Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Dale is convinced you are right. What does that tell you?
Again, I didn't write and print the story.I didn't do the analysis on the meta data. I am just reporting the findings and the latest news.
Who to believe? THESE guys.
Forensic investigators, intelligence analysts, system designers, program architects, and computer scientists of long experience and strongly credentialed are now producing evidence disproving the official version of key events last year. Their work is intricate and continues at a kinetic pace as we speak. But its certain results so far are two, simply stated, and freighted with implications:
- There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the initial “hack,” as alleged, that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer.
Looks like fake news to me
What credibility does your source have other than they are telling you what you want to hear? What access have they had to classified information and reports? Where is their actual evidence?
I've already addressed the source. Lol.
This article is based on an examination of the documents these forensic experts and intelligence analysts have produced, notably the key papers written over the past several weeks, as well as detailed interviews with many of those conducting investigations and now drawing conclusions from them. Before proceeding into this material, several points bear noting.
Fake news
^^^ Alternative facts.I picked up this article at another forum. This is the much more likely scenario than a big Russian/Trump ridiculous conspiracy theory. What do you think?
A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack
It is now a year since the Democratic National Committee’s mail system was compromised—a year since events in the spring and early summer of 2016 were identified as remote hacks and, in short order, attributed to Russians acting in behalf of Donald Trump. A great edifice has been erected during this time. President Trump, members of his family, and numerous people around him stand accused of various corruptions and extensive collusion with Russians. Half a dozen simultaneous investigations proceed into these matters. Last week news broke that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had convened a grand jury, which issued its first subpoenas on August 3. Allegations of treason are common; prominent political figures and many media cultivate a case for impeachment.
The president’s ability to conduct foreign policy, notably but not only with regard to Russia, is now crippled. Forced into a corner and having no choice, Trump just signed legislation imposing severe new sanctions on Russia and European companies working with it on pipeline projects vital to Russia’s energy sector. Striking this close to the core of another nation’s economy is customarily considered an act of war, we must not forget. In retaliation, Moscow has announced that the United States must cut its embassy staff by roughly two-thirds. All sides agree that relations between the United States and Russia are now as fragile as they were during some of the Cold War’s worst moments. To suggest that military conflict between two nuclear powers inches ever closer can no longer be dismissed as hyperbole.
All this was set in motion when the DNC’s mail server was first violated in the spring of 2016 and by subsequent assertions that Russians were behind that “hack” and another such operation, also described as a Russian hack, on July 5. These are the foundation stones of the edifice just outlined. The evolution of public discourse in the year since is worthy of scholarly study: Possibilities became allegations, and these became probabilities. Then the probabilities turned into certainties, and these evolved into what are now taken to be established truths. By my reckoning, it required a few days to a few weeks to advance from each of these stages to the next. This was accomplished via the indefensibly corrupt manipulations of language repeated incessantly in our leading media.
We are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception.
Lost in a year that often appeared to veer into our peculiarly American kind of hysteria is the absence of any credible evidence of what happened last year and who was responsible for it. It is tiresome to note, but none has been made available. Instead, we are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception. These officials profess “high confidence” in their “assessment” as to what happened in the spring and summer of last year—this standing as their authoritative judgment. Few have noticed since these evasive terms first appeared that an assessment is an opinion, nothing more, and to express high confidence is an upside-down way of admitting the absence of certain knowledge. This is how officials avoid putting their names on the assertions we are so strongly urged to accept—as the record shows many of them have done.
We come now to a moment of great gravity.
There has been a long effort to counter the official narrative we now call “Russiagate.” This effort has so far focused on the key events noted above, leaving numerous others still to be addressed. Until recently, researchers undertaking this work faced critical shortcomings, and these are to be explained. But they have achieved significant new momentum in the past several weeks, and what they have done now yields very consequential fruit. Forensic investigators, intelligence analysts, system designers, program architects, and computer scientists of long experience and strongly credentialed are now producing evidence disproving the official version of key events last year. Their work is intricate and continues at a kinetic pace as we speak. But its certain results so far are two, simply stated, and freighted with implications:
- There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the initial “hack,” as alleged, that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer.
We know the DNC was not only hacked, they were hacked by Russians. We know this because former FBI Director James Comey confirmed this when he testified under oath and there had been zero evidence discovered to refute that.
BURR: Do you have any doubt that the Russian government was behind the intrusions in the DNC and the DCCC systems, and the subsequent leaks of that information?
COMEY: No, no doubt.
There is NEW evidence according to data analysis by computer scientists, programmers, etc., that the leaks came from inside the DNC and the emails were copied to a thumb drive that was physically inserted into the computer. Lol.
I picked up this article at another forum. This is the much more likely scenario than a big Russian/Trump ridiculous conspiracy theory. What do you think?
