Actually there's no evidence that they hacked into anything -- it's all BS hearsay and "trust us" from secret agencies and no evidence pudding.
http://time.com/4600177/election-hack-russia-hillary-clinton...
Bears in the Midst: Intrusion into the Democratic National Committee
https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-qu...
You may want to take a closer read of the editor's note prepended to the Nation article you linked to, which is a lengthy apology for the article's inaccuracy:
>we should have made certain that several of the article’s conclusions were presented as possibilities, not as certainties. And given the technical complexity of the material, we would have benefited from bringing on an independent expert to conduct a rigorous review of the VIPS technical claims[...] We have obtained such a review in the last week [...which] lays out several scenarios in which the DNC could have been hacked from the outside, although he does not rule out a leak.
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/russiagate-explained-721c...
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/russiagaters-are-the-very...
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/russiagate-is-making-ever...
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/10-trump-administration-a...
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/the-problem-with-the-clin...
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/clintonists-suddenly-clai...
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/how-to-criticize-trump-wi...
Call me crazy but I'm going to side with the intelligence community (and Obama and John McCain and the Dutch government and even Mitch McConnell) on this one.
[edit: added adjectives, and the Dutch because they deserve it]
Because they have proven such integrity? I still remember the pictures being shown on TV from our intelligence community of the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
And if this were just one source, or just one agency, or even just one political party, I might be more skeptical. (My usual routine when a story seems questionable is to check a source with the opposite political bias. If Fox and the WaPo both say something happened, I'm much more likely to believe that it did.)
Not for nothing, but:
"The fundamental purpose of dezinformatsiya, or Russian disinformation... is to undermine the official version of events — even the very idea that there is a true version of events" https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/29/world/europe/russia-swede...
Seems like it's working.
We are quite good at propaganda also
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-b...
In one short paragraph you've changed the subject from Russian election interference to the separate issue of Trump's collusion; you've characterized that collusion as a "conspiracy theory" for no apparent reason; somehow you've decided it's to blame for the rigged voting process within the Russian not-a-democracy; and I have no idea what the bizarre "declaring anybody from foreign country speaking about anything happening in another country to be a crime" is in reference to, if anything at all. Impressive!
But I'll give you this one:
> [Putin]'s just lucky US politics happened to be insane in a way that benefits him.
That's right on the nose.
I am glad you are able to see it as two issues. 99% of the press isn't.
> you've characterized that collusion as a "conspiracy theory"
Which it most definitely is, by definition - it's a theory (with no factual basis after two years of investigation) and it's about a conspiracy. What is it if not conspiracy theory?
> somehow you've decided it's to blame for the rigged voting process within the Russian not-a-democracy
I decided nothing of the sort. Of course US craziness is not to blame for Russian fake elections. But US craziness makes it harder for US to point to Russians that they just had fake elections, because Russians would say "didn't you just said telling other people about their elections is criminal? So please do shut up". US just shot itself in the foot on this one, and for no good reason whatsoever.
> I have no idea what the bizarre "declaring anybody from foreign country speaking about anything happening in another country to be a crime" is in reference to
Oh, you do have an idea, drop the pretense. You are perfectly aware what I am referring to, you just like to pretend it's not what it is saying. But, unfortunately, it is.
Oh horsepucky. There’s a sliiiight difference between “no factual basis” and “ongoing investigation whose results have of course not yet been made public.” There’s also no shortage of publicly available information supporting it; I could reel off the long list of meetings and shady-looking emails and trump tweets and etc but I’m sure you’re quite as well familiar with it as I am.
> You are perfectly aware what I am referring to
I really, genuinely, honestly have no idea what that lunatic raving is. Feel free to explain it, if you like.
Yes there is. But given the way it has been conducted so far - where any information against Trump has been leaked very promptly - and yet in the whole time absolutely nothing confirming the "collusion" theory has been found, and everything that came out - e.g. Flynn, Manafort, Papadopulos & now Russian trolls' indictments - show nothing of the sort, it's pretty safe to conclude it won't be ever found, because there's nothing to find. Of course, one is free to believe otherwise, as one is free to believe we are yet to discover the lost city of Atlantis, the Yeti and the UFOs hidden in Area 51, we just didn't look well enough. Hope dies last.
> There’s also no shortage of publicly available information supporting it;
Yep, there is. If fact, there's none.
