The hackers behind the dump of Democratic Party emails in the midst of last year’s presidential race left apparent evidence of their identity — a breadcrumb trail winding from the stolen files back to the Russian government, according to assessments from the U.S. intelligence community. Some of this evidence was there from the beginning, embedded inside the first documents to hit the web, raising a niggling question: Why would diabolically skilled Russian operatives operate so sloppily?
This question has persisted, and last week the White House seized upon it, promulgating the idea that if the Russian government were really behind the attacks, its online agents wouldn’t have left any fingerprints. Russia quickly repeated this claim through its UK embassy.
But a 2011 presentation to the NSA and its foreign partners by Canada’s signals intelligence agency, the Communications Security Establishment, undermines the notion of a foreign hacker so skilled that a victim would never know their identity. The document calls Russian hackers “morons” for routinely compromising the security of a “really well designed” system intended to cover their tracks; for example, the hackers logged into their personal social and email accounts through the same anonymizing system used to attack their targets, comparable to getting an anonymous burner phone for illicit use and then placing calls to your girlfriend, parents, and roommate.
The competence of Russian hackers became a prominent issue once more last Sunday, when the president’s communications director Anthony Scaramucci — since removed from his post but quoting the president directly — said the following to Jake Tapper on CNN:
“Somebody said to me yesterday, uh, I won’t tell you who, that if the Russians actually hacked this situation and actually spilled out those emails, you would have never seen it, you would have never had any evidence of them, meaning they’re super confident in their deception skills and hacking.”
Seconds later, Scaramucci revealed his anonymous technical source on the matter to have been Donald Trump himself.
It’s one thing to question circumstantial evidence based on the expectation that Russian agents are too competent to leave such clues behind. But ruling out Russia on the basis of unforced errors alone flies in the face of the intelligence community’s experience with online operators from that country.
The CSE presentation, provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, dates to no earlier than 2011, and describes the agency’s work tracking a set of Russian government-sponsored hackers codenamed MAKERSMARK. The MAKERSMARK team was believed by NSA “with a high level of confidence” to be sponsored by a Russian intelligence agency, according to a separate Snowden document originating with the NSA’s Special Source Operations division. The MAKERSMARK team was armed with a clever technical system to mask members’ identities and the location of their computers, thus (on paper, at least) making it less likely the attacks would be traced back to Russia.
CSE’s account of the Russian actors does not exactly jibe with the White House’s vision of ninja-like computer users. The agency presentation, prepared by a “cyber counter intelligence” agent focused on MAKERSMARK, highlights Russian hackers’ “misuse of operational infrastructure” and “poor OPSEC [operational security] practices,” both of which made it elementary for the Canadians to trace attacks back to their source. The document says Russian hackers were provided with “really well designed” systems with which to launch attacks, but because the execution was so shoddy, “this has not translated into security for MAKERSMARK operators.”
Put more bluntly, the Russian attacks CSE observed were “designed by geniuses” but “implemented by morons,” according to the presentation. MAKERSMARK hackers mixed their recreational internet habits with business, using “personal social networking” like Russia’s supremely popular Vkontakte from MAKERSMARK infrastructure, conducting personal web browsing there, and checking personal webmail accounts. The hackers also used the system for activities that are by definition deeply risky and “attributable,” like exfiltrating stolen data.
“This is not [computer network exploitation] best practices,” the report dryly concludes.
It didn’t help that the MAKERSMARK operators were, according to the presentation, infected by the “Gumblar” botnet that spread across the internet in 2009 in order to steal user credentials, covertly download further malware, and blast “pharmaceutical spam” to new victims. In other words, the hackers were hacked. So thoroughly did Russian hackers on MAKERSMARK expose themselves through sloppiness and poor judgment that Canadian analysts were able to detect their personal “interests” and “hobbies.”
CSE declined to comment on the document, other than to note that, “the document you referenced is dated and should not be considered reflective of the current reality.” Despite this claim, the agency asked The Intercept to redact a significant portion of the presentation on the grounds that it could jeopardize current operations. As well, it’s interesting and worth noting, however, that a 2017 NSA document previously published by The Intercept detailing Russia’s General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate’s (GRU) alleged attempts to infiltrate the American electoral system also flagged those hackers’ mixing of business and personal accounts while conducting their work. A 2016 joint report by the Department of Homeland Security and FBI claimed that GRU and FSB, the contemporary successor to the KGB, worked together to breach the DNC. The NSA did not comment.
All of this is to say that the commander-in-chief, privy to the full corpus of intelligence findings provided by the NSA and its allies in the “Five Eyes” intelligence-sharing alliance, including Canada, didn’t know what he was talking about. This isn’t new: One need only look back to the presidential debate wherein Trump famously remarked that the DNC perpetrator could be a bedridden “400-pound” hacker to know that he hasn’t ever taken this seriously. It’s also possible, given how fantastically impressionable Trump is, that the Too Good to Fail theory is based on something he heard recently — perhaps from Vladimir Putin himself, who in June speculated that the DNC hacker could’ve easily covered their tracks. No matter what, if he had any desire to actually know how sophisticated Russian state hackers are or have been in the past, the evidence is there for him to review.
Top photo: Pedestrians walk past the Kremlin and an entrance to Red Square in Moscow, Russia, Wednesday, June 14, 2017.
The logic seems flawed to me. Unless the Russians really wanted to let it be known they were the hackers, why the sloppy work?
You don’t expect such sloppy work from so-called professionals – therefore, who really did it?
Was it the Russians using amateur hackers deliberately to confuse the Americans?
Was it the Americans intelligence agencies, or even an American non-government hacker wanting to create confusion?
Or was it someone else wanting to pin the blame on the Russians but leave lots of doubt?
It wouldn’t be the first time the American intelligence agencies were fooled.
True. Compromised “hacking groups”, Cyrillics, the biggest Russian mail providers like Yandex and Mail.ru, signing edits by the name of the founder of the KGB — it is not HONESTLY feasible to assert that this was the GRU’s work unless Putin intentionally wanted to be caught.
*sigh* Lies, lies and more lies. Anything to keep the anti-Russia narrative afloat. No hard evidence whatsoever, just the say-so of government agencies and their media presstitutes.
I wonder if we’re ever gonna get a report that doesn’t sound at least a bit fishy. This one doesn’t make any more sense than the propaganda narrative does.
