5 ms·

You honestly can't fathom a situation where Assange would know for sure Russia wasn't involved? Is everyone in America to be considered a suspected Russian age

You honestly can't fathom a situation where Assange would know for sure Russia wasn't involved? Is everyone in America to be considered a suspected Russian agent now? Because there is a scenario: Assange got the DNC leaks directly from someone in authority in the DNC, itself, knows the person, and knows they don't work for Russia (because the person already has high-level clearances/was rigorously vetted/etc.)

jasonlotito 7y ago
I mean, being vetted doesn't mean you aren't working for a foreign country. Need I say more?
- fit2rule 7y ago
  So, everyone in America is a potential Russian agent now? That sounds like something a foreign agent would want me to think.
rtkwe 7y ago
Where did I say I can't fathom that situation for starters? From all indications from the DNC to the US Intelligence community it wasn't someone inside the DNC so absent any information from Assange/Wikileaks I have no reason to believe it's anyone else. Also we know from the War files that Wikileaks doesn't go through the documents provided to remove things like personal names to protect locals who did simple things like working as translators etc. so I'm not too convinced they'd look particular hard at exactly who was sending them the info.
- fit2rule 7y ago
  DNC wouldn't know. US Intelligence community wouldn't know. Only Assange knows where he got the data. Why is it so easy for you to trust entities that were not involved in the leak so easily, yet disregard Assange's own agency over knowing/understanding where he got the data? Is it because you maybe just don't like Assange as a person? I mean, not vetting documents is one thing. But, actively engaging in election interference all over the world is another thing. Assange did the former - your beloved intelligence agency, are currently doing the latter. Its reasonable to assume that US Intelligence agencies are lying, utterly, to give themselves yet more budget for nefarious deeds - i.e. the "Ma' Russkies" narrative, which serves only to foment more hatred...
  - rtkwe 7y ago
    They can definitely examine the access logs, method of intrusion, etc to determine who actually took the information from the servers... They're not 100% incompetent. I think Assange isn't particularly careful or picky about what he releases and by extension particular inclined to thoroughly examine who's giving him that info. Additionally from all appearances he scheduled and coordinated (at the very least indicated he had something) to affect the US election. As for my feelings about the various TLAs in the US they're mixed but I definitely think they're more likely to be able to tell who was actually involved than Assange. [0] Wikileaks isn't a huge organization with massive investigatory prowess and resources, it wouldn't be terribly hard to believably fake non-association for a nation state.
    - einpoklum 7y ago
      They can't examine anything, because AFAIK the servers were physically destroyed before official US authorities got to them. They relied on CrowdStrike's analysis.
      - crunchatized 7y ago
        Yeah, Comey did say in 2017 that they could only get CrowdStrike to hand over their analysis, and never got direct access to the machines. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/03/20/full-transcript-fbi-director-james-comey-testifies-on-russian-interference-in-2016-election/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/03... But I can't find anything about physical destruction, CrowdStrike claims to only have ever had images of the systems. https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/ https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ... In 2018, the DNC said “The FBI was given images of servers, forensic copies, as well as a host of other forensic information we collected from our systems.” https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-missing-dnc-server-is-neither-missing-nor-a-server https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-missing-dnc-server-is-n...
        einpoklum 7y ago
dragonwriter 7y ago
> You honestly can't fathom a situation where Assange would know for sure Russia wasn't involved? I can certainly imagine situation s where Assange would know this, but Assange hasn't claimed that Russia wasn't involved, by his own claims even when a pardon that would erase the risk he has been fleeing desperately from for years was dangled in front of him as an incentive, so I think it's pretty clear that either that situation does not exist or he has an undisclosed reason to preserve the image that Russia may have been involved. The former seems to be the simplest explanation. > knows they don't work for Russia (because the person already has high-level clearances/was rigorously vetted/etc.) World powers have had highly placed agents in foreign governments and political parties, etc., with high-level clearances that require rigorous vetting numerous times in the past. So, no, the person being in such a position does not establish that they are not a Russian agent or that Russia was not involved in their actions.

jasonlotito 7y ago

I mean, being vetted doesn't mean you aren't working for a foreign country. Need I say more?

fit2rule 7y ago
So, everyone in America is a potential Russian agent now? That sounds like something a foreign agent would want me to think.

rtkwe 7y ago

Where did I say I can't fathom that situation for starters? From all indications from the DNC to the US Intelligence community it wasn't someone inside the DNC so absent any information from Assange/Wikileaks I have no reason to believe it's anyone else. Also we know from the War files that Wikileaks doesn't go through the documents provided to remove things like personal names to protect locals who did simple things like working as translators etc. so I'm not too convinced they'd look particular hard at exactly who was sending them the info.

fit2rule 7y ago
DNC wouldn't know. US Intelligence community wouldn't know. Only Assange knows where he got the data. Why is it so easy for you to trust entities that were not involved in the leak so easily, yet disregard Assange's own agency over knowing/understanding where he got the data? Is it because you maybe just don't like Assange as a person? I mean, not vetting documents is one thing. But, actively engaging in election interference all over the world is another thing. Assange did the former - your beloved intelligence agency, are currently doing the latter. Its reasonable to assume that US Intelligence agencies are lying, utterly, to give themselves yet more budget for nefarious deeds - i.e. the "Ma' Russkies" narrative, which serves only to foment more hatred...
- rtkwe 7y ago
  They can definitely examine the access logs, method of intrusion, etc to determine who actually took the information from the servers... They're not 100% incompetent. I think Assange isn't particularly careful or picky about what he releases and by extension particular inclined to thoroughly examine who's giving him that info. Additionally from all appearances he scheduled and coordinated (at the very least indicated he had something) to affect the US election. As for my feelings about the various TLAs in the US they're mixed but I definitely think they're more likely to be able to tell who was actually involved than Assange. [0] Wikileaks isn't a huge organization with massive investigatory prowess and resources, it wouldn't be terribly hard to believably fake non-association for a nation state.
  - einpoklum 7y ago
    They can't examine anything, because AFAIK the servers were physically destroyed before official US authorities got to them. They relied on CrowdStrike's analysis.
    - crunchatized 7y ago
      Yeah, Comey did say in 2017 that they could only get CrowdStrike to hand over their analysis, and never got direct access to the machines. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/03/20/full-transcript-fbi-director-james-comey-testifies-on-russian-interference-in-2016-election/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/03... But I can't find anything about physical destruction, CrowdStrike claims to only have ever had images of the systems. https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/ https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ... In 2018, the DNC said “The FBI was given images of servers, forensic copies, as well as a host of other forensic information we collected from our systems.” https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-missing-dnc-server-is-neither-missing-nor-a-server https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-missing-dnc-server-is-n...
      - einpoklum 7y ago

dragonwriter 7y ago

> You honestly can't fathom a situation where Assange would know for sure Russia wasn't involved? I can certainly imagine situation s where Assange would know this, but Assange hasn't claimed that Russia wasn't involved, by his own claims even when a pardon that would erase the risk he has been fleeing desperately from for years was dangled in front of him as an incentive, so I think it's pretty clear that either that situation does not exist or he has an undisclosed reason to preserve the image that Russia may have been involved. The former seems to be the simplest explanation. > knows they don't work for Russia (because the person already has high-level clearances/was rigorously vetted/etc.) World powers have had highly placed agents in foreign governments and political parties, etc., with high-level clearances that require rigorous vetting numerous times in the past. So, no, the person being in such a position does not establish that they are not a Russian agent or that Russia was not involved in their actions.