Quote:


Mr. Trump cited the reported disagreements between the agencies about whether Mr. Putin intended to help elect him. On Tuesday, a Russian government spokesman echoed Mr. Trump’s scorn.
“This tale of ‘hacks’ resembles a banal brawl between American security officials over spheres of influence,” Maria Zakharova, the spokeswoman for the Russian Foreign Ministry, wrote on Facebook.

It does.
Quote:


Over the weekend, four prominent senators — two Republicans and two Democrats — joined forces to pledge an investigation

That would be truly welcome.
Quote:

while pointedly ignoring Mr. Trump’s skeptical claims.
“Democrats and Republicans must work together, and across the jurisdictional lines of the Congress, to examine these recent incidents thoroughly and devise comprehensive solutions to deter and defend against further cyberattacks,” said Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Chuck Schumer and Jack Reed.
“This cannot become a partisan issue,” they said. “The stakes are too high for our country.”
A Target for Break-Ins
Sitting in the basement of the Democratic National Committee headquarters, below a wall-size 2012 portrait of a smiling Barack Obama, is a 1960s-era filing cabinet missing the handle on the bottom drawer. Only a framed newspaper story hanging on the wall hints at the importance of this aged piece of office furniture.
“GOP Security Aide Among 5 Arrested in Bugging Affair, *” reads the headline from the front page of The Washington Post on June 19, 1972, with the bylines of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.
Andrew Brown, 37, the technology director at the DNC, was born after that famous break-in. But as he began to plan for this year’s election cycle, he was well aware that the DNC could become a break-in target again.
There were aspirations to ensure that the DNC was well protected against cyberintruders — and then there was the reality, Mr. Brown and his bosses at the organization acknowledged: The DNC was a nonprofit group, dependent on donations, with a fraction of the security budget that a corporation its size would have. “There was never enough money to do everything we needed to do,” Mr. Brown said.
The DNC had a standard email spam-filtering service, intended to block phishing attacks and malware created to resemble legitimate email. But when Russian hackers started in on the DNC

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

, the committee did not have the most advanced systems in place to track suspicious traffic, internal DNC memos show.
Mr. Tamene, who reports to Mr. Brown and fielded the call from the FBI agent, was not a full-time DNC employee; he works for a Chicago-based contracting firm called The MIS Department * https://web.archive.org/web/20160507204851/http:/www.misdepartment.com
/staff
. He was left to figure out, largely on his own, how to respond — and even whether the man who had called in to the DNC switchboard was really an FBI agent.

Easy enough to do by asking for a directory trail starting at a legitimate number.
Quote:


“The FBI thinks the DNC has at least one compromised computer on its network and the FBI wanted to know if the DNC is aware, and if so, what the DNC is doing about it,” Mr. Tamene wrote in an internal memo about his contacts with the FBI He added that “the Special Agent told me to look for a specific type of malware dubbed ‘Dukes’ by the US. intelligence community and in cybersecurity circles.”
Part of the problem was that Special Agent Hawkins did not show up in person at the DNC Nor could he email anyone there, as that risked alerting the hackers that the FBI knew they were in the system.
Mr. Tamene’s initial scan of the DNC system — using his less-than-optimal tools and incomplete targeting information from the FBI — found nothing. So when Special Agent Hawkins called repeatedly in October, leaving voice mail messages for Mr. Tamene, urging him to call back, “I did not return his calls, as I had nothing to report,” Mr. Tamene explained in his memo.

yuh
Quote:


In November, Special Agent Hawkins called with more ominous news. A DNC computer was “calling home, where home meant Russia,” Mr. Tamene’s memo says, referring to software sending information to Moscow. “SA Hawkins added that the FBI thinks that this calling home behavior could be the result of a state-sponsored attack.”
Mr. Brown knew that Mr. Tamene, who declined to comment, was fielding calls from the FBI. But he was tied up on a different problem: evidence suggesting that the campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Mrs. Clinton’s main Democratic opponent, had improperly gained access to her campaign data.

Thought it turned out the DNC has clumsily left permissions open. http://washingtonmonthly.com/2015/12/19/an-explanation-of-what-bernie-
sanders-staffers-actually-did-and-why-it-matters
/
Quote:


Ms. Wasserman Schultz, then the DNC’s chairwoman, and Amy Dacey, then its chief executive, said in interviews that neither of them was notified about the early reports that the committee’s system had likely been compromised.
Shawn Henry, who once led the FBI’s cyber division and is now president of CrowdStrike Services, the cybersecurity firm retained by the DNC in April, said he was baffled that the FBI did not call a more senior official at the DNC or send an agent in person to the party headquarters to try to force a more vigorous response.
“We are not talking about an office that is in the middle of the woods of Montana,” Mr. Henry said. “We are talking about an office that is half a mile from the FBI office that is getting the notification.”
“This is not a mom-and-pop delicatessen or a local library. This is a critical piece of the US. infrastructure because it relates to our electoral process, our elected officials, our legislative process, our executive process,” he added. “To me it is a high-level, serious issue, and if after a couple of months you don’t see any results, somebody ought to raise that to a higher level.”
The FBI declined to comment on the agency’s handling of the hack. “The FBI takes very seriously any compromise of public and private sector systems,” it said in a statement, adding that agents “will continue to share information” to help targets “safeguard their systems against the actions of persistent cybercriminals.”
By March, Mr. Tamene and his team had met at least twice in person with the FBI and concluded that Agent Hawkins was really a federal employee. But then the situation took a dire turn.
A second team of Russian-affiliated hackers

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

began to target the DNC
claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

and other players
claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

in the political world, particularly Democrats. Billy Rinehart, a former DNC regional field director who was then working for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, got an odd email warning from Google.
“Someone just used your password to try to sign into your Google account,” the March 22 email said * (* scrubbed or otherwise inaccessible), adding that the sign-in attempt had occurred in Ukraine. “Google stopped this sign-in attempt. You should change your password immediately.”
Mr. Rinehart was in Hawaii at the time. He remembers checking his email at 4 a.m. for messages from East Coast associates. Without thinking much about the notification, he clicked on the “change password” button and half asleep, as best he can remember, he typed in a new password. What he did not know until months later is that he had just given the Russian hackers access to his email account.
Hundreds of similar phishing emails were being sent to American political targets, including an identical email sent on March 19 to Mr. Podesta, chairman of the Clinton campaign. Given how many emails Mr. Podesta received through this personal email account, several aides also had access to it, and one of them noticed the warning email, sending it to a computer technician to make sure it was legitimate before anyone clicked on the “change password” button.
“This is a legitimate email,” Charles Delavan, a Clinton campaign aide, replied * https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/34899 to another of Mr. Podesta’s aides, who had noticed the alert. “John needs to change his password immediately.”
With another click, a decade of emails that Mr. Podesta maintained in his Gmail account — a total of about 60,000 — were unlocked for the Russian hackers.

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

Mr. Delavan, in an interview, said that his bad advice was a result of a typo: He knew this was a phishing attack, as the campaign was getting dozens of them. He said he had meant to type that it was an “illegitimate” email, an error that he said has plagued him ever since.
During this second wave, the hackers also gained access to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and then, through a virtual private network connection, to the main computer network of the DNC.

I sure hope Hillary did better with her private server.
Quote:


The FBI observed this surge of activity as well, again reaching out to Mr. Tamene to warn him. Yet Mr. Tamene still saw no reason to be alarmed: He found copies of the phishing emails in the DNC’s spam filter. But he had no reason, he said, to believe that the computer systems had been infiltrated.
One bit of progress had finally been made by the middle of April: The DNC, seven months after it had first been warned, finally installed a “robust set of monitoring tools,” Mr. Tamene’s internal memo says.
The United States had two decades of warning that Russia’s intelligence agencies were trying to break into America’s most sensitive computer networks. But the Russians have always managed to stay a step ahead.
Their first major attack was detected on Oct. 7, 1996, when a computer operator at the Colorado School of Mines discovered some nighttime computer activity he could not explain. The school had a major contract with the Navy, and the operator warned his contacts there. But as happened two decades later at the DNC, at first “everyone was unable to connect the dots,” said Thomas Rid * http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/warstudies/people/professors/rid
.aspx
, a scholar at King’s College in London who has studied the attack.
Investigators gave it a name — Moonlight Maze * https://medium.com/@chris_doman/the-first-sophistiated-cyber-attacks-how-operation-moonlight-maze-made-history-2adb12cc43f7#.lzxoflofx — and spent two years, often working day and night, tracing how it hopped from the Navy to the Department of Energy to the Air Force and NASA. In the end, they concluded that the total number of files stolen, if printed and stacked, would be taller than the Washington Monument.
Whole weapons designs were flowing out the door, and it was a first taste of what was to come: an escalating campaign of cyberattacks around the world.
But for years, the Russians stayed largely out of the headlines, thanks to the Chinese — who took bigger risks, and often got caught. They stole the designs for the F-35 fighter jet, corporate secrets for rolling steel, even the blueprints for gas pipelines that supply much of the United States. And during the 2008 presidential election cycle, Chinese intelligence hacked into the campaigns of Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain, making off with internal position papers and communications. But they didn’t publish any of it.
The Russians had not gone away, of course. “They were just a lot more stealthy,” said Kevin Mandia * https://www.fireeye.com/company/leadership.html , a former Air Force intelligence officer who spent most of his days fighting off Russian cyberattacks before founding Mandiant, a cybersecurity firm that is now a division of FireEye — and the company the Clinton campaign brought in to secure its own systems.

BEFORE they were hacked? Because that's not a an endorsement of expertise.
Quote:


The Russians were also quicker to turn their attacks to political purposes. A 2007 cyberattack on Estonia, a former Soviet republic that had joined NATO, sent a message that Russia could paralyze the country without invading it.

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

The next year cyberattacks were used during Russia’s war with Georgia.
But American officials did not imagine that the Russians would dare try those techniques inside the United States. They were largely focused on preventing what former Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta warned was an approaching “cyber Pearl Harbor” — a shutdown of the power grid or cellphone networks.
But in 2014 and 2015, a Russian hacking group

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

began systematically targeting the State Department, the White House and the Joint Chiefs of Staff
claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

. “Each time, they eventually met with some form of success,” Michael Sulmeyer, a former cyberexpert for the secretary of defense, and Ben Buchanan, now both of the Harvard Cyber Security Project * http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/project/69/cyber_security_project.
html
, wrote recently in a soon-to-be published paper for the Carnegie Endowment.
The Russians grew stealthier and stealthier

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

, tricking government computers into sending out data while disguising the electronic “command and control” messages that set off alarms for anyone looking for malicious actions. The State Department was so crippled that it repeatedly closed its systems
claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

to throw out the intruders. At one point, officials traveling to Vienna with Secretary of State John Kerry for the Iran nuclear negotiations had to set up commercial Gmail accounts
claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

just to communicate with one another and with reporters traveling with them.
Mr. Obama was briefed regularly on all this, but he made a decision that many in the White House now regret: He did not name Russians publicly, or issue sanctions. There was always a reason: fear of escalating a cyberwar, and concern that the United States needed Russia’s cooperation in negotiations over Syria.
“We’d have all these circular meetings,” one senior State Department official said, “in which everyone agreed you had to push back at the Russians and push back hard. But it didn’t happen.”
So the Russians escalated again — breaking into systems not just for espionage

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

, but to publish or broadcast what they found, known as “doxing” in the cyberworld.
It was a brazen change in tactics, moving the Russians

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

from espionage to influence operations. In February 2014, they broadcast an intercepted phone call
claims made with no evidence provided, their link didn't make any claims Russia was responsible
Quote:

* https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/08/world/europe/ukraine.html?_r=0 between Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state who handles Russian affairs and has a contentious relationship with Mr. Putin, and Geoffrey Pyatt, the United States ambassador to Ukraine. Ms. Nuland was heard describing a little-known American effort to broker a deal in Ukraine, then in political turmoil.
They were not the only ones on whom the Russians used the steal-and-leak strategyhttps:// www.nytimes.com/2014/02/08/world/europe/ukraine.html?_r=0. The Open Society Foundation, run by George Soros, was a major target, and when its documents were released * http://soros.dcleaks.com/ , some turned out to have been altered to make it appear as if the foundation was financing Russian opposition members.
Last year, the attacks became more aggressive. Russia hacked a major French television station, frying critical hardware. Around Christmas, it attacked part of the power grid in Ukraine, dropping a portion of the country into darkness, killing backup generators and taking control of generators. In retrospect, it was a warning shot.
The attacks “were not fully integrated military operations,” Mr. Sulmeyer said. But they showed an increasing boldness.
Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear
The day before the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner in April, Ms. Dacey, the DNC’s chief executive, was preparing for a night of parties when she got an urgent phone call.
With the new monitoring system in place, Mr. Tamene had examined administrative logs of the DNC’s computer system and found something very suspicious: An unauthorized person, with administrator-level security status, had gained access to the DNC’s computers.
“Not sure it is related to what the FBI has been noticing,” said one internal DNC email sent on April 29. “The DNC may have been hacked in a serious way this week, with password theft, etc.”
No one knew just how bad the breach was — but it was clear that a lot more than a single filing cabinet worth of materials might have been taken. A secret committee was immediately created, including Ms. Dacey, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Brown and Michael Sussmann * https://www.perkinscoie.com/en/professionals/michael-sussmann.html , a former cybercrimes prosecutor at the Department of Justice who now works at Perkins Coie, the Washington law firm that handles DNC political matters.
“Three most important questions,” Mr. Sussmann wrote to his clients the night the break-in was confirmed. “1) What data was accessed? 2) How was it done? 3) How do we stop it?”
Mr. Sussmann instructed his clients not to use DNC email because they had just one opportunity to lock the hackers out — an effort that could be foiled if the hackers knew that the DNC was on to them.
“You only get one chance to raise the drawbridge,” Mr. Sussmann said. “If the adversaries know you are aware of their presence, they will take steps to burrow in, or erase the logs that show they were present.”
Michael Sussmann, a Washington lawyer and former cybercrime prosecutor at the Justice Department, received an email in late April confirming that the DNC’s computer system had been compromised.
The DNC immediately hired CrowdStrike * https://www.crowdstrike.com/ , a cybersecurity firm, to scan its computers, identify the intruders and build a new computer and telephone system from scratch. Within a day, CrowdStrike confirmed that the intrusion had originated in Russia

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

, Mr. Sussmann said.
The work that such companies do is a computer version of old-fashioned crime scene investigation, with fingerprints, bullet casings and DNA swabs replaced by an electronic trail that can be just as incriminating. And just as police detectives learn to identify the telltale methods of a veteran burglar, so CrowdStrike investigators recognized the distinctive handiwork of Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear.

At the same time the FBI said it couldn't determine attribution.
Quote:


Those are CrowdStrike’s nicknames for the two Russian hacking groups

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

that the firm found at work inside the DNC network. Cozy Bear — the group also known as the Dukes or A.P.T. 29, for “advanced persistent threat” — may or may not be associated with the F.S.B., the main successor to the Soviet-era K.G.B., but it is widely believed
claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

to be a Russian government operation. It made its first appearance in 2014, said Dmitri Alperovitch, CrowdStrike’s co-founder and chief technology officer.
It was Cozy Bear, CrowdStrike concluded, that first penetrated the DNC in the summer of 2015, by sending spear-phishing emails to a long list of American government agencies, Washington nonprofits and government contractors. Whenever someone clicked on a phishing message, the Russians would enter the network, “exfiltrate” documents of interest and stockpile them for intelligence purposes

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

.
“Once they got into the DNC

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

, they found the data valuable and decided to continue the operation,” said Mr. Alperovitch, who was born in Russia and moved to the United States as a teenager.
Only in March 2016 did Fancy Bear show up — first penetrating the computers of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and then jumping to the DNC, investigators believe

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

. Fancy Bear, sometimes called A.P.T. 28 and believed to be directed by the G.R.U., Russia’s military intelligence agency
claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

, is an older outfit, tracked by Western investigators for nearly a decade. It was Fancy Bear that got hold of Mr. Podesta’s email.
Attribution, as the skill of identifying a cyberattacker is known, is more art than science. It is often impossible to name an attacker with absolute certainty. But over time, by accumulating a reference library of hacking techniques and targets, it is possible to spot repeat offenders. Fancy Bear, for instance, has gone after military and political targets in Ukraine and Georgia, and at NATO installations.
That largely rules out cybercriminals and most countries, Mr. Alperovitch said. “There’s no plausible actor that has an interest in all those victims other than Russia

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

,” he said. Another clue: The Russian hacking groups tended to be active during working hours in the Moscow time zone
or New Jersey
Quote:

.
To their astonishment, Mr. Alperovitch said, CrowdStrike experts found signs that the two Russian hacking groups had not coordinated their attacks. Fancy Bear, apparently not knowing that Cozy Bear had been rummaging in DNC files for months, took many of the same documents.
In the six weeks after CrowdStrike’s arrival, in total secrecy, the computer system at the DNC was replaced. For a weekend, email and phones were shut off; employees were told it was a system upgrade. All laptops were turned in and the hard drives wiped clean, with the uninfected information on them imaged to new drives.
Though DNC officials had learned that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had been infected, too, they did not notify their sister organization, which was in the same building, because they were afraid that it would leak.
All of this work took place as the bitter contest for the Democratic nomination continued to play out between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders, and it was already causing a major distraction for Ms. Wasserman Schultz and the DNC’s chief executive.