A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack
It is now a year since the Democratic National Committee’s mail system was compromised—a year since events in the spring and early summer of 2016 were identified as remote hacks and, in short order, attributed to Russians acting in behalf of Donald Trump. A great edifice has been erected during this time. President Trump, members of his family, and numerous people around him stand accused of various corruptions and extensive collusion with Russians. Half a dozen simultaneous investigations proceed into these matters. Last week news broke that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had convened a grand jury, which issued its first subpoenas on August 3. Allegations of treason are common; prominent political figures and many media cultivate a case for impeachment.
The president’s ability to conduct foreign policy, notably but not only with regard to Russia, is now crippled. Forced into a corner and having no choice, Trump just signed legislation imposing severe new sanctions on Russia and European companies working with it on pipeline projects vital to Russia’s energy sector. Striking this close to the core of another nation’s economy is customarily considered an act of war, we must not forget. In retaliation, Moscow has announced that the United States must cut its embassy staff by roughly two-thirds. All sides agree that relations between the United States and Russia are now as fragile as they were during some of the Cold War’s worst moments. To suggest that military conflict between two nuclear powers inches ever closer can no longer be dismissed as hyperbole.
All this was set in motion when the DNC’s mail server was first violated in the spring of 2016 and by subsequent assertions that Russians were behind that “hack” and another such operation, also described as a Russian hack, on July 5. These are the foundation stones of the edifice just outlined. The evolution of public discourse in the year since is worthy of scholarly study: Possibilities became allegations, and these became probabilities. Then the probabilities turned into certainties, and these evolved into what are now taken to be established truths. By my reckoning, it required a few days to a few weeks to advance from each of these stages to the next. This was accomplished via the indefensibly corrupt manipulations of language repeated incessantly in our leading media.
We are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception.
Lost in a year that often appeared to veer into our peculiarly American kind of hysteria is the absence of any credible evidence of what happened last year and who was responsible for it. It is tiresome to note, but none has been made available. Instead, we are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception. These officials profess “high confidence” in their “assessment” as to what happened in the spring and summer of last year—this standing as their authoritative judgment. Few have noticed since these evasive terms first appeared that an assessment is an opinion, nothing more, and to express high confidence is an upside-down way of admitting the absence of certain knowledge. This is how officials avoid putting their names on the assertions we are so strongly urged to accept—as the record shows many of them have done.
We come now to a moment of great gravity.
There has been a long effort to counter the official narrative we now call “Russiagate.” This effort has so far focused on the key events noted above, leaving numerous others still to be addressed. Until recently, researchers undertaking this work faced critical shortcomings, and these are to be explained. But they have achieved significant new momentum in the past several weeks, and what they have done now yields very consequential fruit. Forensic investigators, intelligence analysts, system designers, program architects, and computer scientists of long experience and strongly credentialed are now producing evidence disproving the official version of key events last year. Their work is intricate and continues at a kinetic pace as we speak. But its certain results so far are two, simply stated, and freighted with implications:
- There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the initial “hack,” as alleged, that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer.
Quick.Send a copy of that to Mueller. I'll bet he never heard any of that, so he thinks he should continue with his investigation just like he was told to do. He'll probably buy you a popsicle for your efforts,
You do realize that Mueller's investigation can take many paths and many of those could turn towards Hillary, Wasserman Schultz and the DNC. As with most of these open ended witch hunts, they don't shut down until someone is found guilty of something even if it is only remotely tied to the original investigation.
Right now, it is following the money
And the money trail is leading right to the Trump camp. Next step, offer Flynn and Manafort immunity for turning on Trump
I understand the narrative. Now, produce your evidence. You guys will believe anything an anonymous source tells you.
Why would you expect a poster on a message board to have all the evidence that the FBI just started looking for? Jumping the gun a little, aren't you?
Quick.Send a copy of that to Mueller. I'll bet he never heard any of that, so he thinks he should continue with his investigation just like he was told to do. He'll probably buy you a popsicle for your efforts,
You do realize that Mueller's investigation can take many paths and many of those could turn towards Hillary, Wasserman Schultz and the DNC. As with most of these open ended witch hunts, they don't shut down until someone is found guilty of something even if it is only remotely tied to the original investigation.
Right now, it is following the money
And the money trail is leading right to the Trump camp. Next step, offer Flynn and Manafort immunity for turning on Trump
I understand the narrative. Now, produce your evidence. You guys will believe anything an anonymous source tells you.
Why would you expect a poster on a message board to have all the evidence that the FBI just started looking for? Jumping the gun a little, aren't you?
Why? Because for a year now the left and media have been crowing about the "evidence" and that it is a forgone conclusion Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election. Surely you've seen and heard the news over the past year? If you keep saying the evidence shows X, all I'm asking for is that you share the evidence with everyone else. Hell, the administration began collecting data illegally and leaking it to the press last summer in an attempt to smear Trump and help Hillary. Again, where have you been for the past year?
well then why did crowdstrike look at it? dude, that is just funny shit. Number one, the emails that were leaked did not come from the DNC server. that is a fact.then why did the FBI and the DHS ask for it and were denied?
