GRIZZLY STEPPE – Russian Malicious Cyber Activity

a reply to: UKTruth

Until there is proper evidence we just have the word of the govt. If that is your bar, then I will assume you will be believing everything the administration has to say from Jan 21st 2017 onwards?

Of course not; I don't believe everything they say now. However, as you know, I have been following and analyzing Russia's overt and covert foreign policies for quite some time now, and in my opinion, the government's claims are consistent with my own analysis. You can accuse me of confirmation bias, but it is not irrational "Russophobia" as the Russian trolls would like you to believe. In fact, I completely understand the reasons why they do what the do, and can't say I wouldn't do the same in their position, as I explain here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

Until there is proper evidence we just have the word of the govt. If that is your bar, then I will assume you will be believing everything the administration has to say from Jan 21st 2017 onwards?

Of course not; I don't believe everything they say now. However, as you know, I have been following and analyzing Russia's overt and covert foreign policies for quite some time now, and in my opinion, the government's claims are consistent with my own analysis. You can accuse me of confirmation bias, but it is not irrational "Russophobia" as the Russian trolls would like you to believe. In fact, I completely understand the reasons why they do what the do, and can't say I wouldn't do the same in their position, as I explain here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You are not focused on the point. Nobody will argue against the fact that the Russians (as well as others) hack US institutions.

The key claim, though, is that the Russians gave wikileaks the documents. There is no evidence of this and a lack of information provided (that must be available if it really happened and not secret - like server logs)

China also hack other countries repeatedly (though you don;t seem to have done any analysis on them) and indeed are on the reported list of IP's in the attachment provided with the report.
So why, for example, do you believe Russia did it and not China (or any other country)?

Your previous analysis of Russia does not provide any basis for you to choose other than pure belief in what the govt. is saying, so we can take your previous analysis of Russia (confirmation bias or not) off the table as the reason for your conclusion.

a reply to: UKTruth

You are not focused on the point. Nobody will argue against the fact that the Russians (as well as others) hack US institutions.

Then we agree that Russia had the ability and opportunity to hack the emails. Now we need to establish a motive, and eliminate other suspects.

The key claim, though, is that the Russians gave wikileaks the documents. There is no evidence of this and a lack of information provided (that must be available if it really happened and not secret - like server logs)

But there is plenty of circumstantial evidence, which you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge. Putin does not like Hillary Clinton for any number of reasons. If she were to become President, tensions between Russia and the United States would certainly increase; Russian analysts and propaganda affirm this. Undermining Clinton's political authority would be advantageous to Russian interests. It would rob her of the political support she would need if she wanted to take an aggressive stance. This is motive.

As it turns out, the strategy was more effective than anticipated. Clinton's campaign failed on its own merits, and the Kremlin now has to deal with the joker in the deck. Fortunately, there were a series of policy tests that worked out favorably for Russia. Trump has shown a willingness to accept Russia's acquisition of Crimea, and has selected a Secretary of State who stands to profit if sanctions against Russia are repealed. Unfortunately, he may not have the support of his own party in Congress, and he, too, might eventually find his goals in conflict with Putin's. There's nothing like a martial victory to make a country great again.

China also hack other countries repeatedly (though you don;t seem to have done any analysis on them) and indeed are on the reported list of IP's in the attachment provided with the report.
So why, for example, do you believe Russia did it and not China (or any other country)?

We have established opportunity and motive; time to eliminate the other suspects. Clinton would certainly have continued to maintain economic ties with China, and would probably have tried to settle the ongoing territorial claims diplomatically. Once she renounced her support for the TPP, there was no reason for China to find her undesirable as a President. Trump, on the other hand, has been very vocal in his dislike of China. He has accused them of currency manipulation, unfair trade practices, has promised to take jobs away from them, and has now publicly admitted he rejects the "one China" policy.

Of the other suspects, it is safe to assume that the "Five" favored Clinton. The only other suspect that cannot be cleared is Israel. Trump has shown himself to favor the Greater Israel faction, so it is quite possible that elements in Israel's military or intelligence apparat was trying to help him out. This is a bit of a long shot, as Clinton has proven herself to be sufficiently malleable to Israeli needs.

Your previous analysis of Russia does not provide any basis for you to choose other than pure belief in what the govt. is saying, so we can take your previous analysis of Russia (confirmation bias or not) off the table as the reason for your conclusion.

My previous analysis confirms the chief suspect's modus operandi. You agree they had the opportunity, and I have demonstrated they had the motive, eliminating all but one other suspect. Or do you believe Putin when he says that it was the work of some fat guy on a couch? Where is his evidence for that? Let me finish for you: the Kremlin's current propaganda ploy is: "We may never know the truth."

a reply to: Chadwickus


Right or wrong the issue is no evidence is provided still.

With the exception of China there is no evidence that the attacks listed in the document did not ULTIMATELY originate from Russia as they could have instigated a distributed attack using computers from outside of their borders.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

You are not focused on the point. Nobody will argue against the fact that the Russians (as well as others) hack US institutions.

Then we agree that Russia had the ability and opportunity to hack the emails. Now we need to establish a motive, and eliminate other suspects.

