Spy vs Spy

127 comments on “Spy vs Spy ”

• Comments are now closed

1. gnomic 1

   10 January 2017 at 1:04 am

   It’s a post-reality reality. Why just the other day I read this utterance by a fellow named John Brennan, currently CIA director if I have it correctly.

   “What the Russians have done in Syria in terms of some of the scorched-earth policy that they have pursued that have led to devastation and thousands upon thousands of innocent deaths, that’s not something that the United States would ever do in any of these military conflicts.”

   Shurely shome mistake here? The director must be misspeaking himself? Or perhaps it is just part of the current tendency by those in authority to spout absolute twaddle and expect to be given credence.

   Furthermore the director quoth:

   ” And the United States is the global superpower, remains so. And what they need to worry about is how are they going to ensure that they’re able to monitor what’s going on around the world, protect U.S. national security interests, not overcommit, and also make sure that the policy course that they stake out is one that has near-term interests in mind, but also longer-term strategic goals and objectives of the United States.”

   As Nobel Peace Prize winner Henry Kissinger is reputed to have said:

   “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”

   Oddly enough I have never felt inclined to trust the CIA, or indeed any of the spooks around the world. But perhaps I am just extraordinarily cynical? Maybe it was ‘extraordinary rendition’ that shook my faith in our leaders and their intelligence agencies. Not to mention extrajudicial execution.
   • Clump_AKA Sam 1.1

     10 January 2017 at 2:56 am

     Kissinger makes chainy look like Look like Martyn Bradbury
2. Huginn 2

   10 January 2017 at 2:52 am

   Mike, it’s an inteligence analysis, not an action plan.

   The Iraq and wmd’s were an attempt to persuade us of something for which there was virtually no evidence. Not only that, but the people charged with finding that evidence were telling us that they were sceptical.

   This is different because there is heaps of circumstantial evidence of Russian involvement that was available to us before the IC reports were tabled.

   -The analysis of the phishing email that let the hackers in, and was subsequently dumped with the rest of Podesta’s emails.

   -The Crowdstrike report.

   -The scale of the attack on the Democrats. It wasn’t just the Presidential election. Hacking and strategic dumping happened at State level as well – so this wasn’t one person pissed off with HRC – it was a massively resourced organisation with a specific political focus.

   -Trump’s behaviour; his attitude towards Putin. The weird coincidence with the language I hear from European fascists and Brexiteers.

   -The self – congratulatory jubilation of the Russians immediately after the election results came in. Alexandr Dugin gloating ‘Washington is ours’.

   The US IC report only confirms what many of us have come to suspect after months of watching this slow-motion train smash. They can intercept and read the emails the Russians were sending to each other; they know the Russians pet name for Trump; they drew the line between Gucifer, Assange, and RT, that the Russians have similar caches of information harvested from the Republicans, and so on.

   We got a taste of this in the NZ 2014 Elections. I think about the way I felt about that, and I have no trouble understanding the complacency that I’ve been seeing in Republicans at the moment.

   This is not a case for going to war; the US IC are not acting autonomously here. They are sounding the alarm – like they’re supposed to do. And we need to take notice because it’s going to happen again. It may even become a feature of the way elections are fought.
   • lprent 2.1

     10 January 2017 at 8:36 am

     +1

     My thoughts exactly. Hacks are usually difficult to pin to anyone. You’d be daft to leave fingerprints everywhere.

     There is sufficient evidence to show that it had to be a well-resourced and very widespread set of hacks and hacking attempts targeted at the political establishments.

     There is just enough evidence to point to the particular Russian groups who have been doing this in the states on their geographical periphery and in some of the NATO states for the last decade. And I can’t think of any other state player who has the skills and the motivations to target this particular set of objectives apart from Russia and maybe the Israelis (and I can’t think what the latter would think that they would get out of it).

     On the other side, there is no evidence that the Russians didn’t do it. Sure I notice some of the pathetic excuses being offered – but they fit exactly within the classic FSB playlist of plausible denability and confusion. Think of their idiotic denials for the invasion of Crimea, Eastern Ukraine, and the targeting of the Baltic states computer infrastructure. So the Russians are by far the most probable suspects, and bearing in mind this isn’t a court, I’m just going to treat them as the perpetrators of a direct deliberate attack on the democratic processes of another country.

     And Mike, this isn’t the CIA figuring it this way. I think this way. The tech geekdom think this way. And we’re going to act like they did do it. The bullshit artists on the net may not. But they’re illiterate in the ways that the net runs and therefore quite ineffectual.

     This isn’t like the US intelligence fuckups on Iraq back in 2002. If you read the tech critics who know what they’re talking about, they are criticising the way that the muffheads in the US intelligence community are presenting it and especially the ‘evidence’ that they are presenting (real kiddie stuff).

     But they are not saying that the hacks weren’t there, that weren’t systematic and by a state, the Russians didn’t do it or that they aren’t the most likely suspects.

     The problem is that now the useless fuckers at the Kremlin have done this, it is going to be common and increasingly cheaper to do this kind of computer stupidity over the next decade.

     We’re going to have to harden up our political infrastructure in NZ. Which is going to be hard to get right because (as you are aware) damn near every political operative and ALL politicians are gormless technophobes with the scattering instincts of brain dead cats. They’re going to panic or go into daft denial.
     • Colonial Viper 2.1.1

       10 January 2017 at 8:58 am

       Bill Binney says that the US has had programmes to weaken the security of encryption around the world as well as introduce backdoors into hardware and software used globally.

       He says this makes it far easier for foreign powers to get into systems because the US has built in these weakenesses for its own agencies to use.

       He says that this demonstrates the ‘finite short sighted thinking’ of the NSA cyberwarfare approach.

       My thoughts exactly. Hacks are usually difficult to pin to anyone. You’d be daft to leave fingerprints everywhere.

       Yet apparently the incompetent Russians left Cyrillic characters everywhere to be found. Or perhaps it was just another frame up by the CIA to make it look like Russian hackers.

       The NSA would have the exact details of when data was being extracted from DNC servers, where that data went across the internet, and what that data was. Where is that evidence.
     • Anne 2.1.2

       10 January 2017 at 9:08 am

       Thanks lprent and Huginn and the other commentators here who have been trying so hard to get the message through. As one of those “gormless technophobes” (no not a politician) as lprent so delicately described us, I have to rely on those I know have the expert knowledge for guidance.

       Its obvious the Ruskies have now upped the game to dangerous levels and the rest of the world has to follow suit. Ironic that Russia has provided the justification for intelligence agencies around the world to be able to demand an even greater share of the national cake – a share we would far rather was spent on health, education and social programmes to assist the needy.
       • Adrian Thornton 2.1.2.1

         10 January 2017 at 9:50 am

         You do realize that more time is being spent on the origin of the leaks than the content, the content that exposed the DNC as being a cesspool of cronyism, that gave the election to a baboon, the DNC that is just about to reelect itself back into all the positions of power, all the while the media has directed the spotlight on to the Russians, and here we are…
         I mean seriously, the vice chair of the DNC is unbelievably still Donna Brazile, the same Donna Brazile that got caught ( through these leaks) giving the debate questions to Hillary so got fired from CNN, still the Vice chair of the party, that is the real issue here, no one has debated the validity of the information contained in the emails.
         • lprent 2.1.2.1.1

           10 January 2017 at 12:26 pm

           You are way too narrow and shortsighted.

           What happens when the same tactics by state players are employed in other upcoming elections.

           Just off the top of my head; we are liable to see hard fought elections in France, Germany, and here in New Zealand this year. There will be others fought in countries of the world that don’t have the opposition repressive tactics of Russia or Turkey or a number of other one party states.

