[null, null, {"document_url": "https://www.sott.net/article/338813-New-Russian-hacking-intel-report-Still-no-evidence", "unformatted_src": "/image/s18/366576/large/2016_09_05t22_53_31_733z_1280x.jpg", "src": "https://www.sott.net/image/s18/366576/large/2016_09_05t22_53_31_733z_1280x.jpg", "formatted_filename": "t z x"}, {"document_url": "https://www.sott.net/article/338813-New-Russian-hacking-intel-report-Still-no-evidence", "unformatted_src": "//assets.pinterest.com/images/PinExt.png", "src": "http://assets.pinterest.com/images/PinExt.png", "formatted_filename": "PinExt"}, null, {"document_url": "https://www.sott.net/article/338813-New-Russian-hacking-intel-report-Still-no-evidence", "unformatted_src": "/images/pinit_sm.png", "src": "https://www.sott.net/images/pinit_sm.png", "formatted_filename": "pinit sm", "alt_text": "Pin it"}, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, {"document_url": "https://www.sott.net/article/338813-New-Russian-hacking-intel-report-Still-no-evidence", "unformatted_src": "/image/s21/425177/medium/cia_cartoon_ben_garrison_1024x.jpg", "src": "https://www.sott.net/image/s21/425177/medium/cia_cartoon_ben_garrison_1024x.jpg", "formatted_filename": "cia cartoon ben garrison x", "alt_text": "CIA dog cartoon"}, null, {"document_url": "https://www.sott.net/article/338813-New-Russian-hacking-intel-report-Still-no-evidence", "unformatted_src": "//assets.pinterest.com/images/PinExt.png", "src": "http://assets.pinterest.com/images/PinExt.png", "formatted_filename": "PinExt"}, null, {"document_url": "https://www.sott.net/article/338813-New-Russian-hacking-intel-report-Still-no-evidence", "unformatted_src": "/images/sidebars/amazon_smile_sb.png", "src": "https://www.sott.net/images/sidebars/amazon_smile_sb.png", "formatted_filename": "amazon smile sb", "alt_text": "Amazon Smile"}, {"document_url": "https://www.sott.net/article/338813-New-Russian-hacking-intel-report-Still-no-evidence", "unformatted_src": "/images/sidebars/revolt_14.jpg", "src": "https://www.sott.net/images/sidebars/revolt_14.jpg", "formatted_filename": "revolt", "alt_text": "Revolt! T-shirts"}, null, {"document_url": "https://www.sott.net/article/338813-New-Russian-hacking-intel-report-Still-no-evidence", "unformatted_src": "/image/s21/426846/medium/Flyboard_Christian_Mierz.jpg", "src": "https://www.sott.net/image/s21/426846/medium/Flyboard_Christian_Mierz.jpg", "formatted_filename": "Flyboard Christian Mierz", "alt_text": "Flyboard"}, {"document_url": "https://www.sott.net/article/338813-New-Russian-hacking-intel-report-Still-no-evidence", "unformatted_src": "//assets.pinterest.com/images/PinExt.png", "src": "http://assets.pinterest.com/images/PinExt.png", "formatted_filename": "PinExt"}, null]
New "Russian hacking" intel report: Still no evidence

Moon of Alabama
Fri, 06 Jan 2017 19:13 UTC 

The cabal consists of President Obama, the defeated candidate Hillary Clinton, neoconservatves like the State Department's cookie dispenser Victoria Nuland, the Republican senators McCain and Lindsay and the military-industrial complex. (One of the few neocons planted near to Trump, former CIA director James Woolsey, threw the towel today and left the Trump transition team.)

A major role in directing the plot has fallen to Obama's consigliere John Brennan, the current director of the CIA. Another role has been delegated to the various military and NATO think tanks like the Atlantic Council and the British RUSI and reliable proxies within the media.

But there is a problem. There is no real evidence that a "hack" ever happened. There is no evidence that Russia is involved. None at all.

Three cases of paper releases have to be differentiated: Allegedly there were two different hacks into the DNC. One was probably harmless, the second one is said to have gained system-level access. I have found no explanation yet how the hackers of the second attack got their first entry into the DNC system. Was an administrator spear-phished? Crowdstrike's fluffy account doesn't say. But it mentions two well known tools the alleged hackers are claimed to have used: "RemCOM, an open-source replacement for PsExec available from GitHub" and "X-Agent malware with capabilities to do remote command execution, file transmission and keylogging". The X-Agent hacking suite has been known for some time and is used by several actors. It is likely also in use by other non-state and state services. All such hacking tools use freely available infrastructure like TOR or rented networks from cyber-crime wholesalers like the recently exposed Israeli denial-of-service franchiser.

The tools and the infrastructure the DNC hackers allegedly used are not evidence that points to any specific actor. Indeed any cyber-crime actor, like the NSA, seeks to disguise as a different actor when committing attacks. Something that "proves" that A did it is likely to have been created by B, C or D to disguise as A.

The new report released later today adds nothing but fluff to it. Selected bits of the new intelligence report are systematically "leaked" by "senior intelligence officials". Here are headlines from today that show how stupid the presented "evidence" is.

A lot of people all over the world celebrated when Clinton lost - me included. So the headline above certainly carries grains of truth. But it should have been be shortened to: CIA finds, watches Russia Today clip on Youtube:

Russia: State Duma applauds Trump's victory in US elections

The Russian State Duma welcomed the news of Republican candidate Donald Trump's victory in the US Presidential elections with a round of applause from Moscow, Wednesday. Deputy Vyacheslav Nikonov announced Donald Trump as the president-elect which was greeted enthusiastically by the chamber.

So yes, the WaPo report is correct. Senior Russian officials celebrated the Trump win - publicly. The CIA got wind of that.

Deep down the Washington Post piece also says:

How could information from some cyber operation in 2008 be relevant here? The systems existing today are hardly the same. We can assume that this is only included to disguise the lack of current proof that any hack of the DNC happened. And the "no bombshell disclosure" line is just a different way of saying: "We got nothing new. There was no real evidence before this report and there is none in it now."

Not all 17 intelligence agencies participated in preparing the assessment.
The report contains some of what the officials called "minor footnotes" about open questions and other uncertainties

Not all 17 U.S. intelligence services signed off on the report. Those who declined to be part of it will have their reasons. Footnotes to the "slam dunk" 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on alleged Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction reports got some prominence:

Not all agencies involved concurred with the NIE's conclusions. Two footnotes have come to public attention. In one, the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissented from the intelligence community's majority view [...]. In another footnote, the U.S. Air Force's director for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance questioned [...]

Back then the "minor footnotes" caveats turned out to be correct while the "evidence" in the main report was fake and its conclusions were one big lie.

Consider also this example on how the "evidence" about the alleged DNC "hack" was gained: The FBI Now Says Democrats Were Behind Hack Investigation Delay:

"The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated. This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third party for information," a senior law enforcement official told BuzzFeed News in a statement.

The third party was Crowdstrike, a cyber-something company whose founder and Chief Technical Officer is the Senior Fellow of the Atlantic Council, Dmitri Alperovitch. (I fail to find biographic information about Alperovitch. Where was he born?) The Atlantic Council NATO lobby is sponsored by various foreign (Gulf) governments and defense industry companies. Crowdstrike was hired by the DNC.

The FBI statement above inspired me to write this movie plot:

In the public courtroom:

Judge to FBI: "So you know who killed Mrs. Clinton's Dream?"

FBI: "Yes. We think Vlad did it ... evidence ..."

Judge: "You found the evidence at the crime scene?"

FBI: "Yes, ehem ... no. We never visited the crime scene. We were not allowed to enter it. Our assessments rely on the reports by the private investigators. The victim's family hired those."

Hollywood rejected that movie script. "Hilarious, but too implausible," they said.

Whenever there is talk of "evidence" of alleged hacking or any Russian involvement ask for real evidence. You will likely be pointed to the several (semi-)official reports and opinions that have been issued so far. But none of these reports, which I read a to z, contains any real evidence. It may be that the DNC got hacked - may be. Even if it was - the case currently presented points only to tools and methods that are known and used all over the hacking and spying scene. To say that it was a "Russian hack" is pure conjecture based on chaff and hot air.

Keep in mind who makes those "hacking" assertions and the motives and money behind them. gdpetti · 2017-01-08T00:04:05Z

Isn't this the usual 'hack' vs 'leak' arguement? Such as what seems to be the CIA's Operation Snowden? Aren't they just prepping the public for greater govt oversight/control/spying... legislation to enforce if 'properly'... because we are a nation of laws, right? These claims against Russia seems much the same... utilize our false flag hack attack claims to bring greater policing powers into law... make it the new norm.
Here's a good look at the Snowden situation on a podcast, perhaps mentioning some background info that most of us don't remember or have heard before, most of the discussion begins after the first 10 minutes or so: [Link]

After listening to that, doesn't all seem familiar? With his background, isn't it a wee bit odd? Why is the mainstream media giving him so much attention instead of all those before him? Why, why, why??? Is he just another Oswald in Russia or what? El_Puerco · 2017-01-10T17:04:45Z
HEY!...people!...have you seen this?!..

Dmitri Alperovitch, founder of CrowdStrike. Joan · 2017-01-11T00:19:25Z
After thousands of years of human evolution of this planet, it has come down to a catcall of yes I am right, you are wrong. You are with us or you are against us. So basic, so infantile, to my mind it mirrors the mind of the persons creating this so called information

They come out with all these algorithms, I wonder has anyone come out with an algorithm for bullshit, where it can be proved it doesn't stink to high heaven.

Seems to me the MSM media throughout the western world has lost there sense of smell, they are no longer are (by design) able to smell shite when it's right under there noses. prehistoric · 2017-01-11T00:45:32Z

Throughout this whole BS process, they continue to say that the 'hack' did not influence the election outcome yet the questions continue to be how the 'hack' affected the election outcome.
The topic should be: "The DNC is a corrupt entity with undeniably viewable proof and how do we outline the corruption for prosecution"?

The whole ODNI report was how the 'hack' made Hillary look bad and how dare RT report truth.

As the Rollingstone article said: "something smells fishy". electronic-wx · 2017-01-14T14:43:07Z
The humiliation of defeat.

Liberalism just received the proverbial kick in the nuts on election day. The insanity and hate and greed and racism of the DNC, the whitehouse, govt agencies and petty snowflake weenies has been openly exposed to the world. Its not a pretty sight to behold, but a necessary move to squash the useful idiots who have supported the insanity of progressive liberalism, the damage to our nation and our lives is exposed to the world. Hitlery Klingon was defeated and the liberalism in its most hideousness is laid bare. NO MSM media propaganda can cover it up. The only believers left are the ones who are too far gone to see the truth.
 


Rowan Cocoan