I don't know they're processes. What I do know is that you don't need to have the servers in your physical possession to determine if there was a hack.
This is exactly why I am trying to purge these fucking pseudocon hacks from the conservative movement. They are destroying the conservative and Republican brand.
Here's the thing, fuckwads. Bearing false witness, especially against a MURDER VICTIM WHO CANNOT DEFEND HIMSELF, is NOT a conservative or Republican or Christian value.
You fucking motherfuckers lecture about America being founded on Judeo-Christian values, and then you sick fucking pricks violate one of the top ten laws in the bible. REPEATEDLY. Even after being told by the fuckwads who hoaxed you that they hoaxed you.
Fuck you all. Every one of you fucking hypocrites.
.
Why do you think the DNC does not want to turn over the servers for investigation?
Copied, Not Hacked
As indicated above, the independent forensic work just completed focused on data copied (not hacked) by a shadowy persona named “Guccifer 2.0.” The forensics reflect what seems to have been a desperate effort to “blame the Russians” for publishing highly embarrassing DNC emails three days before the Democratic convention last July. Since the content of the DNC emails reeked of pro-Clinton bias, her campaign saw an overriding need to divert attention from content to provenance – as in, who “hacked” those DNC emails? The campaign was enthusiastically supported by compliant “mainstream” media; they are still on a roll.
“The Russians” were the ideal culprit. And, after WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, “We have emails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication,” her campaign had more than a month before the convention to insert its own “forensic facts” and prime the media pump to put the blame on “Russian meddling.” Mrs. Clinton’s PR chief Jennifer Palmieri has explained how she used golf carts to make the rounds at the convention. She wrote that her “mission was to get the press to focus on something even we found difficult to process: the prospect that Russia had not only hacked and stolen emails from the DNC, but that it had done so to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton.”
Independent cyber-investigators have now completed the kind of forensic work that the intelligence assessment did not do. Oddly, the “hand-picked” intelligence analysts contented themselves with “assessing” this and “assessing” that. In contrast, the investigators dug deep and came up with verifiable evidence from metadata found in the record of the alleged Russian hack.
They found that the purported “hack” of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or anyone else. Rather it originated with a copy (onto an external storage device – a thumb drive, for example) by an insider. The data was leaked to implicate Russia. We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI.
The Time Sequence
June 12, 2016: Assange announces WikiLeaks is about to publish “emails related to Hillary Clinton.”
June 14, 2016: DNC contractor Crowdstrike, (with a dubious professional record and multiple conflicts of interest) announces that malware has been found on the DNC server and claims there is evidence it was injected by Russians.
June 15, 2016: “Guccifer 2.0” affirms the DNC statement; claims responsibility for the “hack;” claims to be a WikiLeaks source; and posts a document that the forensics show was synthetically tainted with “Russian fingerprints.”
We do not think that the June 12, 14, & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it suggests the start of a pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to “show” that it came from a Russian hack.
The Key Event
July 5, 2016: In the early evening, Eastern Daylight Time, someone working in the EDT time zone with a computer directly connected to the DNC server or DNC Local Area Network, copied 1,976 MegaBytes of data in 87 seconds onto an external storage device. That speed is much faster than what is physically possible with a hack.
It thus appears that the purported “hack” of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 (the self-proclaimed WikiLeaks source) was not a hack by Russia or anyone else, but was rather a copy of DNC data onto an external storage device.
“Obfuscation & De-obfuscation”
Mr. President, the disclosure described below may be related. Even if it is not, it is something we think you should be made aware of in this general connection. On March 7, 2017, WikiLeaks began to publish a trove of original CIA documents that WikiLeaks labeled “Vault 7.” WikiLeaks said it got the trove from a current or former CIA contractor and described it as comparable in scale and significance to the information Edward Snowden gave to reporters in 2013.
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton at the third debate with Republican nominee Donald Trump. (Photo credit: hillaryclinton.com)
No one has challenged the authenticity of the original documents of Vault 7, which disclosed a vast array of cyber warfare tools developed, probably with help from NSA, by CIA’s Engineering Development Group. That Group was part of the sprawling CIA Directorate of Digital Innovation – a growth industry established by John Brennan in 2015.
Scarcely imaginable digital tools – that can take control of your car and make it race over 100 mph, for example, or can enable remote spying through a TV – were described and duly reported in the New York Times and other media throughout March. But the Vault 7, part 3 release on March 31 that exposed the “Marble Framework” program apparently was judged too delicate to qualify as “news fit to print” and was kept out of the Times.
The Washington Post’s Ellen Nakashima, it seems, “did not get the memo” in time. Her March 31 article bore the catching (and accurate) headline: “WikiLeaks’ latest release of CIA cyber-tools could blow the cover on agency hacking operations.”
The WikiLeaks release indicated that Marble was designed for flexible and easy-to-use “obfuscation,” and that Marble source code includes a “deobfuscator” to reverse CIA text obfuscation.
More important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In her Washington Post report, Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point made by WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to conduct a “forensic attribution double game” or false-flag operation because it included test samples in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi.
The CIA’s reaction was neuralgic. Director Mike Pompeo lashed out two weeks later, calling Assange and his associates “demons,” and insisting; “It’s time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is, a non-state hostile intelligence service, often abetted by state actors like Russia.”
Mr. President, we do not know if CIA’s Marble Framework, or tools like it, played some kind of role in the campaign to blame Russia for hacking the DNC. Nor do we know how candid the denizens of CIA’s Digital Innovation Directorate have been with you and with Director Pompeo. These are areas that might profit from early White House review.
Putin and the Technology
We also do not know if you have discussed cyber issues in any detail with President Putin. In his interview with NBC’s Megyn Kelly, he seemed quite willing – perhaps even eager – to address issues related to the kind of cyber tools revealed in the Vault 7 disclosures, if only to indicate he has been briefed on them. Putin pointed out that today’s technology enables hacking to be “masked and camouflaged to an extent that no one can understand the origin” [of the hack] … And, vice versa, it is possible to set up any entity or any individual that everyone will think that they are the exact source of that attack.”
urpose is to spread truth around and, when necessary, hold to account our former intelligence colleagues.
Seriously?? What do you think an unscientific poll with a 99 point margin of error means?Well, I started an opinion poll so that you can vote on which you believe is the most likely scenario, the Russians did it or it was an inside job. Here is a link, so vote please.
Do you believe . . .
It's just for my own curiosity. I want to see how many suckers who believe "The Russians are coming" actually exist in the real world!
c - both is also possible.
personally I don't care. I maintain and have all along that this "Rooooshins!" narrative was pumped up by the left to stick a perpetual thorn in Trump's ass, and that's exactly what it's done.
I suppose, but there is no actual evidence to support a Russian hack job, and there IS evidence to support an insider leak.
Why should I produce evidence? I didn't make the accusation.I picked up this article at another forum. This is the much more likely scenario than a big Russian/Trump ridiculous conspiracy theory. What do you think?
A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack
It is now a year since the Democratic National Committee’s mail system was compromised—a year since events in the spring and early summer of 2016 were identified as remote hacks and, in short order, attributed to Russians acting in behalf of Donald Trump. A great edifice has been erected during this time. President Trump, members of his family, and numerous people around him stand accused of various corruptions and extensive collusion with Russians. Half a dozen simultaneous investigations proceed into these matters. Last week news broke that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had convened a grand jury, which issued its first subpoenas on August 3. Allegations of treason are common; prominent political figures and many media cultivate a case for impeachment.
The president’s ability to conduct foreign policy, notably but not only with regard to Russia, is now crippled. Forced into a corner and having no choice, Trump just signed legislation imposing severe new sanctions on Russia and European companies working with it on pipeline projects vital to Russia’s energy sector. Striking this close to the core of another nation’s economy is customarily considered an act of war, we must not forget. In retaliation, Moscow has announced that the United States must cut its embassy staff by roughly two-thirds. All sides agree that relations between the United States and Russia are now as fragile as they were during some of the Cold War’s worst moments. To suggest that military conflict between two nuclear powers inches ever closer can no longer be dismissed as hyperbole.
All this was set in motion when the DNC’s mail server was first violated in the spring of 2016 and by subsequent assertions that Russians were behind that “hack” and another such operation, also described as a Russian hack, on July 5. These are the foundation stones of the edifice just outlined. The evolution of public discourse in the year since is worthy of scholarly study: Possibilities became allegations, and these became probabilities. Then the probabilities turned into certainties, and these evolved into what are now taken to be established truths. By my reckoning, it required a few days to a few weeks to advance from each of these stages to the next. This was accomplished via the indefensibly corrupt manipulations of language repeated incessantly in our leading media.
We are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception.
Lost in a year that often appeared to veer into our peculiarly American kind of hysteria is the absence of any credible evidence of what happened last year and who was responsible for it. It is tiresome to note, but none has been made available. Instead, we are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception. These officials profess “high confidence” in their “assessment” as to what happened in the spring and summer of last year—this standing as their authoritative judgment. Few have noticed since these evasive terms first appeared that an assessment is an opinion, nothing more, and to express high confidence is an upside-down way of admitting the absence of certain knowledge. This is how officials avoid putting their names on the assertions we are so strongly urged to accept—as the record shows many of them have done.
We come now to a moment of great gravity.
There has been a long effort to counter the official narrative we now call “Russiagate.” This effort has so far focused on the key events noted above, leaving numerous others still to be addressed. Until recently, researchers undertaking this work faced critical shortcomings, and these are to be explained. But they have achieved significant new momentum in the past several weeks, and what they have done now yields very consequential fruit. Forensic investigators, intelligence analysts, system designers, program architects, and computer scientists of long experience and strongly credentialed are now producing evidence disproving the official version of key events last year. Their work is intricate and continues at a kinetic pace as we speak. But its certain results so far are two, simply stated, and freighted with implications:
- There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the initial “hack,” as alleged, that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer.