Deservedly so,
Quote:


“This was not a bump in the road — bumps in the road happen all the time,” she said in an interview. “Two different Russian spy agencies

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

had hacked into our network
claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

and stolen our property. And we did not yet know what they had taken. But we knew they had very broad access to our network. There was a tremendous amount of uncertainty. And it was chilling.”
The DNC executives and their lawyer had their first formal meeting with senior FBI officials in mid-June, nine months after the bureau’s first call to the tech-support contractor. Among the early requests at that meeting, according to participants: that the federal government make a quick “attribution” formally blaming actors with ties to Russian government for the attack to make clear that it was not routine hacking but foreign espionage.
“You have a presidential election underway here and you know that the Russians have hacked into the DNC

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

,” Mr. Sussmann said, recalling the message to the FBI “We need to tell the American public that. And soon.”
In mid-June, on Mr. Sussmann’s advice, DNC leaders decided to take a bold step. Concerned that word of the hacking might leak, they decided to go public in The Washington Post with the news * https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-governm
ent-hackers-penetrated-dnc-stole-opposition-research-on-trump/2016/06/14/cf006cb4-316e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html?utm_term=.8a1048383d67

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

that the committee had been attacked. That way, they figured, they could get ahead of the story, win a little sympathy from voters for being victimized by Russian hackers and refocus on the campaign.
But the very next day, a new, deeply unsettling shock awaited them. Someone calling himself Guccifer 2.0 appeared* https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2016/06/15/dnc/ on the web, claiming to be the DNC hacker — and he posted a confidential committee document detailing Mr. Trump’s record and half a dozen other documents to prove his bona fides.
“And it’s just a tiny part of all docs I downloaded from the Democrats networks,” he wrote. Then something more ominous: “The main part of the papers, thousands of files and mails, I gave to WikiLeaks. They will publish them soon.”
It was bad enough that Russian hackers had been spying

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

inside the committee’s network for months. Now the public release of documents had turned a conventional espionage operation into something far more menacing: political sabotage, an unpredictable, uncontrollable menace for Democratic campaigns.
Guccifer 2.0 borrowed the moniker of an earlier hacker, a Romanian who called himself Guccifer and was jailed for breaking into the personal computers of former President George W. Bush, former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and other notables. This new attacker seemed intent on showing that the DNC’s cyberexperts at CrowdStrike were wrong to blame Russia. Guccifer 2.0 called himself a “lone hacker” and mocked CrowdStrike for calling the attackers “sophisticated.”
But online investigators quickly undercut his story. On a whim, Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai, a writer for Motherboard, the tech and culture site of Vice, tried to contact Guccifer 2.0 by direct message on Twitter.
“Surprisingly, he answered right away,” Mr. Franceschi-Bicchierai said. But whoever was on the other end seemed to be mocking him. “I asked him why he did it, and he said he wanted to expose the Illuminati. He called himself a Gucci lover. And he said he was Romanian.”
That gave Mr. Franceschi-Bicchierai an idea. Using Google Translate, he sent the purported hacker some questions in Romanian. The answers came back in Romanian. But when he was offline, Mr. Franceschi-Bicchierai checked with a couple of native speakers, who told him Guccifer 2.0 had apparently been using Google Translate as well — and was clearly not the Romanian he claimed to be.
Cyberresearchers found other clues pointing to Russia. Microsoft Word documents posted by Guccifer 2.0 had been edited by someone calling himself, in Russian, Felix Edmundovich — an obvious nom de guerre honoring the founder of the Soviet secret police, Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky *

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Felix_Dzerzhinsky Bad links in the texts were marked by warnings in Russian, generated by what was clearly a Russian-language version of Word.
When Mr. Franceschi-Bicchierai managed to engage Guccifer 2.0 over a period of weeks, he found that his interlocutor’s tone and manner changed. “At first he was careless and colloquial. Weeks later, he was curt and more calculating,” he said. “It seemed like a group of people, and a very sloppy attempt to cover up.”

There are too many ways to spoof software, servers, ips to use the, yo determine ... anything.
Quote:


Computer experts drew the same conclusion about DCLeaks.com * http://dcleaks.com/ , a site that sprang up in June, claiming to be the work of “hacktivists” but posting more stolen documents. It, too, seemed to be a clumsy front for the same Russians who had stolen the documents. Notably, the website was registered in April, suggesting that the Russian hacking team planned well in advance to make public what it stole.
In addition to what Guccifer 2.0 published on his site, he provided material directly on request to some bloggers * and publications *. The steady flow of Guccifer 2.0 documents constantly undercut Democratic messaging efforts. On July 6, 12 days before the Republican National Convention began in Cleveland, Guccifer released the DNC’s battle plan and budget for countering it. For Republican operatives, it was insider gold.
Then WikiLeaks, a far more established outlet, began to publish the hacked material — just as Guccifer 2.0 had promised. On July 22, three days before the start of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, WikiLeaks dumped out 44,053 DNC emails with 17,761 attachments * . https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/ Some of the messages made clear that some DNC officials favored Mrs. Clinton over her progressive challenger, Mr. Sanders.
That was no shock; Mr. Sanders, after all, had been an independent socialist, not a Democrat, during his long career in Congress, while Mrs. Clinton had been one of the party’s stars for decades. But the emails, some of them crude or insulting, infuriated Sanders delegates as they arrived in Philadelphia. Ms. Wasserman Schultz resigned under pressure on the eve of the convention where she had planned to preside.
Mr. Trump, by now the Republican nominee, expressed delight at the continuing jolts to his opponent, and he began to use Twitter and his stump speeches to highlight the WikiLeaks releases. On July 25, he sent out a lighthearted tweet: “The new joke in town,” he wrote, “is that Russia leaked the disastrous DNC e-mails, which should never have been written (stupid), because Putin likes me.”
But WikiLeaks was far from finished. On Oct. 7, a month before the election, the site began the serial publication of thousands of private emails to and from Mr. Podesta * https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/ , Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager.
The same day, the United States formally accused the Russian government of being behind the hackings, in a joint statement * https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homelan
d-security-and-office-director-national
by the director of national intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security, and Mr. Trump suffered his worst blow to date, with the release of a recording in which he bragged about sexually assaulting women.
The Podesta emails were nowhere near as sensational as the Trump video. But, released by WikiLeaks day after day over the last month of the campaign, they provided material for countless news reports. They disclosed the contents of Mrs. Clinton’s speeches to large banks, which she had refused to release. They exposed tensions inside the campaign, including disagreements over donations to the Clinton Foundation that staff members thought might look bad for the candidate and Ms. Tanden’s complaint that Mrs. Clinton’s instincts were “suboptimal.”

If you keep your underwear clean, you won't end up mortified if someone sees it.
Quote:


“I was just mortified,” Ms. Tanden said in an interview. Her emails were released on the eve of one of the presidential debates, she recalled. “I put my hands over my head and said, ‘I can’t believe this is happening to me.’” Though she had regularly appeared on television to support Mrs. Clinton, she canceled her appearances because all the questions were about what she had said in the emails.
Ms. Tanden, like other Democrats whose messages became public, said it was obvious to her that WikiLeaks was trying its best to damage the Clinton campaign. “If you care about transparency, you put all the emails out at once,” she said. “But they wanted to hurt her. So they put them out 1,800 to 3,000 a day.”
The Trump campaign knew in advance about WikiLeaks’ plans. Days before the Podesta email release began, Roger Stone, a Republican operative working with the Trump campaign, sent out an excited tweet about what was coming.
But in an interview, Mr. Stone said he had no role in the leaks; he had just heard from an American with ties to WikiLeaks that damning emails were coming.
Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder and editor, has resisted the conclusion that his site became a pass-through for Russian hackers working for Mr. Putin’s government or that he was deliberately trying to undermine Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy. But the evidence on both counts appears compelling

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

.
In a series of email exchanges, Mr. Assange refused to say anything about WikiLeaks’ source for the hacked material. He denied that he had made his animus toward Mrs. Clinton clear in public statements (“False. But what is this? Junior high?”) or that the site had timed the releases for maximum negative effect on her campaign. “WikiLeaks makes its decisions based on newsworthiness, including for its recent epic scoops,” he wrote.
Mr. Assange disputed the conclusion of the Oct. 7 statement from the intelligence agencies that the leaks were “intended to interfere with the US. election process.”
“This is false,” he wrote. “As the disclosing party we know that this was not the intent. Publishers publishing newsworthy information during an election is part of a free election.”
But asked whether he believed the leaks were one reason for Mr. Trump’s election, Mr. Assange seemed happy to take credit. “Americans extensively engaged with our publications,” he wrote. “According to Facebook statistics WikiLeaks was the most referenced political topic during October.”
Though Mr. Assange did not say so, WikiLeaks’ best defense may be the conduct of the mainstream American media. Every major publication, including The Times, published multiple stories citing the DNC and Podesta emails posted by WikiLeaks, becoming a de facto instrument of Russian intelligence

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

.
Mr. Putin, a student of martial arts, had turned two institutions at the core of American democracy — political campaigns and independent media — to his own ends. The media’s appetite for the hacked material, and its focus on the gossipy content instead of the Russian source

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

, disturbed some of those whose personal emails were being reposted across the web.
“What was really surprising to me?” Ms. Tanden said. “I could not believe that reporters were covering it.”
Inside the White House, as Mr. Obama’s advisers debated their response, their conversation turned to North Korea.
In late 2014, hackers working for Kim Jong-un, the North’s young and unpredictable leader, had carried out a well-planned attack on Sony Pictures Entertainment intended to stop the Christmastime release of a comedy about a CIA plot to kill Mr. Kim.
In that case, embarrassing emails had also been released. But the real damage was done to Sony’s own systems: More than 70 percent of its computers melted down when a particularly virulent form of malware was released. Within weeks, intelligence agencies traced the attack back to the North and its leadership. Mr. Obama called North Korea out in public, and issued some not-very-effective sanctions. The Chinese even cooperated, briefly cutting off the North’s internet connections.
As the first Situation Room meetings on the Russian hacking began in July, “it was clear that Russia was going to be a much more complicated case,” said one participant. The Russians clearly had a more sophisticated understanding of American politics, and they were masters of “kompromat *,” their term for compromising information.
But a formal “attribution report” still had not been forwarded to the president.
“It took forever,” one senior administration official said, complaining about the pace at which the intelligence assessments moved through the system.
In August a group that called itself the “Shadow Brokers” * published a set of software tools that looked like what the NSA uses to break into foreign computer networks and install “implants,” malware that can be used for surveillance or attack. The code came from the Tailored Access Operations unit of the NSA, a secretive group that mastered the arts of surveillance and cyberwar.
The assumption — still unproved — was that the code was put out in the open by the Russians as a warning: Retaliate for the DNC, and there are a lot more secrets, from the hackings of the State Department, the White House and the Pentagon, that might be spilled as well. One senior official compared it to the scene in “The Godfather” where the head of a favorite horse is left in a bed, as a warning.
The NSA said nothing. But by late August, Admiral Rogers, its director, was pressing for a more muscular response to the Russians. In his role as director of the Pentagon’s Cyber Command, he proposed a series of potential counter-cyberstrikes.
Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency and commander of United States Cyber Command, pressed for a more muscular response to the Russians. Credit Jim Wilson/The New York Times
While officials will not discuss them in detail, the possible counterstrikes reportedly included operations that would turn the tables on Mr. Putin, exposing his financial links to Russia’s oligarchs, and punching holes in the Russian internet to allow dissidents to get their message out. Pentagon officials judged the measures too unsubtle and ordered up their own set of options.
But in the end, none of those were formally presented to the president.
In a series of “deputies meetings” run by Avril Haines, * the deputy national security adviser and a former deputy director of the CIA, several officials warned that an overreaction by the administration would play into Mr. Putin’s hands.
“If we went to Defcon 4,” one frequent participant in Ms. Haines’s meetings said, using a phrase from the Cold War days of warnings of war, “we would be saying to the public that we didn’t have confidence in the integrity of our voting system.”

But oddly enough, aside from exposing weaknesses and compromising information that the democrats BROUGHT ON THEMSELVES the hacks DIDN'T 'DO' ANYTHING.
Quote:


Even something seemingly straightforward — using the president’s executive powers, bolstered after the Sony incident, to place economic and travel sanctions on cyberattackers — seemed too risky.
“No one was all that eager to impose costs before Election Day,” said another participant in the classified meeting. “Any retaliatory measures were seen through the prism of what would happen on Election Day.”
Instead, when Mr. Obama’s national security team reconvened after summer vacation, the focus turned to a crash effort to secure the nation’s voting machines and voter-registration rolls from hacking. The scenario they discussed most frequently — one that turned out not to be an issue — was a narrow vote in favor of Mrs. Clinton, followed by a declaration by Mr. Trump that the vote was “rigged” and more leaks intended to undercut her legitimacy.
Donna Brazile, the interim chairwoman of the DNC, became increasingly frustrated as the clock continued to run down on the presidential election — and still there was no broad public condemnation by the White House, or Republican Party leaders, of the attack as an act of foreign espionage.
Ms. Brazile even reached out to Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, urging him twice in private conversations and in a letter * to join her in condemning the attacks — an offer he declined to take up.
“We just kept hearing the government would respond, the government would respond,” she said. “Once upon a time, if a foreign government interfered with our election we would respond as a nation, not as a political party.”
But Mr. Obama did decide that he would deliver a warning to Mr. Putin in person at a Group of 20 summit meeting in Hangzhou, China, the last time they would be in the same place while Mr. Obama was still in office. When the two men met for a tense pull-aside, Mr. Obama explicitly warned Mr. Putin of a strong American response if there was continued effort to influence the election or manipulate the vote, according to White House officials who were not present for the one-on-one meeting.
Later that day, Mr. Obama made a rare reference to America’s own offensive cybercapacity, which he has almost never talked about. “Frankly, both offensively and defensively, we have more capacity,” he told reporters.
But when it came time to make a public assertion of Russia’s role in early October, it was made in a written statement from the director of national intelligence and the secretary of homeland security. It was far less dramatic than the president’s appearance in the press room two years before to directly accuse the North Koreans of attacking Sony.
The reference in the statement to hackings on “political organizations,” officials now say, encompassed a hacking on data stored by the Republicans as well. Two senior officials say the forensic evidence was accompanied by “human and technical” sources in Russia

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

, which appears to mean that the United States’ implants or taps in Russian computer and phone networks helped confirm the country’s role.
But that may not be known for decades, until the secrets are declassified.
A week later Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. was sent out to transmit a public warning to Mr. Putin: The United States will retaliate “at the time of our choosing. And under the circumstances that have the greatest impact.”
Later, after Mr. Biden said he was not concerned that Russia could “fundamentally alter the election,” he was asked whether the American public would know if the message to Mr. Putin had been sent.
“Hope not,” Mr. Biden responded.
Some of his former colleagues think that was the wrong answer. An American counterstrike, said Michael Morell, the former deputy director of the CIA under Mr. Obama, has “got to be overt. It needs to be seen.”
A covert response would significantly limit the deterrence effect, he added. “If you can’t see it, it’s not going to deter the Chinese and North Koreans and Iranians and others.”
The Obama administration says it still has more than 30 days to do exactly that.
The Next Target
As the year draws to a close, it now seems possible that there will be multiple investigations of the Russian hacking — the intelligence review Mr. Obama has ordered completed by Jan. 20, the day he leaves office, and one or more congressional inquiries. They will wrestle with, among other things, Mr. Putin’s motive.
Did he seek to mar the brand of American democracy, to forestall anti-Russian activism for both Russians and their neighbors? Or to weaken the next American president, since presumably Mr. Putin had no reason to doubt American forecasts that Mrs. Clinton would win easily? Or was it, as the CIA concluded last month, a deliberate attempt to elect Mr. Trump?
In fact, the Russian hack-and-dox scheme accomplished all three goals.
What seems clear is that Russian hacking, given its success, is not going to stop. Two weeks ago, the German intelligence chief, Bruno Kahl, warned * that Russia might target elections in Germany next year. “The perpetrators have an interest to delegitimize the democratic process as such,” Mr. Kahl said. * Now, he added, “Europe is in the focus of these attempts of disturbance, and Germany to a particularly great extent.”
4262Comments
But Russia has by no means forgotten its American target. On the day after the presidential election, the cybersecurity company Volexity reported five new waves of phishing emails, evidently from Cozy Bear, aimed at think tanks and nonprofits in the United States.
One of them purported to be from Harvard University, attaching a fake paper. Its title: “Why American Elections Are Flawed.”
Correction: December 13, 2016
Editors’ Note: An earlier version of the main photograph with this article, of a filing cabinet and computer at the Democratic National Committee headquarters, should not have been published. The photographer had removed a framed image from the wall over the filing cabinet — showing a Washington Post Watergate front page — because it was causing glare with the lighting. The new version shows the scene as it normally appears, with the framed newspaper page in place.





