• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Nation: DNC info was a leak, not a hack, according to new report.

First...this isnt 'all of a sudden' news. This has been known and discussed for many months.

Second...its comical watching the committed leftists cling to **** they literallyu know nothing about with ZERO critical thinking applied.

The DNC began making their 'Russia' claims as soon as the DNC emails were released. That was their standard response to questions about the emails...we arent going to respond to what was released because THE RUSSIANS!!!



Of course...its amazing how ready they were with their talking points even the the CROWDSTRIKE report didnt even come out for months. And for all the claims that the nations intel agencies state it was 'the Russians'...the fact remains...the intel agencies selected by the Obama administration NEVER inspected or searched the DNC servers or server logs and in fact made ALL of their assessments that they released based on the CROWDSTRIKE intel. Comey himself confirmed that the FBI was denied access to the DNC servers. The DNC has never addressed the content of the leaked emails, insisting on clinging to their Baba Yaga as an excuse.
 
The Nation's article says:



Again, what forensic investigations? Who conducted them? You have yet to answer these questions. And most importantly, do these investigations get the same scrutiny as the entire intel community does, or do they get the free pass that you apparently feel they are entitled to receive?



Translation: You saw some less-than-ideal stuff then, so the entire intelligence community must be wrong now. Again, a classic CT tactic. Sorry, not biting.
Yet you push all your chips in when the nyt or cnn cite an unnamed source that disparages Trump.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
If you read back in the thread you would recall that I reserve judgement on the validity of the article's position.

I just think people on your side of the argument need to open your minds to the possibility your narrative is and always has been wrong. :coffeepap:
At least yest its validity by challenging it for themselved

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
This comes from a prominent and established lefty publication.

.... Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), founded in 2003, now has 30 members, including a few associates with backgrounds in national-security fields other than intelligence. The chief researchers active on the DNC case are four: William Binney, formerly the NSA’s technical director ...; Kirk Wiebe, formerly a senior analyst at the NSA’s SIGINT Automation Research Center; Edward Loomis, formerly technical director in the NSA’s Office of Signal Processing; and Ray McGovern, an intelligence analyst for nearly three decades and formerly chief of the CIA’s Soviet Foreign Policy Branch. .... This article reflects numerous interviews with all of them conducted in person, via Skype, or by telephone....
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/

Read the entire thing. It goes on to say that the information posted by Wikileaks still could have come from the Russians (possibly the leaker sent it to them), ...., including that the investigation is ongoing, but if this report is true, it pretty much turns one of the major assumptions concerning the affair onto its head.

So much so that the DNC e-mailed to say:

Well...I'm more inclined to believe the DNC and the consensus of sixteen intelligence agencies than a group of has-beens known as Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) who haven't seen an intelligence report in over 15 years and whose sources are mostly conspiracy theory websites like Global Research and Infowars...and who have even been known to cook up a few conspiracy theories and hoaxes of their own...


"...In May 2003, Larry Johnson joined members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) in condemning the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes.[10]

According to The New York Times, Johnson is "best known for spreading a hoax in 2008 that Michelle Obama had been videotaped using a slur against Caucasians".[1]

In 2013, Johnson falsely accused John Kerry of war crimes in Vietnam, alleging that Kerry had "raped some poor Vietnamese woman."[17]..When the falsehood was exposed ...Johnson deleted the article without apology.[21]

In March 2017, Andrew Napolitano spread the unfounded conspiracy theory that GCHQ, one of Britain's top intelligence agencies, had wiretapped Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign on orders from President Obama.[1][22] Johnson was the source for Napolitano's claim.[1][23] The conspiracy theory was later asserted as fact by President Trump, with him citing Fox News and Napolitano.[1] GCHQ responded, stating that the claims were "nonsense, utterly ridiculous and should be ignored".[24] Fox News later disavowed the statement by Napolitano.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_C._Johnson


The implication is that the real source of VIPS's intelligence is not CIA operatives chatting it up with old pals. That is just their cover story. It would appear that the source of VIPS intelligence is the pro-Assad, pro-Russian website Global Research.....

https://louisproyect.org/2013/09/12...plagiarized-from-global-resarchs-toilet-bowl/

GlobalResearch is listed in Andrew Weisburd's Disinfo Network, based on how many other alleged disinfo sites referred to said website during the height of the Ukraine crisis.[102] This supports the above section, which notes that many of GlobalResearch's sources are Russian government or extremely pro-Russian authors. GlobalResearch is also listed in the Washington Post's PropOrNot list of sites that "Reliably Echo Russian Propaganda".[103]

Russian Disinformation for a Conservative Audience


In another case of the media being caught spewing the Russian line, the conservative Washington Times on July 17 ran an advertising supplement from the same folks who put on the U.S.-Russia Forum on June 16 in Washington, D.C.