Quick.Send a copy of that to Mueller. I'll bet he never heard any of that, so he thinks he should continue with his investigation just like he was told to do. He'll probably buy you a popsicle for your efforts,
You do realize that Mueller's investigation can take many paths and many of those could turn towards Hillary, Wasserman Schultz and the DNC. As with most of these open ended witch hunts, they don't shut down until someone is found guilty of something even if it is only remotely tied to the original investigation.
Right now, it is following the money
And the money trail is leading right to the Trump camp. Next step, offer Flynn and Manafort immunity for turning on Trump
I understand the narrative. Now, produce your evidence. You guys will believe anything an anonymous source tells you.
Yes,seriously. Since you are implying the GOP is willing to risk their political future to character assassinate Trump, I want to know what motive you see? The claim that professional politicians would choose not getting elected because of some personal vendetta sounds dubious at best.What motive does the GOP have to assassinate the REPUBLICAN president? Their fate in the midterms hinges on a successful presidency. Or what reason does the intelligence community have? You can have convictions( beliefs) all you want that don't make it true.This is an interesting article, I will give you my problems. First of, my personal problems with Trump don't focus on Russia. Russia is part of it but not by any means the most important. My biggest problem with Trump focuses on his impulsiveness. A trait that in a president is incredibly dangerous as events the last couple of days point out. Playing chicken with nuclear weapons is not the way to go. As to the article. First of the DNC hack is NOT the only thing that is fishy. The Trump camp has changed their story on several occasions. It went from "never had any contact with Russians", to" yes we had some contact but it was innocent", to "yes we had quite a few contacts but they were all harmless", to" yes we tried to get dirt on Hillary using what we thought was the Russian government but we didn't get it." Neither does the Russia story is backed by simply liberals as you seem to imply. It is supported by the GOP and the entire intelligence community too. The first party is on your side and the second party is not supposed to be political. Everybody inside with the information to know agrees, but yet here you try to cast doubt citing a single article. We had a discussion before regarding religion on which you were on my side. The same reason I'm very skeptical of religion is the same reason I'm very skeptical of people trying to peddle Russia wasn't involved. Many credible independent people say this happened. While the doubters are not just in general uninformed but they have to disregard a lot of facts in order to keep up their belief.I picked up this article at another forum. This is the much more likely scenario than a big Russian/Trump ridiculous conspiracy theory. What do you think?
A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack
It is now a year since the Democratic National Committee’s mail system was compromised—a year since events in the spring and early summer of 2016 were identified as remote hacks and, in short order, attributed to Russians acting in behalf of Donald Trump. A great edifice has been erected during this time. President Trump, members of his family, and numerous people around him stand accused of various corruptions and extensive collusion with Russians. Half a dozen simultaneous investigations proceed into these matters. Last week news broke that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had convened a grand jury, which issued its first subpoenas on August 3. Allegations of treason are common; prominent political figures and many media cultivate a case for impeachment.
The president’s ability to conduct foreign policy, notably but not only with regard to Russia, is now crippled. Forced into a corner and having no choice, Trump just signed legislation imposing severe new sanctions on Russia and European companies working with it on pipeline projects vital to Russia’s energy sector. Striking this close to the core of another nation’s economy is customarily considered an act of war, we must not forget. In retaliation, Moscow has announced that the United States must cut its embassy staff by roughly two-thirds. All sides agree that relations between the United States and Russia are now as fragile as they were during some of the Cold War’s worst moments. To suggest that military conflict between two nuclear powers inches ever closer can no longer be dismissed as hyperbole.
All this was set in motion when the DNC’s mail server was first violated in the spring of 2016 and by subsequent assertions that Russians were behind that “hack” and another such operation, also described as a Russian hack, on July 5. These are the foundation stones of the edifice just outlined. The evolution of public discourse in the year since is worthy of scholarly study: Possibilities became allegations, and these became probabilities. Then the probabilities turned into certainties, and these evolved into what are now taken to be established truths. By my reckoning, it required a few days to a few weeks to advance from each of these stages to the next. This was accomplished via the indefensibly corrupt manipulations of language repeated incessantly in our leading media.
We are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception.
Lost in a year that often appeared to veer into our peculiarly American kind of hysteria is the absence of any credible evidence of what happened last year and who was responsible for it. It is tiresome to note, but none has been made available. Instead, we are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception. These officials profess “high confidence” in their “assessment” as to what happened in the spring and summer of last year—this standing as their authoritative judgment. Few have noticed since these evasive terms first appeared that an assessment is an opinion, nothing more, and to express high confidence is an upside-down way of admitting the absence of certain knowledge. This is how officials avoid putting their names on the assertions we are so strongly urged to accept—as the record shows many of them have done.