How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 15, 2016 7:33 AM

G

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Quote:

"Hillary is going to start WWIII? HIllary is near death?"
Those are QUITE OBVIOUSLY OPINIONS, not presented as, or meant to be taken as, fact.




How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?



Bullshit. "Hillary's near death" was trotted out as FACT with all sorts of links to "Drs." for the appearance of extra truthiness and validity.
And you and Bozo the Clone saying she would start WWIII is the absolute perfect example of what she said about "whipping up fear." FACT. That's exactly what the purpose of that was - didn't you read the email it was shipped to you in? Or maybe your just too slow.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 15, 2016 7:34 AM

G

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Now THIS, otoh, is a recent and very elaboration form of fake news. NONE of the vital claims made are linked to any source or evidence, while many completely trivial items (company home web-pages for example) are.
Quote:


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc
.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0


The Perfect Weapon: How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the US.

Yep, it was Russian, it was cyberpower, and it invaded the US. It must be true because the paper says so.
Quote:


By ERIC LIPTON, DAVID E. SANGER and SCOTT SHANEDEC. 13, 2016

WASHINGTON — When Special Agent Adrian Hawkins of the Federal Bureau of Investigation called the Democratic National Committee in September 2015 to pass along some troubling news about its computer network, he was transferred, naturally, to the help desk.
His message was brief, if alarming. At least one computer system belonging to the DNC had been compromised by hackers federal investigators had named “the Dukes,”* https://labsblog.f-secure.com/2015/09/17/the-dukes-7-years-of-russian-
cyber-espionage
/ a cyberespionage team linked to the Russian government.
The FBI knew it well: The bureau had spent the last few years trying to kick the Dukes out of the unclassified email systems of the White House, the State Department and even the Joint Chiefs of Staff, one of the government’s best-protected networks.
Yared Tamene, the tech-support contractor at the DNC who fielded the call, was no expert in cyberattacks. His first moves were to check Google for “the Dukes” and conduct a cursory search of the DNC computer system logs to look for hints of such a cyberintrusion. By his own account, he did not look too hard even after Special Agent Hawkins called back repeatedly over the next several weeks — in part because he wasn’t certain the caller was a real FBI agent and not an impostor.
“I had no way of differentiating the call I just received from a prank call,” Mr. Tamene wrote in an internal memo, obtained by The New York Times, that detailed his contact with the FBI.

This is just mind-boggling. Tamene could have asked for directions on how to call in to the FBI using a number he knew to be valid - a govt directory search for example, on how to work his way over to Hawkins from there.
Quote:


It was the cryptic first sign of a cyberespionage and information-warfare campaign devised to disrupt the 2016 presidential election,

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

the first such attempt by a foreign power in American history. What started as an information-gathering operation, intelligence officials believe, ultimately morphed into an effort to harm one candidate, Hillary Clinton, and tip the election to her opponent, Donald J. Trump.
Like another famous American election scandal, it started with a break-in at the DNC The first time, 44 years ago at the committee’s old offices in the Watergate complex, the burglars planted listening devices and jimmied a filing cabinet. This time, the burglary was conducted from afar, directed by the Kremlin, with spear-phishing emails and zeros and ones.

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:


What is phishing?
Phishing uses an innocent-looking email to entice unwary recipients to click on a deceptive link, giving hackers access to their information or a network. In “spear-phishing,” the email is tailored to fool a specific person.
An examination by The Times of the Russian operation

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

— based on interviews with dozens of players targeted in the attack, intelligence officials who investigated it and Obama administration officials who deliberated over the best response — reveals a series of missed signals, slow responses and a continuing underestimation of the seriousness of the cyberattack.
The DNC’s fumbling encounter

thanks to disinterest, lack of effort, and lack of basic skills
Quote:

with the FBI meant the best chance to halt the Russian intrusion was lost. The failure to grasp the scope of the attacks undercut efforts to minimize their impact. And the White House’s reluctance to respond forcefully meant the Russians have not paid a heavy price for their actions,
claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

a decision that could prove critical in deterring future cyberattacks.
claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:


The low-key approach of the FBI meant that Russian hackers could roam freely through the committee’s network for nearly seven months before top DNC officials were alerted to the attack and hired cyberexperts to protect their systems.

Isn't that like locking the barn door AFTER the horses are stolen? And, uh - why not do it before?
Quote:

In the meantime, the hackers moved on to targets outside the DNC, including Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, John D. Podesta, whose private email account was hacked months later.
claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:


Even Mr. Podesta, a savvy Washington insider who had written a 2014 report on cyberprivacy for President Obama * https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/big_data_privacy_r
eport_may_1_2014.pdf
, did not truly understand the gravity of the hacking. Charles Delavan, a Clinton campaign aide, incorrectly legitimized a phishing email sent to the personal account of John D. Podesta, the campaign chairman.
By last summer, Democrats watched in helpless fury as their private emails and confidential documents appeared online day after day — procured by Russian intelligence agents

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

, posted on WikiLeaks and other websites, then eagerly reported on by the American media, including The Times. Mr. Trump gleefully cited many of the purloined emails on the campaign trail.
The fallout included the resignations of Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida * http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/us/politics/debbie-wasserman-schultz
-dnc-wikileaks-emails.html?_r=0
, the chairwoman of the DNC, and most of her top party aides. Leading Democrats were sidelined at the height of the campaign, silenced by revelations of embarrassing emails or consumed by the scramble to deal with the hacking. Though little-noticed by the public, confidential documents taken by the Russian hackers

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

from the DNC’s sister organization * https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2016/08/15/dccc-internal-docs-on-prima
ries-in-florida
/ , the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, turned up in congressional races in a dozen states, tainting some of them with accusations of scandal * . http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/house-democrats-hacking-
dccc.html?_r=0

In recent days, a skeptical president-elect, the nation’s intelligence agencies and the two major parties have become embroiled in an extraordinary public dispute over what evidence exists that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia moved beyond mere espionage to deliberately try to subvert American democracy and pick the winner of the presidential election.
Many of Mrs. Clinton’s closest aides believe that the Russian assault had a profound impact on the election

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

, while conceding that other factors — Mrs. Clinton’s weaknesses as a candidate; her private email server; the public statements of the FBI director, James B. Comey, about her handling of classified information — were also important.
While there’s no way to be certain of the ultimate impact of the hack, this much is clear

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

: A low-cost, high-impact weapon that Russia had test-fired in elections from Ukraine to Europe was trained on the United States, with devastating effectiveness.


For Russia, with an enfeebled economy

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

and a nuclear arsenal it cannot use short of all-out war, cyberpower proved the perfect weapon: cheap, hard to see coming, hard to trace.
“There shouldn’t be any doubt in anybody’s mind,” Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency and commander of United States Cyber Command, said at a postelection conference. “This was not something that was done casually, this was not something that was done by chance, this was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily,” he said. “This was a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect.”

I spent some time tracking this item down, because this is a pivotal claim, made without links or evidence. What was the entire context of this statement?

Looking for other instances of that quote, one of the first sources I got was Business Insider. http://www.businessinsider.com/nsa-chief-nation-state-swayed-president
-election-2016-11
Rogers did not specify the nation-state or the specific effect, though US intelligence officials say they suspect Russia provided * the emails to WikiLeaks after hackers stole them from DNC servers and the personal email account of Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta. So, the NYTimes points the finger at Russia and takes an out of context quote from Rogers to mislead people into thinking he was talking about Russia - WHEN HE WAS NOT.

In the Business Insider statement "though US intelligence officials say they suspect Russia provided * the emails to WikiLeaks" "suspect Russia provided" * was actively linked to another article at CNN, presumably to buttress the idea that "US intelligence officials say". http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/13/politics/russia-us-election/ The methods of the disclosures "suggest Moscow is at least providing the information or is possibly directly responsible for the leaks," one US official said.

But in fact it was only ONE anonymous official of unknown capacity who said anything about Russia.

High school gossip is more factually reliable than this.

And IN THE END, THE NYTIMES IMPLICATION THAT THE DIRECTOR OF THE NSA SAID THAT THEY SUSPECT RUSSIA OF THE HACK IS REFUTED IN TWO LINKS.
Quote:




For the people whose emails were stolen, this new form of political sabotage has left a trail of shock and professional damage. Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress and a key Clinton supporter, recalls walking into the busy Clinton transition offices, humiliated to see her face on television screens as pundits discussed a leaked email in which she had called Mrs. Clinton’s instincts “suboptimal.” http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/18/politics/clinton-staffers-frustrated-hil
lary-clinton-bill-clinton-chelsea-clinton
/
“It was just a sucker punch to the gut every day,” Ms. Tanden said. “It was the worst professional experience of my life.”
The United States, too, has carried out cyberattacks, and in decades past the CIA. tried to subvert foreign elections. But the Russian attack is increasingly understood across the political spectrum as an ominous historic landmark

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

— with one notable exception: Mr. Trump has rejected the findings of the intelligence agencies he will soon oversee as “ridiculous,” insisting that the hacker may be American, or Chinese, but that “they have no idea.”
For all the evidence provided, it sure LOOKS like they truly have NO idea.
Quote:


Mr. Trump cited the reported disagreements between the agencies about whether Mr. Putin intended to help elect him. On Tuesday, a Russian government spokesman echoed Mr. Trump’s scorn.
“This tale of ‘hacks’ resembles a banal brawl between American security officials over spheres of influence,” Maria Zakharova, the spokeswoman for the Russian Foreign Ministry, wrote on Facebook.

It does.
Quote:


Over the weekend, four prominent senators — two Republicans and two Democrats — joined forces to pledge an investigation

That would be truly welcome.
Quote:

while pointedly ignoring Mr. Trump’s skeptical claims.
“Democrats and Republicans must work together, and across the jurisdictional lines of the Congress, to examine these recent incidents thoroughly and devise comprehensive solutions to deter and defend against further cyberattacks,” said Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Chuck Schumer and Jack Reed.
“This cannot become a partisan issue,” they said. “The stakes are too high for our country.”
A Target for Break-Ins
Sitting in the basement of the Democratic National Committee headquarters, below a wall-size 2012 portrait of a smiling Barack Obama, is a 1960s-era filing cabinet missing the handle on the bottom drawer. Only a framed newspaper story hanging on the wall hints at the importance of this aged piece of office furniture.
“GOP Security Aide Among 5 Arrested in Bugging Affair, *” reads the headline from the front page of The Washington Post on June 19, 1972, with the bylines of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.
Andrew Brown, 37, the technology director at the DNC, was born after that famous break-in. But as he began to plan for this year’s election cycle, he was well aware that the DNC could become a break-in target again.
There were aspirations to ensure that the DNC was well protected against cyberintruders — and then there was the reality, Mr. Brown and his bosses at the organization acknowledged: The DNC was a nonprofit group, dependent on donations, with a fraction of the security budget that a corporation its size would have. “There was never enough money to do everything we needed to do,” Mr. Brown said.
The DNC had a standard email spam-filtering service, intended to block phishing attacks and malware created to resemble legitimate email. But when Russian hackers started in on the DNC

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

, the committee did not have the most advanced systems in place to track suspicious traffic, internal DNC memos show.
Mr. Tamene, who reports to Mr. Brown and fielded the call from the FBI agent, was not a full-time DNC employee; he works for a Chicago-based contracting firm called The MIS Department * https://web.archive.org/web/20160507204851/http:/www.misdepartment.com
/staff
. He was left to figure out, largely on his own, how to respond — and even whether the man who had called in to the DNC switchboard was really an FBI agent.

Easy enough to do by asking for a directory trail starting at a legitimate number.
Quote:


“The FBI thinks the DNC has at least one compromised computer on its network and the FBI wanted to know if the DNC is aware, and if so, what the DNC is doing about it,” Mr. Tamene wrote in an internal memo about his contacts with the FBI He added that “the Special Agent told me to look for a specific type of malware dubbed ‘Dukes’ by the US. intelligence community and in cybersecurity circles.”
Part of the problem was that Special Agent Hawkins did not show up in person at the DNC Nor could he email anyone there, as that risked alerting the hackers that the FBI knew they were in the system.
Mr. Tamene’s initial scan of the DNC system — using his less-than-optimal tools and incomplete targeting information from the FBI — found nothing. So when Special Agent Hawkins called repeatedly in October, leaving voice mail messages for Mr. Tamene, urging him to call back, “I did not return his calls, as I had nothing to report,” Mr. Tamene explained in his memo.

yuh
Quote:


In November, Special Agent Hawkins called with more ominous news. A DNC computer was “calling home, where home meant Russia,” Mr. Tamene’s memo says, referring to software sending information to Moscow. “SA Hawkins added that the FBI thinks that this calling home behavior could be the result of a state-sponsored attack.”
Mr. Brown knew that Mr. Tamene, who declined to comment, was fielding calls from the FBI. But he was tied up on a different problem: evidence suggesting that the campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Mrs. Clinton’s main Democratic opponent, had improperly gained access to her campaign data.

Thought it turned out the DNC has clumsily left permissions open. http://washingtonmonthly.com/2015/12/19/an-explanation-of-what-bernie-
sanders-staffers-actually-did-and-why-it-matters
/
Quote:


Ms. Wasserman Schultz, then the DNC’s chairwoman, and Amy Dacey, then its chief executive, said in interviews that neither of them was notified about the early reports that the committee’s system had likely been compromised.
Shawn Henry, who once led the FBI’s cyber division and is now president of CrowdStrike Services, the cybersecurity firm retained by the DNC in April, said he was baffled that the FBI did not call a more senior official at the DNC or send an agent in person to the party headquarters to try to force a more vigorous response.
“We are not talking about an office that is in the middle of the woods of Montana,” Mr. Henry said. “We are talking about an office that is half a mile from the FBI office that is getting the notification.”
“This is not a mom-and-pop delicatessen or a local library. This is a critical piece of the US. infrastructure because it relates to our electoral process, our elected officials, our legislative process, our executive process,” he added. “To me it is a high-level, serious issue, and if after a couple of months you don’t see any results, somebody ought to raise that to a higher level.”
The FBI declined to comment on the agency’s handling of the hack. “The FBI takes very seriously any compromise of public and private sector systems,” it said in a statement, adding that agents “will continue to share information” to help targets “safeguard their systems against the actions of persistent cybercriminals.”
By March, Mr. Tamene and his team had met at least twice in person with the FBI and concluded that Agent Hawkins was really a federal employee. But then the situation took a dire turn.
A second team of Russian-affiliated hackers

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

began to target the DNC
claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

and other players
claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

in the political world, particularly Democrats. Billy Rinehart, a former DNC regional field director who was then working for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, got an odd email warning from Google.
“Someone just used your password to try to sign into your Google account,” the March 22 email said * (* scrubbed or otherwise inaccessible), adding that the sign-in attempt had occurred in Ukraine. “Google stopped this sign-in attempt. You should change your password immediately.”
Mr. Rinehart was in Hawaii at the time. He remembers checking his email at 4 a.m. for messages from East Coast associates. Without thinking much about the notification, he clicked on the “change password” button and half asleep, as best he can remember, he typed in a new password. What he did not know until months later is that he had just given the Russian hackers access to his email account.
Hundreds of similar phishing emails were being sent to American political targets, including an identical email sent on March 19 to Mr. Podesta, chairman of the Clinton campaign. Given how many emails Mr. Podesta received through this personal email account, several aides also had access to it, and one of them noticed the warning email, sending it to a computer technician to make sure it was legitimate before anyone clicked on the “change password” button.
“This is a legitimate email,” Charles Delavan, a Clinton campaign aide, replied * https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/34899 to another of Mr. Podesta’s aides, who had noticed the alert. “John needs to change his password immediately.”
With another click, a decade of emails that Mr. Podesta maintained in his Gmail account — a total of about 60,000 — were unlocked for the Russian hackers.

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

Mr. Delavan, in an interview, said that his bad advice was a result of a typo: He knew this was a phishing attack, as the campaign was getting dozens of them. He said he had meant to type that it was an “illegitimate” email, an error that he said has plagued him ever since.
During this second wave, the hackers also gained access to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and then, through a virtual private network connection, to the main computer network of the DNC.