> I could reel off the long list of meetings and shady-looking emails and trump tweets
Yes, there were meetings and emails and tweets, none of them has any evidence of Trump colluding with anybody to do anything, let alone anything criminal or even out of the course of routine politics. They may be evidence of thousands of things, but not that particular one.
> I really, genuinely, honestly have no idea what that lunatic raving is
> you’ve chosen to fall back to playground-level argumentation.
It is a fascinating level of lack of self-awareness - telling me I'm on "playground-level" in the same sentence as as subjecting me to a playground-level insults!
OK, I will indulge your pretense. I was referring to the prosecution of Russian individuals under the theory that participating in US politics, by publicly expressing your opinion on social media, or other venues, while not being US citizen, can be criminal. Of course, there are also some instances of actual fraud in the indictment, like identity theft, which are different matter, but conduct like "tweeting about US politics", or even "tweeting about US politics while having a profile on Twitter falsely claiming you are an American" should not be part of any criminal prosecution or criminal indictment.
It may not come as a surprise that I think you're wrong about basically everything else in that comment, though.
> where any information against Trump has been leaked very promptly
This is a baseless claim. We have no knowledge of what information hasn't been leaked. Kind of by definition.
> yet in the whole time absolutely nothing confirming the "collusion" theory has been found
Strike "found", replace with "made public". Because, again, the investigation is still happening, and its contents are still secret. Don't declare victory before the game's over.
> none of them has any evidence of Trump colluding with anybody to do anything
Yet again, we have no way of knowing what evidence has been found by the FBI but not yet made public because, yet again, the investigation is still happening. We do have a lot of instances of Trump and associates trying to cover up various meetings, which isn't typical behavior for innocent people. Kushner's little backchannel hotline to the Kremlin isn't exactly routine politics either. (It's not a proof-positive slam dunk -- Kushner might be able to explain it as sheer incompetence on his part, that he literally had no idea how criminal it would appear to attempt to hide your communication with Russia from your own country's security apparatus -- but it merits investigation. Which, as we know, is ongoing.) That's just a couple examples from what you and I both know is a long list of actions that sure smell incriminating from here.
But there's little point in us arguing about all the many details, because, say it with me everybody you know the words: the investigation is still ongoing. We don't know what we don't know. We'll find out one way or the other when more indictments drop, or when they close up shop.
> I was referring to the prosecution of Russian individuals under the theory that participating in US politics, by publicly expressing your opinion on social media, or other venues, while not being US citizen, can be criminal.
Aaaah, I see. Well, in the spirit of avoiding playground-level discourse, I will withdraw my description of it as "lunatic raving", and in place say "such a wildly absurd mischaracterization of the contents of this indictment that I literally did not realize this indictment was what you were talking about."
It does not consist of "declaring anybody from foreign country speaking about anything happening in another country to be a crime". That's an absurd claim. "Tweeting about US politics while having a profile on Twitter falsely claiming you are an American" is not criminal behavior. Creating a multi-million dollar operation to generate thousands of propaganda-dispensing social media accounts, posing as everything from BLM activists to the Tennessee Republican Party (really!), buying political ads, and staging political rallies within the US, all with the explicit intent of manipulating the election, however... that's a different story.
Ah yes, the famous Russell's teapot. I am sure it is full of evidence against Trump. But so far it hasn't been found in any other place. And there were enough leaks from all levels to demonstrate the capability and the willingness to leak. So one must ask, why this capability hasn't yet been deployed to reveal any real evidence of collusion? Obviously the theory that nobody is willing to leak stuff about this is false. What other theory is there?
> Strike "found", replace with "made public".
Russell's teapot again. You are of course free to believe in hidden evidence of anything you like. I prefer to believe in open one, and that one does not contain a smidgen of collusion.
> Creating a multi-million dollar operation to generate thousands of propaganda-dispensing social media accounts, posing as everything from BLM activists to the Tennessee Republican Party (really!), buying political ads, and staging political rallies within the US, all with the explicit intent of manipulating the election, however... that's a different story.