We come now to a moment of great gravity.
There has been a long effort to counter the official narrative we now call “Russiagate.” This effort has so far focused on the key events noted above, leaving numerous others still to be addressed. Until recently, researchers undertaking this work faced critical shortcomings, and these are to be explained. But they have achieved significant new momentum in the past several weeks, and what they have done now yields very consequential fruit. Forensic investigators, intelligence analysts, system designers, program architects, and computer scientists of long experience and strongly credentialed are now producing evidence disproving the official version of key events last year. Their work is intricate and continues at a kinetic pace as we speak. But its certain results so far are two, simply stated, and freighted with implications:
- There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the initial “hack,” as alleged, that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer.
And it's the same reason why I am CONVINCED that the Russia story is just a cover up as well as a way to character assassinate the current presidency and, in turn, harm our country.
Fact: Don Jr did solicit damaging information on Hillary from what he perceived the Russian government, he himself confirmed it.
Fact: Trump gave codeword lvl information to Russian officials at expense of Israel.
Fact: Russia is holding a concerted effort to help rightwing politicians, not just in the US but across Europe. This is not under dispute. The GOP hack was not the only thing they did.Marine Le Pen: Who's funding France's far right? - BBC News
Lessons from Europe’s Fight Against Russian Disinformation
Lyudmila Savchuk, Former Russian Internet 'Troll,' Awarded 1 Ruble In Symbolic Damages
So again tell me why are you convinced DESPITE the facts to the contrary?
What motive?
Give me the names, expertise and sources. I don't mind you making claims but I put before you the following axiom that was used by Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". You want me to disregard, the DNC, GOP, FBI, NSA,CIA, BBC,CNN and a bunch of other acronyms on the face of a single article citing unnamed sources who by their own admission are not in the government employment when they did their research, making it unlikely they had access to all relevant information. So do you have extraordinary evidence? Cause that article certainly isn't it. If not you are no different then somebody who believes in a God because he feels it's true.What motive does the GOP have to assassinate the REPUBLICAN president? Their fate in the midterms hinges on a successful presidency. Or what reason does the intelligence community have? You can have convictions( beliefs) all you want that don't make it true.This is an interesting article, I will give you my problems. First of, my personal problems with Trump don't focus on Russia. Russia is part of it but not by any means the most important. My biggest problem with Trump focuses on his impulsiveness. A trait that in a president is incredibly dangerous as events the last couple of days point out. Playing chicken with nuclear weapons is not the way to go. As to the article. First of the DNC hack is NOT the only thing that is fishy. The Trump camp has changed their story on several occasions. It went from "never had any contact with Russians", to" yes we had some contact but it was innocent", to "yes we had quite a few contacts but they were all harmless", to" yes we tried to get dirt on Hillary using what we thought was the Russian government but we didn't get it." Neither does the Russia story is backed by simply liberals as you seem to imply. It is supported by the GOP and the entire intelligence community too. The first party is on your side and the second party is not supposed to be political. Everybody inside with the information to know agrees, but yet here you try to cast doubt citing a single article. We had a discussion before regarding religion on which you were on my side. The same reason I'm very skeptical of religion is the same reason I'm very skeptical of people trying to peddle Russia wasn't involved. Many credible independent people say this happened. While the doubters are not just in general uninformed but they have to disregard a lot of facts in order to keep up their belief.I picked up this article at another forum. This is the much more likely scenario than a big Russian/Trump ridiculous conspiracy theory. What do you think?
A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack
It is now a year since the Democratic National Committee’s mail system was compromised—a year since events in the spring and early summer of 2016 were identified as remote hacks and, in short order, attributed to Russians acting in behalf of Donald Trump. A great edifice has been erected during this time. President Trump, members of his family, and numerous people around him stand accused of various corruptions and extensive collusion with Russians. Half a dozen simultaneous investigations proceed into these matters. Last week news broke that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had convened a grand jury, which issued its first subpoenas on August 3. Allegations of treason are common; prominent political figures and many media cultivate a case for impeachment.
The president’s ability to conduct foreign policy, notably but not only with regard to Russia, is now crippled. Forced into a corner and having no choice, Trump just signed legislation imposing severe new sanctions on Russia and European companies working with it on pipeline projects vital to Russia’s energy sector. Striking this close to the core of another nation’s economy is customarily considered an act of war, we must not forget. In retaliation, Moscow has announced that the United States must cut its embassy staff by roughly two-thirds. All sides agree that relations between the United States and Russia are now as fragile as they were during some of the Cold War’s worst moments. To suggest that military conflict between two nuclear powers inches ever closer can no longer be dismissed as hyperbole.
