WV, did you see the Nation article by Patrick Lawrence?

Recent Forum Topics Forums The Public House WV, did you see the Nation article by Patrick Lawrence?

This topic contains 7 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by Billy_T Billy_T 3 months ago.

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #72633
    Billy_T
    Billy_T
    Participant

    Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack Former NSA experts say it wasn’t a hack at all, but a leak—an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. By Patrick Lawrence — August 9, 2017

    It’s important to note, the author and the people who did the study, VIPs, aren’t saying this disproves Russian interference in the election. They’re saying they believe the DNC hack wasn’t hack, it was a leak. The far right has run with this Nation article pretty much to say none of it happened.

    They aren’t saying that at all. There was a ton of stuff that happened well beyond the DNC hack/leak or whatever it was. The mass proliferation of actual “fake news,” the millions of bots unleashed on Twitter and Facebook, the targeting of voter data in a coupla dozen states, or the slam dunk evidence that Trump engaged in “collusion” when his son, son in law and campaign manager had that meeting with the Russians to find dirt on HRC.

    I’m also left with the feeling that I can’t fully trust the report, either. We’re supposed to take their word for it, though we haven’t seen the evidence from them. Just as they say we haven’t seen any evidence from the government — and that’s true — the public hasn’t seen counter-evidence . . . So I find myself distrusting both “sides” in this. Lotsa incentives for people to counter the American Intel version, and to support it.

    In short, to me, this article doesn’t really settle things. It opens up more questions, yes. But it doesn’t provide me, at least, with the answers.

    #72634
    zn
    zn
    Moderator

    BT, there are some very good, very principled objections to the Lawrence article. When I get a chance I will post them. Those critiques, I found persuasive.

    But then as you said, it’s wrong to make the whole Russia thing about hacking the dems. That’s a misleading and off-target approach to all this. So there are dems who say the Russians did this, and there are leftists who only care about criticizing the fact that the dems said that, and to me the latter position is as wrong as anything else on this.

    #72637
    wv
    wv
    Participant

    I cant read it BT, because the Nation sez I’ve read 3 articles and thats all they will allow me to read without…doin somethin.

    My own view as ive said though iz still:

    1) I think the DNC emails were leaked from a DNC insider and given to Assange. I dont think any Russian involvement has been demonstrated. I dont think there was a hack. I’m always open to new evidence though.

    2) I dont really give a shit if it was a leak or a hack — I’m WAAAAAY more interested in the SUBSTANCE OF THE EMAILS.
    Ie, what they show about the amerikan corporotacracy. To ‘me’ the important story is about WHAT THE EMAILS SHOW, and not how the emails got published. The way i see it, the DEMS (brilliantly) were able to distract the public from the substance of the emails with their “Russians did it!” strategy.

    As for me, I am GLAD they were ‘stolen’. Fuck the Dems. I’m glad wikileaks published them. I think Amerika has become a deep-state with too many secrets. We cant even come CLOSE to bein a democracy with so many secrets and secret-spy-agencies running things. The Dems and Reps are CRIMINAL organizations in my view. Corporate-Gangs. Biosphere-destroyers. I could go on. And on. And on…with my rant… 🙂

    3) Yes, i agree, lots of foreign powers try to influence elections. I have no doubt russia is ONE of those foreign powers that try to influence American phoney-elections. (How can we even call them elections anymore?) I would be shocked if they were the only foreign power to do so. Israel has its own methods for influencing American elections — Money. Apparently Israel’s way is nice and ‘legal’ though. Etc, and so forth.

    4) Of the corporate-gangs in the world I think russia is less harmful than amerika. That has nothing to do with the hacking issue, I’m just tossing it out there. I’m hopeless, i know. i have no tolerance for the corporotacracy anymore 🙂

    5) Sammy Watkins in horns makes me very happy.

    w
    v

    #72638
    Billy_T
    Billy_T
    Participant

    I cant read it BT, because the Nation sez I’ve read 3 articles and thats all they will allow me to read without…doin somethin.

    If you clear your browser cache, cookies, etc. etc. you should be able to read it.

    I’d repost the whole thing here but it’s really long.

    Here’s an excerpt, though:

    It is not yet clear whether documents now shown to have been leaked locally on July 5 were tainted to suggest Russian hacking in the same way the June 15 Guccifer release was. This is among several outstanding questions awaiting answers, and the forensic scientists active on the DNC case are now investigating it. In a note Adam Carter sent to Folden and McGovern last week and copied to me, he reconfirmed the corruption of the June 15 documents, while indicating that his initial work on the July 5 documents—of which much more is to be done—had not yet turned up evidence of doctoring.

    In the meantime, VIPS has assembled a chronology that imposes a persuasive logic on the complex succession of events just reviewed. It is this:

    On June 12 last year, Julian Assange announced that WikiLeaks had and would publish documents pertinent to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
    On June 14, CrowdStrike, a cyber-security firm hired by the DNC, announced, without providing evidence, that it had found malware on DNC servers and had evidence that Russians were responsible for planting it.
    On June 15, Guccifer 2.0 first appeared, took responsibility for the “hack” reported on June 14 and claimed to be a WikiLeaks source. It then posted the adulterated documents just described.
    On July 5, Guccifer again claimed he had remotely hacked DNC servers, and the operation was instantly described as another intrusion attributable to Russia. Virtually no media questioned this account.

    It does not require too much thought to read into this sequence. With his June 12 announcement, Assange effectively put the DNC on notice that it had a little time, probably not much, to act preemptively against the imminent publication of damaging documents. Did the DNC quickly conjure Guccifer from thin air to create a cyber-saboteur whose fingers point to Russia? There is no evidence of this one way or the other, but emphatically it is legitimate to pose the question in the context of the VIPS chronology. WikiLeaks began publishing on July 22. By that time, the case alleging Russian interference in the 2016 elections process was taking firm root. In short order Assange would be written down as a “Russian agent.”

    By any balanced reckoning, the official case purporting to assign a systematic hacking effort to Russia, the events of mid-June and July 5 last year being the foundation of this case, is shabby to the point taxpayers should ask for their money back. The Intelligence Community Assessment, the supposedly definitive report featuring the “high confidence” dodge, was greeted as farcically flimsy when issued January 6. Ray McGovern calls it a disgrace to the intelligence profession. It is spotlessly free of evidence, front to back, pertaining to any events in which Russia is implicated. James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, admitted in May that “hand-picked” analysts from three agencies (not the 17 previously reported) drafted the ICA. There is a way to understand “hand-picked” that is less obvious than meets the eye: The report was sequestered from rigorous agency-wide reviews. This is the way these people have spoken to us for the past year.

    Behind the ICA lie other indefensible realities. The FBI has never examined the DNC’s computer servers—an omission that is beyond preposterous. It has instead relied on the reports produced by Crowdstrike, a firm that drips with conflicting interests well beyond the fact that it is in the DNC’s employ. Dmitri Alperovitch, its co-founder and chief technology officer, is on the record as vigorously anti-Russian. He is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, which suffers the same prejudice. Problems such as this are many.

    “We continue to stand by our report,” CrowdStrike said, upon seeing the VIPS blueprint of the investigation. CrowdStrike argues that by July 5 all malware had been removed from the DNC’s computers. But the presence or absence of malware by that time is entirely immaterial, because the event of July 5 is proven to have been a leak and not a hack. Given that malware has nothing to do with leaks, CrowdStrike’s logic appears to be circular.

    In effect, the new forensic evidence considered here lands in a vacuum. We now enter a period when an official reply should be forthcoming. What the forensic people are now producing constitutes evidence, however one may view it, and it is the first scientifically derived evidence we have into any of the events in which Russia has been implicated. The investigators deserve a response, the betrayed professionals who formed VIPS as the WMD scandal unfolded in 2003 deserve it, and so do the rest of us. The cost of duplicity has rarely been so high.

    I concluded each of the interviews conducted for this column by asking for a degree of confidence in the new findings. These are careful, exacting people as a matter of professional training and standards, and I got careful, exacting replies.

    All those interviewed came in between 90 percent and 100 percent certain that the forensics prove out. I have already quoted Skip Folden’s answer: impossible based on the data. “The laws of physics don’t lie,” Ray McGovern volunteered at one point. “It’s QED, theorem demonstrated,” William Binney said in response to my question. “There’s no evidence out there to get me to change my mind.” When I asked Edward Loomis, a 90 percent man, about the 10 percent he held out, he replied, “I’ve looked at the work and it shows there was no Russian hack. But I didn’t do the work. That’s the 10 percent. I’m a scientist.”

    #72641
    Billy_T
    Billy_T
    Participant

    On your point number two:

    2) I dont really give a shit if it was a leak or a hack — I’m WAAAAAY more interested in the SUBSTANCE OF THE EMAILS.
    Ie, what they show about the amerikan corporotacracy. To ‘me’ the important story is about WHAT THE EMAILS SHOW, and not how the emails got published. The way i see it, the DEMS (brilliantly) were able to distract the public from the substance of the emails with their “Russians did it!” strategy.

    Were they really brilliant, though? Cuz no other subject was in the media as much as her emails. They dominated, even more so than Trump’s Hollywood tapes. And the coverage of those emails was very negative. I don’t think the Dems succeeded in distracting the country at all.

    In fact, I think the email scandal was a big part of her downfall. I also don’t think they showed the Dems being anything more than your run of the mill political party. The actual emails. I found nothing particularly, uniquely awful about them, though the attempts by the GOP to exaggerate their substance, via distortion and paraphrase, made them sound like the worst thing evah. To me, they were business as usual, and I would be shocked if email chains from the GOP weren’t at least as bad.

    No defense of the Dems. Or the GOP. I detest both parties and honestly wish they’d go away. I don’t see either as legitimate, as we’ve discussed before. Chomsky’s concept of power needing to justify itself. They haven’t. Quite the opposite. The duopoly has proven it’s incapable of governing in a way that represents all of us. I agree with Thomas Frank that the Dems basically are all in for the richest 10%, at their best, and the GOP for the richest 1%.

    So, yeah, both parties are disgusting, with a long, long history of being disgusting. Which is why I’m kind of baffled at the anger regarding those emails. I also don’t want wikileaks choosing sides like it did. If they want to shine a light on our political system, point it on both parties or stay out of it. It paints a false picture to do just one, IMO. Even worse, to point it on our politics and not the folks who pull the strings: the plutocratic class.

    #72642
    Billy_T
    Billy_T
    Participant

    Sorry, just noticed I screwed up the formatting in my reply to you, WV, and with the excerpt.

    I should have checked back after posting.

    #72650
    wv
    wv
    Participant

    On your point number two:

    2) I dont really give a shit if it was a leak or a hack — I’m WAAAAAY more interested in the SUBSTANCE OF THE EMAILS.
    Ie, what they show about the amerikan corporotacracy. To ‘me’ the important story is about WHAT THE EMAILS SHOW, and not how the emails got published. The way i see it, the DEMS (brilliantly) were able to distract the public from the substance of the emails with their “Russians did it!” strategy.

    Were they really brilliant, though? Cuz no other subject was in the media as much as her emails. They dominated, even more so than Trump’s Hollywood tapes. And the coverage of those emails was very negative. I don’t think the Dems succeeded in distracting the country at all.

    In fact, I think the email scandal was a big part of her downfall. I also don’t think they showed the Dems being anything more than your run of the mill political party. The actual emails. I found nothing particularly, uniquely awful about them, though the attempts by the GOP to exaggerate their substance, via distortion and paraphrase, made them sound like the worst thing evah. To me, they were business as usual, and I would be shocked if email chains from the GOP weren’t at least as bad.

    No defense of the Dems. Or the GOP. I detest both parties and honestly wish they’d go away. I don’t see either as legitimate, as we’ve discussed before. Chomsky’s concept of power needing to justify itself. They haven’t. Quite the opposite. The duopoly has proven it’s incapable of governing in a way that represents all of us. I agree with Thomas Frank that the Dems basically are all in for the richest 10%, at their best, and the GOP for the richest 1%.

    So, yeah, both parties are disgusting, with a long, long history of being disgusting. Which is why I’m kind of baffled at the anger regarding those emails. I also don’t want wikileaks choosing sides like it did. If they want to shine a light on our political system, point it on both parties or stay out of it. It paints a false picture to do just one, IMO. Even worse, to point it on our politics and not the folks who pull the strings: the plutocratic class.

    ==============

    Well i tend to agree that Assange ‘chose sides’. He says he didnt. He says he just didnt have any bad stuff on Trump. Which i find hard to believe 🙂
    Even when he called Hillary vs Trump a choice between Cholera and Gonorrhea, it seems to me Cholera is worse 🙂

    As far as you not finding anything surprising in the emails — i wouldnt expect YOU to find anything surprising in them. I didnt either. Informed, critical-thinking leftists wouldnt find anything surprising. But there aint many of us, BT. If there WERE, Bernie woulda won the primary and Jill woulda won the general election.

    But the emails could have been a powerful awakening-tool regarding the masses. And i dont agree that the ‘liberal’-MSM did much to explain what was in them. The rightwing-MSM of course spent a lot of time on them, but no rightwinger was gonna vote for Hillary anyway.

    All in all, i see the Russia story as a Dem/Dem-MSM tactic to distract people from inequality and class issues, and to beat the Repugnants in the next election. Thats all i see. More or less. I know you and zn disagree strongly. Fair enough. No big thing.

    w
    v

    #72651
    Billy_T
    Billy_T
    Participant

    WV,

    Maybe this is crazy, but about the only thing that keeps me going is the belief that if there really were a level playing field, leftist philosophy and policy would win. I just see it as the best for the largest number and the planet, and it’s not at all close. So, common sense and logic says, if people have a clear choice, know everything they’re dealing with, if it’s all above board, they’re going to go with leftist stuff. Cuz, why wouldn’t they? It’s in the best interest of literally just about everyone but the 1%. And, ironically, even the 1% would be better off in many ways.

    Like, peace instead of war
    A truly open society, instead of a deeply surveiled one
    A highly educated society, where no one is denied their human potential because they can’t afford the schooling or the training or the trades
    A safe, clean environment, with safe food and water, clean air, etc.
    Access for everyone to all the fruits of society, lifting all of us up . . . .

    If people have a choice, why wouldn’t they go for that, as opposed to the current deal where six people hold as much wealth as the bottom half of the world’s population, half our wildlife gone in the last 40 years, a world that overshoots its capacity now in August . . . and by 2030, will need two entire earths to meet demand.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-earth-overshoot-day-earth-budget-2016-8

    ???

    I’m probably just kidding myself, but it’s one of those things that keep me going. That, and the hope that the Rams will win a few games this year!!

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.