No it is not. It's exactly the same story - people saying words on the Internet (or in public on the streets, as it were). If it's a crime for 100 people to do it, then it's a crime for one person to do it. If it's a crime to do it for a million dollars, then it's a crime to do it for 10 cents and a lollipop. If it's a crime for a Russian to buy political ads and stage political actions - then it's a crime for any foreign national to do that. And that's exactly the theory major part of Muller indictment is based off - and that you just agreed you believe in too, in complete disregard for Constitutional freedoms and natural freedoms of every person, such as freedom of speech, association, etc. No amount of putting "the same, but with scary Russians" on it will change the basic premises of it.
Declaring your support for the constitutional rights of non-citizens is an interesting rhetorical choice. As is describing a large-scale propaganda mill as just the same thing as a rando spouting off on twitter. (Especially followed by the rhetorical flourish "then it's a crime for any foreign national to do that". Which, well, yes: it is. I even did that thing people do on the Internet where I looked it up for you, here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20) And obviously I think your reading of who's leaked what, and what public evidence, both solid and suggestive, currently exists is quite selective. (I'm sure that feeling is mutual!) And most obviously of all, neither one of us is going to convince the other of... well, anything.
So: have a nice day. We can reconvene after the next round of indictments, if you like.
I was pointing to the arguments -- could not care less if Humpty Dumpty wrote them.
>Call me crazy but I'm going to side with the intelligence community (and Obama and John McCain and even Mitch McConnell) on this one.
I'd just call you gullible. If one actually wants to get out of the establishment bubble, that's the last source they'd want to slide with.
But of course they have such a great track record for people to be trusting them, from Operation Mockingbird to the Contras, WMDs, lying about surveillance, and so on...
Look, I'm no fan of the CIA, I share the frustration with not being able to see the classified evidence first-hand, and I'm all for skepticism when it comes to source bias and motivation. But when your argument boils down to literally everyone of significance is lying except for Donald Trump, that's no longer something that can be described as "skepticism".
We even had other countries confirm our conclusions before and it was still wrong.
I don't mean to say, it is definitely wrong, but I can't agree that is is almost certainly right either due to these same parties have all lied before.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/spy-agencies...
It seems this should still be important, right? Before we take actions that lead to hostility between nations, possibly even wars, shouldn't we be absolutely sure?
https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2213767-dutch-intelligence-...
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-01-26/release-t...
https://theintercept.com/2018/02/12/dutch-official-admits-ly...
Seems to be quite a disingenuous summary of content
I'm not sure about your anecdote regarding alleged surprise. The only surprise I really caught were the public reactions to the news.
OK, I admit, I took the optimistic route. The pessimistic one would be they knew for months, they tried for months to stop it, and they failed, and they didn't tell anyone about it. That sounds even worse to me.
> Primarily, any initial entry into one government system
DNC is not government. At least not yet :)
I trust you understood what I meant, regardless.
I’m willing to believe it’s possible they failed. I recall talks by a former NSA director about the dire need for improved cybersecurity programs and it wasn’t well received at the time— in light of all the patriot act business
Maybe it’s a wake up call?
There is no evidence in the post, only claims.
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-departme...
Additionally, if you look at the private security company posts, they ALSO cross reference material of note.
https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...
What is your basis for disbelieving all of those people and groups?
I personally looked through all technical evidence that was in public and that I could find (of course I could miss some, I am not perfect and I have a day job), and 90% of it is conjecture and references to some private data that I could not see. Maybe that private data shows what they say, maybe not - there's no way to see. The only semi-public info that I could see is that bit.ly fishing thing that shows that the fishing operation (which is only one of the multiple hacks that happen) is most likely performed by the same organization that performed a number of other fishing operations, which could be useful to Russians, and thus most likely is performed by Russians (either the government or private contractor working by the government order). There were also some scripts and sources of Ukrainian and Russian origin, seemingly, but those are traded on darknet so anybody could get their hands on them.
That is the only data I've seen in public that pinpoints the whole deal to Russia - all other things are "trust us, it's Russia". Which may very well be true - but "trust us" is not exactly a proof. It doesn't mean it's not Russia - very well may be - but the conclusive proof is still not there.
That isn't the case for many of the involved parties (for example the Dutch government, or Mitch McConnell.) And I'm not sure I agree with your argument that "pin it on Russia" would be the most face-saving lie (compared to "just call it a leak" for example.)
Look, I share your desire to see the actual evidence first-hand; "just trust us" rarely sits well with me either.
