Guccifer 2.0 - Game Over

I was being sarcastic.

 

So to recap:

1. You claimed that any serious investigation required the FBI to have possession of the physical server. That was totally false: The experts say that using a digital image is both standard practice AND more useful. That isn't "partisan prejudice": it's simple fact.

2. The Motherboard article also details all the OTHER kinds of evidence that point to Russia hacking that have nothing to do with the server -- including independent investigations by multiple public and private organizations with expertise in this area. You failed to refute ANY of it. That isn't "partisan prejudice": it's simple fact.

3. You highlight a line from the article that simply notes we (the public) have not been given access to the digital server image that Crowdstrike provided to the FBI. I'm not sure why you think the public WOULD be given access to that data, in any situation at all. And you ignore that Comey testified that Crowdstrike provided an "acceptable alternative" to the physical server. This is standard conspiracy-theorist practice: if sensitive data isn't posted online for everyone to see, it must be a coverup! Logically speaking, that's bullshit.

4. You keep hyping the VIPS report, even though I have pointed out -- and you have failed to refute AT ALL -- that the independent analyst noted at least two ways that the observed metadata could have been generated as part of a remote hack via VPN. That removes the premise of the original VIPS analysis, which was that the ONLY way the observed metadata could have been generated was if the data was being downloaded locally -- i.e., a leak. That isn't "partisan prejudice": it's simple fact.

5. Further, you keep hyping the credentials of Binney and McGovern, even though both are in their 70s and have been retired for between 15 and 25 years. You have provided no logical basis for assuming they are still on top of the latest technical trends, nor have you provided a logical basis for dismissing the credentials of people like the independent analyst, who is CURRENTLY working in the field in question. That isn't "partisan prejudice": it's simple fact.

In short, your claim of a coverup relies on three things:

1. The false belief that the FBI needed the physical DNC server;
2. 100% belief in the (false) claim in the VIPS report that the observed metadata could not have been generated as a part of a VPN-based hack;
3. Ignoring the reams of other evidence pointing to a Russian hack, from multiple independent lines of investigation.

I would add that you have ALSO failed to articulate a coverup theory that makes any sense at all:

1. What was the DNC covering up?
2. Why would the FBI go along with that cover up?
3. Why and how would U.S. intelligence agencies take that cover up, and use it to launch an effort to plant evidence all over the Internet of a Russian hack?

Your conspiracy theory requires ignoring most of the available evidence, in favor of a theory for which there is essentially NO evidence, and which makes no logical sense aside.

If you're a run-of-the-mill conspiracy theorist, grow up.

If you're a Russian troll, go home.

In either case, stop posting bullshit.

 

It doesn't say what Crowdstrike actually gave.
It does't matter if digital images are more useful or not.

 

The FBI said it was given an acceptable alternative. Given that it is standard practice in these investigations to provide a digital image rather than the physical server, the reasonable conclusion is that Crowdstrike gave them a digital image.

So you are grasping at straws: because it doesn't explicitly say that Crowdstrike gave the FBI a digital image, you're going to assume some funny business went on -- and that the FBI would publicly collude with Crowdstrike on this for some reason you can't explain and for which there is zero evidence.

Instead, how about we go with the conclusion that makes sense and for which there is evidence?

 

You can skip the rest. You're already disqualified

 

Standard conspiracy-theory crap -- simply disbelieving the available evidence, and instead choosing to believe a fantasy for which there is no evidence. You're done.

 

Epic! Fun to read too.

Expect increasingly shrill & angry responses, some personal abuse and then banishment to the ignore list....until he just can't help attacking you again later on. Some folk don't cope well with contradiction.

Stripey never met a source he agreed with that he didn't believe, no matter how lacking or questionable.

 

Standard imply evidence crap.

Hint: you have to supply enough data to reject the null set. One does not prove the null set.

Have some cookies and a nice glass of warm milk.
Then tuck youself in, dream of Russian fairies dancing around your bed and try again tomorrow

 

It is alleged (by Mueller) that agents of the Russian government, specifically in the Russian intelligence services, were involved in disinformation campaigns in the presidential election and in the current midterm campaigns.

All legal "claims" (like those in a criminal indictment) are always "allegations" until proven in court (to do otherwise would remove the presumption of innocence).

I didn't know Crowdstrike provided a digital server image to the FBI, can you confirm this with some source?

One is via VPN, the other by USB. Why must we discount the possibility it could have been an insider?

What got published by Wikileaks.

They expected and preferred Hillary would prevail.

To support their claim Trump colluded with Russians to defeat Hillary.

 

???

I think you mean "null hypothesis." What do you consider the null hypothesis in this instance?

 

Another fact free post that the Wussian's done it.

And you've missed the point that quote in my post that was bolded in red that said:

Quite how that translates in your mind to "we the public" as opposed to we a journalist beats me. Maybe because you want to twist facts? That what it sounds like to me anyway. A good try at being a spin-meister, but no cigar.

The fact is that the Motherboard article is no different to hundreds of others I've read. Short on hard evidence but long on allegations, maybe's and suggestions. You seem to enjoy falling for that kind of flummery, but I'm not as pliant as you very clearly are. I want facts and all you keep giving are assertions and speculation.

Crowdstrike was hired by the DNC as a private contractor. Crowdstrike's co-founder, Dimitri Alperovich is a Senior Fellow of the Atlantic Council (HERE) - a dead give away - because the Atlantic Council holds and expresses openly anti-Russian views and is funded by the Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk, who donated a minimum of $10 million to Hilary's candidacy. Also, in 2013, the Atlantic Council awarded Hilary its Distinguished International Leadership Award.

No prejudice there. Assuming you don't have your eyes open and accompanied by a closed mind locked in a group-think vice.

If this wasn't bad enough, Crowdstrike earlier had asserted in a report that the nassy ol' evil Wussians had hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app. The Ukrainian Ministry of Defence soon announced that the hacking never happened. Whoops! The maker of the app says that Crowdstrike didn't even contact him during the investigative phase of their report or after. Nyet! He called the report "delusional".

In short, Crowdstrike are piss poor and can't be trusted imo.

Just as importantly, the DNC declined to allow the FBI to examine their servers in the first place. This is jaw-dropping and head-shaking all by itself.

This is all rather like a Mafia Don tasking his lawyer to deliver the evidence against him to the police in a criminal investigation. It's utterly ludicrous. And very clearly those in the FBI making these decisions are politicised and prejudiced.

I didn't read the rest of your post. If your principal argument won't even stand up to serious scrutiny what point is there in eating up the bandwidth discussing other presumably contaminated and unreliable statements.

In closing, in the future you'll have to find someone else to vent your frustrations at. I'm not listening to you. And I won't be wasting my time with you again.

That's what I meant by "have a nice day." It was British politeness meaning "go away, you're being tedious".

Goodbye.

PS, for those members here further interested in this subject see also HERE and HERE.

 

The poster I was responding too claimed the VIPS report proved it was a leak. I was pointing out that since two of the three possible explanations involved a VPN hack, the report does not prove a leak.

SInce that was literally the ONLY piece of technical evidence supporting the possibility of a leak, there is now ZERO technical evidence proving a leak. All you have is "well, it doesn't DISPROVE a leak."

That makes no sense. The data had already been taken at that point. There was nothing left to cover up. It's like wiping your hard drive after someone has already taken a copy of the data.

Please post your evidence supporting this claim.

So the FBI convinced multiple U.S. intelligence agencies to participate in a frame-up of Russia? Interesting. Please post your evidence supporting this claim. Also, please post your explanation of how U.S. intelligence agencies managed to infiltrate infrastructure known to be controlled by Russian hackers, and did all this so perfectly that it has fooled literally everyone.

 

Fact-free? LOL. You're not fooling anyone.

A journalist is just a citizen. They don't have magical access. They can't get warrants to force people to give them information. The only way they get their hands on non-public information is if someone leaks it to them. There is nothing suspicious about the fact that nobody has leaked information about the DNC server to the press.

LOL. You claim to want facts, yet ignore or disbelieve the facts you dislike.

The article links to multiple independent sources detailing various bits of evidence pointing to Russian hacking. It cites the Mueller indictment's detailed description of what we know about the hacking effort, such as the search histories of known Russian agents, the details and ownership of the server used by the hackers to run the spearphishing operation, etc. ALL point to Russia.

Wow. That's what you have? Guilt by association? Let's unpack that.

The Atlantic Council was founded decades ago as a think tank supporting NATO and the U.S.-European alliance. It is a nonpartisan group with members from all over the political spectrum and from both sides of the Atlantic.

Alperovich is one of more than 100 experts associated with the Atlantic Council.

Pinchuk does not "fund" the Council; he is a relatively minor contributor. His foundation gave it between $100,000 and $250,000 last year. For comparison, the Council has annual revenues of about $30 million.

And yes, an organization dedicated to the U.S.-European alliance gave Hillary an award in 2013 when she was Secretary of State, because she was a strong supporter of the alliance. Here are some other recent recipients of the award:
-- Anders Rasmussen, NATO secretary general.
-- Chuck Hagel, U.S. Secretary of Defense (and a Republican)
-- Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission
-- Ashraf Ghani, the president of Afghanistan
-- Robert Gates, former U.S. secretary of defense (and a Republican)
-- Jens Stoltenberg, NATO secretary general
-- George Bush, former U.S. president (and a Republican)

So please stop with the laughable attempt to paint the Council as partisan.

Yep, Crowdstrike made a mistake at the least. It happens. So what? We're not relying on Crowdstrike's report. We're relying on the FBI, U.S. intelligence agencies, and multiple independent lines of inquiry.

I've already pointed out that this is neither jaw-dropping nor head-shaking. It is standard practice.

That analogy makes no sense at all. There was no crime committed by the DNC; we know that from the Wikileaks dumps, which were embarrassing (as any private communications made public tend to be) but didn't show any illegality. And as I pointed out, the information had already been taken, so there was nothing for the DNC to cover up anyway.

Another assertion without any evidence to back it up.

Concession noted.

 

You dont understand what implying that you have evidence means?

You don't understand that you just said there needed to be proof that there WAS NOT a Russian hack?

 

You must provide the evidence that Russia did something in order to reject that they didn't.
So far you have failed to reject.
Standard logic stuff.

Implying evidence exists is not evidence.
Saying that suitable alternatives were given without stating what those alternatives are, is implied evidence.

 

You know he can't.
Watch him dance.
Watch him talk about "logical conclusion."

 

thanks for clarification. POE's law and all.

 

I never said that. I just think you're confused about the state of evidence, based on your attempt to claim a null hypothesis.

The null hypothesis is generally "nothing happened unless there is evidence something happened."

In this case, there is plenty of evidence pointing to a Russian hack. So we've already satisfied the null hypothesis.

Further, there is essentially no evidence pointing to a leak. So in fact it is YOUR argument that fails the null hypothesis -- unsurprising, since it's just another conspiracy theory.

 

No, you've implied that evidence exists.
You said that suitable alternatives were given, yet can't say what they are. Further you claim that the logical conclusion would be that a mirrored image was given. But you dont know.

Therefore you are implying that evidence to reject exists, yet have failed to produce it.
You rejected nothing other than set rules of logic

 

Again, you pick ONE item that seems ridiculously low on ONE platform, by a few of the "identified" troll sources at that specific time. That figure is WAY OLD NEWS. Since that time, literally tens of thousands of accounts and masquerading bad actors have been uncovered.

Sorry, but the VAST amount of evidence outweighs your "doubt" based on an old data point that has since been BLOWN out of the water.

Keep trying. I'm sure you can find some other insignificant factoid to use in lame defense.

 

Show it

 

Yes evidence exists. Apparently you are unfamiliar with the contents of the last set of indictments. Rather a ton of evidence as been compiled by the best intell, counter intell and cyber warriors that the United States can muster.

Only an idiot would think that American's weren't getting some serious firepower for their $700 Billion a year. The cyber battlefield of the 21st century now includes the ability to selectively target individual citizens with disguised agenda driven propaganda.

But I get how you want to keep the argument focused on logic. However, your refusal to acknowledge a "known condition" (ie recognition of actual evidence submitted in court) renders it rather pointless.

 

read the indictment.

Its there for you to read. Just like all the other pieces of evidence including testimony and actions of the various social media platforms.

Your willful ignorance in this regard is neither becoming nor surprising.

 

This kind of attempts to promulgate the Russian programs as a little group of bumbling of 1 Ruble-per-day Commander Klink rejects who struggle to get their Russian-American dictionaries upright between quarts of rotgut Vodka is exactly one of the memes the very-capable GRU like to persuade America to "Don't worry! Just Be Happy"!"








of discerning with adequate precision to target the ambivalence of about 70 thousand swing voters in three states. In fact the mainstream media, which presumably has a much better sense of the pulse of the nation, didn't detect the degree to which voters were motivated by Trump.

I don't know whether the mainstream media lacked awareness of the true political mood, or glossed over it in disbelief. Probably was a bit of both, but perceiving political attitudes is not something easily done by foreign intelligence, even in an open society and probably not in the environment during the campaign.

One would need to be quite a savvy Russian analyst to figure out how to message to exactly those swing voters in the key states. It wouldn't be easy to see through the mainstream media's 'noise' and appreciate how to balance an undecided voter's views on both candidates.

 

I can see the skit in my head. Comedy gold.