5 ms·

Respectfully, I beg to differ The Washington Post released unsubstantiated reports from anonymous sources that the DNC emails were hacked by Russia and releas

Respectfully, I beg to differ The Washington Post released unsubstantiated reports from anonymous sources that the DNC emails were hacked by Russia and released through Wikileaks. This is an extraordinary claim, and the evidence should be likewise extraordinary 4 years later, however, these remain allegations only, the lack of which drives the idea of a deep state conspiracy in conservative circles If you're inclined to believe the Russia hacking allegations, this story will seem like a completely different, false equivalence, because one is true (the hacking allegations) and the other is false (the Hunter Biden allegation). But consider: there is as much hard evidence for one as the other, and both are damaging, destabilizing allegations

Thorrez 6y ago
> 4 years later, however, these remain allegations only, the lack of which drives the idea of a deep state conspiracy in conservative circles There was an indictment by the federal government[1][2]. That's certainly more reliable than a computer repairman finding an email on a hard drive on an abandoned computer. [1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/grand-jury-indicts-12-russian-intelligence-officers-hacking-offenses-related-2016-election https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/grand-jury-indicts-12-russian... [2] https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download
- rendall 6y ago
  An indictment is an allegation, as I said. An allegation is not proof If you are indicted for a crime, the prosecutor must prove the allegations If you are inclined to believe the allegation, your bar for proof will be quite low. Perhaps the accusation is enough. For me, a destabilizing accusation like that requires more proof than anonymous CIA sources saying its true. I wish more Americans would put their dislike of Trump aside and demand that proof. It's not about Trump, it's about a destabilizing accusation from a government department. If they can do that about the President you don't like, they can do it about the President you do like Again, the hard evidence, tangible and verifiable, is about the same for both I am open to be proven wrong, believe me, but links to indictments is not proof
  - Thorrez 6y ago
    You said > unsubstantiated reports from anonymous sources that the DNC emails were hacked by Russia and released through Wikileaks. A US government report is not anonymous. That's very clear who the source of that report is. It's the US government. I would also hesitate to call is unsubstantiated. There's a lot of substance in the indictment, including specific dates and times of actions, and names of the attackers. > there is as much hard evidence for one as the other, and both are damaging, destabilizing allegations No, there is more hard evidence for the DNC hack. If you want more hard evidence, see CrowdStrike's analysis[1], Google Search logs[2][3], ThreatConnect's analysis of email headers[4][5], Secureworks's analysis[6], Fidelis's analysis[7], FireEye's analysis[8]. [1] https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24379210 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24379210 [3] http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/roger-stone-affidavits-729845 http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/roger-stone-aff... [4] https://threatconnect.com/blog/guccifer-2-all-roads-lead-russia/ https://threatconnect.com/blog/guccifer-2-all-roads-lead-rus... [5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16653671 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16653671 [6] https://www.secureworks.com/research/threat-group-4127-targets-hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign https://www.secureworks.com/research/threat-group-4127-targe... [7] https://fidelissecurity.com/threatgeek/archive/findings-analysis-dnc-intrusion-malware/ https://fidelissecurity.com/threatgeek/archive/findings-anal... [8] https://www.fireeye.com/content/dam/fireeye-www/solutions/pdfs/st-senate-intel-committee-russia-election.pdf https://www.fireeye.com/content/dam/fireeye-www/solutions/pd...
    - rendall 6y ago
      I know that you believe it's true, and so your bar for hard evidence is lower than if you were skeptical, but I personally don't find affidavits on "The Smoking Gun" convincing; neither am I impressed by Crowdstrike's blog saying they have evidence, and then providing a bunch of links to other people who also say they have evidence, much as you have done here [8] mentions "forensic details in the malware". Great! I want to be convinced! That is hard evidence! However, [8] does not contain details. What specific forensic details, though? I have followed that rabbit hole. There was a limited release of the forensic details: the unclassified, public forensic evidence does not and cannot show the allegations to be true. It doesn't refute them, either, but it only shows that someone used (outdated!) malware that is available to any script kiddie, not state-level superhackerware. Stuxnet it ain't. There are allusions to classified evidence that irrefutably demonstrates that Russia and Putin were involved. So, again, if you are inclined to believe the story, then "The CIA and NSA have evidence, but it's classified" is enough. Maybe it's true? Unknown. If you are disinclined to believe it, or want hard evidence before you decide, then it looks suspicious. Destabilizing governments and throwing FUD is what the CIA does. This is documented. That's its expertise. That's its hammer. It doesn't mean that they are lying this time, but ... I mean, come on, it's the CIA. Reasonable people can be suspicious that the spooks are lying, here. Perhaps they are partisan Democrats, distracting from the content of the emails. Perhaps they are never-Trump Republicans. Perhaps Trump is a Russian asset indeed. Who knows? They don't show their hand. Nor hard evidence. Hard evidence is not "Trust us, we have names, dates and credible intelligence" with lots and lots of footnotes Now that you know what hard evidence would convince me, would you mind going through that list of links and finding it? If it's not there, consider that hard evidence does not exist. So, to recap: specific forensic evidence is great! Specifically "forensic details in the malware". That. Show me that. Or something equivalent Links to people saying they have reviewed the forensic evidence and concluded Russians were involved, testimony before Congress, CIA reports without that forensic evidence, HN discussions, affidavits and such are not it.
mellow-lake-day 6y ago
>4 years later, however, these remain allegations only As the other user already pointed out this was has been proven. And they also have the exact unit and names of the Russian intelligence officers who did the hacking. Please stop spreading disinformation about this.
- rendall 6y ago
  An indictment is an accusation, not a conviction "Please stop spreading disinformation about this." Alas, the disinformation is that it has been proven. Absolutely happy to be incorrect, but, again, it is an extraordinary claim, and the evidence for such a destabilizing claim is lacking
  - mellow-lake-day 6y ago
    How are you going to convict Russian intelligence officers? You think Russia will hand them over? Again the hard evidence that you are dying to see is classified and would reveal American hacking capabilities. If Putin is not willing to send over his officers who did that hacking, then why should the US government give up the evidence for nothing in return? Revealing how America identified the Russian hackers would be extremely valuable for Putin and his KGB/GRU operatives. They can use this information to better their hacking operations in the future.
    - rendall 6y ago
      > Again the hard evidence that you are dying to see is classified and would reveal American hacking capabilities. < Then we are back to exactly what I said at the start: they remain allegations only. Nothing has been proven, as you said. One either believes anonymous sources within the CIA and the people who believe them, or one wants evidence for such an extraordinary claim. Remember: it's not just about Russians, but the original allegation was that the Trump campaign was involved. That has been very quietly walked back. The DNC was definitely hacked and the content of the emails were embarrassing to powerful people, but whenever the content of the emails are discussed, people start shouting about Russians and Trump's love of Putin. This is very convenient to these same powerful people The email exposure could have been a revelatory renaissance for the DNC, a real moment of self-aware house-cleaning. I was really hoping they would slim down and become a truly effective opposition party. Instead, it's Russians. Given the lack of evidence and the unprecedented political climate, particularly the distraction from the emails themselves, I would like more evidence than "Trust the DNC and the CIA and the NSA when we say: Trump colluded with Russians to get elected!" Do new Presidents have a meeting with Head Spook who says "Support our illegal, unethical mass surveillance program or we'll make everyone think you like to get peed on"? Every single American should demand that evidence even if they despise Trump. The same destabilizing allegation can be made against anyone without that requirement for evidence irrespective of political persuasion. I would be this oppositional on behalf of Clinton, Biden, Obama, anyone. You should too.

