US EXPELS 35 Russian diplomats, closes two compounds.

[EverCurious]

You seem to be basing your conclusions entirely on cyber data gathering and monitoring. US intelligence resources include far more than computer geeks sitting at computers.

When the government sends out something and tells me "Here this is what proves the Russian hacked us" I tend to go okay lemme have a looksee. However, when I, as a programmer and someone who has worked in IT, look at their evidence and conclude there is absolutely nothing tying it to Russia, I am going to call them out on their bullshit. ANYONE on the planet can download this malware program, in fact the link to do was in my post. You're going to tell me that a malware which is publicly available to the entire world could /only/ be used by Russian's when deployed against the US? Is that really the kind of "truth" you are willing to accept?

You realize that China was hacking the shit out of us during the same time period right? Obama worked out a diplomatic agreement with them with no sanctions or anything last year btw. I suppose it's just coincidence that both China and Russia were hacking us extensively at that time, but certainly it had to be Russia that tagged the DNC, right?

No, I do not just blindly trust our corrupt government, I expect proof and so far their "evidence" is bullshit that originates from a private company in California named CrowdStrike - they're the ones who started the Russian "rumor" saying that it "seemed like" what Russians do. Would you like to guess who this company has political ties to, or do you have enough critical thought to figure it out?

That said, if the government would like to produce some actual evidence, I'll be more than happy to say yep guess they did it, because I know damn well that every government on the planet and thousands, perhaps even millions, of unassociated hackers are trying to get information on the US every single day. I frequent NORSE, I get hundreds of phishing emails a day, I was a corporate executive, and I was a web developer - I most certainly know that hacking happens, in fact, I expect it.

Here's a question for you though, the malware was publicly distributed. What would happen if some random putz hacker's happened to have used this malware and gotten ahold of these DNC emails? You do know why random putz's hack, right? Money. So this random putz hacks the DNC and puts it up for sale on the underground. Is it an "attack on the US" if Russia bought it? What if Russia wasn't the /only/ country that bought it? After all this isn't really a sheet of paper here, it's reproducible data, billions of copies could be sold... How about if a Wikileaks supporter bought it? How about if a Bern supporter bought it? How about if a Trump supporter bought it?

In your honest opinion is it proper to nail /Russia/ to the wall in any of these scenarios?

 

[beagle9]

You seem to be basing your conclusions entirely on cyber data gathering and monitoring. US intelligence resources include far more than computer geeks sitting at computers.

When the government sends out something and tells me "Here this is what proves the Russian hacked us" I tend to go okay lemme have a looksee. However, when I, as a programmer and someone who has worked in IT, look at their evidence and conclude there is absolutely nothing tying it to Russia, I am going to call them out on their bullshit. ANYONE on the planet can download this malware program, in fact the link to do was in my post. You're going to tell me that a malware which is publicly available to the entire world could /only/ be used by Russian's when deployed against the US? Is that really the kind of "truth" you are willing to accept?

You realize that China was hacking the shit out of us during the same time period right? Obama worked out a diplomatic agreement with them with no sanctions or anything last year btw. I suppose it's just coincidence that both China and Russia were hacking us extensively at that time, but certainly it had to be Russia that tagged the DNC, right?

No, I do not just blindly trust our corrupt government, I expect proof and so far their "evidence" is bullshit that originates from a private company in California named CrowdStrike - they're the ones who started the Russian "rumor" saying that it "seemed like" what Russians do. Would you like to guess who this company has political ties to, or do you have enough critical thought to figure it out?

That said, if the government would like to produce some actual evidence, I'll be more than happy to say yep guess they did it, because I know damn well that every government on the planet and thousands, perhaps even millions, of unassociated hackers are trying to get information on the US every single day. I frequent NORSE, I get hundreds of phishing emails a day, I was a corporate executive, and I was a web developer - I most certainly know that hacking happens, in fact, I expect it.

Here's a question for you though, the malware was publicly distributed. What would happen if some random putz hacker's happened to have used this malware and gotten ahold of these DNC emails? You do know why random putz's hack, right? Money. So this random putz hacks the DNC and puts it up for sale on the underground. Is it an "attack on the US" if Russia bought it? What if Russia wasn't the /only/ country that bought it? After all this isn't really a sheet of paper here, it's reproducible data, billions of copies could be sold... How about if a Wikileaks supporter bought it? How about if a Bern supporter bought it? How about if a Trump supporter bought it?

In your honest opinion is it proper to nail /Russia/ to the wall in any of these scenarios?

. It's all so obvious that this whole thing is based upon the Dems losing the election. Like everyone says, we are hacked all the time, but the Dems lose an election because they ran the wrong candidate, and it was all caused by racism, then it was the white supremacists, then it was Comey, then it was Trump not getting the popular vote, then it was the electoral college, then it was the Russians, then it was Daffy Duck, and then it was Bugs Bunny, and on and on into oblivion.

 

[EverCurious]

That is the impression I have right now. I'm open to change if the gov can provide anything more than "well... uhm.... we think" I'll be suggesting Trump keep the sanctions, but I honestly don't think it's even possible to nail the origin specifically to Russia, much less to the Russian government.

I can tell you that setting this kind of precedence could be /very/ bad for us; to example, Cozy Bear is known to be Russian, but there is absolutely /nothing/ out there tying them to the Russian /Government,/ in fact, it is believed that they are a professional hacking group that prostitutes their services to anyone. America has a bunch of random hackers too, are we okay with getting sanctions and media hatred because one of our sheep tags a foreign political parties email in the year or two proceeding an election? I'm not keen on that idea personally (not that I'm really "afraid" but these things do effect our country, businesses and so forth, not to mention global public opinion and thus foreign relations, etc.)

I just think it's reckless and unfounded - and especially because I'm near positive that due to the prevalence of TOR untraceable IPs that the /only/ way we could know without doubt that the agents were directed by the RIS is /if/ we stole documents from them, and frankly, if I think that, I guarantee you others do as well. How stupid does it look when we dump sanctions for hacking based on information we could only have by hacking?

EDIT - weird it killed my paragraphing there - sorry bout that.

 

[Dr Grump]

I'm going to say it again folks, the only way I can see for the US gov to be able to pin this on the Russians is for us to have stolen documents that conclusively show the two hacker agents were theirs...

Which could be true. However, the intel community cannot give out that info if it is true.

 

[Dr Grump]

Wrong again. Clinton's unauthorized private server was completely unprotected for three months. And I'd still like to see the evidence that the Russians did anything.

How do you know it was totally unprotected. I read that it didn't have govt encryption, but had its own anti-malware.

There is an interesting piece by an ex-CIA chief who states that it will be unlikely we'll see any evidence because it could put people in danger who put the spotlight on the Russians - i.e., whistleblowers in Russia.

 

[MindWars]

That is more than a big wet sloppy kiss.........

PLEASE move to Canada as quick as you can. This is the kind of deplorable crap Killary blamed on Trump supporters. It is known who the real deplorables are by the evidence mounting more and more and more.

Why? I'm very busy defending my country. You should move to Russia.

. I'm not the one crying about our newly elected President. I mean if you just can't deal with it, then you know where the door is, and don't let it hit ya where the good Lord split cha.

But you are very busy defending Putin........ What that makes you?

. Defending Putin or defending Trump ?

How about both of them defend " FREEDOM" and the globalist DO NOT LIKE IT...............
again this is why both of them are being slammed with bs lies.

 

[MindWars]

Point is --- that kind of intel doesn't generally get released to the public if it can be TRACED back to specific operatives or agents. Especially if they were sloppy enough to leave evidence of their methods. The whole point of gathering it is to hold it secret and use it as leverage in "negotiations". You could burn entire groups that collect that stuff by exposing it without cleaning up.

Looks to me like someone Internally burned the Kremlin. The way that Snowden did here in the US.

And it's not just one affair. You have Hillary's stupid ass home brewed system which I'm SURE was browsed by 4 or 6 foreign nations. Then you have the DNC hacks which were interesting but not even close to fatal for Clinton personally. And Finally, you have the idiot Podesta running an entire campaign out of Gmail account on his commercial phone. Those are all different stories. And the DNC and media are just balling them up into one big "Russia did it" excuse...

See I don't think so, and the reason is - there appears to be a long history of hacking attempts from Russia on us and other western governments aimed at election processes. Releasing it can influence things as much as holding it, especially through a proxy like Wikileaks.

We've been spying on Russian politicos for 35 years or more. This is from a book, not my "personal" experience, but in the 1980s we could tell you exactly how much Vodka the Kremlin was ordering and what brands. So if they were interested in where Podesta got his pizza from --- you shouldn't be surprised.

NONE of that info ever makes it to public domain unless someone gets blackmailed with it in exchange for negotiating concessions. That's what is "not right" about this "blame it on the Russians" deal..

You don't want the other guessing how they know what they know. Was it satellite interception, an antenna on an embassy, an asset working on the ground, a group for hire in Romania??? You don't want to widely EXPOSE those methods. Because they can be neutralized. And people could get killed.

I disagree. Russia was using Wikileaks to cover it's track. There is substantial agreement among diverse authorities that Russia was behind the hacking. There is zero evidence that it was the DNC insider. There is nothing substantial in the hacked emails - nothing outright illegal. What's there is stuff that can be implied, misconstrued or is embarressing. It's not "blackmail worthy" but it can - when released at strategic intervals - cause havoc.

WHICH hacking were they behind? The DNC hack was a simple spearfishing attack. ANYONE could have done it. Getting a Gmail account from a phone is a little trickier, but there were reports that Podesta had LOST a phone.

The assumption seems to be that ONLY the Russians were in those 3 separate attacks. But I assure you, there were other breaches on those stupid systems. There were just too tempting as targets.

In classified session, with the DNC and RNC, the FBI probably told them HOW MANY hacking attempts or successes had been made. It's not likely at all that ONLY the Russians were into those systems. And the only one of the 3 that had "the good stuff" on Clinton was Podesta's phone. And maybe the other "not publicly released" classified info that came from Clintons' "security workaround" server. But her lawyers and contractors damaged the evidence so badly on that one, that no can assess how many unauthorized leaks there were on that system.

Media and govt are wrapping all of these together in attempt to confuse folks.. The problem was -- DNC and Clinton and Podesta did not LISTEN to security advice. There's your fundamental issue..

That is A fundamental issue. Among others. I can't see all 17 intelligence agencies colluding to pinpoint Russia if they didn't have substantial evidence - they're notoriously cagy about committing to something like that. No one is saying it was ONLY Russia - but that the evidence points to Russia.

But think of this " What the CIA/FBI claim are evidence does not mean it is evidence.
They can create fake documents knowing damn well the public wouldn't have any idea how true or fake their documents are. They can create anything they want , make it look like anything they want.
and when the Government wants to hide what it wants to hide there is no problem handing down order via other channels. Why because those organizations know if they don't follow it they lose their jobs.
Or get smeared.

 

[jillian]

Wrong again. Clinton's unauthorized private server was completely unprotected for three months. And I'd still like to see the evidence that the Russians did anything.

How do you know it was totally unprotected. I read that it didn't have govt encryption, but had its own anti-malware.

There is an interesting piece by an ex-CIA chief who states that it will be unlikely we'll see any evidence because it could put people in danger who put the spotlight on the Russians - i.e., whistleblowers in Russia.

they don't know.... they listen to the voices in their heads.

but it still amazes me that they'll support russia over their own country.

treasonous losers

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

Wrong again. Clinton's unauthorized private server was completely unprotected for three months. And I'd still like to see the evidence that the Russians did anything.

How do you know it was totally unprotected. I read that it didn't have govt encryption, but had its own anti-malware.

There is an interesting piece by an ex-CIA chief who states that it will be unlikely we'll see any evidence because it could put people in danger who put the spotlight on the Russians - i.e., whistleblowers in Russia.

Malware? You call that protection? I don't think that counts as protection when you're receiving classified communications.

 

[jillian]

See I don't think so, and the reason is - there appears to be a long history of hacking attempts from Russia on us and other western governments aimed at election processes. Releasing it can influence things as much as holding it, especially through a proxy like Wikileaks.

We've been spying on Russian politicos for 35 years or more. This is from a book, not my "personal" experience, but in the 1980s we could tell you exactly how much Vodka the Kremlin was ordering and what brands. So if they were interested in where Podesta got his pizza from --- you shouldn't be surprised.

NONE of that info ever makes it to public domain unless someone gets blackmailed with it in exchange for negotiating concessions. That's what is "not right" about this "blame it on the Russians" deal..

You don't want the other guessing how they know what they know. Was it satellite interception, an antenna on an embassy, an asset working on the ground, a group for hire in Romania??? You don't want to widely EXPOSE those methods. Because they can be neutralized. And people could get killed.

I disagree. Russia was using Wikileaks to cover it's track. There is substantial agreement among diverse authorities that Russia was behind the hacking. There is zero evidence that it was the DNC insider. There is nothing substantial in the hacked emails - nothing outright illegal. What's there is stuff that can be implied, misconstrued or is embarressing. It's not "blackmail worthy" but it can - when released at strategic intervals - cause havoc.

WHICH hacking were they behind? The DNC hack was a simple spearfishing attack. ANYONE could have done it. Getting a Gmail account from a phone is a little trickier, but there were reports that Podesta had LOST a phone.

The assumption seems to be that ONLY the Russians were in those 3 separate attacks. But I assure you, there were other breaches on those stupid systems. There were just too tempting as targets.

In classified session, with the DNC and RNC, the FBI probably told them HOW MANY hacking attempts or successes had been made. It's not likely at all that ONLY the Russians were into those systems. And the only one of the 3 that had "the good stuff" on Clinton was Podesta's phone. And maybe the other "not publicly released" classified info that came from Clintons' "security workaround" server. But her lawyers and contractors damaged the evidence so badly on that one, that no can assess how many unauthorized leaks there were on that system.

Media and govt are wrapping all of these together in attempt to confuse folks.. The problem was -- DNC and Clinton and Podesta did not LISTEN to security advice. There's your fundamental issue..

That is A fundamental issue. Among others. I can't see all 17 intelligence agencies colluding to pinpoint Russia if they didn't have substantial evidence - they're notoriously cagy about committing to something like that. No one is saying it was ONLY Russia - but that the evidence points to Russia.

But think of this " What the CIA/FBI claim are evidence does not mean it is evidence.
They can create fake documents knowing damn well the public wouldn't have any idea how true or fake their documents are. They can create anything they want , make it look like anything they want.
and when the Government wants to hide what it wants to hide there is no problem handing down order via other channels. Why because those organizations know if they don't follow it they lose their jobs.
Or get smeared.

it's very easy to pretend reality doesn't exist....

you're quite good at living in a fantasy world.

 

[Dr Grump]

[

It's time for them to give up on blaming Russia for the election. They have even failed to prove Russia had anything to do with hacking the DNC. White House fails to make case that Russian hackers tampered with election

I think there is some confusion amongst you Putin lovers. Those investigating the hacking don't believe that Russia physically hacked voting machines or that the amount of people that voted for Trump would have changed the outcome. They are saying that hacking govt email servers and releasing the content affected who people saw the candidates.

 

[Dr Grump]

Malware? You call that protection? I don't think that counts as protection when you're receiving classified communications.

Yeah, but it was hardly an open server. Anyway, if a hacker wants to get into a server - govt or otherwise - they will.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

Wrong again. Clinton's unauthorized private server was completely unprotected for three months. And I'd still like to see the evidence that the Russians did anything.

How do you know it was totally unprotected. I read that it didn't have govt encryption, but had its own anti-malware.

There is an interesting piece by an ex-CIA chief who states that it will be unlikely we'll see any evidence because it could put people in danger who put the spotlight on the Russians - i.e., whistleblowers in Russia.

they don't know.... they listen to the voices in their heads.

but it still amazes me that they'll support russia over their own country.

treasonous losers

Treasonous losers. Seems to be the whole premise for this incredibly embarrassing and puerile reviving of McCarthyism and the Cold War.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

Malware? You call that protection? I don't think that counts as protection when you're receiving classified communications.

Yeah, but it was hardly an open server. Anyway, if a hacker wants to get into a server - govt or otherwise - they will.

Unauthorized and stupid at the very least.

 

[Dr Grump]

. Why is it that the Americans are not allowed to learn the truth, and this regardless of what form it comes in as long as it's the truth ??.

Because a lot of it is fake news. DOn't believe me? The guy who is about to be sworn in is a birther. It is a FACT that Obama was born in Hawaii. Fact. Yet, on this very board people still call him a Muslim and Kenyan. If that is your starting point, then you are not interested in the truth. Just partisan hackery. I'm not even going to go into the Washington DC pizza parlour that has a pedi ring run by Clinton. I mean it is ridiculous.

 

[Dr Grump]

[
Unauthorized and stupid at the very least.

Even she said it was stupid. hardly a hanging offence.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

[

It's time for them to give up on blaming Russia for the election. They have even failed to prove Russia had anything to do with hacking the DNC. White House fails to make case that Russian hackers tampered with election

I think there is some confusion amongst you Putin lovers. Those investigating the hacking don't believe that Russia physically hacked voting machines or that the amount of people that voted for Trump would have changed the outcome. They are saying that hacking govt email servers and releasing the content affected who people saw the candidates.

I believe people could have hacked voting machines. I think we really need to have a closer look at all the Clinton Campaign shenanigans during the primaries.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

[
Unauthorized and stupid at the very least.

Even she said it was stupid. hardly a hanging offence.

There are plenty of other reasons to hang the Clintons.

 

[jillian]

[
Unauthorized and stupid at the very least.

Even she said it was stupid. hardly a hanging offence.

There are plenty of other reasons to hang the Clintons.

only in loony toon world

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

[
Unauthorized and stupid at the very least.

Even she said it was stupid. hardly a hanging offence.

There are plenty of other reasons to hang the Clintons.

only in loony toon world

Why do you suppose it is that all the Hilary supporters always sound like they're making excuses?