We covered that event, noting that participants included figures from the left, such as Stephen Cohen, a professor from New York University and Princeton, and his wife, Katrina vanden Heuvel, the editor and publisher of The Nation magazine. But participants also came from Pat Buchanan’s American Conservative magazine and the Ron Paul Institute....

The supplement also included the views of Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst, who has stated his belief that the U.S. provoked Putin into invading Ukraine by recognizing the Ukrainian government that replaced Moscow’s puppet regime...."

Russian Disinformation for a Conservative Audience

 
Last edited:
Yet you push all your chips in when the nyt or cnn cite an unnamed source that disparages Trump.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Doesn't even remotely address my criticisms of the OP.
 
Doesn't even remotely address my criticisms of the OP.
Making a false claim does not make your nee narrative fact because you want it to be. I stand by my statement as factual

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
You're going to suddenly believe a liberal media source in order to advance a conservative talking point? :shock: Damn. There goes yet another irony meter.

I have found the blind insistence that the entire intelligence community must be wrong because their conclusions do not align to the populisticly correct narrative. Which is totally how truth-finding is supposed to work. :roll:

This is an insipid assertion, an appeal to authority, dismissing the actual included evidence.
Has nothing to do with whatever retarded "populist correctness" bull****.


Onto a few problems with the article itself:



I wonder whose ass they pulled that line from. Perhaps The Nation forgot that there were documents that showed evidence of hacking. TG-4127, also known as "Fancy Bear," may have participated. And I am not going to demand that every single step in the process of how they obtained this evidence and what other evidences exist come forward. If our "president" gets to not telegraph his intents, then neither does the intel community have to.

I found that and much more via a simple Google search. Maybe Google doesn't work at The Nation?

What you, Ares technica, the government, etc, miss is why would "elite" Russian hackers taint forensically clean documents with Russian metadata and the name of Iron Felix?
That is outside of SOP for military intelligence gathering.
It makes no sense what so ever.

The original documents were clean and ares technica missed incredibly important details about the metadata.
Why were they created with the pc of a Dem staffer, then approximately 30 minutes later saved, under the name of Iron Felix, in Cyrillic?

Next, check out this beautiful chicanery. Right after saying this:



We get this:



No names. Hell, not even any organizations. This is equivalent to what conspiracy theorists or science deniers do--they claim that a bunch of experts in specifically chosen fields, "after careful analysis," come to the same conclusion that the writer has preordained to be true. They either use names of non-reputable sources, no names at all, or simply make names up. That is not good journalism.

You don't need the "expert's" names.
They for one, provided evidence and 2 the evidence is reviewable by anyone right now.
You can download the Guccifer2 documents from his wordpress page and examine the metadata yourself.

This is the CT'ers' oldest trick in the book. They correctly point out prior mistakes made, particularly mistakes made a long time ago, but then they assume that those mistakes constitute clear evidence that the organization's ability in the present day is shot. Sorry, not buying it. Long-time past mistakes do not automatically equate to present-day mistakes.

And I could go on. I will say, Harshaw, I have been wondering whether I should return to more print-based news and analysis and not just get most of my news online, as I have for years. If I do, then thank you for helping me decide a source not to subscribe to.

People having real evidence, that doesn't make sense given the context of the accusations and it's CT. :roll:
You're ignorant of the topic and information, you have no place accusing anyone of CT.
 
The bolded part is where I'm at. Seventeen of our intelligence agencies... virtually all of them... have concluded that the Russians did this, and after a solid year of investigation, still stand at the same unanimous conclusion. I don't get why some people are grasping at every straw to prove that our own intelligence agencies are basically incompetent liars.

That was political bs.

The AP and New York Times Both Agree That "17 Intelligence Agencies" Did NOT Support the Claim of Russia Helping Trump

I won't uncritically believe things, when it contradicts my knowledge.
The 3 agencies have not responded to the criticism leveled at them from, not reviewing or addressing the problems found with the metadata and they have not addressed the issues involved with the maleware that was allegedly used.

The problem is that, those 3 agencies have done a piss poor job of accurate attribution.
 
I wonder whose ass they pulled that line from. Perhaps The Nation forgot that there were documents that showed evidence of hacking. TG-4127, also known as "Fancy Bear," may have participated.

What "evidence"?


Exhibit A in the case is this document created and later edited in the ubiquitous Microsoft Word format. Metadata left inside the file shows it was last edited by someone using the computer name "Феликс Эдмундович." That means the computer was configured to use the Russian language and that it was connected to a Russian-language keyboard.

Wow. That's damning. Even if accepted, does this mean anyone who speaks and uses the Russian language represents the Russian government?

