6 ms·

If it wasnt the Russians, it's almost certainly Seth Rich. CrowdStrike has already said the hack seems it came internally, and there's no evidence it came from

by aty268 6y ago

If it wasnt the Russians, it's almost certainly Seth Rich. CrowdStrike has already said the hack seems it came internally, and there's no evidence it came from Russia, but somehow the FBI came to a different conclusion. One is either completely incompetent or lying. Edit: It appears CrowdStrike has officially changed their conclusion in their investigation after the FBI concluded theirs. I hope you people know this is all complete nonsense. The CEO himself said they ONLY had 'circumstantial evidence', and nothing at all concrete. Not a single thing. Edit2: https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/13/hidden_over_2_years_dem_cyber-firms_sworn_testimony_it_had_no_proof_of_russian_hack_of_dnc_123596.html https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/13/...

dragonwriter 6y ago
Trump isn't the FBI.
AndyMcConachie 6y ago
No. There is no proof that 'the Russians' had anything to do with it. There is not even proof that the data was exfiltrated at all. https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/13/hidden_over_2_years_dem_cyber-firms_sworn_testimony_it_had_no_proof_of_russian_hack_of_dnc_123596.html https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/13/...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  That piece is the equivalent of finding video surveillance of the accused inside a place that was physically burgled, showing them bagging up the actual items that were stolen and heading toward a room with an exit, not being able to recover video from the camera that's supposed to cover the exit, and saying “well, there's no video of them carrying the goods out, so there's no evidence that they actually stole them.”
  - aty268 6y ago
    That's a fantastic analogy that adds nothing meaningful to the discussion whatsoever.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
kevinschumacher 6y ago
When did CrowdStrike say that? Because this claims otherwise, and, I would have expected them to update this post if what you are saying is correct. https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/ https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ... Anecdotally I remember reading an intel report from Crowdstrike about Fancy Bear...
- aty268 6y ago
  That is shocking. They changed their stance in the past few weeks. All of this is complete nonsense, Jesus Christ. https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/13/hidden_over_2_years_dem_cyber-firms_sworn_testimony_it_had_no_proof_of_russian_hack_of_dnc_123596.html https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/13/...
  - ModernMech 6y ago
    This is a 404, you might want to fix the link
    - aty268 6y ago
      Fixed, thank you.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
rtp 6y ago
It was the Russians. https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/ https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...
- jonhohle 6y ago
  Or that’s a Complete fabrication at the request of a political party that has the ear of most major news outlets? During the 2016 election these news outlets breathlessly repeated the misleading statement that 17 intelligence agencies agreed Russia was responsible for the stolen emails based on a statement from USIC, which represented 16, and Crowdstrike, which was the 17th. The USIC statement says nothing about how many subsidiary agencies were actually suggesting this (later we learned it was 3 or 4).[1] A year later when Trump’s USIC issued a statement, NPR was quick to point out that the USIC comprises 17 organizations, but only a few of them reached conclusions in the report.[0] We’ve also since learned that Crowdstrike, while publicly saying Russia was responsible for exfiltrating data from the DNC, was telling Congress under oath that it had no evidence to such claims. no other agency had access to the servers in question, including US federal intelligence agencies, which could have performed forensics while a sympathetic party was still in control of the executive branch. 0 - https://www.npr.org/sections/memmos/2018/07/18/630057400/guidance-on-17-intelligence-agencies https://www.npr.org/sections/memmos/2018/07/18/630057400/gui... 1 - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016... (edit: s/ ased/ based/)
  - aty268 6y ago
    Excellent comment. This level of deception is disgusting. I can't believe I have to scroll to the bottom of a HN political post to find out what's really going on.
    - jonhohle 6y ago
      Meta: These are the karma burning comments that take some effort to cite (usually typed from my phone) and are generally left without response, non-sequitur, or circular citation. My personal opinion is that all major news outlets (Fox included) can not be taken at face value, requiring an unreasonable amount of research to determine what’s actually happening in current events. It’s not even just major events, it’s even happening at the local level. Our local newspaper monopoly reported that our neighborhood school district was opening last week with no evidence and after the board had just decided to delay opening. It’s unclear there was an agenda or just sloppy reporting, but this was then used by parents to as evidence to pressure their own districts to open. None issue public retractions or corrections anymore, just stealth edits. Then I come to a place like HN where I find critical thinkers in nearly every aspect except current events which have become so polluted by political bias. We get it, conservatives need to shut up and tow the line. I’m getting too old for that. Facts can stand on their own outside opinion. /getoffmylawn
simias 6y ago
Is there any serious reason to tie Seth Rich into this mess besides "he died roughly within that time frame and he worked for the DNC"? It really seems like one of these fringe conspiracy theories that doesn't really make sense as soon as you start digging a bit. What's more likely, that Seth Rich really was murdered for leaking some (overall fairly tame) emails or that his death is completely unrelated and it was just opportunistically reused by far-right groups to make up one of the conspiracy theories they like so much?
- ciarannolan 6y ago
  > It really seems like one of these fringe conspiracy theories that doesn't really make sense as soon as you start digging a bit. Because it is. Don't waste your attention on this.
- aty268 6y ago
  It's more likely he was murdered for doing something he shouldn't have been doing rather than anything else. The area where he lived had no shooting in the past 16 years or so, and this young guy gets clearly murdered for no reason and not even robbed? Rich was pissed at what the DNC did to Bernie (look at his past), and I think it's a fair guess to say he wanted to screw them over. He was in the perfect position to do so. If that's the truth, why Assange won't leak that, I'm not sure. On top of all this, CrowdStrike themselves said under oath that it's likely it was hacked internally, although they have now conveniently changed their stance. See my original comment.
  - k33n 6y ago
    Assange's entire being has been dedicated to protecting the identity of whistleblowers since before he started WikiLeaks. He's not going to name a source. Look at what he's been through. He's not going to crack now.
    - aty268 6y ago
      That's true, but in this case the sole source would be dead. What would he have to lose?
dooblethrowaway 6y ago
Does it not bother you that the RealClear Investigations article provides zero external links or evidence itself? It reads to me like a long obfuscation of the difference between "circumstantial" and "concrete" evidence. Much of it built on the fact that lots of information is still redacted. Once the writer eliminates those two nuances, he can create his own accusation (without evidence, mind you): "The fact that the Democratic Party employed the two private firms that generated the core allegations at the heart of Russiagate -- Russian email hacking and Trump-Russia collusion – suggests that the federal investigation was compromised from the start." How does it "suggest" the investigation was compromised? I don't see the evidence.

by aty268 6y ago

dragonwriter 6y ago

Trump isn't the FBI.

AndyMcConachie 6y ago

No. There is no proof that 'the Russians' had anything to do with it. There is not even proof that the data was exfiltrated at all. https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/13/hidden_over_2_years_dem_cyber-firms_sworn_testimony_it_had_no_proof_of_russian_hack_of_dnc_123596.html https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/13/...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 6y ago
That piece is the equivalent of finding video surveillance of the accused inside a place that was physically burgled, showing them bagging up the actual items that were stolen and heading toward a room with an exit, not being able to recover video from the camera that's supposed to cover the exit, and saying “well, there's no video of them carrying the goods out, so there's no evidence that they actually stole them.”
- aty268 6y ago
  That's a fantastic analogy that adds nothing meaningful to the discussion whatsoever.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

kevinschumacher 6y ago

When did CrowdStrike say that? Because this claims otherwise, and, I would have expected them to update this post if what you are saying is correct. https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/ https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ... Anecdotally I remember reading an intel report from Crowdstrike about Fancy Bear...

aty268 6y ago
That is shocking. They changed their stance in the past few weeks. All of this is complete nonsense, Jesus Christ. https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/13/hidden_over_2_years_dem_cyber-firms_sworn_testimony_it_had_no_proof_of_russian_hack_of_dnc_123596.html https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/13/...
- ModernMech 6y ago
  This is a 404, you might want to fix the link
  - aty268 6y ago
    Fixed, thank you.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

rtp 6y ago

It was the Russians. https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/ https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...

jonhohle 6y ago
Or that’s a Complete fabrication at the request of a political party that has the ear of most major news outlets? During the 2016 election these news outlets breathlessly repeated the misleading statement that 17 intelligence agencies agreed Russia was responsible for the stolen emails based on a statement from USIC, which represented 16, and Crowdstrike, which was the 17th. The USIC statement says nothing about how many subsidiary agencies were actually suggesting this (later we learned it was 3 or 4).[1] A year later when Trump’s USIC issued a statement, NPR was quick to point out that the USIC comprises 17 organizations, but only a few of them reached conclusions in the report.[0] We’ve also since learned that Crowdstrike, while publicly saying Russia was responsible for exfiltrating data from the DNC, was telling Congress under oath that it had no evidence to such claims. no other agency had access to the servers in question, including US federal intelligence agencies, which could have performed forensics while a sympathetic party was still in control of the executive branch. 0 - https://www.npr.org/sections/memmos/2018/07/18/630057400/guidance-on-17-intelligence-agencies https://www.npr.org/sections/memmos/2018/07/18/630057400/gui... 1 - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016... (edit: s/ ased/ based/)
- aty268 6y ago
  Excellent comment. This level of deception is disgusting. I can't believe I have to scroll to the bottom of a HN political post to find out what's really going on.
  - jonhohle 6y ago
    Meta: These are the karma burning comments that take some effort to cite (usually typed from my phone) and are generally left without response, non-sequitur, or circular citation. My personal opinion is that all major news outlets (Fox included) can not be taken at face value, requiring an unreasonable amount of research to determine what’s actually happening in current events. It’s not even just major events, it’s even happening at the local level. Our local newspaper monopoly reported that our neighborhood school district was opening last week with no evidence and after the board had just decided to delay opening. It’s unclear there was an agenda or just sloppy reporting, but this was then used by parents to as evidence to pressure their own districts to open. None issue public retractions or corrections anymore, just stealth edits. Then I come to a place like HN where I find critical thinkers in nearly every aspect except current events which have become so polluted by political bias. We get it, conservatives need to shut up and tow the line. I’m getting too old for that. Facts can stand on their own outside opinion. /getoffmylawn

simias 6y ago

Is there any serious reason to tie Seth Rich into this mess besides "he died roughly within that time frame and he worked for the DNC"? It really seems like one of these fringe conspiracy theories that doesn't really make sense as soon as you start digging a bit. What's more likely, that Seth Rich really was murdered for leaking some (overall fairly tame) emails or that his death is completely unrelated and it was just opportunistically reused by far-right groups to make up one of the conspiracy theories they like so much?

ciarannolan 6y ago
> It really seems like one of these fringe conspiracy theories that doesn't really make sense as soon as you start digging a bit. Because it is. Don't waste your attention on this.
aty268 6y ago
It's more likely he was murdered for doing something he shouldn't have been doing rather than anything else. The area where he lived had no shooting in the past 16 years or so, and this young guy gets clearly murdered for no reason and not even robbed? Rich was pissed at what the DNC did to Bernie (look at his past), and I think it's a fair guess to say he wanted to screw them over. He was in the perfect position to do so. If that's the truth, why Assange won't leak that, I'm not sure. On top of all this, CrowdStrike themselves said under oath that it's likely it was hacked internally, although they have now conveniently changed their stance. See my original comment.
- k33n 6y ago
  Assange's entire being has been dedicated to protecting the identity of whistleblowers since before he started WikiLeaks. He's not going to name a source. Look at what he's been through. He's not going to crack now.
  - aty268 6y ago
    That's true, but in this case the sole source would be dead. What would he have to lose?

dooblethrowaway 6y ago

Does it not bother you that the RealClear Investigations article provides zero external links or evidence itself? It reads to me like a long obfuscation of the difference between "circumstantial" and "concrete" evidence. Much of it built on the fact that lots of information is still redacted. Once the writer eliminates those two nuances, he can create his own accusation (without evidence, mind you): "The fact that the Democratic Party employed the two private firms that generated the core allegations at the heart of Russiagate -- Russian email hacking and Trump-Russia collusion – suggests that the federal investigation was compromised from the start." How does it "suggest" the investigation was compromised? I don't see the evidence.