The key claim, though, is that the Russians gave wikileaks the documents. There is no evidence of this and a lack of information provided (that must be available if it really happened and not secret - like server logs)

But there is plenty of circumstantial evidence, which you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge. Putin does not like Hillary Clinton for any number of reasons. If she were to become President, tensions between Russia and the United States would certainly increase; Russian analysts and propaganda affirm this. Undermining Clinton's political authority would be advantageous to Russian interests. It would rob her of the political support she would need if she wanted to take an aggressive stance. This is motive.

As it turns out, the strategy was more effective than anticipated. Clinton's campaign failed on its own merits, and the Kremlin now has to deal with the joker in the deck. Fortunately, there were a series of policy tests that worked out favorably for Russia. Trump has shown a willingness to accept Russia's acquisition of Crimea, and has selected a Secretary of State who stands to profit if sanctions against Russia are repealed. Unfortunately, he may not have the support of his own party in Congress, and he, too, might eventually find his goals in conflict with Putin's. There's nothing like a martial victory to make a country great again.

China also hack other countries repeatedly (though you don;t seem to have done any analysis on them) and indeed are on the reported list of IP's in the attachment provided with the report.
So why, for example, do you believe Russia did it and not China (or any other country)?

We have established opportunity and motive; time to eliminate the other suspects. Clinton would certainly have continued to maintain economic ties with China, and would probably have tried to settle the ongoing territorial claims diplomatically. Once she renounced her support for the TPP, there was no reason for China to find her undesirable as a President. Trump, on the other hand, has been very vocal in his dislike of China. He has accused them of currency manipulation, unfair trade practices, has promised to take jobs away from them, and has now publicly admitted he rejects the "one China" policy.

Of the other suspects, it is safe to assume that the "Five" favored Clinton. The only other suspect that cannot be cleared is Israel. Trump has shown himself to favor the Greater Israel faction, so it is quite possible that elements in Israel's military or intelligence apparat was trying to help him out. This is a bit of a long shot, as Clinton has proven herself to be sufficiently malleable to Israeli needs.

Your previous analysis of Russia does not provide any basis for you to choose other than pure belief in what the govt. is saying, so we can take your previous analysis of Russia (confirmation bias or not) off the table as the reason for your conclusion.

My previous analysis confirms the chief suspect's modus operandi. You agree they had the opportunity, and I have demonstrated they had the motive, eliminating all but one other suspect. Or do you believe Putin when he says that it was the work of some fat guy on a couch? Where is his evidence for that? Let me finish for you: the Kremlin's current propaganda ploy is: "We may never know the truth."

So you are applying circumstantial evidence which amounts to Putin not liking Hillary as evidence they gave documents to wikileaks. I don't like Clinton either. I share that view with millions of people and more than likely people in her own campaign.

You are speculating, but this is no more valid than speculation that an insider leaked the documents to wikileaks. In fact, probably less so as we have an actual named person who has named the time and the place he received the leaked documents.

We also have the very important fact that simple server logs correlating the wikileaks email dates to the alleged hack dates have not been provided. I do not believe they have them - or they would have produced them. This is not secret information or data that would give up operational processes.

No, the bottom line is there is zero evidence, only speculation and conjecture and your choice is to believe the govt. That is fair enough, you are entitled to believe something. However, I will wait for evidence (any evidence) to be provided before just using faith.

As far as providing proof of another person hacking or indeed references to propaganda, that is irrelevant. A claim has been made and the people making the claim are the ones that have to provide proof. Personally, I make no claim. I just observe the fact that no evidence has been provided.

Leftist are such hypocrites, claiming Russia hacked the election!? Give me a break! The election wasn't hacked! Clinton just lost..... get over it.

originally posted by: rockdisjoint2
Leftist are such hypocrites, claiming Russia hacked the election!? Give me a break! The election wasn't hacked! Clinton just lost..... get over it.

I think even the most staunch democrat understands the election itself was not hacked. The claim, without any evidence, is that Russia hacked the DNC and Podesta and gave the hacked files to wikileaks to do some damage.

a reply to: UKTruth

``I think even the most staunch democrat understands the election itself was not hacked.``

That's where you're wrong mi amigo!

Many democrats think that the Russians hacked our elections, turn on CNN -- that's what they're saying! Even Lindsey Graham (5′ 7″) and Mitch Mcconnell (5′ 6″) are claiming this!

a reply to: UKTruth

Well if I had known Craig was going to come out and say exactly what I said, I'd have kept my mouth shut....

a reply to: DJW001

You are so focused on what you want to be the answer that you are making your "evidence" fit the facts. First of all, everyone in the world has "motive" to back one candidate or another. If you think Russia is the only one, then you have not be an active party to the politics of the world, ever. It sounds to me like you have fallen victim to the propaganda played out by the mainstream media about how each country "feels" about this or that candidate instead of understanding that there are varying factions of ideology in every country, each vying for control. And again, this is only considering state-sponsored hacking...and not hacktivists, whistleblowers, or anyone else who could have ALSO gotten access (and did) to those servers.