           With your attention firmly stuffed up the arsehole of completed election in the USA, you probably haven’t considered the downstream implications for other societies.

           You really do look that stupid…
           • KJT 2.1.2.1.1.1

             10 January 2017 at 12:39 pm

             And the USA have not been interfering for decades?

             Including funding publicity agencies for NACT.
             • Colonial Viper …

               10 January 2017 at 12:44 pm

               And grooming our up and coming MPs with trips, scholarships, access to US officials, etc.
           • Adrian 2.1.2.1.1.2

             10 January 2017 at 1:21 pm

             Actually I would say you look stupid, very stupid.
             By focusing on this totally unsubstantiated claim, and not focusing on actually substantiated truth that the the neo libral free market left project is dead and not pushing hard at reforming the Left away from it’s current centrist (losing) political positions, is the reason why we will lose to the right across Europe as in the US.

             That stupid and sad.
             • Colonial Viper …

               10 January 2017 at 3:44 pm

               The new authoritarianism and censorship is going to come from “we know better than you” illiberal liberals.
               • McFlock …

                 10 January 2017 at 3:57 pm

                 There’s a difference between a pseudo-Socratic acceptance of the individual limits of one’s direct personal knowledge, and the ego-driven ignorance that makes you shill for a piece of shit who made:

                 a Keystone pipeline supporter his nominee for Secretary of Native Affairs,
                 a charter schools lobbyist his nominee for Education Secretary, and
                 a climate change denier as head of the Environmental Protection Agency.
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   10 January 2017 at 4:12 pm

                   as someone famous once said, elections have consequences.

                   Better luck in 2020. Make sure the Democratic nominee bothers to set foot in Wisconsin this time, instead of taking the state and its 6M residents for granted.
                   • McFlock …

                     10 January 2017 at 4:16 pm

                     Yeah, that’s right, toryboy. Don’t even try to defend the indefensible, just gloat about your Pyrrhic victory.
                   • Psycho Milt …

                     10 January 2017 at 4:25 pm

                     In what sense is it Pyrrhic? He wanted a right-wing nationalist demagogue to start dismantling liberalism in the US, and that’s what’s happened. The consequences of handing over the most powerful country on the planet to a capricious narcissist will fill CV with pleasure, not horror – just “victory” will do.
                   • McFlock …

                     10 January 2017 at 5:26 pm

                     Yeah, but I reckon Trump’s such a numpty he’ll end up in massive confrontation with China, Russia, or possibly both.

                     CV wants to see the West burn, but I’m not sure he wants China and Russia taken down with it. If the biggest consumer market in the world collapses again, who will buy Chinese-made iphones?
       • Morrissey 2.1.2.2

         10 January 2017 at 10:40 am

         Its obvious the Ruskies have now upped the game to dangerous levels…

         With respect, Anne, it is not obvious at all. There is no evidence that Russia interfered in the U.S. election.

         https://www.democracynow.org/2017/1/5/glenn_greenwald_on_dearth_of_evidence
         • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.2.2.1

           10 January 2017 at 12:44 pm

           Meanwhile, the Republican say there is. The Democrats say there is. The white supremacist pro-Putin PEOTUS says there is. The UK says there is, and Lprent has provided lots of context from the industry.

           You haven’t seen “proof”? Next thing you’ll be telling us the science isn’t settled.
           • Bill 2.1.2.2.1.1

             10 January 2017 at 1:15 pm

             The war mongering Russophobes in the US Senate and Congress choose to believe.

             Trump dampened things while giving himself plenty of wriggle room by conceding ‘Russia’ – ie, not the Russian government – may have been the source.

             Not only is there no hard evidence being produced by anyone that would lay it all down at the feet of Putin or the Kremlin…no other possible avenue has been explored, yet alone exhausted.

             But that’s the thing when you have a story and you’re just looking to shoehorn ‘facts’ into a conclusions you’ve already arrived at. Conjecture and speculation take on a life of their own.

             It’s a WMD redux but with a huge dose of McCarthyism thrown in on top. And it’s that latter bit that should have everyone standing up and demanding that every possible avenue of inquiry is thoroughly explored and then, when that’s done, and unless some concrete evidence is produced, the Intelligence Community and who-ever in the Senate and who-ever in the Congress and whatever various media should keep schtum, or at least admit their conjecture is just that – conjecture – and stop trying to whip up a frenzy.
             • One Anonymous Bloke …

               10 January 2017 at 1:24 pm

               Yeah, back to this “proof” business again. Is this the third or fourth day? I forget.

               You can choose any one of my previous responses to your point, or Lprent’s for that matter. It won’t make a blind bit of difference to your opinion though.

               PS: “choosing to believe” – you have no basis for that statement, since you aren’t and will never be party to the briefings they’ve received. Nice frame though. It suits your preconceived position and everything. I’ll stick with the balance of probabilities if it’s all the same to you.
               • Bill …

                 10 January 2017 at 1:43 pm

                 My opinion is that no-one knows who hacked the DNC or Podesta. They are the only individuals and institutions hacked according to Clapper just the other day btw.

                 My opinion is that stating something to be the case – as fact – especially when it carries the potential for utterly deleterious consequences as this does, has to be done from a rock solid basis.

                 Somewhere down or up the thread Sanctuary opines that thousands or even millions ought to die off the back of this. If that opinion was a mad fringe one, then it might be over-looked. But it’s not. There are extreme war mongers in powerful positions pushing this Russian line.

                 You’re essentially opting to be on their side (even if just by default) because of some shaky conjecture. Is that really the rational choice you want to be making? Even given your professed 30% confidence rating on stuff the Intelligence Services claim? (Or was that meaning you believe one in three things they say depending on your ideology?)
                 • One Anonymous Bloke …

                   10 January 2017 at 2:49 pm

                   …a rock solid basis…

                   …which you will never be party to, nor take anyone’s word for.

                   Those with more at stake (like Lprent for eg) will not wait for your approval, nor should they, for reasons outlined over the last four days (and possibly the next four, too).

                   By your ‘logic’, if I am opting to be on ‘their’ side, you are on Putin’s. ‘Logic’ isn’t everything.

                   Sanctuary is wrong: no-one has to die. At least we agree on that. Perhaps neither of us are taking sides.

                   As for confidence in spooks, I don’t think you really have a clue about the difference between acceptance of probability, and belief. Either that or it suits your argument to pretend cluelessness.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     10 January 2017 at 3:40 pm

                     …a rock solid basis…

                     …which you will never be party to, nor take anyone’s word for.

                     Julian Assange, Bill Binney, Murray Craig, Ray McGovern have all said (or strongly implied) that it’s an internal leak and not a hack.

                     Julian Assange and Murray Craig have direct knowledge of the matter. They are the proverbial horses mouth.

                     None of the Intelligence Community’s fact free assertions have addressed this point with actual evidence of a hack.
                   • Bill …

                     10 January 2017 at 4:11 pm

                     A community with a history of peddling deceit makes claims to honesty. The same community, that has a history of ineptitude, is claiming to be ‘on point’; that has come up with stories and contorted reality to fit their narrative protesteth “Not this time gov – Honest!”.

                     Why would I or anyone take them at their word?

                     Demanding something a bit better than conjecture isn’t to ‘side with’ Putin (whatever that means in this context) or the Kremlin or anyone else for that matter. Fuck knows how you arrived at that conclusion.

                     If the warmongers (or who-ever in Congress and the Senate) and the Intelligence Community, and the broad swathe of western media had done the exact same wavy armed shit and screamed blue murder at (insert any person/org of your choosing) on the basis they are screaming blue murder at Putin and the Kremlin, then my reaction would be the same.