I find this interesting as well, from the same link:

The theory is also consistent with everything previously published by CrowdStrike, the security firm the DNC hired to investigate its suspicions that its servers had been breached. CrowdStrike researchers said they quickly determined that the servers had been infiltrated by two separate Russian hacking groups. In response to Wednesday's leak, CrowdStrike raised the possibility that the leak was part of a Russian Intelligence disinformation campaign.


Notice the use of "the theory" And CrowdStrike "quickly" determined?


As far as "Fancy Bear", there is a difference between "may" have participated and "did" participate. Evidence is not "may have". They also say they assess with "moderate confidence", which they define as:

Moderate confidence generally means that the information is credibly sourced and plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence. As opposed to their "high confidence" :

High confidence generally indicates that judgments are based on high-quality information, and/or that the nature of the issue makes it possible to render a solid judgment. A "high confidence" judgment is not a fact or a certainty, however, and such judgments still carry a risk of being wrong.


Which they also admit has a risk of being wrong.

None of which can be considered evidence.
 
But as a techie let's just sum this up. Putting an unauthorized USB drive into a computer and taking files off a server is the very definition of hacking!

Hmm....then everyone where I work is hacking. We routinely use a USB to move files to different computers, or to use to work at home. I'm telling my boss I can't bring home work anymore. Thank you.
 
Again with a claim that the OP's article does not document. Maybe you should have clicked on the link in the source I quoted? The actual file itself had clear evidence that it originated in Russia. Read that article!

No, it didn't.
 
Hmm....then everyone where I work is hacking. We routinely use a USB to move files to different computers, or to use to work at home. I'm telling my boss I can't bring home work anymore. Thank you.
Yeah...since the theory is that the user was someone actually authorized to access the servers AND they used the servers actual authentication to access the servers, this isnt at all what 'hacking' is.

Whats comical is how readily others 'liked' MGOPs post...even though it COMPLETELY contradicts the CROWDSTRIKE 'report' and theories that the Russians hacked the DNC servers from systems in Russia. Which they still cling to as if it were gospel.
 
Yeah...since the theory is that the user was someone actually authorized to access the servers AND they used the servers actual authentication to access the servers, this isnt at all what 'hacking' is.

Whats comical is how readily others 'liked' MGOPs post...even though it COMPLETELY contradicts the CROWDSTRIKE 'report' and theories that the Russians hacked the DNC servers from systems in Russia. Which they still cling to as if it were gospel.

I also find the visual of a Russian(big hat and all) tip toeing into DNC headquarters, sticking an USB into a desktop, then tiptoeing back out without anyone seeing him....in this day of cameras everywhere. ;)
 
I also find the visual of a Russian(big hat and all) tip toeing into DNC headquarters, sticking an USB into a desktop, then tiptoeing back out without anyone seeing him....in this day of cameras everywhere. ;)
But...but...but...it WAS the Russians...it just HAD to be. The DNC said so! And what motivation could they POSSIBLY have had to lie about all of this? I mean...other than covering for the exposure of collusion and corruption within the DNC, the media, and the Clinton campaign in order to **** over approx half of their voting base...what motivation could they POSSIBLY have to lie about all of this?
 
Essentially, I've been saying the same thing.
The counter evidence to the popular narrative is fairly damning to the notion that the Russian's did anything.
Not complete but causes one to ask why these things were never addressed by the government.

Thankfully, others in MSM outfits have the guts, to question it as well.

What is this counter evidence you speak of?

(Please no blogs, or CT nonsense. Just the evidence, please)
 
What is this counter evidence you speak of?

(Please no blogs, or CT nonsense. Just the evidence, please)

I have to use the original blog that Guccifer 2 used.
It's were the information came from that people used to substatiate the he was allegedly Russian.

Open the docs with openoffice or a similar wordprocesser that lets you see the metadata in whole.
You'll want to compare it with the originals that wikileaks has.

The metadata does not match.
One has the original DNC employees who created the docs prior to any hacks.
The Guccifer2 docs has a recent and different set of metadata, when the hacks happened.

Whomever uploaded those Guccifer2 docs had to of copy/paste the from the original, to a new doc.
It created a new author and it was saved as Iron Felix* in Cyrallic.
Why would someone do that?
That's outing yourself, which is not necessary for any reason and out of SOP for it to be a Russian government operation.

https://guccifer2.wordpress.com

*it's not literally Iron Felix, but for most conversations I use it because Felix Dzerzhinsky, is hard to remember to spell correctly.
 
That is the size of the files transferred. Not the speed at which it was transferred.


megabytes per second is not a correct measurement of speed. Speed is measured in megabits per second.

I think you need to re-read what was said and work on comprehending simple math.
 
This comes from a prominent and established lefty publication.



https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/

Read the entire thing. It goes on to say that the information posted by Wikileaks still could have come from the Russians (possibly the leaker sent it to them), and various other caveats, including that the investigation is ongoing, but if this report is true, it pretty much turns one of the major assumptions concerning the affair onto its head.

