Coup and counter coup?

[EnglishPete]

What makes the Truman/Nixon comparison so appropriate for illustrasting this point is that Truman's offence was clearly so much worse than Nixon. Truman not only covered up communist infiltration of the State Department but he allowed it to continue even after the FBI had brought it to his attention. The Watergate failed burglary had already happened when Nixon found out about it at which point no real damage had been done.

Truman's offence was far worse yet Nixon was the one impeached. Presidential impeachments are all about politics, very little to do with the level of guilt.

[EnglishPete]

What makes the Truman/Nixon comparison so appropriate for illustrasting this point is that Truman's offence was clearly so much worse than Nixon. Truman not only covered up communist infiltration of the State Department but he allowed it to continue even after the FBI had brought it to his attention. The Watergate failed burglary had already happened when Nixon found out about it at which point no real damage had been done.

Truman's offence was far worse yet Nixon was the one impeached. Presidential impeachments are all about politics, very little to do with the level of guilt.

Reagan got away with Iran Contract even though it was clearly an impeachable act but the GOP voted to impeach Clinton over a BJ

Another good illustration of my point. Whether a President is impeached or not is everything to do with politics and nothing to do with 'blind' justice. That was true of Truman, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and indeed Obama.

[Inmate Trump]

As a former Republican (I voted for George W. and McCain, then switched to Johnson in 2012), I can say with all certainty that I will never vote for anyone in the party again, for any office.  The ship has sunk.

I will never be able to accept the FACT that our new Republican president is a friend to the Kremlin (essentially a Russian puppet IMO), a lying cheat, someone who openly pokes fun of the disabled, and a pervert...nor can I accept that so many people I once respected seem okay with all of these things--yet we all know (and they do too, deep down) that they would be screaming if you could say the same of Hillary or any random Democratic contender.

At a certain point you have to draw the line and stand by some actual principals.  Not just vote for someone because they're in your party.  Anyone who genuinely likes Trump has no principals.

[EnglishPete]

Reports that the malware used for the hack was not only publicly available but was also Ukrainian. Ukrainian false flag operation perhaps?

http://www.infowars.com/security-expert-us-govts-alleged-russian-hack-appears-to-trace-back-to-ukraine/

[Devout Centrist]

Reports that the malware used for the hack was not only publicly available but was also Ukrainian. Ukrainian false flag operation perhaps?

http://www.infowars.com/security-expert-us-govts-alleged-russian-hack-appears-to-trace-back-to-ukraine/

No.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Reports that the malware used for the hack was not only publicly available but was also Ukrainian. Ukrainian false flag operation perhaps?

http://www.infowars.com/security-expert-us-govts-alleged-russian-hack-appears-to-trace-back-to-ukraine/

No.

Even if the malware really is ukrainian, publicly available malware can be used by people from other countries. Lazy coders who would just download something public are kind of a thing.

[Virginiá]

Reports that the malware used for the hack was not only publicly available but was also Ukrainian. Ukrainian false flag operation perhaps?

http://www.infowars.com/security-expert-us-govts-alleged-russian-hack-appears-to-trace-back-to-ukraine/

"the malware" --- do you even know what "the malware" this is referring to is? Based on what the JAR report says, this is very likely a small script package meant to give the perpetrators access to hacked online resources (servers, exploited websites, etc), which are meant to be used to host files the targets are emailed links to in hopes of tricking them into revealing their passwords and/or delivering exploit payloads to infect their device. If you want a RL analogy, think of this as a garage door opener for hackers, and the stuff they put in the garage as the actual tools/desktop malware that will be distributed & the server-side components that it will talk to.

This particular project (PAS) is not "the malware" that was crawling through the DNC's network(s). It's a third party tool provided for free on known malware-oriented forum(s) primarily for CIS-originating hackers/script kiddies/etc. Chinese and Russian espionage groups that have been caught pilfering data from corporate and other govt systems in unrelated cases have been seen using 3rd party tools as well. It's not that uncommon.

--

Also I wanted to add, I think it is silly that the US Govt released a report that included this little piece of code. That's like saying, "hey, we have proof they attacked us with a specialized nuclear bomb. To prove that, here is a sample of it: The screwdriver they used to attach the control panel to the nuclear device!"

The reality is we'll probably never get anything useful from them because intelligence agencies pretty much never reveal any information that could in any way compromise or reveal their operational capabilities, which gives them almost nothing to offer the public.

[Antonio the Sixth]

maks u think

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Once again Virginia destroys a troll with a sharp reasoning

[EnglishPete]

Reports that the malware used for the hack was not only publicly available but was also Ukrainian. Ukrainian false flag operation perhaps?

http://www.infowars.com/security-expert-us-govts-alleged-russian-hack-appears-to-trace-back-to-ukraine/

"the malware" --- do you even know what "the malware" this is referring to is? Based on what the JAR report says, this is very likely a small script package meant to give the perpetrators access to hacked online resources (servers, exploited websites, etc), which are meant to be used to host files the targets are emailed links to in hopes of tricking them into revealing their passwords and/or delivering exploit payloads to infect their device. If you want a RL analogy, think of this as a garage door opener for hackers, and the stuff they put in the garage as the actual tools/desktop malware that will be distributed & the server-side components that it will talk to.