I sure hope Hillary did better with her private server.
Quote:


The FBI observed this surge of activity as well, again reaching out to Mr. Tamene to warn him. Yet Mr. Tamene still saw no reason to be alarmed: He found copies of the phishing emails in the DNC’s spam filter. But he had no reason, he said, to believe that the computer systems had been infiltrated.
One bit of progress had finally been made by the middle of April: The DNC, seven months after it had first been warned, finally installed a “robust set of monitoring tools,” Mr. Tamene’s internal memo says.
The United States had two decades of warning that Russia’s intelligence agencies were trying to break into America’s most sensitive computer networks. But the Russians have always managed to stay a step ahead.
Their first major attack was detected on Oct. 7, 1996, when a computer operator at the Colorado School of Mines discovered some nighttime computer activity he could not explain. The school had a major contract with the Navy, and the operator warned his contacts there. But as happened two decades later at the DNC, at first “everyone was unable to connect the dots,” said Thomas Rid * http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/warstudies/people/professors/rid
.aspx
, a scholar at King’s College in London who has studied the attack.
Investigators gave it a name — Moonlight Maze * https://medium.com/@chris_doman/the-first-sophistiated-cyber-attacks-how-operation-moonlight-maze-made-history-2adb12cc43f7#.lzxoflofx — and spent two years, often working day and night, tracing how it hopped from the Navy to the Department of Energy to the Air Force and NASA. In the end, they concluded that the total number of files stolen, if printed and stacked, would be taller than the Washington Monument.
Whole weapons designs were flowing out the door, and it was a first taste of what was to come: an escalating campaign of cyberattacks around the world.
But for years, the Russians stayed largely out of the headlines, thanks to the Chinese — who took bigger risks, and often got caught. They stole the designs for the F-35 fighter jet, corporate secrets for rolling steel, even the blueprints for gas pipelines that supply much of the United States. And during the 2008 presidential election cycle, Chinese intelligence hacked into the campaigns of Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain, making off with internal position papers and communications. But they didn’t publish any of it.
The Russians had not gone away, of course. “They were just a lot more stealthy,” said Kevin Mandia * https://www.fireeye.com/company/leadership.html , a former Air Force intelligence officer who spent most of his days fighting off Russian cyberattacks before founding Mandiant, a cybersecurity firm that is now a division of FireEye — and the company the Clinton campaign brought in to secure its own systems.

BEFORE they were hacked? Because that's not a an endorsement of expertise.
Quote:


The Russians were also quicker to turn their attacks to political purposes. A 2007 cyberattack on Estonia, a former Soviet republic that had joined NATO, sent a message that Russia could paralyze the country without invading it.

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

The next year cyberattacks were used during Russia’s war with Georgia.
But American officials did not imagine that the Russians would dare try those techniques inside the United States. They were largely focused on preventing what former Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta warned was an approaching “cyber Pearl Harbor” — a shutdown of the power grid or cellphone networks.
But in 2014 and 2015, a Russian hacking group

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

began systematically targeting the State Department, the White House and the Joint Chiefs of Staff
claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

. “Each time, they eventually met with some form of success,” Michael Sulmeyer, a former cyberexpert for the secretary of defense, and Ben Buchanan, now both of the Harvard Cyber Security Project * http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/project/69/cyber_security_project.
html
, wrote recently in a soon-to-be published paper for the Carnegie Endowment.
The Russians grew stealthier and stealthier

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

, tricking government computers into sending out data while disguising the electronic “command and control” messages that set off alarms for anyone looking for malicious actions. The State Department was so crippled that it repeatedly closed its systems
claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

to throw out the intruders. At one point, officials traveling to Vienna with Secretary of State John Kerry for the Iran nuclear negotiations had to set up commercial Gmail accounts
claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

just to communicate with one another and with reporters traveling with them.
Mr. Obama was briefed regularly on all this, but he made a decision that many in the White House now regret: He did not name Russians publicly, or issue sanctions. There was always a reason: fear of escalating a cyberwar, and concern that the United States needed Russia’s cooperation in negotiations over Syria.
“We’d have all these circular meetings,” one senior State Department official said, “in which everyone agreed you had to push back at the Russians and push back hard. But it didn’t happen.”
So the Russians escalated again — breaking into systems not just for espionage

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

, but to publish or broadcast what they found, known as “doxing” in the cyberworld.
It was a brazen change in tactics, moving the Russians

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

from espionage to influence operations. In February 2014, they broadcast an intercepted phone call
claims made with no evidence provided, their link didn't make any claims Russia was responsible
Quote:

* https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/08/world/europe/ukraine.html?_r=0 between Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state who handles Russian affairs and has a contentious relationship with Mr. Putin, and Geoffrey Pyatt, the United States ambassador to Ukraine. Ms. Nuland was heard describing a little-known American effort to broker a deal in Ukraine, then in political turmoil.
They were not the only ones on whom the Russians used the steal-and-leak strategyhttps:// www.nytimes.com/2014/02/08/world/europe/ukraine.html?_r=0. The Open Society Foundation, run by George Soros, was a major target, and when its documents were released * http://soros.dcleaks.com/ , some turned out to have been altered to make it appear as if the foundation was financing Russian opposition members.
Last year, the attacks became more aggressive. Russia hacked a major French television station, frying critical hardware. Around Christmas, it attacked part of the power grid in Ukraine, dropping a portion of the country into darkness, killing backup generators and taking control of generators. In retrospect, it was a warning shot.
The attacks “were not fully integrated military operations,” Mr. Sulmeyer said. But they showed an increasing boldness.
Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear
The day before the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner in April, Ms. Dacey, the DNC’s chief executive, was preparing for a night of parties when she got an urgent phone call.
With the new monitoring system in place, Mr. Tamene had examined administrative logs of the DNC’s computer system and found something very suspicious: An unauthorized person, with administrator-level security status, had gained access to the DNC’s computers.
“Not sure it is related to what the FBI has been noticing,” said one internal DNC email sent on April 29. “The DNC may have been hacked in a serious way this week, with password theft, etc.”
No one knew just how bad the breach was — but it was clear that a lot more than a single filing cabinet worth of materials might have been taken. A secret committee was immediately created, including Ms. Dacey, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Brown and Michael Sussmann * https://www.perkinscoie.com/en/professionals/michael-sussmann.html , a former cybercrimes prosecutor at the Department of Justice who now works at Perkins Coie, the Washington law firm that handles DNC political matters.
“Three most important questions,” Mr. Sussmann wrote to his clients the night the break-in was confirmed. “1) What data was accessed? 2) How was it done? 3) How do we stop it?”
Mr. Sussmann instructed his clients not to use DNC email because they had just one opportunity to lock the hackers out — an effort that could be foiled if the hackers knew that the DNC was on to them.
“You only get one chance to raise the drawbridge,” Mr. Sussmann said. “If the adversaries know you are aware of their presence, they will take steps to burrow in, or erase the logs that show they were present.”
Michael Sussmann, a Washington lawyer and former cybercrime prosecutor at the Justice Department, received an email in late April confirming that the DNC’s computer system had been compromised.
The DNC immediately hired CrowdStrike * https://www.crowdstrike.com/ , a cybersecurity firm, to scan its computers, identify the intruders and build a new computer and telephone system from scratch. Within a day, CrowdStrike confirmed that the intrusion had originated in Russia

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

, Mr. Sussmann said.
The work that such companies do is a computer version of old-fashioned crime scene investigation, with fingerprints, bullet casings and DNA swabs replaced by an electronic trail that can be just as incriminating. And just as police detectives learn to identify the telltale methods of a veteran burglar, so CrowdStrike investigators recognized the distinctive handiwork of Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear.

At the same time the FBI said it couldn't determine attribution.
Quote:


Those are CrowdStrike’s nicknames for the two Russian hacking groups

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

that the firm found at work inside the DNC network. Cozy Bear — the group also known as the Dukes or A.P.T. 29, for “advanced persistent threat” — may or may not be associated with the F.S.B., the main successor to the Soviet-era K.G.B., but it is widely believed
claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

to be a Russian government operation. It made its first appearance in 2014, said Dmitri Alperovitch, CrowdStrike’s co-founder and chief technology officer.
It was Cozy Bear, CrowdStrike concluded, that first penetrated the DNC in the summer of 2015, by sending spear-phishing emails to a long list of American government agencies, Washington nonprofits and government contractors. Whenever someone clicked on a phishing message, the Russians would enter the network, “exfiltrate” documents of interest and stockpile them for intelligence purposes

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

.
“Once they got into the DNC

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

, they found the data valuable and decided to continue the operation,” said Mr. Alperovitch, who was born in Russia and moved to the United States as a teenager.
Only in March 2016 did Fancy Bear show up — first penetrating the computers of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and then jumping to the DNC, investigators believe

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

. Fancy Bear, sometimes called A.P.T. 28 and believed to be directed by the G.R.U., Russia’s military intelligence agency
claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

, is an older outfit, tracked by Western investigators for nearly a decade. It was Fancy Bear that got hold of Mr. Podesta’s email.
Attribution, as the skill of identifying a cyberattacker is known, is more art than science. It is often impossible to name an attacker with absolute certainty. But over time, by accumulating a reference library of hacking techniques and targets, it is possible to spot repeat offenders. Fancy Bear, for instance, has gone after military and political targets in Ukraine and Georgia, and at NATO installations.
That largely rules out cybercriminals and most countries, Mr. Alperovitch said. “There’s no plausible actor that has an interest in all those victims other than Russia

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

,” he said. Another clue: The Russian hacking groups tended to be active during working hours in the Moscow time zone
or New Jersey
Quote:

.
To their astonishment, Mr. Alperovitch said, CrowdStrike experts found signs that the two Russian hacking groups had not coordinated their attacks. Fancy Bear, apparently not knowing that Cozy Bear had been rummaging in DNC files for months, took many of the same documents.
In the six weeks after CrowdStrike’s arrival, in total secrecy, the computer system at the DNC was replaced. For a weekend, email and phones were shut off; employees were told it was a system upgrade. All laptops were turned in and the hard drives wiped clean, with the uninfected information on them imaged to new drives.
Though DNC officials had learned that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had been infected, too, they did not notify their sister organization, which was in the same building, because they were afraid that it would leak.
All of this work took place as the bitter contest for the Democratic nomination continued to play out between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders, and it was already causing a major distraction for Ms. Wasserman Schultz and the DNC’s chief executive.

Deservedly so,
Quote:


“This was not a bump in the road — bumps in the road happen all the time,” she said in an interview. “Two different Russian spy agencies

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

had hacked into our network
claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

and stolen our property. And we did not yet know what they had taken. But we knew they had very broad access to our network. There was a tremendous amount of uncertainty. And it was chilling.”
The DNC executives and their lawyer had their first formal meeting with senior FBI officials in mid-June, nine months after the bureau’s first call to the tech-support contractor. Among the early requests at that meeting, according to participants: that the federal government make a quick “attribution” formally blaming actors with ties to Russian government for the attack to make clear that it was not routine hacking but foreign espionage.
“You have a presidential election underway here and you know that the Russians have hacked into the DNC

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

,” Mr. Sussmann said, recalling the message to the FBI “We need to tell the American public that. And soon.”
In mid-June, on Mr. Sussmann’s advice, DNC leaders decided to take a bold step. Concerned that word of the hacking might leak, they decided to go public in The Washington Post with the news * https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-governm
ent-hackers-penetrated-dnc-stole-opposition-research-on-trump/2016/06/14/cf006cb4-316e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html?utm_term=.8a1048383d67

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

that the committee had been attacked. That way, they figured, they could get ahead of the story, win a little sympathy from voters for being victimized by Russian hackers and refocus on the campaign.
But the very next day, a new, deeply unsettling shock awaited them. Someone calling himself Guccifer 2.0 appeared* https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2016/06/15/dnc/ on the web, claiming to be the DNC hacker — and he posted a confidential committee document detailing Mr. Trump’s record and half a dozen other documents to prove his bona fides.
“And it’s just a tiny part of all docs I downloaded from the Democrats networks,” he wrote. Then something more ominous: “The main part of the papers, thousands of files and mails, I gave to WikiLeaks. They will publish them soon.”
It was bad enough that Russian hackers had been spying

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

inside the committee’s network for months. Now the public release of documents had turned a conventional espionage operation into something far more menacing: political sabotage, an unpredictable, uncontrollable menace for Democratic campaigns.
Guccifer 2.0 borrowed the moniker of an earlier hacker, a Romanian who called himself Guccifer and was jailed for breaking into the personal computers of former President George W. Bush, former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and other notables. This new attacker seemed intent on showing that the DNC’s cyberexperts at CrowdStrike were wrong to blame Russia. Guccifer 2.0 called himself a “lone hacker” and mocked CrowdStrike for calling the attackers “sophisticated.”
But online investigators quickly undercut his story. On a whim, Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai, a writer for Motherboard, the tech and culture site of Vice, tried to contact Guccifer 2.0 by direct message on Twitter.
“Surprisingly, he answered right away,” Mr. Franceschi-Bicchierai said. But whoever was on the other end seemed to be mocking him. “I asked him why he did it, and he said he wanted to expose the Illuminati. He called himself a Gucci lover. And he said he was Romanian.”
That gave Mr. Franceschi-Bicchierai an idea. Using Google Translate, he sent the purported hacker some questions in Romanian. The answers came back in Romanian. But when he was offline, Mr. Franceschi-Bicchierai checked with a couple of native speakers, who told him Guccifer 2.0 had apparently been using Google Translate as well — and was clearly not the Romanian he claimed to be.
Cyberresearchers found other clues pointing to Russia. Microsoft Word documents posted by Guccifer 2.0 had been edited by someone calling himself, in Russian, Felix Edmundovich — an obvious nom de guerre honoring the founder of the Soviet secret police, Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky *

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Felix_Dzerzhinsky Bad links in the texts were marked by warnings in Russian, generated by what was clearly a Russian-language version of Word.
When Mr. Franceschi-Bicchierai managed to engage Guccifer 2.0 over a period of weeks, he found that his interlocutor’s tone and manner changed. “At first he was careless and colloquial. Weeks later, he was curt and more calculating,” he said. “It seemed like a group of people, and a very sloppy attempt to cover up.”

There are too many ways to spoof software, servers, ips to use the, yo determine ... anything.
Quote:


Computer experts drew the same conclusion about DCLeaks.com * http://dcleaks.com/ , a site that sprang up in June, claiming to be the work of “hacktivists” but posting more stolen documents. It, too, seemed to be a clumsy front for the same Russians who had stolen the documents. Notably, the website was registered in April, suggesting that the Russian hacking team planned well in advance to make public what it stole.
In addition to what Guccifer 2.0 published on his site, he provided material directly on request to some bloggers * and publications *. The steady flow of Guccifer 2.0 documents constantly undercut Democratic messaging efforts. On July 6, 12 days before the Republican National Convention began in Cleveland, Guccifer released the DNC’s battle plan and budget for countering it. For Republican operatives, it was insider gold.
Then WikiLeaks, a far more established outlet, began to publish the hacked material — just as Guccifer 2.0 had promised. On July 22, three days before the start of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, WikiLeaks dumped out 44,053 DNC emails with 17,761 attachments * . https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/ Some of the messages made clear that some DNC officials favored Mrs. Clinton over her progressive challenger, Mr. Sanders.
That was no shock; Mr. Sanders, after all, had been an independent socialist, not a Democrat, during his long career in Congress, while Mrs. Clinton had been one of the party’s stars for decades. But the emails, some of them crude or insulting, infuriated Sanders delegates as they arrived in Philadelphia. Ms. Wasserman Schultz resigned under pressure on the eve of the convention where she had planned to preside.
Mr. Trump, by now the Republican nominee, expressed delight at the continuing jolts to his opponent, and he began to use Twitter and his stump speeches to highlight the WikiLeaks releases. On July 25, he sent out a lighthearted tweet: “The new joke in town,” he wrote, “is that Russia leaked the disastrous DNC e-mails, which should never have been written (stupid), because Putin likes me.”
But WikiLeaks was far from finished. On Oct. 7, a month before the election, the site began the serial publication of thousands of private emails to and from Mr. Podesta * https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/ , Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager.
The same day, the United States formally accused the Russian government of being behind the hackings, in a joint statement * https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homelan
d-security-and-office-director-national
by the director of national intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security, and Mr. Trump suffered his worst blow to date, with the release of a recording in which he bragged about sexually assaulting women.
The Podesta emails were nowhere near as sensational as the Trump video. But, released by WikiLeaks day after day over the last month of the campaign, they provided material for countless news reports. They disclosed the contents of Mrs. Clinton’s speeches to large banks, which she had refused to release. They exposed tensions inside the campaign, including disagreements over donations to the Clinton Foundation that staff members thought might look bad for the candidate and Ms. Tanden’s complaint that Mrs. Clinton’s instincts were “suboptimal.”