Thorrez 6y ago

> 4 years later, however, these remain allegations only, the lack of which drives the idea of a deep state conspiracy in conservative circles There was an indictment by the federal government[1][2]. That's certainly more reliable than a computer repairman finding an email on a hard drive on an abandoned computer. [1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/grand-jury-indicts-12-russian-intelligence-officers-hacking-offenses-related-2016-election https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/grand-jury-indicts-12-russian... [2] https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download

rendall 6y ago
An indictment is an allegation, as I said. An allegation is not proof If you are indicted for a crime, the prosecutor must prove the allegations If you are inclined to believe the allegation, your bar for proof will be quite low. Perhaps the accusation is enough. For me, a destabilizing accusation like that requires more proof than anonymous CIA sources saying its true. I wish more Americans would put their dislike of Trump aside and demand that proof. It's not about Trump, it's about a destabilizing accusation from a government department. If they can do that about the President you don't like, they can do it about the President you do like Again, the hard evidence, tangible and verifiable, is about the same for both I am open to be proven wrong, believe me, but links to indictments is not proof
- Thorrez 6y ago
  You said > unsubstantiated reports from anonymous sources that the DNC emails were hacked by Russia and released through Wikileaks. A US government report is not anonymous. That's very clear who the source of that report is. It's the US government. I would also hesitate to call is unsubstantiated. There's a lot of substance in the indictment, including specific dates and times of actions, and names of the attackers. > there is as much hard evidence for one as the other, and both are damaging, destabilizing allegations No, there is more hard evidence for the DNC hack. If you want more hard evidence, see CrowdStrike's analysis[1], Google Search logs[2][3], ThreatConnect's analysis of email headers[4][5], Secureworks's analysis[6], Fidelis's analysis[7], FireEye's analysis[8]. [1] https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24379210 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24379210 [3] http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/roger-stone-affidavits-729845 http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/roger-stone-aff... [4] https://threatconnect.com/blog/guccifer-2-all-roads-lead-russia/ https://threatconnect.com/blog/guccifer-2-all-roads-lead-rus... [5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16653671 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16653671 [6] https://www.secureworks.com/research/threat-group-4127-targets-hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign https://www.secureworks.com/research/threat-group-4127-targe... [7] https://fidelissecurity.com/threatgeek/archive/findings-analysis-dnc-intrusion-malware/ https://fidelissecurity.com/threatgeek/archive/findings-anal... [8] https://www.fireeye.com/content/dam/fireeye-www/solutions/pdfs/st-senate-intel-committee-russia-election.pdf https://www.fireeye.com/content/dam/fireeye-www/solutions/pd...
  - rendall 6y ago
    I know that you believe it's true, and so your bar for hard evidence is lower than if you were skeptical, but I personally don't find affidavits on "The Smoking Gun" convincing; neither am I impressed by Crowdstrike's blog saying they have evidence, and then providing a bunch of links to other people who also say they have evidence, much as you have done here [8] mentions "forensic details in the malware". Great! I want to be convinced! That is hard evidence! However, [8] does not contain details. What specific forensic details, though? I have followed that rabbit hole. There was a limited release of the forensic details: the unclassified, public forensic evidence does not and cannot show the allegations to be true. It doesn't refute them, either, but it only shows that someone used (outdated!) malware that is available to any script kiddie, not state-level superhackerware. Stuxnet it ain't. There are allusions to classified evidence that irrefutably demonstrates that Russia and Putin were involved. So, again, if you are inclined to believe the story, then "The CIA and NSA have evidence, but it's classified" is enough. Maybe it's true? Unknown. If you are disinclined to believe it, or want hard evidence before you decide, then it looks suspicious. Destabilizing governments and throwing FUD is what the CIA does. This is documented. That's its expertise. That's its hammer. It doesn't mean that they are lying this time, but ... I mean, come on, it's the CIA. Reasonable people can be suspicious that the spooks are lying, here. Perhaps they are partisan Democrats, distracting from the content of the emails. Perhaps they are never-Trump Republicans. Perhaps Trump is a Russian asset indeed. Who knows? They don't show their hand. Nor hard evidence. Hard evidence is not "Trust us, we have names, dates and credible intelligence" with lots and lots of footnotes Now that you know what hard evidence would convince me, would you mind going through that list of links and finding it? If it's not there, consider that hard evidence does not exist. So, to recap: specific forensic evidence is great! Specifically "forensic details in the malware". That. Show me that. Or something equivalent Links to people saying they have reviewed the forensic evidence and concluded Russians were involved, testimony before Congress, CIA reports without that forensic evidence, HN discussions, affidavits and such are not it.

mellow-lake-day 6y ago

>4 years later, however, these remain allegations only As the other user already pointed out this was has been proven. And they also have the exact unit and names of the Russian intelligence officers who did the hacking. Please stop spreading disinformation about this.

rendall 6y ago
An indictment is an accusation, not a conviction "Please stop spreading disinformation about this." Alas, the disinformation is that it has been proven. Absolutely happy to be incorrect, but, again, it is an extraordinary claim, and the evidence for such a destabilizing claim is lacking
- mellow-lake-day 6y ago
  How are you going to convict Russian intelligence officers? You think Russia will hand them over? Again the hard evidence that you are dying to see is classified and would reveal American hacking capabilities. If Putin is not willing to send over his officers who did that hacking, then why should the US government give up the evidence for nothing in return? Revealing how America identified the Russian hackers would be extremely valuable for Putin and his KGB/GRU operatives. They can use this information to better their hacking operations in the future.
  - rendall 6y ago
    > Again the hard evidence that you are dying to see is classified and would reveal American hacking capabilities. < Then we are back to exactly what I said at the start: they remain allegations only. Nothing has been proven, as you said. One either believes anonymous sources within the CIA and the people who believe them, or one wants evidence for such an extraordinary claim. Remember: it's not just about Russians, but the original allegation was that the Trump campaign was involved. That has been very quietly walked back. The DNC was definitely hacked and the content of the emails were embarrassing to powerful people, but whenever the content of the emails are discussed, people start shouting about Russians and Trump's love of Putin. This is very convenient to these same powerful people The email exposure could have been a revelatory renaissance for the DNC, a real moment of self-aware house-cleaning. I was really hoping they would slim down and become a truly effective opposition party. Instead, it's Russians. Given the lack of evidence and the unprecedented political climate, particularly the distraction from the emails themselves, I would like more evidence than "Trust the DNC and the CIA and the NSA when we say: Trump colluded with Russians to get elected!" Do new Presidents have a meeting with Head Spook who says "Support our illegal, unethical mass surveillance program or we'll make everyone think you like to get peed on"? Every single American should demand that evidence even if they despise Trump. The same destabilizing allegation can be made against anyone without that requirement for evidence irrespective of political persuasion. I would be this oppositional on behalf of Clinton, Biden, Obama, anyone. You should too.