But if this is a lie, it's a remarkably well-coordinated lie, apparently agreed upon by many sources with competing or even conflicting motivations and biases. Even in your description of your own research you appear to concede that there is evidence connecting the hacking to, if not necessarily the Russian government, then at least Russians; and that it was certainly in the Russian government's interest; and that what information is currently public tends to fall in line with the information we're told is still secret. (I hope I'm not mischaracterizing your statements here, I do appreciate the amount of detail and thought apparent in your comment)
It's true that the public doesn't have, as you say, "conclusive proof" at this time. But many people seem to be taking that lack of conclusive proof as evidence that it's all just fake news, a huge cross-party conspiracy to mislead the public.
(And the conspiracy theorists oddly always gloss right over the question of who did do the hacking if not the Russians, they're just certain that it wasn't the Russians, because the government and the media says it was the Russians, and everybody knows you can't trust the government or the media.) (And that mistrust, of course, is the precise goal of the Russian disinformation campaigns we do have conclusive proof exist. So that's an interesting detail.)
That's the part I can't get past. On the one hand you have a plausible, coherent explanation which fits all the available evidence; on the other hand you have... well... what? Unsupported free-form skepticism, as far as I can tell.
True, the Dutch confirmation is much more valuable, as they have no apparent reason to be partisan on either side. So if it is confirmed with some evidence, it would be very heavy indication towards APT's indeed being Russian and being responsible for the hacks they are claimed to be responsible. It's one thing McCain - which has been at war with Russia since forever and grasping at anything anti-Russian he could reach - saying it and it's another thing Dutch with no partisan motivations saying that. When I rote the above I didn't know about Dutch confirmation, which makes me attribute more likelihood to the Russian attribution if I after some research I am convinced Dutch aren't mistaken and not motivated by something that I wasn't aware of (I know next to nothing about Dutch politics so no idea there).
> And the conspiracy theorists oddly always gloss right over the question of who did do the hacking if not the Russians
Oh, here might be lots of options. E.g.:
1. Russians, but not those Russians - I mean, independent Russian group which is not controlled by Kremlin. Who leaked the emails for lulz.
2. Independent group outside of Russia that has its interests aligned with Russia at the moment - say, Belorussians or Iranians or Kazahks or whatever, I'm not going to list all countries connected to the internet here.
3. Independent group outside of Russia having a beef with Clinton, but having no connection with Russia whatsoever and Russians just got lucky that they also hated Clinton.
4. Independent group outside of Russia not giving a tweet about politics but doing it for lulz and darknet bragging credits.
5. The emails were not published as a result of the hack, the hacks happened independently and the emails were leaked by the insider, unaware of simultaneously happening hack by any of the above.
6. No idea. I don't know a lot of things, and it's completely possible I wouldn't also know who leaked DNC emails. That's always a valid option.
I do not say any of those are true (except for the last one which very well might be true :) but they are certainly options for the answer of "who hacked it and leaked emails".
> And that mistrust, of course, is the precise goal of the Russian disinformation campaigns we do have conclusive proof exist. So that's an interesting detail.
Giving that mistrust of the government is pretty much written into US Constitution and, if one reads what the Framers wrote, was deeply on their minds when they wrote it, the Russians are about 230 years late to the table here.
So is the only source you’ll accept is your eyes watching the hacking in person?
Pretty much the same process evidence undergoes on criminal trial. You present it, you get it through adversarial process, if it survives, we have some reasonable (though not 100%, as well known) chance it's true.
Of course, a prosecutor saying "well, we've seen the evidence and we conclude the defendant is guilty" would not fly very well in court. But that's mostly what we have here.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-i...
[2] https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2017-11-03/inside...
[3] https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/26/us/2016-presidential-campaign...
[4] https://www.defcon.org/images/defcon-25/DEF%20CON%2025%20vot...
Depends on your degree of trust in the US and Russian governments.
Re: the DNC/RNC, even if they didn't hack anything, they did leak the information that they acquired - clearly to shape the political situation. Still reprehensible.
> they did leak the information that they acquired - clearly to shape the political situation. Still reprehensible.
This is not only legal, but has been done many times by all MSM outlets. Some got well-respected prizes for it. Some got movies made in their honor for it. May be still reprehensible, but certainly not something one usually gets indicted for.
Hack that and people get turned away at the polls.
NIC ICA Report: