[911]

Funny thing is, I don't think he even needed to tell him this, they are both on the same wavelength.

[CynicalContrarian]

[weambulance]

Wordfence published an analysis of the government report on Friday. Just got an email from them about it, since I use Wordfence on all my Wordpress sites for security (recommended).

Article link here, way too much stuff to quote.

From the FAQ page:

Quote:

On Friday we published an analysis of the FBI and DHS Grizzly Steppe report. The report was widely seen as proof that Russian intelligence operatives hacked the US 2016 election. We showed that the PHP malware in the report is old, freely available from a Ukrainian hacker group and is an administrative tool for hackers.

We also performed an analysis on the IP addresses included in the report and showed that they originate from 61 countries and 389 different organizations with no clear attribution to Russia.

FAQ page here.

I haven't read through their analysis but maybe I'll take a look later.

[Wrec]

CNN caught using screengrabs from Fallout 4 game in 'Russian Hack' story

[budoslavic]

[url=https://twitter.com/GoTTdiva/status/816876900400369665][/url]

[TravelerKai]

CNN is running a story that US officials know the inbetweens the Russians used to give Wikileaks the emails. Of course there are no names or mention of who gave Wikileaks the data. If they did that, it would give Julian free range to fire back that they are lying.

They won't say Seth Rich's name either because then that would blow away the DC Metro police claim that he was simply robbed and make the biggest political scandal since Watergate.

Let's see if they are bold enough to say a name.

[HighSpeed_LowDrag]

The unclassified intelligence report has been released:

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

[heavy]

Ok skimming through this thread, you're all far more informed than me...

As far as the DNC/liberals are concerned, in the big picture why does it matter Wikileaks source?

I would question the libs thinking flip flopping on liking/hating the Russians, but it doesn't surprise me the Russians are more intelligent than liberals and simply fooled them.

[Vienna]

(01-06-2017 04:10 PM)HighSpeed_LowDrag Wrote:  

The unclassified intelligence report has been released:

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

Unreal to read something like this. Alex Jones couldn't come up with a more crazy conspiracy theory.

"Vladimir Putin probably carries a grudge against Hillary Clinton after she made disparaging remarks..." The ICA has mind readers?

[John Michael Kane]

@DarianFrey: When you don't have any real evidence, concoct some rudimentary bullshit conjecture. That's been the warmongers' tool of choice for a very long time!

[rpg]

25 pages and no evidence presented. Just horse shit. Putin voiced a preference that is it. FUCK THESE PEOPLE.

[Libertas]

Follow Glenn Greenwald and Michael Tracey, two of the few remaining real journalists left.

Same bullshit. Much of it is a rant about Russia Today. What a goddamned joke.

Trump is apparently holding his line. Let's hope he cleans house after January 20th.

[TravelerKai]

That PDF was putrid. What a waste of time that was. I wish I could get that time back.

It's like we have a bunch of 3 year olds in our agencies that think everyone is a god damned retard that reads at a first grade level. That is the most insulting thing the Obama administration has done in all of this. I actually would have respected them a tiny bit more if they had just kept repeating themselves over and over like George Bush would do, instead of sending out these reports, which insult our intelligence.

What a shameful lack of respect this is.

[Kurgan]

MSN recently put on the report that Russia helped get Trump elected.

Why do the Democrats have a hard-on for hating Russia? Because Putin wasn't acting like a good little globalist?

[Wutang]

I was just reading through the report. Through out the report it states that the FBI, CIA, and NSA assesses that there was Russian cyber attacks made against the US for the purpose of influencing the election (though they do flatly state there was no indication of hacking of polls to manipulate votes) and that it was ordered by Putin and the highest branches of the Russian government. The report also makes the assessment that Gucifer 2.0 is a persona used by Russian military intelligence to release documents obtained by hacking. After these assertions are made absolutely no proof is presented about to support any of the assertions. The report does not give any indication of how these US intelligence agencies came to their conclusions and what evidence they have supposedly discovered that gives credence to their assertions. The report over and over again will say something like "We assess with high confidence that Russia did X" and then when the reader is expecting in the next sentence or paragraph to see what the proof or reasoning behind that assessment, none is given.