If you keep your underwear clean, you won't end up mortified if someone sees it.
Quote:


“I was just mortified,” Ms. Tanden said in an interview. Her emails were released on the eve of one of the presidential debates, she recalled. “I put my hands over my head and said, ‘I can’t believe this is happening to me.’” Though she had regularly appeared on television to support Mrs. Clinton, she canceled her appearances because all the questions were about what she had said in the emails.
Ms. Tanden, like other Democrats whose messages became public, said it was obvious to her that WikiLeaks was trying its best to damage the Clinton campaign. “If you care about transparency, you put all the emails out at once,” she said. “But they wanted to hurt her. So they put them out 1,800 to 3,000 a day.”
The Trump campaign knew in advance about WikiLeaks’ plans. Days before the Podesta email release began, Roger Stone, a Republican operative working with the Trump campaign, sent out an excited tweet about what was coming.
But in an interview, Mr. Stone said he had no role in the leaks; he had just heard from an American with ties to WikiLeaks that damning emails were coming.
Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder and editor, has resisted the conclusion that his site became a pass-through for Russian hackers working for Mr. Putin’s government or that he was deliberately trying to undermine Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy. But the evidence on both counts appears compelling

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

.
In a series of email exchanges, Mr. Assange refused to say anything about WikiLeaks’ source for the hacked material. He denied that he had made his animus toward Mrs. Clinton clear in public statements (“False. But what is this? Junior high?”) or that the site had timed the releases for maximum negative effect on her campaign. “WikiLeaks makes its decisions based on newsworthiness, including for its recent epic scoops,” he wrote.
Mr. Assange disputed the conclusion of the Oct. 7 statement from the intelligence agencies that the leaks were “intended to interfere with the US. election process.”
“This is false,” he wrote. “As the disclosing party we know that this was not the intent. Publishers publishing newsworthy information during an election is part of a free election.”
But asked whether he believed the leaks were one reason for Mr. Trump’s election, Mr. Assange seemed happy to take credit. “Americans extensively engaged with our publications,” he wrote. “According to Facebook statistics WikiLeaks was the most referenced political topic during October.”
Though Mr. Assange did not say so, WikiLeaks’ best defense may be the conduct of the mainstream American media. Every major publication, including The Times, published multiple stories citing the DNC and Podesta emails posted by WikiLeaks, becoming a de facto instrument of Russian intelligence

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

.
Mr. Putin, a student of martial arts, had turned two institutions at the core of American democracy — political campaigns and independent media — to his own ends. The media’s appetite for the hacked material, and its focus on the gossipy content instead of the Russian source

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

, disturbed some of those whose personal emails were being reposted across the web.
“What was really surprising to me?” Ms. Tanden said. “I could not believe that reporters were covering it.”
Inside the White House, as Mr. Obama’s advisers debated their response, their conversation turned to North Korea.
In late 2014, hackers working for Kim Jong-un, the North’s young and unpredictable leader, had carried out a well-planned attack on Sony Pictures Entertainment intended to stop the Christmastime release of a comedy about a CIA plot to kill Mr. Kim.
In that case, embarrassing emails had also been released. But the real damage was done to Sony’s own systems: More than 70 percent of its computers melted down when a particularly virulent form of malware was released. Within weeks, intelligence agencies traced the attack back to the North and its leadership. Mr. Obama called North Korea out in public, and issued some not-very-effective sanctions. The Chinese even cooperated, briefly cutting off the North’s internet connections.
As the first Situation Room meetings on the Russian hacking began in July, “it was clear that Russia was going to be a much more complicated case,” said one participant. The Russians clearly had a more sophisticated understanding of American politics, and they were masters of “kompromat *,” their term for compromising information.
But a formal “attribution report” still had not been forwarded to the president.
“It took forever,” one senior administration official said, complaining about the pace at which the intelligence assessments moved through the system.
In August a group that called itself the “Shadow Brokers” * published a set of software tools that looked like what the NSA uses to break into foreign computer networks and install “implants,” malware that can be used for surveillance or attack. The code came from the Tailored Access Operations unit of the NSA, a secretive group that mastered the arts of surveillance and cyberwar.
The assumption — still unproved — was that the code was put out in the open by the Russians as a warning: Retaliate for the DNC, and there are a lot more secrets, from the hackings of the State Department, the White House and the Pentagon, that might be spilled as well. One senior official compared it to the scene in “The Godfather” where the head of a favorite horse is left in a bed, as a warning.
The NSA said nothing. But by late August, Admiral Rogers, its director, was pressing for a more muscular response to the Russians. In his role as director of the Pentagon’s Cyber Command, he proposed a series of potential counter-cyberstrikes.
Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency and commander of United States Cyber Command, pressed for a more muscular response to the Russians. Credit Jim Wilson/The New York Times
While officials will not discuss them in detail, the possible counterstrikes reportedly included operations that would turn the tables on Mr. Putin, exposing his financial links to Russia’s oligarchs, and punching holes in the Russian internet to allow dissidents to get their message out. Pentagon officials judged the measures too unsubtle and ordered up their own set of options.
But in the end, none of those were formally presented to the president.
In a series of “deputies meetings” run by Avril Haines, * the deputy national security adviser and a former deputy director of the CIA, several officials warned that an overreaction by the administration would play into Mr. Putin’s hands.
“If we went to Defcon 4,” one frequent participant in Ms. Haines’s meetings said, using a phrase from the Cold War days of warnings of war, “we would be saying to the public that we didn’t have confidence in the integrity of our voting system.”

But oddly enough, aside from exposing weaknesses and compromising information that the democrats BROUGHT ON THEMSELVES the hacks DIDN'T 'DO' ANYTHING.
Quote:


Even something seemingly straightforward — using the president’s executive powers, bolstered after the Sony incident, to place economic and travel sanctions on cyberattackers — seemed too risky.
“No one was all that eager to impose costs before Election Day,” said another participant in the classified meeting. “Any retaliatory measures were seen through the prism of what would happen on Election Day.”
Instead, when Mr. Obama’s national security team reconvened after summer vacation, the focus turned to a crash effort to secure the nation’s voting machines and voter-registration rolls from hacking. The scenario they discussed most frequently — one that turned out not to be an issue — was a narrow vote in favor of Mrs. Clinton, followed by a declaration by Mr. Trump that the vote was “rigged” and more leaks intended to undercut her legitimacy.
Donna Brazile, the interim chairwoman of the DNC, became increasingly frustrated as the clock continued to run down on the presidential election — and still there was no broad public condemnation by the White House, or Republican Party leaders, of the attack as an act of foreign espionage.
Ms. Brazile even reached out to Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, urging him twice in private conversations and in a letter * to join her in condemning the attacks — an offer he declined to take up.
“We just kept hearing the government would respond, the government would respond,” she said. “Once upon a time, if a foreign government interfered with our election we would respond as a nation, not as a political party.”
But Mr. Obama did decide that he would deliver a warning to Mr. Putin in person at a Group of 20 summit meeting in Hangzhou, China, the last time they would be in the same place while Mr. Obama was still in office. When the two men met for a tense pull-aside, Mr. Obama explicitly warned Mr. Putin of a strong American response if there was continued effort to influence the election or manipulate the vote, according to White House officials who were not present for the one-on-one meeting.
Later that day, Mr. Obama made a rare reference to America’s own offensive cybercapacity, which he has almost never talked about. “Frankly, both offensively and defensively, we have more capacity,” he told reporters.
But when it came time to make a public assertion of Russia’s role in early October, it was made in a written statement from the director of national intelligence and the secretary of homeland security. It was far less dramatic than the president’s appearance in the press room two years before to directly accuse the North Koreans of attacking Sony.
The reference in the statement to hackings on “political organizations,” officials now say, encompassed a hacking on data stored by the Republicans as well. Two senior officials say the forensic evidence was accompanied by “human and technical” sources in Russia

claims made with no evidence provided
Quote:

, which appears to mean that the United States’ implants or taps in Russian computer and phone networks helped confirm the country’s role.
But that may not be known for decades, until the secrets are declassified.
A week later Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. was sent out to transmit a public warning to Mr. Putin: The United States will retaliate “at the time of our choosing. And under the circumstances that have the greatest impact.”
Later, after Mr. Biden said he was not concerned that Russia could “fundamentally alter the election,” he was asked whether the American public would know if the message to Mr. Putin had been sent.
“Hope not,” Mr. Biden responded.
Some of his former colleagues think that was the wrong answer. An American counterstrike, said Michael Morell, the former deputy director of the CIA under Mr. Obama, has “got to be overt. It needs to be seen.”
A covert response would significantly limit the deterrence effect, he added. “If you can’t see it, it’s not going to deter the Chinese and North Koreans and Iranians and others.”
The Obama administration says it still has more than 30 days to do exactly that.
The Next Target
As the year draws to a close, it now seems possible that there will be multiple investigations of the Russian hacking — the intelligence review Mr. Obama has ordered completed by Jan. 20, the day he leaves office, and one or more congressional inquiries. They will wrestle with, among other things, Mr. Putin’s motive.
Did he seek to mar the brand of American democracy, to forestall anti-Russian activism for both Russians and their neighbors? Or to weaken the next American president, since presumably Mr. Putin had no reason to doubt American forecasts that Mrs. Clinton would win easily? Or was it, as the CIA concluded last month, a deliberate attempt to elect Mr. Trump?
In fact, the Russian hack-and-dox scheme accomplished all three goals.
What seems clear is that Russian hacking, given its success, is not going to stop. Two weeks ago, the German intelligence chief, Bruno Kahl, warned * that Russia might target elections in Germany next year. “The perpetrators have an interest to delegitimize the democratic process as such,” Mr. Kahl said. * Now, he added, “Europe is in the focus of these attempts of disturbance, and Germany to a particularly great extent.”
4262Comments
But Russia has by no means forgotten its American target. On the day after the presidential election, the cybersecurity company Volexity reported five new waves of phishing emails, evidently from Cozy Bear, aimed at think tanks and nonprofits in the United States.
One of them purported to be from Harvard University, attaching a fake paper. Its title: “Why American Elections Are Flawed.”
Correction: December 13, 2016
Editors’ Note: An earlier version of the main photograph with this article, of a filing cabinet and computer at the Democratic National Committee headquarters, should not have been published. The photographer had removed a framed image from the wall over the filing cabinet — showing a Washington Post Watergate front page — because it was causing glare with the lighting. The new version shows the scene as it normally appears, with the framed newspaper page in place.





How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?



I'll need more evidence for all of this.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 15, 2016 12:08 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


""Hillary's near death" was trotted out as FACT with all sorts of links to "Drs." for the appearance of extra truthiness and validity."

I don't recall anyone claiming she was near death, but I do recall people saying she had serious health issues BASED ON VIDEOS OF ABNORMAL BEHAVIOR. Are you saying the videos are fake?




How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 16, 2016 1:07 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Senate Quietly Passes The "Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act"



While we wait to see if and when the Senate will pass (and president will sign) Bill "H.R. 6393, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017", which was passed by the House at the end of November with an overwhelming majority and which seeks to crack down on websites suspected of conducting Russian propaganda and calling for the US government to "counter active measures by Russia to exert covert influence … carried out in coordination with, or at the behest of, political leaders or the security services of the Russian Federation and the role of the Russian Federation has been hidden or not acknowledged publicly,” another, perhaps even more dangerous and limiting to civil rights and freedom of speech bill passed on December 8.

Recall that as we reported in early June, "a bill to implement the U.S’s very own de facto Ministry of Truth has been quietly introduced in Congress. As with any legislation attempting to dodge the public spotlight the Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act of 2016 marks a further curtailment of press freedom and another avenue to stultify avenues of accurate information. Introduced by Congressmen Adam Kinzinger and Ted Lieu, H.R. 5181 seeks a “whole-government approach without the bureaucratic restrictions” to counter “foreign disinformation and manipulation,” which they believe threaten the world’s “security and stability.”

Also called the Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S. 2692), when introduced in March by Sen. Rob Portman, the legislation represents a dramatic return to Cold War-era government propaganda battles. “These countries spend vast sums of money on advanced broadcast and digital media capabilities, targeted campaigns, funding of foreign political movements, and other efforts to influence key audiences and populations,” Portman explained, adding that while the U.S. spends a relatively small amount on its Voice of America, the Kremlin provides enormous funding for its news organization, RT. “Surprisingly,”

{ We outspend everybody by more then an order of magnitude. }

Portman continued, “there is currently no single U.S. governmental agency or department charged with the national level development, integration and synchronization of whole-of-government strategies to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation.”

Long before the "fake news" meme became a daily topic of extensive conversation on wuch mainstream fake news portals as CNN and WaPo, H.R. 5181 would rask the Secretary of State with coordinating the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Broadcasting Board of Governors to “establish a Center for Information Analysis and Response,” which will pinpoint sources of disinformation, analyze data, and — in true dystopic manner — ‘develop and disseminate’ “fact-based narratives” to counter effrontery propaganda.

* * *

Fast forward to this past Thursday, December 8, when the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" passed in the Senate, quietly inserted inside the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report.

Here is the full statement issued by the generously funded Senator Rob Portman (R- Ohio) on the passage of a bill that further chips away at press liberties in the US, and which sets the stage for a future with hunts and website shutdowns, purely as a result of an accusation that any one media outlet or site is considered as a source of "disinformation and propaganda" and is shut down by the government.

{ Determined by whom. }

Senate Passes Major Portman-Murphy Counter-Propaganda Bill as Part of NDAA

Portman/Murphy Bill Promotes Coordinated Strategy to Defend America, Allies Against Propaganda and Disinformation from Russia, China & Others

U.S. Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) today announced that their Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act – legislation designed to help American allies counter foreign government propaganda from Russia, China, and other nations – has passed the Senate as part of the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report. The bipartisan bill, which was introduced by Senators Portman and Murphy in March, will improve the ability of the United States to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation by establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department to coordinate and synchronize counter-propaganda efforts throughout the U.S. government. To support these efforts, the bill also creates a grant program for NGOs, think tanks, civil society and other experts outside government who are engaged in counter-propaganda related work. This will better leverage existing expertise and empower local communities to defend themselves from foreign manipulation.

{ What about internal manipulation? Is this not exactly that? Lets block foreign propaganda and institute internal propaganda. Much better. I guess just telling the truth is not an option. }

“The passage of this bill in the Senate today takes us one critical step closer to effectively confronting the extensive, and destabilizing, foreign propaganda and disinformation operations being waged against us. While the propaganda and disinformation threat has grown, the U.S. government has been asleep at the wheel. Today we are finally signaling that enough is enough; the United States will no longer sit on the sidelines. We are going to confront this threat head-on,” said Senator Portman. “With the help of this bipartisan bill, the disinformation and propaganda used against our allies and our interests will fail.”

{ Who exactly is "us". How about some examples. This is not for "us the people" but "us the present government"}

“Congress has taken a big step in fighting back against fake news and propaganda from countries like Russia. When the president signs this bill into law, the United States will finally have a dedicated set of tools and resources to confront our adversaries’ widespread efforts to spread false narratives that undermine democratic institutions and compromise America’s foreign policy goals,” said Murphy. “I’m proud of what Senator Portman and I accomplished here because it’s long past time for the U.S. to get off the sidelines and confront these growing threats.”

{ Who exactly requested that we be protected from information true or false. It is for us to decide not the government. This was specifically written into the constitution for a very good reason. }

NOTE: The bipartisan Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act is organized around two main priorities to help achieve the goal of combatting the constantly evolving threat of foreign disinformation. They are as follows:

The first priority is developing a whole-of-government strategy for countering foreign propaganda and disinformation. The bill would increase the authority, resources, and mandate of the Global Engagement Center to include state actors like Russia and China in addition to violent extremists. The Center will be led by the State Department, but with the active senior level participation of the Department of Defense, USAID, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the Intelligence Community, and other relevant agencies. The Center will develop, integrate, and synchronize whole-of-government initiatives to expose and counter foreign disinformation operations and proactively advance fact-based narratives that support U.S. allies and interests.
Second, the legislation seeks to leverage expertise from outside government to create more adaptive and responsive U.S. strategy options. The legislation establishes a fund to help train local journalists and provide grants and contracts to NGOs, civil society organizations, think tanks, private sector companies, media organizations, and other experts outside the U.S. government with experience in identifying and analyzing the latest trends in foreign government disinformation techniques. This fund will complement and support the Center’s role by integrating capabilities and expertise available outside the U.S. government into the strategy-making process. It will also empower a decentralized network of private sector experts and integrate their expertise into the strategy-making process.

* * *

In other words, the Act will i) greenlight the government to crack down with impunity against any media property it deems "propaganda", and ii) provide substantial amounts of money fund an army of "local journalist" counterpropaganda, to make sure the government's own fake news drowns that of the still free "fringes."

So while packaged politely in a veneer of "countering disinformation and propaganda", the bill, once signed by Obama, will effectively give the government a full mandate to punish, shut down or otherwise prosecute, any website it deems offensive and a source of "foreign government propaganda from Russia, China or other nations." And since there is no formal way of proving whether or not there is indeed a foreign propaganda sponsor, all that will be sufficient to eliminate any "dissenting" website, will be the government's word against that of the website. One can be confident that the US government will almost certainly prevail every single time.

{ This started with the full time monitoring of all communications which everyone responded to with "I have nothing to hide". Now if anyone wishes to peruse anything from someplace other then an officially approved source they definitely will have something to hide, but too late. Few listened when the warnings of this started to appear decades ago. Now it is too late. }





How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 16, 2016 1:09 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


‘Sniffers & Taps on Journalists’ – WikiLeaks Publishes New Leaked Emails
housands of leaked emails from a US cybersecurity contractor, which discussed targeting journalists and governments, have been published by WikiLeaks.