                     You don’t want international friction and the US potentially ‘tooling up’ convenient adversaries of Russia (because no-one has to die)? Then best to ditch this nonsense of blithely accepting the US Intelligence Community at its word. They have a rather chequered history of grubby and grubbier OAB.
                   • One Anonymous Bloke …

                     10 January 2017 at 5:42 pm

                     @Bill: A community with a history of peddling deceit…

                     …would be too easily discounted. The fact that deceit isn’t the only thing they peddle (cf: the maybe too generous 30% credibility rating I mentioned) makes discounting them more difficult. I note that your information comes at least in part from RT.

                     Fuck knows how you arrived at that conclusion.

                     I didn’t: you did, when you asserted that I was taking sides “by default”.

                     Blithely accepting.

                     Once a-fuckin’gain: acknowledgement of probability is not acceptance, let alone blithe acceptance.

                     I don’t take them at their word, Bill. However, you appear to be arguing that 100% of their statements are false. If that were true, what sort of spies would they be? (Hint: the answer is “dead ones” – read Sun Tzu for further clarification.)
                   • Bill …

                     10 January 2017 at 6:31 pm

                     @ OAB.

                     No idea why you’re thinking my comments/info come from rt. (Because I don’t ‘follow the line’?) I don’t think I’ve referenced or used a single rt link in anything I’ve said today, or even viewed or read anything from rt today. I don’t tend to watch or read much rt, though when I do I generally find it’s far more informative and in-depth than most of ‘our’ TV.

                     From memory, I’ve used some tech pages/journals (Mostly for this comment).

                     I used a youtube link that came through my fb feed (posted in the same comment referred to above)

                     That aside, for the most part I’ve just been applying common sense, healthy skepticism and comparing the hullabaloo with past instances of similar shit (Most obviously WMD).

                     And I have to keep reminding myself amidst all the media hysteria and the arm waving and the finger pointing, that all we are talking about is a political party’s emails hitting the public arena and Podesta emails hitting the public arena. That’s it. There’s nothing else. Those two things are the ‘institutions and individuals’ that Clapper was referring to. He acknowledged that in the questioning in the youtube clip I provided.

                     But lets talk up retaliation against (for the US est) an institutional enemy on the grounds that hacking groups that may have been acting out of Russia and using codes developed in Russia (though accessible by anyone anywhere in the world with the right knowledge )….now that we’ve renamed those groups with more fitting Russophobic names than they had before, and are assumming – contending that they’re connected to the Russian government (although that was far from an assumption previously) …yeah. Yeah! They stole ‘our’ emails because…because, well hey… No-one else would possibly have any motive for launching a phishing attack on the DNC or Podesta – Nosireee! Unthinkable! Didn’t happen! Putin bad! Rt bad! Point east! Kiss the kids and be brave! 😉
                   • One Anonymous Bloke …

                     10 January 2017 at 6:33 pm

                     🙄
             • Cemetery Jones …

               10 January 2017 at 4:39 pm

               +100 Bill
             • Liberal Realist …

               11 January 2017 at 7:20 pm

               Great comment, my thoughts exactly. Thank you Bill.
       • reason 2.1.2.3

         10 January 2017 at 1:48 pm

         From the perfectly named non-fiction book, ” Killing Hope”-US Military and CIA Interventions Since WWII- by William Blum

         ….”If you flip over the rock of American foreign policy of the past century, this is what crawls out… invasions … bombings … overthrowing governments … occupations … suppressing movements for social change … assassinating political leaders … perverting elections … manipulating labor unions … manufacturing “news” … death squads … torture … biological warfare … depleted uranium … drug trafficking … mercenaries …” …..

         Given the fact Hillary was comparing Putin to Hitler …….

         And given the fact the ‘He’s like Hitler’, is always the standard propaganda label used before the u.s.a starts bombing and killing …..

         Maybe e-mail leaks on Hillary are actually a very very mild form of pro-active defense …….

         It’s a shame she was not leaked about before she and Obama stuck a bayonet
         into all the woman, children and people of Libya ….. they destroyed that country and turned it into a head chopping Jihad paradise ……….

         Or as Hillary Caesar said “we came, we saw, he died …….. teh he he ”

         Watch their latest effort defending their latest coup …. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jW1WDbDX7wE

         I can’t make up my mind which is worse from the u.s.a …………. supporting Fascist ……………….. or supporting Muslim extremists.

         Isis or Nazis ?????

         I suppose where one lives would determine which one is more of a threat …..

         Personally I hate Nazis more …..
     • Bill 2.1.3

       10 January 2017 at 10:27 am

       My thoughts exactly. Hacks are usually difficult to pin to anyone. You’d be daft to leave fingerprints everywhere.

       Cyrillic script in the code. Date stamps. IP addresses….all pointing to Russia (though not the Kremlin) and left there by the “daft” Russian Intelligence Services if what you’re contending is to be believed.

       APT 28 and APT 29 are designations ascribed to particular hacking groups by FireEye that Crowdstrike reckons with only medium confidence is associated with the GRU. But let’s give those groups new names like ‘Fancy Bear’ and ‘Cozy Bear’ because the former names for the hacking communities using those pieces of malware… ‘Hammertoss’ (APT 29) and ‘Sandworm’ (APT 28) don’t quite cut the mustard in this present atmosphere.

       And let’s assume that the GRU (for some reason only known to themselves) decided to leave a pile of markers or fingerprints all over everything this time around. And let’s pretend that no-one other than the GRU has access to the malware (no ‘dark web’). And let’s pretend that no-one other than the GRU would have any motivation for hacking into the DNC.

       And it’s a wrap.

       btw. Under questioning from Sen Cotton (rep) just the other day, Clapper and Admiral Rodgers can’t add any organisations or individuals to their list of ‘hacked entities’ beyond the DNC and Podesta

       edit. Cotton also makes some pretty salient observations on Trump being supposedly and unquestionable ‘better’ for Russia than a Dem president.
       • Colonial Viper 2.1.3.1

         10 January 2017 at 12:46 pm

         APT 28 and APT 29 are designations ascribed to particular hacking groups by FireEye that Crowdstrike reckons with only medium confidence is associated with the GRU.

         iirc Bill Binney says that these two groups have been Cast Iron targets by the NSA since 2013.

         So the NSA has every single detail that about these two groups IT systems and interactions on the internet dating back to at least then.

         Where is the evidence.
       • Conal 2.1.3.2

         10 January 2017 at 6:41 pm

         Half the IP addresses are those of Tor exit nodes. The “report” is not half as convincing as “they” want you to believe.
         • lprent 2.1.3.2.1

           10 January 2017 at 8:39 pm

           FFS. Do you even know what TOR is or why you’d use it to conceal your tracks?

           Let me give you a hint. It is one of the main access nets for any covert networks, usually just criminal. But open to anyone.

           Fool.
           • Conal 2.1.3.2.1.1

             11 January 2017 at 2:31 am

             “Do you even know what Tor is?”

             Really? Given that HALF of my comment was a link to an article that included an explanation of what Tor is, I have to conclude that once again you couldn’t be bothered to engage your brain and instead decided just to vent your spleen.

             Yes, yes, yes, I know you’re a computer programmer; you boast about it often enough. It doesn’t make you technically omniscient, and it doesn’t excuse you from the tedious work of engaging intellectually with (≠ abusing) people whom you disagree with.

             Well … of course you can continue to prance around on your high horse and disdainfully sneer at those you imagine must be your technical inferiors, but have you considered instead taking the approach of assuming that people may actually know something about what they write? That it may be worthwhile to engage with other people’s arguments, and hold a civil discussion, with give and take, and eventually come at the truth through the clash of ideas? Apparently not.

             In our interactions so far, I’m struck by the fact that your immediate recourse is not to reasoned argumentation, but to personal abuse, and to me this is not a recommendation to engage with you; it’s just a form of trolling, albeit one legitimated by your administrative position here at the Standard.
         • Conal 2.1.3.2.2

           11 January 2017 at 1:58 am

           For those (like lprent) who don’t understand the significance of the “bad” IP addresses actually being Tor exit nodes, the point is this: Tor is a private network which anonymises the communications sent through it. Packets of information passing through the network are routed in a deliberately obscure way, so that when a packet of information leaves Tor (via an “exit node”), it appears for all the world to have originated at the address of that node, rather than from its actual origin. This is why it’s absurd (and technically illiterate) to suggest that these IP addresses constitute a kind of “digital fingerprint” of specific groups of Russian state hackers. Yes Russian state hackers may use Tor, but so do many thousands of other people; and not just hackers and criminals, but people with concern for their privacy, including for totally legitimate reasons (journalists, whistleblowers, etc).

           The article in The intercept I linked to is an amusing story where the journalist (himself a user of the Tor browser), is searching his access logs to see if any these “bad” IPs were reading the Intercept, and finds to his amazement that thousands and thousands of accesses were coming from those addresses, and eventually discovering that unbeknownst to himself he was in fact one of them, because he was a Tor user.
           • Clump_AKA Sam 2.1.3.2.2.1

             11 January 2017 at 3:33 am

             tut tut tut. I expect you’ll get trolled the fuck out of for this. I’m not a coder, but I know what the fuck I’m talking about.

             FBI brakes TOR and has case against pedophiles thrown out for using malware, again. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/once-more-a-judge-rules-against-govt-in-tor-enabled-child-porn-case/

             Clump
             • Conal …

               11 January 2017 at 12:37 pm

               In the case you linked to (where the FBI identified Tor-protected users of a child porn website), it seems more like the FBI didn’t attempt to break Tor itself; instead they just took over the offending website and continued to run it for a couple of weeks, using it as a way of introducing spyware into the end users’ computers, and using that spyware to obtain the users’ actual IP addresses.

               https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2166606-ferrell-warrant-1.html#document/p11/a227236
               • Clump_AKA Sam …

                 11 January 2017 at 1:02 pm

                 You know the programme they used was Dotcoms eh.

                 I should be more forgiving in the future about fake news. We all get sucked into it from time to time. Instead can I suggest framing question based on a news link as a concern instead of the alternatives
     • tc 2.1.4

       10 January 2017 at 10:49 am

       Yes what does Clare curran think….cant wait to hear/sarc

       Excellent analysis lprent and I wouldnt put it past the israleis and the CIA having a big hand in this smearing the ruskies.
     • seeker 2.1.5

       10 January 2017 at 11:09 am

       @lprent 8.36am

       “there is sufficient evidence to show…”

       and here is another report headlined:

       UK intelligence gave US key tip off about Russian hacking

       https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/07/russia-us-election-hacking-uk-intelligence
     • Mike Smith 2.1.6

       10 January 2017 at 11:56 am

       Sorry have been busy getting the hot water system fixed.
       I was not referring to hacking, but to leaking by the CIA and their links to the same US mainstream media https://consortiumnews.com/2017/01/09/the-post-truth-mainstream-media/ that have been most thrown by the result of the presidential election. I have no doubt that every government hacks, including ours, hence spy vs spy.
       This to me looks like a classic disinformation campaign by the CIA of which there have been many in the years since it was formed. Like all such, they are based on a grain of truth. But that does not mean that they should be believed in their entirety, or the reasons why they may be doing this remaining unquestioned. Chaff and straw, woods and trees come to mind – “look over here!”
       To me the threat of war is the main concern. I’ve seen the effect of these propaganda campaigns before – I was in Canada in early 2002 and saw the endless repetition on the US news that made it clear the decision to invade Iraq had already been taken as I reported when I returned. The current level of sustained hype about the Russians concerns me – far more than dancing Cossacks!.
       • Bill 2.1.6.1

         10 January 2017 at 12:07 pm

         from your link – President Obama has just signed into law a “National Defense” bill that includes $160 million for new U.S. propaganda operations, nominally designed to counter “Russian propaganda.” But the Keystone Cops PropOrNot operation suggests that this escalation of U.S. information warfare will produce more blacklists, trolling, hacking, denial-of-service attacks and demonization of alternative, independent media by U.S. military psy-ops, “intelligence” agencies and P.R. firms, which will be loyally amplified and reinforced by censorship, rote repetition and circular analysis in the echo chamber of the corporate media, including by “social media” corporations like Facebook.

         And more, better funding for the smoother operating of future ‘shell’ groups like the White Helmets. I mean, they did not bad with that one. A conduit for funding (public and private) that wound up in the hands of supposed official enemies (Al Nusra etc). A ‘go to’ source for western outlets that then produced and disseminated convenient news/prop. Even managed to elevate them into the position of being potential Nobel Peace Prize winners.
       • lprent 2.1.6.2

         10 January 2017 at 12:36 pm

         Oh – the intelligence community in the US have been their usual inane selves at presenting what they have. Hard not to when you release statements by committee while trying not to show capabilities.

         I am far more concerned with the actual hacking rather than war. On the general basis that even a idiotic and ignorant munter like Trump is unlikely to press the button on a state with as many nukes and delivery systems as the Russian Fed without a pile of people jumping on him.

         This intelligence round doesn’t look anything like the Iraq one. Way too inept. Nit enough trace of coordinated PR. Even Whaleoil used to be better at it than what we are seeing from Washington.

         I am far more worried about the hacking getting repeated whereever open elections are being held.
         • Bill 2.1.6.2.1

           10 January 2017 at 2:05 pm

           Am I getting this right Lynn?

           You’re more concerned about a who-ever/whatever putting the email account material of a political party into the public domain than you are about any claims as to who or what might be culpable of doing that eventually leading to international, and possibly military, confrontation?
     • Nic the NZer 2.1.7

       11 January 2017 at 8:28 am

       I saw a number of interviews with John McAfee about the evidence of Russian Hacking (on mainstream and non-mainstream sources). Does he qualify as ‘tech geekdom’ think this way? Because he appears to agree with CV.

       BTW, if we are looking for evidence that ‘the Russians didn’t do it’ how much evidence do you think there is going around that ‘the New Zealanders didn’t do it’? There can’t be much, because its essentially impossible to demonstrate such an event was not perpetrated by a state.
       • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.7.1

         11 January 2017 at 9:08 am

         Acquaint yourself with his recent bio before attaching too much credibility to the things John McAfee says.

         Lprent’s answered your other question here.
         • Nic the NZer 2.1.7.1.1

           11 January 2017 at 12:28 pm

           No, in fact all the ‘evidence’ layed down in that comment fails to points John McAfee raised during interviews I saw. In fact this is what LPrent says, its all circumstantial as no intelligence agency would leave such a rudimentary trail pointing to themselves.

           As far as i can see the ‘tech geekdom’ don’t present any better case than the official case (the Russia prefers Trump therefore they did it one).
   • Colonial Viper 2.2

     10 January 2017 at 8:50 am

     Mike, it’s an inteligence analysis, not an action plan.

     As wikileaks says, it’s not an “intelligence report” it’s a press release. And it reads like one.

     http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-09/wikileaks-press-conference-post-mortem-cia-issued-press-release-not-intelligence-rep

     This is different because there is heaps of circumstantial evidence of Russian involvement that was available to us before the IC reports were tabled.

     You’re making the rookie mistake of believing that a pile of circumstantial evidence adds up to the strength of just two or three (missing) actual facts.

     Is there reason to be suspicious – yes. Is there proof – no.

     BTW why have we heard NOTHING from the “Intelligence Community” about the Chinese leadership’s attitude to who they wanted to win the US election?

     Or in fact, NOTHING from them about the ISRAELI leadership’s attitude to who they wanted to win the US election?

     Because we know that each of those foreign countries likely held very strong partisan views and both those foreign countries have hacking skills at least equal to the Russians.

     What do you think we can deduce from the fact that the RUSSOPHOBIC angle is the only angle coming out of the “IC”?

     The US IC report only confirms what many of us have come to suspect after months of watching this slow-motion train smash. They can intercept and read the emails the Russians were sending to each other; they know the Russians pet name for Trump; they drew the line between Gucifer, Assange, and RT, that the Russians have similar caches of information harvested from the Republicans, and so on.

     All this is bullshit.

     Firstly this US IC report confirms fuck all. It contains long lists of assertions. With their “evidence” being the a bunch of high school level gossip about who appeared to like whom and why they appeared to say what they said.

     Secondly about reading the Russian emails – OK since this capability is out in the open let’s see the emails between Russian officials who were manipulating this election interference proving their involvement. That would be actual “evidence”. Where is it?

     they know the Russians pet name for Trump

     Oh FFS. So the US have a low level consular official in Moscow look at Russian talk shows all day and they figured out what their nickname for Trump is. This proves something? The height of CIA spycraft is it?

     they drew the line between Gucifer, Assange, and RT

     Let’s see the proof then. Julian Assange, Craig Murray, Bill Binney, Ray McGovern and others are all adament that the DNC emails resulted from an internal LEAK not a foreign HACK.

     that the Russians have similar caches of information harvested from the Republicans, and so on.

     BULLSHIT. Reince Priebus confirmed that RNC system security was intact and that there had been no breaches. Unlike Podesta, no one at the RNC was stupid enough to click on an email phishing link and give away their password.

     Further the NSA track every single data packet which crosses the internet. If the Russians hacked and extracted RNC data from RNC servers over the internet, then the NSA would be able to provide copies of exactly what was taken, from where, and when.

     Let’s see the fucking evidence instead of more fact free “analysis” and fact free “conclusions”.
     • mickysavage 2.2.1

       10 January 2017 at 10:22 am

       Three comments:

       1. Tone the language down.
       2. This is not a criminal trial where individual liberty is at stake. Notions of “proof” are not really relevant. If there is a risk the Russian Government,ent has been involved in political upheaval of the US system through hacks then the US government should take action. It is called the precautionary principle.
       3. I still don’t understand your logic. You seem to say that the Clintons are terrible people so had it coming to them. Shouldn’t we insist on minimum standards of behaviour being observed by all?
       • Colonial Viper 2.2.1.1

         10 January 2017 at 12:30 pm

         And the obvious CIA political plays to delegitimise the incoming Trump Administration like leaking their briefing to NBC first before giving it to Trump?

         If there is a risk the Russian Government,ent has been involved in political upheaval of the US system through hacks then the US government should take action. It is called the precautionary principle.

         But what is the “action” being suggested? Is it to identify why the FBI, NSA and CIA failed to protect the IT systems of key political organisations in the USA?

         Or is it to ramp up economic, diplomatic and military aggression against Russia, in order to box in an incoming Trump Administration which does not want to continue neocon hawkish escalation against Russia?

         I can understand what is “precautionary” about the former, but none of the DC set is talking about the former, they are all talking about the latter.

         PS do you think the US hacks Russian political party servers? Should Russia start talking up confrontation with the US if they do (of course they do).
         • Cemetery Jones 2.2.1.1.1

           10 January 2017 at 4:42 pm

           Nailed it.
         • Clump_AKA Sam 2.2.1.1.2

           10 January 2017 at 4:49 pm

           Did any one see the tweet from trump complaining about this report being leaked to msnbc (not sure if that’s the right station) before any in the White House received a copy.

           The colonels are out manoeuvring the generals and the King (trump) there will be hell to pay. The CIA/FBI are in active revolution.

           May the CIA rein of terror be short and bloody

           Edit: CV beat me to it
           • Colonial Viper 2.2.1.1.2.1

             10 January 2017 at 5:08 pm

             This is it

             @realDonaldTrump

             Before I, or anyone, saw the classified and/or highly confidential hacking intelligence report, it was leaked out to @NBCNews. So serious!

             https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/818169485169410048
             • Clump_AKA Sam …

               10 January 2017 at 5:20 pm

               Iv never felt more up for a which hint than now
           • Rob Gilchrist 2.2.1.1.2.2

             12 January 2017 at 5:29 am

             I think he’s referring to the intelligence documentation that has come out recently calling him among other things, a pervert. But personally I don’t think it’s a genuine report.

             I’m rather confident that document is fake. I’m no Trump fan but the story on the report says something like it’s from a former Brit Spy – D I doesn’t say who he worked for but I guess MI6.

             After looking over the docs, it’s nothing like any Intel Report I’ve even seen. And I’ve seen a written a few.

             I don’t have time to pull it to bits, but will if enough people want it, but here’s my brief summary:

             The document isn’t laid out anything like a Intel Report, or even a gist report. So the format is the main thing that leads me to believe it’s fake.

             Now, what would this guy know I hear you ask… Well as our Intelligence services are based on MI6 MI6 and most other police or military. Our agencies follow very similar protocols and procedures… Including the way Intel reports, Gist reports etc are written. So NZ Intel reports are based in format / layout on the UK Intel Reports.

             This doc looks nothing like a genuine Intel report written by a person who should know what one not only looks like, but how it should be formatted.

             So, the format is just wrong, although it looks like they (the writers tried however) Them comes the content. It’s not written in a way that someone trained to write these reports would do. It’s shit, really. Like I said. I’m willing to go through it bit by bit and show you the mistakes, incorrect use of terms, lack of using real terms. Making comments wrapped in ()

             So, I don’t think this is a silver bullet. It’s fake, obviously written by people who knew enough to put the content together, and leak it. I’m not going to answer who I think it is. But the way things are sharpening up, this won’t be the last one of these.

             Again, if people want a full synopsis of the leaked report and why I think it’s fake, just ask and I’ll go through it bit by bit.

             Rob Gilchrist
             • Clump_AKA Sam …

               12 January 2017 at 7:08 am

               You should know more than I that there are only so many ways to suppress and every one hits on the same tool seeing as the whole community is based on the Stasi. That’s a problem seeing as those same techniques failed to see whole USSR armoured divisions defecting when the wall came down. It’s ironic that a brutal police state with in a state could treat the west like amateurs. And nothing has changed.

               I for one am over being nice. No one bought in to this report anywhere in the world. Why this sector was given priority in terms of funds, when our perceived enemy (that’s if you buy this dribble) are spending on real infrastructure ie road rail and energy is beyond me because I can go and find earnings reports from my bedroom on these companies for free.
3. peterh 3

   10 January 2017 at 7:41 am

   What is the US going to do, if they ever find that, a large German living in NZ ,may well have had a hand in Clintons Emails releases for 18 months, he has been saying it would happen
   • Bill 3.1

     10 January 2017 at 8:29 am

     …a large German living…,

     Now that would be kind of ….what’s the word?

     Anyway. That wonderful possibility aside, if a more informed electorate is preferable to a less or mis-informed electorate (as I’m sure most liberal democrats would agree), and if these hacks/leaks swung an election, then that would have to be viewed as a good thing, yes? (ie – a more informed electorate made a more informed decision).

     Conversely, if the leaks/hacks had no influence, then what’s all the noise about?

