Russian Hackers: The Evidence

The evidence released that Russian Hackers stole Podesta's email and gave it to WikiLeaks was sketchy at best. The media had a record of disinformation, false information or lies about Trump. This didn't change with "Russian Hackers". The evidence released that Russian Hackers stole Podesta's email and gave it to WikiLeaks was sketchy at best. That doesn't mean it did or did not. It means that you're a rube if you believe it without question, or think the evidence was conclusive. ℹ️ Info           ~ Aristotle Sabouni Created: 2017-05-25

The sum total of the "evidence" released is:

• (a) some of the malware touched a Russian email service that a company once used, that once contracted for the Russians (Fancy Bear)
• (b) one of the hackers used the handle "Iron Felix", a famous Russian secret police force founder
• (c) some Russians said they "felt good" about the results of the election
• (d) WaPo ran editorials about the sophisticated Russian hack.

Counter to that was Security experts (including self) laughed off the evidence as weak sauce:

• The server (which was never released to the FBI to investigate), showed that the download was too fast for an internet connection (and looked like a thumb drive copy)
• Wikileaks said it was a Democrat insider (they've never been caught in a lie: their credibility is critical to their existence)
• When Seth Rich was killed, Wikileaks implied that he had been the leaker, and offered a reward for catching his murderer
• The FBI director had internally closed the investigation months BEFORE interviewing Hillary, and the FBI got caught offering a Russian Hacker a deal (money, free apartment, citizenship), if he'd falsely confessed to being the source of the hack, and many of the agencies that were credited with agreeing with national intelligence, said they never saw the evidence or signed off on anything.

So far, no one has come up with evidence of a hack.

Details

Here's the summary of so called "good evidence" we have that it was the Russians that did the hack, and by doing it, they were trying to stack the election in Trump's favor:

• When the story broke it was unverifiable "anonymous sources" in the CIA... which if they did leak, was a couple crimes by-the-way. The CIA isn't supposed to be investigating Americans on American soil, and they're not allowed by law to leak information to the public. But the media ignored those angles completely.

• The media since, has also stopped stressing that the FBI, ODNI and NSA sources disagreed... as did a lot of other intelligence agency veterans. But that didn't stop the left wing media from sensationalizing the story (as they were directed by the Clinton camp).

• Then because the CIA isn’t supposed to be investigating domestic issues (and that was a high crime), suddenly the DHS/FBI gave them cover and agreed with the CIA now, and they release a document that contained absolutely no evidence, and a lot of distractions.

• When you read it, and the backstory, it comes out that the FBI was never given access to the Democrat servers, and thus the FBI was taking the word of a private security concern. Really. None of the FBI "evidence" was gathered, collected, observed, followed the proper chain of evidence, etc., by the FBI itself, they took the summary of a private agency that was paid for by the DNC, and put their name/brand on that, based on never seeing any of the evidence.

Evidence it was the Russians? Some of the malware, resembled techniques the Russians and everyone else used. They touched a Russian service (Yandex, a Moscow-based webmail), which is common for hacking (to use services all over the globe), but that same service was once used by Fancy Bear (which might have done some contract work for the Russians). Guccifer 2.0 might have used something that hinted Romanian wasn't his native tongue One of aliases used, was "Iron Felix", a famous Russian secret police force founder (Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky). Some Russians said they felt good about the results of the election. As if that’s conclusive that they were responsible for the leaks, let alone that the leaks had any significant impact on the election). That's it Having seen that mountain of evidence, multiple private security specialists have all laughed, "that's what they based their assumptions on?" And openly mocked the conclusion. Even far left sources (and others) are questioning the lack of evidence to support the administrations claims. What are the odds that: the smartest professionals in the GRU or FSB would use “Iron” Felix Dzerzhinsky name as their handle in their hacks state actors would use a publicly available malware kit, many versions out of date? (P.A.S. version 3.1.0, instead of the latest 4.1.1b)? Usually state actors develop their own tools. and the IP traces, etc., show nothing unusual or specific to Russia

• The WaPo was saying it was a "sophisticated hack", only doable by state actors... while security analysis say "it was childish stuff that could have been done by 14 year olds" (called a spearphishing campaign).

