text:
by Steve McIntyre
Hockey Stick Studies
Statistics and R
Contact Steve Mc
Proxy Data
CA blog setup
FAQ 2005
High-Resolution Ocean Sediments
Subscribe to CA
Econometric References
Blog Rules and Road Map
Gridded Data
CA Assistant
« WHO on Douma
PAGES2K (2017) – South America Revisited »
A Russian Spearphishing Domain Is Now Hosted in New York City
Central to the Mueller indictment is attribution to Russia of a spearphishing campaign from domains then located in Romania. It is therefore more than a little surprising that one of these spearphishing domains is not only still in operation in May 2018, but hosted in New York City.
The first article linking the DNC hack to APT28 spearphishing by SecureWorks (here) in June 2016. Secureworks had been tracking APT28 spearphishing for some time through their bitly links. They provided two examples linking respectively to the malicious domains: accounts-google[.com and googlesetting[.com. I've looked at both, but will discuss only the latter in this note. These domains were previously discussed at CA here.
The SecureWorks article showed the following syntax for the hyperlink to googlesetting[.com.
The string ZGlm… expresses the target email (difeitalia.canberra[@]gmail.com) in base64 (see https://www.base64decode.org for conversions). According to public IP records, on April 29, 2015 (the relevant date), googlesetting[.]com resolved to 37.221.165.244, an IP address in Romania. The domain is associated with APT28 by, inter alia, its registrant: Andre Roy, email address ///,: a registrant discussed at CA here. In early 2015, the domain also sometimes resolved to a US IP address (173.194.121.36).
The googlesetting[.]com domain had quite a few contemporary attestations, in particular, inquiries to phishtank by Ukrainian activists associated with Informnapalm. The earliest attestation that I've located occurred on 2014-07-23 in a phishing email to anna.prokaeva[@]gmail.com): see below. At the time, the domain similarly resolved to IP address 37.221.165.244 in Romania:
On 2018-05-26, a spearphishing email with IDENTICAL syntax to the 2014 spearphishing email was reported by Virus Total: see below. The target (omaralshater[@]gmail.com). is, of course, different.
In late May 2018, the domain resolved to IP address 199.59.242.150, hosted by Bodis LLC in New York City: see here; here.
What does this mean? Dunno. But it sure seems odd to see the re-appearance in 2018 of a domain characteristic of the APT28 spearphishing campaign, this time in New York City.
Update (July 20): A commenter observed that Bodis LLC parks hundreds of thousands of unused domains, so the appearance of this domain in May 2018 doesn't, in itself, mean anything. Thinking further on other possibilities, it seems possible that someone, in the course of re-investigating spearphishing events, might have done a search at VirusTotal or other anti-virus service on a string from a 2015 phishing attempt. If such a search was done in May 2018, Virus Total would only know the date of the inquiry, not the date of the phishing attempt. At the end of the day, there doesn't seem to be anything here. I don't wish to contribute to any additional inaccuracy on this murky topic and will consider deleting this post.
This entry was written by Stephen McIntyre, posted on Jul 19, 2018 at 3:07 PM, filed under Uncategorized and tagged googlesetting, hack. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
Posted Jul 19, 2018 at 5:36 PM | Permalink
The first article linking the DNC hack
Mueller mashes up everything into a unitary conspiracy. The spearfishing was aimed at personal accounts of people with the "DNC", Hillary's campaign and others. As for the "Hacking into the DNC Network Mueller says very little to nothing at all:
26b] …and captured data from the victim computers. The AMS panel collected thousands of keylog and screenshot results from the DCCC and DNC computers, such as a screenshot and keystroke capture of DCCC Employee 2 viewing the DCCC's online banking information.
That's it. There is not one item of DNC network material specified as accessed. Instead under "Hacking into the DNC Network" Mueller mentions a DCCC victim. Meaning? Maybe Mueller and the FBI have the DCCC hardware and backup, but like Comey said, they never got the DNC items. The DNC allegations could all be guesswork and reliance on CrowdStrike reports.
BTW, why would the GRU use a "Leased computer in Illnois?"
There are two other places where Mueller specifies "DNC" material accessed, but I mean to point out these show NO proof of independent investigation: "emails" which could be inferred from the WikiLeaks materials, and "opposition research" which is a different problem.
28a] …The Conspirators compressed gigabytes of data from DNC computers, including opposition research.
Is Mueller talking about the Trump opposition research released by Guccifer2? I don't know of any other. But lots of authorities now say that document did not come from the DNC and more likely came from Podesta's in box. This may be an attempt to force the DNC incident, whether leak or hack, into sisterhood with the DCCC and Podesta hacks.
29]…the Conspirators hacked the DNC Microsoft Exchange Server and stole thousands of emails from the work accounts of DNC employees.
This is very unspecific and no "Victim no. x" assignment is given. This statement is likely based on examination of the WikiLeaks material rather than Mueller examination of DNC hardware and sources. Similary the "opposition research" is "evidence" of a DNC hack based on G2's statement that it came from an alleged DNC hack–Mueller is using the alleged GRU agent's statement as evidence of sourcing.
Ron Graf
Posted Jul 19, 2018 at 10:08 PM | Permalink
FTM writes: "But lots of authorities now say that document did not come from the DNC and more likely came from Podesta's in box."
According to Adam Carter's June 3, 2018, update on G2-Space Game Over, the Trump oppo document came from this email to Podesta from Hillary's research director Tony Karrk on 12/21/15 now in the Wikileaks archive. It was opened and copy and pasted into another document in Podesta's emails authored by Warren Flood here. That email doc was forwarded on 12/21/2008 to Podesta from Sara Lanthan, through Kristin Sheehey, through Neera Tanden who apparantly got it from Warren Flood, campaign IT director for Joe Biden (newly elected VP at that time). The Flood document was opened and contents deleted and made a template for 3 of the 5 Guccifer 2.0 documents revealed on 6/15/2016. Doc1 had the Trump oppo content pasted in and the author changed to Felix Dzerzhinsky in Russian Cyrillic language font a half hour later.
My question is whether it is plausible that G2 did not realize that the original author metadata remained unchanged on the template. If G2 did not then it appears G2 was trying to obscure the fact that the document came from a Podesta attachment as identified by it metadata as being modified the day before by Neera Tanden. The same document in the DNC hands likely had a different metadata fingerprint.
Correction: the Neera Tanden fingerprint is on the Warren Flood doc, not the Trump Doc authored by Lauren Dillin. There is another Warren Flood document in WL archive on the same day as the other email here. Both contain scores of liberal pedigrees of the Obama appointees, v interesting.
The Trump oppo doc was a .docx (MS Word 2007 and above) and the Flood attachments are .doc (MS Word 97-2003) if this affected how the metadata was viewed by G2.
It's likely that the Trump oppo document was selected in response to Crowdstrike's Alperovitch telling the news media the day before that Fancy Bear only got away with a Trump oppo document. G2 was trying to take credit for the DNC hack but did not have any DNC documents to prove it. Yet G2 was the first to assert that the DNC hack was the source for the WL announcement 3 days earlier of having "Hillary related emails." This despite that the news media universally falsely reported that WL had Clinton's private server emails. And, the Russians had already been fingered by Alperovitch yet the Russians had never released hacked documents before, and WL policy prohibits the publishing of state sponsored hacks. So associating the DNC Russian labeled hack to WL announcement would have been a risky assertion by one who did not have inside knowledge.
Question: Who would have inside knowledge but no be able to disclose documents as evidence, insider or outside hacker?
I don't see Mueller above writing false leads / labels in his July 13th 2018 official indictment to obscure what really happened or to throw any hounds off scent.
A DNC inside leaker could have been the WL source but that would totally spoil the Trump collusion narrative so no good for the US deep state.
Podesta? There are two brothers mingled in the whole saga, John Podesta managing HRC's campaign and Tony Podesta who was busy in the Ukraine and now under Mueller's scanner. Better add first names. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mueller-now-investigating-democratic-lobbyist-tony-podesta-n812776
Pretty amazing that the FBI can make a huge international domestic espionage case on the DNC hacking – which happened a few miles from their National HQ, while not bothering to confiscate the material hardware involved. Is relaying on a third party disk copy even admissible in US court? Chain of custody?
The equivalent in their criminal branch would be to make a case against a gang of killers without collecting their guns or bullets, letting some private eyes bring evidence.
Yancey Ward
Posted Jul 20, 2018 at 1:28 AM | Permalink
"Is relaying [sic] on a third party disk copy even admissible in US court? Chain of custody?"
I have seen what I think are erroneous reports that claim Crowdstrike serves as a contractor doing such analysis for the FBI in criminal cases, and thus it is perfectly OK for the FBI to not have collected the servers themselves. I think these stories are likely very misleading- it all but certain that in the cases Crowdstrike has testified for the FBI are all cases where Crowdstrike was working with materials the FBI had already physically collected to satisfy chain of custody issues. That will not be the case here if it is true the DNC servers were never collected by the FBI. I don't think there is a federal judge anywhere who would allow Crowdstrike to testify in any criminal action in this case if the servers themselves were never secured first by the FBI.
The evidence described in the indictment goes way beyond the hardware.
They describe web searches and a deletion of history, suggesting they have keyloggers on the targets' computers. This would be a major giveaway of sources and methods.
Equally amazing is that before the US election neither the FBI nor the DNC managed the effort to drive the few miles between their two national headquarters in Washington DC to confirm in person that a hack was going on, while after Trump was elected suddenly no money or effort were spared to hammer on the same issue.
For one it means that US cyber defense is again (DNC, HRC server, House of Rep., patents) proven to be as weak as its attack branch is strong.
So no, not more money, just redirect ample existing funding.
AndyL
The single most surprising thing in all of this (to me anyway) is that there isn't a concerted effort happening to boost US cyber-security. This is just one example of many recent attacks, whoever did it and for whatever reason.
July 2017: Defcon hackers find it's very easy to break voting machines https://www.cnet.com/news/defcon-hackers-find-its-very-easy-to-break-voting-machines/
In India voting machines are not connected to the Internet at all. They are physically collected by election officials for counting = reading an internal chip.
Are the FBI/ NSA / EAC etc. sleeping?
Posted Aug 6, 2018 at 8:45 PM | Permalink
This is also common in the US. I have worked the last 4 or 5 local elections, and the machines are never connected to the Internet. To do upgrades you have to have physical access to the machines.
Posted Aug 6, 2018 at 11:37 PM | Permalink
The US voting machines have unshielded USB ports; the Indian ones don't; they use a VGA kind of external connector which is also sealed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=113&v=Z9gdacMoeHM
Bodis LCC is a company that parks "unused" domain names on Internet for its owners. If accessed by surfers, Bodis counts and some income is generated for the domain name owner. At present Bodis hosts ~ 297,100 domain names; its competition are GoDaddy, Amazon Web Services, Sedo.com etc. https://webhostinggeeks.com/providers/bodis-llc
Registered voters should be emailed an ID code to unlock their online ballot using also other personal ID info. The ballot would be anonymous but could be checked by the voter by later entry of the same ID into a portal. If anyone ever tried to hack the ballots it would be detectable while the votes remain anonymous. Voters who lacked an email or computer could be assigned one in the mail and vote at public computers.
Or they could just not have online balloting.
Josh sacks
Bodis is a domain parker. They try to make money hosting dormant domains. It doesn't mean anything except that domain is dormant.
Posted Jul 20, 2018 at 10:25 AM | Permalink
That's interesting about Bodis LLC.
Here's the underlying report on incident from Virus Total – which I should have included in original post. While the incident report was in May 2018, thinking about it, it's possible that someone submitted an inquiry to Virus Total or other anti-virus service on that date in respect to phishing email from 2015 – possibly because of current interest in past events. This seems the simplest explanation and renders the incident uninteresting.
I'll note this in post and will consider deleting the post to avoid fostering inaccuracies.
I've updated the post to note the possibility/probability of an uninteresting explanation of these phenomena.
Jaap Titulaer
I have a comment in moderation I think. Too many links. Quite relevant I think, so please unblock it.
Can't find it.
OK I'll repost. Your post reminded me of something quite odd.
The phishing emails as described by SecureWorks as quoted above look quite different from the one that was used in the phishing email send to John Podesta, yet they are assumed to be linked as they happened at the same time.
The ones in the phishing campaign as reported by SecurewWorks, and targetiting many people, not just DNC, were like this:
accounts[.]g00qle.com/ServiceLogin/?continue= …&hl=…&sarp=…&docid=…&refer=…&tel=1
myaccounts[.]googlesetting.com/ServiceLogin/?continue= …&hl=…&sarp=…&docid=…&refer=…&tel=1
Notice that despite multiple server names being used, the application on those servers is the same. We can tell from their calling convention (/?continue= …&hl=…&sarp=…&docid=…&refer=…&tel=1) and location of the application in the server directory tree (/ServiceLogin).
Now let's look at the one that Podesta got around the same time (see http://p3isys.com/component/content/article?id=153:podestahack). It was:
myaccount.google[.]com-securitysettingpage.tk/security/signinoptions/password?e=… & fn=….&n=….&img=…
So not just the server is different, the application called is totally different. Yet we are asked to believe that these were the same people at the same time?
Here the location in the tree is /security/signinoptions and the calling convention is password?e=… & fn=….&n=….&img=…
The only one who got a similar phishing mail was Rhinehart (see Mother Jones article) but he got one with com-securitysettingpage.ml instead of com-securitysettingpage.tk; it is therefore not certain that these were indeed the same, just quite likely.
The Rhinehart emails were leaked to DC-leaks, the Podesta one to WikiLeaks.
But whoever did Podesta is not very likely to be related to the group behind the 'ServiceLogin' examples. Yet those are the only ones where arguably some of the servers or IP addresses have been involved in Sofacy/Fancy Bear phishing scams earlier.
This is clear evidence that the Podesta phishing was a separate action from the main phishing operation that was detected by SecureWorks. Attribution to Sofacy on that basis of the Podesta hack is therefore incorrect.
Small update.
They (com-securitysettingpage.ml and com-securitysettingpage.tk) shared the server (IP 80.255.12.237) at some time so these are definitely the same origin. That means that these are merely different names for the same server (at that time).
See https://www.threatcrowd.org/domain.php?domain=com-securitysettingpage.ml
That means that whoever did the accountphishing on Podesta (.tk version) was the same that did the same to Rhinehart (.ml).
So, the John Podesta emails go up on WL and the Billy Rhinehart on DC Leaks. Did the other Hillary For America March-April hacks get published? If not, that seems also a separator.
Does anyone disagree that G2's documents confirm access to John Podesta's emails? Any new thoughts on the 7zip file origin?
And how about this: Would a GRU agent actually write on his blog as G2 did: "F[***] the Illuminati and their conspiracies!!!!!!!!! F[***] [Company 1]!!!!!!!!!" ??
Illuminati? Sounds like word used by an old crank or younger 4channer.
FTM, the profile of G2 clearly shows sophistication in a carefully muddied trail. I don't see a young 4channer. I also don't see a FSB, SVR or GRU agent.
Alperovitch announced the Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear were unaware of each other. If that was true then one G2 was connected with would have learned of the other only 24 hours before he had a sophisticated plan launching into action. A plan that he could not plausibly be coordinated and approved by the Russian IC and Putin. If one of the bears was not FSB, SVR or GRU then all bets are off on a G2 affiliation identity.
I suppose that Putin could earlier have become aware of Fancy and Cozy's concurrent success and approved G2's op but it's difficult to see a purpose to G2's op.
In the US IC's (17 or 4 agency) scenario Russia is sole perpetrator, wants to have WL embarrass rival USA, but feeds the data through a cutout posing as a leaker (whistleblower) to get WL to publish it. But the DNC announces and outs the Russians, thus endangering the WL, so the Russians counter with G2.
Is G2's op effective in this scenario? If the Russian-WL cutout had posed as a Romanian hacker and G2 was bolstering that facade why then leave the Russian Cyrillic fingerprints on the G2 docs? Why leave a Russian VPN trail?
The idea that "Putin" was personally in control and specifically ordered, like an invasion, the hack of Hillary-related people is a fantasy perpetrated by the creator of the Steele "Dossier." That's where the idea came from. It was likely laundered into presidential daily briefings which are being repeatedly "leaked" to the media to this day by the dotards of US intelligence bureaucracies.
Another scenario is the DCCC/G2 actions are "Russian", and their claim about the DNC and Wikileaks was false and meant to "sow confusion.
Although I certainly see Putin's Russia as an omnipresent global adversary I don't understand how they, on one hand, are spending resources trying to ease sanctions and on the other going out of their way to stir the enmity of the presumed future President Hillary, and also allow her to quash the embarrassment by converting it to zeno-outrage (while praying for signs Trump collusion).
Consider these facts:
1) Hillary's DNC and campaign were cyber attacked. Both's security protocols were way substandard and responses slow.
2) Hillary was in the height of a her private email server scandal during the spring of 2016, part of which was her lack of security for classified communication. We know as of last month's IG report that she was actually compromised by several foreign states. Presumably she knew this.
3) We know as of late 2017 that the Dutch compromised the Russians while attacking the DNC, making the attribution of Cozy Bear ironclad. Hillary certainly knew this from her numerous contacts with the Obama administration if the FBI did not outright tell her (DNC) in January 2016.
4) Crowdstrike was called in by Hillary in March for her campaign's attacks yet her DNC was left neglected even after the heads ups and January visit from the FBI.
5) DNC and Crowdstrike have conflicting stories of when CS was called in to the DNC to check their server.
6) Four to five weeks before DNC called CS Paul Manafort came into lead the Trump campaign on March 31.
7) We know now that Hillary knew Manafort was connected to pro-Russian Ukrainian regime lobbying because the Podesta Group partnered with Manafort to grease the Uranium One deal.
8) We know now that Fusion GPS was called by Hillary in mid April, just days after Manafort's arrival. FGPS had a direct connection into the top FBI counter-intelligence officer liaison in the DOJ with Bruce Ohr with wife Nellie on FGPS payroll. All of Trump's foreign policy advisers were assembled at this time and one of them, Carter Page, had a Russia file from 2013 with his name on it.
9) Papadopoulos is named as Trump advisor on March 21, 2016. About three days later he is approached by a British professor with a Hillary email dangle via Russian connection. This slightly pre-dates Manafort arrival.
10) Trump Jr. is approached in May by a British music promoter with a Russian Hillary email dangle. And Jr. agrees to meet with Natalia V. on June 9. She purportedly enters the country with a special visa approved by Loretta Lynch. She also met with FGPS's head Glen Simpson before and after meeting with Jr.
11) FGPS was representing a Russian oligarch in a law suit brought by William Browder, know for his anti-Russian campaign on behalf of his murdered attorney Magnitsy. Natalia V. was working with Fusion on that case while also lobbying people like US Rep. Dana Rohrabacher against the Magnitsky Act sanctions. She thought she was supposed to give this same presentation to Jr. and claimed no knowledge of the music promoter's Hillary email dangle.
12) We know as of last month that at least two FBI intelligence assets were placed into the Trump campaign to dangle Russian Hillary emails or to inquire about them well before a counter-intelligence investigation was officially opened. One of them, Stefan Halper, specifically targeted Carter Page, offering him a paid trip to London to a London conference. The other, going under the alias of Henry Greenberg, approached Roger Stone with a Russian Hillary email dangle. Recall that Stone was also approached by Guccifer 2.0 and is being investigated for that.
13) By the June 12, 2016, DNC announcement of being hacked by the Russians Hillary, the FBI and certainly the Russian knew there was a full blown operation to either frame the Trump campaign or investigate to implicate it for the hacks and WL publishing.
14) At this same time Christopher Steele was putting the finishing touches on the first document of the dossier that would be laundered into the US IC, FISA courts and media in several cross-paths to create a maximum effect.
You mean US IC knew about various HRC / DNC hackers, did nothing about that on purpose trying to create a Trump – Russia case from the (guided) fall out? Mi6 being foreign is a nice legal (and subordinate) shield for domestic CIA ops.
Trump's nomination was only publicly clear on May 3 2016 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/04/us/politics/indiana-republican-democratic.html
Antony, domestic CIA ops are illegal. But with the post-911 firewall lifted they can coordinate with the FBI and perhaps supply assistance. That would be a great way to compartmentalize things. Perhaps this explains Mifsud (Papadopoulos dangle) and Goldstone (Trump Jr dangle). Guccifer 2.0's dangle sheep-dipping Roger Stone seems to fit a familiar pattern here. I wonder if anyone in the intelligence communities notice it. I get the feeling that Nunes, Jordan and some other GOP reps are seeing it. Our host saw it 12 months ago (aided by his known Russian sympathies, I'm sure;).
Antony, domestic CIA ops are outlawed. But post-911 the firewall between FBI and CIA has been lifted and they can coordinate. Perhaps if CIA and MI6 assets are involved this explains Mifsud (Papadopoulos dangle) and Goldstone (Trump Jr dangle). Guccifer 2.0's dangle sheep-dipping Roger Stone seems to fit the now seen pattern.
Ron wrote: "We know as of last month that at least two FBI intelligence assets were placed into the Trump campaign to dangle Russian Hillary emails or to inquire about them well before a counter-intelligence investigation was officially opened. One of them, Stefan Halper, specifically targeted Carter Page, offering him a paid trip to London to a London conference. The other, going under the alias of Henry Greenberg, approached Roger Stone with a Russian Hillary email dangle."
There is SOME reason to believe that Halper met Carter Page for the first time on July 11, 2016 purely by chance and only dangled Clinton email after the investigation opened on July 31. Alleged FBI-informant "Hank Greenberg" certainly approached Caputo and Stone in late May, but his request for $2M isn't consistent with entrapment or a simple dangle. Manafort allegedly was surveilled from 2014 to early 2016 because of his work for Yanukowych. Surveillance was restated in August after he was removed as campaign director. There was allegedly no legal surveillance in place when he was campaign director (MJJ) and met with Natalie V (June 9).
I'm perhaps too willing to believe that the FBI is telling the truth about these subjects. The Intelligence Community certainly received unsolicited intelligence about Trump's activities with Russians from various sources for years before he became a candidate. FBI DD of Counterintelligence Strzok was almost certainly at the center of any "off-the-record" activities that could have begun as soon as Trump's candidacy became viable. In my wildest nightmares, I can even imagine Strzok recruiting Steele and using Bruce Ohr to plant Steele with Fusion GPS.
However, if Strzok or someone else staged the need for an investigation, the January 2017 explosion of news about the investigation would certainly have occurred BEFORE the election. I can't believe in a successful conspiracy that resulted in trivial pre-election publicity for the Steele Dossier.
FWIW, I don't think Mueller can credibly close an investigation without interviewing Trump. The maneuvering began months ago (and presumably will climax with a subpoena of Trump and Mueller's firing.)
Ron: There is SOME reason to believe that Halper met Carter Page for the first time on July 11, 2016 purely by chance and only dangled Clinton email after the investigation opened on July 31. Alleged FBI-informant "Hank Greenberg" certainly approached Caputo and Stone in late May, but his request for $2M isn't consistent with entrapment or a simple dangle. Manafort allegedly was surveilled from 2014 to early 2016 because of his work for Yanukowych. Surveillance was restated in August after he was removed as campaign director. There was allegedly no legal surveillance in place when he was campaign director (MJJ) and met with Natalie V (June 9).
FBI DD of Counterintelligence Strzok was almost certainly at the center of any "off-the-record" activities that could have begun as soon as Trump's candidacy became viable. In my wildest nightmares, I can even imagine Strzok recruiting Steele and using Bruce Ohr to plant Steele with Fusion GPS. However, if Strzok or someone else staged the need for an investigation, the January 2017 explosion of news about Steele and the investigation would certainly have occurred BEFORE the election.
Who expected Trump to become the Republican candidate and when? Few and late. Who expected Trump to beat HRC in the electoral college and when? Even less and only on Dec 19 it was clear. Still having some Strzokian "insurance policy" was done just in case – which he texted in August 2016. The voting happened on November 8th.
The Trump – Russia narrative was shaky and was not thought necessary before the election because they all thought HRC would win hands down. Still they had the guts to come out with it on January 6th 2017 – they knew they had the MSM in their pocket plus the big majority of the (Obama) bureaucracy.
Antonylndia
Latest finger pointing: Clapper + Strzok -> Obama's WH instigated the ongoing investigations into Donald Trump and those in his orbit.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-22/clapper-obama-was-behind-whole-thing
How Peter Strzok can still be working for the FBI or any US governmental organization is an enigma to me, unless he knows too much to be cut loose.
He knew the Chinese hacked HRC's closet server containing all her Secretary of State correspondence but managed to bend all attention to data loss at the Congress party and tie that to Russia and even Trump.
Antony: If no one took Trump seriously as a candidate, they why did they conspire against him to create a phony investigation? Given the unforeseeable response to the re-opening of the email investigation "balance" that disclosure by disclosing an investigation into the Steele Dossier.
Certainly everyone took Trump seriously after voting. The Deep State had a month to engineer a revolt in the Electoral College and the perfect excuse: "Trump had colluded with Russia to get elected." Still they did nothing.
You can't have it both ways: Either the Deep State conspired because they took Trump seriously or they did nothing because they didn't take him seriously.
Antony: In your video, Clapper is discussing the fact that Obama and the Intelligence Community took Russian interference seriously before the election, particularly the hacking of the DNC and state election computers and the history of recent Russian intervention in European elections. They agonized for weeks over how to handle the issue without appearing to favor HRC and thereby aid the Russian goal of creating distrust. Comey drafted an editorial that was never used. (See p 188-191 of Comey's book for details.)