Congratulations on continuing (one side of) the Russian Hacking Narrative! The evidence of The Intercept being a Front in many avenues/fashions and a MSM collaborative only grows with each article (and week).
1) The CIA’s Absence of Conviction
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/12/12/cias-absence-conviction
Consider this quote (for it should remind you of worldwide WMD hoaxes, world stage Lies, and the extent that they will go to in order to advance a predetermined agenda): “I have watched incredulous as the CIA’s blatant Lie has grown and grown as a media story – blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it. There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton’s corruption. Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan . . . called the CIA claims ‘bullshit,’ adding: ‘They are absolutely making it up.’”
2) Intercepted Podcast: 7/26/2017
https://theintercept.com/2017/07/26/intercepted-podcast/
Glenn Greenwald: “So, I want to make a couple of points about both of these articles. One, the one by Peter Beinart, and the one by Jeet Heer. And interestingly, both of them were, I think, rare and commendable good faith attempts to engage the arguments by those of us who have been skeptics on this story from the beginning without purposely distorting our views, or even worse, using innuendo about treason or allegiances to the Kremlin as a way of dismissing or demonizing the arguments about the evidence that we’ve been making. And yet, despite the good faith attempt by both writers in the article to engage the actual arguments without that kind of innuendo, the headline writers for each of these magazines did not have that same integrity.” “And the reason I think those headlines are worth flagging is because there is a valid legitimate debate that I think both Beinart and Jeet are trying to have.”
“And my view has been not an ideological one or a partisan one, but simply an epistemological one, that there’s no tangible evidence presented, or virtually none, by the U.S. government to corroborate the claims of the intelligence community. And one can certainly dispute that. One can disagree with it. Lots of people do.”
3) Blatantly covering and giving legitimacy through propagandistic hackwork: “[C]ommendable good faith attempts” (“good faith attempt” noted twice) “to engage the arguments.” Oh yes, it’s all (their efforts) in “good faith” toward “engag[ing] the arguments.” Where/on what planet? In what year? Here – through every available medium for collusive manipulations/controls of Narratives — and, the year may as well be “1984.”
4) Again, as blatant as a Cover as there is to be seen/read: “And the reason I think those headlines are worth flagging is because there is a valid legitimate debate that I think both Beinart and Jeet are trying to have.” But, of course, it’s all (the entire propaganda holocaust) just part of “a valid legitimate debate” – and those “headlines” are in no way any fault of Beinart or Jeet.
5) The ultimate caveat (covering every door, opening, view, and interest – regardless of slant): “And one can certainly dispute that. One can disagree with it. Lots of people do.” Now that’s courageous! Wow. Maybe Glenn Greenwald would (now) write the same thing about those WMDs in Iraq? : Well, “one can certainly dispute that. One can disagree with it. Lots of people [did].” But, maybe they still exist? Maybe we can still find them?
Speaking of MORONS – what about the people who
1) regard the garbage that biddle vomits as High Philosophy
2) or think that greenwald isn’t responsible for the garbage the intercept publishes? (including pentagon propaganda like this article)
Scott Ritter, the intel analyst who questioned the rush to judgement on Iraq’s WMDs, doubts the claims that someone outside the DNC accessed their servers. http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/time_to_reassess_roles_of_guccifer_20_and_russia_in_dnc_hack_20170727#.WX3_pPMY-Q0.facebook
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-russia-hack-evidence/
And: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/time_to_reassess_roles_of_guccifer_20_and_russia_in_dnc_hack_20170727#.WX3_pPMY-Q0.facebook
Am I reading this right? Is the Author basing his story on documents from 2011 and 2009? Even they sound fishy. If Russians were morons for misusing sophisticated software, who wrote the software? The NSA?
Sam/Henrik,
Did you contact the person who leaked many of these documents, Edward Snowden, for his professional take on these assessments?
If not, why not?
Many here are still trying to determine the actual news value of this piece; perhaps, I don’t know, talking to someone with actual knowledge might help?
#FearlessAdversarial Journalism
Someone’s still mad about Maddow, huh? Is she gonna play Seymour Hersh’s audio tape this week? Play the entire tape for her audience? I won’t hold my breath.
What the hell is happening to The Intercept?
For an excellent analysis of what the metadata in “Guccifer2″‘s “leaks” reveal:
http://g-2.space/
Election Hacking – in the US. – is done with big bags of money and smear-campaigns.
These why are a staple in every election. Why ?…..Because it works every time, all the time !!
That’s all there’s to it !!
This article is bullcrap for several reasons:
1) We are relying on Canadian intelligence assessments. It’s bad enough that we have to rely on United States intelligence assessments. Note: “Assessment” = “guess.”
2) There is no separation between the alleged intelligence agents conducting hacks and Russian criminal hackers who may or may not be working with Russian Intelligence at any given time.
3) In the same area, there has been little or no real intelligence on WHO the hackers are, whether Russian Intelligence OR criminal hackers. ALL of the “assessments” are based on collections of hacking tools, specific hacking methods, and worst of all, alleged “targets” who have been hacked. These methods are flawed at their base and provide nothing but circumstantial, spoofable “evidence”.
These alleged “assessments” are then used as justification for future assessments, piling blame upon blame based on a house of sand.
This is totally unreliable as ANY hacker will hack ANY target which seems 1) interesting, 2) available, and/or 3) possibly contains Personally Identifiable Information (PII) which can be sold or traded on the Dark Web.
Which means any government target could just as easily be hacked by any random criminal hacker, skilled or not, as any other non-government target.
Is it any surprise that election organizations in an election year tend to be targeted by hackers of all stripes?
Even the US government has acknowledged that probably most of the so-called “Russian election meddling” of state voter-related sites were probably for the purpose of collecting PII, rather than “election meddling”. We have in recent weeks seen collections of US voter records offered for trade on the Dark Web.
And finally, we now have Seymour Hersh explicitly saying that he has seen (or had read to him) an FBI report that explicitly states that Seth Rich, the DNC staffer murdered in Washington, WAS IN FACT in contact with Wikileaks and offered them DNC emails in exchange for money.
If the FBI report is correct, this blows the “Russian hacking” story out of the water. In addition, Hersh declares that this entire scenario of “Russian hacking” is a disinformation campaign directed by the CIA’s John Brennan.
I trust Seymour Hersh FAR MORE than I trust ANYONE in the US government – and infinitely more than I trust the Canadian government.
So glenn greenwald publishes fascist american propaganda straight out from the pentagon. “The russian commies did it!” It’s painfully obvious that greenwald is owned by omidyar-ebay-paypal.
Also, greenwald like a good loyal subject of the american fascist government is not publishing most of the documents that snowden rightfully took from the nsa nazis.
It seems clear who “the intercept” works for.
“free” works for no one. free is free. free can’t keep anything straight, like that greenwald and the intercept are not identical entities. but it doesn’t matter. free knows it’s all a conspiracy. nothing can stop free thinking.
It sounds like the Russians hire hackers like the U.S. military hires mercenary corporations: enthusiastic shooters with little minds.
Mmh, my first comment was moderated.
Sam, you need to cut the Russia BS.
When I called your propaganda months ago, I got called names. Now you do.
How about a write up on Marbles?
Or the Guccifer 2.0 data review?
Or the VIPS memoranda?
Or maybe you could pack your stuff and go and write for the Washington Post?
Sure, it was the Russians who did everything perfectly and then screwed up on the most important thing, leaving no traces. And because the US geniuses called them morons, it’s proof that it may have been the Russians who obviously are deep down incompetent.
This article, which reads like a millennial’s blog, is conceived for the simpletons who love to read Russia bashing.
The Intercept should now merge with the daily beast. Same juvenile level
Sam, Henrik,
please say hi to Pierre when you get the chance.
Russia, huh? Rinse, repeat. Never gets old, good for ratings. Downside, it will never get true.
Why don’t you do a write up regarding Marbles? That would be swell, wouldn’t it? Won’t slide with Pierre tho, that’s why.
GTFO, we don’t need more propagandists right now.
Sam/Henrik,
Did you contact the person who leaked many of these documents, Edward Snowden, for his professional take on these assessments?
If not, why not?
Snowden has already stated his opinion on the issue. He said the NSA has the technology to easily trace and pinpoint the source of any attack. Basically, he said it was Russia.
LYIN WHORE WALLSTREET MEDIA, DNC, IT COMMUNITY… CAUGHT WITH PANTS DOWN & JERKING OFF to an IMAGINARY PARTNER
1. the CIA needed Seth Rich dead to make an enemy
2. the DNC needed Seth Rich dead to win an election
3. the wallstreet media needed Seth Rich dead to push the political crap onto America for the MIC no matter who won
and now the 3 members of Imbeciles, inc. are panic’d and in a fit to be tied.
Somehow in every so called terrorist attack, a briefcase full of documents leading to the perpetrators or their passports are found undamaged in the rubble , I suspect the same scenario exist in this situation . The Russians are smart enough to carry out the hacking attacks, but they’re to incompetent to hide their tracks.
Give me a break!
Based on the number of times the Deep State has mislead us, with them being the main source of the hacking allegations , questions regarding the validity of the allegations, has to be taken into account!
The Intercept is too cool and sophisticated to fall for Sy Hersh baloney.
Seymour Hersh is now peddling fake Seth Rich news:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMcHblG9_j8
It’s a good thing the progressive left’s New York Times and Washington Post and MSNBC and CNN and HuffPo and Vox and Salon and NBC and CBS and ABC won’t touch it.
Nor the progressives at the Intercept, for a matter of fact. Must be busy doxxing peeps.
If there was really a conspiracy, then at least one of them would have cracked and come clean and spilled the beans.
Sy says he thinks Seth got done due to crime, not assassination. Than law enforcement got hold on his laptop showing he was the leak. Not an assassition but a huge coverup.
And you know this to be fake news how exactly?
– Seth Rich had the access.
– Jullian Assange STRONGLY implied that he was their source. *
– Wikileaks put up a large reward ($20+k) for the capture of the murderer (why would they do this for a random mugging gone wrong victim?).
Hersch’s claims are completely inline with what we know. At times, it seems he’s the only around willing to do investigative journalism these days instead of stenography.
*= August 8, partial transcript of interview with NOS (netherlands broadcaster):
Assange: “Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material, often very significant risks. There’s a 27-year-old that works for the DNC who was shot in the back, murdered, just two weeks ago, for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington. So…”
Anchor: “That was just a robbery, I believe, wasn’t it?”
Assange: “No, there’s no finding. So, ah – “
Anchor: “What are you suggesting? What are you suggesting?”
Assange: “I am suggesting that our sources, ah, take risks and they, they become concerned to see things occurring like that.”
Anchor: “But was he one of your sources then, I mean?”
Assange: “We don’t comment on who our sources are.”
Anchor: “But why make the suggestion about a young guy being shot in the streets of Washington?”
Assange: “Because we have to understand how high the stakes are in the United States. Our sources, ah, our sources face serious risks, that’s why they come to us so we can protect, ah, their anonymity.”
Anchor: “But it’s quite something to suggest a murder. That’s basically what you are doing.”
Assange: “Well, others have suggested that. We investigated to understand what happened in that situation, with Seth Rich. I think it is a concerning situation. There is not a conclusion yet. We wouldn’t be willing to say a conclusion yet, but we are concerned about it. More importantly, a variety of WikiLeaks sources are concerned when that kind of thing happens.”
Seth Rich is dead. Why not say he was the source? Isn’t the possibility of WWIII enough to name a source (dead or alive)?? The truth is that Assange is a lying fraudulent anti-American radical leftist…..
Apparently, wikileaks made that policy sometime after the Aaron Swartz case. He mentioned it somewhere. I’m no fan of Assange either (I largely agree with you on the “anti-American radical leftist” bit at least), but I think it’s foolish to dismiss everything he says as a result of just that.
Assange is not anti-American. Neither is he a leftist:
“The libertarian aspect of the Republican Party is presently the only useful political voice really in the U.S. Congress. It will be the driver that shifts the United States around. It’s not going to come from the Democrats. And it’s not going to come from Ralph Nader. It’s not going to come from the co-opted [neocon] part of the Republican Party. The only hope as far as electoral politics are concerned in the United States presently is the libertarian section of the Republican Party.”
–Julian Assange, August, 2013
Important also to remember libertarians oppose warmongering of all political stripes. They are therefore opposed by the vast majority of people on both the left and the right who want only to know who is the officially nominated “enemy of the year” to right properly hate and despise.
Promoting war is a sort of reverse, skin-deep beauty contest. Like any other, it’s conducted by promoters with an agenda and a boatload of personal benefit — a contest where appearances deeply matter regardless of underlying substance. Promoters lay heavy make-up on their favored “contestants” to support the breathless narratives they feed to the press. The crowd cheers. The missiles fly.
War has become the national pastime, robustly (and often absurdly) supported by useless eaters who create alarming headlines based on highly selective promotion of allegations, rumors, outright fiction, and magical thinking.
TI articles by others than Greenwald are characteristically no more than weightless and crude political propaganda. It would be nice if subscribers could sign up to be notified only when Glen weighs in. (Or dismiss all the others as a literal waste of time and space and recruit Matt to come back on board.)
Fair enough Anon. Thanks.
And then there’s this..Real News Network; Aaron Mate’ & some prof. from Rhode Is.
Talking about the story that the Pentagon is thinking about sending weapons to The Ukraine, even though NATO has been doing it already for months..
His last comments at 11:00 minutes in, he says this whole mess us an attempt by one branch of the govt., to undermine the President. He says this story may have been leaked to hobble the foreign policy of Donald Trump
https://youtu.be/GyfuakP8QiU
Don’t know how true it is, but here is a different version:
Seymour Hersh: “RussiaGate Is A CIA-Planted Lie, Revenge Against Trump”
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-02/seymour-hersh-%E2%80%98russiagate%E2%80%99-cia-planted-lie-revenge-against-trump
Another version of what?
You gotta give it to Hersh. No matter how marginalised, ignored and reviled he is, he continues to do real journalism in a country that has pretty much abolished the practice. I mean, he found the truth about the alleged sarin gas attack in Syria and every single US newspaper (and a British one) rejected him. He had to go to Germany to find someone willing to run the story.
I think everyone would be well advised to give Hersh the benefit of the doubt, even if this one sounds like conspiracy theory.
Bellingcat has thoroughly analyzed the story written by Seymour Hersh on the latest chemical attack in Syria. Hersh has made some questionable claims which conflict with the US and Syrian reports. Even ConsortiumNews will not support Hersh’s conclusions (Khan Sheikhoun, or How Seymour Hersh “Learned Just to Write What I Know, And Move On” via @bellingcat https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2017/07/28/khan-sheikhoun-seymour-hersh-learned-just-write-know-move/).
Bellingcat never ever analyzes. You should rephrase that into: “Bellingcat has thoroughly spun the story”..
Hersh belonged on the Post’s funnies pages next to Jack Anderson.
Some of this should be verifiable. Hersh says:
There is an FBI report.
The FBI has cracked Seth Rich’s laptop.
Seth Rich was in contact with Wikileaks.
A secure Dropbox account was used to deliver the information.
and so forth.
Someone ( like a journalist maybe ) should go around and put people on the record regarding these alleged facts.
Did DC police call in the FBI? Did the FBI crack the laptop? etc.
Mr. Biddle
The noose is tightening around exposing Russian interference in the US election – on multiple fronts. The Russian government used fake news, hacking, working with the Russian puppet, Julian Assange, possibly illegal lobbying and so on to elect Trump. Leaked information from Reality Winner exposed more interference by the Russian government. To top this all off, the Russian government certainly had the motive to interfere in the US election. All the discussions about “McCarthyism” has been to obfuscate the obvious Russian interference in the US election.
Well, that’s desperate, I’ll give you that. I mean, speaking the party line is a little too obvious, don’t you think?
“……..Well, that’s desperate……..”
No, that’s just obvious.
Not nearly so obvious as this.
Did Hillary Scapegoat Russia to Save Her Campaign?
http://www.unz.com/mwhitney/did-hillary-scapegoat-russia-to-save-her-campaign/
The “Russia hacking” flap has nothing to do with Russia and nothing to do with hacking. The story is basically a DNC invention that was concocted to mitigate the political fallout from the nearly 50,000 emails that WikiLeaks planned to publish on July 22, 2016, just 3 days before the Democratic National Convention. That’s what this is really all about. Russia didn’t hack anything, it’s a big diversion that was conjured up on-the-fly to keep Hillary’s bandwagon from going down in flames….
…. But there was one glitch to the ‘Blame Russia’ scheme. There was no hard evidence of Russian involvement. And, now, 10 months into multiple investigations of Russian hacking, there’s still no evidence. How can that be?
Well, for one thing, the FBI was never given access to the DNC computers.
Let me repeat that: In the biggest and most politically-explosive investigation in more than a decade, an investigation that has obvious national security implications– alleged cyber-espionage by a hostile foreign power, alleged collusion by high-ranking officials in the current administration, alleged treason or collusion on part of the Chief Executive, and the possible impeachment of a sitting president– the FBI has not yet secured or examined the servers that may or may not provide compelling forensic evidence of cyber-intrusion by Russia.
Why? Why would the FBI accept the analysis of some flunky organization that no one has ever heard of before (Crowdstrike) rather than use all the tools at their disposal to thoroughly investigate whether or not the hacking actually took place or not? Isn’t that their job?
Yer damn right it is. The reason the FBI never insisted on examining the DNC servers, is because they knew the story was baloney from the get go. Otherwise they would have kicked down the doors at the DNC, seized the computers through brute force, and arrested anyone who tried to stop them. Those computers are Exhibit A in the Trial of the Century. They should be under lock and key at FBI Headquarters not collecting cobwebs in the basement of the DNC-HQ. The fact that the servers have not been seized and examined just proves what a joke this whole Russia-deal really is…………
The real problem is not that the Russians did all of that – all countries engage in similar behaviors. The problem is that the Russians may have passed on information to the general public. There is a gentlemen’s agreement between countries not to reveal the truth. That would lead to a tsunami of information that eventually could damage all governments.
I’m not accusing the Russian government of revealing the truth to the American public – there’s not enough evidence to convict them – but they may very well have behaved recklessly.
Fair enough Benito, but I wouldn’t call it reckless. Trump won……
Who cares? Russian influence is small potatoes compared to Israel, Saudis and apparently Ukraine.
Still no hard evidence that it where the Russians, just empty claims.
The one and only party effectively profiting from this was the RNC.
Feed it to Wikileaks and let them take the blame.
My 2 cents are on Donald giving the order to hack the Dems.
Here’s what I don’t get. I have very little doubt that the Russian’s hacked into the DNC and Podesta’s emails. The NSA hacks everything they can, which would unquestionably include email systems used by Russian political parties. I have no idea why anyone would think that the Russians wouldn’t at least try to do the same. And given the complete lack of security used by the DNC leadership (“[email protected]” is what an idiot would have on their luggage lock, and who the hell keeps classified emails on a server in some small company’s bathroom!), it is very easy to believe that the Russians and every other foreign government with an electronic surveillance program had all of the DNC and Podesta emails.
That said, just because the Russians likely had the emails doesn’t mean they gave them to Wikileaks. There are almost certainly multiple other foreign actors who had the same emails (the Chicoms, Brits, Germans, French, Aussies, etc.), and also very possible that non-state actors had some of the emails as well. Anyone with even minimal skill who wanted to hack [email protected] would have had his emails within 10 minutes. So it seems like it is much more likely that the emails were given to Wikileaks by an insider leaker or some other non-state party than the Russians, who after all like everyone else thought Hillary would win. Given the risk of getting caught if they leaked the emails and the likelihood that Hillary, being a war monger, would retaliate when she became president, why would the Russians risk it? It just makes no sense to me.
No other government had more motive than the Russians exactly because of HRC. How was Hillary going to retaliate? She already supported sanctions because of the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine and creating a no fly zone in Syria. She supported the new Ukrainian government as well as the mission of NATO. She made her voice known in the Russian elections which clearly pissed off Putin. Why did Putin risk it? Because Trump won. Simple.
If I were on Xanax, I’d believe you. The benefits of evidence-free conclusions are their own reward.
“…….If I were on Xanax, I’d believe you…….”
How about if you were in Moscow?
Not only the Russians. But Donald and the Republicans too. The latter were very eager to get Hillary out of the way and are still “in the running” for getting these hacks done.
She would use it as an excuse to actually implement the no-fly zones and force congress into backing the removal of Assad so that her donors could build the pipeline they so desperately want through Syria. No way Congress would support her neo-con agenda without something like the “Russia meddling” excuse, but with it she would likely get what she wanted- and potentially start WWIII- all so that some rich Saudis could get their oil into Europe a little cheaper and undercut Russian energy exports.
Mike,
Exactly! And we have Craig Murray stating that he was involved with the DNC inside leaker.
Nope. Actually, what morons would have on their luggage lock is physical TSA key escrow, once the property of spies and well connected burglars, now common property thanks to screwup journalists at the Washington Post who managed to temporarily publish something they weren’t supposed to. It was purely an accident, to be sure, fomented by TSA agents themselves (otherwise the brash journalists would doubtless be in a camp someplace), but still, the remains remain on Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Administration#Luggage_locks ). Apparently the TSA is just peachy with the permanently compromised keys, so this is less like [email protected] and more like the old “FIELD”/”SERVICE” or “ADMIN”/”ADMIN” (those were the days… ;)
Boris: “We hack Squirrel with best Russian tools!!”
Natasha: “But we idiots and leave clues for Moose to find!!”
http://bullwinkle.toonzone.net/rbplan.wav
And the Mockingbiddle tweets again….
The idea that the geniuses who designed the system would allow morons to implement it is past ridiculus; its inane. According to the US cybersleuths, the so-called Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear hackers kept making the same clumsy mistakes over and over, even after they were outed by CrowdStrike and others, to the point that they could be almost instantly identified.
Apparently they didnt bother to read the myriad accounts of how they were found out so they could mend their ways. Not remotely credible.
According to the sleuths, they even left text in Cyrillic (!WOW, that’s beyond moronic!) in the software they injected into some of the servers they attacked.
MUCH more plausible and interesting is the forensic analysis done by the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) group which has a track record of vetting the intel folks, much to their chagrin, but whose reports are rarely noted by the MSM (wonder why).
Check it out:
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-russia-hack-evidence/
So maybe Trump WAS right: ’twas a bedridden 400 lb hacker in NJ.
Actually, the analysis from VIPS and others documents that the data was transferred internally- i.e. Craig Murray told the truth (again) and the CIA/NSA/NID lied or was wrong (again). (By the way, isn’t the USAF responsible for cybersecurity?) Add this to the numerous debunked Russia hacks (like the Vermont utilities one), and the fact that the “hacks” have revealed a lot of important information that has big implications, from the DNC to HRC and from Phillip Breedlove’s warmongering to Team Sky’s doping.
Murray contributes another of the many tantalizing tidbits about this business, all giving rise to endless conjectures, but never to any firm conclusions.
We may never know what actually transpired, but from the ‘evidence’ I’ve seen it appears that a pro-Trump US actor is more likely to have done the DNC hack than any Russian.
Those who design a system have no influence at all over who implement it.
That’s your mistake.
For any computer system, there is a command team that determines who designs it and who implements it.
There’s just no end to this lunacy. There hasn’t been one shred of hard evidence presented that proves Russian hackers jeopardized our electoral process. Last time I checked, the burden of proof is on the person/people making the claim. Their say-so isn’t good enough for me. All this really seems to be about is getting back at Russia for preventing Syria from being overthrown by ISIS and subsequently carved up by “Israel,” Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Had Hillary became president, they would’ve manufactured another excuse in order to sanction Russia.
Besides, what of the brazen meddling within American politics by foreign groups such as AIPAC? Or what about the coup of Ukraine by Western influences? I could run down a laundry list of foreign meddling and interference by TPTB that reside within Washington D.C. Are they going to sanction themselves?
I’m not sure what the red herrings of AIPAC and Ukraine have to do with anything, other than they are convenient scapegoats for you. Stick to the subject at hand. We’re not talking about convicting Trump, but investigating him and his campaign as to collusion. You’re buying in to Trump’s silly narrative that there has to be a smoking gun or else it’s a witch hunt. What we’re talking about is investigating the claims, and the circumstantial evidence for such investigations by the press, the congress and the special prosecutor is overwhelming. Much of it is mentioned in this article, but you might also consider how almost every member of Trump’s inner circle has lied repeatedly about Russian contacts, often under oath, until they were confronted with evidence exposing their lies and then they simply concocted new, and often more transparent lies (no said they were intelligent). Ask yourself why are they lying? Also ask why was Trump so terrified of Comey that he fired him, citing Russia as the reason.
So, AIPAC interfering in our election process for the sake of the interests of Israel is a “red herring”? Okay.
Yes, it is.
You’re dodging. Enough with the bs. Address the issue of multiple members if Team Trump lying about contacts with Russians and the Russian govt. You whine about not seeing evidence (even though plenty has been released publicly)….then what evidence would satisfy you? No matter what is released, you’ll just complain that it is fake, they’re lying, or it’s not good enough. Just like the typical conspiracy theorist.