So much so that the DNC e-mailed to say:

Thank you for that link to The Nation. It is encouraging that they are honest enough to come clean on this. Disobedient Media deserves much credit.

Yes, the public perception is manipulated as a matter of routine. Inside The Beltway propaganda drives what the public thinks and feels.

Because of the statements of VIPS, I have not believed the official story from the beginning. There are a few good men in the District of Columbia, but they are whistleblowers.
 
That was political bs.

The AP and New York Times Both Agree That "17 Intelligence Agencies" Did NOT Support the Claim of Russia Helping Trump

I won't uncritically believe things, when it contradicts my knowledge.
The 3 agencies have not responded to the criticism leveled at them from, not reviewing or addressing the problems found with the metadata and they have not addressed the issues involved with the maleware that was allegedly used.

The problem is that, those 3 agencies have done a piss poor job of accurate attribution.

The RedState subtitle should be "How a 'Fact' Is Born." ;)

"New York Times Issues Correction for Russia Flap" https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortn...es-issues-correction-for-russia-flap-n2348994

From the Washington Examiner about how there weren't 17 agencies in agreement about the "basic fact" of Russian collusion in the election to benefit Trump:

The Jan. 6 hacking assessment was a conclusion drawn by analysts representing three intelligence agencies acting "under the aegis" of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, former DNI chief James Clapper testified on May 8.

He said specifically that the conclusion that Russia meddled in the election to benefit Trump was a "coordinated product" from the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency, "not all 17 components of the intelligence community."

Clapper added that the CIA, FNI and NSA analysts were "hand-picked."

A rather large New York Times correction
 
This comes from a prominent and established lefty publication.



https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/

Read the entire thing. It goes on to say that the information posted by Wikileaks still could have come from the Russians (possibly the leaker sent it to them), and various other caveats, including that the investigation is ongoing, but if this report is true, it pretty much turns one of the major assumptions concerning the affair onto its head.

So much so that the DNC e-mailed to say:

If it turns out to be true that Russia had nothing to do with the hack it would be the biggest fraud/scandal in the history of the nation. Think of everything that has transpired as a result of "the Russians".

-Congressional investigations

-FBI probe

-Special counsel

-Sanctions leveled against Russia

-Endless media hysteria

-Talk of impeachment

-Grand Jury


I have a hard time believing that large factions of our government would put itself in a position of this magnitude that could so easily be proven false. The ramifications of this turning out to be a fraud would be earth shattering. I don't want to believe it, I really don't.
 
The RedState subtitle should be "How a 'Fact' Is Born." ;)

"New York Times Issues Correction for Russia Flap" https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortn...es-issues-correction-for-russia-flap-n2348994

From the Washington Examiner about how there weren't 17 agencies in agreement about the "basic fact" of Russian collusion in the election to benefit Trump:

The Jan. 6 hacking assessment was a conclusion drawn by analysts representing three intelligence agencies acting "under the aegis" of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, former DNI chief James Clapper testified on May 8.

He said specifically that the conclusion that Russia meddled in the election to benefit Trump was a "coordinated product" from the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency, "not all 17 components of the intelligence community."

Clapper added that the CIA, FNI and NSA analysts were "hand-picked."

A rather large New York Times correction

That's not going to stop anyone from continuing to push the "17 intelligence agencies" canard, though. Including prominent people who have no excuse.
 
If it turns out to be true that Russia had nothing to do with the hack it would be the biggest fraud/scandal in the history of the nation. Think of everything that has transpired as a result of "the Russians".

-Congressional investigations

-FBI probe

-Special counsel

-Sanctions leveled against Russia

-Endless media hysteria

-Talk of impeachment

-Grand Jury


I have a hard time believing that large factions of our government would put itself in a position of this magnitude that could so easily be proven false. The ramifications of this turning out to be a fraud would be earth shattering. I don't want to believe it, I really don't.



Anything to get Trump out.
 
That's not going to stop anyone from continuing to push the "17 intelligence agencies" canard, though. Including prominent people who have no excuse.

I think that eventually the facts will sink in. We've all been mistaken and/or misled. Perfectly understandable why the "17 intelligence agencies" thing has legs and also that many may have missed the NY Times correction. How well was this covered by the MSM?

I just Googled "new york times issues correction for the 17 intelligence agencies claim," and you can see for yourself which news outlets covered this:

https://www.google.com/search?site=...k1j33i22i29i30k1j33i160k1j33i21k1.YjcFbYTPuT8
 
Anything to get Trump out.

As long as we are theorizing...


Russia sits atop VAST untapped resources. The economic potential of a US/Russia partnership to harvest these resources would be enormous. I can see how, politically, this would not be a desirable outcome for some.
 
Back
Top Bottom