Eventually Clapper (DNI) and Johnson (DHS) issued a report on Russian activities that made no mention of Steele or collusion. The FBI – which was investigating those subjects – was deliberately not included.
Antony: Strzok is no longer working for FBI counterintelligence and has lost his security clearance. Officially he has been reassigned to Human Resources. His future (and that of four others mentioned in the IG's report) is being determined by the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility. Strzok obviously will plead that his is being punished for his political opinions, a violation of the Hatch Act.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/21/extraordinary-strzok-removal-shows-fbi-agents-in-crosshairs-from-ig-probe.html
Frank wrote: "If no one took Trump seriously as a candidate, they why did they conspire against him to create a phony investigation? Given the unforeseeable response to the re-opening of the email investigation "balance" that disclosure by disclosing an investigation into the Steele Dossier."
Don't confuse with the media's lack of respect with the fact that Trump was Obama's worst nightmare and he WAS in the lead for the GOP from the first debate in the summer of 2015 to the clinch in May 2016. If Obama did have nightmares about what Trump would do to his legacy they certainly came true. The ACA (Obamacare) is about the only thing left and its hanging by a thread from a long and painful 8-year failure.
The Dutch handed the Obama IC ironclad evidence behind a Russian DNC cyber-hack in summer of 2015. What did they do with this? They could have announced it, ordered sanctions and warned Putin against daring to meddle in the 2016 election, (as he likely did in every US election). But no, they stayed silent. Do you really believe nobody told Obama? Do you believe that Obama wouldn't have personally told Clinton? The only reasonable explanation is that Cozy Bear was left in place to counter-exploit with maximum pay-off. Payoff for the USA? Yes if Obama and Clinton see themselves as indistinguishable from the USA, as J. E. Hoover did, and as Nixon did.
Another example of the US IC playing politics came out the Strzok hearing but was missed by the MSM. Rep (R) Louis Gohmert brought out that all but 4 of Clinton's 30,000 emails were being copied to an unidentified foreign recipient. When the cyber security's IG lieutenants informed Strzok of this he did NOTHING because he claimed to not recall the meeting. We still don't know what country was listening to all of her business as SOS but I think a safe guess is that it was not Russia. https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/hans-von-spakovsky/clinton-state-departments-major-security-breach-everyone-ignoring
This means that whoever had the Clinton email exploit in place has ALL the Clinton emails, even any that were later deleted.
We must assume that somebody told Obama and Clinton about this in 2015 or early 2016. So they both knew that a foreign power could embarrass her with a WL at any point. Maybe it WAS the Russians. The Russia-Trump collusion would be a perfect inoculation and insurance policy that would contsrain Russia from ever using it. Could one imagine Russia releasing Hillary private server emails now?
Could one imagine Russia releasing Hillary private server emails now?
No, as PR China hacked them, not Russia according to Lisa Page – who knew this from Strzok. The Chinese won't publish now because they love this bar brawl of their two main adversaries, the US and Russia.
True Pundit shows info about Chinese hacks of HRC files https://truepundit.com/fbi-lisa-page-dimes-out-top-fbi-officials-during-classified-house-testimony-bureau-bosses-covered-up-evidence-china-hacked-hillarys-top-secret-emails/ and https://truepundit.com/fbis-comey-covered-up-china-hack-of-hillarys-emails-concealing-intel-from-congress-months-before-election-then-fbi-destroyed-the-evidence/
Method: HRC aid Heather Samuelson used Chinese (State Dep. forbidden) Lenovo laptops containing Chinese backdoors. FBI boss Comey kept mum about this and even managed to have both laptops destroyed. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte wrote Comey about this on Oct. 21 2016.
"No, as PR China hacked them, not Russia according to Lisa Page – who knew this from Strzok."
Politifact says that is a false rumor but they could be Politiwrong.
https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2018/jul/20/yournewswirecom/no-evidence-former-fbi-lawyer-lisa-page-blamed-chi/
Ron, watch the pea: No evidence that former FBI lawyer Lisa Page blamed the Chinese for DNC hack Who is taking about the DNC hack: not Page or Goodlatte who speak about Chinese hacks of HRCs e-mails – from those Lenovo Yoga laptops used her aid Ms. Samuelson. https://www.scribd.com/document/384225319/102116-Letter-to-Director-Comey#from_embed
Antony: The agreement to destroy the laptops was negotiated by the DoJ, not the FBI.
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/chairmen-question-doj-agreement-limit-investigation-secretary-clinton's-private
According to Mr. Comey's book, the FBI was desperately looking for missing email from Clinton's first year, when she was most likely have received written instructions not to use a private server for DoS business. Such a "smoking gun email" would permit indictment. The FBI knew Samuelson and Mills had email from this period and Comey claims he warned the DoJ he wouldn't close the case without having searched their laptops specifically for such documents. Mills and Samuelson were now working in the private sector and their laptops contain confidential information from other clients. I don't understand why destruction was part of the deal.
Given that the laptops were destroyed in June? of 2016, how can anyone know if any potential backdoor was accessed by Chinese hackers. The FBI could only look at files agreed upon by negotiation. I doubt Samuelson volunteered to have possible use of a backdoor checked, possibly exposing her charges.
If a special prosecutor with unlimited time and resources and with a broad charter had done the email investigation, more possibilities could have been pursued. The FBI was tasked by the DoS IG with determining if HRC mishandled classified information by using a private server. Rightly or wrongly, the investigation didn't turn into a fishing expedition. There was probably no point in trying with Lynch having the final say.
Disappearing computer hardware hosting official files seems to be a returning phenomenon during the Obama (Lynch/Comey) administration: https://www.theepochtimes.com/key-evidence-in-house-hacking-probe-mysteriously-disappeared_2554276.html
Posted Aug 19, 2018 at 7:24 PM | Permalink
Ron Graf – "3) We know as of late 2017 that the Dutch compromised the Russians while attacking the DNC, making the attribution of Cozy Bear ironclad. Hillary certainly knew this from her numerous contacts with the Obama administration if the FBI did not outright tell her (DNC) in January 2016."
This is purely speculation by the reporting of the Dutch AVID work. What the Dutch AVID reportedly leaked was that they had compromised the Russians network sometime before the 2014 attacks on the non-secure servers of the State Dept and the NSA had helped the U.S. government in real time during the attacks. The Dutch AVID then state they had been booted from the Russian network within a year of this.
The State and NSA attacks occurred in the summer of 2014. The DNC server attacks started in late Sept, Oct of 2015. The reporter claims that "maybe" the Dutch saw the DNC attacks, but the calendar does not help him out here.
Kan, can you give any sources for your claim that the Dutch did not tip off the US IC to the Russia DNC hack? Many news outlets, starting with the Dutch, reported the opposite.
"In the summer of 2015 Dutch intelligence services were the first to alert their American counterparts about the cyberintrusion of the Democratic National Committee by Cozy Bear," reported Nieuwsuur, which airs on Dutch national broadcaster. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dutch-intelligence-us-fbi-russian-hacking-cozy-bear-democratic-national-committee/
They did. But the FBI told the DNC over and over again, in January they actually visited the DNC because the DNC refused to listen.
The FBI phoned the DNC almost every month starting sometime in summer 2015. Let's be nice, say that it was August (AFAIK it was even earlier).
They called the DNC and DNC did nothing (June/July/Auh?). When asked one month later they indicated that they said it was a prank call.
So the FBI said: well call us back to FBI switchboard. DNC didn't and did nothing (July/Aug/Sept). One month later FBI called again, etc.
It may have been that this was not done monthly (I'll need to check), but say bi-monthly.
With the Dutch calling the FBI:"We still see incoming trafic for IP no's …, … and .. (all DNC)" and later something like "We still see incoming trafic for IP no's …, … and .. (all DNC). Didn't you tell them? A simple virus scan should do the trick, assuming they have better than sub-standard stuff"
Anyways finally the FBI send a SA to the DNC in January 20106 at the latest, to make sure they really understood. He showed them his badge I understand. So no more excuses, right? Wrong. DNC still didn't do a thing.
Jan – Feb – Mar – April – May. Finally in early May 2016 (5th I think, a Friday (evening)/Saturday if I remember correctly) the DNC servers were all taken offline for some kind of maintenance, shortly after arrival of CrowdStrike late April 2016.
To be clear: as far as I can tell the DNC did not want that malware removed. I can't come up with any other scenario. I do not know any organisation that dumb, that inept as the DNC. Never seen that in my entire life. Never.
Even with firms mostly consisting of low-brow lawyers (the bar is really low for lawyers in my country).
I'm sure the ones in US are much smarter as more money can be made, but most lawyers (except people like a mate of mine, who was busy with Artificial Intelligence for Law) understand zero about IT or technology or science in general. But even then. They know when they hear a serious warning and do not ignore that month after month for almost a year.
So I think they did it on purpose. I just have no idea why.
That was June 14th (via WaPo & CS). CS updated their stuff on June 15th for a few details.
The June 12th date is when Assange announced that Wikileaks had some HRC related stuff that they would be releasing in the coming month (HRC campaign by then knew about the Podesta email breach).
Ron: There is SOME reason to believe that Halper met Carter Page for the first time on July 11, 2016 purely by chance and only dangled Clinton email after the investigation opened on July 31.
Nope. No coincidence. Student from Prof. Halper invited Page made the arrangements on Halper's behalf. There were only a handfull of people present at that conference, with several who wanted to hear what Page had to say. Page indicated that he was just there to listen and learn, not to speak.
It is clear the investigation started prior to July 31st. So either FBI was using a CIA asset as an FBI informant prior to opening an investigation, which is quite odd, OR the CIA had already started their own operation (outside USA, but impacting continental USA). Both are illegal AFAIK.
Hence all the questions about who did what, when, why and under who's orders.
Jaap: Respectfully, do you have a source for your claim that a student of Halper's (current associate, or one of hundreds of past students) invited Carter Page. And for the claim that only a "handful" of people attended a meeting with Madeline Albright as featured speaker.
A week before this meeting Page was giving a high profile (commensement?) address in Russia. Wouldn't the attendees have been interested in his fresh insights?
Please allow me to put pre-July 31 activities in a less conspiratorial light.
Putin and Russian money were gaining influence with the radical right long before Trump announced his candidacy. For example, Dana Rohrbacher, informally known as the Congressman from Moscow. Western counter-intelligence agencies were undoubtably monitoring this situation, especially after the invasion of Crimea and civil war in Crimea. Steven Halper met Michael Flynn in 2014. Was it a chance encounter or was this counterintelligence a former head of the DIA associating with Russians? Answer: It doesn't matter. If intentionally directed, "informal ear-to-the-ground", or just two professionals meeting by chance, our counterintelligence services should be legally monitoring links to a increasingly hostile world power.
So, as Trump's rise to nominee became increasingly apparent, we should have expected that normal highly-classified counterintelligence surveillance activities were occurring. Strzok was almost certainly involved. Perhaps there were suspicions about Trump himself before he even became a candidate.
At the same time, Russian intelligence was probably trying to contact and perhaps influence those who were rising to power with Trump. And normal monitoring that activity first brought Papadopoulos to the IC's attention. However, it didn't spark an official criminal investigation (7/31/2016) until hacked materials from the DNC were released in mid-June.
Jaap: Of course, the normal counterintelligence described about could have turned into an anti-Trump conspiracy with Strzok, Steele, or someone else at the center. They could have created the need for an unnecessary investigation into collusion with Russia.
However, we can deduce that this didn't happen. If such as conspiracy had been underway for most or all of 2016, the existence of an officially-approved investigation into collusion into the [faked?] Steele Dossier would have been leaked to the press before the election – as it was in January 2017. In the Deep State you fear, the FBI's October announcements would have been about investigation of Trump, not Clinton.
Jaap: Of course, the normal counterintelligence described above could have turned into an anti-Trump conspiracy with Strzok, Steele, or someone else at the center. They could have created the need for an unnecessary investigation into collusion with Russia – exactly as many suspect.
However, we can deduce that this didn't happen. If such as conspiracy had been underway for most or all of 2016, the existence of an officially-approved investigation into collusion into the [faked?] Steele Dossier would have been announced or leaked to the press before the election. The investigation was in January 2017. In the Deep State you fear, the FBI's October announcements would have been about investigation of Trump, not Clinton.
The other normal activity that has many concerned is the reluctance of the DoJ to release information about the Russia investigation. The reason for this is best illustrated by HRC's interview at the end of the email investigation. She was asked about various emails: Isn't this classified information that was mishandled? And she answered: "No, and she was confident it wouldn't have been sent to her by her staff if it were classified." She could safely tell such lies because she knew what her staff had told the FBI when they were interviewed. However, she didn't know what was in every email the FBI had collected or what non-political appointees at the DoS might have said. She needed to answer questions on those topics honestly or risk indictment for obstruction. Before Trump and others are interviewed, Mueller wants what his investigators have learned to remain secret and Trump's attorneys want Congressional Republicans to disclose as much as possible. And a source like Halper was far more value to the IC a year ago than he is now.
Jaap wrote: "So I think they did it on purpose. I just have no idea why."
Last month we learned that President Obama had given a stand down order to US IC in countering Russian cyber attacks. They were just a puzzled as to why. https://freebeacon.com/national-security/obama-cyber-chief-confirms-stand-order-russian-cyberattacks/
Daniel was quoted saying to his team that they had to stop working on options to counter the Russian attack: "We've been told to stand down." Prieto is quoted as being "incredulous and in disbelief" and asking, "Why the hell are we standing down?"
Recall that our host's first question on this topic is why did the DNC incursion continue for three weeks after CS entered the DNC premises and as the Russians in the servers in 7 seconds.
If Manafort was under surveillance before entering the Trump campaign this heavily bolsters my suspicion that a full-blown operation was started at that moment. The only question is who were the leaders of the operation.
That "stand down" on response order happened in late August 2016. Susan Rice also was involved.
Had Russophobes in US IC found alliance in Rice and Obama?
dynam01
Reblogged this on I Didn't Ask To Be a Blog.
Another UK link to the US-Russian spy narrative: Matt Tait https://www.weeklystandard.com/haley-byrd/this-former-british-spy-exposed-the-russian-hackers
This (ex?)GCHQ cyber hacker saw himself as "the one Twitter account on the entire Internet daring to take the government's side.": @pwnallthings (130K followers)
He advises others to sign up for Google's Advanced Protection Program for gmail users. He was "adopted" by Mueller for his search. He now teaches in a Texas college.
Antony, did you notice reading the article it does not make clear that the manner in which G2 left Russian evidence was more like he left a note at the crime scene rather than a fingerprint? No matter, we know it was the Russians because they were following Tait's Twitter. How do we know this? G2 was following Tait and G2 is Russian. How do we know G2 is Russian? Only Russians would change the released document author name the first head of the Soviet secret police.
Are we to believe that this is one of the brightest minds at GCHQ? This is what the Mueller July 13 indictment is based on?
G2 is not only suspect as a US/UK/ false flag because of the phony Russian bear prints but also because in G2's first post was written: The main part of the papers, thousands of files and mails, I gave to Wikileaks. They will publish them soon. https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2016/06/15/dnc/ No Russian spy agency would handout such a solid public link – making their own (and Wikileaks!)lives more difficult. US/UK IC on the other hand had seen what was going on since months and had time to prepare a G2 & had a huge grudge against WL due to Edward Snowden exposing their dirty linen there. Kill two birds with one G2 stone.
Jeffrey Westcott
Am I wrong in thinking that the internet is a subject where the private sector, in general, and private individuals, specifically, have vastly more forensic talent than that within any government, including both the US and Russia? The Mueller indictment's reliance on the certain identity of the DNC hacker seems at best premature, at worst just grasping at straw.
barn E. rubble
RE:". . . in general, and private individuals, specifically, have vastly more forensic talent than that within any government, including both the US and Russia? . . ."
I've been fascinated by the 'crowd sleuthing' . . . I just wish I understood the tech stuff more to completely follow it.
ccscientist
It is also interesting the RT (Russia Today) a Russian "news" –ie propaganda–cable channel, is still on the air in the US. I watched some of their editorials and they made no sense at all. Coming from a totally different universe of thought. This may explain why their web ads for the election were so strange.
"This may explain why their web ads for the election were so strange."
I think all agree that Russia Today acts as a state organ and that Russia meddled in the election by attacking both sides to with the aim of amplifying the divide and sewing discord. Ironically, their efforts amounted to a drop in the bucket of already present political division. By stepping into it they succeeded only in having animosities partially diverted to themselves. Are we to believe their aim was reverse the Magnitsky Act sanctions? Do the Russians not know how the US government works, that the sanctions were passed by congress and cannot be reversed by a president?
If the Russian aim was to strengthen the US economy yesterday's quarterly GDP growth was reported at 4.1%. Success!
Ron: According to the Magnitsky Act, the President determines which Russians deserve to be subject to sanctions and informs Congress of his choices. So, even if Congress doesn't choose to repeal the Magnitsky Act, President Trump could remove some (or even all) of those currently sanctioned.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ208/html/PLAW-112publ208.htm
Frank, thanks to your link I can see that neither one of us was correct. The "list" created by the "Magnitsky Act" is actually the product of joint cooperation between the President and Congress.
(1) In general.–Not later than 120 days after receiving a
written request from the chairperson and ranking member of one
of the appropriate congressional committees with respect to
whether a person meets the criteria for being added to the list
required by subsection (a), the President shall submit a
response to the chairperson and ranking member of the committee
which made the request with respect to the status of the person.
(2) Form.–The President may submit a response required by
paragraph (1) in classified form if the President determines
that it is necessary for the national security interests of the
United States to do so.
(3) Removal.–If the President removes from the list
required by subsection (a) a person who has been placed on the
list at the request of the chairperson and ranking member of one
of the appropriate congressional committees, the President shall
provide the chairperson and ranking member with any information
that contributed to the removal decision. The President may
submit such information in classified form if the President
determines that such is necessary for the national security
interests of the United States.
So to remove someone from the list the President needs information from the US IC to supply reasoning to Congress. In an environment where the US IC is at odds with the President at best, and is actively running an operation against him at worst, there should not be much to worry about.
Going back to the June 9 meeting of Trump Jr. with Natalia V., it makes the independent recounting of the meeting by all the participants even more credible that the purpose was to present her Russian clients's side of the Hermitage Capital-Magnitsky story. I am sure you are well aware that the MSM is still perpetuation the impression that this is a lie and the real real purpose of the meeting was to set up a quid pro quo for Hillary's personal emails. The typical liberal blogger claim is that Trump Jr. said the meeting was about "adoptions," which without explanation of the Russian reaction to the Magnitsky Act of blocking adoptions, makes it sound like Trump Jr. is making a nonsensical lie.
Trump Jr's judgments to accept the meeting with the expectation of gaining Hillary emails and not to alert the FBI in most circumstances would look questionable, opening oneself to charges of nefarious intentions to receiving stolen property. But, can Trump Jr. really be blamed now for having hesitation to calling the FBI? After all, it would have been FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok that responded to Trump's phone call. Could Strzok have been trusted to allow the transaction to proceed in order to gain the emails and transfer them in response to Congress's subpoena? What are the chances you place on that having happened, Frank, versus the chance that Strzok, McCabe and Comey would intentionally scare the fish away?
Ron: Item 3) appears to say that AFTER the President removes a name from the list (a fait accompli, if you like), he can be required to explain his rational to the chairman or ranking member. As head of the executive branch, Trump can probably find someone in the IC who will provide "a" rational for almost any action he wants to take. Perhaps I exaggerate. Hopefully we can agree that the president has significant, if not total, ability to influence who is sanctioned by the Magnitsky Act. In other words, sanctions relief – Natalie V's assignment – could be one side of a quid pro quo deal for Hillary's missing email. I'm not saying there was a deal.
Ron: Trump Jr.'s acceptance of the meeting with Natalie V. was reckless.
Did he expect to the Russians to give away valuable information for free? If so, they could have sent their dirt on HRC to WikiLeaks (like the material from the DNC). The logical assumption was that the Russians (at least those associated with meeting, who might have been operating independently of Putin's staff) were hoping for something in return. Getting something secretly is the first step in being compromised. Next, the Russians later ask you for a trivial, but technically illegal, favor in return and hint that your secret might leak if you don't cooperate. So, the correct response would be: " I think the American public deserves to know all of the bad things HRC has done. Please inform them. However, I won't meet with representatives (official or unofficial) from a foreign government to facilitate this process."
You raise the challenging possibility that the "dirt" being offered was email subpoenaed by Congress – something Trump Jr. didn't know. If it were, the information was stolen (hacked) from the DoS and Congress had no authority to see it until classified sections had been redacted. I think the correct thing to have done would be to have asked the Committee Chairmen who had subpoenaed the records to facilitate a meeting to inform the DoS IG, who had filed a complaint, and Comey, who was in charge of investigating that complaint.
Would nothing have happened? The IG filed a complaint against Clinton. Comey allegedly told Yates that he was unwilling to close the email investigation (and would ask for a special prosecutor) if the DoJ didn't negotiate access to the laptops of Mills and Samuelson. He ordered that a search warrant be issued for Weiner's laptop in late October (something that could have been delayed until after the election) and told the public (though he allegedly trusted his team not to leak). IMO, Trump fired the only person demonstrably willing to indict HRC if the evidence demanded it.
(Yes, others think I place too much faith in our institutions. And I think Trump is irresponsibly destroying that faith for political purposes.)
"Natalie V's assignment – could be one side of a quid pro quo deal for Hillary's missing email."
How would that have worked? As you pointed out any deal would have left him open for further blackmail whether he won the election or not. Do you believe you are the only one who knows the tactics of subversion?
Taking the meeting was dangerous but not reckless. Buying the emails would not have been illegal if he turned them over to authorities immediately afterward. If a person approaches and art collector with an offer to sell a stolen painting a wealthy collector may feel a duty to secure the priceless painting first before calling the police. Same with kidnapping. If the deal was instead of cash and carry a quid pro quo it would have been even easier to go the authorities afterward. No need to fill Trump's end of the bargain then. What you are missing is evidence that Trump was already subverted. This is why Hillary paid Perkins and Coie to pay Fusion GPS to pay Steele to plant the dossier.
Regarding faith in institutions, there should be no need to ask for special faith. Trust can be earned and maintained by square dealing just as in normal commerce.
"The IG filed a complaint against Clinton. Comey allegedly told Yates that he was unwilling to close the email investigation (and would ask for a special prosecutor) if the DoJ didn't negotiate access to the laptops of Mills and Samuelson."
Frank, do you have a source for this? Regardless, it would just show how corrupt Yates and Lynch were and that it only made even Democrat Comey uneasy to be too transparent in whitewashing Hillary's crimes. He understandably didn't want to be over the top and perhaps be exposed by whistleblowers from underneath. This is exactly what happened that he finally issued the search warrant for Weiners laptop after the NY office allegedly was clamoring to go public after DC had been sitting on their hands for a month not issuing a warrant.
Considering that the US DOJ and FBI were politically corrupted by Obama's administration and you readily admit that a president "can probably find someone in the IC who will provide "a" rational for almost any action he wants to take," the only danger or Trump Jr. taking the meeting with Natalia V. involved the possibility of it being a setup by Obama's IC. And that possibility, that Rob Goldstone had connections to western intelligence is not ruled out in my mind at all.
"Trump Jr.'s acceptance of the meeting with Natalie V. was reckless"
Rob Goldstone, who set up the meeting with a dangle of a "Crown prosecutor of Russia" offering "some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary in her dealings with Russia," seems like opposition research. There was no mention of ill-gotten goods.
If that was reckless then how can one not see it reckless seeking out Russian agents to create a narrative to be collected by a former British intelligence officer and current western IC asset and then planting it in the US media after laundering throughout US IC, Top Dems and never-Trump GOP personalities? The FBI believed every word from Steele and Simpson without checking. Comey is confused to this day as to who initiated the dossier. He still claims it was a never-Trumper, the cover story fed to the press for a year.
Why did Goldstone, a gay British music promoter decide to make a dangle of Hillary dirt to Trump? Why did Goldstone arrange a meeting of Trump Jr. the Russian legal counsel to a Putin oligarch? Why did he lie to both parties about the purpose of their meeting? Did Goldstone have contact with Fusion GPS or Hillary proxy?
"All answers lie with Rob Goldstone." — Natalia V.
Mueller, Schiff and Dems to this point has shown no curiosity though.
Ron asked: Frank, do you have a source for this [story about the DoS IG and how Comey obtained the laptops.]
The story about the laptops initially came from Comey's book, but I believe the details were confirmed by the IG's report. The dubious deals made to get those laptops were discussed.
When the State Department was unable to fulfill its obligation to turn over records to Congress and FOI, the DoS IG investigated to determine what went wrong. HRC and her inner circle declined to speak to the IG, so the IG was forced to file a complaint with the FBI that an unknown amount of confidential information could have been mishandled or compromised on HRC's server. (The system worked here.)
Ron continued about "Democrat Comey". Comey was a Republican until sometime in 2016, when he became an independent. He made political contributions to both Romney and McCain. His unpolished book is a jumbled mixture of history interspersed with candid personal feelings on a variety of subjects, including bullies, lying, listening, and teamwork. You might come away believing that Comey's passion was the integrity of the justice system and that Trump and that Trump was the antithesis of the ideas that had motivated Comey for decades.
