Seth Rich, Craig Murray and the Sinister Stewards of the National Security State

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

The hatred of the media towards trump is unprecedented, as even liberal such as Glenn Greenwald agree.

Ok. Does that mean they are creating fake news to smear Trump or providing any content that is more partisan than what we witnessed during the Obama admin?

No.

This is not unprecedented. This is par for the course in politics and the Right Wing/pro-Trump crowd are not dealing well, considering their victim mentality.

When it comes to their feet being held to the fire or experiencing criticism, they are snowflakes.

No its not at all. There is a thread about a Harvard study that shows anti trump media bias.

How many times in 8 years of Obama was his day to day conversations leaked to the media?

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: proximo

Please explain to me how Seth rich is more of a conspiracy than Russia collusion.

Because you do not have an entire nation's IC community not only saying Russia may be involved, but they are currently investigating other Russian connections.

Seth Rich...nothing more than some people suggesting some things, being reported and then retracted.

Again your comments belie your claims of waiting for evidence.

So you will take the IC word that Russia did it without the providing any evidence.

just be honest instead of attempting to appear impartial.

I'm not taking anyone's word yet.

I was asked about one aspect being more of a "conspiracy" than the other.

When considering which aspect may be more of a conspiracy than another, there is more weight to one than the other.

The Seth Rich issue has more of a "conspiracy" to it, in relation to the Russia-connection issue.

I'm being honest. You're not reading or understanding the context of my reply.

a reply to: Grambler

No its not at all. There is a thread about a Harvard study that shows anti trump media bias.

If I remember correctly, that study does not have any info relating to bias intent within the media. Correct me if I am wrong.

I've noticed that many people refuse to consider the idea that very little of the current stories would be news at all if it weren't for the actions of Trump and those around him.

How many times in 8 years of Obama was his day to day conversations leaked to the media?

Wait. Are you blaming the media or people within Trump's camp? The media can only report that stuff after it has been leaked.

That shows little faith or respect within the Trump camp and the media is only reporting what they have been fed from within.

a reply to: introvert

I am telling you that true liberal like Glenn Greenwald have been honest about the anti Trump agendaa, and they hate Trump.

I am also telling you that any person with any degree of objectivity can see that both theb establishment political parties and the Intelligence Community and the main stream media hate trump more than any canidate in memory, and have gobne out of their way to attack him in every way possible.

You can willfully ignore the evidence if you want, but it just allows any reasonably objective person to see that you are ignoring reality.

a reply to: Grambler

I'm not ignoring reality. I'm waiting for facts before I decide what reality is.

You're using conspiracy, logical fallacies, victim-mentality and hypocrisy to decide your reality.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

I'm not ignoring reality. I'm waiting for facts before I decide what reality is.

You're using conspiracy, logical fallacies, victim-mentality and hypocrisy to decide your reality.

I also am waiting for facts. And I can see the facts that the media and establishment are attacking Trump at unprecedented levels.

You claim that you are waiting for facts, but then claim things such as the Russian hack narrative is far more likely despite having no more evidence shown to you because the IC says so. This is not waiting for facts.

a reply to: introvert
I just want to say that I stepped back and realize my tone with you may be to confrontational.

Lets be honest, we are probably coming from very different sides of the political spectrum. The fact that you are willing to listen to evidence before making a judgement, even if you are leaning to one side is no different than me, and so I apologize for my tone.

I have enjoyed our conversation and will try my best to be more civil.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: proximo

Please explain to me how Seth rich is more of a conspiracy than Russia collusion.

Because you do not have an entire nation's IC community not only saying Russia may be involved, but they are currently investigating other Russian connections.

Seth Rich...nothing more than some people suggesting some things, being reported and then retracted.

A. Hacking or attempted hacking by Russians does not prove Any of the wikileaks came from these Russians. There is no proof any files were actually taken that I am aware of.

B. I would be surprised if there wasn't Russians trying to hack the DNC, RNC, etc every month, so why is it important anyway?

