There is nothing new under the sun: time and time again, anyone wishing to live in undisturbed peace is swept into a Daniel 11 reskit of self-perpetuating militant agitation operating on the Hellenistic "self-fulfilling prophecy" ouroboros logical basis. Whenever any major political/civic faction seeks to resolve undue friction between two societies, the enemies of peace will insist "the other side cannot be negotiated with and must be treated as enemies," and will deploy proxy mechanisms to most cruelly treat the proponents of peace from the other side of the fence and drive them into bitter anger so they will be provoked to war, thereby "proving" the warmongers' narrative that "peace was never an option because they're out to attack us."
Simply put, the MSM-"informed" masses who pride themselves under presumptuous self-proclaimed intellectual maturity are in actuality mindlessly bootlicking on behalf of initiated conspirators whose top-down operational logic venerates the example of a snake eating its own tail for all eternity. We deserve better psyops!
You totally lost me on this. First, both DNC and RNC computers were hacked, right there proving it was not a hoax. Republican Congressman McCaul has said this, more than once, before RNC officials told him to shut up.
As part of that, note that, contra Patrick Lawrence, NOT EVERYBODY at VIPS signed off on the Guccifer bullshit. Also note that that is the last piece Lawrence ever rote for The Nation.
What next, Dissident trying to revive the Seth Rich conspiracy theory? The claim that Prigozhin's SVR, to be specific, was behind the hack coming from "discredited sources" is wrong. Duncan Campbell is an investigative journalist who knows his shit.
Finally, the hacks were never mentioned in the "Steele Dossier," which has been thoroughly and rightly blown up. As noted about what McCaul said, this is separate,and I suggest they not be conflated.
It seems self-evident that Guccifer was a circular proof. “We claim Guccifer is Russian and we claim Guccifer is in the chain, therefore the chain is Russian”.
Yeah, that piece "evolved" over more than a year. I've done some tidying up, but it's still a bit disorganized, and long. Anyway, that link above will show how Campbell blew this Guccifer bullshit out of the water.
Sounds good. I had heard of him, though not read his "dossier" in detail, before all this stuff. But, I know at the time, many in the US were saying "yeah, who's this guy?"
"Security experts have been stunned by the depth and detail of US intelligence information on the hackers in the indictment. Some of the detail could likely only have come as the results of counter-attacks on the GRU, implanting malware that was copying screens and keystrokes, at the same time they were doing the same to officials in the Democratic Party."
As I point out in my own thread below, this basically means, in Clinton's terms, these experts are "suspending disbelief" in order to believe the unproven indicment that will never go to court.
If the USG were doing active surveillance on the GRU while it was carrrying out these attacks, why in the world would they not have stopped the attacks?
Maybe if these "experts" stop being "stunned" by obvious bullshit, there might be the chance of an epiphany or two.
Campbell (and others) don't need "square quotes" around the word expert. And, otherwise, your claims here and on your main post? They sound like the mythical (he was) Forensicator and others claiming that download speeds weren't fast enough for such a hack — until that was proven wrong.
So, let's cut to the chase with the same question I asked the Dissident:
The point is that these experts are pretending to not see the obvious faults with the story being pitched, because they want to go along with believing the story.
In their own words, they think the story in the Mueller indictment can only be true if the USG were actively surveilling the very GRU officers they claim carried out these attacks. If that were the case, why wouldn't they have immediately stopped the attacks, or at the least informed the attacked parties immediatey?
So there's two possibilities:
1. The Mueller indictment lays out the truth, and the USG was actively surveilling the GRU officers carrying out the attacks, yet did nothing to stop the attacks and did not inform anyone about them.
2. The Mueller indictment contains a story which was never meant to face scrutiny in a court of law and will never be independently verified by anyone, and is a set of technically improbable and downright ridiculous set of allegations, only meant to fool gullible reporters and politicians into believing the narrative.
And, I’m not here to either support or condemn aspects of the Mueller Report about this hack, or about other matters. Per that link above, I’m here to talk about facts on the ground. And, that I’ve chosen.
On another note, I would not trust VIPS on pretty much anything. They were peddling lies back about the Valerie Plame business, and one of their spooks personally threatened me when I started exposing his little puppet journalist Jason Leopold for using sock puppets and harassing bloggers who were debunking his dumb journalism. Leopold later called me with a death threat.
VIPS could be attempting to poison the well regarding Guccifer 2.0 here by derailing critical examination of who or what Guccifer 2.0 actually was, by associating that sort of examination with hokey bullshit. Just a random thought.
The DNC hack story, and Mueller's later indictments based on it, build on a narrative of ridiculously oafish Russian security service spies doing pretty much everything wrong. Which could be the case, sure, but it's also very consistent with a false flag operation meant to point the finger at Russia. You know, kind of like how the whole Nord Stream story went down...
If you look at the Mueller indictments on the DNC email hacks, the way they describe the evidence seems just absolutely ludicrous to anyone with an IT background, like myself. The way they attribute specific actions taken by this and that Russian person in the process of hacking email servers, would only be possible if the entire lot of them were compromised by NSA digital surveillance the entire sessions they were supposedly doing these things.
Furthermore, the DOJ and Mueller knew that none of the claims they were making in these indictments would ever make it to court, and would never be examined by any independent party. They indicted a dozen Russian intelligence officers in absentia, and they will never ever be arrested or meet the inside of an American courtroom to face these charges.
An example:
"On the evening of June 15, 2016 between 4:19PM and 4:56PM, defendants used their Moscow-based server to search for a series of English words and phrases that later appeared in Guccifer 2.0’s first blog post falsely claiming to be a lone Romanian hacker responsible for the hacks in the hopes of undermining the allegations of Russian involvement."
How would the US government have access to what these intelligence officers were searching for on a Moscow-based server?
Now, if you are a Russian intelligence officer, trying to set up phishing attacks on DNC personell, doing so with a Yandex (RUSSIAN) email account would be basically retarded, and something even a young teenage amateur hacker would know not to do. Yet this is passed off as if there's nothing odd about it. Sure, a professional Russian intelligence officer just uses a Russian email account for committing the hack, makes sense...
I mean, really? This is what you would do if you were trying to create the appearance of Russian involvement in a way only gullible, dumb journalists and others would just pass off without any resistance.
If I were an intelligence officer tasked with phishing the DNC, I would use an email server that sends out the emails directly, rather than via some email account provider. There would be no need to pass off the email via another email account as it appears that was done in this case. If there were some problem with this getting picked up by Google's spam-filter, you would in the least pick out a completely bland email service provider with no national signature to do this, not one that literally screams RUSSIA RUSSIA.
And how the DOJ imagines that they have evidence connecting use of this Yandex-account to a specific Russian national, I do not even know how that would go about being possible unless Yandex itself had overturned its records to US authorities, and even so, how would they ascertain that a Russian intelligence officer was the one using it? That would require the spycraft talents of a child, that is, signing up for the Yandex account with his real name etc.
Sure, we can just go along and pretend that Russian intelligence officers doing this are complete imbeciles, but it's much more likely that this is all just bullshit.
The Mueller indictment of the dozen Russian intelligence officer for the hacks cannot be read by anyone with fleeting knowledge of IT systems without dozens or even hundreds of critical questions popping up on how in the world they would have managed to get evidence of what they're claiming.
Another example: The indictment claims to knmow that a specific GRU officer "researched PowerShell commands related to accessing and managing the Microsoft Exchange Server" of the DNC.
How in the world would the USG have access to what a GRU officer was researching about computer commands, unless they were actively hacking and surveilling everything they were doing? If they were, why did they not stop all the hacks that they were observing?
Another example: The indictment claims that the GRU officers compressed gigabytes of data from DNC computers and moved that data via X-Tunnel to a GRU-leased computer located in Illinois. Again: why in the world would they have been using computers located in the jurisdiction of US authorities? It's completely asinine.
It claims that a specific Russian national "on or about March 15, 2016" ran a technical query for the DNC's internet protocol configurations to identify connected devices. Now, this is basically just convoluted speak for them running WHOIS-type queries about the DNC servers. How would they know that a specific Russian national carried out these queries? You can run such queries through a VPN, through anonymous services all over the internet, you can run it from any computer with an internet connection. How in the world do they have evidence that this specific Russian national carried out this WHOIS-type query at this specific time? The only feasible way that they could prove this is if that person were under active surveillance, meaning that the USG was snooping on everything this person did on a computer. If they were doing that, why would they not have stopped the hacks?
It claims that the Russian intelligence officers set up X-Agent malware to send data from DCCC computers to a GRU-leased server located in Arizona, and it claims to know that specific Russian nationals logged into a web-based administration panel to use X-Agent functions.
Now, again: Why would professional Russian intelligence officers use a server located in Arizona, in the jurisdiction of US authorities? To ensure getting caught? To ensure that US authorities could get a warrant to extract every piece of data from this server? Even if the Russians leased this server, why wouldn't they erase the entire thing after the operation was over? Make it make sense.
Then the indictment goes on to claim that they set up an overseas server to act as a "middle server" between the DCCC and the admin panel on the Arizona-server, to obscure the connection. Wouldn't they have done it the other way around if the point was to obscure where the data was going? Why would they first have the data sent from DCCC to an overseas server outside US jurisdiction, and then forward the data from there to a server within US jurisdiction? Make it make sense.
Was Bill Binney ever given time to make his perspective known on MSM, along with John Kiriakou or Ray McGovern? I’m thinking probably not, and I wonder why NOT? Just Curious
There is nothing new under the sun: time and time again, anyone wishing to live in undisturbed peace is swept into a Daniel 11 reskit of self-perpetuating militant agitation operating on the Hellenistic "self-fulfilling prophecy" ouroboros logical basis. Whenever any major political/civic faction seeks to resolve undue friction between two societies, the enemies of peace will insist "the other side cannot be negotiated with and must be treated as enemies," and will deploy proxy mechanisms to most cruelly treat the proponents of peace from the other side of the fence and drive them into bitter anger so they will be provoked to war, thereby "proving" the warmongers' narrative that "peace was never an option because they're out to attack us."
Simply put, the MSM-"informed" masses who pride themselves under presumptuous self-proclaimed intellectual maturity are in actuality mindlessly bootlicking on behalf of initiated conspirators whose top-down operational logic venerates the example of a snake eating its own tail for all eternity. We deserve better psyops!
You totally lost me on this. First, both DNC and RNC computers were hacked, right there proving it was not a hoax. Republican Congressman McCaul has said this, more than once, before RNC officials told him to shut up.
Guccifer and all that is BULLSHIT, CRUSHINGLY exposed by Duncan Campbell. https://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2018/08/shirtlost-dumbshit-zach-haller-actual.html
As part of that, note that, contra Patrick Lawrence, NOT EVERYBODY at VIPS signed off on the Guccifer bullshit. Also note that that is the last piece Lawrence ever rote for The Nation.
What next, Dissident trying to revive the Seth Rich conspiracy theory? The claim that Prigozhin's SVR, to be specific, was behind the hack coming from "discredited sources" is wrong. Duncan Campbell is an investigative journalist who knows his shit.
Finally, the hacks were never mentioned in the "Steele Dossier," which has been thoroughly and rightly blown up. As noted about what McCaul said, this is separate,and I suggest they not be conflated.
It seems self-evident that Guccifer was a circular proof. “We claim Guccifer is Russian and we claim Guccifer is in the chain, therefore the chain is Russian”.
Oh no dude that was just WAY too much on that link
Cut to the chase, from one of the links?
Duncan Campbell's work. https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252445769/Briton-ran-pro-Kremlin-disinformation-campaign-that-helped-Trump-deny-Russian-links
Yeah, that piece "evolved" over more than a year. I've done some tidying up, but it's still a bit disorganized, and long. Anyway, that link above will show how Campbell blew this Guccifer bullshit out of the water.
And, lest anybody question Campbell's bona fides? He exposed the ECHELON spy system of the Five Eyes and was, over other reporting, prosecuted by the British government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_Campbell_%28journalist%29
Yes. I can also vouch for him. I’ve worked with him in the past. He is second to none in the field.
Sounds good. I had heard of him, though not read his "dossier" in detail, before all this stuff. But, I know at the time, many in the US were saying "yeah, who's this guy?"
He went dark for many years and I wondered if he was dead, in jail, renditioned, who knows.
Well, you know, being prosecuted by Her Majesty's Government, etc., not totally joking .... right — where is he?
"Security experts have been stunned by the depth and detail of US intelligence information on the hackers in the indictment. Some of the detail could likely only have come as the results of counter-attacks on the GRU, implanting malware that was copying screens and keystrokes, at the same time they were doing the same to officials in the Democratic Party."
As I point out in my own thread below, this basically means, in Clinton's terms, these experts are "suspending disbelief" in order to believe the unproven indicment that will never go to court.
If the USG were doing active surveillance on the GRU while it was carrrying out these attacks, why in the world would they not have stopped the attacks?
Maybe if these "experts" stop being "stunned" by obvious bullshit, there might be the chance of an epiphany or two.
Campbell (and others) don't need "square quotes" around the word expert. And, otherwise, your claims here and on your main post? They sound like the mythical (he was) Forensicator and others claiming that download speeds weren't fast enough for such a hack — until that was proven wrong.
So, let's cut to the chase with the same question I asked the Dissident:
"Are you a Seth Rich conspiracy theorist?"
Speaking for myself, no, I do not believe the Seth Rich theory.
The point is that these experts are pretending to not see the obvious faults with the story being pitched, because they want to go along with believing the story.
In their own words, they think the story in the Mueller indictment can only be true if the USG were actively surveilling the very GRU officers they claim carried out these attacks. If that were the case, why wouldn't they have immediately stopped the attacks, or at the least informed the attacked parties immediatey?
So there's two possibilities:
1. The Mueller indictment lays out the truth, and the USG was actively surveilling the GRU officers carrying out the attacks, yet did nothing to stop the attacks and did not inform anyone about them.
2. The Mueller indictment contains a story which was never meant to face scrutiny in a court of law and will never be independently verified by anyone, and is a set of technically improbable and downright ridiculous set of allegations, only meant to fool gullible reporters and politicians into believing the narrative.
Pick one.
I don’t have to “pick one.” Nice try. First, as Duncan Campbell himself mentioned, he wasn’t accusing Adam Carter of a crime or saying he had committed one. https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252445769/Briton-ran-pro-Kremlin-disinformation-campaign-that-helped-Trump-deny-Russian-links
And, I’m not here to either support or condemn aspects of the Mueller Report about this hack, or about other matters. Per that link above, I’m here to talk about facts on the ground. And, that I’ve chosen.
Meanwhile, you haven’t answered my question.
On another note, I would not trust VIPS on pretty much anything. They were peddling lies back about the Valerie Plame business, and one of their spooks personally threatened me when I started exposing his little puppet journalist Jason Leopold for using sock puppets and harassing bloggers who were debunking his dumb journalism. Leopold later called me with a death threat.
VIPS could be attempting to poison the well regarding Guccifer 2.0 here by derailing critical examination of who or what Guccifer 2.0 actually was, by associating that sort of examination with hokey bullshit. Just a random thought.
The DNC hack story, and Mueller's later indictments based on it, build on a narrative of ridiculously oafish Russian security service spies doing pretty much everything wrong. Which could be the case, sure, but it's also very consistent with a false flag operation meant to point the finger at Russia. You know, kind of like how the whole Nord Stream story went down...
If you look at the Mueller indictments on the DNC email hacks, the way they describe the evidence seems just absolutely ludicrous to anyone with an IT background, like myself. The way they attribute specific actions taken by this and that Russian person in the process of hacking email servers, would only be possible if the entire lot of them were compromised by NSA digital surveillance the entire sessions they were supposedly doing these things.
Furthermore, the DOJ and Mueller knew that none of the claims they were making in these indictments would ever make it to court, and would never be examined by any independent party. They indicted a dozen Russian intelligence officers in absentia, and they will never ever be arrested or meet the inside of an American courtroom to face these charges.
An example:
"On the evening of June 15, 2016 between 4:19PM and 4:56PM, defendants used their Moscow-based server to search for a series of English words and phrases that later appeared in Guccifer 2.0’s first blog post falsely claiming to be a lone Romanian hacker responsible for the hacks in the hopes of undermining the allegations of Russian involvement."
How would the US government have access to what these intelligence officers were searching for on a Moscow-based server?