WikiLeaks published thousands of leaked emails from a US cybersecurity contractor, which discussed targeting journalists and governments, in order to mark the release of Texas journalist Barrett Brown, who spent almost two years in federal prison for his work in reporting on the HBGary leaks and the 2012 hack of the private intelligence company Stratfor.

RELEASE: Over 60,000 emails from US cyber-intelligence contractor #HBGary now searchable https://t.co/85yECxFmZu @ggreenwald #FreeBB pic.twitter.com/zBLaGEjKIY

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) November 29, 2016

Hacktivist collective Anonymous first obtained emails of HBGary Federal in February 2011. On Tuesday, these 60,000 emails were for the first time published by WikiLeaks in the form of a searchable database. Among other things, the HBGary Federal emails include a proposal of HBGary executive Greg Hoglund to spy on Russia, using the cellphone’s operators of Mobile TeleSystems (MTS) and Vimpelcom, and wireless “sniffers.” It was a hint at capabilities of the NSA, before whistleblower Edward Snowden disclosed them in 2013.

Bank of America/Palintir/HBGary combined WikiLeaks attack plan. You can find more here: https://t.co/85yECxFmZu pic.twitter.com/huNtfJp8gl

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) November 29, 2016

“NSA has all the collection resources you could imagine, CIA likewise has operatives coming out the wazooo. What they don’t have is an ability to manage complex campaigns,” Hoglund wrote in 2010.

HBGary CEO Aaron Barr decided to go even further and discussed the plan of infiltration in groups and governments, using social media, by setting up fake “personas.”

“I will create a few personas for the executive members of the company so there can be some email traffic. You will at some point be able to use this guys [sic] accounts as compromised,” Barr wrote. “If this looks too big we could probably pitch this as a whitepaper to either a large defense contractor like Mantech,” he added.

After the 2011 hack and the following scandal, Barr had to resign. The Virginia-based ManTech bought HBGary, and the HBGary Federal subsidiary was shut down.

HBGary also cooperated with Palantir Technologies, a big data analysis company serving the US military and intelligence communities, on a project, targeting WikiLeaks and its volunteers, pitched to Bank of America before some of the bank’s documents were released by the whistleblowing organization.

Part of the strategy was aimed on persecution of journalists, who supported the work of WikiLeaks, including Glenn Greenwald, who is currently the editor of The Intercept and publishes disclosures of Snowden.

“Without the support of people like Glenn [WikiLeaks] would fold,” a presentation by Palantir, HBGary and Berico Technologies said.

An email from Barr to Palantir engineer Matthew Steckman, dated by December 2010, gives a glimpse into how the presentation was put together.

“These are established proffessionals [sic] that have a liberal bent, but ultimately most of them if pushed will choose professional preservation over cause,” Barr wrote. That exact line made it into the presentation, which also included a detailed dossier on Julian Assange, a WikiLeaks co-founder.

Creating messages intended to “sabotage or discredit the opposing organization,” as well as “disinformation” were among the proposed strategies.

The presentation proposed to “submit fake documents and then call out the error,” – a tactic, which was used against WikiLeaks, when the organization started to publish emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair John Podesta in October.




How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 16, 2016 5:38 AM

G

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
I don't recall anyone claiming she was near death, but I do recall people saying she had serious health issues BASED ON VIDEOS OF ABNORMAL BEHAVIOR. Are you saying the videos are fake?



No, I'm saying the sudden orchestrated she-could-die-in-office discussion about her "health" was fake, which you were a happy, willing participant in. No worries Kikikiki - we know the game, be fake all you want.

"Hillary is just a stroke waiting to happen."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 16, 2016 8:38 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. Pity would be no more, If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake


Quote:

The hack started just as Trump was entering the primaries, in 2015. It's a little hard to claim that whoever did the hack was supporting Trump - OR ANYBODY - at that point. - SIGNY

Which means absolutely nothing, thanks. Hacks don't have calendars or seasons - wise up. - GSTRING



Hacks don't - but people do.

*****

So here is the confusing thing about the hacks and releases: the timeline is screwed up and the attribution is messed up too.

Do you know how many hacking attempts/leaks on the DNC that the media has reported?

FOUR.

Over time, they have reported on one discovered BY THE FBI SEP 2015 but beginning who knows when .... According to reports, the FBI attempted to alert the DNC to the intrusion. Special Agent Adrian Hawkins repeatedly called the DNC over several weeks to alert them that a group called "The Dukes" (which Crowdstrike calls "Cozybear") had infiltrated the system. The tech guy who took the calls, Yared Tamene, ran a cursory check of system logs but not finding anything interesting and ignored the FBI calls until they stopped. “I did not return his calls, as I had nothing to report,” he wrote in a memo seen by the New York Times.

In MARCH 2016, [Crowdstrike says] that another hacking attempt began. This one was done though phishing emails claiming that "Someone has your password", which snared one DNC staffer, Billy Rinehart, to click on the email to change Podesta's gmail password.

Here is the email, as released by WIKILEAKS:

Quote:

From:slatham@hillaryclinton.com
To: mfisher@hillaryclinton.com, john.podesta@gmail.com
Date: 2016-03-19 12:07
Subject: Fwd: S?me?ne has your passw?rd
The gmail one is REAL
Milia, can you change - does JDP have the 2 step verification or do we need to do with him on the phone? Don't want to lock him out of his in box!
Sent from my iPhone ....

Sara,
This is a legitimate email. John needs to change his password immediately, and ensure that two-factor authentication is turned on his account. He can go to this link: https://myaccount.google.com/security to do both. It is absolutely imperative that this is done ASAP. If you or he has any questions, please reach out to me at 410.562.9762

Hi John
Someone just used your password to try to sign in to your Google Account john.podesta@gmail.com.
Details:
Saturday, 19 March, 8:34:30 UTC
IP Address: 134.249.139.239
Location: Ukraine
Google stopped this sign-in attempt. You should change your password immediately.


CHANGE PASSWORD < https://bit.ly/1PibSU0>;;
Best,
The Gmail Team
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/34899#efmAAGAAbAHLAIUAWxA
XH





APRIL 2016, The DNC brings in CrowdStrike

JUNE 14, WaPo reported (from Crowdstrike leak) that hackers had gained entrance to "the entire database of opposition research on GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump" (not the Podesta emails) and the day after, Crowdstrike announces that there were two hacks, the first one in 2015, which the FBI attributed to The Dukes is now being attributed to Cozybear and the second one in March 2016 which Crowdstrike attributes to Fancybear. Crowdstrike claims that Cozybear and Fancybear originate from two different Russian security organizations.

On JULY 21, GUCCIFER 2.0 ALSO claims to have infiltrated the DNC server. Although the DNC claimed that no personal, financial, or donor information was accessed, "Guccifer 2.0" leaked what he or they claimed were donor lists detailing DNC campaign contributions to Gawker and The Smoking Gun. However, this information has not been authenticated, and doubts remain about Guccifer 2.0's backstory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Committee_cyber_atta
cks#cite_note-sanger-3
At the time, this was ALSO blamed on Russia, of course.


And finally JULY 22 WIKILEAKS starts releasing DNC emails. THIS WAS ALSO BLAMED ON RUSSIA. These are the ONLY significant releases and, of course, the only ones that could credibly be pointed to as influencing the 2016 election. Information from previous hacks was not made public (except by Guccifer 2.0, and there is reason to doubt the authenticity of the information.) Julian Assange says that this information came from a leak, not Russia, and Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, told Dailymail.com goes even further: He says that he flew to Washington, D.C. for a clandestine hand-off with one of the email sources in September. ‘Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,’ said Murray in an interview with Dailymail.com on Tuesday. ‘The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.’

So in reality, although there was apparently more than one hack on more than one server, the relevant releases were from WIKILEAKS, not any other potential actor.

In looking at all of this, I have a few observations:

1) Crowdstrike was hired by the DNC in April. The Wikileaks emails go to May. In other words, roughly one month AFTER Crowstrike starts looking into the potential hacks, emails are still being pulled off the server, and not only pulled off the server, but pulled off en masse. Either Crowdstrike doesn't know how to lock down a system, or the emails weren't accessed via a hack.

2) The email that indicated when the second intrusion occurred- the phishing email sent on MARCH 2016 - was released by Wikileaks. Now, if someone is releasing hacked information, don't you think that the first thing they would delete is the evidence of their own hack? Especially since they know when it occurred and the content, it's not like it would be a blind search through 40,000 emails. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.

3) Every hack and every leak is automatically blamed on Russia, whether it makes sense or not. Guccifer 2.0 is probably the least credible, since the hacked information was supposedly worthless. Wikileaks in the next least-credible, since the timing of the accessed emails includes the time that Crowdstrike was already investigating the DNC intrusions and their release also includes a self-incriminating email that could have easily been stripped out. But even the other hacks ... which Crowdstrike founder Dmitri Alperovitch described as “incredibly sophisticated groups” which “covered their tracks well”, left easy-to-find fingerprints all over their communications?

4) The answer to "Was it a hack, or was it a leak?" is most likely BOTH. It seems to me that the hacks are just information-gathering. In fact, Crowdstrike claims that the DNC server was hacked twice, by two different entities. The hacked information is probably still residing comfortably somewhere on several servers, but the leaked information is splattered all over the internet. It's not surprising that the DNC server was the subject of much interest, but the occurrence of the hacks, which Crowdstrike and the WH blame on Russia, makes if far too easy to conflate the events and blame Russia for everything. This may be why the FBI and the ODNI are at odds with the CIA ... there may have been a hack, even a Russian one, but it was not a hack that was the source of released information; it was a leak. An insider. In other words: not Russia.

5) I went through many many news articles, going back through 2015, to construct this timeline. It's not evident from the links that I posted (I thought too many links would interfere with understanding the information) but WaPo comes up over and over again as the favorite place to launder information through. It seems to be the unofficial channel for CIA leaks and CIA disinformation (along with the NYT).


THE LATEST FROM JAMES CLAPPER'S ODNI

Quote:


Further evidence of the political motivation behind the whole CIA claim that Russia was behind the DNC and Podesta leaks has come from an unexpected quarter – James Clapper’s Office of the Director of National Intelligence (“ODNI”) – which supervises the work of all of the US’s 17 intelligence agencies.

Speaking anonymously to Reuters, three ODNI officials have trashed the CIA claim that Russia provided Wikileaks with the DNC and Podesta leaks in order to help Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton in the US election.

The key point the ODNI officials are making is that whilst there is some evidence of Russian intelligence having hacked the DNC, that does not prove it was Russian intelligence which passed on the information to Wikileaks in order to swing the election to Donald Trump.

In the words of one of the unnamed ODNI officials

“[The CIA conclusion] was a judgment based on the fact that Russian entities hacked both Democrats and Republicans and only the Democratic information was leaked. (It was) a thin reed upon which to base an analytical judgment.”

Moreover it turns out that this is the same thinking as that of the FBI. As one of the ODNI officials told Reuters

“The Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose evidentiary standards require it to make cases that can stand up in court, declined to accept the CIA’s analysis – a deductive assessment of the available intelligence – for the same reason”.

“We’re aware that campaigns and related organizations and individuals are targeted by actors with a variety of motivations — from philosophical differences to espionage — and capabilities — from defacements to intrusions,” said Brian P. Hale, director of public affairs for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. “We defer to FBI for specific incidents.”





http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60557
-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake


"If I could write inflammatory commentary to scorch the eye brows and lashes off Trump, Signym or 1kiki, I would.- SECOND"

Hillary knew all about the Electoral College when she ran for office. All of this after-the-fact bitching is still just an attempt to rewrite history. I guess you're all still in various stages of grief, including anger, denial, and bargaining, all rol

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 17, 2016 12:57 PM

JAYNEZTOWN


Reality Check: 5 Problems with CIA Claim That Russia Hacked DNC/Podesta emails



Also check the Keith Olberman thread
( funny mark dice conspiracy parody )


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 17, 2016 4:31 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Quote:

No, I'm saying the sudden orchestrated she-could-die-in-office discussion about her "health" was fake
It was? Because, as I recall, NO ONE BROUGHT UP HILLARY'S HEALTH UNTIL SHE STARTED TO EXHIBIT ABNORMAL BEHAVIORS. Until then, it wasn't an issue. So, the discussion was based on FACTUAL EVENTS. Should those factual events NOT be news?
Quote:

which you were a happy, willing participant in
Should people NOT DISCUSS news?

Are you arguing for government censorship of news and discussion?




How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 17, 2016 11:33 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Quote:

Do you know how many hacking attempts/leaks on the DNC that the media has reported?
I read five, but who's counting?

To recap the timeline, using all available information to date:


one hack begins at an unknown time "The Dukes"/ "Cozybear"

JUNE 2015 Trump enters race

hack discovered by the FBI SEP 2015

DNC alerted, but took no action

MARCH 2016 phishing changes Podesta's gmail password ACCESS IS GAINED TO EMAILS THAT GO BACK TO AT LEAST 2008

MARCH 2016 doing a quick search through wikileaks, it looks like Podesta's emails stop in late March

APRIL 2016, The DNC brings in CrowdStrike

MAY 2016 last dated wikileaks email (begins JANUARY 2015)

MAY 2016 Trump gets nomination

JUNE 14, 2016 WaPo reported (from Crowdstrike leak) that hackers had gained entrance to "the entire database of opposition research on GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump" (not the Podesta emails)

JUNE 15, 2016 Crowdstrike announces the 2015 and MARCH 2016 intrusions that it attributes to Russia

JULY 21, GUCCIFER 2.0 ALSO claims to have infiltrated the DNC server and leaks claimed donor lists, but the information isn't authenticated, ALSO blamed on Russia

JULY 22 WIKILEAKS starts releasing DNC emails ALSO blamed on Russia; Julian Assange says that this information came from a leak, not Russia, and Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, told Dailymail.com goes even further: He says that he flew to Washington, D.C. for a clandestine hand-off with one of the email sources in September. ‘Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,’ said Murray in an interview with Dailymail.com on Tuesday. ‘The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.’



1) Crowdstrike was hired by the DNC in April. The Wikileaks emails go to May. In other words, roughly one month AFTER Crowstrike starts looking into the potential hacks, emails are still being pulled off the server, and not only pulled off the server, but pulled off en masse. Either Crowdstrike doesn't know how to lock down a system, or the emails weren't accessed via a hack.

2) The email that indicated when the second intrusion occurred- the phishing email sent on MARCH 2016 - was released by Wikileaks. Now, if someone is releasing hacked information, don't you think that the first thing they would delete is the evidence of their own hack? Especially since they know when it occurred and the content, it's not like it would be a blind search through 40,000 emails. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.

3) Every hack and every leak is automatically blamed on Russia, whether it makes sense or not. Guccifer 2.0 is probably the least credible, since the hacked information was supposedly worthless. Wikileaks in the next least-credible, since the timing of the accessed emails includes the time that Crowdstrike was already investigating the DNC intrusions and their release also includes a self-incriminating email that could have easily been stripped out. But even the other hacks ... which Crowdstrike founder Dmitri Alperovitch described as “incredibly sophisticated groups” which “covered their tracks well”, left easy-to-find fingerprints all over their communications?

4) The answer to "Was it a hack, or was it a leak?" is most likely BOTH. It seems to me that the hacks are just information-gathering. In fact, Crowdstrike claims that the DNC server was hacked twice, by two different entities. The hacked information is probably still residing comfortably somewhere on several servers, but the leaked information is splattered all over the internet. It's not surprising that the DNC server was the subject of much interest, but the occurrence of the hacks, which Crowdstrike and the WH blame on Russia, makes if far too easy to conflate the events and blame Russia for everything. This may be why the FBI and the ODNI are at odds with the CIA ... there may have been a hack, even a Russian one, but it was not a hack that was the source of released information; it was a leak. An insider. In other words: not Russia.

5) I went through many many news articles, going back through 2015, to construct this timeline. It's not evident from the links that I posted (I thought too many links would interfere with understanding the information) but WaPo comes up over and over again as the favorite place to launder information through. It seems to be the unofficial channel for CIA leaks and CIA disinformation (along with the NYT).


THE LATEST FROM JAMES CLAPPER'S ODNI

Quote:


Further evidence of the political motivation behind the whole CIA claim that Russia was behind the DNC and Podesta leaks has come from an unexpected quarter – James Clapper’s Office of the Director of National Intelligence (“ODNI”) – which supervises the work of all of the US’s 17 intelligence agencies.

Speaking anonymously to Reuters, three ODNI officials have trashed the CIA claim that Russia provided Wikileaks with the DNC and Podesta leaks in order to help Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton in the US election.

The key point the ODNI officials are making is that whilst there is some evidence of Russian intelligence having hacked the DNC, that does not prove it was Russian intelligence which passed on the information to Wikileaks in order to swing the election to Donald Trump.