C. DNC denied FBI the ability to examine servers. The sources for any hacking info are provided by a company paid for by the DNC, hardly an unbiased source.

D. What in the DNC leaks even help Trump? Ninety percent of the dirt is how the DNC is screwing Bernie.

E. How in any way does a Russian hack tie to the Trump campaign colluding? If all the leaks are from Russian hackers, why the heck would they need to communicate with the trump campaign at all? I mean the October surprise is not a new concept.

a reply to: Grambler

So whats your point, the intercept confused the crowdtrike investigation into Russia with guccifer on this point.

Fine its irrelevant.

Did crowdstrike find out it was Russia because they left some directories the same name and used the same address?

Is this unbelievably sloppy hacking?

See, this is why this matters. No, the hacking was not sloppy. The hacking reflects a level of sophistication far beyond that of someone who would leave metadata like that in MS Office docs unless it was done intentionally.

This wouldn't have been some sort of drive by website defacement or smash and grab data theft. According to Crowdstrike, the ongoing attack was monitored for something like two weeks before the attackers got the boot. Crowdstrike would have deployed their own IDS, monitored the network for suspicious traffic, isolated the implants, etc.

The goal in the case would have been to avoid detection, quietly siphoning useful data for as long as possible. The attackers would have known that the longer they were there, the greater the opportunity for detection. It's not sloppy at all, it's a calculated risk.

And your motherboard article is also linking the Guccifer hacls to russia. As did the crowdstrike folk it appears. Rid in the motherboard article specifically states that the name drop discussed here proves Guccifer was in fact Russian. The part of the article you don't paste.

The part of the article I didn't paste? Well damn. Are you implying that I deliberately excluded information to mislead? Because I did not. I grabbed the first article I had bookmarked that I knew contrasted the hackers and G2 and pasted relevant excerpts. I think that's massively unfair on your part considering that I spent hours responding to a barrage of questions from a number of posters, nearly all of them hostile to my position.

The point is that from the beginning, the contrast had been made between the sophistication of the hacks and the sloppiness (or seeming sloppiness) of G2. That is contrary to the argument made by the Intercept author which is what you keep repeating:

The article in the inetrcept is saying that Crowdstrike praised the hackers as being very shrewd, yet claims they caught them because of things such as signatures they left in. Here is what your motherboard article states.

Except the signatures that the Intercept author is referring to is the metadata in the Office docs provided by G2, which is NOT what Crowdstrike was relying on for its attribution. In other words, the author is making a straw man to call into question Crowdstrike's assessment.

Here are some other articles addressing the same thing:
ThreatConnect - Guccifer 2.0: All Roads Lead to Russia

As we pointed out in our previous analysis, we conclude Guccifer 2.0 is an apparition created under a hasty Russian D&D campaign, which has clearly evolved into an Active Measures Campaign. Those who are operating under the Guccifer 2.0 Twitter, WordPress and Email communications are likely made up a cadre of non-technical politruk attempting to establish “Guccifer 2.0” as a static fixture on the world stage along the likes of Manning, Assange or Snowden. Their use of Russian VPN services with French infrastructure may shed light on a method Russian intelligence operatives use — domestic services coupled with foreign infrastructure — to help hide their hand and deter any potential attribution to Russia.

Vocativ - Guccifer 2.0 Is Likely A Russian Begging Us To Write About DNC Hack

Strong evidence that Guccifer 2.0 is both Russian and not really a hacker comes from the hacked DNC document he sent Vocativ via encrypted email—because he sent it from a French AOL account.

“To the layman, this is not a big deal. But to somebody in the security industry, who thinks like a hacker, this is a big red flag,” Rich Barger, Director of Threat Intelligence at cybersecurity company ThreatConnect, told Vocativ. “No self-respecting hacker uses a free webmail service provider that imprints emails with X-originating-IPs. This is basic stuff you know.”

NYT - Why Security Experts Think Russia Was Behind the D.N.C. Breach

You seem stuck on the fact that the source believe that G2 is Russian and you're missing my point which is that the prevailing hypothesis (on the not-denying-Russia-hacking side) is that G2 is actually a persona created and maintained by D&D agents NOT part of the groups that hacked the DNC.