Are these the same “Russian Hackers” that are headquartered in Virginia and use tools from Vault 7?
Or is this the same “Russian Hacker” that downloaded 2 GB to a thumb drive off a DC metro area DNC computer and ended up shot in the back exactly 5 days later?
“Russian Hackers”… lol you wouldn’t know a “hacker” if it came up and bit you.
So now it must be the Russians because it’s really badly done? This is almost becoming interesting.
Honestly..almost like watching Boris & Natasha..
Have they tested Bullwinkle’s antlers for transmitters?
Since The Intercept has completely ignored the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity’s letter to the president, I’ll link to it once again.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/07/25/was-the-russian-hack-an-inside-job/
In the letter, these people who all have actually worked for or with the US intelligence sector clearly make the case that that the DNC hacks were not actually hacks at all. All the files were extracted directly from the DNC’s computers and then made to look as if they were hacked by Russian agents. Claiming that hack could very well have been carried by stupid russkie agents, besides being silly, is completely beside the point because there was no such a thing in the first place. The information was leaked, not hacked, by someone who wanted to incriminate Russia.
Stop chasing wild geese, you’re doing a disservice to everyone.
Yeah, I posted the link above before I read your comment. What does it tell you that none of the flag-bearers of the MSM deigned to mention the report?
It’s hard to say. Usually it’s safe to assume that if the US MSM doesn’t report on something it’s either because it’s not in their direct interest to do so, or not in the interest of the government itself (this one is usually the case in foreign policy matters) .
In the case of the DNC-friendly media, it’s pretty obvious why they wouldn’t touch this story with a 10-ft pole. Now, why the right wing media – Fox News, breitbart, etcetera -, as well as the Trump administration itself won’t acknowledge the VIPS letter is a mistery to me.
Maybe the people behind VIPS (of which the great demon whistle-blower John Kiriakou) are so universally hated by the DC establishment that not even political convenience will compel them to acknowledge the story. Or maybe the story just flew under everyone’s radar. Like I said, it’s hard to say.
Good point abt the right-wing media. Could be they dont care much for VIPS, since it ‘s on the record for deprecating intel on which some moves popular in their faction (Iraq war, eg) were based.
Plus, VIPS is skeptical of many of the US’s military actions. Left or Right, much of the broadcast and print media get money from war- be they more purchases or ad bucks from contractors.
They doing this as a service to Pierre, who in return pays them.
Hmmm…Voltaire; Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”
On my lunch break, ..just finished watching Amy on DemNow talking to the new frequent guest from EmptyWheel.net Marcy Wheeler, taking about the “Explosive” Lawsuit against FOXNEWS regarding the “fake “Seth Rich story,..Now I know one reason why DN does not have a comments section on their site..
Now this story at TI..again..
Okidoke..you asked for it..
Just In case you have forgotten
John Podesta writes, “I’m definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it.” 2/22/15
Last date of emails in Wikileaks dump of DNC emails, which will happen on July 22…5/25/16
James Clapper says “has seen indications ” of attempted cyberattacks on campaigns 5/16
DNC Officials and Independent Security Experts conclude Russian hackers breached DNC net. gaining access to Opposition Research 6/14
The next day, Guccifer 2.0 takes credit for DNC Breach
Seth Rich was shot in the back twice 7/10/16
Wikileaks released DNC emails 7/22/16
“believed by NSA “with a high level of confidence” ”
YAWN and ROLLEYES. Stopped reading there. I like facts in my news articles, not fantasy.
Also–logical progression ends whenever a proposition can’t be established. You can’t posit an axiom of “Russians did it” via a dubious source such as the above and then act as if your following argument is any less dubious than the flawed axiom it’s based on. This article would make equal (non)-sense if you cited the “high confidence” of some nutjob in the woods that Nazi lizardmen living in the center of the Earth were behind the hacks. Then went on to argue scenarios as if that were an accepted truth instead of possible/probable bullshit.
Boring nonsense, no different than the various other thousands of vomitous, inane, hysterical, illogical shit pervading the news.
Regardless as to what actually occurred and how, Putin is getting political stock at home for people thinking he did do it, ordered it. Always something to keep in mind.
No, that is erroneous. The Russian voter doesn’t care about any of this. Putin, and his administration, have disclaimed any involvement and pointed out that this is US domestic political games.
What Putin does benefit from is the lunatic demonisation, and having any significant ‘liberal’ opposition (i.e. approved of by Washington) undercut by open links with governments openly and vocally hostile to Russian interests. It is foreign interference in Russia’s politics that is at the root of the problems. Oh, and that coup in Ukraine (featuring Nuland and McCain, because I guess just the usual CIA involvement was considered too subtle).
Maybe Russia has hackers with a varied range of skill levels, some better than others, rather than a bloc if identically skilled hackers. Nah, couldn’t be.
So the continuing question is one of incredulity about the accusations. Of which the media and democrats have none and will believe verbatim any and every accusation against the Russians. The article seems to want to assert that because there were accusations of Russian operational incompetence, that most if not all Russian hackers are sloppy and incompetent. Therefore by implication Trump’s assertion of a fat guy on a bed was uninformed. Actually, it was probably uninformed but probably right.
Access to Podesta’s emails was through an extremely simple technique of phishing. Which yes, a fat guy on a bed could have easy done. Sure it could have been a Russian fat guy, but also a million other fat guys from teh US, UK, Canada, France, Ukraine, etc. But here is the incredulity of the charges: that Crowdstrike knows it was the Russians because phishing is uniquely associated with them. The French concluded about their hacking attempts that Russian could not be blamed because the attacks were so generic in nature anybody could have done them. But in America, this common technique is unique to the fingerprints of Russian hacking.
But this goes back to the evidence–which has been Greenwald’s point over and over again. This article is speculating, rather poorly at that, but it provides no evidence. But even then, speculation which should also cause doubt in the face of other things we know; for example, Assange claiming he did not get the emails, etc from the Russians. And now new potential evidence that retrieval speeds of the data point to transfers to a local drive. And not data transfers across the Internet.
Why not both? Surely the “White House”* meant the “hackers” are too good to them to be caught.
*Wait, hasn’t it already been established that this “President” and the “White House” can and will say completely different things and thus may as well be different entities, not unlike how Duterte goes into a foulmouth UN rant while his ministers say different and even opposite things that try to make him look sane by comparison? They’re (still utterly evil, like Tillerson and Sessions) adults who coddle a crazy child bully with a big ego and tell the others at the PTA meeting “don’t worry, he’s a good boy when he’s not saying total bullshit, why he even gave millions of your dollars to help his needy rich family!”
the missing VIPS memo , with intro:
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity have issued memo to President Trump. “Intel Vets Challenge ‘Russia Hack’ Evidence” : “ Guccifer 2.0” “hack ‘was fake probably using NSA program to “obfuscate” data , to create ‘false flag’ , blaming Russia for deliberate leaks by Guccifer 2.0, and to discredit DNC insider leaks to Wikileaks. William Binney, former NSA agrees . VIPS group has done forensic analysis of the metadata from Guccifer 2.0.
The VIPS group exposed the “intelligence community” lies about “WND” in in Iraq , in 2003 , responding to the infamous speech by Colin Powell to the UN. William Binney,from the VIPS while working for the NSA ,headed the programs currently in use for internet surveillance programs. Scott Ritter, also from the VIPS, was the key “arms inspector” who spoke out against the Iraq”WND” hoax.
.
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-russia-hack-evidence/
interview with VIPS member Ray McGovern:
https://larouchepac.com/20170729/interview-ray-mcgovern-there-was-no-russian-hack
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/time_to_reassess_roles_of_guccifer_20_and_russia_in_dnc_hack_20170727
The gist of the article is that not all Russian hackers are geniuses who will never be caught, on the contrary some behave like morons.
The article does not say that the Russians did it, or influenced the elections meaningfully, or colluded with Trump. So, it does not make sense to pretend it does say those things.
Why didnt you post memo from V.I.P.S.? William Binney worked as a tech director for the NSA and designed their programs? Are you afraid you wont any more “leaks” from the war mongering , Anglophile liars from the CIA/NSA “deep state”?
So, to follow the bouncing logic ball, the Russian government intelligence agents are morons because they use TOR when they are using their personal social media accounts, and the folks that hacked Podesta’s emails used TOR.
Which seems to make sense, until you realize that the number of Russian government intelligence agents who use TOR is a fraction of a percent of the hackers who use TOR, and that the majority of the people who use TOR aren’t hackers.
Great phrase: “bouncing logic ball”.
The latest DEFCON demonstrated that every single type of voting machine is easily hackable. If amateur hackers can do this, imagine what the pros at the NSA can do.
So leaks of information designed to influence the voters are irrelevant, because the voters themselves are irrelevant. Whoever controls the voting machines can craft a narrow victory in the electoral college for either candidate, by tweaking the results in a few states.
Debates about whether Russian hackers are geniuses or morons, or the impact of Podesta’s e-mails, are merely distractions to disguise this fact.
Electronic voting can be used for fast tentative results, but must be accompanied by a paper trail that is used for the definitive results.
Thanks. Your unconventional angles of observation and humor ….
OMFG! We knew there was WMD because we couldn’t find it because they were too crafty for it to be found. The patients are running the asylum and they are all flying over the cuckoo nest.
That “bouncing logic ball” is exactly what I heard at the time. The fact that we couldn’t find them, meant they were there.
ignoring the obvious bullshit innuendo of “russians hacked the election” (the cake is not a lie but the “breadcrumbs” sure are), i find the concept of “oh mah gawd people at work do dumb social networking stuff” a lot less newsworthy than you do. having worked in many government agencies i can say any amount of russian hacker slackers is more than matched by facebook and youtube addicted US cogs who can barely figure out how to make a shortcut on the desktop much less “cover their tracks”.
granted, not all them were doing anything remotely infosec or hacking related but the point is the canadian twats – and you by extension – are making oddly broad statements about a group that numbers in the hundreds if not thousands. there is no “standard” education for hacking in russia or anywhere else. there are novices and experts, self taught skiddies and guys with comp sci degrees, idiots and geniuses. your article is akin to saying “all black guys are great at basketball because some latinos told us so”.
maybe next time you want to blag about russian hackers you talk to some…y’know…fucking russian hackers.
FY2018 funding proposal, Republicans are going after the small but highly successful agency that protects the integrity of our voting systems: the Election Assistance Commission. In June, House Republicans included a provision in their Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill that would abolish the Election Assistance Commission.
Seems like republicans are not concerned about hacking.
Has TI gone from sticking it to the NSA to publishing their Russiagate talking points? Love this site but hate this article.
IOW, you’re merely tribal.
I agree. WTF is up with this perpetuation of a major lie?
Agree. The last paragraph attacks Trump for either not listening or obediently believing all parts of the intelligence community–you know, the 17 agencies argument.
I have it on good authority that it was not the Russians, it was some hackers working for the Koch brothers.
So we can all rest easy now.
I thought it was revealed in the past few months that the CIA/NSA can do a hack and make it appear to be ANY country’s “fingerprints”.
When a writer comes along who can summarize all this succinctly, s/he’ll make some money. IMO it would have to be done via outline. This goes back to the Snowden statement about some server…I think…and I think Vault 7…and/or I think the ShadowBrokers. I asked some questions here which Galacticus was kind enough to help me with. At the moment I’ve forgotten under which article…think it may have been this one, but the left half of this one is now chopped off on my screen and NO comments are there. https://theintercept.com/2017/07/14/just-six-days-after-trump-jr-s-meeting-guccifer-2-0-emailed-me-but-there-was-one-key-difference/
Galacticus, are you reading this? Do you remember which article??
Nevermind, Galacticus-36215. When I clicked on the half that was there…of the purple bar…all the comments reappeared. My questions there, Charlene, might relate to your quandry, I dunno. https://theintercept.com/2017/07/14/just-six-days-after-trump-jr-s-meeting-guccifer-2-0-emailed-me-but-there-was-one-key-difference/
I know that you see the unpublished comments that you filter out. So here goes.
This article by Sam Biddle proves your association & shameful butt kissing of the Jack Booted criminals at NSA. You are despicable.
It states several times in the article how “confident” Russia is about their hacking skills.
Are you familiar with the term “hotdogging it”?
I’m not sure where it originated, but the term refers to a person or athlete that becomes over-confident and begins performing on a lower level as a result.
“I think I’m so great that instead of racing to ensure I catch the ball, I’m going to show off and walk towards it.”
This showboating mentality becomes habit, as does any repeated actions. Eventually you’re walking to catch balls that you should be running for and as a result – you fail.
Confidence may support the reasons behind this “trail of crumbs”, rather than explain it away…
When I read the quote “designed by geniuses” but “implemented by morons,” I automatically assumed the issue pertained to President Dufus Don.
The problem with any system designed by geniuses, is they never fully anticipate the myriad ways it can be subverted by morons. To produce a robust system, it’s important to have morons on the design team.
I don’t know whether you are a software person, Benito, but your comment is completely true. Smart programmers are generally oblivious to the myriad of ways in which the community of Lusers will misuse their code. One can program defensively until the CPU moans under the bloat, but still someone will find a way to make it crash. And of course, the more checks one adds to the code, the higher the number of bugs.
Whenever something is designed to be idiot-proof, someone comes along and invents a better idiot.
I think we can flush this one down the toilet after reading the opening paragraph:
Yeah, and James Clapper testified in Congress that the NSA wasn’t surveilling American citizens. Without detailed evidence, those claims are BS. And if there was any detailed evidence, it’d be in the public’s hands by now.
Wasn’t the “intelligence community” also certain that Saddam had reconstituted his biological, chemical and nuclear weapons programs as well?
As far as the actual story, nobody knows anything about the DNC hack since the DNC refused to let the FBI examine its servers, instead relying on the private firm, Crowdstrike – rather suspicious behavior. And the Podesta hack, we know, was some kind of spearphishing email attack, which, gosh, could have come from anywhere.
Why not spend your time looking into something real, like the Trump business ties to UAE? Oh, that’s not collusion with a foreign government, since Hillary Clinton did the same thing? Pfffftttt.
Good points all. The media is still smarting from not being able to provide a coronation for Clinton. It can only be because of Russian hacking. Otherwise, their nihilistic pursuit of power would be a “slam dunk”. Yesterday, the Seth Rich story was “debunked” once and for all. No one knows who murdered him, but they know “why” he was murdered. It’s like Winston Smith waiting for the bullet to enter his head at the end of “1984.” Journalism is no longer about “truth,” it’s about puttering around with public opinion to cover up your own crimes, as well as protect your protectors.
Why does glenn greenwald publish fascist american propaganda straight out from the pentagon? I guess that’s because greenwald is fully owned by omidyar-ebay-paypal.
Also, greenwald is hiding and not publishing most of the documents that snowden rightfully took from the nsa nazis. On whose side is greenwald?
Free,
Lighten up on the opioids please.
Coo-coo.
greenwald didn’t write this. he also didn’t publish it. also paypal and ebay aren’t even related anymore.
but at least your comment SHOWED UP. wonder what that’s like?
“the pair” thanks for showing that you are just half literate. I didn’t say greenwald wrote this – so you can’t read. However it’s a fact tbat greenwald *publishes* biddle’s sick garbage. Just like it’s a fact that greenwald didn’t publish most of the snowden docs.
As to the noises made by the other two robots, I guess the robots don’t expect any meaningful reply to their meaningless noises.
What crap! It’s clear by all REAL EVIDENCE that there was no hack! The emails were leaked by Seth Rich and then the DNC had Rich murdered! Americans need to wake up and stop believing the propaganda!
“Russian Hack” of DNC emails is a hoax!
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity have issued memo to President Trump. “Intel Vets Challenge ‘Russia Hack’ Evidence” : “ Guccifer 2.0” “hack ‘was fake probably using NSA program to “obfuscate” data , to create ‘false flag’ , blaming Russia for deliberate leaks by Guccifer 2.0, and to discredit DNC insider leaks to Wikileaks. William Binney, former NSA agrees . VIPS group has done forensic analysis of the metadata from Guccifer 2.0.
. The VIPS group exposed the “intelligence community” lies about “WND” in in Iraq , in 2003 , responding to the infamous speech by Colin Powell to the UN. William Binney,from the VIPS while working for the NSA ,headed the programs currently in use for internet surveillance programs. Scott Ritter, also from the VIPS, was the key “arms inspector” who spoke out against the Iraq”WND” hoax.
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-russia-hack-evidence/
interview with VIPS member Ray McGovern:
https://larouchepac.com/20170729/interview-ray-mcgovern-there-was-no-russian-hack
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/time_to_reassess_roles_of_guccifer_20_and_russia_in_dnc_hack_20170727
Let me be the first to laugh at this article.
Ha!
An outline of how a moment of carelessness can lead to the identification of the cyber criminal’s details was given by Laura Galante in an interview by the Süddeutsche Zeitung on May 8th (search under the title Endziel Chaos). It’s much more informative than the Canadian powerpoint referred to above.
Galante gave a TED presentation about the same time, but it is pretty much worthless; a different audience (the US public) gets a dumbed down, politicized message.
As for Trump, well the same paper had an article last week in which it was stated that Trump has lied on the average more than four times per day since assuming the Presidency. The stopped clock analogy is apt in this case.
Having said all that, who really cares whether or not the Russian government was behind the leaks? The information was useful and true, unlike the useless lies of our two major candidates. But the media won’t look at the bigger picture.
The title of the Galante interview, End Goal: Chaos, describes very accurately the Russian strategy for dealing with the US and its allies. It is not about getting one candidate or another elected as much as it is about destabilizing; the choice of candidates to support is based on that goal. While the NY Times publishes articles (yesterday) about how Putin’s “support” of Trump backfired, the truth is that although US-Russian relations have not gotten better, the position of the US as a moral authority and leader is been seriously undermined, not by Putin but by Trump himself. In the long term, that is much more important to Putin than the setback in relations with the US.
Some commentators think that it is Vladislav Surkov’s strategy to keep any opposition constantly confused. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladislav_Surkov#Influence_outside_Russia
It is claimed that he himself said something to that effect, see the documentary Hypernormalisation (on youtube) by Adam Curtis which has an interesting perspective.
Do you have a direct link to Endziel Chaos? Thanks in advance.
Here it is:
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/digital/laura-galante-im-interview-hacker-jaegerin-1.3494294?reduced=true
Little did I know; they changed the title in the online version.
Better yet, use this link – it’s a pdf and you don’t need to subscribe to download it.
https://galantestrategies.com/media/2017-05-08-suddeutsche-galante.pdf
Thanks, I got the pdf.
Another relevant remark by Laura Galante is that Europe should become more energy independent from Russia.
The Tump would have to use his brain but apparently he doesn’t have one.