All this was set in motion when the DNC’s mail server was first violated in the spring of 2016 and by subsequent assertions that Russians were behind that “hack” and another such operation, also described as a Russian hack, on July 5. These are the foundation stones of the edifice just outlined. The evolution of public discourse in the year since is worthy of scholarly study: Possibilities became allegations, and these became probabilities. Then the probabilities turned into certainties, and these evolved into what are now taken to be established truths. By my reckoning, it required a few days to a few weeks to advance from each of these stages to the next. This was accomplished via the indefensibly corrupt manipulations of language repeated incessantly in our leading media.
We are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception.
Lost in a year that often appeared to veer into our peculiarly American kind of hysteria is the absence of any credible evidence of what happened last year and who was responsible for it. It is tiresome to note, but none has been made available. Instead, we are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception. These officials profess “high confidence” in their “assessment” as to what happened in the spring and summer of last year—this standing as their authoritative judgment. Few have noticed since these evasive terms first appeared that an assessment is an opinion, nothing more, and to express high confidence is an upside-down way of admitting the absence of certain knowledge. This is how officials avoid putting their names on the assertions we are so strongly urged to accept—as the record shows many of them have done.
We come now to a moment of great gravity.
There has been a long effort to counter the official narrative we now call “Russiagate.” This effort has so far focused on the key events noted above, leaving numerous others still to be addressed. Until recently, researchers undertaking this work faced critical shortcomings, and these are to be explained. But they have achieved significant new momentum in the past several weeks, and what they have done now yields very consequential fruit. Forensic investigators, intelligence analysts, system designers, program architects, and computer scientists of long experience and strongly credentialed are now producing evidence disproving the official version of key events last year. Their work is intricate and continues at a kinetic pace as we speak. But its certain results so far are two, simply stated, and freighted with implications:
- There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the initial “hack,” as alleged, that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer.
And it's the same reason why I am CONVINCED that the Russia story is just a cover up as well as a way to character assassinate the current presidency and, in turn, harm our country.
Fact: Don Jr did solicit damaging information on Hillary from what he perceived the Russian government, he himself confirmed it.
Fact: Trump gave codeword lvl information to Russian officials at expense of Israel.
Fact: Russia is holding a concerted effort to help rightwing politicians, not just in the US but across Europe. This is not under dispute. The GOP hack was not the only thing they did.Marine Le Pen: Who's funding France's far right? - BBC News
Lessons from Europe’s Fight Against Russian Disinformation
Lyudmila Savchuk, Former Russian Internet 'Troll,' Awarded 1 Ruble In Symbolic Damages
So again tell me why are you convinced DESPITE the facts to the contrary?
Obviously you haven't read the article which is based upon interviews done with those performing investigations as well as the expert opinions of computer scientists, programmers, etc., who have determined that it is far more likely based on all the data they have that the leaks were an inside job. This according to a well known liberal source called The Nation.
if you read my post and had gone in to the link provided it shows that analysis is simply inaccurate and merely supposition using faulty assumptions.I picked up this article at another forum. This is the much more likely scenario than a big Russian/Trump ridiculous conspiracy theory. What do you think?
A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack
It is now a year since the Democratic National Committee’s mail system was compromised—a year since events in the spring and early summer of 2016 were identified as remote hacks and, in short order, attributed to Russians acting in behalf of Donald Trump. A great edifice has been erected during this time. President Trump, members of his family, and numerous people around him stand accused of various corruptions and extensive collusion with Russians. Half a dozen simultaneous investigations proceed into these matters. Last week news broke that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had convened a grand jury, which issued its first subpoenas on August 3. Allegations of treason are common; prominent political figures and many media cultivate a case for impeachment.
The president’s ability to conduct foreign policy, notably but not only with regard to Russia, is now crippled. Forced into a corner and having no choice, Trump just signed legislation imposing severe new sanctions on Russia and European companies working with it on pipeline projects vital to Russia’s energy sector. Striking this close to the core of another nation’s economy is customarily considered an act of war, we must not forget. In retaliation, Moscow has announced that the United States must cut its embassy staff by roughly two-thirds. All sides agree that relations between the United States and Russia are now as fragile as they were during some of the Cold War’s worst moments. To suggest that military conflict between two nuclear powers inches ever closer can no longer be dismissed as hyperbole.
All this was set in motion when the DNC’s mail server was first violated in the spring of 2016 and by subsequent assertions that Russians were behind that “hack” and another such operation, also described as a Russian hack, on July 5. These are the foundation stones of the edifice just outlined. The evolution of public discourse in the year since is worthy of scholarly study: Possibilities became allegations, and these became probabilities. Then the probabilities turned into certainties, and these evolved into what are now taken to be established truths. By my reckoning, it required a few days to a few weeks to advance from each of these stages to the next. This was accomplished via the indefensibly corrupt manipulations of language repeated incessantly in our leading media.
We are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception.
Lost in a year that often appeared to veer into our peculiarly American kind of hysteria is the absence of any credible evidence of what happened last year and who was responsible for it. It is tiresome to note, but none has been made available. Instead, we are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception. These officials profess “high confidence” in their “assessment” as to what happened in the spring and summer of last year—this standing as their authoritative judgment. Few have noticed since these evasive terms first appeared that an assessment is an opinion, nothing more, and to express high confidence is an upside-down way of admitting the absence of certain knowledge. This is how officials avoid putting their names on the assertions we are so strongly urged to accept—as the record shows many of them have done.
We come now to a moment of great gravity.
There has been a long effort to counter the official narrative we now call “Russiagate.” This effort has so far focused on the key events noted above, leaving numerous others still to be addressed. Until recently, researchers undertaking this work faced critical shortcomings, and these are to be explained. But they have achieved significant new momentum in the past several weeks, and what they have done now yields very consequential fruit. Forensic investigators, intelligence analysts, system designers, program architects, and computer scientists of long experience and strongly credentialed are now producing evidence disproving the official version of key events last year. Their work is intricate and continues at a kinetic pace as we speak. But its certain results so far are two, simply stated, and freighted with implications:
- There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the initial “hack,” as alleged, that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer.
the article, which I read in full, has sort of been debunked...
Also, the Russian embassy homes in / near D.C. were shut down and diplomats kicked out because our gvt believed they, the Russians in these embassy homes, were involved with the DNC theft and leaks and it was reported that they had super duper spying equipment in them...
These Russian embassy centers could have easily had a server fast enough to download the files in the 87 seconds the article mentions.
The Nation Article About the DNC Hack Is Too Incoherent to Even DebunkBut this article is neither conclusive proof nor strong evidence. It’s the extremely long-winded product of a crank, and it’s been getting attention only because it appears in a respected left-wing publication like The Nation. Anyone hoping to read it for careful reporting and clear explanation is going to come away disappointed, however.
If you want to get to the actual claims being made, you’ll have to skip the first 1,000 or so words, which mostly consist of breathtakingly elaborate throat-clearing. (“[H]ouses built on sand and made of cards are bound to collapse, and there can be no surprise that the one resting atop the ‘hack theory,’ as we can call the prevailing wisdom on the DNC events, appears to be in the process of doing so.”) About halfway through, you get to the crux of the article: A report, made by an anonymous analyst calling himself “Forensicator,” on the “metadata” of “locked files” leaked by the hacker Guccifer 2.0.
This should, already, set off alarm bells: An anonymous analyst is claiming to have analyzed the “metadata” of “locked files” that only this analyst had access to? Still, if I’m understanding it correctly, Lawrence’s central argument (which, again, rests on the belief that Forensicator’s claims about “metadata” are meaningful and correct) is that the initial data transfer from the DNC occurred at speeds impossible via the internet. Instead, he and a few retired intel-community members and some pseudonymous bloggers believe the data was transferred to a USB stick, making the infiltration a leak from someone inside the DNC, not a hack.
The crux of the whole thing — the opening argument — rests on the fact that, according to “metadata,” the data was transferred at about 22 megabytes per second, which Lawrence and Forensicator claim is much too fast to have been undertaken over an internet connection. (Most connection speeds are measured at megabits per second, not megabytes; 22 megabytes per second is 176 megabits per second.) Most households don’t get internet speeds that high, but enterprise operations, like the DNC — or, uh, the FSB — would have access to a higher but certainly not unattainable speed like that.
If that’s your strongest evidence, your argument is already in trouble. But the real problem isn’t that there’s a bizarre claim about internet speed that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. It’s that Lawrence is writing in techno-gibberish that falls apart under even the slightest scrutiny. You could try to go on, but to what end? As an example: Lawrence writes that “researchers penetrated what Folden calls Guccifer’s top layer of metadata and analyzed what was in the layers beneath.” What on earth is that supposed to mean? We don’t know what “metadata” we’re talking about, or why it comes in “layers,” and all I’m left with is the distinct impression that Lawrence doesn’t either. Even if you wanted to take this seriously enough to engage with, you can’t, because it only intermittently makes sense. There may be evidence out there, somewhere, that a vast conspiracy theory has taken place to cover up a leak and blame Russia. But it’s going to need to be at least comprehensible.
So far the metadata analysis which has been analyzed by former Top intelligence officials has revealed that the "hack" was an inside job and that the data was copied to a thumb drive and that this all occurred on the East Coast and not in Russia or any other country. This is the only physical proof that has been submitted as to where the hacks have come from. It is definitely more proof than the Russian conspiracy theory. Lol. Metadata doesn't lie.
it went to the Russian Embassy home in the D.C. area who had the super duper speed and was also kicked out due to their interference and involvement.The CIA put a Russian watermark on the leak after the fact for the DNC. but there is ZERO evidence the information ever went to Russia....transfer-speed wasn't anywhere near where it would have been if it had gone to Moscow.
FYILol, a kindergarten student could've hacked it. I mean the password was password. LolRussians hacked the DNC server