In the words of one of the unnamed ODNI officials

“[The CIA conclusion] was a judgment based on the fact that Russian entities hacked both Democrats and Republicans and only the Democratic information was leaked. (It was) a thin reed upon which to base an analytical judgment.”

Moreover it turns out that this is the same thinking as that of the FBI. As one of the ODNI officials told Reuters

“The Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose evidentiary standards require it to make cases that can stand up in court, declined to accept the CIA’s analysis – a deductive assessment of the available intelligence – for the same reason”.

“We’re aware that campaigns and related organizations and individuals are targeted by actors with a variety of motivations — from philosophical differences to espionage — and capabilities — from defacements to intrusions,” said Brian P. Hale, director of public affairs for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. “We defer to FBI for specific incidents.”










How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 20, 2016 11:37 AM

G

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:Because, as I recall, NO ONE BROUGHT UP HILLARY'S HEALTH UNTIL SHE STARTED TO EXHIBIT ABNORMAL BEHAVIORS. Until then, it wasn't an issue. So, the discussion was based on FACTUAL EVENTS. Should those factual events NOT be news?
Quote:

which you were a happy, willing participant in
Should people NOT DISCUSS news?

Are you arguing for government censorship of news and discussion?




Are you saying it's ok for people to coordinate misinformation? Are you saying it's ok to visit forums and social media outlets and post false assumptions or erroneous conclusions based only on partial or zero knowledge or hearsay as if it were factual? In short, Kiki: Are you saying it's ok to lie?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 20, 2016 2:26 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Quote:

Originally posted by G:
Are you saying it's ok to visit forums and social media outlets and post false assumptions or erroneous conclusions based only on partial or zero knowledge or hearsay as if it were factual?

Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Are you arguing for government censorship of news and discussion?






How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 20, 2016 4:38 PM

G

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Quote:

Originally posted by G:
Are you saying it's ok to visit forums and social media outlets and post false assumptions or erroneous conclusions based only on partial or zero knowledge or hearsay as if it were factual?

Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Are you arguing for government censorship of news and discussion?






How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 20, 2016 4:49 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Quote:

Originally posted by G:
Are you saying it's ok to visit forums and social media outlets and post false assumptions or erroneous conclusions based only on partial or zero knowledge or hearsay as if it were factual?

Are you arguing for government censorship of news and discussion?




How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 20, 2016 7:30 PM

G

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Quote:

Originally posted by G:
Are you saying it's ok to visit forums and social media outlets and post false assumptions or erroneous conclusions based only on partial or zero knowledge or hearsay as if it were factual?

Are you arguing for government censorship of news and discussion?




Is that a question?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 20, 2016 8:32 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.



Quote:

Is that a question?
Is that a question?




How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 2, 2017 7:04 PM

JAYNEZTOWN


Quote:

Originally posted by G:
Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Quote:

Originally posted by G:
Are you saying it's ok to visit forums and social media outlets and post false assumptions or erroneous conclusions based only on partial or zero knowledge or hearsay as if it were factual?

Are you arguing for government censorship of news and discussion?




Is that a question?



You know these guys



?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 3, 2017 11:22 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. Pity would be no more, If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake


Quote:

Washington Post Admits Its 'Russians Hacked A US Utility' Story Was 'Fake News'

Jan 3, 2017 10:54 AM

Over the weekend we noted that the Washington Post was caught spreading "fake news" about an alleged attempt by "Russian hackers" to take over a Vermont Utility (see "Washington Post Caught Spreading More Fake News About 'Russian Hackers'"). Within hours of reporting that the "Russian hackers" had gained access to the electrical grid, the Burlington Electric Department in Vermont had to issue a statement confirming that the provocative Wapo story simply wasn't true and that a laptop found to be infected with malware was never actually connected to the grid. An embarrassed Wapo was subsequently forced to change it's sensationalized headline and publish a retraction.

Now, as they often do, it appears this Wapo "fake news" rabbit holes gets even deeper. Not only are "federal officials" now confirming that "Russian hackers" never targeted the Vermont electrical grid, but the whole mishap was derived from an employee's attempt to check his Yahoo email account which, as Wapo reports, resulted in his computer connecting to a "suspicious IP address" that is "found elsewhere in the country suggesting the company wasn't being targeted by Russians."

The Post now reports that the Vermont utility hack was just an employee connecting to a flagged IP address... https://t.co/fapgFHt9aQ pic.twitter.com/zIGp0NEXnl

— Eric Geller (@ericgeller) January 3, 2017



Moreover, not only was the malware not linked to a specific attempt of "Russian hackers" to penetrate the U.S. electrical grid, the software in question isn't even linked to the "Grizzly Steppe" group that the Obama administration says is behind the DNC and John Podesta email hacks. Of course, this is a direct contradiction to the opening paragraph of Wapo's original story which directly connected the Vermont "hack" back to "Grizzly Steppe"...apparently with no evidence whatsoever.

MORE AT
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-03/washington-post-admits-its-ru
ssians-hacked-us-utility-story-was-fake-news


In the interest of fairness I'll be posting some rightwing fake news. That way, everybody can hate me!





-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake


"If you aren't aware, Texans don't have much concern for the well-being of Yankees or Californians, even Yankee factory workers in Indiana "- SECOND

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 3, 2017 1:04 PM

G

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

Washington Post Admits Its 'Russians Hacked A US Utility' Story Was 'Fake News'

Jan 3, 2017 10:54 AM

Over the weekend we noted that the Washington Post was caught spreading "fake news" about an alleged attempt by "Russian hackers" to take over a Vermont Utility (see "Washington Post Caught Spreading More Fake News About 'Russian Hackers'"). Within hours of reporting that the "Russian hackers" had gained access to the electrical grid, the Burlington Electric Department in Vermont had to issue a statement confirming that the provocative Wapo story simply wasn't true and that a laptop found to be infected with malware was never actually connected to the grid. An embarrassed Wapo was subsequently forced to change it's sensationalized headline and publish a retraction.

Now, as they often do, it appears this Wapo "fake news" rabbit holes gets even deeper. Not only are "federal officials" now confirming that "Russian hackers" never targeted the Vermont electrical grid, but the whole mishap was derived from an employee's attempt to check his Yahoo email account which, as Wapo reports, resulted in his computer connecting to a "suspicious IP address" that is "found elsewhere in the country suggesting the company wasn't being targeted by Russians."

The Post now reports that the Vermont utility hack was just an employee connecting to a flagged IP address... https://t.co/fapgFHt9aQ pic.twitter.com/zIGp0NEXnl

— Eric Geller (@ericgeller) January 3, 2017



Moreover, not only was the malware not linked to a specific attempt of "Russian hackers" to penetrate the U.S. electrical grid, the software in question isn't even linked to the "Grizzly Steppe" group that the Obama administration says is behind the DNC and John Podesta email hacks. Of course, this is a direct contradiction to the opening paragraph of Wapo's original story which directly connected the Vermont "hack" back to "Grizzly Steppe"...apparently with no evidence whatsoever.

MORE AT
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-03/washington-post-admits-its-ru
ssians-hacked-us-utility-story-was-fake-news


In the interest of fairness I'll be posting some rightwing fake news. That way, everybody can hate me!




I'd always heard the WaPo was a bit dodgy with the truth, too tabloid sometimes.

"In the interest of fairness I'll be posting some rightwing fake news." You have been!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 9, 2017 4:26 AM

JAYNEZTOWN


People have gone to alt-news, twitter, blogs which strangely enough might be even more fake?

Or is CNN, BBC etc the fake news?



http://themillenniumreport.com/2016/12/mainstream-media-demise-guarant
eed-after-decades-of-delivering-fake-news
/

Mainstream Media Demise Guaranteed After Decades Of Delivering Fake News

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 9, 2017 3:52 PM

THGRRI

May the Good Lord take a liking to you... but not too soon!


Quote:

Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:
People have gone to alt-news, twitter, blogs which strangely enough might be even more fake?

Or is CNN, BBC etc the fake news?






It is no surprise to some of us here that you can not tell what is fake. Why is that? Well, it's due to your opinions and what you post. Nothing but garbage.

____________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 9, 2017 5:15 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by THGRRI:
It is no surprise to some of us here that you can not tell what is fake. Why is that? Well, it's due to your opinions and what you post. Nothing but garbage.



Brace yourselves. This will be the dialogue the next four years. Everyone claiming that their news is real news and everything else is fake.

Way to go 24 hour news networks. Now nobody knows what to believe anymore.

Maybe you should go back to actual investigative journalism instead of just having overpaid schills do opinion pieces all day and night.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 9, 2017 5:59 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Quote:

Originally posted by THGRRI:
It is no surprise to some of us here that you can not tell what is fake. Why is that? Well, it's due to your opinions and what you post. Nothing but garbage

Just pointing out that - AS USUAL - THUGGER degrades the entire thread by posting nothing but topic-free trolling.




How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 9, 2017 6:01 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Washington Post Is Richly Rewarded For False News About Russia Threat While Public Is Deceived

Authored by Glenn Greenwald, originally posted at The Intercept, [4]

In the past six weeks, the Washington Post published two blockbuster stories about the Russian threat that went viral: one on [5] how Russia is behind a massive explosion of “fake news,” the other [6] on how it invaded the U.S. electric grid. Both articles were fundamentally false. Each now bears a humiliating editor’s note grudgingly acknowledging that the core claims of the story were fiction: The first note was posted a full two weeks later [7] to the top of the original article; the other was buried the following day [8] at the bottom.

The second story on the electric grid turned out to be far worse than I realized when I wrote about it on Saturday [9], when it became clear that there was no “penetration of the U.S. electricity grid” as the Post had claimed. In addition to the editor’s note, the Russia-hacked-our-electric-grid story now has a full-scale retraction in the form of a separate article [10] admitting that “the incident is not linked to any Russian government effort to target or hack the utility” and there may not even have been malware at all on this laptop.

But while these debacles are embarrassing for the paper, they are also richly rewarding. That’s because journalists — including those at the Post — aggressively hype and promote the original, sensationalistic false stories, ensuring that they go viral, generating massive traffic for the Post (the paper’s executive editor, Marty Baron, recently boasted [11] about how profitable the paper has become).

After spreading the falsehoods far and wide, raising fear levels and manipulating U.S. political discourse in the process (both Russia stories were widely hyped on cable news [12]), journalists who spread the false claims subsequently note the retraction or corrections only in the most muted way possible, and often not at all. As a result, only a tiny fraction of people who were exposed to the original false story end up learning of the retractions.


Baron himself, editorial leader of the Post, is a perfect case study in this irresponsible tactic. It was Baron who went to Twitter on the evening of November 24 to announce the Post’s exposé of the enormous reach of Russia’s fake news operation, based on what he heralded as the findings of “independent researchers.” Baron’s tweet went all over the place; to date, it has been re-tweeted more than 3,000 times, including by many journalists with their own large followings:

But after that story faced a barrage of intense criticism — from Adrian Chen in the New Yorker [15] (“propaganda about Russia propaganda”), Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone [16] (“shameful, disgusting”), my own article [17], and many others — including legal threats from the sites smeared [18] as Russian propaganda outlets by the Post’s “independent researchers” — the Post finally added its lengthy editor’s note distancing itself from the anonymous group that provided the key claims of its story (“The Post … does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings” and “since publication of the Post’s story, PropOrNot has removed some sites from its list”).

What did Baron tell his followers about this editor’s note that gutted the key claims of the story he hyped? Nothing. Not a word. To date, he has been publicly silent about these revisions. Having spread the original claims to tens of thousands of people, if not more, he took no steps to ensure that any of them heard about the major walk back on the article’s most significant, inflammatory claims. He did, however, ironically find the time to promote a different Post story about how terrible and damaging Fake News is:

Whether the Post’s false stories here can be distinguished from what is commonly called “Fake News” is, at this point, a semantic dispute, particularly since “Fake News” has no cogent definition. Defenders of Fake News as a distinct category typically emphasize intent in order to differentiate it from bad journalism. That’s really just a way of defining Fake News so as to make it definitionally impossible for mainstream media outlets like the Post ever to be guilty of it (much the way terrorism is defined to ensure that the U.S. government and its allies cannot, by definition, ever commit it).

But what was the Post’s motive in publishing two false stories about Russia that, very predictably, generated massive attention, traffic, and political impact? Was it ideological and political — namely, devotion to the D.C. agenda of elevating Russia into a grave threat to U.S. security? Was it to please its audience — knowing that its readers, in the wake of Trump’s victory, want to be fed stories about Russian treachery? Was it access and source servitude — proving it will serve as a loyal and uncritical repository for any propaganda intelligence officials want disseminated? Was it profit — to generate revenue through sensationalistic click-bait headlines with a reckless disregard to whether its stories are true? In an institution as large as the Post, with numerous reporters and editors participating in these stories, it’s impossible to identify any one motive as definitive.

Whatever the motives, the effects of these false stories are exactly the same as those of whatever one regards as Fake News. The false claims travel all over the internet, deceiving huge numbers into believing them. The propagators of the falsehoods receive ample profit from their false, viral “news.” And there is no accountability of the kind that would disincentivize a repeat of the behavior. (That the Post ultimately corrects its false story does not distinguish it from classic Fake News sites, which also sometimes do the same [21].)

And while it’s true that all media outlets make mistakes, and that even the most careful journalism sometimes errs, those facts do not remotely mitigate the Post’s behavior here. In these cases, they did not make good faith mistakes after engaging in careful journalism. With both stories, they were reckless (at best) from the start, and the glaring deficiencies in the reporting were immediately self-evident (which is why both stories were widely attacked upon publication).

As this excellent timeline [8] by Kalev Leetaru documents, the Post did not even bother to contact the utility companies in question — the most elementary step of journalistic responsibility — until after the story was published. Intelligence officials insisting on anonymity — so as to ensure no accountability — whispered to them that this happened, and despite how significant the consequences would be, they rushed to print it with no verification at all. This is not a case of good journalism producing inaccurate reporting; it is the case of a media outlet publishing a story that it knew would produce massive benefits and consequences without the slightest due diligence or care.

The most ironic aspect of all this is that it is mainstream journalists — the very people who have become obsessed with the crusade against Fake News — who play the key role in enabling and fueling this dissemination of false stories. They do so not only by uncritically spreading them, but also by taking little or no steps to notify the public of their falsity.

The Post’s epic debacle this weekend regarding its electric grid fiction vividly illustrates this dynamic. As I noted on Saturday, many journalists reacted to this story the same way they do every story about Russia: They instantly click and re-tweet and share the story without the slightest critical scrutiny. That these claims are constantly based on the whispers of anonymous officials and accompanied by no evidence whatsoever gives those journalists no pause at all; any official claim that Russia and Putin are behind some global evil is instantly treated as Truth. That’s a significant reason papers like the Post are incentivized to recklessly publish stories of this kind. They know they will be praised and rewarded no matter the accuracy or reliability because their Cause — the agenda — is the right one.

On Friday night, immediately after the Post’s story was published, one of the most dramatic pronouncements came from the New York Times’s editorial writer Brent Staples, who said this:

]

Now that this story has collapsed and been fully retracted, what has Staples done to note that this tweet was false? Just like Baron, absolutely nothing. Actually, that’s not quite accurate, as he did do something: At some point after Friday night, he quietly deleted his tweet without comment. He has not uttered a word about the fact that the story he promoted has collapsed, and that what he told his 16,000-plus followers — along with the countless number of people who re-tweeted the dramatic claim of this prominent journalist — turned out to be totally false in every respect.

]

Even more instructive is the case of MSNBC’s Kyle Griffin, a prolific and skilled social media user who has seen his following explode this year with a constant stream of anti-Trump content. On Friday night, when the Post story was published, Griffin hyped it with a series of tweets designed to make the story seem as menacing and consequential as possible. That included hysterical statements from Vermont officials — who believed the Post’s false claim — that in retrospect are unbelievably embarrassing.

That tweet from Griffin — convincing people that Putin was endangering the health and safety of Vermonters — was re-tweeted more than 1,000 times. His other similar tweets — such as this one [26] featuring Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy’s warning that Putin was trying to “shut down [the grid] in the middle of winter” — were also widely spread.

But the next day, the crux of the story collapsed — the Post’s editor’s note acknowledged that “there is no indication” that “Russian hackers had penetrated the electricity grid” — and Griffin said nothing. Indeed, he said nothing further on any of this until yesterday — four days after his series of widely shared tweets — in which he simply re-tweeted a Post reporter noting an “update” that the story was false without providing any comment himself:

]

In contrast to Griffin’s original inflammatory tweets about the Russian menace, which were widely and enthusiastically spread, this after-the-fact correction has a paltry 289 re-tweets. Thus, a small fraction of those who were exposed to Griffin’s sensationalistic hyping of this story ended up learning that all of it was false.

