tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post2075132344014534173..comments2024-03-28T16:58:17.705-04:00Comments on Grim's Hall: More on the Russian Information Warfare CampaignGrimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-46411443291259769432016-12-15T17:16:17.203-05:002016-12-15T17:16:17.203-05:00Raven, that's the link I posted on one of Tex&...Raven, that's the link I posted on one of Tex's posts, and I agree - it's interesting! It's also not new - Assange has said all along it wasn't the Russians.<br /><br />That there are/were Russian info ops is - I agree - likely, Grim. That Russian info ops are the most likely culprit in these recent Wikileaks is not so clear. Leaks by insiders are common: Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, Harold Martin, etc.<br /><br />And we do know that there was a lot of hate and discontent in the DNC over the treatment of Bernie Sanders.<br /><br />We're being sold an overblown story with all kinds of gaps in logic and no real evidence so far, and I remain suspicious.<br /><br />Cassandrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00083557761155403492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-51717765388499462762016-12-15T16:03:23.341-05:002016-12-15T16:03:23.341-05:00Great powers don't do vendettas....
It wasn&#...<i>Great powers don't do </i>vendettas....<br /><br />It wasn't a <i>great power</i>, or even a little <i>power</i>, that did this vendetta, if such a thing was done at all. It was a man who did it.<br /><br /><i>What is of importance here is that the leaks were anti-Clinton, rather than pro-Trump.</i><br /><br />It's not necessarily one or the other. One way of deliberately plussing up Trump is to focus on attacking his opponent.<br /><br />Lastly, I'm not sure why <b>NBC</b> or most of the other television or online "news" outlets should be taken seriously. As of this morning, the only news outlet that was talking about the intel community's refusal to testify before the House Intelligence Committee was <b>Fox News</b>. All the others appear to be spiking the story; it's not useful to their predetermined outcomes.<br /><br />Eric HinesE Hineshttp://aplebessite.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-16693353995210479372016-12-15T15:14:55.916-05:002016-12-15T15:14:55.916-05:00Seems to be a lot of concern about how the info wa...Seems to be a lot of concern about how the info was obtained, but nothing refuting the accuracy. <br /><br />This is interesting--<br /><br />http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html<br /><br /> It would be interesting who supplied the info and what side of the grass they are looking at now.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />ravennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-62645049092642443682016-12-15T13:20:21.291-05:002016-12-15T13:20:21.291-05:00Well, intelligence is about probability -- my sens...Well, intelligence is about probability -- my sense of the probabilities is that Russian information operations are so likely as to approach certainty. :) <br /><br />But as for the FBI not finding evidence of hacking, remember Comey's statement about whether or not the Clinton servers were hacked. "With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence."<br /><br />So that's not dispositive either, though I take your point that a lot hangs on the question. Or maybe not: if only the DNC server was hacked, and the RNC's not at all, that might be suggestive that the Democrats were the target just as much as the RNC's server being hacked but the information not used.Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-87249733645020745812016-12-15T13:14:05.498-05:002016-12-15T13:14:05.498-05:00I am highly skeptical of this whole Russian hacker...I am highly skeptical of this whole Russian hackers story. First of all, the CIA has a long track record of being not just wrong, but spectacularly, massively wrong on major intel topics.<br /><br />Secondly, the CIA's supposed conclusions rest on a highly circumstantial deck of cards-type argument that includes the conclusion that the RNC was also hacked (see this interesting video):<br /><br />http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/12/12/priebus_to_nbcs_chuck_todd_why_would_press_run_with_something_that_is_not_true.html<br /> <br />Key part: Priebus repeatedly states the RNC was not hacked, and they know this <b>because they called in the FBI to help them and check their servers </b>as soon as they learned the DNC had been hacked. If the “evidence” to support the theory that the Russians were trying to elect Hillary is that both the RNC and DNC were hacked, but only the DNC mails were released…. but the RNC wasn’t actually hacked…. Hmm. What are we supposed to think now?<br /><br />Don't necessarily trust him either, but I think the real truth is that it's more likely to be an insider or not (it usually is - in most data breaches, *humans* are the main security risk, not technology - though that's not inconsiderable either).<br /><br />Bottom line: if these people want me to believe a bizarre conspiracy theory over the (IMO) far more likely scenario of a disgruntled DNC insider/whistleblower who ALREADY had access (and knew where the bodies were buried), they're going to have to pony up some serious evidence.<br /><br />Occam's raisin, and all that :)<br />Cassandrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00083557761155403492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-59323723269892195142016-12-15T11:52:22.973-05:002016-12-15T11:52:22.973-05:00See Cass' comment a couple of posts down for t...See Cass' comment a couple of posts down for the links you're talking about.<br /><br />It's hard to say if that's true, or if the "disgruntled DNC staffers" who handed it off really existed, or if there was a false flag move to present the appearance of Russian-hacked information coming from a DNC staffer, or if the whole claim was made up as part of the information warfare campaign. The trustworthiness of WikiLeaks is not so great that we can rely on their statements as dispositive. Grimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07543082562999855432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5173950.post-13970119813144151102016-12-15T11:39:20.417-05:002016-12-15T11:39:20.417-05:00Really a shame when your organization is a cesspoo...Really a shame when your organization is a cesspool of corruption and someone leaks it to the public. <br /><br />I have read the leak of the DNC info was from a disgruntled DNC staffer upset over Sanders being crushed and the info was handed off to wikileaks supporter. <br />Whether this is true or not I do not know. ravennoreply@blogger.com