This particular project (PAS) is not "the malware" that was crawling through the DNC's network(s). It's a third party tool provided for free on known malware-oriented forum(s) primarily for CIS-originating hackers/script kiddies/etc. Chinese and Russian espionage groups that have been caught pilfering data from corporate and other govt systems in unrelated cases have been seen using 3rd party tools as well. It's not that uncommon.

--

Also I wanted to add, I think it is silly that the US Govt released a report that included this little piece of code. That's like saying, "hey, we have proof they attacked us with a specialized nuclear bomb. To prove that, here is a sample of it: The screwdriver they used to attach the control panel to the nuclear device!"

The reality is we'll probably never get anything useful from them because intelligence agencies pretty much never reveal any information that could in any way compromise or reveal their operational capabilities, which gives them almost nothing to offer the public.

Well I was going to reply with a quote from the original article that the above linked article is based on as the authors seem to know their stuff and I would be interested to hear an expert second opinion

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2016/12/russia-malware-ip-hack/

However I've spotted the edit you've made to your reply and I've noticed you've said that there's nothing wrong with the article. The program which the official report provided a sample of was indeed the publically available Ukrainian one.

You ask the question as to why the report would provide evidence that turned out to a whole lot of nothing and answered it by saying that they can't show the real evidence as its secret. Well that doesn't answer the question as to why the report provided some bullsh**t evidence instead of just saying that they can't provide details of the real evidence for security purposes. It does look like they're trying to bullsh**t people. Since disinformation is part of what they do and since the CIA leadership has been clearly leaning towards the Dems in this election it doesn't really add plausibility to their claims.

[Virginiá]

However I've spotted the edit you've made to your reply and I've noticed you've said that there's nothing wrong with the article. The program which the official report provided a sample of was indeed the publically available Ukrainian one.

The article was for the most part just a technical analysis of the freeware they used to manage their compromised servers (that were likely used as servers to host fake websites for phishing scams and the like)

Basically they were pointing out, correctly, that the code sample was freely available and wasn't even Russian-made (Ukrainian). That in itself is not proof it wasn't Russian state actors. All it proves is that publicly-available software was used. I'd say that would be strange for an organization like the NSA, but not really surprising for Russian/Chinese groups. Either way, I don't think 3rd party tool-usage is relevant to the overall debate.

You ask the question as to why the report would provide evidence that turned out to a whole lot of nothing and answered it by saying that they can't show the real evidence as its secret. Well that doesn't answer the question as to why the report provided some bullsh**t evidence instead of just saying that they can't provide details of the real evidence for security purposes. It does look like they're trying to bullsh**t people. Since disinformation is part of what they do and since the CIA leadership has been clearly leaning towards the Dems in this election it doesn't really add plausibility to their claims.

Who knows why they didn't, but I'm sure it was implied. Connection logs and other logs of network activity is exactly something the NSA would have on this based on the Snowden leaks of their various mass collection programs/search engines, such as XKeyscore. Considering the DNC/DCCC malware communicated with at least some known assets, and sent data from undoubtedly a high-priority network bloc, I'm sure they have logs of this, but it's never something they would release nor acknowledge. It is NSA policy to deny anything regarding those types of operations/programs. They won't discuss any of it even when the whole world knows it exists.

I'm simply saying that link you posted really amounts to a whole lot of nothing itself. I don't think it really adds or subtracts to this argument, hence my responses here.

Look, you can draw your own conclusions. But I do hope you remember this specific instance if in the future a situation comes up where Trump's administration attempts to convince you of something critically important and similarly controversial using their own classified information/methods and a "I'm saying it's true" approach.

I'll be honest too, I wholeheartedly assume the chances of shifting your opinion on this even a little is almost zero, so I don't wish to rehash the entire topic. With that being said, I think I've covered everything I intend to cover.

[EnglishPete]

Who knows why they didn't, but I'm sure it was implied. Connection logs and other logs of network activity is exactly something the NSA would have on this based on the Snowden leaks of their various mass collection programs/search engines, such as XKeyscore. Considering the DNC/DCCC malware communicated with at least some known assets, and sent data from undoubtedly a high-priority network bloc, I'm sure they have logs of this, but it's never something they would release nor acknowledge. It is NSA policy to deny anything regarding those types of operations/programs. They won't discuss any of it even when the whole world knows it exists.

I'm simply saying that link you posted really amounts to a whole lot of nothing itself. I don't think it really adds or subtracts to this argument, hence my responses here.

So you're saying that the CIA would have found the evidence but can't let us know about it. And you know that they've found the evidence because you can just trust them. Well the history of governments lying and inventing false 'outrages' to make an excuse for picking fights with other countries is far to long for me ever to simply trust such a claim on faith.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh I certainly wouldn't trust such a claim from a Trump administration or from any other administration, US, UK or any other country. Given the long history of governments lying about such things I frankly think its a little foolish for others to be so trusting.