Both the Aglarov's and Goldstone (who worked with Emin) were friends of the Trumps, visited Trump Tower one month before before Trump announced his candidacy and heard about his campaign plans.
Ron: I presume that you recognize that Trump Jr. got the "dirt" on Hillary Clinton he was seeking from the Russians. It came out gradually in October of 2016 in the form of the emails hacked from Podesta. The only question is whether the meeting in June had anything to do with the October release.
Frank, if I was looking at the Washington Post timeline a year ago I might be leaning in the direction of Putin trying to build points with Trump, or more likely, to compromise him to undermine him.
But nothing ever developed from all these dozen pieces of circumstantial evidence. In fact, we know now the Hillary campaign was actively aware of this Trump's Russia vulnerability and was taking daring active measures to exploit it. We know the FBI was biased in Hillary's favor and had placed spies (informants) inside Trump's campaign. And, it would not be a shocker if Russian agents were actively trying to compromise Trump's campaign as they did Carter Page in 2013 or anyone who expresses Russian sympathy. The FBI was aware but took no effort to warn them. The Mueller investigation and press are not making progress uncovering anything. On the contrary, the handful of conservative reporters, Judicial Watch, the IG and congresspersons are uncovering alarming deceit and intentionally hidden key facts.
If Rob Goldstone was Trump's friend and truly was a go-between for Putin and Trump he would be extradited and likely in jail now. An alternative explanation for his behavior is that he was a subversive. (But planted by whom?) Again, Mueller seems uninterested.
Ron: Goldstone testified to Congress and presumably was interviewed by Mueller. It isn't a crime to have friends in both Russia and the US, nor I think to inform one group of friends that another group may have useful information of dubious legality. Profiting from illegality is another matter.
Ron wrote: "In fact, we know now the Hillary campaign was actively aware of this Trump's Russia vulnerability and was taking daring active measures to exploit it."
Politics is all about exploiting the weaknesses of your opponents. Trump's warmth towards and admiration for Putin was a weakness Trump created for himself, not something that was unfairly imposed upon him by HRC. The Steele Dossier appears to have been unfairly imposed on Trump, but it is my understanding that Fusion was to look for dirt in Trump's BUSINESS arrangements in Russia. To the best of my knowledge, the concept of collusion was originated with Steele, not HRC or the DNC. However, I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
Ed Snack
Frank, that simply isn't true. The meeting was promoted by Goldstone with the "lure" that the Russians had compromising info on HRC (wasn't specifically emails, it was said to be information about illegal contributions to her campaign by Russians and possibly others), yet the Russians in that meeting (NV primarily) knew nothing about that and wanted only to talk about potentially lifting the restriction s imposed by the Magnitsky Act. Surely, if there was such info on offer it would have got a mention especially as Don Jr terminated the meeting and left after 15 minutes.
The Podesta emails simply weren't on offer as far as we can tell. They don't relate to campaign financing issues except maybe peripherally – there was some meat in them but mainly around the way Bernie Sanders was treated.
Surely whgat is interesting about that meeting are the facts we know about: The stated purpose was apparently deliberately misrepresented (and no one in the Mueller team has even contacted Goldstone about that); NV was barred from entering the USA but received a special Visa just 3 or so days before signed off by none other than Lynch; and NV met both before and after the meeting with Glen Simpson of Fusion GPS.Simpson was of course involved in lobbying on behalf of Putin related interests to lift the Magnitsky Act so maybe the NV/GS meetings related to that.
I think the most likely explanation of the meeting is that it represents two entwined strands – first it was a form of honey trap as part of the "Russian Collusion" narrative being spun by the Clinton campaign, and second it was an opportunistic way for GS to lobby the Trump campaign (as a backstop, who knows, maybe they might even win) to lighten or remove the Magnitsky Act restrictions. It is often overlooked that if DJT is a Putin tool, one the the things that Putin would like would be some easing of those restrictions (because the Russians have put quite a bit of effort and money into lobbying for just that) – and yet nothing has changed on that front. Negative evidence maybe, but another piece of evidence against any Trump/Putin narrative. After all, it wouldn't be hard for Trump to come out against Browder and sound off at his quite likely illegal acts and his move to a relative tax haven and to use that as a way to start easing the restrictions.
Posted Aug 1, 2018 at 7:49 AM | Permalink
Frank, I agree that there was circumstantial evidence to look at the Trump campaign in 2016. But when the investigations developed nothing except apparent intentional efforts to fabricate a frame-up, the investigation should have gone in that direction. It's now two years since the FBI and DOJ we can see must have known that Steele was conducting and information operation. But instead of investigating that they joined it. This is true at later stages for the MSM and Dem senate and house investigators as well. This leaves our country dangerously close to having no justice recourse for what most of the country and world now sees as an abomination.
You never answered the question of what could Trump have been expected to do for Putin or how such a deal could ever been made. Give a hypothetical.
The motives of the alternative scenario are transparent: to covertly overturn a legitimate election.
Ron: "[Frank,] You never answered the question of what could Trump have been expected to do for Putin or how such a deal could ever been made. Give a hypothetical."
1) Recognition of Russian annexation of Crimea and ending the sanctions that were imposed as a result. Worth billions to the Russian economy.
2) Removing the names of favored oligarchs from the provisions of the Magnitisky Act.
3) Grant Russia (and Assad and Iran and Hezbollah) victory in Syria by abandoning US-supported rebels to a peace that leaves Assad in place. That will encourage future foreign adventures by the Russian military and mercenaries.
4) Trump has already refused to endorse the mutual-defense provisions of NATO at appropriate forums.
Ron, doesn't the fact that you even need to ask what Trump could do for Putin suggest a problem with your sources of information? It is perfectly fine to passionately support Mr. Trump, but we must prevent confirmation bias from blinding us to the obvious truth that Trump had lots to give Putin.
Frank, so you are saying that Putin sized Trump up as a Jimmy Carter Democrat or a Barack Obama, publicly telling Putin to "cut it out" while privately ordering a stand down of any response, telling Putin in 2012 "I'll have more flexibility after the election," cancelling anti-missile shields for Europe, cutting US defense spending, pushing a reset button.
Trump, because he campaigned NATO not paying their fair share, and threatening that the US will not be taken advantage of, is playing into Putin's hand. His priority in increasing defense spending, even at the demotion in priority of his coveted wall, is a sure sign that he was a Putin stooge.
All of your items would have been approached by Hillary with a Ronald Reagan toughness while Trump would have been seen as likely being a shrinking violet by Putin. It must be shocking to Putin to see Trump's increased pressure of sanctions against NC and Iran. Clearly Putin miscalculated in Syria to have lost that entire company of mercenaries. But I suppose that Trump is just over-compensating for the media accusations of collusion to through everyone off the scent. If only the DNC hackers did not leave Russian fingerprints…
Ron said: "Frank, so you are saying that …".
No. I answered YOUR question about what Trump could have done for Putin as part of a deal. Since you changed the subject, I'm gather you accept that Trump had valuable things to offer Putin. Presumably you also realize that Putin did provide Trump with the hacked DNC and Podesta email and the services of more than 1000 trolls at the IRA. The components of a deal are obvious, but that doesn't mean one was NEGOTIATED. Putin may have assisted Trump simply because he expected Trump to weaken US support for NATO and liberal democracy (vs right-wing authoritarians) in Europe.
I doubt Putin is disappointed or impressed by much Trump has done. Spending more on the US military is meaningless in the absence of any willingness to use that military to constrain Putins's actions anywhere.
Trump agreed to a meeting with Kim with no written commitment about what "denuclearization" means, and declared NK problem solved. Pressure to maintain sanctions vanished, and Pompeo has been stonewalled ever since. Obama and Kerry settled for too little with Iran, but Trump's unilateral action won't put as much pressure on Iran as Obama had.
Has the US abandoned the land the Russians were trying to seize in Syria with those mercenaries? Has Mattis been given orders to yield ground next time? Isn't Putin still winning in Syria?
Fingerprints? The Dutch have the Russian hackers on video.
I'm skeptical of Kagan's interventions, but he analyzes the situation right:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/07/24/the-united-states-and-russia-arent-allies-but-trump-and-putin-are/
Frank, the reason I didn't digress into the topics of specific Russo-American foreign policy issues is that it should be obvious that there is no single central issue that is more important than a dozen others. Trump could have conceded on issue one but been doubly tough on issues 2, 3 and 4. Or, he could have quietly approved the sale of 20% of US Uranium reserves to Russian control, allowed Russia into Syria, Crimea and Ukraine while voicing displeasure but making no counter response. A deal would have been silly.
Certainly it's possible that Putin could have judged one presidential candidates to be a preference over the other. I'm sure Russia preferred Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan, for exmple. But, if we follow your logic (and Think Progress's) Putin would have preferred Reagan since he was right wing. That's absurd. Why would anyone want a rival country's leader to be authoritarian? As far as left and right, as Ronald Reagan famously pointed out left and right is a canard; there is only up and down, meaning liberty versus oppression. Trump's strongest support is among Libertarians.
"Spending more on the US military is meaningless in the absence of any willingness to use that military…"
Clearly you and I disagree on the principal of peace through strength and weakness being provocative to aggressors.
The Dutch hack of the SVR's DNC hack was known to the Obama administration and presumably to Clinton many months before the Podesta hack at Clinton For America using a different hacking tool. The fact that you are aware of the forensic contradictions in the left's narrative that have been exposed here at this site yet you discard them in favor of a blurred false picture is telling.
Posted Aug 9, 2018 at 12:29 AM | Permalink
Checking Michael Cohen's travel, finding that he did not travel to Prague as indicated in the dossier, but instead a different Michael Cohen did travel there, should have been a huge red flag.
Posted Aug 10, 2018 at 12:52 AM | Permalink
Well, Mike, the fact that Cohen's passport apparently didn't leave the US during the correct period doesn't mean that Cohen himself didn't travel to Prague. And it doesn't mean that the Russian Cohen allegedly met wasn't using a trip to Prague as a cover story to disguise a trip to the US to meet Cohen. Unfortunately, the "Steele hypothesis" can't be invalidated by a single counterexample. However, the Steele Dossier has far bigger flaws than Prague.
Assume Trump has been cultivated for several years as the dossier alleges. Imagine you are the Russians. Trump has gotten or is about to get Secret Service protection. How would you communicate with him? Unless Page, Flynn or Manafort already were a trusted ally, neither Trump nor the Russians would to want to communicate via people that Trump barely knew in March. IMO, this is ludicrous. On the other hand, Cohen has been Trump's "fixer" for many years. It makes far more sense to suspect Cohen of being part of some sort of long-term collusion, despite the flawed intelligence about Prague.
Given that I can create a more convincing story than found in the Dossier, so I doubt it was faked. Partly wrong, sure. Totally faked? Not likely. Nor is anyone going to run a grand conspiracy between the DNC or Deep State through Simpson of Fusion GPS – a former WSJ reporter making a living as a researcher mostly for lawyers. The central player in such a conspiracy is unlikely to be a person who tracks down a house in Colorado owned by one of Browder's many shell companies and personally serves him with a subpoena. If Steele was part of a conspiracy to get Trump, the hiring of Steele by Fusion GPS could be a cover story for how actually Steele became involved.
Alternative hypothesis: Suppose Russian efforts to cultivate Trump had failed to create a working relationship. Imagine Russia is hacking and gearing up its operation against the US election. Putin now wants to use the hacked material to get reach some sort of deal with Trump or simply entangle Trump, creating dissension and distrust. Then you start a crash program to make contact with the Trump campaign? Secretly meet with Page in Moscow and approach others elsewhere? Recruit the Agalarovs to introduce Natalie V (amateurs not known to Steele's sources)?
Ron, Ed and friends: Listening and trying to understand differing points of view, I realize that much of today's controversy comes down to whether one considers Russia to be an "enemy". A recent podcast from the National Constitution Center had a discussion (with one of two participants from the Federalist Society) of the treason clause, and whether any of Trump's activities fit the definition of treason. During WWII, people who gave very little "aid and comfort" to our enemies were convicted of treason. Is Russia our enemy? This may be the fundamental question, whether or not we are considering treason or some more reasonable charge. The speakers suggested that the recent battle in Syria between Russian mercenaries and US forces and the hacking of state election computers (a far more serious attack than simply stealing information or spying) COULD provide a legal basis for claiming Russia is our "enemy" in a courtroom. I'm more inclined to argue that our NATO obligations and Putin's stated desire to reconstitute the Russian Empire make Russia an enemy. FWIW, Putin's actions and rationalizations remind me of Hitler in the years prior to WWII so I personally view Russia as an enemy. When did Hilter become the enemy of Britian and France?
The article below suggests we can look at Russia three different ways: a) ideologically – Putin is a dangerous totalitarian dictator. b) Russia is a "Great Power" rival of the US. c) Putin and Russia are potential Christian allies in our war with Muslim civilization. Those with the first two perspectives consider Trump's attitude towards Putin potentially "treasonous" and collusion with Russia to get elected (and thereby aid our enemy Russia) as clearly "treasonous". Those who adopt the third perspective view the Russia investigation as a potentially "treasonous" interference with presidential authority and impeachment for collusion as a "coup".
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/the-conservative-split-on-russia/510317/
After the annexation of Crimea, the first two perspectives on Russian dominated policymaking and the IC rightly monitored ("spied on", as Trump would say) Russian sympathizers. The IC must have been shocked when Trump chose Manafort, Page, and Flynn as advisors – people they already were monitoring and/or had investigated. Perhaps Trump himself was already considered as a potential Russian sympathizer before he announced his candidacy. Monitoring, or even sending a Steven Halper to probe, appears appropriate, and surveillance with a warrant.
Until Trump was inaugurated, the Russia-is-our-enemy perspective was approved bi-partisan policy. Did that policy end – making the collusion investigation a witch-hunt or even a coup? Who decides? I doubt that the Senate would confirm an SoS who openly advocated for Trump's views of Russia and there would be many votes for impeaching such a SoS.
Ron, Ed and friends: Below is an possible explanation for the disagreement about the investigation into collusion with Russia. Treason is constitutionally defined as:
"adhering to [our] Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort"
During WWII, several Americans (including "Toyko Rose") were convicted of treason for giving remarkably little aid and comfort to our enemies. If we were at war with Russia and Trump were not President, Trump arguably could be charge with treason.
So, the fundamental disagreement comes down to whether Russia is our "enemy". Although the above is the legal definition of treason, I am using the term symbolically – to illustrated the extreme passion involved.
Russia is clearly an enemy for those who perceive: a "Great Power" struggle, an ideological struggle with NATO allies against totalitarianism, or strong parallels between Putin's and HIlter's motivations and tactics. Before Trump began his campaign, a bi-partisan consensus existed that Russia was at least a potential enemy. Our IC was rightfully monitoring Russian sympathizers like Manafort, Carter, Flynn, and Rohrbacher (using sources like Halper). The IC must have been shocked when some became Trump's advisors – unless, of course, they already considered Trump himself to be a Russia sympathizer. (And, heaven help us, Strzok was involved.)
Trump and many of his supporters, however, don't see Russia as an enemy. Some assert that Putin is a potential Christian ally in our war against Islamism civilization. If Russia is an ordinary country like Britain, the Russia investigation is a "witch hunt" and using it to impeach Trump a "coup". Trump's inability to end the Mueller investigation is arguably due to treason.
Who decides whether Russia is, or is not, an enemy? Our system of checks and balances (including impeachment) has diffused this power over three branches. Trump may be chief executive, but Congress is the ultimate authority.
Judicial Watch FOIAed 71 FBI pages on their contacts with UK Christopher Steele: on 02 02 2016 the FBI admonished him (p71), so way before Fusion GPS allegedly hired him. Also notice the 99% blank space: so much to hide. https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-fbi-records-show-dossier-author-deemed-not-suitable-for-use-as-source-show-several-fbi-payments-in-2016/
Christopher Steele had an active relationship with the FBI as early as February 2, 2016. We must rethink everything now. Is the reason 99% of the communications with Steele is redacted because it would reveal all sorts of other confidential informants working against Trump for the FBI and others and blowing the FBI's timeline? Was the FBI not only getting information from Steele as an informant but supplying him information and using him as an agent? Was Steele, as asset from the CIA or other US IC entity, supplying information outside of normal channels?
We know now that Steele's introduction to the FBI through Victoria Nuland in late July of 2016 was unnecessary since Steele had already been working for the FBI for over six months. Perhaps Steele need to be introduced through the front door by those working with him at the back door. We would be naive to think that the government, or even a specific agency like the FBI, is cohesive. The left hand may have maneuvered against the right, perhaps even running internal ops.
Steele's telling reporters Corn and Isikoff in October 2016 that he was hired by a never-Trumper was a participation in a deceit to the American people. This makes him an active agent, not an informant. Because we know now Steele knew exactly who he was working for.
James Comey said last March that he still believed that Steele was originally hired by a never-Trumper through Fusion GPS. Is Comey on drugs or did was he out of the Steele-FBI loop?
Glenn Simpson of Fusion knew Steele well since at least 2009 while working in Brussels; he also knew that Steele would not go himself back into Russia as that was too risky for him being an ex-UK spook. Still ex-WSJ journalist Simpson presents Steele as a reliable (but second hand!/i>) source and pays him well. On page 60 of his House deposition Nov 14 2017 Simpson claims that on July 16th 2016 Steele first told him he was going to inform the FBI about his findings reg.Trump. Either Steele was lying or both were lying.
Antony, I'm not sure that Fusion GPS's Simpson was the main connection with Steele unless he risked lying to congress when he testified that he hired Steele in June 2016. This FBI release shows that Steele was an active US IC asset. This makes it look like the Trump-Russia collusion information op was hatched from the Obama IC.
We know from DNC leader Donna Brazile's book that Hillary had completely corrupted the DNC and was using it as her campaign arm, controlling its expenditures before she became the party nominee. Perhaps Hillary had maintained a connection with the Obama DOS and IC and colluded to run ops on any GOP opponent. This would fit the picture of Steele being on the payroll so early in 2016.
I might even believe Victoria Nuland, Hillary's right hand at DOS, when she said she wanted to not be a part of the operation, even though she told the FBI she worked closely with Steele and vouched for him to get him into the front door in July 2016. Nuland may have been reluctant to be a Hillary partner as Donna Brazile clearly was. I remember seeing Nuland before the congress Benghazi hearing just weeks after the event when she spilled the beans that there was no "fog of war" and the attack was watched in real time with drones. We later saw that the idea of using the event in Cairo to call the Benghazi a protest against a Youtube video was Hillary's genius.
The FBI's early dealings with Steele completely blow the Washington Post's timeline. The only question is how far the media will go to hold onto the false narrative as they did for Benghazi to get through the 2012 election.
Antony, Steele is actually a "persona non gratia" in Russia, he couldn't go personally unless special approval was granted by the Russian authorities. Very similar to NV who had to seek a special visa to visit the USA.
In a June senate hearing Victoria Nuland confirmed that Steele had come to the US State Department at Foggy Bottom in October 2016 to brief DOS officials directly. Nuland, when questioned if she attended said she actively avoided the meeting. She apparently avoided it so much that she later responded that she did not know about the meeting until afterwards. Yes, that would be impossible for both statements to be true.
If Senator Burr was running his investigation like Mueller clearly Nuland would be getting indicted for lying to congress. https://www.weeklystandard.com/eric-felten/victoria-nuland-cant-keep-her-steele-story-straight
Anthony and Ron: At the beginning of 2016, there was a bipartisan consensus that Russia was our enemy. The Magnitsky Act was signed in 2012, additional sanctions put in place after the invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014 and at the end of 2016 by Obama and by Congress in April 2017 (by a 98-2 vote in the Senate and signed by Trump).
It was and is the IC's job to stay informed about the activities of Russian sympathizers, Including Americans like Flynn, Manafort and Carter (and possibly Rohrbacher). Without evidence that a crime had been committed, a warrant for electronic surveillance can't be obtained, but there would be nothing wrong with paid consulting with Steele* or informal probing with a friend like Halper or general collecting of intelligence (such as the report about Papadopoulos's early knowledge about Russian hacking). And Strozak was the #2 man in the FBI's counterintelligence organization – so expect to soon learn that he was involved. And expect the FBI to be reluctant to share the methods and sources they use to monitor Russian sympathizers.
It may even be that Trump was on the IC's list of Russian sympathizers before he announced his candidacy: the beauty pageant, Eric Trump has bragged about the Trump Organization's access to Russian investors (since US banks were leery after four bankruptcies), Trump Soho has two Russian partners, including Felix Sater (a past member of the Russian Mafia), the Agaralovs, etc.
So whatever happened before July 31, 2016 was well within the scope of the normal duties of the IC to monitor the activities of Americans who sympathized with our nation's enemies. Same as they might with North Korea (Dennis Rodman?) and Iran.
*After the Soviet Union dissolved, the CIA decided to treat Russia as a friendly country, meaning that would listen to defectors from Russian intelligence services, but provide money or assistance to defectors. Britain continued to actively encourage and help those who defected from Russia. As Britain's former top expert on Russia, Steele knows things the US IC doesn't.
Frank, the GOP has been consistent in its weariness of Putin from G.W Bush to present, as evidenced by John McCain in 2008 calling Putin the KGB, to Mitt Romney in 2012 calling Russia out as America's greatest threat. Obama and the left ridiculed that toughness, saying "the 1980s called and wanted their foreign policy back." This was not because the left were pro-Putin but because they were anti-GOP, which was their most important rival. Hillary, when asked in the Dem primary debate who was America's greatest enemy she said the GOP. The left is only angry with Russia because they are being told by the fake press that Putin is responsible for Hillary's loss.
In the heart of the Cold War in the 1950s when Russia controlled all of eastern Europe and was thought to be ahead of the US is ICBM technology, with the "missile gap," it was the left that was anti-American and pro-Soviet. Yes, I even personally knew one of these communists. I watched him cry when the Soviet Union fell. (I'm certain that Bernie Sanders cried and maybe John Brennan too.) But when conservative found out that the US IC had spied on far left individuals in the 1950-60s they rightly denounced it along with the left because civil liberties were more an existential imperative for America than the containment of Soviet world domination. It now seems the left's concern for civil liberties ends with their own.
This just in: Trump issues fresh sanctions. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/3/trump-hits-russian-bank-n-korean-firms-sanctions/
BTW, I'm not sure that they way Bill Browder made his millions with Hermitage Capital was any cleaner than Manafort money. The difference is that Browder got bitten by the bear.
Carter Page apparently was too honest to have made the slightest lie to the FBI or he would be standing trial now with other Trump supporters. Mifsud, Goldstone, Halper and Greenman are the ones with guilty knowledge and they are all free.
Animosity towards Russia has varied since 2000. President Bush initially reporting that he had looked into Putin's eyes and seen the soul of a good man. Relations deteriorated. When Obama and Hillary took over, Medvedev was President; they thought they could reset relations and failed. Relations really went bad when there were public disturbances during Putin's re-election (which Putin accused the US of sponsoring) and then Russia invaded Crimea. Romney and McCain showed more candor and realism than Obama.
During the Cold War and since, I believe it is fairer to say that the center of both parties supported the view that there was an ongoing ideological struggle between totalitarianism and liberal democracy, and that liberal democracy poses the biggest threat to leaders like Putin. Autocrats like Putin fear that demonstrators – such as those at the Euromaidan, Tahrir Square, Tiananmen Square, and especial in Putin's case, the Russian White House and Berlin Wall – will someday be coming for them. The fringes of both parties (most notably today the alt right) have rejected that worldview and sometimes (post Vietnam) the fringe has gained control. Indeed, today Trump is opposed to all of the European leaders with roots in the center and supports their authoritarian, right-wing adversaries. Trump and Putin are arguably allies in this respect
The idea that Brennan is a Communist sympathizer is fake news created to help Trump. He is now working for Kissinger Associates and has never espoused the view that the US created Qaeda to destroy Communism – the logical complaint for a Russian sympathizer. (That kind of nonsense is coming from the alt-right.)
I don't know about ethics of Mr. Browder's entire career, but your comparison with Manafort represents the worst kind of politically-motivated ignorance. Mr. Browder's campaign against the Russian kleptocracy is clearly motivated by outrage at the system that embezzled the large tax payment he made and killed the man he hired to expose that corruption. Mr. Browder's campaign has UNNECESSARILY put his life in danger and subjected his affairs extraordinary scrutiny (from Fusion GPS among others). Manafort has been charged with money laundering to avoid paying US taxes on $75M in dubious income from Ukraine.
I'd just suggest that research Bill Browder a bit further before making those comments. There is at least reasonable evidence that Browder is not being particularly honest. He claims that Magnitsky was his lawyer, but Magnitsky did not have any legal qualifications for a start.
Read both sides and see where you think the truth lies. I'm unconvinced by Browder but there's no doubt he spins a good yarn.
Ed: Sergei Magnitsky was an auditor working for the law firm retained by Hermitage Capital in Moscow.
It is hard to believe that you would bother to cite slight such a trivial mischaracterization. Ask yourself one simple question, if Bill Browder were the bad guy in this story, would he draw attention to himself and thereby risk legal scrutiny and assassination (the fate of several critics of Putin)? Would he really perpetrate one of the biggest hoaxes in international history?
Now do you have doubts about the credibility of the US FBI? If so, think about the power of the Russian state security to manipulate this story. They many be able to create a reasonable doubt in the upcoming Prevezon trial.
Legal scrutiny? Even sitting US president Trump has been put under a microscope by the FBI – not to start about J. Edgar Hoover. Assassination? Like the CIA personnel organized together with LBJ for US president JFK? https://web.archive.org/web/20080620083703/http://www.rollingstone.com:80/politics/story/13893143/the_last_confessions_of_e_howard_hunt/7
US deep state is paramount to Russian deep state: all US citizens lose. It also has a much bigger budget and arsenal: many foreign citizens also lose in their home lands (like Irak, Libya, Syria – all secular, non communist regimes)
Frank wrote: "The fringes of both parties (most notably today the alt right) have rejected that worldview [west vs east bipolar struggle] and sometimes (post Vietnam) the fringe has gained control. Indeed, today Trump is opposed to all of the European leaders with roots in the center and supports their authoritarian, right-wing adversaries. Trump and Putin are arguably allies in this respect"
"Alt right" is a made up term by the left to counter their own radicalism. The entire country and world has been shifting left in all corners. Trump, Reagan and JFK are nearly identical in policy views. Reagan supported JFK, himself an active Democrat at the time. Reagan famously said, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party; they left me."
Equal opportunity does not result in equal outcomes. This naturally leaves electorates open for exploitation by unscrupulous politicians as well as the those he see it to be virtuous to give away other people's money. "The only problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." These words by Margaret Thatcher would be seen as "alt right" on today's campuses. Authoritarianism is needed by the left to gain the power to confiscate and control education and media. The radical right, being the Freedom Caucus, being accused by the left as authoritarians is Orwellian.
Well Russia became Bill Browder's personal enemy only after they charged him for massive tax fraud. He then went abroad and manipulated the Obama administration to sanction Russia. He lies a lot, even in on camera and in US court : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBjO0TIb7pw
More about him: http://populist.tv/2018/01/20/bill-browder-links-and-resources-to-understand-controversy/
Glenn Simpson also in this picture: all this far before 02 02 2016: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4345522/Read-the-full-transcript-of-Glenn-Simpson-s.pdf
And https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/20180118/106796/HMTG-115-IG00-20180118-SD002.pdf
Anthony wrote: "Russia became Bill Browder's personal enemy only after they charged him for massive tax fraud."
Nonsense! Russia filed lawsuits against Browder in 2013 – only after the Magnitisky Act passed – for activities that had occurred more than a decade earlier. Browder's problems with Russia started than a decade early when he objected to corruption that was hurting the Russian businesses in which he invested. In 2005, Browder was banned from Russia. In 2007, his company was raided, allowing corrupt officials to fraudulently claim a rebate on $230M in taxes Hermitage Capital had paid after liquidating their assets. After attempting to expose this corruption, Magnitsky was charged and died in pre-trial detention.
Browder surely could have avoid the Russian lawsuit, the deposition you linked, arrest warrants from Interpol, scrutiny from Fusion GPS, and the possibility of assassination (a fate suffered by many Putin critics). All he had to do was keep quiet about the Putin kleptocracy that has made Putin the richest man in the world.
No administration wants to have its foreign policy options constrained by Congress, As with the Iranian sanctions, the Obama administration didn't initially support the Magnitsky Act.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-magnitsky-case
Posted Aug 14, 2018 at 8:48 AM | Permalink
Here links to a 218 page book pdf by and interview with Alex Krainer who heard Browder praise Putin in 2005 in a Monaco investor talk first. Legal threat from Browder's lawyer Winer years later stopped Krainer's book sale at Amazon.
Click to access TheKillingOfWilliamBrowder_PrintLayout_6x9-1.pdf
And https://www.sott.net/article/369151-The-Truth-Perspective-Bill-Browder-the-Magnitsky-Act-and-anti-Russia-Sanctions-Interview-with-Alex-Krainer
So why weren't they all over the Clinton campaign and the Podesta's ? Bill Clinton's speaking engagement in Moscow for a $500K fee alone shouyld be a red flag under your theory, and Mueller's participation in the Uranium One affair is another that should have led to him being under surveillance. Yet apparently not, is only one "side" allowed to be under suspicion ?
And classifying Flynn as a "Russian Sympathizer" is a bit of a stretch.
the FBI & co see red flags only on the "republican" Trump side; non on the Democratic (blue) side under HRC, who can blame them? 😉
Ed Snack and AntonyIndia: I find the Clinton's earning $100M running the Clinton Foundation outrageous, but that doesn't mean someone can prove any quid pro quo agreements exist or that any law was intentionally broken. If I understand correctly, the IG's report on the email investigation accidentally confirmed the existence of an on-going investigation into the Clinton Foundation.
FWIW, the Comey demonstrated his willingness to prosecute HRC by requesting a search warrant and publicly announcing the re-opening of the investigation weeks before the election. So think news of the emails on the laptop would have leaked, but the FBI could have found some excuse for not proceeding immediately. The IG's main criticisms said Comey was unfair to HRC.
All of us remember (and are constantly reminded about byour little corner of the blogosphere) the things that hurt our side and we forget those that hurt the other.
Flynn was pushed out of his DIA job early and retired, possibly holding a grudge. Flynn was making regular appearances on RT, gave a talk for $45,000 at a RT Moscow event where he was seated next to Putin and was reportedly seen hanging out with a Russian woman while attending a Cambridge intelligence forum with many Russians. He consulted ($65,000) for two Russian companies. Enough to make Flynn worth monitoring, but certainly not enough to open a criminal investigation.
Frank, if that's what it taskes to get monitored, I repeat, why wasn't both Bill Clinton ($500K for one speech and from a bank that is in Putin's acknowledged circle), and Podesta – look up his trading in shares in a company co-owned with Russians.
Also Flynn wasn't seated next to Putin, that's yet another lie that you seem keen on repeating. Putin was at the dinner, as principal guests often will, he circulated after the meal and spent a little time at each table. He briefly visited the table that Flynn sat at, and may have exchanged greetings with Flynn but did not have any extended exchange – it's a little unclear, there are photo's but not a video. Some claim that Putin nodded to Flynn, others saw nothing.
The grudge wasn't Flynn's, it was the FBI's McCabe who had the grudge as Flynn had supported an FBI analyst taking a case against the FBI and against McCabe himself. Hence the suspicion that McCabe had the 302 interview records of Flynn's interview altered. That BTW has precedent, has has been shown that Andrew Weissman did the same in the Arthur Anderson/Enron case and wasn't indicted and imprisoned for perversion of justice only because of the presumed prosecutorial immunity.
We know that the Clinton foundation broke laws, for example the $145M donated by former shareholders in Uranium One/Urasia donated to the Foundation were not declared as the should have been but the Foundation was allowed to simply file amended declarations several years later when that info came out rather than anyone investigating seriously. Maybe there is a "serious" investigation, but I'll believe it when I start seeing results. Otherwise it will be like the eMail investigation – despite cleat evidence of malfeasance and multiple insances of lying to the FBI, immunity was handed out like candy and no one was charged – because it was intended from the start that no one should be charged. I bet Flynn would have like the same treatment that Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills for example were treated to.
Ed: Why are you so sure that the Clinton's aren't being monitored. You weren't aware that an investigation of the CGI was underway (or perhaps inactive awaiting new evidence). As I pointed out, the Trump campaign likely walked into normal intelligence and counterintelligence activities, by appointing advisors with questionable backgrounds. The difference is that Trump and some rabid Congressmen are trying to use this to discredit the IC. We only hear about the activities that impacted Trump; activities with sources and methods the FBI wants to keep confidential. The logical thing to do is try to listen to multiple points of view and keep an open mind? Could you be spending too much time hearing propaganda, not facts? If you fall into the trap of believing our government is our nation's biggest problem, the populist solution is often to place your a strong authoritarian leader with a convincing message. (See Argentina.) In hopes of creating some doubt in your mind, I'll address a couple issues.
Did Flynn sit next to Putin at dinner? I certainly can't say for certain. But Flynn himself seems to say he had a serious conversation with Putin. IF I am right, who is spreading false information? Do you occasionally check to see if your preferred sources are telling you the truth, or do you allow your preconceptions to filter what information you retain?
In any case, whether they talked for 5 minutes or much longer, doesn't the big picture still add up to someone the CI would want to monitor? If so, stop nit-picking.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/08/15/trump-adviser-michael-t-flynn-on-his-dinner-with-putin-and-why-russia-today-is-just-like-cnn/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.cd43466b927c
I've read several complaints (with personal outrage) about prosecutors failing to turn over "potentially exculpatory evidence" (Brady disclosures) However, I later learned that prosecutors only breach their disclosure obligations when:
"the nondisclosure was so serious that there is a reasonable probability that the suppressed evidence would have produced a different VERDICT" (Wikipedia)
Prosecutors are not required to turn over everything. They often provide summaries of witness statements, creating allegations that those statements were "amended". This could be how your allegations of altering may have arisen. There is a big difference between allegations against Weissman from a defense attorney and a reprimand from a judge or bar association. Have any links to reprimands?
By firing Comey and publicly bragging he did so because of the Russian investigation, Trump is now dealing with a special prosecutor with unlimited and money to discover wrongdoing. (See aKen Starr's journey from Whitewater to Monica Lewinsky.) If HRC had been investigated by a special prosecutor charged with uncovering insecure handling of classified information and official government records in the DoS, a dozen or more people might have lost their jobs, security clearances or been indicted. Some of them might have ratted on HRC, Mills and Abedin – just like Mueller has gained the cooperation of Papadopoulos, Flynn and Cohen. Unfortunately, the election would have been over and HRC might have been president long before a wide-ranging investigation was complete. Trump and HRC have been treated differently, but Trump and Bill Clinton have been treated more equally.
Frank, you are right; presidential candidates need to be vetted by the IC. The democrats narrowly missed nominating Gary Hart and John Edwards after all. Actually, I think we have to go back to Eisenhower to find a president that did not have a scandal that would have disqualified them for the presidency from some group's viewpoint. I'm sure the career IC see it as their job to steward the country J. Edgar Hoover and Allen Dulles did. Both knew well that JFK was dangerously naive about the red menace.
When Newly inaugurated Trump tweeted that he believed that Trump Tower had been under Obama IC surveillance Comey, Obama and Clapper said there was no evidence they knew of to support such an accusation. Of Course, they had to lie to protect Trump from having to reveal the belief he was a Russian spy. And they needed to protect the country from the belief that the US had either elected a Putin stooge or that the US IC is an unaccountable rogue entity within.
If there was one person that is intimately aware of the power of the IC and DOJ and knew what a special prosecutor or counsel could do to a president it's HRC.
Although it is true that the country suffered the humiliation of gaining the results of the dress DNA the independent counsels thankfully glossed over the Vince Foster investigation. Interestingly though, the reason that Monica Lewinsky came to the special prosecutor was that Linda Tripp recorded their conversations and kept Lewinsky's blue dress. The reason Tripp forced Lewinsky out was because she feared that Lewinsky would otherwise wind up just as Vince Foster was found. Recall that Foster handing Tripp his lunch desert as he was going out becuase he was on a diet and told her to forward his calls the pager number he was checking out. He would be coming back.
Frank, you are right; presidential candidates need to be vetted by the IC. The Democrats narrowly missed nominating Gary Hart and John Edwards after all. Actually, I think we have to go back to Eisenhower to find a president that did not have a scandal that would have disqualified them for the presidency from some group's viewpoint. I'm sure the career IC see it as their job to steward the country J. Edgar Hoover and Allen Dulles did. Both both felt their young president was dangerously naive to the red menace.
If there was one person that is intimately aware of the power of the IC and DOJ and knew what a special prosecutor or counsel could do it's HRC.
Frank wrote: here "FBI DD of Counterintelligence Strzok was almost certainly at the center of any "off-the-record" activities that could have begun as soon as Trump's candidacy became viable. In my wildest nightmares, I can even imagine Strzok recruiting Steele and using Bruce Ohr to plant Steele with Fusion GPS. However, if Strzok or someone else staged the need for an investigation, the January 2017 explosion of news about Steele and the investigation would certainly have occurred BEFORE the election."
You wrote that on July 22. Since then we learned from FOIAed FBI records that Steele was indeed working for the FBI near the start of 2016, well before Fusion GPS entered the picture in April. Steele almost certainly would have been dealing with Strzok — just as in your nightmare. Tonight Devin Nunes said on Hannity that reporters should start looking at Ohr for the next big news.
It now seems quite plausible that Obama was helping Hillary by setting up a direct line from the White House to the office of FBI DD of counterintelligence Strzok. Fusion GPS was only brought in when the operation went into full action, opening back-channel communication through the Bruce and Nellie Ohr connection.
You pointed out that Manafort was under surveillance up until his entry into the Trump campaign. That means they knew of his connection to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. That seems odd that Manafort would not have been the target of a Hillary email dangle. If the FBI suspected Trump of Russia collusion and his new campaign manager had a secret connection to Deripaska why not target near the head of the fish instead of young campaign volunteers?
What if Manafort was sent by Deripaska whom he was indebted to? In Manaforts emails he said that Deripaska want daily briefings. What if the reports on the campaign that Deripaska wanted were not to go to Putin but to Hillary and the FBI? Deripaska, it became known this year, worked for Mueller to get back a CIA hostage taken by Iran during Obama's first term. Deripaska was using $20 million of his own money. The operation was near success when Hillary pulled the plug, reportedly. In the current Manafort trial Deripaska is a Mueller friendly witness against Manafort. It's a small world.
Ron: Thanks for appreciating my prediction that the IC was likely informally monitoring, but not electronically surveilling, other "Russian sympathizers" before the election. I included Trump himself in this group. It is too bad you didn't follow my rational: The IC was supposed to be informally monitoring influential people with connections to Russia. Such contacts therefore do not imply a conspiracy launched before July 31, 2016.
I'm positive that any grand conspiracy to entrap Trump in an authorized investigation would have found a way to make that investigation public before the election.
How do you know Manafort wasn't offered an email dangle? By the Russkis or our IC? How do you know he didn't take it? The IC's interest in influential people close to Russia has been steadily growing since Crimea (and before) – it didn't begin with candidate Trump's surprising warmth toward Putin.
Links between Russia and many right-wing nationalist parties have been growing for years. You may not like the term alt-right, but I think it helps distinguish Trump from Reagan and JFK. Their domestic policies may be similar, but their foreign policy is radically different. The latter strongly supported human rights, collective defense (NATO), and free trade to link nations together
There is so much wrong in this, the story doesn't add up.
First, as I discussed earlier in this thread, there were two phishing campaigns: one (1) that ensnared the email password of John Podesta and the other one (2) that uses parts of infrastructure that has arguably been used before by Sofacy/Fancy Bear.
Yet it was the group behind phishing campaign #1 that managed to get the credentials of John Podesta which were then used to download all his emails (+attached documents) in UNIX/internet email format.
And that group was different from the group that performed phishing campaign #2 (at around the same time) because they are using different spoofing software. Yet it is group #2 (and only them) that uses infrastructure that had been used before by Sofacy/Fancy Bear. Which means that the link between them and the Podesta hack is unlikely.
Second the US IC and Mueller claim that the phishing campaign was all that was needed to break into the DNC network!
That is not how that can work and that is not how this usually works. Another kind of email campaign is usually used in order to gain access into a network.
How do the US IC and Mueller claim that access was gained to the DCCC & DNC network?
For the US IC claims see: JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf (id: JAR-16-20296A, dated 2016-12-29, title: GRIZZLY STEPPE – Russian Malicious Cyber Activity), please refer to page 3 especially the diagram.
It describes the phishing campaign to gather email account credentials. So far so good.
But then it claims that this was all that was needed to gain access to the DNC infrastructure. Remember it was claimed that malware was found there, inside the network.
This claim in made perhaps less clear in the JAR than in the indictment (described below, but first the JAR).
In spring 2016, APT28 compromised the same political party, again via targeted spearphishing. This time, the spearphishing email tricked recipients into changing their passwords through a fake webmail domain hosted on APT28 operational infrastructure. Using the harvested credentials, APT28 was able to gain access and steal content, likely leading to the exfiltration of information from multiple senior party members.
Also see the diagram, step #6.
Now of course you could say that the access could merely be to the email boxes of the compromised accounts.
If so then it is silent on how access was achieved to gain entry in to the actual computer networks of DCCC & DNC.
In the indictment (https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download) it is described at #24:
24. By in or around April 2016, within days of YERMAKOV's searches regarding the DCCC, the Conspirators hacked into the DCCC computer network.
Once they gained access, they installed and managed different types of malware to explore the DCCC network and steal data.
a. On or about April 12, 2016, the Conspirators used the stolen credentials of a DCCC Employee ("DCCC Employee 1") to access the DCCC network.
DCCC Employee 1 had received a spearphishing email from the Conspirators on or about April 6, 2016, and entered her password after clicking on the link.
This can only be described as MAGIC because they claim that THOSE credentials (and nothing else) was then used (JAR in step #6 in figure 2, indictment #24.a) to access the DNC internal network.
And that is impossible.
First, operating system (MS Windows) network credentials are not the same as email credentials. You could use the same password for both, but even John Podesta would not manage that, as OS passwords are typically changed monthly and follow strict rules, whereas the password for a private email is never or rarely changed and often too simple to be allowed in a secure network.
But more importantly, you can't remotely login to a (MS Windows or similar) network or a laptop with merely a user ID & password, even when you know the operating system user-id & password.
You either need to trick a victim employee (of the victim organisation) in installing malware (A) on his or her laptop OR you need to have a laptop (B) of the victim organisation (DCCC/DNC) and probably a security token, like an building access pass with a chip on it.
Neither of this is described. This is simply skipped as if by magic.
Yet the indictment goes from 24.a to 24.b & further without skipping a beat. And clearly claims that the email account credentials were used to gain access to the network, in order to be able to install spy software (like X-Agent & X-Tunnel).
Again as stated in 24.a:
On or about April 12, 2016, the Conspirators used the stolen credentials of a DCCC Employee ("DCCC Employee 1") to access the DCCC network.
So this is the spear-phished email account credentials, and that ALONE is apparently enough to REMOTELY gain access in order to do further exploit the network as described in 24.b, c & d (etc). That is simply not how this works.
As described in 24.b:
Between in or around April 2016 and June 2016, the Conspirators installed multiple versions of their X-Agent malware on at least ten DCCC computers, …
But how where they able to do that? Apparently by using the (impossible) access gained as described in 24.a.
The standard approach by Sofacy is to send another type of email, and email with a link to an executable or script which installs a small & simple first stage malware agent which executes on the victim's PC/laptop using the credentials of the currently logged in user (i.e. the victim) to install itself on the victim's machine and then starts to download and install second stage malware such as X-Tunnel and X-Agent.
And that is the missing link. All of the identified tiny URLs that were found were email account phishing URLs, none of them were URL's that points to malware, none of the emails described had any such malware as attachment.
Ergo: the critical 1st stage of entry into the networks of DCCC & DNC is still missing in action. And the description thereof in the indictment is suspiciously incomplete and as stated incorrect.
Jaap, fascinating analysis as always. I've tried to collect as much information as I could on precise syntax, as this seemed to offer an interesting tool for classification (like pottery styles in archaeology). I need to tidy my organization of this data and write it up as it may offer more clues to others.
Jaap: Are the missing details essential to proving the Russians are guilty? It's my (poor) understanding that there are multiple lines of evidence. And it may be that the government could add sensitive missing details verbally if challenged by a defense witness in court.
Jaap writes: "The standard approach by Sofacy is to send another type of email, and email with a link to an executable or script which installs a small & simple first stage malware agent which executes on the victim's PC/laptop using the credentials of the currently logged in user (i.e. the victim) to install itself on the victim's machine and then starts to download and install second stage malware such as X-Tunnel and X-Agent."
Doesn't knowing the victims internal and external correspondents and routine attachments that are normally circulated make it easier to get someone to click on malware?
Paul Courtney
Frank: Where would you get even a poor understanding of "lines of evidence" which are presently known only to Mueller's team? Did you talk to one of them? Or did you read something and fail to consider that your source doesn't actually have any inside information? No evidence has been made public, so what lines are you talking about?
Jaap demonstrated that Mueller's team has made a leap (essentially the same leap our host perceived and reported in this series, the same beat skipped by Crowdstrike) that strikes at the "Russia done it" meme you've apparently swallowed whole; and your comment is, "what about the other lines of evidence" (that you imagine Mueller has)? Your skepticism seems to go only one way. You're "positive" the Russia-Trump investigation was not a conspiracy or it would have been leaked. Well, as late as Oct '16 they didn't have enough to get a FISA warrant legitimately (so they got one anyway),AND they ALL thought Trump had NO chance. Even with Pres. Hillary covering for them, they might have been very embarrassed after election if they had leaked such a specious "investigation". Maybe so embarrassing, Hill feels the need to throw somebody under a bus to make story go away. No, who would worry about that.
Frank, maybe could you show a bit of balance, analyze this- HRC campaign pays $ to law firm (and pays $ to DNC to pass to law firm) disclosed as "legel fees" that in fact is for oppo research from Fusion GPS. Fusion pays a brit for info from russians (are you worried now? The RUSSIANS Frank!). Put aside for the moment that one of Clinton favorite things is to accuse the opponent of doing exactly what Clinton is doing (she learned from Alinsky), please look into that and let us know what campaign finance laws she broke. I'm no fan of Trump, but I can smell a Clinton bag job- Trump Russia is a Clinton bag job all the way down.
Jaap: Are the missing details essential to proving the Russians are guilty?
For any specific allegations: yes.
In general: they were born, so of course they are guilty!
On a more serious note: the details should add up. In case of [II] above we may perhaps come up with a reason (as I will discuss below), but as far as [I] above goes that is clear evidence that there were at least two distinct groups running a phishing campaign in early 2016, and the Sofacy/Fancy Bear group was not the same group that ensnared Podesta.
That second group may still have been pro-Russian (like the Ukrainian Cyber Berkut people), but is clearly distinct (and not coordinated, which may explain a lot of the inconsistencies).
And it may be that the government could add sensitive missing details verbally if challenged by a defense witness in court.
Perhaps, but why? What can be so sensitive? To save someone from embarrassment perhaps?
Let's review the options.
First a short background. Nowadays you can not simply do external access to a computer network and get in like the old days. The only attack surface exposed is now in the DMZ or on the outside of a firewall. That's where external webservers reside. You may be able to hack into those webservers, but then you are still stuck outside. A hacker can hack into and say deface the webserver of an institution, but when a hacker does that he still is not inside the victims network.
Out of the box (as you would get it from some IT company that has set up your network) one can't simply break into a webserver and then progress into the internal network from there, unless someone changed stuff around enough for some reason. And made several mistakes along the way.
Hence nowadays the standard route is via machines that have VPN certificates & credentials that allows you to login to the network, like laptops. You either get physical access to one, you get a copy of the (secret) VPN certificates or you manage to get a victim to install some malware on his or her laptop.
That last one is the most popular approach and the standard one used by groups like Sofacy.
Getting physical access to the laptop is usually not enough, you may also need a personal smartcard for 2FA (two factor authentication). But let's say that the DCCC/DNC did not have smartcards. Then one of the options is that you manage to get credentials (and let's assume they will work for the OS as well as the email) and that you also manage to steal a DNC laptop.
I do not see how that is embarrassing to anyone and why that would not be mentioned in the indictment. So that is not a likely scenario.
An embarrassing scenario would be if a high ranking DNC person also has VPN certificates installed on her/his non-DNC machine, like say the Congressional laptop of DWS (then head of DNC). Once that is done the people who have admin access to her Congressional machine (the Awan bro's) can then use that machine to login to the DNC.
Makes no sense for the Awan bro's to be working together with some Russians, so I do not see how that helps the case against the Russians.
But the chances that DWS's laptop would also have access to DNC are pretty good, which means that the Awan bro's could certainly get in. And they even knew the OS passwords of many of their clientele, so no need for any phishing campaign (which, by the way, would only get you the email PWD, not the one that you need, the OS PWD).
In the 'Russians did it case' you are still assuming that DNC used gmail (which is certainly possible, even when the email address says @dnc.org) and that for some reason the MS Windows password stayed the same as the gmail password, which is not very likely as those credential systems are not (and can't be) directly linked.
In the Awan case there is no need for such assumptions. They have admin levels access to her machine and likely even know her DNC PWD.
So really the standard attack route (getting a person to install malware on his/her laptop) is really what we would expect. And the only likely one.
Certainly. But what is so sensitive about simply completing the story and explain that this is what happened?
I.e. someone got an email with a link to malware and clicked on it. Why is that part missing?
I can think of no scenario where it would make sense to hide such facts, you do not need to tell all the gory details or name names, you just can tell how it is.
I think the reason why this is missing in the indictment is simply because they have not found any evidence for emails with malware links. If they had they would have mentioned it in the indictment. Makes the story complete.
If instead a DCCC or DNC laptop had been stolen and used then they would have said so in the indictment.
But they didn't.
Simple reason likely is that they have no clear evidence (or perhaps not even a clue) how the hackers got from stolen email credentials to actually breaking into the DCCC & DNC networks.
Yet that was what CrowdStrike had told them they had found, Sofacy hackers inside the DNC network. So it must have happened, right? Right? …
Jaap, we know that Cozy Bear (APT29) was in the DNC network from summer 2015 (according to Dutch IC) to May 2016 (according to CS). Also according to CS Fancy Bear (APT28) entered the DNC network independently in April 2016. IIRC specific IP address evidence was supplied by CS to back up these claims showing the traffic and dates. Isn't possible that a DNC staffer clicked on a malware executable? I think I remember the DNC network people sending credentials in emails. Might that be part which was too embarrassing to mention in the indictment? Just being devil's advocate.
On the Awan brothers, the evidence is obvious that they had compromised DWS in some way in order to have her spread their network of associates to other Dem House members, turn a blind eye to their steeling of requisitioned goods, to keeping Awan on her payroll after his group was barred by police from their employment at congress. We still do not know what Awan had on DWS. But it has to be very big and unmentionable.
Ron, also this US cyber breach involving the Democratic party ended in a plea deal plus non prosecution. The pattern: DOJ sees a blue flag and raises a white flag in response.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-03/imran-awan-gets-sweetheart-plea-deal-doj-wont-prosecute-alleged-spy-ring
Posted Aug 10, 2018 at 12:56 PM | Permalink
Wow, they gave Awan immunity from all past (non-violent) crimes. I wonder if they also bought him an airline ticket for his troubles. No corruption here. Move along.
we know that Cozy Bear (APT29) was in the DNC network from summer 2015 (according to Dutch IC)
Yep we know and it is irrelevant for this, as they are not Sofacy. Well DNC may be asked why they didn't take any action in Jan 2016, or whether CS was correct that they only remove that as late as June 2016. But otherwise irrelevant for this indictment which is about Sofacy/Fancy Bear/APT28.
Isn't possible that a DNC staffer clicked on a malware executable?
Yes certainly. But again that is not what they say in the indictment.
There they say & imply that the email password (& user id = email address) was used to enter the DCCC network.
No mention of any malware. No mention that an email password for a gmail based email-service is different from the OS password.
But even more painful: the Sofacy hackers DO NOT NEED to know your password once you click on a malware link.
As I said above: it is executed using the credentials of the currently logged in user , who at that moment clicks and executes the malware.
Let's face it, the victim is probably some random user. Unlikely to be an admin. So you either can't install anything or are severely limited. And you certainly have no special rights.
And even when you are an admin, the account that has an email account will not be the same account that has admin rights on any of the servers. The person who is admin typically has the same rights as normal users on their normal accounts (the accounts with email), and no email access on their admin accounts, exactly to prevent any such abuse, after all admins are just human beings and may be fooled.
So the malware operates under the assumption that you do have execute rights, but little more. And then they exploit some bugs and weaknesses of the OS in order to do what they want to do. One of which is privilege escalation without actually having a privileged account (admin account). Or the get some process to execute something using the account of that process (which may have more rights).
And they typically do not use passwords at any time, but use the encrypted hashes of such passwords which may be stored on the OS (many processes accept that hash instead of UID/PWD, this trick is called 'pass the hash' and a favorite of hackers such as Sofacy).
But whatever they do, I'm not aware of any exploit using malware that actually has any use for the (plain text, actual) password of any users email account (or even the more relevant PWD for that users OS account).
I think I remember the DNC network people sending credentials in emails.
Yeah they did that at least once, that seems a PWD for contributors for one of the websites. Silly, but unrelated.
Jaap, I too have been puzzled by the gap between capturing email credentials and "traditional" APT28 installation of malware via a poisoned attachment to an email. I thought that the Indictment provided an important potential detail, one which I didn't notice in your excellent commentary. Paragraph 21 contains the following:
In the spearphishing emails, LUKASHEV and his co-conspirators embedded a link purporting to direct the recipient to a document titled "Hillary-clinton-favorable-rating.xlsx." In fact, this link directed the recipients' computers to a GRU-created website
When I read the first part of this sentence, this seemed to describe a "classic" APT28 technique for delivering malware, but the second part (going to a spoof website) seems to totally waste the opportunity, reverting back to nothing more than credential phishing. Do you think that it is possible that the Indictment mis-described what happened i.e. that APT28 malware was installed ?
I'm 99.99% convinced that Indictment was incorrect on the exact dates of exfiltration of DNC hack emails. I have long been persuaded by steemwh1sks conclusion that they were exfiltrated between May 19 and May 25, based on combined information of 30-day retention policy, last date of May 25, dates of emails between Apr 19 and May 25. Yet Mueller stated exfiltration occurred between May 25 and June 1. I think that they must have goofed on this somehow, giving some support to the idea that they might also have goofed on function of xlsx attachment to Apr 6 email.
Jaap, let's take an inventory of what we have.
1) You pointed out in July the fingerprint of the Podesta and Rinehart attack were distinctly separate from the other main attack at the time which could be linked to earlier Fancy Bear's attacks.
2) Rinehart emails were given to DCLeaks and Podesta to Wikileaks, which connects that hacker or group to both publishings.
3) Guccifer 2.0 has Podesta email attachment documents and at least one DNC document, linking G2 to both Wikileaks. Also, G2 was the first to display certainty of knowledge that the Assange June 12 announcement pertained to DNC emails and not Hillary private server documents, as the media universally mis-reported.
4) G2's only effect was to discredit the leaks as being the work of evil Russian hacker (claiming to be Romanian) with no relate-able qualities any person could attach sympathy for.
5) HRC had access to all the same emails and documents that were hacked and given to WL. The only problem for HRC would be discovering which documents were in WL possession. G2 showed knowledge of a DNC leak/hack and also the Podesta hack through the display of the Podesta attachments.
6) We know that as early as April 2016 HRC was employing Fusion GPS, who hired Steele. We also know this week that Steele was working for the FBI as early as the beginning of Feb. 2016. And, Steele continued to work with the McCabe, Strzok group through Bruce Ohr, and Fusion GPS employed wife, back doors months after Steele was fired by the FBI.
7) Everyone (the Dutch IC, FBI, Obama, Clinton, Alperovitch) presumably already knew since the fall of 2015 that Cozy Bear was sitting in the DNC network. And they had Russians on video doing the hack, and incredible stroke of luck and extreme rarity. This evidence may have been too valuable to waste. Although classified, the evidence could presented throughout the US IC to galvanize a consensus of the Russian meddling. The FBI may have been slow to warn the DNC because they were given a general stand down order from the White House on countering any Russian hacks of the campaign.
8) The stand down order did not mean that the White House would not be using very closely held assets in attempts to gain more knowledge about hack attempts. Perhaps they were attempting to "shoulder surf."
9) One logical intelligence asset with Russian knowledge they might call upon besides Christopher Steele would be "friendly" oligarch Oleg Deripaska, who had a relationship with Clinton and Mueller we know of. See rescue attempt of CIA agent in Iran. On Feb. 13, 2018, a story broke in here that Steele had the same US lobbyist contact as Oleg Deripaska prompting Senator Tom Cotton to ask FBI director Wray that day, "Do you know if Christopher Steele worked for Oleg Deripaska?" during a Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing. Wray hesitated and said he could talk about perhaps "in a classified setting."
10) We learn yesterday here that Steele, Ohr and Deripaska were working together in January 2016. What could they have been working on?
11) Deripaska was the same oligarch that the Dems alleged sent Manafort into the Trump campaign as a conduit to Putin. Recall the Manafort email promising to give Deripaska personal reports on the campaign to bring them "whole." That angle seems to have been dropped by Mueller at the now ended Manafort trial.
Deripaska wrote a drain-the-swamp libertarian op-ed for the Daily Caller in March, a month after his name came up regarding connection to Steele. In the op-ed he takes clear aim at the Obama deep state, accusing them of the "Wag the Dog" tactic in the Russia-Russia to distract from their own corruption.
So why is Steele writing Ohr in Jan 2016 about helping Deripaska with a US visa? Apparently, Deripaska, Steele, and Julian Assange share the same US lobbyist lawyer, Adam Waldman. Reporter John Solomon of The Hill noted Waldman has a Forest Gump knack for showing up in all sorts of places in the Trump-Russia story. To be fair, Waldman is a big shot whose clients include Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie.
Waldman disclosed that Deripaska has paid him $40K per month since 2009. Apparently, Deripaska has been using the connected US lobbyist in order to attempt to get US travel restrictions removed. His ban started in 1998 due to alleged links to organized crime. Before Waldman, Deripaska's lobbyist was Paul Manafort and his business partner Rick Davis, who was John McCain's presidential campaign manager in 2008. Before that it was former Senate Majority Leader and presidential candidate Bob Dole and his aid Bruce Jackson. Manafort and Davis had worked in Bob Dole's 1996 presidential campaign.
Apparently anti-Putin McCain was clueless that his top staff had just completed a reversal of the 2004 Ukrainian Orange Revolution, handing Ukraine back to Putin control while also teaming with Putin and Deripaska to facilitate a Russian sought Montenegro independence.
Ironically, Trump and McCain hate each other despite both hiring the identical international prostitutes to run their presidential campaigns. They both could read more here… https://www.thenation.com/article/mccains-kremlin-ties/
BTW, I misstated the Manafort trial had ended. It'll be interesting to see if Deripaska testifies.
@Steve: yeah paragraph 21.d sounds more like it.
[21] d. On or about April 6, 2016, the Conspirators created an email account in the name (with a one-letter deviation from the actual spelling) of a known member of the Clinton Campaign. The Conspirators then used that account to send spearphishing emails to the work accounts of more than thirty different Clinton Campaign employees. In the spearphishing emails, LUKASHEV and his co-conspirators embedded a link purporting to direct the recipient to a document titled "hillary-clinton-favorable-rating.xlsx." In fact, this link directed the recipients' computers to a GRU-created website.
Now they do not continue the story here. But perhaps there was something there? Instead of an excel-sheet (XLSX, so no macro's) they get, say, a java script? That could be a 0/1st stage.
Odd that they stop the story there (para 22 is about more credentials phishing attempts. para 23 is about scouting the DCCC & DNC network from outside for weak spots).
Instead we get this weird para 24.a as quoted above ("On or about April 12, 2016, the Conspirators used the stolen credentials of a DCCC Employee ("DCCC Employee 1") to access the DCCC network."). Which simply makes no sense.
An attack like they start to describe in para 21 should be as follows: you get an email with a link (not attachment) and when you click on it will start a script. That script runs inside your web-client on your PC and works like a 0-stage malware.
It checks the PC and based on what it detects it will attempt to go to next stage, which is to download & run a next stage malware, typically a tiny down loader (like Seduploader, Sofacy/Sourface) for the main malware (stage 2 like X-Agent & X-Tunnel).
para 25 is about remote control servers, para 26 is about the entry into DNC from DCCC network (which is possible when they are in fact one network with two (or more) domains: DCCC and DNC).
And yes their dates are off. Or weirdly vague.
32. Despite the Conspirators' efforts to hide their activity, beginning in or around May 2016, both the DCCC and DNC became aware that they had been hacked and hired a security company ("Company 1") to identify the extent of the intrusions.
By in or around June 2016, Company 1 took steps to exclude intruders from the networks.
Yet as far as we know CS was hired in April (not May) and first main activity within DNC was on Friday evening May 5th 2016 (not some time in June, even when they did extra clearance in June).
And more stuff in the indictment is a bit off in similar ways. Perhaps a bit of a rush job?
And it seems that they lump everything together, try to mix stuff that may not mix.
And they may include stuff done by other people (and they do not tell us why they believe why much of that other stuff is also done by the same group, which would make sense to do.
See 33: 33a and 33c are about covering their tracks inside DCCC, but 33.b. has got nothing to do with that but with a separate issue (the website actblues.com)
Similar is 34, seems some other unrelated hacking activity, can very easily be some other group.
More weird stuff:
41. On or about June 15, 2016, the Conspirators logged into a Moscow-based server used and managed by Unit 74455 and, between 4:19 PM and 4:56 PM Moscow Standard Time, searched for certain words and phrases, including:
Seems quite specific, yes? And also makes little sense to me.
When I do a search I search on someone else's server, say one of Google. I log into my PC (not my own server) and then connect via internet to a public Google server.
Yet apparently in Russia they log into their own server which sits in some building in Moscow (apparently their own building) and well there it ends. They do 'searches' on that server and I wonder why because in that way you will not find much.
And why do they do these searches?
42. Later that day, at 7:02 PM Moscow Standard Time, the online persona Guccifer 2.0 published its first post on a blog site created through WordPress. Titled "DNC's servers hacked by a lone hacker," the post used numerous English words and phrases that the Conspirators had searched for earlier that day (bolded below):
Right …. so you do 'searches' on your own server for words (for some reason). And apparently the reason you do this is because you use those exact same words later in some piece that you are writing.
??? Does that even make sense ???
And so on and so forth.
Jaap, just to confirm that I've understood you correctly. You observe that a standard APT attack style is initiation from a link:
You also explained that login credentials are irrelevant to such an attack and question narrative about step in which employee network credentials are supposedly capture. In such an attack, is there any need to even construct a spoofed webpage; couldn't they write a script which attacks in background while transferring to a real page? Or am I misunderstanding?
My interpretation of the "error" in Mueller's timeline is that they intentionally were vague/misleading on timeline in way that would avoid drawing attention to the fact that DNC emails were sent and later exfiltrated AFTER Crowdstrike installed supposed protection. Shawn Henry of Crowdstrike was ex-FBI and a pal of Mueller's. I suspect that Mueller did a solid for his pal.
I'm very interested in your interpretation of this episode. In my (careful) reading of the Indictment, these searches appeared to be the most distinctive new information and the major new information showing a link outside the G2-DCLeaks bubble. (There's interesting information in Indictment about links within G2-DCLeaks bubble, but there were already strong links between G2 and DCLeaks and so these were not a surprise and didn't clarify much.)
Sorry I goofed up the ending marker on that last blockquote.
But anyway that last bit is of course about them trying to implicate The Conspirators in the Guccifer 2 sting.
And I like your previous comment 'like pottery styles in archaeology', yeah it's a bit like that.
Another variant of that is trying to decipher a badly translated text. Trying to decipher what the original actually said.
That is typically done in multiple steps. First based on the meager information you try to correct the text, and in a second step you attempt to correct the interpretation.
So #41 is probably about the fact that G2 was (somehow) detected to use a Moscow based VPN-server. So what they meant to say is that G2 logged onto his PC (somewhere), then connected (or logged on) to a VPN service hosted on a server in Moscow and via that link connected to the internet and then started searching like normal people do, i.e. using a search service like Google.
OK so far so good.
Still does not explain why they would search for words that they would later use in a document. I mean they simply used the exact same term that they searched for. Not an explanation of that term or context thereof or something. So they searched for 'illuminati' and then later used that term in the document. So why 'search' for it?
Perhaps they did not mean search but 'translation', that is a reasonable guess because one of the terms listed is given as:
широко известный перевод
[widely known translation]
Aha! Seems like they used a translation service?
That still does not resolve all of the terms 'searched' for. I.e. the translation of 'dcleaks' is 'dcleaks' …
Which brings us to the second step, interpretation.
First observe that the odd wording of #41 makes it difficult to follow.
Perhaps it would be easier to say (#41) that G2 used a VPN service in Moscow and then used Google Translate to translate some terms from Russian into English. And then they later (#42) used these same English terms in a document that was later published by G2 (in the US).
Implying that the original writer is actually a Russian.
But why attempt to translate or 'search' for DCleaks?
And in case you are really a Russian with poor skills in English, then you would probably need to using a translation service not just for a few terms, but certainly for the whole text, simply because the grammar is so difficult.
And you can use a VPN service located in Moscow from anywhere in the world, even from the US. But why would you specifically want to use one located in Moscow? Assuming that you really are a Russian spy?
Alternative:
You can also use Google Translate to translate some terms from English into Russian. Then you start up (another) VPN session and connect to some (Russian?) VPN service, you select the country you want to appear to be in and select Russia. You get connected via a VPN server in Moscow and get a Moscow IP address.
Then you go to Google Translate and put in your Russian terms. Which is handy as you now have left a trace for a bunch of words that you have used in a document that you are about to publish.
Sounds like a reasonable alternative explanation to me.
fascinating idea. I've done tweet thread on it. BTW, in this context, @jeffreycarr 's acute analysis of spearphish use of yandex[.com email address bears re-reading. He not only pointed out possibility of false flag, but surmised that user didn't even speak Russian: see https://medium.com/@jeffreyscarr/the-yandex-domain-problem-2076089e330b …
Indeed. When downloaded in one time, then this happened shortly after the last dated email in the archive, so on the 25th of May. If that was later in the evening then perhaps as late as May 26th. But that's about it.
And when there were multiple download times, the others would be before the 25th (and from the email archive, probably no earlier than May 19th, although there seem to be a few older email, the bulk is from 19 Apr-25 May). But of course to get the May 25th emails one needs at least a final download on that day (or very shortly thereafter).
And please note that as far as I know all stuff that WikiLeaks published ALL were emails (+ their attachments). I know of no documents other than those which were attached to those emails.
Also all these emails where in Internet standard (UNIX standard/open standard) text format. That is compatible with the format you would get with several tools that can do a direct mass download from SMTP email services such as GMail, or PC email clients that use this open standard format to store email as files (such as Thunderbird).
That in turn means that these emails are not very likely to have been taken from a PC with MS Outlook, nor from a server with MS Exchange, as both use a different format to store emails in (more like one big database). Perhaps one can make a script to talk to Exchange and ask it to send you the mails in individuals files using the open standard format, but IDK.
As far as I can tell, all what was needed for the material that WikiLeaks leaked was simple temporary access to the internet accessible email boxes of the victms of the (various) credentials phishing campaign(s). No need to even hack in to any DNC or DCCC server.
Another great point. When I read Indictment, I had very strong impression that Mueller arm-waved through critical hack of DNC emails, merely saying the following. (In paragraphs on earlier phases of the hack, he at least provided some details, but not for this step.)
29. Between on or about May 25, 2016 and June 1, 2016, the Conspirators hacked the DNC Microsoft Exchange Server and stole thousands of emails from the work accounts of DNC employees. During that time, YERMAKOV researched PowerShell commands related to accessing and managing the Microsoft Exchange Server.
You make a fascinating point that it's straightforward to proceed from temporary access to victim email boxes to the Wikileaks content, but not to proceed from access to very large MSExchange database to the specific Wikileaks content:
It would be interesting to see any technical opposition to your view. Your technical point very much sharpens a more naive concern that I and others have had: why did the DNC hack select nine relatively obscure Finance official, rather than bigger fish like DWS? Who was in system and not published? steemwh1sks observed long ago that emails addresses of 7 of 9 officials were available in May 2016 on dark web. (I can't confirm past steemwh1sks saying so.)
Jaap, earlier in the year, you observed (https://climateaudit.org/2018/03/21/dnc-hack-due-to-gmail-phishing/#comment-780441) that dnc.org emails were on "email solution hosted by Google on the gmail infrastructure." from which you observed:
This means that the only way to get DNC.org emails are leaks or via email phishing (like was done to Podesta).
Breaking into the DNC servers (hosted by MIS or usually by Amazon) will not get you there (as the email servers are somewhere else entirely).
Mueller Indictment claimed that DNC hack occurred through access to "Microsoft Exchange Server".
Can you elucidate whether this assertion in Indictment forces any revision of earlier thoughts? Or do the facts in your earlier comment cast doubt on Mueller paragraph?
Jaap, your analysis is excellent but can we conclude anything other than the cyber expertise is lacking in this indictment? How did any of the indictment details purport to prove that it was a Putin ordered Russian attack, let alone a specific GRU hacker?
As a person on the grand jury I knew the Russian SVR was caught red-handed in the DNC server in 2015 and they were not expelled until May 2016. I also know that Russia had a Facebook and troll campaign to meddle in the election. I know DNC and Hillary For America's emails ended up on WL. And then there's G2's Russian whiskers. It seems no stretch to assign Russian guilt. The best mitigating evidence would be to have positive proof of incursion by a non-Putin controlled group, but that seems to be a tall order. Our country appreciates your investigation. 🙂
If Steele or the FBI were approaching Deripaska in January 2016 perhaps it was to ask if Putin had hacked HRC emails. Perhaps Steele was reprimanded in Feb 2, 2016, for disclosing the SVR attack to Deripaska. If that knowledge got out it would become open season to hack the DNC and HRC knowing that the blame had already been pre-assigned.
Maybe the Republicans should be looking into this Awan scandal, instead of demanding immediate release of "all" of the documents from Mueller's investigation – which is still underway. And complaining about the email investigation that failed to produce a "smoking gun" that could take down HRC. Unfortunately, Trump's lawyers want to know everything Mueller knows before letting the President be interviewed. Mueller wants to keep some information secret to test the credibility of the president's answers, especially in areas where they have no reliable information from other sources. And they want to protect the identity of sources of information about westerners collaborating with Russia, like Steven Halper.
"Mueller wants to keep some information secret to test the credibility of the president's answers…"
Yes. The only problem is that if Mueller can't present any fruit of two years of investigation toward Russian collusion that gives Trump a clean bill and provides no basis for which he should be questioned. If Mueller simply wants to ask why he fired Comey and charge either perjury or obstruction for whatever the answer is that is not going to fly now.
Everyone would like to be able to slap a lie detector on their rival with the threat of grave consequences for evasion. If we applaud violations of the Constitution because we share in the disdain of the victim our pleasure will not be long-lived.
Declassifying the documents of the deep state investigation of candidate Trump would have little bearing on the Mueller's questions. If they had anything showing collusion it would already be out. The main effect would be to de-legitimize Mueller and possibly open the way for his and Rosenstein's firing, and in his worst nightmare open a special council to investigate the actual truth of what happened. Awan likely will not be heard from again. It would be nice to see the police body cam footage of Seth Rich's last words about his killers, or at least find out if that was destroyed.
The URL (link) is directly to a script on a server somewhere. That server would probably be setup as HTTP or HTTPS web-server so that whatever the link points to is transferred to client when the link is clicked. Action thereafter depends on client settings & security.
It can be better to hide a malicious JavaScript inside a normal looking web-page, so it can also be an actual (visible) web page which when loaded will attempt to execute the included/linked malicious JavaScript.
And no, no credentials are necessary. It is the credentials of the currently logged in person behind the client PC (who clicks on the link) that is used.
Without necessarily understanding it very deeply, it has long appeared to me that one needed to prove, rather than assume, the identity of (let's call it ) the X-Agent hacking group (who skilfully use zero day exploits to install malware to burrow deep into a network) and any specific gmail-credential phishing hacking group. (Here I used "X-Agent hacking group" to limit the term to the technical style without reifying identification – borrowing a method of terminology from pottery style analysis of archaeologists.) If, as you've explained, gmail credential theft is irrelevant to the requirements of the X-Agent hacking group, that would seem to count against identifying the two operations with the same hacking group – as you've speculated (for this and other reasons).
One of the scenarios that occurred to me early on was that APT28 was indeed embedded in DNC servers, but, in accordance with its longstanding practice, didn't do anything other than observe. The various anomalies that you've raised seem to make this possibility more likely, rather than less likely.
Hmm yeah that is odd. The gmail based business solution claim (for DNC.org) was fairly common, but I do not know what the primary source for that was.
Using MS Exchange yet also having a web-based changed password page does not really make much sense UNLESS you simply make additional email-only accounts. In which case you end up with the same situation as with external email solution: email account is not the same as your MS Windows account.
You see with Microsoft Exchange one usually would use MS Windows credentials. But you can also create separate email-only accounts for use with MS Exchange. That extra email-only account is often used when you use the web-version of Outlook to access the emails (OWA / Outlook Web Access).
That (OWA) can have the change password feature enabled, but if the account is linked to AD (Active Directory) that is a bit odd.
As that would then change your MS Windows password.
But AFAIK OWA & Exchange do support that AND synchronizing that change with AD (Active Directory), where the Windows accounts are stored.
I know OWA use only in one of two flavors: With Change Password (via OWA) disabled + using the MS Windows account details (managed by AD) OR With Change Password enabled + using an extra email only account (managed by Exchange). Another mix would be rather dangerous & a bit odd …
When you need to change your windows password you would use the regular way, not some web-form. You are on the machine where you do that, no need for some silly internet web-page. So I would advise against it. And why would you?
I guess that they could have enabled OWA on a web-server linked to MS Exchange, then enabled the Change Password feature for OWA AND activated the AD sync AND in that way enabled people to change their primary Windows password via the Internet. Yikes! & LMAO.
The phishing is normally for web-based credentials (non OS credentials). If they (DNC) really used MS Exchange then the phishing is more likely not for their DNC (OS) accounts, but for other accounts like private gmail accounts. Or perhaps some secondary gmail-based business solution. Like maybe they had DNC email accounts on MS Exchange and DCCC accounts or HRC campaign accounts on a gmail-based solution?
But the idea that they would have allowed people to change their MS Windows accounts via Outlook Web Access, i.e. via the Internet, seems rather far fetched to me. But never say never 🙂
Jaap, you say "I do not know what the primary source for that was". In your earlier comment, you had looked up metadata and gave following interesting info. Does this refresh any recollection?
When we check mail.dnc.org via WhoIs it seems that this is hosted by Google. It is not really the same as gmail, but more a company specific email solution hosted by Google on the gmail infrastructure.
Direct IP is 172.217.10.147 but other lookups resolve to 216.58.209.243. Both are at Google.
WhoIs lookup using ultratools.com for mail.dnc.org:
Source: whois.arin.net
IP Address: 172.217.10.147
Name: GOOGLE
Handle: NET-172-217-0-0-1
Registration Date: 4/16/12
Range: 172.217.0.0-172.217.255.255
Org: Google LLC
Org Handle: GOGL
Address: 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
City: Mountain View
State/Province: CA
WhoIs lookup using whois.com.au for mail.dnc.org:
NetRange: 216.58.192.0 – 216.58.223.255
CIDR: 216.58.192.0/19
NetName: GOOGLE
NetHandle: NET-216-58-192-0-1
Parent: NET216 (NET-216-0-0-0-0)
NetType: Direct Allocation
OriginAS: AS15169
Organization: Google LLC (GOGL)
RegDate: 2012-01-27
Port 80 (Web) according to https://www.threatcrowd.org/domain.php?domain=mail.dnc.org has mail.google.com/a/dnc.org, so similar to gmail (but not the same). Normal Gmail accounts are hosted at mail.google.com/gmail.
HTTP/1.1 302 Found Location: https://mail.google.com/a/dnc.org Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 20:22:49 GMT Content-Type: text/html; charset UTF-8 Server: ghs Content-Length: 230X-XSS-Protection: 1; modeblockX-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN
Jaap, I noticed a reference to MSEXCH:MSExchangeIS in a Wikileaks DNC email (https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13859). Does this indicate anything additional to you?
You can't send a message on behalf of this user unless you have permission to do so. Please make sure you're sending on behalf of the correct sender, or request the necessary permission. If the problem continues, please contact your helpdesk.
dncrrmain@dnc.org
Diagnostic information for administrators:
Generating server:
/O=DNC EXCHANGE/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=DNCPress
#MSEXCH:MSExchangeIS:/DC=org/DC=dnc:DNCDAG1[578:0x000004DC:0x0000001D] #EX#
#MSEXCH:MSExchangeIS:/DC=org/DC=dnc:DNCDAG1[578:0x000004DC:0x0000001D] #SMTP#
And it is indeed possible.
Change Password Feature in Outlook Web App
By default, the domain password that's used by the user to access a Windows-based network is the same as the password that's used to access Outlook Web App. A user can change their domain password using a Web browser by using the Change Password feature within Outlook Web App.
Outlook Web App provides the functionality to change passwords that haven't expired yet. However, if a password has already expired or is required to be changed at the first sign-in, the password can't be changed via Outlook Web App unless you make a configuration change on the Client Access server to enable changing expired passwords.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/office/exchange-server-2010/bb684904(v=exchg.141)
Now all you need is people who actually do that.
And while you are at it, just give admins a single account with email plus OWA. And no security training 🙂
Revisiting discussion specific to DNC email hack. Wikileaks stated that leaks came from seven email accounts (shown below). My own examination of details indicates that more accounts were involved, but perhaps bcc's explain difference. In any event, the emails are concentrated within Finance department + Miranda (who was installed by Hillary campaign as part of Hillary coup on DNC finances).
The leaks come from the accounts of seven key figures in the DNC: Communications Director Luis Miranda (10520 emails), National Finance Director Jordon Kaplan (3799 emails), Finance Chief of Staff Scott Comer (3095 emails), Finanace Director of Data & Strategic Initiatives Daniel Parrish (1742 emails), Finance Director Allen Zachary (1611 emails), Senior Advisor Andrew Wright (938 emails) and Northern California Finance Director Robert (Erik) Stowe (751 emails).
There are numerous emails in the WL DNC archive between the help desk (help[@dnc.org) and finance officials. Help desk was located at MISDepartment (which was bullied out of contract by Crowdstrike). In one email, Scott Comer asked help desk for password for departed employee from MISDepartment (https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7354)
From:ComerS@dnc.org
To: help@dnc.org
Date: 2016-05-13 11:44
Subject: Former Employee's Emails
Hi Help Desk,
Some of our donors are still emailing Julia Fahl, even though she departed a few weeks ago. Is there a way for me to have access to her email account so I can see which loose ends need to be tied up?
Scott Comer
Finance Chief of Staff | LGBT Finance Director
A logical implication is that a hack of MISDepartment would be extremely efficient method to obtain dnc.org email passwords of Comer and other hacked officials. Alternatively, as discussed a while back, a disgruntled MISDepartment employee would be able to easily extract emails. Other than smoking gun evidence to the contrary (and I wonder whether Mueller really has it in respect to DNC hack), the MISDepartment situation seems very fertile.
Oh dear, I had forgotten all of that. My own very words & research into whether that claim (DNC ORG emails hosted by Google) was true.
According to those details (that you repeat in the above comment #comment-782880) the dnc.org email does seem to be hosted by Google (now).
So what about the MS Exchange server?
Well they certainly have (or had) that (see indictment and that wikileaks email).
In that email published by wikileaks (#13859) that you linked to we clearly see a MS Exchange error message:
dncrrmain @ dnc.org
I am unable to email dncrrmain and factivists' wordpress site is down. Please give access so we can send this out asap!
So perhaps at least some part of DNC had it's emails hosted on Exchange. That seems a bit odd, but you there are several sub-organisations in the DNC (we have DCCC, DNC, democrats.org, DNC Press etc). But in this case the email address in question for which we get an error from MS Exchange is: dncrrmain @dnc.org. So not a separate domain like democrats.org.
Alternatively they were on Exchange and just moved to Google at some later time.
Note that you can share an email domain across multiple email systems (for example, shortly after a merger), including a combinations of Exchange and Non-Exchange (like gmail based).
https://practical365.com/exchange-server/how-to-share-an-email-domain-between-two-mail-systems/
In that setup one of the systems is the main recipient (the 1st) and that email system then forwards all emails to the email system of the 2nd group for people that belong to that second group.
The above article explains that issues can occur when you do this. One of these is that people from one part of the organisation may have issues mailing people in the other part of the organisation, even when their email address belongs to same domain (@dnc.org). That is because they are really not all serviced by the same email system, and one of those systems may not know all the people (all the email accounts).
So there are two options:
1. they were using MS Exchange (+OWA) at the time and just that, and merely switched to a Google based solution later (after June 2016).
2. they were using a mix, with one of the two acting as the 1st recipient and forwarding when needed.
This question is discussed here as well:
Quora: Was the DNC email that was breached hosted on Google Apps / Gmail?
https://www.quora.com/Was-the-DNC-email-that-was-breached-hosted-on-Google-Apps-Gmail
Nope. Exchange. But you need to protect user identities regardless.
Neither Google Apps (G Suite now), nor O365, have been compromised on the backend … ever. Any breaches have been users whose identities have been compromised.
Header of those leaked emails show that they didn't use Google Apps' email service (Gmail) at the time:
They probably switched from Microsoft software to Google Apps after the hack.
Jaap wrote: "Oh dear, I had forgotten all of that. My own very words & research.."
I am sympathetic to the situation. I experienced something similar recently. I got involved in a twitter controversy and was reproached for some comment that I had allegedly made but couldn't recall. I searched my twitter feeds and couldn't locate anything. I said that I couldn't recall making the comment in uncharacteristically too sharp language (twitter does that). Embarrassingly, I had forgotten to search blog comments and indeed had made the very comment which I had denied being able to recall. I had made the comments only a few days earlier, moved onto something else and promptly forgot. I emerged with bruises.
It very much increased my sympathy for the possibility of innocent failures of recollection by someone as busy as Michael Flynn during transition, or George Papadopoulus.
For each email in the Wikileaks DNC archive, there's a Source tab *e.g. https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails//get/19781) which, opened in Notepad, shows metadata. Here is metadata from a May 25 email, still appearing to show Microsoft Exchange. (I can't comment with technical precision on such matters at present).
Ron wrote: "The only problem is that if Mueller can't present any fruit of two years of investigation toward Russian collusion that gives Trump a clean bill and provides no basis for which he should be questioned."
Let me re-write your statement. "The only problem is that Comey can't present any fruit from one year of investigation that provides any basis for which HRC should be questioned." As you remember, several months earlier Comey had given up hope of finding a "smoking gun" email or witness proving that HRC KNOWINGLY and INTENTIONALLY ignored rules for handling classified information (that was not yet marked classified). Nevertheless she was asked to appear for questioning solely on the hope that she might admit wrongdoing (by admitting knowing that an email from her server was classified) or by committing perjury.
Why is Trump any different?
Whether or not Mueller's investigation has produced a potential case against Trump, there are potential cases about Flynn, Page, Papadopoulos, his son, his son-in-law, Manafort, and others who met with Russians or informants pretending to be connected to Russia. You are assuming Trump will deny hearing anything about these meetings. Investigators don't make assumptions, they collect evidence. If Trump wants to lie to protect these people, he must risk his presidency. Like all Americans, he can always refuse to answer on the grounds it may incriminate him, but admitting that answering could be incriminating also risks his presidency.
Then there is the possible obstruction charge.
Frank, you have a problem. Knowingly and intentionally is NOT required for an offence to be committed. Comey made that up. But having classified information on her rivals server, Clinton is guilty if she did so negligently. Given that it appears that every email sent on that server was bcc'd To a third party (apparently not Russia) it would appear that she was indeed extremely negligent.
Clinton claimed when questioned not to know what the C meant on a page, standard indication of Classifed documents that she with her long history in polotics should most definitely have known ( alien to the FBI in other words). There is also the published email where a subordinate is instructed to remove the classified tags and to send it anyway.
There should be no reasonable doubt that she intentionally and negligently violated the law. And BTW she also committed perjury with regard to an FOI case where she stated under oath that she had released all responsive emails, yet the FBI uncovered many additional emails that she had not released.
As for Flynn, I think we'd need to see the 302forms and also know if they were intentionally altered by McCabe to be sure if he actually lied or was simply accused of it. The FBI also threatened to charge his son.
Page has not been charged and no verifiable information about any collusion relating to him has surfaced. Papadopoulos, if the original mention of compromising was made by a CIA provocateur (as Mifsud appears to be – he has remarkably close links to the Italian state security apparatus for a Russian agent of influence) then any charges against him are connived and part of a seditious, treasonous plot.
Oh dear, auto-correct is a pain. That should be private server not rivals. And it is lying to the FBI not alien to the FBI.
Should also mention the Strzok text where he said that Clinton's email admin, when questioned, "lied his ass off". Yet was he charged ? Nope, instead he was granted immunity. How corrupt or incompetent, grant immunity and yet never charge anyone else.
franktoo
Ed snack fantasizes about Papadopoulos being being "compromised by a "CIA provocateur (as Mifsud appears to be)"
Less than a week later, another conspiracy bites the dust:
"The defendant's [Papdopoulos'] lies undermined investigators' ability to challenge the Professor [Mifsud] or potentially detain or arrest him while he was still in the United States," sentencing memo said. "The government understands that the Professor left the United States on February 11, 2017 and he has not returned to the United States since then."
Of course, confirmation bias makes it difficult for one of us to accept who ensnared Papadopoulos, the US IC or the Russians. IMO, Mueller's attorneys wouldn't risk their careers by (unnecessarily) lying to a court in a sentencing memo. Maybe the Deep State has Mueller fooled (obstructing justice?), but that anti-Trump conspiracy wasn't powerful enough to get the Steele Dossier and FBI investigation widely published before the election.
Mueller's attorneys wouldn't risk their careers by (unnecessarily) lying to a court in a sentencing memo
I doubt that lying to a court poses the slightest risk to Mueller's attorneys. In the sentencing memorandum, they made a bald-faced lie about the timing of the Papadop interview, which they falsely stated to have occurred "early" in their investigation, when it actually took place nearly six months in and long after Papadop allegations had been used in FISA application against Page.
Ironically, the only actually false Papadop statement reported in documents is his statement about timing of "dirt" information relative to his employment on Trump campaign. It appears to me that Mueller team made a more or less equivalent false statement to the court – under conditions far less stressful and with far better opportunity to review and ensure correctness than Papadop was accorded.
In my opinion, his statements about unimportance of Mifsud were not only reasonable, but true as at time of interview, and improperly characterized as false statements in Plea Agreement, leaving the false statement about timing the only one that ought to have been at issue.
Margo Cleveland of The Federalist carves the FBI a new one today regarding their handling of Popadopoulos and also Mueller on his disingenuous sentencing claims that Popadopoulos hurt the FBI's questioning of Mifsud. http://thefederalist.com/2018/08/20/papers-saying-papadopoulos-lied-fbi-fbi-shows-either-also-lying-incompetent/
Ed wrote above: Frank, you have a problem. Knowingly and intentionally is NOT required for an offence to be committed. Comey made that up. But having classified information on her rivals server, Clinton is guilty if she did so negligently."
Ed's, you have a problem; your opinions are not supported by the facts. For some offenses, the state must prove (beyond a reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury of twelve) that someone knowingly and intentionally broke the law. For other offenses, this is not necessary. Superficially, a 1917 law makes it a felony to exhibit gross negligence while handling classified material, without requiring proof of intent to do so. However, Comey claimed that only one person in a century had been indicted under this statue and no one had been convicted. He also claimed that legislators had no intention of making simple careless behavior into a felony. If Comey made incorrect statements, Republican questioners would have presented clear evidence of his mistakes. So would the DoJ IG.
Former prosecutor and Congressman Trey Gowdy, the best prepared Republican, didn't waste time arguing the need to prove intent. He boldly asserted that intent could be demonstrated by HRC's erroneous statements and other evidence. Gowdy was quite convincing, until one realized that the evidence Gowdy cited showed her intent was to hide her activities, not disclose classified information or ignore proper procedure.
Protections against inadvertently breaking a law have increased since 1917. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Arthur Anderson (Enron's auditors) because "the instructions allowed the jury to convict Andersen without proving that the firm knew it had broken the law … The instructions were so vague that they "simply failed to convey the requisite consciousness of wrongdoing".
Frank wrote: "Whether or not Mueller's investigation has produced a potential case against Trump, there are potential cases about Flynn, Page, Papadopoulos, his son, his son-in-law, Manafort, and others who met with Russians or informants pretending to be connected to Russia."
First, it's not a crime to speak to a Russian, or even the Russian government. Second, there was zero communication with the Russian government by anyone in the Trump campaign except through the Russian ambassador whose job it is to speak to US officials (while under 24-7 surveillance by US IC). Flynn may or may not have given a 100% recital of his conversation to the FBI for them to check against their surveillance. But there is no charge of improper communication. Flynn pleaded guilty for the same reason Papadopoulo did; it was deemed less costly than defending against a multi-million-dollar witch hunt.
As Ed pointed out, Mifsud appears to be an intelligence asset of the west. The fact that the Russian collusion investigators show no interest in Mifsud or Goldstone tells us all we need to know. But let's dig deeper. The FBI's story is that they were alerted to the Trump-Russia connection by the Australian diplomat after he saw the DNC hack announced and put it together to his conversation in the London bar with Papadopoulos a month earlier. But by this time we know now that Carter Page was already being set up to meet with Stefan Halper on July 11 at the London symposium. Page said his invitation came in late May be someone else. Halper initially lied about when he first met Page, saying it was late summer, August. We can be sure Page is telling the truth because he knows that the government has all his emails and the only thing keeping out of jail is the fact that he is more honest than a boy scout. Papadopoulos was set up and falsely charged, collateral damage in the op against America, an innocent bystander. I hope you feel safer.
Frank, you know, unlike 99% of people, that Natalia V. was working with Fusion GPS, who were working for Putin interests against William Browder. Natalia V's blocked visa had to be special green-lighted by the Obama administration, Loretta Lynch. Natalia admits to meeting with Glen Simpson before and after the Trump Tower meeting. Do you really think that if Putin wanted to establish a back door to the Trump campaign this is how he would do it, through Clinton's surrogates?
So many conspiracies; so little time. Steve politely asked me stop wasting time on this subject. It hurts to see so much nonsense left unchallenged at a site I deeply respect, but it is Steve's blog. The topics that interest Steve today tend to attract conspiracies. Lewandowski tried to convince me this was always true, but failed.
As if it were yesterday, I still remember reading Archer's review of AIT at RC that casually dismissed the "correlation is not causation" problem in ice cores, and then ranting about someone I never heard of named McIntyre. I told myself, if Archer spouts nonsense like this and hates McIntyre, maybe I should see what McIntyre has to say! You see, Ron and Paul, I'm a contrarian who tests the reliability of what I read, not someone naive enough to passionately believe in deeply flawed leaders like Clinton or Trump, or in the politics of CAGW vs. den1a1, or in a conspiracy so incompetent it couldn't get the press to print the Steele Dossier before the election. After several months at Climate Audit, Steve's analyses survived my scrutiny. And Steve sent me to ScienceofDoom, another person seeking a non-trivial view of "the truth". Will Steve convince me someday that a non-Russian hacked the DNC or that the Syrians haven't been using poison gas lately? Probably not, but he has earned the right to try.
Steve: gracious words. I realize that I'm treading dangerous territory that I strictly avoided in order to focus on climate.
In context, my career in climate arose, curiously enough, from opposition to the US invasion of Iraq. I'd previously had a casual interest in the topic for about a year, but the invasion prompted me to ask Michael Mann for his data – I did so in the very week of the occupation of Baghdad and looting of the museum. I thought that the CIA had insufficiently considered the possibility that their aluminum tube was just an aluminum tube and not evidence of WMD. I decided to look at Mann's proxies and method to see whether they too had a less sinister explanation. In approaching the task, I explicitly retained the caveat that, even if the aluminum tube was just an aluminum tube, there might be some other justification for the Iraq invasion and carried this caveat over to climate policy where I always limited my criticism to Mannian-style reconstructions and their use in policy.
I became interested in the DNC hack in large part because of my unique experience with the Climategate hack. I spent a lot of time (though never wrote about it) on using document metadata and document/email choices to profile MrFOIA – was he a leak, hack and, if hack, what could one tell about the hacker(s) – who, as you may recall, were believed to be Russian intel services by many climate scientists. To say the least, I had a unique perspective for doing so, since no one else, and certainly no UK counterintel operative, had my knowledge of the documents and emails and how they connected to the climate debate. I settled fairly quickly on the belief that Mr FOIA was an individual partisan who was a keen reader of Climate Audit and that the hack, or at least the opportunity for the hack, arose from the Mole incident in the summer of 2009 during which many Climate Audit readers examined the CRU FTP site. When UK counterintel closed the file, they, on the other hand, had not narrowed the range at all. While they interviewed me, they did so only in my capacity as someone who had made an FOI request and seemed totally aware of Climate Audit's unique role in controversy, After UK counterintel closed the file, Mr FOIA emailed me (and a couple of others) to say that he was not from UK, US or Russia, and was a lone individual who read my blog (and WUWT) and was concerned about climate. While this didn't "prove" that he was as he described himself, it exactly fit the profile which I had developed.
My initial interest in DNC hack arose from this experience. I read the US intel assessments with considerable interest and was appalled by the lack of evidence and supporting data. It relied mostly on repeating conclusions louder and louder. It withheld data supposedly to protect "sources and methods". From my experience in climate, I was well aware that climate scientists were far too quick to withhold data and methods from potential critics. While most people thought nothing of US intel agencies withholding evidence, I remembered back to use of misleading or even false data to precipitate not just Iraq invasion, but the Vietnam war, and was worried about the increased stridency and heightened tensions with a nuclear power.
Before jumping to conclusions about the quality of such intel assessments, I decided to examine another relatively recent US intel assessment. Syria (which I'd not followed at all) was then in the news, so I looked at US intel assessment of 2013 Ghouta chemical incident, which similarly relied mostly on loud assertions and was skimpy on evidence. I then read contemporary criticisms, including very searching analyses of rocket ranges and directions by Ted Postol (an MIT professor) and at the whoghouta blog on the one hand, and everchanging anti-Assad rationalizations by Bellingcat (then Brown Moses) on the other. After lengthy due diligence on technical points, it became clear to me that the maps of rocket origin in the US intel assessment, New York Times and Human Rights Watch were at best wrong and at worse fraudulent.
I was bored with lack of progress in climate reconstruction controversy and needed a break from the topic. I've got a lot of unfinished business and will probably return to it, but I've noticed that my energy and attention has flagged a lot in the last few years. I've suddenly become 70 years old and really find that I lose sharpness easily. I also have been mostly commenting on twitter and letting comments at the blog go well beyond my editorial preference.
"So many conspiracies…"
Frank, you bring up the Stephan Lewandowsky scientific paper proving that conservatives are more prone to conspiracy ideation. I didn't read the paper so I don't know if he actually spelled out what brought him to investigate his hypothesis. For example, he had a strong hunch that people he disagreed with (conservatives) required less evidence per se to make valid conclusions.
The heart of the ridicule of extraordinary claims is that they should require extraordinary evidence. One who would not require extraordinary evidence is not thinking rationally, delusional on the topic or worse, troubled, (clinically schizophrenic). Disbelieving 97% climate scientists (and one climate psychologists) is extraordinary and carries no rationale. Ergo conservatives are in denial and any argument in support of their claim is delusional.
There is an equally valid explanation that Lewandaowsky missed. Many people find the extraordinary fascinating, and enjoy analysis of it (because they are good at it) like our host. And progressives like Lewandowsky are just as prone to believe in conspiracies if the extraordinary fits his pre-conceptions more than those who do not share their world view.
"The topics that interest Steve today tend to attract conspiracies. Lewandowski tried to convince me this was always true, but failed." I commend you.
Frank: The more you post, the more obvious your bias. Evidence of crime re: Hillary came from her own mouth on the steps of the UN in May, '15. When you say her interview might produce perjury charge, you show your ignorance (maybe you forgot) that she was not put under oath. So you say, why is Trump different? For one thing, there's no crime to be investigated: Flynn and Papdapoulos only charged with lying to FBI; Manafort charges have nothing to do with Trump or campaign; Page never charged; his son and son-in-law? now you're just trolling. How about this-if, as you say, Trump "no different", then he's not put under oath. And they destroy laptops, and give immunity to Manafort, Flynn, Papadapoulos and Cohen. You're good with same treatment down the line?
let's not re-litigate Hillary here. I'd rather discussing technical issues of hacking.
Paul I used the wrong term. If Hillary lied, she would have been charged with obstruction of justice, same as Trump. Same charge as Flynn and Papadopoulos.
I will respect Steve's request not to re-litigate HRC's case; however I would just like to correct Frank. Not only did HRC lie we have documentary evidence that she did so. Also both Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills said when interviewed by the FBI that they had no knowledge of the clintonmail server – and there were mails going back over a year that they had sent using that's erver. Check that out, and please advise if either was charged with lying to the FBI.
To our host: Agreed. Thank you for keeping my post up, I got to the finish- if Obama admin can use FISA Court to tap other party campaign on this quality evidence, it sets a precedent- very bad precedent.
Now, back to climate- don't you just hate Hilla…..must…stop….FINGERS!!
Seriously, thanks to CA for running this, only place I see even raising questions about DNC "hack".
Paul wrote: "FISA Court to tap other party campaign on this quality evidence".
The quality of the evidence presented to the FISA court depends on what you think about Steele. Some facts (as I understand them): He was the top man in MI6 on Russia in the late 2000s, and responsible for uncovering the FIFA bribery scandal as an independent investigator. After the end of the Cold War, CIA Director Gates ordered that Russia be treated as a friendly country – the CIA could listen to defectors, but no longer recruit, pay or even assist Russians who wanted betray their country's secrets. The British continued to welcome and support Russian defectors, which is why you hear about their assassination in Britain rather than the US. Steele apparently personally handled Litvinenko. This is why MI6 and Steele are an critical resource for US intelligence today and why some thought his dossier credible enough for a FISA warrant.
As far as we know, Steele was paid only $170,000 by Fusion GPS for what became the Steele Dossier. IMO, it is absurd to believe that he would concoct such an improbable "dossier" and ruin his career for such a small sum of money. With Perkins-Coie and Fusion GPS between the DNC and Steele, there is (so far) no evidence any DNC official had any influence over what Steele wrote. Steele certainly could have faked a better story. It is far easier to believe that Steele has become paranoid about Russian influence in the right-wing parties in Europe, the rise of Trump in the US, and exaggerated or misinterpreted his sources. Whether his paranoia is justified, grossly exaggerated, or severely delusional can certainly be debated. Anyone who knows the history of the rise of fascism in the 1930s and the reality behind the "Red Scare" is likely to be somewhat paranoid to begin with.
This Other Frank: At the risk of irking our host, I gotta ask- looks like you researched Mr. Steele, did you come across his own description of his own work as "unverified" etc.? Under oath or something, wasn't it? Funny you didn't mention that. You seem to think more of the quality than he does! Contrarian, huh?
The "quality" of Steele doesn't matter, though. All of his info was 3d hand unidentified sourced, FISA Court should have not approved warrant without verification of the sources (guy named Andrew McCarthy at NRO has nailed this down, if you like research).
But the real reason I am compelled to respond is, your talk of Steele's reputation is an evasion. Assume SAME quality evidence, you are ok with this admin getting FISA warrant on Democrat campaign for Pres.? Kamala Harris campaign advisor meets with russians who have funded BLM; or Liz Warren campaign advisor meets with russians who have dirt on Trump (let's not ask how that's different from what Hilla… no, forget it). We know those russians are interfering in US campaigns, so get a secret nat'l security warrant…. And it's all good with you? Please answer that, and no racehorsing, frank- and you, too, frank.
Friends: I use "franktoo" to log in at Climate Etc and "frank" everywhere else. My apologies for unintentionally letting WordPress fill in the former for me here.
Andy McCarthy has argued that the FBI can't present second-hand information to the FISA court, but he appears to be wrong despite his expertise in this area. According to Wikipedia, the law requires:
"the court find probable cause that the target of the surveillance be a "foreign power" or an "agent of a foreign power"
and the phrase "probable cause" means:
"a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true". …Even hearsay can supply probable cause if it is from a reliable source or is supported by other evidence."
In Page's case, this means a reasonable suspicion exists that he met secretly with Sechin and discussed ways the Russians might help Trump. I don't think a prudent man would believe 15% of Rosneft or other statements about Page.
McCarthy says the NORMAL practice for the FBI is not use hearsay and carefully investigate the immediate source. That makes sense in domestic cases; investigators don't want the evidence obtained via a warrant thrown out if the next judge needs more probable cause. However, some types of foreign intelligence can't be investigated and can only be presented to a court as hearsay. If a US source in Moscow has tipped off the US about Aldrich Ames or Robert Hansen or a source in the Middle East tipped us off to a Al Qaeda bomb-maker or a Iranian spy, shouldn't the FISA court consider such hearsay evidence?
If Steele had reported collusion between any Presidential candidate and Russia, I would be in favor of any filing that would permit surveillance. IMO, it is 'treasonous" to conspire with a foreign government to help elect a candidate who favors that foreign government, and a violation of the law to accept or solicit foreign non-monetary campaign contributions.
Obviously my opinion isn't worth much. McCarthy is highly biased and has his critics. I tried and failed to find a survey of legal opinion. Sessions has asked the DoJ IG for a report on the FISA application. I'm sure he will criticize lack of complete candor about Steele's funding. Until that report comes out, the FISA judge who approved the application is the most credible source we have and he agrees with me (:)).
Frank, you forgot to answer Paul's question if you would have been OK with the spying under the same circumstances had the targeted campaign have been of a Democrat.
Also, even if Steele was considered a reliable source by those who didn't know of his heavy bias against Trump, they should have considered that Steel called his hearsay raw and unverified and coming from politically motivated sources (Russian agents).
Bottom line: Steele was approaching the US IC as a surrogate of a rival political campaign with unverified dirt, no different from Sid Blumenthal's story of Obama being born in Africa story when Clinton ran against him. Steele was not reaching out like the Dutch IC, a helpful ally that was uninterested and unpaid by one of the campaigns.
Steele had to be considered unreliable as the FBI fired him as a confidential source and knew of his extreme bias before the first FISA application date of October 19. Instead, the FBI used the Yahoo News article that they knew Steele and Fusion GPS were behind as a corroborating source in the FISA app.
I thank our host for keeping this string up long enough to expose our friend frank, who seems not to know what "contrarian" means. Your "survey of legal opinion" failed twice: 1) probable cause when info comes from confidential informant is very clear in FISA and every other american court, you just didn't know where to look for your survey (you could have watched about half-a-dozen cop crime dramas, they actually get it right, just like Andrew McCarthy did); and 2) rely on wiki for general rule on PC without regard to confidential informant.
You hand waive McCarthy as "highly biased" (in favor of Trump? Shows us you speak as an authority on matters of which you are quite ignorant), but you tell us Steele very reliable in spite of his lying to FBI about leaking his dossier to reporters, a dossier he knew to be unverified and unreliable while letting those reporters think it was true. You tried to buff up the dossier with tales of Steele's backround, while hiding Steele's own description of it, under oath. None so blind….
Ron graf, I think he did answer. He's in favor of using FISA Court warrants to investigate the opposition based on the info Obama admin had in Oct. '16. He seems to have no clue as to what potential abuse he would unleash, but he'll be in favor of Trump admin wiretapping Dem campaign in '20. I'm done with him.
Don Monfort
Frank is highly biased and has his critics, but he does blabber that if Steele had conjured up a phony dossier with BS stories of Russian collusion and peeing on hotel beds by any candidate, he would be in favor of a baseless political witch hunt making use of phony FISA warrants. We can assume that franktoo is just as clueless.
Don, I actually give Frank a lot of credit for his deep dives and thoughtful comments. It goes to show that even highly educated minds can, by discarding just a few critical details, fail to connect the dots. Consider that Michael Cohen is said by a Steele's source to have visited Prague on behalf of Trump and Putin to have a sub rosa rendezvous. Unfortunately for Steele Cohen and others say he was in LA at the time period in question. Why would Steele risk entering a fact that could be refuted especially when everything else in the dossier is unverifiable short of a confession. Steele, we know now, had access to the US IC at the highest level. Carter Page was in the dossier surely because of his 2013 file jacket. It was just a few clicks for someone like Bruce Ohr to check on all the Trump volunteers for any government records and pass it on to wife Nellie over supper.
It turns out that Michael Cohen did indeed visit Prague, and at the exact time mentioned in the dossier. That Cohen, however, was not Trump's lawyer but someone of the same age. (Yes Frank. They made absolutely sure it was a different Michael Cohen.) https://www.mediaite.com/tv/report-intelligence-community-believes-it-was-a-different-michael-cohen-who-visited-prague/
But it would have been hard to know without a full investigation. It would have been very good use of the US IC for a Trump opponent with access to weave a narrative with an eyeopener fact. Imagine if our Cohen had visited Prague innocently. It would be assumed the knowledge of his visit came from Russian agents. The dossier would've been "confirmed," and not just as claimed by Schiff and others hacks on CNN. This is such a critical point that even rumors Cohen in Prague gain top billing in clickbait news. https://www.vox.com/2018/4/13/17236660/michael-cohen-prague-trump-steele-dossier
What are the chances of both Michael Cohens being there at the same time? Hmmm. That is the same chance we have of the Ritz hookers or anything in the dossier that connects Trump to Russian collusion of being true. What is your calculation on those odds?
Antonyl
Small notice: there was a British diplomat Christopher Steel long ago who pitched a coup against the democratic government of Iran in 1953 in favor of BP. He died in 1973.
Nothing about that in his Wikipedia entry "of course".
Till today the MI6 files on that stay secret, while the CIA admitted https://www.historytoday.com/daniel-wb-lomas/iran-britain-and-operation-boot
Ron: "Frank, you forgot to answer Paul's question if you would have been OK with the spying under the same circumstances had the targeted campaign have been of a Democrat."
Actually, I answered and then deleted to avoid moderation for being too long. I would apply the same standard to all – including myself, if Steele had pointed the finger at me. IMO, Bill Clinton's campaign contributions from China warranted an independent prosecutor 20 years ago.
Prague: If a high level Russian official made a secret trip to the US to meet with Cohen (and possibly others?), he would need a cover story to explain his absence from the office. Steele's source could have heard rumors about a meeting, but reported the Prague cover story. Once the dossier published, the Russians could have planted false information about "another Michael Cohen" for the press to discover, but US intelligence should have gotten there before publication. The other possibility is that Cohen has a false passport provided by the Russians, but it makes far more sense to let a Russian professional do the secret traveling.
Due to his long relationship with Trump, Cohen is the only person in the dossier who appears to be a credible intermediate in any relationship between Trump and Russia. Cohen's wife is from a wealthy Ukrainian family. I can't picture Trump personally collaborating through people he didn't know well before the campaign (Page, Manafort, Papadopoulos and Flynn), but Cohen was a reasonable possibility.
I can picture Russians trying to reach out to the Trump campaign through Page, Manafort, Papadopoulos, and Flynn, but I can't see Trump confiding and responding through them. And someone reached out through the Agaralovs.
"IMO, Bill Clinton's campaign contributions from China warranted an independent prosecutor 20 years ago."
If I understand you, you would like to see more accountability and transparency across the board. Without getting into the HRC personal email handling, I think you forgot to mention the investigations need to be non-biased. And, when evidence is uncovered of wrongdoing at the FBI and DoJ a special counsel is the only hope of have an independent unbiased investigation. The congress should pass a resolution to appoint the special counsel instead of waiting for the DoJ to do it. Frank, I hope you agree that this is way overdue.
Prague: you didn't provide odds that there were two Michael Cohens of the same age visiting Prague at the same time. But you seem to agree they are very slim and are providing alternative explanations. Honestly, I don't understand why the Russians would plant a false Michael Cohen in Prague or how that would provide cover. If you are saying that the dossier source was repeating a false story to Steele about Prague we agree. But why do you think that any of the contents of the dossier would be anything but disinformation? There is no logic that makes Trump or conservatives as more sympathetic to Russia than liberals. There is story today of Russia cyber-attack on conservatives in the US, for example. http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/402938-russian-hackers-turn-on-anti-kremlin-conservatives?rnd=1534892613/?userid=168534
"And someone reached out through the Agaralovs."
A Russian oligarchs would be particularly likely to want to have a favor owed them by President HRC. The evidence we see is of Deripaska, for example, working with Steele and Ohr in January of 2016 on easing his sanctions. We also see Clinton surrogate Fusion GPS's fingerprints all over the Trump Tower meeting, getting their Russian client, Natalia V., into the country on a special visa for the meeting.
Don and Paul: You raise a scary possibility: Other FBI investigations are going to be initiated on the bias of false information created by political opponents. It has probably already happened. The author of the book "Clinton Cash" was funded through Steve Bannon. The IG report confirmed the existence of an investigation into the Clinton Foundation, which has probably been going on for years but perhaps been suspended at times. However, since the FBI "never" confirms the existence of ongoing investigations, the voting public shouldn't get definitive stories about the allegation the FBI is taking seriously from the press. This is what exactly what happened to both the Clinton Foundation and Russia investigations in 2016. The minute Steele started talking to the press, the FBI cut off all official contact with him – as they should have. The system worked and neither investigation was a factor in the election Some outgoing Obama administration official (Clapper?) spilled the beans in Jan 2017, forcing Comey to inform Congress next time he testified.
I haven't read Clinton Cash, so I can't compare its credibility to the Steele dossier. However, the two aren't comparable; the dossier is a series of raw intelligence reports collected over a few without any way of judging the credibility of Steele's sources and therefore the meaning of their reports.
If you want to look for conspiracies, I'd forget the Democrats and Fusion GPS and focus on the IC and their fear of foreign influence. Both Tony Podesta and Manafort worked for Yanukowych; neither party is clean. History tells them that both Nazis and Communists deeply penetrated the British ruling class and the US in the 1930's. Men like Steele, Halper, Ohr, and Strozak could be deeply concerned about growing Russian influence. Then Trump appoints a group of foreign advisors and a campaign chairman that are already regarded with suspicion. Add a little paranoia and I can imagine a conspiracy independent from the DNC and Fusion GPS
Ron: Rightly or wrongly, I can't see Fusion GPS as a serious player in any conspiracy. Fusion GPS didn't work for Natalie V or the DNC; they did research for the law firms that hired them to assist their clients. Natalie V was in the US on a special visa to appear in court for the Prevezon case (Browder's embezzled taxes) and Prevezon US attorneys Baker Hostetler hired Fusion GPC to do research on Browder. Simpson never met Natalie privately and neither spoke the other's language. It is absurd to say that Fusion GPS was all over the Trump Tower meeting.
I've heard nothing about direct contact between Simpson or Steele and anyone in the DNC or Clinton campaign. Steele talked to the FBI, briefed the DoS, and spoke to various reporters (with Simpson), but I can find no report Steele talked to any high official in the HRC camp.
Did Fusion GPS work for Baker Hostetler and Perkins Coie merely by chance? Impossible! Now consider the Washington Beacon. Aren't they involved merely by chance? Then other connections through Fusion GPS could also be chance.
Ron wrote: "If you are saying that the dossier source was repeating a false story to Steele about Prague we agree.
No. The dossier might have the right story about Cohen meeting a high level Russian in Aug 2016, but the wrong location. If a high level official in the CIA has a secret meeting with an Iranian dissident in Qatar, that CIA official will tell others in Langley (except his boss) that he has a meeting in London, check into a London hotel, have a CIA officer from the London embassy take him back to the airport and occupy his room, and then fly to Qatar using a different identity.
Suppose a Russian used the same trick to meet Cohen in the US and then learns that his trip to Prague was reported in the dossier. That official has fake evidence planted that a different Michael Cohen was staying in Prague during the correct period. Even those inclined to believe the dossier might mistakenly believe Cohen wasn't involved in collusion. I place little importance in the fact that the Dossier got the meeting location wrong, because I expect the location to be protected by a cover story.
Ron wrote: "But why do you think that any of the contents of the dossier would be anything but disinformation?
Part 1. Mr. Steele's future income depends on the reliability of his work. He isn't going to fake the dossier for a measly $170,000.
Part 2. Mr. Steele is reporting raw intelligence. He probably never intended for it to be shared with the public. Other intelligence professionals know that raw intelligence can always be disinformation – that first the credibility of each source needs to be demonstrated before one knows what to believe about each source's individual reports. If we independently learn that the official who visited Prague to allegedly meet Cohen made the trip in a single day, that source's credibility is damaged. If we find that the official took a long weekend in Prague, then we keep an open mind.
Why did Steel allow raw intelligence to get into the hands of those not qualified to properly interpret it? Why didn't he write a interpretation with appropriate (strong) caveats for non-professionals? He really screwed up big time here.
Trump's unusual behavior towards Putin and Russia's massive intervention in our election provide a veneer of credibility to the whole dossier, but it doesn't tell us any details are credible. Most importantly, I can't think of any credible evidence from the dossier suggesting that Trump personally actively colluded.
Ron wrote: "There is no logic that makes Trump or conservatives as more sympathetic to Russia than liberals."
I think your wrong here. Conservatives place more value in authority than liberals. If our government is failing us, conservatives are more likely to turn towards an authoritarian figures than liberals.
Conservatives place far more value on group identify and nationalism than liberals. This theme unites Russia (and "Russians" living outside Russia today), the far right parties in Europe and Trump.
Conservatives place much more value on religion than liberals. Putin is a religious man and Russia is probably more religious than many of our NATO allies.
You might want to see: Haidt's "Moral roots of liberal and conservatives" starting 4:00
Poor Frank has gone off the deep end:
Steele had good reason to think he would not be exposed. The FBI wasn't going to tell on him. The left wing media he fed was not going to tell on him. And if Hillary had won, he would not have been exposed. And since when is $170,00 measly. With the expectation to be able to earn a lot more from his powerful, grateful benefactors.
Even more stupid:
So, conservatives would ally themselves with KGB dictator Putin? What a freaking laugh, Frank.
Frank wrote: "He [Steele] really screwed up big time here."
I hear you saying that Steele was performing legitimate intelligence gathering, not influenced by the desires of his paying client and personally agnostic as to the contents of his product. And, realizing it importance and sensitivity, used his relationship with US IC to share his reports. His paying client acquiesced of course out of patriotic duty. His only mistake was not realizing that the Obama appointees in the US IC would be so irresponsible as to use his raw intelligence to spy on the Trump campaign and leak it to the press without independently verifying it.
One must ditch about a dozen facts in order to paint that picture.
1) Steele knew he was working through cut-outs (Perkins and Fusion) to shield the true source of his financing. BTW, this provides a good reason to believe he received or was promised more of a share of the millions paid to his cut-outs. We only know what they openly admit to. There have been no midnight raids on Steele or Simpson or Perkins Coie.
2) Steele openly voiced his extreme disdain for Trump to his FBI texts.
3) Steele went to the US media directly, violating his FBI agreement, (with Simpson in tow) to spread his salacious and unverified raw intelligence. Only Mother Jones and Yahoo News had low enough journalistic ethics to go to print.
4) In all approaches to the media the dossier was represented as sprouting conservative funded research taken over by Dems. Both Simpson and Steele had to know this was a lie. Regardless, Simpson maintain the confidence in being protected by a enough to testify to it under oath. The source of the lie remains un-investigated and Simpson un-indicted. He was right to have no fear. Comey still maintained this cover story in an interview as late as March of this year. This alone is quite alarming.
5) Recently released notes from Bruce Ohr show that Simpson feared exposure as a result of Comey's facing conservative meddling questions by congress. Ohr assured the firewalls were still in place. The plan was still on course in 2017.
6) If Steele thought he screwed up by inadvertently providing fuel and spark for a corrupt Dem FBI and DoJ's illegality and abuse, threatened to destabilize the US government, he could have blown the whistle to the GOP congress and US public. Instead, he is fighting any transparency. He's a co-conspirator.
Frank, if I understand your proposed reasonable explanation for Prague it's that the Russian IC, once seeing the dossier published, and realizing they were getting "too close", wanted to help Trump by placing a fake record of a Michael Cohen that they knew would initially provide confirmation but fall then dissolve upon investigation. If they were lucky it would lead HRC skeptics to believe that the dossier was fabricated utilizing HRC's access to the US IC's ability to investigate Trump advisers for non-publicly accessible facts like passport records and prior FBI file jackets (like Carter Page's 2013 one).
1) If the Russians did nothing to plant after-the-fact evidence the dossier would have failed to do anything but smear, failing a confession.
2) The Prague angle was sure to be put under the Dem-FBI microscope (assuming they genuinely believed in the dossier). Any slight misstep or bad luck leaving a Russian fingerprint would have provided the adversary with a smoking gun case-closer.
3) Even without a clear fingerprint at the scene, but only evidence with plausible deny-ability, if the Mueller investigation got a successful confession out of Cohen that would blow the deny-ability, and expose greater treachery of using full trade-craft.
Frank, you have to admit you are reaching.
However, I think we both agree:
A) That fomenting US government corruption and political division in the US serves Russian geopolitical interests.
B) Russia likely knew of Steele and Fusion GPS activities. Remember Deripaska was working with Steele and Ohr and shared the same US agent lobbyist.
C) By May 21, 2016, the last DNC WL emails ex-filtrated, Russia likely should have learned of the Dutch 2014 compromise of the SVR. If so, it makes a hard case to see they would boldly and unprecedentedly hand these cookies to Assange for publishing knowing there existed videos of their hands in the DNC jar. Unless-
D) If Russia was the source for WL then it was likely to help frame Trump, especially if G2 was Russian.
E) The Mueller team agreed that Russia fielded anti-Trump trolls and after the election even organized and funded anti-Trump protest rallies. This led even Mueller and Rosenstein to announce that Russia meddling was for the purpose of creating general division and chaos.
Don wrote: So, conservatives would ally themselves with KGB dictator Putin? What a freaking laugh, Frank.
Wake up Don. In February 2017, 32% of Republicans had a favorable view of Putin. Possibly reasons: Gays, religion, immigration/nationalism, Trump. I'm sure its higher today.
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/320539-putin-favorability-surging-with-republicans-poll
You can search for "Republicans like Putin" on Youtube and find some cherry-picked scenes with Republicans praising Putin. Because the scenes are cherry-picked in an offensive way by the liberals, just listen to the themes of what Republicans praise. The strongest voices against Putin in the Republican party are on their way out for not being strong supporters of Trump: McCain, Graham, Ryan, Corker, Flake, etc. The next generation of leaders is likely to have a different perspective.
You are just plain silly, Frank. So, 68% of Republicans do not have a favorable view of Putin. And the rest might express having a favorable view of Putin, as a knee-jerk reaction to the Dimocrats trying to hang Putin around Trump's neck and otherwise Putin is irrelevant to their lives. Anyway, how TF does that translate into conservatives allying themselves/"turn towards" KGB Stalinist dictator Putin, you silly boy?
We get that you don't like Trump and it causes you to think silly thoughts and say silly things. It's called TDS. Give it a rest.
Don asks: "how TF does that translate into conservatives allying themselves/"turn towards" KGB Stalinist dictator Putin"
Of course, I never said those words, you made them up. Unlike us old frts, most Republicans don't recognize that Putin is a Stalinist dictator who worked for the KGB. Like Trump, they may think the KGB is like our Intelligence community, only appropriately loyal to their leader. To many, Putin is a strong leader who "made Russia great again", believes in God, hates gays, kills Islamic terrorists, and believes in Russian ethnic identity and nationalism (not the liberal international consensus that has kept peace in Europe since WWII). You correctly assess that Republicans have developed a more favorable attitude towards Putin PARTLY because election interference, allegations of collusion and support for Putin hurt Trump's credibility as president. The other factors I listed are important too.
The real question is whether we can overcome our personal prejudices and gain a better understanding of what has happened.
I will have to help TDS sufferers, Frank and franktoo:
Nobody with even half a brain could read that and not get what you are claiming. You said that conservatives-Trump are united with Russia-Putin. That is idiotic. End of story.
Don: If you bothered to watched the video I cited as evidence, you wouldn't jump to such overly simplistic conclusions. You might even enjoy the evidence suggesting the liberals are morally defective, though the speaker (Johnathan Haidt) doesn't express it in those terms. After completing the research discussed in this, Haidt decided he could not longer call himself a liberal. He is one of the founders of Heterodox Academy, an academic group promoting greater diversity of ideas and freer speech on college campuses.
I watched Haidt's TED talk. He mixes a few valid insights all can agree upon to jump to the wrong conclusions. This itself is very human and is the reason for scientific discipline to validate truth rather than just use loose associations of logic.
If Haidt's logic that being conservative means being shy and being less open to take changes how does that fit Donald Trump?
More people in Haidt's audience identified as libertarian than conservative yet Haidt never even acknowledges that politics are better described as tri-polar rather than bi-polar. Why make things complicated? Because it would have muddied his simple message that there are only two kinds of people, one good like him and the other unenlightened, not overcoming their innate human scripts.
I guess like Lewandowsky, Haidt is oblivious to the dangers of assuming his stated humility inoculates him from bias, and that he is not driven by what others could see as religiosity. He talks about one group (his) being dedicated to improving the future of the world. This get's me to thinking of the very definitions of religiosity, tribalism, intolerance and bigotry.
In Haidt's mind a conservative is a yet-to-mature liberal. Funny, Winston Churchill famously said the opposite, that to be a conservative as 20 would be heartless. To be a liberal at 60 would be idiocy.
Not jumping to any conclusions, Frank and franktoo. Just observing the obvious. What you said is idiotic. No amount of alleged evidence contained in random videos of some clown spouting BS is going to change that. Carry on with your foolishness.
Ron: Thanks for being will to listen to new ideas.
Ron asked: "If Haidt's logic that being conservative means being shy and being less open to take changes how does that fit Donald Trump?"
For many, Trump isn't a conservative; he is a radical. [Burkian] conservatives respect past traditions that have elevated our society to its present relative height and are skeptical of the ability of even the smartest humans implement successful radical change. The American revolution was a remarkable success, but most revolutions end up like the French or Russian revolutions. Trump has no doubt about his ability ignore the past and radically change things for the better.
Haidt asked how many were libertarians in the beginning of his talk and certainly recognizes them as a separate group. With only 20 minutes, he didn't go into the moral roots of libertarians, but I suspect he has collected the data.
In a longer talk, Haidt discusses studying morality in dozens of different cultures that have been isolated from the major Western and Eastern religious traditions. His five roots or morality are allegedly common to all, which is why he asserts that our brains are pre-organized to learn these concepts. However, experience shapes which of these five become more important to us. I don't think he is passing moral judgment on concepts that are innate and then shaped by experience. He just wants us to understand why others have such different values.
Ron: "In Haidt's mind a conservative is a yet-to-mature liberal."
This is 100% wrong. Haidt stopped calling himself a liberal after doing this research, because liberals were too intolerant of moral values important to conservatives. If anything, Haidt is telling us (or me at least) that liberals have a POORLY developed sense of morality, because they don't recognize the importance of group loyalty (who is going to volunteer to serve in the US military without it?), respect for authority/tradition (social order decays without respect for rules), and purity (monogamy is certainly better for your health and raising families).
The Russian kleptocracy headed by Putin is unfair and has harmed many people, two of the foundations for morality shared by conservatives and liberals. However, Putin deeply believes in or exemplifies those moral concepts appreciated mostly by conservatives: Russian national identity (group loyalty), the Russian Orthodox Church with Moscow as the successor to Rome and Constantinople, personal fitness (a form of purity), and most of all restoring order and pride after the failure of socialist ideals and democracy under Yeltsin. This was the point I tried to make to Don above, but Don's values are likely rooted in the Cold War. If Putin were simply "KGB Stalinist dictator", he would certainly have no appeal to conservatives.
Experience taught Churchill that liberal ideals weren't all that his country needed.
"Our Righteous Minds were designed to: unite us into teams, divide us from other teams, and blind us to the truth." Like the "Hockey Stick team". I'm certainly not a member of the liberal team, and have learned a lot about what motivates the Trump team, but hope to discover the truth.
Frank, by the fact that you are interested in exploring answers to the fundamentals make our moral differences minuscule, as are the differences between conservative and liberals, at least in a biological or psychological sense. This is what makes me appalled that Haidt would have the hubris of claiming a scientific analysis defining conservatism or liberalism. Anyone, especially here in the climate blogs, can appreciate the Eugenic-like perils of such attempts. Applying a biological or social origin driving liberalism versus conservatism is confounded by an abundance of counter examples.
I strongly suspect that Haidt's and his associates interest in analyzing the origins of morality stems from the commonly held belief by those practicing a formal religion that their religion is their's and other's foundation for morality. That is, after all, what is taught to each faith. The growing agnostic population realizes that morality, like the cosmos, was there before religion and simply got explained by it along with other hard-to-reason questions that needed answers (with all due respect to those of all faiths).
Haidt's observations of universality of certain morals in human and higher mammal behavioral tendencies are surely fair game to be studied and explained by scientific methods. Political beliefs are a separate and can at least partly be understood through the extensive study put into establishing them and changing them through propaganda. The bandwagon effect is certainly related to biological security reached by social conformity. Name-calling and smearing casts suspicion and allows justification for dismissal or censorship of opposing views. Glittering generalities and plain talk are appeals for emotional connection, trust and tribal identity. Testimonial, transfer and card stacking are all methods to persuade with false logic that are easily accepted by the less informed and less critical. The political parties are mostly just larger tribes that each politician can ascribe to in conjunction in establishing their own tribal following.
The real question is how to educate the public to appreciate moral politicians and how to distinguish them. Our media and higher educational institutions have dropped the ball by placing their priority of propagating their own political views (propaganda) above moral of fairness for the common good. You have to admit America used to be better in this regard in the twentieth century.
IF I were to label people in just two groups for simplification I would choose a)totalitarians and b) non-totalitarians. The former want to control everything from everybody: so the KGB under Stalin but now also DHS "under" most Republicans and Democrats, "left" and "right".
'Too big to fail' is the refuge of the 1%, containing a lot of central bureaucracy but now also most Western MSM and elected on all sides of the spectrum. In the US they gathered around the industrial-military complex with the CIA in the lead, as Eisenhower admitted in 1961 just before JFK tried in vain to pull the power out of their hands. Today Trump is trying, not sure he will live to see second term.
Power is a stronger drug than heroine, crack cocaine or carfentanil.
Posted Sep 3, 2018 at 12:18 AM | Permalink
Ron wrote: "This is what makes me appalled that Haidt would have the hubris of claiming a scientific analysis defining conservatism or liberalism. Anyone, especially here in the climate blogs, can appreciate the Eugenic-like perils of such attempts."
Eugenics? I think you may misunderstand the "scientific" basis behind Haidt's exploration into the fundamental basis of morality. His talk didn't focus on his survey of the existing research into the moral concepts that all human societies developed even those isolated from the major religions. Haidt's research apparently shows that there are five common themes in morality that have developed independently in all human societies. His talk placed little emphasis on this "science", if we can even call this "science". If you want to speculate, survival of the fittest has ensured that only humans born with minds pre-organized to learn to: care for others, treat them fairly, respect authority, loyalty to group, and restrain carnality.
Then he talked a lot about correlations between how much emphasis one personally places on the relative importance of each of these five foundations of morality and how one categories oneself on the political spectrum.
Haidt says our moral minds: 1) Unite us into teams (like the Hockey Team), 2) divide us against other teams (the skeptics), and 3) blind us to the truth: There was a MWP and sometime our climate has or will exceed that MWP peak (because cloud feedback can't be low enough to make ECS 1 or less). Your devising a dubious analogy to eugenics shows your moral mind being blinded. I won't say to "the truth", because I don't think we know the truth about reality. Blinded to interesting ideas that explain why liberals and conservatives few things differently.
FWIW, this research promoted Haidt to stop calling himself an liberal (they are too intolerant) and to found Heterodox Academy, an organization devoted to promoting free speech and open discussion of divergent views on college campuses. Discussed at Judith's blog. https://heterodoxacademy.org
Haidt has pointed out elsewhere that the two track morality of liberalism (caring for others and fairness) taken to excess leads to this absurdity:
Living for today…
And no religion, too
Living life in peace… .
Sharing all the world…
Frank, I gave both you and Haidt credit for exploring the question of the roots of morality. I agree that those roots are universal and affect sociology and thus are exposed to evolutionary forces and thus have affected biology and cognitive wiring. I simply disagree with the next conclusion, that political affiliation has any significant connection, is highly suspect. That is where the egocentric perils lie to making eugenics-like extrapolations.
Haidt, himself admits that his five roots are somewhat arbitrary. Care, purity, loyalty, fairness and respect overlap and are not fully inclusive. Where is bravery, friendliness and thrift?
Without scientific study and just using logic I would suspect the fundamental trunk root to all morality is connected with survival, as does Haidt, I believe.
From that trunk branches off direct self-care and indirect self-care for survival of organism and species. Care and purity derive from the need to take active steps in environment to prevent parasites, pestilence, predation and injury. Fairness, loyalty and respect are all social requirements for effective organization for group survival (indirect self-care).
The requirement of leadership for successful group organization, which requires the selection of a leader, which places a conflict between the moral of fairness (since the leader is inherently unequal). The dealing with this conflict is the root of all politics.
There is no difference among liberals, conservatives, libertarians or anarchists except in their perceived calculations for moral efficacy, with all of five of Haidt's classifications likely weighed identically by all.
Ron wrote: "There is no difference among liberals, conservatives, libertarians or anarchists except in their perceived calculations for moral efficacy, with all of five of Haidt's classifications likely weighed identically by all."
IMO, this is wrong. One can certainly question whether there are five moral concepts that the human brain is pre-organized to learn (something you accept, but which can not be demonstrated scientifically). However, Haidt's surveys show beyond any doubt that self-identified liberals and conservatives place different amounts of importance on these concepts. You probably do place equal amount of importance on them – but your liberal opponents do not!
Which comes back to the point I was trying to make to Don: Decades ago, conservatives hated ex-KGB agent Putin as a symbol of an anti-religious international Communist conspiracy destine by history to take over the world. Today, conservatives have less reason to hate him as a strong man who restored order to Russia, a proponent of Orthodox Christianity, defender of Russian national greatness, Islamophobe, and opponent of gay rights.
Ron writes: "The requirement of leadership for successful group organization, which requires the selection of a leader, which places a conflict between the moral of fairness (since the leader is inherently unequal). The dealing with this conflict is the root of all politics."
Liberals are notoriously skeptical about leaders. The recent Occupy Wall Street movement refused to elect anyone leader to represent them. The protestors in the Maidan were a coalition of groups that spontaneously rejected the settlement (negotiated with the help of the EU and US) that opposition party leaders brought to the Maidan the day before Yanukowych fled. Even the American revolution floundered under the Articles of Confederation, a problem that was addressed when the constitution created a chief executive. I suspect you can find counter-examples, particularly the disciplined armies of Democrats that follow Pelosi and Schumer, but perhaps armies taught disciple by harsh experience.
In any case, I didn't intend to start a major discussion of the moral difference between liberals and conservative here at CA. At one point, it seemed like a useful tool for promoting some understanding of why different groups see things differently, but during a "holy war" understanding isn't greatly appreciated. I'll try to leave you the last word.
Posted Sep 17, 2018 at 2:01 PM | Permalink
Frank, I just saw last comment and I see you labeled them as your final thoughts on our conversation so I will try to politely part and hope to avoid "holy war."
I do agree with the biological origin of morals rather than the divine. I don't know if Haidt has it nailed down any further than that.
Prioritizing morals is what I would call values. Where to draw one's loyalties, for example, may differ slightly from differing political groups. But even here it is just temporary perturbations to serve the convenience of the political aims. For example, liberals are globalists on economics and governance because it serves the agenda to spread their cause and eliminate conflicting causes. Conservatives are recovering from the neoconservative setbacks in the middleeast and fearful of liberal agendas thus not crazy about globalism.
These things shift through time. Just like Dems suffering Russia phobia because their leaders are telling them Russia (or Putin) supports GOP. Conservatives can only laugh at this. Putin has been seen for what he is, a product of the KGB, since he came to power. Peaceful co-existence with the Soviet Union was pushed by liberals throughout the 20th century. Remember the unilateral disarmament movement in the early 1980s? That was because Reagan was doing the opposite. Just like today, one party counters the other simply for argument sake it seems.
We all put ourselves and loved ones first in our values. From there it is mostly politics. And it does not matter which.
So, I disagree with you and Haidt that there are any permanent morals or even values that universally separate liberals from conservatives. You can disagree. But I hope you agree that the assumption of natural egocentrism would favor my side.
I see the left is trying to pin communism on conservatives and that socialism is new and liberal. This is also a laugh. http://www.differencebetween.net/business/difference-between-socialism-and-communism-2/
Communism, on the other hand, controls its economy through a single authoritarian party. It is thus characterized as conservative because the economy functions based on the decisions of a few.
Ha. I love Reagan for saying: "There is no right and left, only up and down."
Note, MISDepartment would not know any passwords for access (or should not), but they would have the ability to change passwords. Hence a hack of MIS would be useful only if it gave access to the ability to reset passwords in the DNC email system.
Presumably that would be full admin access to AD. One would hope that MIS would be a little harder to spearphish and a bit better protected as regards intrusions. That doesn't mean that they would be immune but they should be able to notice changes better.
Ha ha, priceless 🙂
And he is right of course, for those who don't like to read it all, here's the conclusion :
The point that I'm trying to make is that if anyone in Russia wanted to spear phish employees of the DNC, then creating a @yandex.com email address instead of a @yandex.ru email address is not only unnecessary extra effort but it makes absolutely no sense. You don't gain anything operationally. You've used Yandex. You might as well paint a big red R on your forehead.
However, you know what does make sense?
That the person who opened the account DOESN'T SPEAK RUSSIAN!
He went with Yandex.com because all analysis stops with merely the name of a Russian company, a Russian IP address, or a Russian-made piece of malware. To even argue that a Russian intelligence officer let alone a paranoid Russian mercenary hacker would prefer a Yandex.com email to a Yandex.ru email is mind-numbingly batshit insane.
I have no idea who created hi.mymail@yandex.com to spear phish Billy Rhinehart, but I bet you $100 that he wasn't Russian.
Note that this is about the group that phished Rhinehart, i.e. the same that also phished Podesta; the group which I said uses different software than the likely Sofacy (related) group
Refresh me on your view on another topic: do you surmise that group that hacked DNC emails is same as group that hacked Podesta emails? Data on DNC hack doesn't seem to be nearly as clear as for Podesta hack. I think that the Podesta hackers were also spearphishing DNC email addresses (resulting in DCLeaks publication of William Rinehart, Sarah Hamilton etc) but the Finance officials seem like different selection procedure.
IDK who did the DNC finance people. I have not seen any details on the Finance group. To be honest I have seen no breakdown of who got hacked + what their email looked like, ie. to what server/program it went. That would tell you. But we simply do not know as most of the details are not published.
Perhaps we can ask firms like security works for their data, you like we would do for any paper with ' interesting' conclusions…
The argument that use of @yandex.com is an indicator of fake Russian fingerprints is consistent with the argument the original released G2 docs show fake Russian fingerprints by means of "Felix Edmundovich" in the metadata. The Mueller indictment avoids "Felix" as evidence in support of their contentions.
The indictment is indeed conspicuously weak on explaining the DNC intrusion, unlike that for the DCCC.
From the indictment:
The GRU had multiple units, including Units 26165 and 74455, engaged in cyber operations…
These five digit titles are suspiciously like that used by Mandiant (now owned by FireEye) to claim the Chinese military engaged in large scale and traceable hacking. Search 'PLA Unit 61398' Wikipedia (as far as I have time now) seems to suggest, or I infer the five digit name might be a creation by the private security industry, this time a synonym for "APT1".
"Units 26165 and 74455" may be titles of random numbers to make the threats seem important and obscure, imagined alternatives to the likes of "Fancy Bear" — not names or unit titles or room numbers or anything created by the hackers themselves.
bmcburney
"Shawn Henry of Crowdstrike was ex-FBI and a pal of Mueller's. I suspect that Mueller did a solid for his pal."
Indeed, but G2 also performed a very similar solid for CS/Henry also with respect to the e-mail exfiltration dates; something which cries out for an explanation.
I just downloaded and watched the CEO of MIS Department Inc.'s video of how he got involved in running the IT for Obama in 2008. In his own words RAJEEV KUMAR CHOPRA was just a guy (maybe in his early 30s in 2008) who volunteered for his Senator, Obama, to run for president. In his clear, accent-less English he describes making himself useful enough they started paying him before he went broke. He repeated the performance for 2012 but he described it as less satisfying as it was no longer the winning long shot. The video must predate Hillary as she is not mentioned. He is still the proprietor of MIS Department Inc, who filed a current annual report to Illinois for 2018. The company web site is just a splash screen. Here is a link his boring video. http://hdvds9.com/file/download?id=43JObgscbMM
He seems like a regular Joe, not one to get involved in foreign intrigue or taking the health risk of crossing Hillary. One of his employees or Imran Awan, OTOH …
I see that Popadopoulos filed last week to start the discovery process. His wife was on Fox last night appealing publicly for her husband to withdraw his guilty plea. She said that former Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer's role in reporting her husband's London bar room conversation was illegitimate. And, she denied the accuracy Downer's recounting, implying a witting or unwitting role in the framing of her husband along with Professor Mifsud. I had missed until today John Solomon's article in The Hill on March 5 uncovering that Downer was Clinton's most prominent Australian ally, personally securing $25 million in 2006 aid from his country to help the Clinton Foundation.
Remember, the significance of the Popadopoulos-Mifsud affair is its being the origin of the investigation and independent from HRC. Recall that the dossier's origin was cloaked in an untrue cover of being initiated by a never Trumper. If Mrs. Popadopoulos is correct, that Downer was a tool of HRC, then our timeline for an active operation involving HRC predates the March 25 Mifsud dangle to Popadopoulos. This also predates the arrival of Paul Manafort into the campaign by a several days. So Manafort's Russian dealings with Tony Podesta in the Uranium One deal could not an initiator of an HRC hatched Russia-Trump op in this scenario but perhaps not an accident either. We learned 12 months ago in the Washington Post that through the Manafort indictment that he had volunteered for the campaign unpaid unlike for the Dole and McCain campaigns. The week after getting in the campaign he emails "How do we use to get whole. [with Deripaska]" In a July 7 email he wrote "If he [Deripaska] needs private briefings we can accommodate." We learned a few months ago that Steele hired the same lobbyist that Manafort used. And we learned last week that Steele was working on Deripaska's behalf to ease the US sanctions placed against him. This was in Bruce Ohr's notes for January 2016. We also know that the nightmare scenario of Ohr working for Steele and Fusion GPS's Glenn Simpson have been validated. Ohr and his wife Nellie, who worked for Simpson, were central figures even 6 months after Steele's official (though secret) work for the FBI, which we know now spanned most of 2016 and included 11 payouts.
Back to Popadopoulos. Although a Hillary dirt dangle would have been a dirty trick, for Alexander Downer London encounter on May 10, 2016, to be connected with HRC that would show forethought of a later needed cover for a full-blown op. The London Bar encounter pre-dates that DNC WL exfiltration by at least two weeks.
What are the chances that HRC was fishing for Russian phishing at the DNC? If she was privy to the Dutch intel of APT29 hack at the DNC perhaps there was anticipation for further attacks. Perhaps the Fancy Bear incursion really did only exfiltrate the Trump oppo doc. In that scenario both the WL and G2 were part of the op. In that case MIS Department's leaving the DNC unprotected and telling Podesta that the request for his password was "legitimate" was intentional. In this scenario the head of MIS Department would have to be involved.
"We learned a few months ago that Steele hired the same lobbyist that Manafort [Deripaska] used."
Ron: Steele isn't rich enough to afford a lobbyist. Deripaska is. Around 2010, Deripaska invested some of his wealth trying to devise a plan to rescue an former FBI agent detained by Iran. I suspect this effort made a favorable impression Steele and Ohr and led to the correspondence with Ohr that has been leaked. Ohr's efforts proved fruitless and the Trump administration imposed crushing sanctions on Deripaska that have forced him to leave his company.
Posted Sep 3, 2018 at 12:12 PM | Permalink
Yes. The reporting that Steele was a client of Adam Waldman was likely inaccurate. It makes much more sense that Steele was a contractor for Waldman on behalf of Deripaska, just as Steele was contractor for Fusion on behalf of Clinton.
The DoJ, through its rogue #4 Ohr, his wife working for Fusion with Steele, the FBI through rogue Strzok, McCabe, Page and others, all being in the midst of both Clinton's and Deripaska's powerful orbits is troubling to me.
That Manafort volunteered to give personal briefings to Deripaska to "get whole," seems also suspicious in this light. Did Deripaska have any market for Trump inner circle briefing information? Of course, HRC would love to have access to Trump's personal communications. Did Deripaska ever think to use Steele and Fusion to deal with HRC, the presumptive future president of the USA, to provide him sanctions relief? Remember, he was fruitlessly paying Waldman and other millions over decades for this.
Posted Sep 6, 2018 at 9:39 AM | Permalink
Ron: We now know that US sanctions under the Magnitsky Act have forced Deripasha (and the entire board) from Rusal and that the company might require a bailout from the Russian. Before the financial crisis was once the richest man in Russia. So Deripasha's main interest during the past few years in Waldman, Steele, Ohr, Manafort, and probably many others has been avoiding this financial disaster.
Back in 2009, Deripasha was interested in being part of a deal to acquire Opal from GM, which is when he first hired Waldman. An affiliate made a $0.5 contribution to the Clinton foundation. Deripasha became involved in the attempt to rescue Levinson about the same time. If the article below is correct, HRC was instrumental in vetoing this deal, even though this was the early days of her attempt to "reset" our relationship with Russia. (Perhaps success would have produced a contribution to the CGI of more respectable size.) This makes it less likely that Deripasha was involved in any anti-Trump conspiracy involving Ohr and Strozak.
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/09/john-helmer-did-hillary-clinton-take-money-from-russia-oligarch-oleg-deripaska-for-a-favor-in-the-general-motors-opel-deal.html
Jaap and others may recall that domains in Podesta and Rinehart phishing came from *.tk, *.ml domains (with similar phishes from *.ga domains.)
I noticed following three emails in my spam folder today, all three from variations of Willie Soon. First two from .tk and .ga domains.
Didn't click on any of them- only hovered mouse and took screenshot.
Best to specify that you didn't click on them but just hovered you mouse pointer on the sender column items. No need to bite those dangles/ lures.
Quite so. Added this.
The common denominator of .ml, .ga and .tk are they are governments that give away free domains. The last one Tokelau claims to be cracking down on abuse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.tk
Off this topic but Russian and Climate related: anybody studied analysis of this recent Batagaika megaslump in northeast Siberia, exposing layers up to 200,000 years old?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313811612_Preliminary_paleoenvironmental_analysis_of_permafrost_deposits_at_Batagaika_megaslump_Yana_Uplands_northeast_Siberia
You are so interesting! I don't think I've read through a single thing like this before.
So wonderful to find another person with some original thoughts on this topic.
Seriously.. thanks for starting this up. This web site is something
that is needed on the internet, someone with some originality!
Just wondering if there's anything to the China hacked HC private server, going back to 2015, from those here that know better than everything I read:
https://dailycaller.com/2018/08/27/china-hacked-clinton-server/
It was just before GOP congressmen questioned Peter Strzok in July that they learned every Clinton email was being forwarded to a foreign entity. This was discovered in 2015 at the beginning of the Clinton private server investigation but kept secret by the Obama US IC. When conservatives asked Strzok about the uncovered documents showing he was made aware of this at the time he claimed he did not remember being notified. This infers that Strzok took no action but to cover up. A week later the question purportedly was asked of Lisa Page at her private deposition and she reportedly spilled the beans that it was the Chinese. Left wing Politifact debunked the story as "pants on fire." But as CA commenter Antony pointed out, the story Politifact debunked got the Clinton server mixed up with the DNC server. So the Politifact story was only technically correct but completely deceptive [imagine that]. The Daily Caller story yesterday clearly finally got independent confirmation on the story. Reuters is only reporting this morning that Trump made a tweet in the early AM repeating a Fox News allegation of China hacking.
If some authority would ask the FBI if Clinton's emails were obtained by any other non-US gov entity apart from some "Russians" they could not deny that truthfully; when asked with too much specifics like "her" private server or "hacked by" they might be able to deny that on some technicality or wording.
It takes a thief to catch a thief goes a proverb, but only when the former is willing.
Rep. Louie Gohmert, the Texas Republican who originally disclosed the ICIG had discovered a foreign government breach of Clinton's server, dismissed the FBI statement that the bureau had "not found any evidence" her server had been compromised.
"It was the Obama-appointed Intelligence Community Inspector General that discovered the breach. It was not the FBI that found it, so their statement was technically correct, but very deceptive in its omission," the congressman said in a statement Wednesday. https://dailycaller.com/2018/08/29/fbi-refuses-disclose-intelligence-community-inspector-general/
Brandon Shollenberger
Is there the slightest shred of evidence to support Representative Gohmert's claims? This is a guy who has made things up in the past, including about the FBI. And he's a rampant conspiracy theorist. Just a few months ago, he went on national television to tell everyone the government was spying on him. Personally, I'd be hesitant to repeat anything said by a person who says there's a government conspiracy to spy on him without the slightest shred of evidence.
Fun fact. Gohmert has also claimed the data used for global warming claims is fraudulent, a deception being carried out with intent. People who decry warmist efforts to paint "skeptics" as conspiracy theorists should probably distance themselves from him.
Matt Skaggs
"I was bored with lack of progress in climate reconstruction controversy and needed a break from the topic. I've got a lot of unfinished business and will probably return to it"
Please do climate skepticism a favor and don't do that. What are you going to do, just tack a skeptical climate post on the end of your list of far-right conspiracy theories?
By Richard Steven Hack made the so-called "Twisted Genius" look like an idiot | vulture of critique on Aug 3, 2018 at 8:14 AM
[…] A Russian Spearphishing Domain Is Now Hosted in New York City […]
By Conspiracies Everywhere | Izuru on Sep 9, 2018 at 5:07 AM
[…] was an odd post over at Climate Audit a couple months ago which observed a web domain name involved in a hacking […]
(The Tip Jar is working again, via a temporary location)
Categories Select Category AIT Archiving Nature Science climategate cg2 Data Disclosure and Diligence Peer Review FOIA General Holocene Optimum Hurricane Inquiries Muir Russell IPCC ar5 MBH98 Replication Source Code Spot the Hockey Stick! Modeling Hansen Santer UK Met Office Multiproxy Studies Briffa Crowley D'Arrigo 2006 Esper et al 2002 Hansen Hegerl 2006 Jones & Mann 2003 Jones et al 1998 Juckes et al 2006 Kaufman 2009 Loehle 2007 Loehle 2008 Mann et al 2007 Mann et al 2008 Mann et al 2009 Marcott 2013 Moberg [2005] pages2k Trouet 2009 Wahl and Ammann News and Commentary MM Proxies Almagre Antarctica bristlecones Divergence Geological Ice core Jacoby Mann PC1 Medieval Noamer Treeline Ocean sediment Post-1980 Proxies Solar Speleothem Thompson Yamal and Urals Reports Barton Committee NAS Panel Satellite and gridcell Scripts Sea Ice Sea Level Rise Statistics chladni Multivariate RegEM Spurious Steig at al 2009 Surface Record CRU GISTEMP GISTEMP Replication Jones et al 1990 SST Steig at al 2009 UHI TGGWS Uncategorized Unthreaded
CCSP Workshop Nov05
McIntyre/McKitrick 2003
MM05 (GRL)
MM05(EE)
NAS Panel
Reply to Huybers
Reply to von Storch
Accuweather Blogs
Andrew Revkin
Bob Tisdale
Dan Hughes
David Stockwell
Idsos
James Annan
Jeff Id
Josh Halpern
Keith Kloor
Klimazweibel
Lucia's Blackboard
Matt Briggs
NASA GISS
Nature Blogs
Roger Pielke Jr
Roger Pielke Sr
Roman M
Science of Doom
Tamino
William Connolley
Bring the Proxies up to date
McKitrick: What is the Hockey Stick debate about?
Responses to MBH
Some thoughts on Disclosure
Wegman and North Reports for Newbies
MBH 98
Steve's Public Data Archive
Wegman Reply to Stupak
Wegman Report
Weblogs and resources
Ross McKitrick
Surface Stations
Archives Select Month November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 March 2021 July 2020 March 2020 October 2019 July 2019 February 2019 October 2018 July 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 November 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 October 2004 January 2000
Click on the "Reply" link to respond to a comment.
Frequent visitors will want the CA Assistant. Sort/hide comments; improved reply box, etc.
18,591,429 hits since 2010-Sep-12
RT @ellymelly: "Novak Djokovic's win at the #AustralianOpen was not only for himself – it is a win for everyone: the persecuted, the coerce… 1 hour ago
RT @Taurevanime: Will not post images for obvious reasons. But in Bakhmut near Vatutina Street, Wagner soldiers came across bodies with th… 1 hour ago
RT @snarwani: OPCW blames the Syrian govt for the Douma "chemical attack" despite overwhelming evidence from its own officials that this is… 1 hour ago
RT @LeeBTConsulting: Then came 2016 & beyond. From the Steele dossier to this bot hoax, an avalanche of bullshit made it difficult—in some… 2 hours ago
RT @MaxAbrahms: @elonmusk @lhfang @DavidSacks I really wish there was a Syria rebel TwitterFile. Most corrupt and dishonest war of my lifet… 2 hours ago
The Decline, the Stick and The Trick – Part 1
A Theory of the Hack
BBC's Fake Climate Audit Screengrab
PAGES 2019: 0-30N Proxies
PAGES19: 0-30S
The nexus of Russian disinformation and climate change disinfo (Thanks Delingpole, McIntyre, and Gateway Pundit) | Red, Green, and Blue on The Decline, the Stick and The Trick – Part 1
stewgreen on BBC's Fake Climate Audit Screengrab
RCB on A Theory of the Hack
Throgmorton on The Decline, the Stick and The Trick – Part 1
Jeff Alberts on A Theory of the Hack
tallbloke on The IPCC AR6 Hockeystick
Stephen McIntyre on A Theory of the Hack
ThinkingScientist on A Theory of the Hack
Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #488 – Watts Up With That? on A Theory of the Hack
Keith Sketchley on The Decline, the Stick and The Trick – Part 1
Keith Sketchley on A Theory of the Hack
Ron Graf on The Decline, the Stick and The Trick – Part 1
Ashby Lynch on The Decline, the Stick and The Trick – Part 1
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com. |