No one is denying that Russia or a dozen or more other state-sponsored hackers have access government related servers, let alone private parties like the DNC or RNC. But that doesn't make them the source to Wikileaks.

Furthermore, releasing the TRUTH about who and what those people were really doing is not "hacking an election." Giving people information to make an informed opinion had nothing to do with altering, erasing, or adding ballots at the state level.

a reply to: UKTruth

Just be prepared that if Assange is fully compromised (and I believe he is...), then the Wikileaks server data will also be tampered with for purposes of furthering this agenda.

originally posted by: CIAGypsy
a reply to: UKTruth

Well if I had known Craig was going to come out and say exactly what I said, I'd have kept my mouth shut....

Craig Murray is actually the only witness we have willing to provide some relevant details. I find it astonishing that the intelligence services have not talked to him.

originally posted by: CIAGypsy
a reply to: UKTruth

Just be prepared that if Assange is fully compromised (and I believe he is...), then the Wikileaks server data will also be tampered with for purposes of furthering this agenda.

The thing is they don't even need wikileaks server data. As I mentioned earlier all they have to do is provide the time stamps of the hacked server sessions they have allegedly found. If those time stamps match up the date of the last emails wikileaks have, then they have their smoking gun.

Hereis an example of the type of data that could easily be provided - if it existed:

originally posted by: CIAGypsy
a reply to: UKTruth

Just be prepared that if Assange is fully compromised (and I believe he is...), then the Wikileaks server data will also be tampered with for purposes of furthering this agenda.

You've moved the goalposts completely out of the stadium. Why should the NSA release anything if you're going to say it's fake?

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: CIAGypsy
a reply to: UKTruth

Just be prepared that if Assange is fully compromised (and I believe he is...), then the Wikileaks server data will also be tampered with for purposes of furthering this agenda.

You've moved the goalposts completely out of the stadium. Why should the NSA release anything if you're going to say it's fake?

I think the larger point is they haven't released any evidence yet. I am fast giving up up hope they will even try t back up their story.

originally posted by: TrueAmerican

originally posted by: ignorant_ape

ah so you dont understand iit - but you still know its wrong - priceless

I never said I don't understand it. You did. But you obviously don't. Move along and let the adults sort this out.

Yes you did.

a reply to: CIAGypsy

First of all, everyone in the world has "motive" to back one candidate or another. If you think Russia is the only one, then you have not be an active party to the politics of the world, ever.

Not everyone in the world has the ability to hack into other people's emails. If this were a leak, the leaker would only have leaked incriminating documents, not page after page of press clippings. The volume of these emails seems designed to overwhelm, making the fact that there is nothing incriminating about them difficult to spot, while rinforcing the narrative that "where there's smoke there must be fir." There was neither smoke nor fire. This strategy is not one that a High School prankster would employ, either. A prankster would would make indiscriminate hacks and dump them all at once, the only intent being to demonstrate their prowess.

It sounds to me like you have fallen victim to the propaganda played out by the mainstream media about how each country "feels" about this or that candidate instead of understanding that there are varying factions of ideology in every country, each vying for control.

Please read what I actually wrote; I acknowledged this fact, and have not ruled Israeli hackers out entirely.

And again, this is only considering state-sponsored hacking...and not hacktivists, whistleblowers, or anyone else who could have ALSO gotten access (and did) to those servers.

Once again, the material released and way it was released argues in favor of a specific strategy, one Russia has been known to employ: flood the internet with too much "information," then impose a narrative onto it. (Cf: MH-17. "We may never know the truth.")

No one is denying that Russia or a dozen or more other state-sponsored hackers have access government related servers, let alone private parties like the DNC or RNC. But that doesn't make them the source to Wikileaks.

Nor does it prove that they are not. The MO matches Russia's; Russia seems to be the primary beneficiary. Motive, opportunity, benefit. What part are you not understanding?

Furthermore, releasing the TRUTH about who and what those people were really doing is not "hacking an election."

Where do I ever make that claim? Nowhere. Why must you create a strawman like that? If you are defending the TRUTH, why must YOU LIE?

Giving people information to make an informed opinion had nothing to do with altering, erasing, or adding ballots at the state level.

Once again, I never made that claim. This is a counterfactual narrative being circulated by Russian trolls to obscure the real issue: theft.

originally posted by: rockdisjoint2
a reply to: UKTruth

``I think even the most staunch democrat understands the election itself was not hacked.``

That's where you're wrong mi amigo!

Many democrats think that the Russians hacked our elections, turn on CNN -- that's what they're saying! Even Lindsey Graham (5′ 7″) and Mitch Mcconnell (5′ 6″) are claiming this!

Darn, I keep giving these people a chance, or at least more credit than they deserve.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: CIAGypsy
a reply to: UKTruth

Just be prepared that if Assange is fully compromised (and I believe he is...), then the Wikileaks server data will also be tampered with for purposes of furthering this agenda.

You've moved the goalposts completely out of the stadium. Why should the NSA release anything if you're going to say it's fake?

I think the larger point is they haven't released any evidence yet. I am fast giving up up hope they will even try t back up their story.

Why should they if it will give Russia insight into their capacities while being rejected as evidence by their propaganda echo chamber?