Almost half of the report is dedicated to listing incidents where RT had ran unflattering stories about Hillary Clinton. This is the closest thing the report provides to any proof that Russia had tried to interfere in the election. The reasoning they seem to be attempting to make is that "Russians didn't like Hillary Clinton so therefore they must have hacked the election to prevent her from becoming president". I don't think I need to insult the intelligence of people in this thread by explaining what weak reasoning this is.

There's also some claims that Putin did what he supposedly did because he has some sort of personal grudge against Clinton. Once again, no proof is presented to support this assertion.

I think at this point the whole Russia hacking story is out of gas unless the CIA/FBI/NSA still has a smoking gun found among classified information and they are willing to release it. If they were gonna release the information, assuming they had it I don't know why they haven't done it by now.

[TravelerKai]

(01-06-2017 07:28 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

I was just reading through the report. Through out the report it states that the FBI, CIA, and NSA assesses that there was Russian cyber attacks made against the US for the purpose of influencing the election (though they do flatly state there was no indication of hacking of polls to manipulate votes) and that it was ordered by Putin and the highest branches of the Russian government. The report also makes the assessment that Gucifer 2.0 is a persona used by Russian military intelligence to release documents obtained by hacking. After these assertions are made absolutely no proof is presented about to support any of the assertions. The report does not give any indication of how these US intelligence agencies came to their conclusions and what evidence they have supposedly discovered that gives credence to their assertions. The report over and over again will say something like "We assess with high confidence that Russia did X" and then when the reader is expecting in the next sentence or paragraph to see what the proof or reasoning behind that assessment, none is given.

Almost half of the report is dedicated to listing incidents where RT had ran unflattering stories about Hillary Clinton. This is the closest thing the report provides to any proof that Russia had tried to interfere in the election. The reasoning they seem to be attempting to make is that "Russians didn't like Hillary Clinton so therefore they must have hacked the election to prevent her from becoming president". I don't think I need to insult the intelligence of people in this thread by explaining what weak reasoning this is.

There's also some claims that Putin did what he supposedly did because he has some sort of personal grudge against Clinton. Once again, no proof is presented to support this assertion.

I think at this point the whole Russia hacking story is out of gas unless the CIA/FBI/NSA still has a smoking gun found among classified information and they are willing to release it. If they were gonna release the information, assuming they had it I don't know why they haven't done it by now.

Guccifer 2.0 gave a talk at a security conference and released new leaks during it. I did not hear his voice, but those present said he had a slight UK accent. That said, accents can be faked, but he gave no impression of a Russian or Eastern European accent or other linguistic factors. Some said his command of the English language seemed to signify that he is a Western European man.

This isn't proof he does not work for the Russian government, but their shitty report does not do anything to address his public appearance or provide any proof that he does.

[TravelerKai]

I have been thinking about this for a while and this is what I think happened.

Seth Rich gave Wikileaks the DNC emails and Guccifer 2.0 gave them Podesta's email from his Yahoo accounts.

Guccifer 2.0 is a 100% pure blackhat hacker. He seems to be good at getting passwords from people's webmail and using above average techniques once inside a network to steal information. I am basing this off his Soros Foundation hacks and his Clinton Foundation hacks. I don't see any evidence or hints of his skillsets in using malware to obtain access. I think he tends to either come right up to the front door with scanners/backtrack/privilege escalation or brute force/guess the passwords.

The kicker is if Guccifer 2.0 asked Seth Rich to help him give the USB drive worth of PST files to that Wikileaks contact at the park near American University. The DNC email was alot of mail to transport. The bad thing about doing shit like that, is that there are CCTV cameras everywhere. The DC Metro area has to have easy access for the Federal govt, for security reasons. The Jason Bourne series is telling the truth on how they can gain access to cameras across the country to backtrace your whereabouts. Likely the NSA or CIA would have done this and gave the information to Obama and his CIA/NSA directors. They could order a payback hit off the record. No paper trail means no FOIA entry discussing it 50 years later.

If you sold dope for a living, you would not sell it on a popular university in plain sight. That was an amatuer mistake. They should have met in a corn field somewhere or used a dropsite. Wikileaks workers and Julian now have a heavy track record of getting their sources caught and killed. It's not a coincidence. They are probably watched very tightly electronically and offline. Using Tor isn't possible because the FBI and NSA have full control of the exit nodes, so they can catch Silk Road like trafficking and child porn users.

I can tell by looking at the Guccifer 2.0 leaks that he had the luxury of time on the Soros and Clinton Foundation hack to pull all the docs he wanted. He also had a small DNC leak of databases etc. but those files were large. Also, they were not all docs and not emails. Basically Julian must have told him they were not interested in publishing those things (like all the Americans that gave Democrat donation information, etc.) Wikileaks typically only publishes emails and documents. Maybe a rare video or so every blue moon like the Iraq helicopter one.

He may not have had the time to pull all the DNC email and maybe needed some inside help. How did he and Seth link up would be the only question. It's also possible they worked independently of each other. Like I stated before, Seth could have been backfilling around the office doing light IT work, since they did not have dedicated IT staff or very little. So he could have reasonably walked over to each computer late at night and made PSTs of everyone's mailboxes. If Guccifer had root/domain admin privileges in the network, he could have also given Seth enough rights to extract everyone's mailboxes at his own PC, in order to avoid suspicion.

Also a key point is that Guccifer put all the passwords out for all his leaks, that were used by the targets. Wikileaks did not do this of course. That is not journalism to do so. He made an effort to even describe how awful the security was there. James Woolsey said in an interview that it is likely multiple people hacked the DNC. This is a former NSA guy that quit the Trump team bitterly when he said it. Guccifer's explanation on how easy it was told me back then, that a teenager or even a script kiddie could have gotten into the DNC's network with Metasploit/Backtrack and some simple tools. When Julian said recently with Sean Hannity that a 14 year old could have hacked them, he was basing it off what Guccifer 2.0 wrote about a few months back.

Anyway, in conclusion, I think they killed Seth to make an example out of him to Julian and Guccifer, to cut it out. Since Seth was in DC, they could easily get away with it and make the cops brush it under the rug. They own that town. Also, if somehow caught, they could have used the excuse that he was working with cyber terrorists assisting Russia or spying for Russian intelligence, trying to harm the election.

Robert Hanssen ring a bell?

They could have killed him without a trial and gotten away with it. George W Bush had been in office a month. He probably just gave the nod to go and arrest him since they had a mountain of evidence to crush him with for life.

Other alternatives is that Soros had Seth killed and if Guccifer was working with Seth, he probably would have said so, unless Julian begged him not to do so. Soros has too many deep connections with all liberals and some conservatives, so I can see how he could get information on someone, but this theory is a bit of a long shot.

What do you guys think?

[Brodiaga]

(01-06-2017 07:28 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

Almost half of the report is dedicated to listing incidents where RT had ran unflattering stories about Hillary Clinton. This is the closest thing the report provides to any proof that Russia had tried to interfere in the election. The reasoning they seem to be attempting to make is that "Russians didn't like Hillary Clinton so therefore they must have hacked the election to prevent her from becoming president". I don't think I need to insult the intelligence of people in this thread by explaining what weak reasoning this is.

I watched RT a few times during the final days of the election campaign, just out of curiosity.

I was surprised that they were more pro-Clinton than pro-Trump.

It seemed like the channel's position was to try to be balanced and leave it up to reporters/anchors and their guests to voice their opinions. Many of those people supported Clinton. I clearly remember quite a few unflattering stories about Trump, for example how he flaunts his wealth, has no class, etc.

I remember that I even stopped watching RT because I thought it was too pro-Clinton.

So, compared to fake news like CNN it was definitely less in favor of Clinton. But if the intelligence now uses hand picked RT stories as evidence of Russian interference, I would don't know what to say... are they incompetent? Do they think their audience are mostly morons who will eat it up? Maybe they are right?