• So the ONI was forced to release another document, that said they were confident it was a Russian influence campaign to undermine Hillary and the Democratic process, and they were the source of the Wikileaks material.

• But again the sum of the evidence offered are abstracts like, RT (Russian Television) was more favorable to Trump than Hillary, they stopped being as Anti-American immediately after the election (just like they did when Obama and Bush won)... and Guccifer 2.0 might have been more than one person (so they think it was a coordinated effort). Security experts agree: this is pretty thin evidence if they want to convince anyone with an ounce of skepticism (critical thinking skills).

• In the meantime, Julian Assange of Wikileaks (and his British Intelligence asset assistant) have been claiming it was a DNC Insider (disgruntled Bernie supporter, infuriated at the corruption inside the DNC) that leaked the information to them in a drop in D.C. And he even implied it was Seth Rich, another one of the people to mysteriously die or get murdered for going against the Clinton campaign machine. Wikileaks even offered a reward for evidence leading to a conviction in that murder. And an investigator found evidence of 44,000 emails on his laptop that he had shared, showing he was the likely source of the emails that were in the mythical Russian hack.

• Just to add to the mess, there's more evidence that the FBI was colluding with the Hillary campaign to frame the Russians, than the other way around. At least that's what it appears when Yevgeny Nikulin (Russian hacker who hacked LinkedIn, and in Czech custody), was offered money, citizenship and a free Apartment by the FBI for falsely confessing to be the source of the Clinton email hack. The FBI declined to comment.

• And then you have revelations, that shock few, that Comey had decided in May to "not recommend charges against Hillary" and was plotting how he would reveal her innocence, 3 months before she was even interviewed (in July). Which explains why the Interview was such a sham and she was not: (a) questioned by him (b) not sworn under oath (c) not recorded (d) the transcripts were not released. Hillary's innocence was predetermined long before the investigation was concluded. Which shows a bias that may have also been present in the "Russia Hacking" pre-decisions and willingness to accept the word of a sloppy security firm instead of checking the evidence themselves, and their leaping to conclusions not supported by the evidence, in their reports on the topic.

Conclusions

The point isn't that I believe every one of the conspiracies. The conspiracies all seem equally absurd. The FBI would sloppily try to buy off a Russian hacker? The Russians would sloppily hack Hillary's campaign with the intent of putting in Russia because of some mysterious blackmail material on Trump? Disgruntled Bernie Supporters getting murdered for leaking the truth about the Clinton Campaign? The FBI director deciding her innocents despite mountains of evidence and usurping Justice Department powers by exonerating her for a long list of crimes he articulated first? This whole thing is a fucking embarrassment to our system of government.

Hillary committed crimes and should be in jail. Leaking the truth about the DNC paying goons to beat up people at opposition rallies or conspiring with the media to sabotage an opposing candidate should be celebrated not witch hunted. And the Russians are getting their ambassadors thrown out as part of a sham against sanity, and are scratching their heads wondering how they became the more credible and least corrupt super power. It's a fucking mess that all tracks back to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and how low the media and DNC will go, to avoid taking responsibility for anything.

---

🔗 More

Donald Trump A list of articles on Trump, his accomplishments, scandals (real and imagined).

Russia Russia, our friendly comrades that hate us for our power, freedom, and annoying ability to stick our noses in all kinds of shit.

WikiLeaks I respect WikiLeaks, but am not realy a fan. They've done a service, and gotten people killed.

Seth Rich Seth was murdered, after someone (not likely Russians) leaked John Podesta's emails.

🔗 Links

• http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/12/the-russian-hacking-fiasco/
• NSA Analyst Debunks: http://observer.com/2016/12/former-nsa-analyst-debunks-three-myths-about-russian-hacking/
• https://pjmedia.com/blog/making-sense-of-the-russian-hacking-saga//?singlepage=true
• http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2017/05/stephen_f_cohen_just_wants_trump_and_putin_to_get_along.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_fb_top

Tags: Trump  Russia  WikiLeaks  Seth Rich