His claim is that the source is not Russia --people who were happy to see Julian leak things (and believe his leaks) while Bush was president are now calling him a puppet of Putin. I have no idea if Putin has goods on him. Or whether Julian is just a medium. It is, however, interesting to see people shift along political axes though.
If there was a Russian angle, I think their aim was to cause uncertainty regardless of winner. Be it Trump or Hillary, whoever the winner was, the voters of the opposition would question the results --despite there being no actual election hacking (altering the vote count).
One interesting thing though is that since the media writ large expected Hillary to win, had she won, this same evidence would have been "page 6" news and would have been rather quickly forgotten but for a few "sore losers".
It might not be very obvious from inside US, but the whole mess with Iraq and Afghan wars, and especially everything that Wikileaks exposed about them, is one of the biggest providers of source material for Russian "whataboutism" (see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_negroes). In early 00s, it was mainly useful to justify the way Russia handled Chechnya. But from 2008 on, it became more and more important - South Ossetia, Crimea, Donbass, Syria.
With that in mind, leaks about any American administration serve those goals. Bush was certainly fair game. As do any leaks that concern any Western countries, their allies, and affiliated countries. Which happens to be exactly what Wikileaks has been focusing on.
Now, this doesn't mean that those leaks don't have any further value, in particular, to citizens of the affected countries. This part of it is where you generally see a lot of partisanship when judging said value.
1. He can't possibly know if Russia is the true source.
2. Seth Rich is a classic KGB style conspiracy theory with literally not one shred of evidence, at all.
So he's doing two very odd things here that he's never done. He's saying Russia is NOT the source AND Seth Rich IS the source.
It's typical for someone with good intentions to find themselves owned by a spy agency. Assange is most likely in so deep he can't fix it.
It's a fact he's taken money from Russia and the theory of him being compromised by them goes back years before the election. He's the one that arranged for Snowden to go to Russia.
So he's compromised and a tool now. It doesn't matter if he was once free or not at this point.
> The Kremlin’s principal international propaganda outlet RT (formerly Russia Today) has actively collaborated with WikiLeaks. RT’s editor-in-chief visited WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in August 2013, where they discussed renewing his broadcast contract with RT, according to Russian and Western media. Russian media subsequently announced that RT had become "the only Russian media company" to partner with WikiLeaks and had received access to "new leaks of secret information." RT routinely gives Assange sympathetic coverage and provides him a platform to denounce the United States.
Sure, it's possible he's FSB (or whatever) secret unit and he's their Trojan horse --but no one was saying that during the Bush years (or even Obama minus '16). Only now do they say, oh, he's such a puppet. It's hard to take the allegation seriously when previously many of the same people had no problem with him.
I suspect what happened is that the hacking groups gave Wikileaks the dump via a cut-out. It's entirely possible that cut-out isn't aware how the data was obtained.
I don't think Assange is a Russian agent (even though he receives money from RT etc). I think he has his own motives. At the time this was more anti-Clinton that pro-Trump specifically.
More recently his Tweets have become more supportive of Trump personally (although interestingly not really his agendas necessarily). My uncharitable suspicion is that he's hoping for a presidential pardon.
this same evidence would have been "page 6" news and would have been rather quickly forgotten but for a few "sore losers".
Of course. There's plenty of similar evidence that the Russians also supported the Green party and Sanders campaigns in various forms. No one talks about them because they ended up not mattering.
We might be able to influence N Korea with these tactics, but Russia has a lot of natural resources, people and materiel. It's a diff game.
You have had (some) people on the left defending Kim Jun-un's actions as predictable (he's being bullied, etc). Putin's are predictable too, given what he has to work with.
I think we'd be better off reluctantly working with him (in the ME, for ex.) than blocking them every corner. It sets them back into a cold-war mentality. We (the world) need the biggest powers, US, CN, RU, to get along, if not be friends. We don't see eye to eye in many things (human rights wise, ex, pollution, ex) but we can work toward a more stable planet.
If anything, we can say that the current sanctions and other have been somewhat effective in deescalating violence, and if the west would have pulled back, then we'd have Ukraine dismembered by now through increased direct Russian military involvement.
Nothing "sets back" Russia to cold war mentality; they have never left it, won't will without a regime change, they won't stop treating the west as their enemy and they will aggressively (re)take the now independent states we let them to.
And, was it Russia that expanded to the NATO borders, or were the NATO borders that expanded to eventually reach Russia?
The sovereign countries themselves must get a choice - if they want to join NATO, that is their right, and Russia shouldn't get a veto (nor even a vote) in that. Countries should be free to join/leave the "spheres" at will, not be placed there or given or taken.
And, actually, the whole reason why NATO is at their borders is the Russian insistence of their sphere of influence. If Russia agreed in practice that their borders stop where they are and that they won't ever poke beyond them, then their neigbours wouldn't need to even consider NATO.
Uhh, no.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO#German_reu...
The belief in Ukraine, however, was that Russia was an ally, did not pose a threat and therefore Ukraine should have not seeked NATO membership. That assumption proved to be wrong now.
Amazing doesn't even begin to cover Americans complaining about foreign interference in our elections.
There's hardly a country up and down Central and South America, North Africa, and the Middle East whose elections we haven't meddled in. Start with the Shah of Iran, Mubarak, Hussein before he turned on us, the Bay of Pigs, Allende/Pinochet, etc.
Which is not to say we shouldn't push back on Russian interference in our elections, but just wow. I'd like to see us keep out of everyone else's elections too.
Back in those days it was more do or die. Let the soviets gain ground and grow their ideology or stop it within reason [stop short of no-proxy hot wars].
If we look at the toll paid by countries which went 2nd world vs those that stayed/coherced on our side, the suffering was much greater in those that went full soviet.
And often times people who point to Allende etc as bad will not point to Ghadafy or all the rest in N. Africa Obama set loose.
I think it's probably a bit naive to assume the US has stopped interfering in elections.
We just need to recall how we felt when they pranced around Cuba. We're doing similar in the eastern block (not the same degree) but all the same it gets in their craw.
I too would not be surprised if he favors Trump via omission rather than commission. Julian likely is severely allergic to establishment politicians because he rightfully sees them as two sides of the same coin who like Hillary see him as a US enemy, while Trump seems more pragmatic about it.
I have not seen that. What I've read is that one of Podesta's leaked emails reference something along the lines of "spirit cooking" or whatever (and whatever that was code for) and some people outside WikiLeaks (obviously conspiracy theorists on the right) ran with that as evidence she (not even Podesta) was some kind of witch.
So, weird, but not witchcraft. Just the typical sort of performance art that I never understand. And the context of the email is there. Nobody was seeking out a "spirit cooking" experience. Just an invitation from an eccentric artist.
[1] https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/794450623404113920?lang...
It does not, which is how Wikileaks was able to keep publishing when the Ecuadorian embassy took away his internet access.
Spiteful interloper who carefully chooses his words, relishing his part in the political upheaval of a nation-state which has effectively imprisoned him in a London embassy? Maybe.
This is supposed to be convincing? Here's more of TruePundit's vaunted anonymous sources saying things you and Assange might be credulous enough to believe: https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2016/11/2/1590342/--True-Pund....
It hasn't worked out well, but the logic is reasonable.
[1] http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/330052-wiki...
It means hacking provably vulnerable voting systems [1] at a small number of polling locations in pivotal counties in swing states.
"Hacking the election" is neither inconceivable nor intractable. It's just something the media and government have to ensure we don't think about.
[1] http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2017/08/a-conference-of-hackers-tot...
There are plenty of other possible meanings, and people feel differently about the many possible definitions.
The word "Hack" does not just mean "illegal intrusion of a computer system"
I quite enjoy the irony of pointing this out on HackerNews...
Only if you weren't paying attention! There was plenty of noise around about the attacks at the time, if you looked for the signs.
In August 2016 The Federal Government made some moves to designate the election machines and systems as critical infrastructure so they could protect them[1]. Predictably, this was opposed[2].
After the election, Obama did it anyway[3]. As it turns out many states had asked for assistance securing their systems[4].
[1] http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/election-cyber-securit...
[2] http://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurity/2016/08/some-swing-stat...
[3] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/01/why-t...
[4] http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/02/politics/cyber-hacking-rus...
Chances are at least a half dozen state actors and another half dozen private entities would have had a strong chance of being privy to the exploits used to hack the server and would likely have been on the ball enough to do so when it was vulnerable.
In any case, the "who exploited the vulnerable server?" question is less relevant to American democracy than digging into the questionable conduct revealed by the emails.
Croudstrike (June 15 2016) https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ... "are believed to be closely linked to the Russian government’s powerful and highly capable intelligence services"
SecureWorks (June 16 2016) https://www.secureworks.com/research/threat-group-4127-targe... "moderate confidence that the group is operating from the Russian Federation and is gathering intelligence on behalf of the Russian government"
Fidelis (June 20 2016) http://www.threatgeek.com/2016/06/dnc_update.html https://archive.fo/yPp9K "this settles the question of “who was responsible for the DNC attack,”"
SecureWorks - 2nd Post (June 26 2016) https://www.secureworks.com/research/threat-group-4127-targe... "The range of targets demonstrates that the threat group poses a broad threat to individuals and groups associated with U.S. politics, to organizations and individuals in the government and defense verticals, and to those whose business involves commenting on Russia."
Threatconnect (June 29 2016) https://www.threatconnect.com/blog/guccifer-2-0-dnc-breach/ "we assess Guccifer 2.0 most likely is a Russian denial and deception (D&D) effort that has been cast to sow doubt about the prevailing narrative of Russian perfidy"
Threatconnect (July 26 2016) https://www.threatconnect.com/blog/guccifer-2-all-roads-lead... "strengthens our ongoing assessment that Guccifer 2.0 is a Russian propaganda effort and not an independent actor."
Crowdstrike - 2nd Post (December 22 2016) https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/danger-close-fancy-bear-tra... "further supports CrowdStrike’s previous assessments that FANCY BEAR is likely affiliated with the Russian military intelligence (GRU), and works closely with Russian military forces"
http://old.warisacrime.org/content/obamas-last-chance-face-d...
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/crowdstrike-needs-address-har...
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000801
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000031277
https://www.welivesecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/es...
https://i.imgur.com/O9z33Dq.png
C&C server IP Addresses 185.106.120.101 185.86.149.223 31.220.43.99 5.135.183.154 69.12.73.174 89.32.40.4 92.114.92.125 93.115.38.125 131.72.136.165 167.114.214.63 176.31.112.10 176.31.96.178 192.95.12.5 46.183.216.209 80.255.10.236 80.255.3.93 81.17.30.29 95.215.46.27
Netherlands, France, Canada, Latvia, Germany, Switzerland and Sweden, US, Bulgaria.
Notice an absence of a country?
Fun Bonus: All this reveals the corporate nature of parties!(that's their defense for not handing over the servers/drives.) Part of the corruption, both of them!
PS. I shouldn't have to point this out, but in this climate of hysteria I think it might be necessary. Just because there are technical doubts about the DNC-Russia story, doesn't mean those doubts can be used to deny or affirm any other possible US-Russia espionage issues such as collusion, coercion, etc.
We have a pretty well respected company saying "this is what we found", before anyone knew how important it would end up being.
The links you have posted appear to be a fairly random set of unrelated things that I guess are supposed to undermine the report, but to me they look.. unrelated?
The OpenSecret links aren't for CrowdStrike.
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000801 is for Warburg Pincus and shows are very even mix of Republican and Democratic recipients.
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000031277 is for Accel Partners, and again shows an even spread, with the exception of a $176,580 donation to Right To Rise USA which is a Jeb Bush SuperPac.
The rest seem.. I don't even know what to say about them. https://i.imgur.com/O9z33Dq.png is just a ToC of report??
Not well respected, especially after their multiple past fuckups.
>fairly random set of unrelated things
VIPS report, relevant donation information of crowdstrike affiliated persons, a report from a third-party who crowdstrike allowed to look at data... not unrelated at all.
A start for transparency to relieve skepticism would be to release the data that shows the C&C ip's match past Russian affiliated attacks. That's what it boils down to, Crowdstrike claims that those ip's match a past or known group of Russian pivot servers, but haven't offered the data to verify this.
I have training in computer/network forensics. Do you?
>Not well respected
Did you criticize Crowdstike before the 2016 election? Because they're very highly regarded.
>You are taking crowdstrike at their word.
You don't have to trust Crowdstrike, as there are other organizations that did analysis. Most of my links were not from Crowdstrike.
The analyses do not rely solely on C&C IPs, and the fact that you keep harking on that makes me think you haven't read those links. There's lots of TTP and malware analysis.
>that's their defense for not handing over the servers/drives.
It is extremely common for groups to share imaged versions of a computer.
Weird coincidence: Seth Rich and at least one of the Awan family hung out at a bar the night prior to hus shooting.
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/822213093065367553?lang...
Do you deny that WL is offering this reward?
[0] http://www.snopes.com/seth-conrad-rich/
[1] http://www.npr.org/2017/08/01/540783715/lawsuit-alleges-fox-...
It was merely a coincidence that, 5 days after a large number of files were copied from DNC computers, DNC employee Seth Rich winds up with a couple of bullets in his back, "and yet they never took anything".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich#Shooting_a...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich#Conspiracy...
It's fine to be skeptical of course, and to be very skeptical of direct "hacking the election" (whatever that means) claims.
But there is plenty of public evidence that Russia was involved in the DNC hack. This evidence was available before the election, which makes it more credible against claims of political interference.
I've posted this before, but I think it's important people understand what public evidence is available:
2014 report into ATP-28: https://www.fireeye.com/blog/threat-research/2014/10/apt28-a..., presenting pretty compelling (if circumstantial) evidence that group is Russian state backed.
(July) 2016 report into the DNC hacking, showing it was first breached by ATP-29 (The other Russian state backed hacking group), but the leaks almost certainly came from a second breach by ATP-28 later: https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...