[rover]

(01-06-2017 08:23 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  

I have been thinking about this for a while and this is what I think happened.

Seth Rich gave Wikileaks the DNC emails and Guccifer 2.0 gave them Podesta's email from his Yahoo accounts.

What do you guys think?

Seth Rich was killed in July but Craig Murray claims he received the data from a DNC insider in September (and it was in a wooded area in Washington so they were probably smart about cameras).

[budoslavic]

Pathetic..."fake news"..."fake intel"...looks like everything's fake under Obama.

[/url]

[url=https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/817566934623539200]

[Chauncey]

(01-06-2017 11:58 PM)rover Wrote:  

(01-06-2017 08:23 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  

I have been thinking about this for a while and this is what I think happened.

Seth Rich gave Wikileaks the DNC emails and Guccifer 2.0 gave them Podesta's email from his Yahoo accounts.

What do you guys think?

Seth Rich was killed in July but Craig Murray claims he received the data from a DNC insider in September (and it was in a wooded area in Washington so they were probably smart about cameras).

He is probably referring to September 2015, seeing as the DNC leaks were released in July 2016 (10 days after Seth Rich was killed and 2 months before September 2016).

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(01-06-2017 04:10 PM)HighSpeed_LowDrag Wrote:  

The unclassified intelligence report has been released:

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

About as credible as Saddam's nuclear mobile launch trucks and his troops throwing Kuweiti incubator babies out of hospitals (both stories created by the CIA).

And frankly this story is absolutely ridiculous.

Even if the Russians hacked Hillary's emails - so what? (Which is highly doubtful, it was very likely one of her coworkers who died susequently - you take a pick which one of them, since so many die in her vicinity.)

It should not have mattered how the emails got out. When the media and all of Hollywood blasted those pussygrab tapes from Donald Trump, then no one cared that a media executive leaked the recordings. They did not accuse that executive or worker of treason and voting manipulation. And it truly hurt Trump, but he took it as a champ, because he said those things and had to deal with it.

The Clinton Emails were written by her and her staff and there was no sugarcoating it. How they got out does not matter.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(01-06-2017 09:29 PM)Brodiaga Wrote:  

It seemed like the channel's position was to try to be balanced and leave it up to reporters/anchors and their guests to voice their opinions. Many of those people supported Clinton. I clearly remember quite a few unflattering stories about Trump, for example how he flaunts his wealth, has no class, etc.

I remember that I even stopped watching RT because I thought it was too pro-Clinton.

So, compared to fake news like CNN it was definitely less in favor of Clinton. But if the intelligence now uses hand picked RT stories as evidence of Russian interference, I would don't know what to say... are they incompetent? Do they think their audience are mostly morons who will eat it up? Maybe they are right?

Personally I don't think that the globalists lost control of Russia after their communist takeover (documented by Anthony Sutton and numerous other credible sources).

So today's Russia is just a hegelian globalist actor. It's as if there is a conflict between USA, EU or Israel - there isn't. Maybe some minor players don't know the full picture, but that is it.

So this current anti-Russia rhetoric is just for show - similarly to how the Cold War was only for show. And boy did that captivate the masses for such a long time!

[Easy_C]

No, they lost control of Russia when Putin took power. Ever notice how their attitude changed the moment Putin got control?

Here's why: https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncat...t-bankers/

Quote:

It was at this time that THE CONSPIRATORS threatened Yeltsin with exposure of his theft of $7 billion on the world stage. The demand was to appoint Berezovsky as the new President of Russia and for Yeltsin to step down and not run in 2000. Yeltsin, realizing he was set up, turned to Putin who nobody had heard of. As the story goes, Putin promised to take care of everything if Yeltsin appointed him instead, Yeltsin resigned on December 31, 1999, after Safra was killed on December 3rd in Monaco. The Presidential elections were held in Russia on the 26th of March 2000 formally electing Putin.

[sterling_archer]

^Makes you think that countries that are "friends" with USA are simply in the same basket or worse, puppet states.