You say that, but a lot of people continuously side with Wikileaks who continuously spews nonsense outside of their stated mission.
The same people that claim that Assange is a glorious leader persecuted by the United States and not a (possibly rapey) fugitive from justice who fled house arrest in the UK to live in a South American embassy in London for years?
The biggest booster for Assange that I ever knew, personally, was Jake Appelbaum, who was also a Wikileaks volunteer hounded a bit by the government. Some of that support became very suspicious (as his hero worship was a bit over the top) after all of the molestation and rape charges against Jake became public this year as well. I kind of look at Wikileaks as this bastion of white geek rapey people these days.
5 Likes
Well their twitter feed has been openly antisemitic, they have been providing punditry to their own leaks, and even have been giving a buzzy soudbite with their leaks to draw traffic for a while now and even without a doubt openly chose sides in the US election. Wikileaks may not fake their leaks yet, but they are quite a ways down that path - all the while they have popular defenders in the media.
4 Likes
Highlight : “Trump says he does not require daily intelligence briefings because he’s a ‘smart person.’”
17 Likes
23 Likes
He obviously misunderstands why intelligence briefing matters. It doesn’t matter how smart one is if one doesn’t have any information from which to form policies. But in this case, its’ pretty clear that it’s Pence whose been fully engaged in understanding the briefings and is going to probably help form policy from them.
11 Likes
10 Likes
No, in this section of the argument I am refuting the idea that those who suggest the Russians dun it are disinterested observers seeking nothing but truth. Their “bona fides” alone disprove that notion.
Elsewhere in the argument I note that Apt 28 or 29 or 27 may well be the GRU or FSB but then again it may not be. And the intrusion may well be apt 28 but then again it may not be. And I understand that a lot of national security types say this in unattributed briefings but officially the lead agency is the FBI and they disagree. I don’t know why they disagree cos they havnt leaked yet. Maybe they are favoring Trump.
Let me remind you as to the conclusion the outgoing DNI (who clearly has an axe) and had already tendered his resignation.
The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.
I note in passing that the outgoing DNI has well documented record of lying. In this case he is clearly leaving plenty of wiggle room in case it is proven that he is full of shit again.
Of course, this is not proof that it was not the Russians. But I pause in concluding it was definitely the Russians when the guys who know who it was (or think they do) straight out tell you it was not a hack, but a leak.
If you are absolutely confident Assange and Murray are lying then good for you.
The fact that this is being done via leaks tells you a lot about the case.
As for the metadata, it seems shockingly unprofessional of the Russians to use Felix Edmundovich 's name and reuse various known command and control addresses hard coded. So either they wanted to be caught or they are totally crap hackers, or perhaps someone wanted to at least leave the fig leaf of possible russian intrusion in place?
The overall narrative is pretty crap. Highly professional states-sponsored hackers make a bunch of unnecessary stupid mistakes which point straight to the Russians. In the meantime the guys who obtained the material swear blind it didn’t come from the Russians.
Conclusion, it definitely was the Russians!
As for motive the idea that this was done for personal animus seems a little farfetched. If it was done cos Trump is definitely russia friendly they seem to be taking a lot on trust. Maybe they have pictures of him with male hookers or something? But outside of that it seems a weak argument to me. Like that WMD crap that various people peddled back in 2001.
1 Like
Well that proves that Assange committed a crime. Why didn’t you say before?
1 Like
Now where have I seen that argument before. …Oh yeah
I think you are taking it all a bit personally. I also don’t think much of your arguments. I certainly don’t think it’s a racing certainty that the Russians hacked and leaked the material. I have laid out my reasoning above.
No need to reply. I know you are busy.
Maybe Trump is only reading the FBI DIA and NSA briefings.
Yeah, it doesn’t really seem likely.
1 Like
We’ll never know since he’ll dodge a day in court in Sweden (saying “the US is making me evade the law!!” the whole way) until the statute of limitations passes.
Sorry but he fled justice and questioning and is hiding in an embassy. These are not the actions of an innocent man.
5 Likes
Yeah, you clearly know more about infosec than all of the infosec professionals here who do this work and follow it professionally as part of their jobs. Clearly, it is a CIA hack job to make Putin look like a big meaney.
You really aren’t a Russian sockpuppet? You should check.
9 Likes
Well, if you’re a librul, you can’t possibly understand this stuff! Only conservatives understand things, duh! /s
9 Likes
This stuff is all public domain. Recently Assange made a statement. Chelsea Manning is currently doing 35 years in prison. If I was at risk of doing 35 years in a US prison I might be a little careful with attempts to prove my innocence even if I was totally innocent.
1 Like
No I don’t know as much about info sec as some people commenting here. It might well be the Russians. Maybe i should be deferring to the credentialed. However I laid down a few counter arguments.
Doesn’t make me definitely right but I really struggle to swallow the “sophisticated, but error strewn” narrative which also contradicts the publishers statements.
I guess the truth will come come out in the end. However clearly some of those making the case the Russians did it have a incentive to make that case. You would think if the US authorities had clear evidence they might want to make that public.
What do you think you achieve in the debate by attacking my credentials or calling me a sock puppet? I made a few points about why it probably wasn’t the Russians. Feel free to explain why they are wrong. You should probably start with why Craig Murray is a liar.
Maybe I’m what Vlad Ilich Ullianov used to call a “useful idiot”. But really, another ad hominem “sock puppet” comment? Seriously?
I am proud to day I’m not a liberal. I’m a socialist. I think you are assuming I agree with John Schindler. I don’t.
If I was guilty of molesting some women in Sweden, I might cry a lot about the US and nefarious plots from it as I fled questions and a probable trial as well.
4 Likes
No, you didn’t really because you didn’t counter any of the evidence that points to Russian involvement. In fact, you ignored it when it was detailed to you.
Now you ask for people to refute you while ignoring the fact that it was done at great length and detail up thread.
8 Likes
Now I am curious. Why did you post a completely unrelated reposting of a John Schindler article?
6 Likes