Another example: it says that an officer named Lukashev "sent these (phishing) emails from the Russia-based email account hi.mymail@yandex.com that he spoofed to appear to be from Google". This information seems to have been reported by security blogs in 2016: https://threatconnect.com/blog/does-a-bear-leak-in-the-woods/
Now, if you are a Russian intelligence officer, trying to set up phishing attacks on DNC personell, doing so with a Yandex (RUSSIAN) email account would be basically retarded, and something even a young teenage amateur hacker would know not to do. Yet this is passed off as if there's nothing odd about it. Sure, a professional Russian intelligence officer just uses a Russian email account for committing the hack, makes sense...
I mean, really? This is what you would do if you were trying to create the appearance of Russian involvement in a way only gullible, dumb journalists and others would just pass off without any resistance.
If I were an intelligence officer tasked with phishing the DNC, I would use an email server that sends out the emails directly, rather than via some email account provider. There would be no need to pass off the email via another email account as it appears that was done in this case. If there were some problem with this getting picked up by Google's spam-filter, you would in the least pick out a completely bland email service provider with no national signature to do this, not one that literally screams RUSSIA RUSSIA.
And how the DOJ imagines that they have evidence connecting use of this Yandex-account to a specific Russian national, I do not even know how that would go about being possible unless Yandex itself had overturned its records to US authorities, and even so, how would they ascertain that a Russian intelligence officer was the one using it? That would require the spycraft talents of a child, that is, signing up for the Yandex account with his real name etc.
Sure, we can just go along and pretend that Russian intelligence officers doing this are complete imbeciles, but it's much more likely that this is all just bullshit.
The Mueller indictment of the dozen Russian intelligence officer for the hacks cannot be read by anyone with fleeting knowledge of IT systems without dozens or even hundreds of critical questions popping up on how in the world they would have managed to get evidence of what they're claiming.
Another example: The indictment claims to knmow that a specific GRU officer "researched PowerShell commands related to accessing and managing the Microsoft Exchange Server" of the DNC.
How in the world would the USG have access to what a GRU officer was researching about computer commands, unless they were actively hacking and surveilling everything they were doing? If they were, why did they not stop all the hacks that they were observing?
Another example: The indictment claims that the GRU officers compressed gigabytes of data from DNC computers and moved that data via X-Tunnel to a GRU-leased computer located in Illinois. Again: why in the world would they have been using computers located in the jurisdiction of US authorities? It's completely asinine.
Another example:
It claims that a specific Russian national "on or about March 15, 2016" ran a technical query for the DNC's internet protocol configurations to identify connected devices. Now, this is basically just convoluted speak for them running WHOIS-type queries about the DNC servers. How would they know that a specific Russian national carried out these queries? You can run such queries through a VPN, through anonymous services all over the internet, you can run it from any computer with an internet connection. How in the world do they have evidence that this specific Russian national carried out this WHOIS-type query at this specific time? The only feasible way that they could prove this is if that person were under active surveillance, meaning that the USG was snooping on everything this person did on a computer. If they were doing that, why would they not have stopped the hacks?
Make it make sense.
Some more examples from the indictment:
It claims that the Russian intelligence officers set up X-Agent malware to send data from DCCC computers to a GRU-leased server located in Arizona, and it claims to know that specific Russian nationals logged into a web-based administration panel to use X-Agent functions.
Now, again: Why would professional Russian intelligence officers use a server located in Arizona, in the jurisdiction of US authorities? To ensure getting caught? To ensure that US authorities could get a warrant to extract every piece of data from this server? Even if the Russians leased this server, why wouldn't they erase the entire thing after the operation was over? Make it make sense.
Then the indictment goes on to claim that they set up an overseas server to act as a "middle server" between the DCCC and the admin panel on the Arizona-server, to obscure the connection. Wouldn't they have done it the other way around if the point was to obscure where the data was going? Why would they first have the data sent from DCCC to an overseas server outside US jurisdiction, and then forward the data from there to a server within US jurisdiction? Make it make sense.
Was Bill Binney ever given time to make his perspective known on MSM, along with John Kiriakou or Ray McGovern? I’m thinking probably not, and I wonder why NOT? Just Curious
Good to know at least one of the Duncan Campbells is still going.