     Because see – apart from some emails hitting the public domain, it seems there’s displeasure that media outlets have been acting as media outlets.
     • Andre 3.1.1

       10 January 2017 at 8:52 am

       In this case all the leaked information was entirely one-sided and used to reinforce an existing bullshit attack on Hillary. EEEEE-Mails. In terms of actual content, there wasn’t anything surprising. I’m surprised how anodyne it all was, nothing really juicy. Which didn’t stop malicious kooks fabricating things like pizzagate out of it. Had the Republican equivalent stuff been released the actual content would likely have been similar.

       More transparency is generally a good thing. But in this case the one-sidedness of it gave the misleading impression of smoke on one side but not the other. Which increased the level of misinformation, rather than contributing to better informing the electorate.
       • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1

         10 January 2017 at 9:05 am

         In terms of actual content, there wasn’t anything surprising. I’m surprised how anodyne it all was, nothing really juicy.

         Yep. All this fuss is simply about delegitimising the incoming Trump administration.

         As for no Republican email leaks/hacks:

         a) The Republicans did not have the equivalent of a burnt out Bernie Bro who was pissed off enough to leak emails because he saw first hand the Clinton camp’s underhanded treatment of Bernie Sanders

         b) No Republicans were stupid enough to click on an email phishing scam like Podesta and his IT helpers were.
         • red-blooded 3.1.1.1.1

           10 January 2017 at 9:42 am

           Bullshit. The Republican Party was full of people desperate to avoid a Trump candidacy. And yet no “leaks” from that side? I don’t buy it.
           • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1.1.1

             10 January 2017 at 9:46 am

             Assange did say that wikileaks had received about 3 pages of Republican Party material, but they weren’t worth publishing because it would never have made a ripple compared to all the bad press Trump’s behaviour was generating for himself on a daily basis.
             • red-blooded …

               10 January 2017 at 9:52 am

               So, only publish material against the reasonable candidate? The one who’s doing a good job? Great thinking!

               Again, rubbish.
               • Colonial Viper …

                 10 January 2017 at 9:57 am

                 Or maybe its because Hillary Clinton had threatened to get Assange droned. Anyways.

                 Clinton was doing such a “good job” she lost counties who had voted Barack Hussein Obama twice, took the state of Wisconsin for granted never visiting there, and lost that too.
                 • red-blooded …

                   10 January 2017 at 10:08 am

                   Hey, you’re the one who put forward the (unconvincing) excuse that the “leaks” were so one-sided because Trump was such a public embarrassment. Surely that would make the Republicans MORE likely to send in leaks rather than less (resulting in more than “about 3 pages”).
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     10 January 2017 at 12:31 pm

                     Assange said what wikileaks received from the Republican side. 3 pages was it.
       • Bill 3.1.1.2

         10 January 2017 at 9:25 am

         The info wasn’t ‘one-sided’. It was straight from the horses mouth as it were.

         I’ll believe you when you say there was nothing much in the emails. I didn’t read them. But as I said before, the fact that the Democrats and others initially jumped up and down claiming that they were false and doctored and whatever and then backed down from that position may have created an impression in some people that there was something in there after-all. (Assuming the email leaks did exert an influence).

         So going on your take on the emails, we have a genuine “nothing to see here” being transformed into a ‘smoking gun’ by the Democratic Party .

         Pizza-gate came from Podesta’s emails which were subject of a phishing scam way back in March btw.
       • Morrissey 3.1.1.3

         10 January 2017 at 12:04 pm

         EEEEE-Mails.

         From South Yorkshire?
         • Cemetery Jones 3.1.1.3.1

           10 January 2017 at 4:46 pm

           Reminds me of the MH17 coverage I heard a while back: “the Ukrainians have Buks, the Russians have Buks, but there is some doubt as to whether the rebels have Buks”. All I could think was ‘No Buks? No wonder they’re rebelling – even Barnsley had a library.’
           • Morrissey 3.1.1.3.1.1

             11 January 2017 at 8:29 am

             https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blpe_sGnnP4
4. mike 4

   10 January 2017 at 8:46 am

   ‘a more informed electorate made a more informed decision’
   That’s right, and three million more of them voted for Clinton
   • Colonial Viper 4.1

     10 January 2017 at 9:07 am

     Exactly, that’s the brilliance of the Russian hacking scheme.

     It won Trump only those votes he needed in the rust belt states he needed. It was carefully designed not to affect any California votes for Clinton. Further it sneakily deleted Clinton campaign stops in states like Wisconsin which she eventually lost by never even setting foot inside the state.
5. Adrian Thornton 5

   10 January 2017 at 9:04 am

   The only truth is, at this stage none of us know whether these allegations are true or not. But this is for sure, anyone who was/is against the invasions of Afghanistan/Iraq cannot take these US state department allegations at face value.
   More evidence has to be revealed, otherwise it is all pure conjecture.

   However we do know that America has been aggressively interfering in foreign elections and promoting/supporting regime changes around world.
   According to even Wikipedia the US has been involved in over 31 regime changes since the beginning of last century.
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change

   I don’t want to get into America bashing here, but just to get a little balance and historical context on the fine art of screwing over other countries, let’s just wind back the clock a touch, and remember this little gem, American (and Chinese) support and protection of the Khmer Rouge, post Pol Pot, if this is not fucked up enough for you, then I don’t know what is…
   http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/10/16/who-supported-the-khmer-rouge/

   My point is, even if these allegation prove to be absolutely true, in the light of American’s own appalling and largely undisputed record on the same subject, why should we have any sympathy for them at all?
   • Psycho Milt 5.1

     10 January 2017 at 10:09 am

     But this is for sure, anyone who was/is against the invasions of Afghanistan/Iraq cannot take these US state department allegations at face value.

     Sure. But then, some of us were against Russia’s invasion of Afghanistan too, and can’t take any official Russian denials of involvement in other countries’ affairs at face value either.

     According to even Wikipedia the US has been involved in over 31 regime changes since the beginning of last century.

     Russia’s been involved in quite a few as well. Your point?
     • Carolyn_nth 5.1.1

       10 January 2017 at 10:45 am

       Looks to me like both the US and Russia have been engaged in propaganda in ways that interfere with or aim to influence politics in various countries.

       A Sewdish academic has been researching Russian operations in Sweden and surrounding areas, and has just published a paper on it.

       An article about the paper: Russia spreading fake news and forged docs in Sweden: report

       The report by Martin Kragh, a Russia expert at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs, is the first empirical study detailing Russia’s use of ‘active measures’ in its information war against Sweden, which is largely directed at steering the country away from joining Nato.

       Kragh’s article: published 5 Jan 2017 Russia’s strategy for influence through public diplomacy and active measures: the Swedish case

       Moscow, however, has also been accused of engaging in covert influence activities – behaviour historically referred to as ‘active measures’ in the Soviet KGB lexicon on political warfare. In this paper, we provide empirical evidence on how Russia since 2014 has moved towards a preference for active measures towards Sweden, a small country in a geopolitically important European region. We analyse the blurring of boundaries between public diplomacy and active measures; document phenomena such as forgeries, disinformation, military threats and agents of influence and define Russian foreign policy strategy. In summary, we conclude that the overarching goal of Russian policy towards Sweden and the wider Baltic Sea is to preserve the geostrategic status quo, which is identified with a security order minimising NATO presence in the region.

       So looks to me like the Russian government and agencies are behaving no better or worse than the US ones – covert warfare all round.
     • Adrian Thornton 5.1.2

       10 January 2017 at 2:20 pm

       Wouldn’t you agree that the burden of proof falls on country that is alleging misconduct having to prove their case to a satisfactory degree, rather than the country being accused proving their denial?
       • Psycho Milt 5.1.2.1

         10 January 2017 at 2:32 pm

         That would assume that the US government has to prove anything to us. It actually only has to satisfy itself that the Russian government has been acting against it for a response to be justified. The rest of us can only look on in horror and wonder where all this dumbassery is going to end, but while we’re doing that let’s not tell ourselves “Surely Mr Putin wouldn’t do something like that” – of course he would, and it looks like he did.
         • Adrian Thornton 5.1.2.1.1

           10 January 2017 at 2:48 pm

           I have never and would never say that Putin/Russia isn’t capable of interfering in another countries political affairs, of course they would,and have, that goes without saying.
           All I am saying, is that, the CIA are well known for misleading the public, when they perceive it to be in their interests, so if you want to believe them in this case, just because they say it is so, well that is fine, I guess I am just a little more…let’s just say cynical of CIA motives than you seem be.
           • Colonial Viper 5.1.2.1.1.1

             10 January 2017 at 3:35 pm

             And it’s not just about misleading the public; the “Intelligence Community” is quite happy to lie to Congress as well. Exhibit A: James Clapper

             http://thehill.com/policy/technology/241508-spy-head-had-absolutely-forgotten-about-nsa-program
           • Psycho Milt 5.1.2.1.1.2

             10 January 2017 at 4:18 pm

             I’m very skeptical of the CIA’s motives. They’d be as bad as the FSB if it weren’t for the limited public oversight they’re subject to. However, in this case, what they’re saying matches what people in the IT industry are saying: Russian intelligence services are the only credible suspect. Lprent’s laid out the reasons why they’re saying that on a couple of different threads. I wouldn’t take the CIA’s word for it alone, but in this case the balance of probabilities strongly favours them.
             • Adrian Thornton …

               10 January 2017 at 7:29 pm

               “Russian intelligence services are the only credible suspect”sorry but that can only be described as a ridiculous statement, in light of what we know.
               I am not sure who you are following in the IT world, and what couple of threads Lprent is quoting from, but none of it sounds anything like credible decisive evidence from where I am sitting.
               But I am more than happy to be proved wrong…but need a bit more than what you have laid out there, that’s for sure.
               • Colonial Viper …

                 10 January 2017 at 7:47 pm

                 But the balance of probabilities yada yada yada

                 Is Russian hacking somehow better than Israeli or Chinese hacking?
               • Psycho Milt …

                 10 January 2017 at 8:56 pm

                 You’re not going to get credible, decisive evidence when it comes to hacking, unless the hackers are idiots. And if the US intelligence agencies were to have credible, decisive evidence in this case, they certainly wouldn’t make it public because that would only assist future attackers. Balance of probabilities is all you’re going to get for something like this, and balance of probabilities definitely points to the Russian government.
                 • Adrian Thornton …

                   10 January 2017 at 10:57 pm

                   Well I do agree that the CIA most likely aren’t going to make public anything that will look or sound like concrete evidence, and as we both know, they have proved themselves to be quite unreliable when it comes to telling the truth, (repeatedly caught lying to Congress) this is just a fact, so it sounds like we will just have to agree to disagree on what side of the scales our different balance of probabilities lay with the information we have.
         • Brutus Iscariot 5.1.2.1.2

           10 January 2017 at 4:20 pm

           “That would assume that the US government has to prove anything to us..”

           Quote written down for future reference.
           • Psycho Milt 5.1.2.1.2.1

             10 January 2017 at 6:42 pm

             It’s good to see my wisdom the subject of such diligent study.
6. Colonial Viper 6

   10 January 2017 at 9:12 am

   Mike Smith hit on a key point. Things like the CIA leaking the Presidential ‘hacking briefing’ to NBC before they delivered it to Trump, is a clear sign of the CIA *working against* their own President-Elect.

   Think that through and you will realise where the true threat to US democracy is coming from.
   • Bill 6.1

     10 January 2017 at 9:27 am

     You might want to stick to what Mike’s actually posted on CV.
     • Colonial Viper 6.1.1

       10 January 2017 at 9:43 am

       Sure; I thought the text of Mike’s post explicitly referred to the CIA actively interfering in the US’s own election result.
       • Bill 6.1.1.1

         10 January 2017 at 10:31 am

         So you didn’t actually follow up on his links to get a handle on what he was referring to. 🙄
   • red-blooded 6.2

     10 January 2017 at 9:46 am

     CV, you were full of praise for the CIA when they were endangering Clinton’s presidential bid by opening up the email issue again just before the election. Yet now you think they’re conspiring against Trump? Perhaps you should get your story straight.
     • Andre 6.2.1

       10 January 2017 at 9:50 am

       Uh, that was the FBI, not the CIA. But the FBI is one of the several agencies contributing to this latest joint report.
       • Colonial Viper 6.2.1.1

         10 January 2017 at 9:59 am

         Joint press release
       • red-blooded 6.2.1.2

         10 January 2017 at 11:19 am

         FBI/CIA – my point stands. Somehow it’s OK (in some people’s eyes) to make public statements that colour people’s view of Candidate A (Clinton) during the actual campaigning (and voting) period, but it’s a conspiracy against Candidate B (Trump) to release a report about processes that coloured people’s views about A while they were making up their minds who to vote for? That view of the world is somewhat one-eyed.
7. Sanctuary 7

   10 January 2017 at 9:13 am

   It is pretty simple really.

   Did the Russians hack the DNC servers in an attempt to influence the US election? Almost certainly yes.

   Was it the reason Hillary Clinton lost? No.

   Are the Democrats and their liberal supporters using it as an excuse for their defeat instead of dealing with the deep flaws in their party policies and US democracy? Absolutely.

   Should the United States, as a superpower, react decisively against Russia for it’s outrageous interference in it’s internal affairs? Of course they should.

   If I were the Americans, the flow of cash, explosives and weapons to every rebel group from Chechenya to the suddenly appearing Free Crimea Movement would go up, by quite a lot. Putin needs to be shown in language he understands the consequences of his interference.
   • Adrian Thornton 7.1

     10 January 2017 at 9:28 am

     So using your logic, then every country that America has interfered with politically has the right to “react decisively against America for it’s outrageous interference in it’s internal affairs”
     Is this what you are suggesting?
     • Colonial Viper 7.1.1

       10 January 2017 at 9:38 am

       “If you hack our emails, we will support terrorist attacks against your people” appears to be a deeply held value amongst some on “the left”

       That and affordable housing and a living wage.
       • Adrian Thornton 7.1.1.1

         10 January 2017 at 9:52 am

         I think you confuse “the left” with the centre right.
         • Colonial Viper 7.1.1.1.1

           10 January 2017 at 9:55 am

           Indeed. Or maybe it’s they who are the ones confused.
     • Sanctuary 7.1.2

       10 January 2017 at 9:59 am

       Other countries can react decisively against the most powerful, the richest, and most heavily armed nation the world has ever know at your own peril. AS Stalin remarked in 1935 when told the Pope was concerned about his treatment of Christians:

       “The Pope? How many divisions has he got?”

       We all want the rule of international law to prevail. However, Russia isn’t interested in international law. Interfering in a superpowers internal affairs is a fucking big deal, a casus belli if ever there was. They can’t be allowed to get away with it scot-free.

       At the end of the day, in reacting to such an act of international lawlessness a superpower like the United States has a range of options not available to lesser powers. In other words, if you throw out the rule book – like Putin has – then might is right. If you tear up the rule book, then the USA can interfere when and where it likes because it has the firepower. Russia needs to be reminded of that, and Putin needs to understand the consequences of his actions.
       • Colonial Viper 7.1.2.1

         10 January 2017 at 10:10 am

         Yep thanks for explaining your might is right views even more clearly.
   • Colonial Viper 7.2

     10 January 2017 at 9:29 am

     Did the Russians hack the DNC servers in an attempt to influence the US election? Almost certainly yes.