The Intercept author's attempt to dismiss Crowdstrike on the grounds that they are talking out both sides of their mouths or have cognitive dissonance — whatever — is false and is therefore a straw man. If that's clear, I'm throwing my hands up.

The fact that you claim Rid doesn't claim Guccifer 2 isn't involved with Rusian hacks when the very article from him you post says the exact opposite makes me question rather you are so willing to discredit this story that you are misreading, or that you are intentionally misleading people as to what your article says.

Wow. Another baseless insinuation. That's disappointing. No. I'm not trying to mislead anyone. You're just not seeing the distinction despite my best efforts to point it out. I never said that G2 wasn't Russian (or was Russian for that matter) and I'm not misreading anything.

The point wasn't that G2 wasn't Russian, it was simply that the level of sophistication indicated by evidence regarding G2 was very low in contrast to the sophistication of the hackers which was very high and that this disparity has been roundly discussed from the jump.

I stand by what I said. Maybe with fresh eyes you'll see my point rather than concluding that I'm being disingenuous or blind.

Anyway, it's now Tuesday. Time to move on to the next event in this debacle. We'll see what KDC produces.

a reply to: Grambler
i too beleive that seth rich was the source not the russians. and why pray tell would the russians spy on the dnc they have computer access to top secret us data. it is funny how after saying they were hacked they would not let an fbi computer forensics team to examine their computers. what other juice where they hiding

a reply to: theantediluvian

I am backing up in an effort to not be snotty when possting, so I am sorry if I came off as a jerk.

Ok, you claim this on your post.

Neither Crowdstrike, to the very best of my knowledge, nor any of the other prominent voices in this discussion (including Rid) have ever claimed that "Guccifer 2.0" is part of the hacking operation. In fact, they have instead pointed to the many issues with GC2.

But rid says in the very article you post that it seems to him as if Guccifer 2.0 and his mistakes seem like a "GRU false flag". He says the exact opposite of what you claim he is saying, that Guccifer 2.0 is russian hacker. He goes inito great detail explaining this.

Your Voactiv article also says Guccifer is a russian ploy. So it seems your assertion that no serious voice claims this appearss wrong. It seems to me he is Russian when it helps the narrative, and hes not when it helps.

And keep in mind, the IC says not only were the hacks Russian, but they went to the highest levels of their government. Where is any evidence to prove that?

I will grant you that Crowd strike seems to be refering to the Guccifer 2.0 hack when it mentions leaving a Russian name.

But the point is the whole hack was sloppy. The crowdstrike article you posted says it took them TWO HOURS!!! to find out it was Russia! It was able to do so because it left file names and address signatures that were the same as past Russian hacks.

We are to believe that one of the most sophisticated hacking operations the world has ever seen was able to be discovered in merely 2 hours by a private contractor because they used the same file names and signatures?

And again, none of this takes into consideration the wikileaks that shows the US intelligence agencies have tools that can make it seem like the hack came from another actor, and these tools have fallen into the hands of others.

So I would assume if the Russians didn't get these very same tools, they have something remotely similar, or at least understand the importance of not using the same file names and addresses. Yet they didn't bother to even attempt to cover their tracks.

And none of this even gets into the fct that Crowdstrike was inaccurate of theeir assessment of Fancy Bear in the Ukraine. But still, the FBI is relying solely on their investigation which found out is was the Russians in two hours! That doesn't even make sense of the face of it!

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

I'm not ignoring reality. I'm waiting for facts before I decide what reality is.

You're using conspiracy, logical fallacies, victim-mentality and hypocrisy to decide your reality.

I also am waiting for facts. And I can see the facts that the media and establishment are attacking Trump at unprecedented levels.

You claim that you are waiting for facts, but then claim things such as the Russian hack narrative is far more likely despite having no more evidence shown to you because the IC says so. This is not waiting for facts.

That is my opinion based on what we have to work with. I do think the Russia aspect is much more likely. Even though we do not have all of the evidence yet and cannot come to a solid conclusion, we can speculate based on what we know or make guesses as to how this will turn out.

My bet is that is that Russia is the main player.

I have enjoyed our conversation and will try my best to be more civil.

I enjoy it as well.

a reply to: proximo

A. Hacking or attempted hacking by Russians does not prove Any of the wikileaks came from these Russians. There is no proof any files were actually taken that I am aware of.

You may want to listen to what the Former CIA director Brennan is saying in today's open hearing.

B. I would be surprised if there wasn't Russians trying to hack the DNC, RNC, etc every month, so why is it important anyway?

If it involves the Russian government trying to spread leaks/propaganda in order to change public opinion in regards to our elections, that is important.

C. DNC denied FBI the ability to examine servers. The sources for any hacking info are provided by a company paid for by the DNC, hardly an unbiased source.

Perhaps the FBI doesn't need to look at the server to know what they know.

D. What in the DNC leaks even help Trump? Ninety percent of the dirt is how the DNC is screwing Bernie.

Good question. Maybe it casts enough doubt on the integrity of the DNC that it swayed a small number of voters. I'm just spit-balling. I can't say for sure.

E. How in any way does a Russian hack tie to the Trump campaign colluding? If all the leaks are from Russian hackers, why the heck would they need to communicate with the trump campaign at all? I mean the October surprise is not a new concept.

I have not mentioned anything about collusion. They very well may not have colluded. The problem is that while Russia was doing what they were doing, people within the Trump camp were in communication with the Russians.

We have to investigate that to see if there were unsavory connections or ill intent.

a reply to: introvert

I just listened. What do you think you heard?

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: introvert

I just listened. What do you think you heard?

I believe he said that Russia used Guccifer 2.0 and Wikileaks to disseminate their leaks/propaganda. It's still on going, but hopefully we will have videos soon to verify precisely what he said.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: introvert

I just listened. What do you think you heard?

I believe he said that Russia used Guccifer 2.0 and Wikileaks to disseminate their leaks/propaganda. It's still on going, but hopefully we will have videos soon to verify precisely what he said.

I hope I can find a video of this.

But if you have been following the conversation between ante and I, this is another person saying Guccifer 2.0 was a Russian state actor. Ante claims no one serious is claiming this, but hear we go again.

Again, the narrative is constantly changing to make Russia the boogey man.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: introvert

I just listened. What do you think you heard?

I believe he said that Russia used Guccifer 2.0 and Wikileaks to disseminate their leaks/propaganda. It's still on going, but hopefully we will have videos soon to verify precisely what he said.

I took from his words one really key thing:

He confirmed contacts between Americans (both in the Trump campaign and not in the campaign) that he passed to the FBI for investigation but would not characterise them as collusion - this makes sense and is somewhat encouraging in that it suggests no specific campaign or person was targeted. Also he confirmed that the committee had details of who was in the contact list and the details of the contacts. That is important because it was the Republicans like Gowdy trying to get him to go public on that detail... this, to me at least, is telling. It's clear the Republicans want the public to know what they know, but the Democrats seem uninterested in pushing for this.

a reply to: Grambler

I hope I can find a video of this.

I'm watching the live stream now and have not taken the time to see if anything has been uploaded. If you find something, please share.

But if you have been following the conversation between ante and I, this is another person saying Guccifer 2.0 was a Russian state actor. Ante claims no one serious is claiming this, but hear we go again.

I can't comment on that.

Again, the narrative is constantly changing to make Russia the boogey man.

That narrative may be correct. Russia may be the "boogey man".

a reply to: UKTruth

I believe that is correct. That's what he said.

He also said that his knowledge is limited as to the current state of the investigation, because he passed it over to the FBI and is not part of that investigation.

What he saw did not suggest collusion. Now we need to know what the FBI has come up with.

a reply to: UKTruth

Did you catch what he just said about Russia and Wikileaks?