The FBI in revolt? re Clinton

iyraste1313 wrote:

"It will mean martial law in the USA and her cheif subordinate, Canada"

I heard the most of the Canadian Army is already massing in the USA in select locations into order to prevent the rebellions from spreading. The militia in my local area has already been stood up to prevent any uprisings in the Toronto area.

There won't be a rebellion unless:

A) Trump wins paper ballot states he "shouldn't" have won -showing the polls were underestimating his support

B) Despite A, Trump loses electronic ballot states he "should" have won (like Texas) -indicating election fraud

C) Results get challenged due to A+B but challenge is denied with no investigation -reinforces the narrative of a rigged process

All three need to happen. 

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable."

The only other possibility would be if the EC does something really stupid, but that won't happen.

Quote:

A) Trump wins paper ballot states he "shouldn't" have won -showing the polls were underestimating his support

B) Despite A, Trump loses electronic ballot states he "should" have won (like Texas) -indicating election fraud

So basically, the election has to mirror whatever poll(s) Republicans feel were truthiest.

Otherwise, if he wins then the polls must have been rigged if they suggested he wouldn't.  And if he loses, then EVERYTHING is rigged.

I say just be ready for those recounts.  Everything else is just Trump supporters who won't know what to do with a whole bellyful of fight juice and nothing left to spend it on for the next four years.

In other words, there won't be a rebellion if Trump supporters get over themselves and accept defeat (which, I'm sad to say, many will not have the emotional tools to do).  I guess it's hard to tell people to be loud and fearless and empowered and aggrieved for six months, then suddenly stop it all on Nov. 9.

And I'm suggesting that it really doesn't matter who wins West Virginia.  If Trump doesn't win the Presidency -- including if that happens by, say, NOT GETTING AS MANY VOTES -- then "hand me my shootin' iron, Martha, it's time to take this country BACK!!"

Let me put this another way.  Can you imagine (and please, use your imagination to its fullest) a situation where Trump gets (let's say) 44% of the vote, Clinton gets 54%, and devoted Trump supporters say "well, the important thing is that we tried, and we have something here to build on!  Hats off to OUR new President-elect!"?

If you can boil your point down to "shit might happen" then I totally agree.  It might.  But for purely emotional reasons, not because there's any logical reason for it.

Cody87 wrote:

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

More to the point his web site has been weponized by the Russians. 

Has there been any credible evidence to suggest this is the case?

I mean DNCleaks was Russia, Wikileaks is Russia, Trump is Russia, O'Keefe is Russia, hell, I have literally seen claims online (not here, though it could be here too I haven't looked) that Comey is Russia. 

Is it actually Russia or is that just a useful scapegoat to distract from how unbelievably corrupt Clinton is?

Hey, my favourite baseball team isn't in the world series. That's Russia's fault too!

Seriously, I agree with what you said here. This kind of foreign scapegoating is dangerous, it's unfortunate that it seems to passs for actual discussion on a progressive site, especially when progressives should know where this kind of foreign scapegoating tends to lead.

@ Timebandit

Exactly.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

This kind of foreign scapegoating is dangerous, it's unfortunate that it seems to passs for actual discussion on a progressive site, especially when progressives should know where this kind of foreign scapegoating tends to lead.

'scue me, but if we want to talk about non-discussion, I pointed out several examples of Russian interference, including the formal accusation in the DNC hack up at #42. You want to ignore it, or even say there is no smoking gun (at least not one which has been made public), fine. But there is in fact something to discuss. And it is not just scapegoating.

And to tie it back to the subject of this thread, Comey declined just weeks ago to not sign onto the formal accusation against Russia on the grounds it would be too close to the election, and might have undue influence:

Quote:

FBI Director James B. Comey advised against the Obama administration publicly accusing Russia of hacking political organizations on the grounds that it would make the administration appear unduly partisan too close to the Nov. 8 election, according to officials familiar with the deliberations.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-fbi-director-...

voice of the damned wrote:

Well, for the record, I don't entertain the notion that Russia might be trying to "rig" American elections, in the sense that the word "rig" is normally used(stuffing ballots, nowadays cyberattacks on ballots). I might be mistaken(can't recall the whole thread), but my understanding is that the debate was about whether the Russians were the ones who obtained the embarassing leaks about Clinton.

I wonder how this compares US-led election rigging around the world?  Get dirt about opposition candidates & leak it to the press.

voice of the damned wrote:

...Well, for the record, I don't entertain the notion that Russia might be trying to "rig" American elections, in the sense that the word "rig" is normally used(stuffing ballots, nowadays cyberattacks on ballots). I might be mistaken(can't recall the whole thread), but my understanding is that the debate was about whether the Russians were the ones who obtained the embarassing leaks about Clinton.

Fair enough. The word used should be 'influence'. But regardless of the word used, it's still just a pile of crap. I said I know for certain Putin isn't a dreamer. Well, he isn't stupid either. He probably knows more about the source of power in the USA than most Americans do.

voice of the damned wrote:

...As for US foreign-polcy being heavily impacted by the Senate, and never changing between presidents, well, that's true in the broad contours, but I think there's enough differences in the micro-details to make a difference to a lot of people. It's now known that Richard Nixon secretly sabotaged the Vietnam peace-talks in 1968, in order to prolong the war into his presidency, so as to take credit for whatever positive(from his viewpoint) outcome entailed. I don't think the Senate ordered him to do that, and obviously it's not exactly the same thing as the Democrats would have done, since it was intended to sabotage them.

This story about Nixon is interesting, but worth almost nothing. It is predicated on the premise that Lyndon Johnson would have arrived at some peace agreement with North Vietnam. That premise is speculative at best. Here's a little information about Johnson and the Vietnam war:

Quote:

When Vice President Johnson assumed the presidency, he inherited the escalating crisis in Vietnam. Despite promises to bring a swift end to American involvement in Indochina, Johnson steadily increased the number of U.S. troops deployed to Vietnam, hoping to ensure a U.S. victory before withdrawing forces. No American president had yet "lost" a war, and Johnson hoped he wouldn't be the first. By the end of his second term as president, his approval rates had plummeted and his hopes for bringing an end to the war in Vietnam had dissolved. On 31 March 1968, at the height of the Vietnam War, Johnson announced to the American people that he would not seek reelection.

And when Nixon became president, he too promised to reduce the number of troops in Vietnam. Both of those presidents were lying through their teeth.

Nixon sabotaged the peace negotiations. That is quite literally a laugh. Neither Johnson nor Nixon had any plans to negotate any peace agreement with Vietnam. The promises they both made were strictly for local consumption.

The first notice was from the FBI, telling the DNC they were being hacked. But yes, there is some actual evidence.

Of course the evidence the U.S. government used to make a formal accusation is unlikely to be made public, but there are the technical assessments by private security firms:

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-nation...

https://www.secureworks.com/research/threat-group-4127-targets-hillary-c...

https://www.threatconnect.com/blog/tapping-into-democratic-national-comm...

And Matt Tait of Capital Alpha Security in the UK:

Quote:

To me, there are three key facts in the public domain that strongly link the DNC hack to Russia, the first two of which are entirely non-technical.

The first fact is that the Guccifer 2 account, despite being ostensibly a lone Eastern European hacker, is totally out of character for lone hackers. For a start, most lone hackers show a huge sense of bravado and self-aggrandizement which is a role the Guccifer2 character acts very poorly. Even his hacker pseudonym “Guccifer2” references another hacker rather than choosing his own brand to operate under. Despite having his own outlet, Guccifer2 allowed his most impactful stolen documents to be laundered by another outlet, and stands idly by when that outlet spreads disinformation about his involvement.

Moreover, the quality of his English varies dramatically, even between sections of the same document when swapping between paragraphs that are more political to ones that are more technical, and he makes basic technical errors that sound an awful lot like a linguist misunderstanding a technical person, than a mistranslation. To top it all off, the hacker seems unable to explain how he hacked the DNC in any detail, and rather than bragging about how he technically hacked the DNC, he makes statements about it that make no technical sense.

In short, the notion that the hacker is an individual rather than an organization such as a foreign intelligence agency strains credulity beyond breaking point.

The second important fact is that the stolen documents were leaked en masse at all. There’s lots of capable foreign intelligence organizations that would plausibly hack the US to get dirt on senior Democrats, but mass-dumping stolen or intercepted political data to influence the public media has all the hallmarks of a Russian information influence operation. Other countries, of course, wouldn’t hesitate to use documents obtained via foreign intelligence for political advantage, or even maybe for HUMINT advantage, but mass-dumping intercepted documents is a Rubicon most foreign intelligence agencies simply do not cross.

The third fact is technical; uncovered by cybersecurity expert and author Thomas Rid, showing that the malware control servers used in the DNC hack are the same computers as the malware control servers used in the hack of the German Parliament a few years ago.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/need-official-attribution-russias-dnc-hack

From an above posted article:

Quote:

...a former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian counterintelligence

The whole article is based on this anonymous source. What a joke! This is like some story in the National Inquirer. Not even a 'current' intelligence officer, which could explain the anonimity.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

This isn't "creating Putin as a force of evil" or beating up on him.

It is accusing his government of hacking a political party during an election and leaking the information to influence the democratic process.

From the LawFare blog you posted above:

Quote:

Yesterday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Adam Schiff—Vice Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and Ranking Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, respectively—called on the Obama administration to consider declassifying and releasing any intelligence community assessments on the attribution and motives of the DNC hackers...

I'll just point out that Putin suggested the same thing to John Kerry, and Kerry refused to consider making public any evidence. Oh, those jolly Americans! What a joke this whole thing is.

And yes it is 'accusing' Putin's government of trying to influence the USA election. For what reason? No one knows. With what evidence? No one knows.

"You're the puppet!"

"No, you're the puppet!"

"No, no, you're the puppet, the real puppet!"

"No, no, no,. Puppet, puppet, puppet, you're the puppet!"

And so on...ad nauseam. This whole episode has the look and feel of the Tulip Bulb mania of Holland in the 1600's. I predict that history will remember the idiocy of the Russian thing in this election campaign long after they've forgotten Donald Trump.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

No, I am not being sarcastic.

It is exactly what the U.S. government accused Russia of at the beginning of last month:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/07/us-russia-dnc-hack-in...

They didn't "create putin as a force of evil", beat up on him, or anything like that.

And Rev, what purpose would there be in declassifying it? There is plenty of good evidence in those private assessments that no one seems to want to bother considering.

Do you think the U.S. government showing their hand by releasing classified information is going to make one bit of difference to the RT and Illuminati crowd? Why would they pay any more attention to that?

 

 

 

I will leave this topic for now, I have say clinton campaign telling people that Putin is undermining the US democracy is probably doing more damage to the US system 10 Putins put together.  Telling a public the has a history of demorcacy for atleast 100 years of history with mass sufferage.  The US system is a rock, its a 2 party system that spits out any serious 3rd parties. By starting this myth that the US democracy is so fragile the can be manuilplied forgien power that message actually undermines the prececption of the system.  I got to get some sleep.

To be honest, I don't remember who wrote this (you can check)...

That in itself is sufficient evidence to press charges in espionage cases. Julian Assange and Edward Snowden had to leave the country, and Chelsea Manning is in jail, all 3 of them on less grounds than what Clinton did.

Assange is an Australian who left Sweden for the UK, where he wound up seeking asylum at the Ecuadorean Embassy. I assume that "the country" refers to the US, though it is an odd expression to use on a Canadian site.

It just seemed strange.

Cody87 wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Do you think the U.S. government showing their hand by releasing classified information is going to make one bit of difference to the RT and Illuminati crowd? Why would they pay any more attention to that?

I guess that if legitimate skeptics had more information/evidence to go on then "what happened was consistent with state methods, it could have been Russia" then that might help.

But, none of that really matters because whether it was Russia or China or North Korea or a leaker or an anonymous hacker, what's important is what's contained in the emails.

And remember that in any other circumstance the public would have these emails via FOIA. That's what matters.

I'll also point out that countries try and hack each other all the time, so if you are dealing with high-level data that the US government you should expect hacking attempts and secure your systems in the first place. But let's assume that the DNC hacks were done by the Russians. All they've done is release e-mail communication among DNC staff proving that the DNC was in the tank for Clinton and that the process was tilted accordingly. (Former Vice DNC Chair Tulsi Gabbard said the same thing months ago.) If the DNC did those things, is that in itself Russia's fault?

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And if this is all about opening the doors and releasing all the information why isn't the FBI doing that right now, as Clinton is asking them to? 

They are. They released an astounding amount of documents yesterday, and more are coming.

I'm on mobile, but find the FBI Vault twitter page.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

...And Rev, what purpose would there be in declassifying it? There is plenty of good evidence in those private assessments that no one seems to want to bother considering.

Do you think the U.S. government showing their hand by releasing classified information is going to make one bit of difference to the RT and Illuminati crowd? Why would they pay any more attention to that?

I wasn't the one who posted the blog which quoted Diane Feinstein and some other Democrat calling for the evidence to be reveealed. That was you who did that. Maybe you didn't read your own posting.

I don't care whether the USA government 'reveals' the evidence they have, which is likely none. As far as the 'private assessments' they're nothing more than speculation, mostly wild speculation. 'Anonymous former intelligence officer from a western country'. Good lord, is that what has got you all excited that 'the Russians' did it?

In fact, a moment's thought might lead you to question the whole assumption the hacking was done outside the DNC. In fact, the easiest hacking would be done from the inside, not the outside. I wonder why one of those whiz-bang private security mavens hasn't speculated that some Bernie Sanders supporter, fed up with the DNC, hacked the emails to get back at 'Hillary'.

I suppose it's because no private security firm ever got on TV by stating the obvious. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Is it right that all private and casual conversations be made public? How would you feel if all your phone conversations were tapped and recorded? And if someone breaks into your house it is your fault for not having the right lock on your door? 

Thing is, these hacks uncovered no crime, and nothing beyond conversations showing bias, and embarrassing personal comments.

I was once at an event where, in talking about how to use digital media, a federal NDP organizer told anyone running for office or thinking about it to never say anything in an e-mail today that you're not prepared to defend on the front page of the Globe and Mail tomorrow. A basic rule about digital communication is that it is not safe, and if the people in charge of the DNC are too stupid to realize that they have no business being anywhere near a 21st century political campaign in the first place. That is also the reason why most of us here do not post under our real names. And no, not locking my place of resideince doesn't make it right if someone breaks into it, but the fact that that is a possibility is a reason why I lock my place of residence in the first place. It's one of those precautions you have to take in life.

The real issue is that Clinton's campaign has been anything but forthcoming and transparent about anything, and their attitude has been that Hillary will be elected simply because she's Hillary Clinton. But you're still avoiding the actual core issue here. Was it acceptable for the DNC to say publicly that they were staying neutral while in actuality rigging the process in Clinton's favour? That's the reason these e-mail hacks are causing problems is that, whatever you have to say about the ethics of hacking the DNC in the first place, there is an element of truth to what has been exposed.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And if this is all about opening the doors and releasing all the information why isn't the FBI doing that right now, as Clinton is asking them to? Because it serves Comey's purposes better to leave a vague implication in the air that she is a criminal.

If Clinton actually is asking for all the information to be released, it's only for damage control purposes. It could be that there is a legitimate investigative purpose in not revealing the information. As for "Comey's purposes," because Clinton herself is a subject, Comey is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't because anything he says or does involving Hillary Clinton will be spun by someone as political interference. He cannot win no matter what he does.

By the way, Vox to me is one of those "progressive" publications I was referring to above that was acting as an unofficial PR firm for Clinton. They published an article repeating the smear against Jill Stein that she is an anti-vaxxer, so anything they say in Clinton's defense I take with a grain of salt.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Doesn't mean she is right, Rev. Or that Tait was right in agreeing with her. Or that the government doesn't have very good reasons for not releasing it.

And given that no one here seems to be paying any attention to the strong evidence that is there, I'd say my point stands that it would  be a useless exercise.

So someone in the DNC is going to use malware that just happens to be from a German government hack with an identical SSL certificate and hardcoded address showing it originated from Russian Intelligence , and write Russian in three different levels of proficiency, even though the hacker who claims to be responsible can't speak Russian.

Don't tell me, an elaborate false flag to smear Donald Trump, right? 

Look, I don't care whether the USA government releases evidence or not. They haven't, which means they probably don't have any, but even if they did, they have lied so often in the past that only a sucker would trust them. Remember Colin Powell and the mobile anthrax labs?

And what 'strong' evidence are you talking about. There is nothing more than speculation dressed up as informed comment because it's coming from someone who says they know what they're talking about. Whoopee! All of that so-called evidence is a laugh. The only people taken in by it are those who really have no idea how computers work.

But let's just look at motive for a minute. Who has the greatest interest in convincing the voting population that one candidate is the puppet of the Russians? Why, it's to the benefit of both candidates to convince the voters the other candidate is a Russian stooge.

And what would be a surefire way of convincing voters of the other candidates 'stooginess'. Why, to say the Russians are supporting the other candidate. Evidence? Who needs evidence?

And I'll just add to what Aristotleded24 said above about email. Back in '97 I was taking Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer courses, and one of our instructors, a Microsoft email specialist, said precisely the same thing. If you don't want to see it in tomorrow's headlines, don't put it in an email today. That was twenty years ago for pete's sake! What, has nobody learned anything since then?

Anybody with a reasonable amount of computer savvy, a motive, and a computer with an internet connection, can hack emails, and make it look like it was done by someone far away. The world of the internet is a virtual world, and quite literally anyone can make up anything in that virtual world and make it look real.   

Of course, all of this is meaningless unless you can provide some sort of motive. As I've explained, the Russian's don't have a motive, but both presidential candidates certainly do.

In the meantime, I'll believe the 'best in the field', when someone can tell me what that means - in a field where there are no prerequisites to membership. Strangely enough, almost all of those 'experts' are people who have something to sell, and an interest in convincing people of the necessity of their product.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

...Now full disclosure Rev, I don't think I am too much more savvy than you are when it comes to some of this stuff...

But, gee, maybe you are 'too much' more savvy than I, although I'm not really sure what that means...

Meanwhile, you know what the best protection that anyone can have against having their email hacked? The same protection I have. Nobody gives a shit for what might be in my emails. Even the recipients sometimes don't care.

Everybody else, beware!

6079_Smith_W wrote:

You really don't know what the motive is?

Not exactly. What I'm saying is there is no motive to know.

I do know that each presidential candidate has a clear motive, that is to try and convince the voters the other candidate is a 'stooge' of the Russians. That is clear, and was evident in one of the debates.

A bullshit scandal:

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/4/13500018/clinton-email-...

The email thing is total crap, as Yglesias demonstrates.  Want to attack her on financial conflicts of interests, etc., fine.  But this is the most ridiculous, overblown "scandal"I've seen in all my years following politics.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

She did not set up a private server to circumvent anything except having to live at the office. Colin Powell did it. Condaleeza Rice did it, and it is perfectly legal.

Rice and Powell had private e-mail accounts. Clinton went further and constructed a private e-mail server. Clinton went farther. There is a difference.