I genuinely do not mean to single out these individual journalists for scorn. They are just illustrative of a very common dynamic: Any story that bolsters the prevailing D.C. orthodoxy on the Russia Threat, no matter how dubious, is spread far and wide. And then, as has happened so often [28], when the story turns out to be false or misleading, little or nothing is done to correct the deceitful effects. And, most amazingly of all, these are the same people constantly decrying the threat posed by Fake News.

A very common dynamic is driving all of this: media groupthink, greatly exacerbated (as I described on Saturday) by the incentive scheme of Twitter. As the grand media failure of 2002 demonstrated, American journalists are highly susceptible to fueling and leading the parade in demonizing a new Foreign Enemy rather than exerting restraint and skepticism in evaluating the true nature of that threat.

It is no coincidence that many of the most embarrassing journalistic debacles of this year involve the Russia Threat, and they all involve this same dynamic. Perhaps the worst one was the facially ridiculous, pre-election Slate story [29] — which multiple outlets (including The Intercept [30]) had been offered but passed on — alleging that Trump had created a secret server to communicate with a Russian bank; that story was so widely shared that even the Clinton campaign ended up hyping it — a tweet that, by itself, was re-tweeted almost 12,000 times.

But only a small percentage of those who heard of it ended up hearing of the major walk back [33] and debunking from other outlets. The same is true of The Guardian story from last week [34] on WikiLeaks and Putin that ended up going viral, only to have its retraction barely noticed because most of the journalists who spread the story did not bother to note it.

Beyond the journalistic tendency to echo anonymous officials on whatever Scary Foreign Threat they are hyping at the moment, there is an independent incentive scheme sustaining all of this. That Russia is a Grave Menace attacking the U.S. has — for obvious reasons — become a critical narrative for Democrats and other Trump opponents who dominate elite media circles on social media and elsewhere. They reward and herald anyone who bolsters that narrative, while viciously attacking anyone who questions it.

Indeed, in my 10-plus years of writing about politics on an endless number of polarizing issues — including the Snowden reporting — nothing remotely compares to the smear campaign that has been launched as a result of the work I’ve done questioning and challenging claims about Russian hacking and the threat posed by that country generally. This is being engineered not by random, fringe accounts, but by the most prominent Democratic pundits [35] with the largest media followings.

I’ve been transformed, overnight, into an early adherent of alt-right ideology [36], an avid fan of Breitbart [37], an enthusiastic Trump supporter [38], and — needless to say — a Kremlin operative [39]. That’s literally the explicit script they’re now using, often with outright fabrications of what I say (see here [40] for one particularly glaring example).

They, of course, know all of this is false. A primary focus of the last 10 years of my journalism has been a defense of the civil liberties of Muslims [41]. I wrote an entire book on the racism and inequality [42] inherent in the U.S. justice system. My legal career involved numerous representations of victims of racial discrimination [43]. I was one of the first journalists to condemn the misleadingly “neutral” approach to reporting on Trump and to call for more explicit condemnations [44] of his extremism and lies. I was one of the few to defend Jorge Ramos [45] from widespread media attacks when he challenged Trump’s immigration extremism. Along with many others, I tried to warn Democrats [46] that nominating a candidate as unpopular as Hillary Clinton risked a Trump victory. And as someone who is very publicly [47] in a same-sex, inter-racial marriage — with someone just elected to public office as a socialist [48] — I make for a very unlikely alt-right leader, to put that mildly.

The malice of this campaign is exceeded only by its blatant stupidity. Even having to dignify it with a defense is depressing, though once it becomes this widespread, one has little choice.

But this is the climate Democrats have successfully cultivated — where anyone dissenting or even expressing skepticism about their deeply self-serving Russia narrative is the target of coordinated and potent smears; where, as The Nation’s James Carden documented yesterday [49], skepticism is literally equated with treason. And the converse is equally true: Those who disseminate claims and stories that bolster this narrative — no matter how divorced from reason and evidence they are — receive an array of benefits and rewards.

That the story ends up being completely discredited matters little. The damage is done, and the benefits received. Fake News in the narrow sense of that term is certainly something worth worrying about. But whatever one wants to call this type of behavior from the Post, it is a much greater menace given how far the reach is of the institutions that engage in it.


Source URL: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-04/washington-post-richly-reward
ed-false-news-about-russia-threat-while-public-deceived


Links:
[1] http://www.zerohedge.com/users/tyler-durden
[2] http://www.zerohedge.com/printmail/583924
[3] http://www.zerohedge.com/print/583924
[4] https://theintercept.com/2017/01/04/washpost-is-richly-rewarded-for-fa
lse-news-about-russia-threat-while-public-is-deceived
/
[5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-propaganda-eff
ort-helped-spread-fake-news-during-election-experts-say/2016/11/24/793903b6-8a40-4ca9-b712-716af66098fe_story.html

[6] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-governm
ent-hackers-do-not-appear-to-have-targeted-vermont-utility-say-people-close-to-investigation/2017/01/02/70c25956-d12c-11e6-945a-76f69a399dd5_story.html?postshare=6521483443804621&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.0da74365f0a3

[7] https://www.washingtonian.com/2016/12/07/washington-post-appends-edito
rs-note-russian-propaganda-story
/
[8] http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2017/01/01/fake-news-and-how-
the-washington-post-rewrote-its-story-on-russian-hacking-of-the-power-grid/#2cd2e907291e

[9] https://theintercept.com/2016/12/31/russia-hysteria-infects-washpost-a
gain-false-story-about-hacking-u-s-electric-grid
/
[10] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-governm
ent-hackers-do-not-appear-to-have-targeted-vermont-utility-say-people-close-to-investigation/2017/01/02/70c25956-d12c-11e6-945a-76f69a399dd5_story.html?postshare=6521483443804621&tid=ss_tw

[11] https://twitter.com/PostBaron/status/813802998006775809
[12] http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/30/us/grizzly-steppe-malware-burlington
-electric
/
[13] https://t.co/3ETVXWw16Q
[14] https://twitter.com/PostBaron/status/801970511643365377
[15] http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-propaganda-about-russian-p
ropaganda

[16] http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/washington-post-blacklis
t-story-is-shameful-disgusting-w452543

[17] https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-disgracefully-prom
otes-a-mccarthyite-blacklist-from-a-new-hidden-and-very-shady-group
/
[18] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/12/09/washington-post-on-th
e-fake-news-hot-seat.html

[19] https://t.co/cOh7RZ4RqK
[20] https://twitter.com/PostBaron/status/802509156271824896
[21] https://twitter.com/adamjohnsonNYC/status/816364572554698754
[22]
[23]
[24] https://t.co/liJbVLdT5A
[25] https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/815219759486791680
[26] https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/815193781674840064
[27]
[28] https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/815916304347570176
[29] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/01/that-secret-
trump-russia-email-server-link-is-likely-neither-secret-nor-a-trump-russia-link
/
[30] https://theintercept.com/2016/11/01/heres-the-problem-with-the-story-c
onnecting-russia-to-donald-trumps-email-server
/
[31] https://t.co/8f8n9xMzUU
[32] https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/793250312119263233
[33] http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/10/wa
s_a_server_registered_to_the_trump_organization_communicating_with_russia.html

[34] https://theintercept.com/2016/12/29/the-guardians-summary-of-julian-as
sanges-interview-went-viral-and-was-completely-false
/
[35] https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/816398870326476800
[36] https://twitter.com/JoyAnnReid/status/815359207121756162
[37] https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/816387501095059456
[38] https://medium.com/@ggreenwald/for-the-democratic-party-smear-artists-falsely-claiming-that-either-explicitly-or-implicitly-e11ee455a738#.qyu7r32dm
[39] https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/813742798331670528?lang=en
[40] https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/816303213284622336
[41]


[42] https://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Justice-Some-Equality-Powerful/dp/08050
92056/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr
=
[43] http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1161125.html
[44] https://theintercept.com/2016/03/14/the-rise-of-trump-shows-the-danger
-and-sham-of-compelled-journalistic-neutrality
/
[45] https://theintercept.com/2015/08/26/jorge-ramos-commits-journalism-get
s-immediately-attacked-journalists
/
[46] https://theintercept.com/2016/02/24/with-trump-looming-should-dems-tak
e-a-huge-electability-gamble-by-nominating-hillary-clinton
/
[47] https://www.buzzfeed.com/natashavc/david-miranda-is-nobodys-errand-boy
[48] http://www.advocate.com/world/2016/10/02/glenn-greenwalds-husband-elec
ted-rio-city-council

[49] https://www.thenation.com/article/is-skepticism-treason/




How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 9, 2017 6:02 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


The Coming Crackdown On Free Speech

By Tyler Durden

Submitted by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com, [4]

It’s amazing what can happen in a week.

Before this publication went on hiatus last week, one of the last letters [5] I wrote to you in 2016 was about the National Defense Authorization Act and its treasure trove of freedom-killing provisions.

Section 1287, for example, creates a new agency called the “Global Engagement Center”, aka Ministry of Truth.

]

It has one purpose: to combat fake news.

The Global Engagement Center will fund and train journalists around the world to push a never-ending flow of US propaganda and cripple any independent outlet that doesn’t conform to the official government narrative.

Sadly, this is not unusual.

Each year, Congress creates a new National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which is essentially the military budget for the following year.

But without fail, each year’s NDAA is crammed full of horrific provisions which either waste taxpayer funds on corrupt pet projects, or destroy Americans’ civil liberties.

You may remember the 2012 NDAA, for example, which President Obama signed into law on New Years Eve 2011.

That year’s NDAA contained a section authorizing the military detention of US citizens on US soil.

Now we’re getting the Ministry of Truth.

President Obama signed this year’s NDAA into law on Christmas Day, which means that the Global Engagement Center will be live and operational within six months.

Four days later on December 29th, he issued an executive order intended to punish the Russian government for manipulating the US election.

The order contains some incredibly vague language targeting anyone engaged in “cyber-related activities” that are “reasonably likely” to pose some threat, including “activities to undermine democratic processes or institutions”.

The order also threatens anyone who provides “goods or services” to those engaged in the aforementioned cyber-related activities.

Anyone deemed by the US government to fit those incredibly broad definitions can have their assets frozen instantly.

Now, the spirit of the order is to go after all the Russians and Chinese they think are complicit in hacking the US government and US corporations.

(Mr. Obama also expelled a multitude of Russian diplomats that the FBI suspects of being spies, raising the question of why these people were in the US to begin with.)

Yet such broad and vague language can easily be applied to ensnare just about anyone they want.

If you just happen to have sold a used mobile phone over Craigslist to someone who ends up being a hacker, you can be targeted under this order.

Same with anyone who uses the Internet (engages in “cyber-related activities”) to express strong anti-government opinions (“undermine democratic . . . institutions”).

Now, clearly that’s not the intention with this order.

But when enough time passes, rules and regulations have a strong tendency to be used in ways that dramatically diverge from their original intent.

Case in point: the US government has wrongfully seized billions of dollars worth of cash and property over the years through what’s known as Civil Asset Forfeiture.

Civil Asset Forfeiture is essentially a form of theft.

But it’s perfectly legal for local, state, and federal police agencies to steal from you because of technicalities that were written in laws passed decades ago.

For example, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act was passed in 1979 with the intention of helping to preserve historic sites.

Buried in the law is some vague language authorizing the recovery of any property that was stolen from historic sites.

Now, decades later, police agencies abuse the vague language from that law, as well as dozens of other laws, to give themselves the authority to seize your property.
Their theft of your property has nothing to do with protecting archaeological sites, but they still have the legal authority thanks to a 37-year old law.

So no matter how good the intentions behind a law or executive order, there’s always strong potential for nasty, unforeseen consequences down the road.

And between the NDAA’s Global Engagement Center and the President’s incredibly vague executive order, there’s some serious anti-free speech potential.

By the way, this is NOT just a US phenomenon.

Israel’s government is close to passing a bill that authorizes them to demand Facebook (and other social media platforms) to remove content that they deem threatening.

Germany’s government is talking about passing a similar bill to stop “fake news” during the election cycle, even suggesting that Facebook could be fined if it does not remove certain content within 24 hours of being told by the government to do so.

Yeah, clearly there’s a lot of garbage on the Internet.

Someone can write a post that Hillary Clinton’s campaign is running a child prostitution ring, and it gets retweeted by mindless automatons who believe everything they read.

But at the same time, there’s a lot of independent, boutique journalism out there, and many of these sites are being labeled “fake” because they don’t conform to the official government narrative.

After a terrible year for the status quo, between Brexit and the Trump election, politicians are clearly terrified of any dissent that threatens their position.

And now they’re putting together all the tools they need to stamp it out and keep you in line.

Do you have a Plan B? [4]

·
Source URL: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-04/coming-crackdown-free-speech

Links:
[1] http://www.zerohedge.com/users/tyler-durden
[2] http://www.zerohedge.com/printmail/583859
[3] http://www.zerohedge.com/print/583859
[4] https://www.sovereignman.com/trends/the-coming-crackdown-on-free-speec
h-20639
/
[5] https://www.sovereignman.com/trends/three-ridiculous-ways-congress-pla
ns-to-keep-america-safe-again-20610
/
[6]




How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 9, 2017 6:44 PM

THGRRI

May the Good Lord take a liking to you... but not too soon!


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Quote:

Originally posted by THGRRI:
It is no surprise to some of us here that you can not tell what is fake. Why is that? Well, it's due to your opinions and what you post. Nothing but garbage

Just pointing out that - AS USUAL - THUGGER degrades the entire thread by posting nothing but topic-free trolling.





I see you still refuse to acknowledge what I have said many many times here. You SIG and Jaynztown, ARE fake news. So of course I would point that out in this thread. There are others here as well that post proof of your lies daily.

____________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, January 9, 2017 7:15 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Quote:

Originally posted by THUGGER (to 6-string):
It is no surprise to some of us here that you can not tell what is fake. Why is that? Well, it's due to your opinions and what you post. Nothing but garbage.

Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Just pointing out that - AS USUAL - THUGGER degrades the entire thread by posting nothing but topic-free trolling.

AND of course - doubling-down on the topic-free (also fact-free AND evidence free!) trolling, THUGGER then posted this:
Quote:

Originally posted by THUGGER:
You SIG and Jaynztown, ARE fake news.

THUGGER, maybe 'G' got some pointers from Haken about trolling after his thread got banished to TROLL COUNTRY. You should talk with Haken.



How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 10, 2017 12:16 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Quote:

Originally posted by THUGGER (to 6-string):
It is no surprise to some of us here that you can not tell what is fake. Why is that? Well, it's due to your opinions and what you post. Nothing but garbage.




I did want to point out that this post by THGRRI was not to me. I did respond to him by saying that we're going to hear a TON of this from both sides in the foreseeable future. At least until the "News" Networks start doing some investigative journalism instead of paying pretty faces to give their opinions on things that may or may not even be true.



That being said, I am quite bothered by the idea that any Government entity within America would be created to combat "fake news". It reeks of Orwellianism, and it's rather terrifying.

Though we may behave like it from time to time, we are not children. We do not need our Government deciding what is True and what is False.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 10, 2017 2:55 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Oh, I see. It was to jt.

Something I've been doing recently is literally just looking over headlines from a dozen or so on-line newspapers and compilers a day - from FOX to Salon, to the BBC, NYTimes, LATimes, Reuters, RT, ZH and English-language foreign sources, and so on. It makes one less encumbered by any one narrative.

Aside from the glaring obviousness that we've been heavily propagandized by our government and the toadying msm, it makes me wonder how ANYone can be so confident they can declare 'the truth' - and how anyone can be such a numbnuts that they believe the claim that it's even possible.




How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 10, 2017 4:52 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


I agree. I say that you got to believe what you think is true, but always approach it with a healthy dose of skepticism. That goes for anything, not just the news.

Be especially wary when our government decides the narrative.



Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Rober E. Lee on civil war monuments
Sat, August 19, 2017 15:02 - 17 posts
Charlottesville
Sat, August 19, 2017 14:55 - 201 posts
Dutch right film maker banned from LONDONISTAN
Sat, August 19, 2017 13:04 - 49 posts
Countdown Clock to Trumps impeachment " STARTS"
Sat, August 19, 2017 08:30 - 350 posts
Mentally ill leftwing Fakenews CNN & Wolf Blitzer actually speculate Barcelona attack could have been copycat of "Charlottesville"
Sat, August 19, 2017 07:46 - 13 posts
FBI Raids Manafort's Home
Sat, August 19, 2017 03:28 - 43 posts
The Role of Education
Fri, August 18, 2017 17:43 - 11 posts
Tourists Killing Cute Baby Dolphins.
Fri, August 18, 2017 15:12 - 9 posts
Why Nazis Are Just Copies of Democrats
Fri, August 18, 2017 14:57 - 64 posts
Starting a new solar eclipse thread
Fri, August 18, 2017 12:14 - 19 posts
islamic Truck of peace? plunges into crowd in Barcelona, 13+ DEAD MULTIPLE INJURIES
Thu, August 17, 2017 16:58 - 2 posts
Sunni extremism at work- terrorism and atrocities
Thu, August 17, 2017 13:49 - 41 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL