3 ms·

I am sure i will get hundreds of downvotes for this but i still dont accept that the Russians targeted the DNC. Wikileaks says otherwise, the only people who ex

I am sure i will get hundreds of downvotes for this but i still dont accept that the Russians targeted the DNC. Wikileaks says otherwise, the only people who examined the servers are a nakedly anti-Russian security outfit hired by the DNC and to date zero hard evidence has been presented this is true. There are so many holes in this narrative, and given the total lack of credibility the press has after the Russiagate collusion story we shouldnt also allow this piece to slip through as accepted fact.

codezero 7y ago
I’m not sure the consensus is that WikiLeaks targeted the DNC (it’s not a hacking organization afaik). I believe that Russia targeted literally everyone and released DNC data through WikiLeaks. Edit: I think OP edited their message.
belltaco 7y ago
There's some substantial evidence. https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2213767-dutch-intelligence-first-to-alert-u-s-about-russian-hack-of-democratic-party.html https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2213767-dutch-intelligence-... https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/03/dnc-lone-hacker-guccifer-2-0-pegged-as-russian-spy-after-opsec-fail/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/03/dnc-lone-hacker-...
- astazangasta 7y ago
  I've read both those accounts. The Dutch intelligence bit is unrelated to the DNC; they claim the same outfit they were surveilling is involved. They did not observe the Russians hacking the DNC. Read the story carefully to see the timing. As for Guccifer, the evidence indicates he operates out of CST (based on tweets and uploaded file timestamps), hardly where a Russian hacker would be situated. These are both pretty weak as evidence, not what i'd call substantial.
  - belltaco 7y ago
    And yet Wikileaks denial of them getting the emails from Russia without any proof whatsoever is somehow not weak? How would Wikileaks even verify that they were not dealing with a stooge of Russian intelligence?
    - astazangasta 7y ago
      Easy: they would have direct correspondence with the leaker and could easily validate it's a DNC insider. To be clear, I don't consider this to be strong evidence, I just consider it to be counterevidence that should cause us to be suspicious of the main narrative. Meanwhile, of the above two articles, one (the Dutch intelligence bit) has nothing to do with the DNC. This leaves only a rather shady character, Guccifer 2.0, whose actions are pretty unprecedented in history: a hacker who announces what they did, seeks interviews, and crows on social media. Why, exactly, would Russian intelligence set up such a persona? If their intent is to aid Wikileaks, why would they undermine the Wikileaks narrative that it was a leak, not a hack? Guccifer makes no kind of sense unless we believe that his entire purpose is to point the finger back at the Russians, as he quickly succeeded in doing.
throwbobaway313 7y ago
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/wikileaks-deletes-poll-clinton-health https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/wikileaks-deletes-pol... Sure, Wikileaks is trustworthy and completely unbiased when it comes to Hillary. They just happened to make hundreds of postings during the election cycle that were specifically around spreading fud and unsubstantiated rumors against Hillary, that's all. Move along, nothing to see here, comrade.
- fxfan 7y ago
  Some of use bernie supporters were also called comrade and bernie was maligned for having had his honeymoon in Soviet. I hate Trump based on what i've seen him say first hand but of late I'm beginning to form an opinion that media blows things completely out of proportion and Russia Collusion is Iraq 2.0
  - throwbobaway313 7y ago
    Sure, but hopefully Bernie didn't collaborate with the Russians like Trump & Co. did. I wouldn't be surprised if he collaborated with Trump, however, to pull a Ross Perot 2.0
    - astazangasta 7y ago
      Not even Mueller claims Trump collaborated. You are basing your claims on emotion, not evidence. You want Trump to be guilty, so he is, despite the facts.
      - throwbobaway313 7y ago
        Why exactly did TrumpCo meet with Russian spies? What was their reason? Oh right. Sanctions on adoptions, because Trump et Al really care about the children. Cool story, bro.

codezero 7y ago

I’m not sure the consensus is that WikiLeaks targeted the DNC (it’s not a hacking organization afaik). I believe that Russia targeted literally everyone and released DNC data through WikiLeaks. Edit: I think OP edited their message.

belltaco 7y ago

There's some substantial evidence. https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2213767-dutch-intelligence-first-to-alert-u-s-about-russian-hack-of-democratic-party.html https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2213767-dutch-intelligence-... https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/03/dnc-lone-hacker-guccifer-2-0-pegged-as-russian-spy-after-opsec-fail/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/03/dnc-lone-hacker-...

astazangasta 7y ago
I've read both those accounts. The Dutch intelligence bit is unrelated to the DNC; they claim the same outfit they were surveilling is involved. They did not observe the Russians hacking the DNC. Read the story carefully to see the timing. As for Guccifer, the evidence indicates he operates out of CST (based on tweets and uploaded file timestamps), hardly where a Russian hacker would be situated. These are both pretty weak as evidence, not what i'd call substantial.
- belltaco 7y ago
  And yet Wikileaks denial of them getting the emails from Russia without any proof whatsoever is somehow not weak? How would Wikileaks even verify that they were not dealing with a stooge of Russian intelligence?
  - astazangasta 7y ago
    Easy: they would have direct correspondence with the leaker and could easily validate it's a DNC insider. To be clear, I don't consider this to be strong evidence, I just consider it to be counterevidence that should cause us to be suspicious of the main narrative. Meanwhile, of the above two articles, one (the Dutch intelligence bit) has nothing to do with the DNC. This leaves only a rather shady character, Guccifer 2.0, whose actions are pretty unprecedented in history: a hacker who announces what they did, seeks interviews, and crows on social media. Why, exactly, would Russian intelligence set up such a persona? If their intent is to aid Wikileaks, why would they undermine the Wikileaks narrative that it was a leak, not a hack? Guccifer makes no kind of sense unless we believe that his entire purpose is to point the finger back at the Russians, as he quickly succeeded in doing.

throwbobaway313 7y ago

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/wikileaks-deletes-poll-clinton-health https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/wikileaks-deletes-pol... Sure, Wikileaks is trustworthy and completely unbiased when it comes to Hillary. They just happened to make hundreds of postings during the election cycle that were specifically around spreading fud and unsubstantiated rumors against Hillary, that's all. Move along, nothing to see here, comrade.

fxfan 7y ago
Some of use bernie supporters were also called comrade and bernie was maligned for having had his honeymoon in Soviet. I hate Trump based on what i've seen him say first hand but of late I'm beginning to form an opinion that media blows things completely out of proportion and Russia Collusion is Iraq 2.0
- throwbobaway313 7y ago
  Sure, but hopefully Bernie didn't collaborate with the Russians like Trump & Co. did. I wouldn't be surprised if he collaborated with Trump, however, to pull a Ross Perot 2.0
  - astazangasta 7y ago
    Not even Mueller claims Trump collaborated. You are basing your claims on emotion, not evidence. You want Trump to be guilty, so he is, despite the facts.
    - throwbobaway313 7y ago
      Why exactly did TrumpCo meet with Russian spies? What was their reason? Oh right. Sanctions on adoptions, because Trump et Al really care about the children. Cool story, bro.