     Huh?

     Are you counting Podesta falling for a phishing scam (whcih could have come from anywhere) as a Russian hack?

     Further, how are you able to attribute exact Russian motivations to their hacking attempts into the DNC?

     (Remembering that Clapper implied that the US regularly hacks foreign political party systems as part of standard intelligence gathering practice).

     If I were the Americans, the flow of cash, explosives and weapons to every rebel group from Chechenya to the suddenly appearing Free Crimea Movement would go up, by quite a lot. Putin needs to be shown in language he understands the consequences of his interference.

     I love it. Thank God Obama and his neocon dickheads Clapper, Carter, et al are leaving the White House in eleven days.

     BTW CIA backed Ukraine has already tried to infiltrate terrorist operatives into Crimea. The Russians caught and liquidated them.

     And you wonder why the Russians prefer Trump and his supporters over sociopath Clinton and her sociopath supporters.

     http://theduran.com/russian-fsb-vs-ukrainian-saboteurs-shoot-crimea/
     • Sanctuary 7.2.1

       10 January 2017 at 10:00 am

       Adding snivelling to your range of already unpleasant personal characteristics are we CV? What a piece of excrement.
       • Infused 7.2.1.1

         10 January 2017 at 10:09 am

         You’re just a delusional idiot. CV is on the money.
         • Sanctuary 7.2.1.1.1

           10 January 2017 at 10:12 am

           Infused…. with to much THC by the look of it.

           OK hotshot, let’s play a game for a bit. Let’s say you are the president of the USA and the CIA PROVE Putin authorised hacking the DNC. What would you do? When you consider the consequences of doing nothing, is that really an option?
           • Colonial Viper 7.2.1.1.1.1

             10 January 2017 at 12:20 pm

             The CIA would have to prove that Wikileaks did not get their emails from an INTERNAL LEAKER first.

             This should be very simple with the help of the NSA as both Wikileaks and Julian Assange have been CAST IRON targets for years, where expert human resources are actually dedicated to going through their communications, not just automated scanning systems.

             So, where is the evidence?
           • Infused 7.2.1.1.1.2

             10 January 2017 at 1:25 pm

             Nothing needs to be done as there was no hack. Get with the program.
       • Colonial Viper 7.2.1.2

         10 January 2017 at 10:12 am

         By the way Sanctuary, is the US operating in and over Syria with the Syrian government’s approval?

         Because if not, that is a clear violation of international law, and an act of war.

         Or is international law only worth observing when it is convenient for the USA?
         • Sanctuary 7.2.1.2.1

           10 January 2017 at 10:13 am

           Whoosh.

           Dude, when I stared into the abyss, I saw you down there staring back. I don’t intend to engage in any sort of debate with you. Frankly, I’d rather scrape dog shit off my shoe.
           • Colonial Viper 7.2.1.2.1.1

             10 January 2017 at 12:17 pm

             When the US supported the unconstitutional overthrow of the pro-Russian Yanukovych in the Ukraine, then supported the unconstitutional installation of the illegal anti-Russian Poroshenko government in Kiev, was that inside or outside of international law?

             Do you know how stupid you look supporting Anglo-US imperial hegemony while pretending to care about international law? No wonder the BRICS are de-dollarizing as fast as they can and Eurasia is pushing along in its own institutional, economic and political independence.

             Perhaps Russia would view US elections in a more neutral light if the US didn’t constantly violate international law in attempts to destabilise Russian borderlands and Russian allies.

             At least Trump recognises that a new approach is needed with Russia. However the Clintonistas, neocons, Military Industrial Complex types and warhawks hate him for it.
             • One Anonymous Bloke …

               10 January 2017 at 1:30 pm

               Oh noes!
   • Andre 7.3

     10 January 2017 at 9:32 am

     “Was it the reason Hillary Clinton lost? No.”

     Was it enough on it’s own to cause Hillary’s loss? No. Was it one of several factors that contributed to Hillary’s loss? Certainly.
     • Colonial Viper 7.3.1

       10 January 2017 at 9:41 am

       95% of the blame needs to go on Hillary and her team for not understanding the rust belt and taking them for granted.

       As Santelli remarked, the reason these “hacks” were not focussed on earlier in the year is because it would have underlined Hillary Clinton’s insecure private email server problems.
       • Infused 7.3.1.1

         10 January 2017 at 10:10 am

         Which was already festering at the time. With drips and drabs trying to be shut down, like the reddit IT guy…
     • Brutus Iscariot 7.3.2

       10 January 2017 at 4:23 pm

       The “hacks/leaks” were just revealing information that actually existed – there is no dispute on that. No different to the release of Trump’s “p**** grab” tape.

       Of course Russia would plump for Trump, he’s the one who favours a constructive relationship with them.
   • Bill 7.4

     10 January 2017 at 9:33 am

     So you think how many people should be slaughtered?

     And should the UK do likewise and flood every armed anti-Zionist org with arms off the back of Israeli interference in the UK’s internal affairs? (Which included the stated objective to ‘take down’ specific MPs)

     https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/09/israeli-diplomats-cautioned-against-operating-british-jewish-organisations

     &

     https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/07/israeli-diplomat-shai-masot-caught-on-camera-plotting-to-take-down-uk-mps
   • Infused 7.5

     10 January 2017 at 10:02 am

     Just shows you have no clue what actually happened.
   • One Two 7.6

     10 January 2017 at 2:47 pm

     “If I were the americans….Putin needs to be shown in language he understands”

     Promoting and waging war based on “almost certainly”

     Your comment attracted a number of responses, most which pulled yours to pieces for the nonsense that it is…

     Gaping holes and juvinile utterances enabled an obvious outcome!
     • Colonial Viper 7.6.1

       10 January 2017 at 2:49 pm

       The bizarre thing is that Putin and Lavrov understand diplomatic negotiation and international law VERY well.

       At this stage however, and after being misled many times by the US in Ukraine and Syria, they appear to consider Obama White House an untrustworthy side which cannot keep to any agreements.
       • One Two 7.6.1.1

         10 January 2017 at 3:27 pm

         None of us have any idea what happened, yet many are commenting in absolutes despite a history of documented lies and exposure of treachery

         This shows a core issue which humanity must overcome, to avoid what will be complete demise on current track. Ego, deceit and disunity !

         The agencies and entities involved are operating at depths of complexity using tactics with tools which render humanity to passengers arguing internally over the lies and mistruths the ‘media arm’ of those same agencies allows us access to

         That so many engage energy into such discussions illustrates the mind control exhibited by those who seek to mislead!
         • McFlock 7.6.1.1.1

           10 January 2017 at 3:30 pm

           “Innocence is an ingredient of the flow of self-knowledge”
         • Colonial Viper 7.6.1.1.2

           10 January 2017 at 3:31 pm

           Well yes there is that
8. adam 8

   10 January 2017 at 11:26 pm

   I am sick of this John Podesta had the;

   user name — jpodesta
   Password — p@ssw0rd

   The guy deserved to hacked, any Muppet could have done it.

   How about we all look to see who John Podesta is instead?
   • Xanthe 8.1

     11 January 2017 at 8:44 am

     Yes +1
   • One Anonymous Bloke 8.2

     11 January 2017 at 9:16 am

     Yes, it would be good if people read his actual emails instead of relying on second-hand reporting and conspiracy theorist drivel about pizza.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS