1217 users online (205 members and 1012 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 40
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    46,754

    2017.08.10 - BOMBSHELL: NSA Experts Say DNC ‘Hack’ Was Actually a Leak and Inside Job

    BOMBSHELL: NSA Experts Say DNC ‘Hack’ Was Actually a Leak and Inside Job


    August 10th, 2017
    http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/bomb...nd-inside-job/


    A new report states categorically that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) was not hacked by Russians–or anyone else–as frequently alleged by the mainstream media, liberal intelligentsia and anti-Trump politicians.


    The Nation‘s Patrick Lawrence wrote a lengthy review of the findings made by various computer experts formerly with the NSA. Published this week, the left-wing magazine’s report notes two bases for their conclusion: (1) hard science shows that a remote hack of the DNC servers resulting in the breach that actually occurred would have been technologically impossible; (2) forensic review of the initial Guccifer 2.0 documents proves that they are poorly-disguised cut-and-paste jobs–forgeries–intended to finger Russia.

    Lawrence, by way of the experts’ findings, concludes that the so-called “hack” was actually an inside job by someone with internal access to the DNC’s computer network. In other words, the DNC has (or had) a leak.

    Four members of VIPS are currently concentrating on the task. They are: (1) William Binney, the NSA’s former technical leader who also designed many of the programs now in use by the agency; (2) Kirk Wiebe, a former senior analyst with the NSA’s SIGINT Automation Research Center; (3) Edward Loomis, the former technical director at the NSA’s Office of Signal Processing; and (4) Ray McGovern, former chief of the CIA’s Soviet Foreign Policy Branch.
    “Every day that they don’t find something is good for me.“ Billie Dunn

  2. #2
    BritsKate's Avatar
    BritsKate is offline Past mistakes should teach you to create a wonderful future.
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    American Expat living in England
    Posts
    5,906
    Conclusive proof, or even strong evidence, that the DNC emails were leaked by an insider and not by Russian-sponsored hackers would indeed be a huge story — among other things, it would contradict the near-unanimous opinion of U.S. intelligence agencies, and raise some very serious questions about their objectivity and neutrality.
    The crux of the whole thing — the opening argument — rests on the fact that, according to “metadata,” the data was transferred at about 22 megabytes per second, which Lawrence and Forensicator claim is much too fast to have been undertaken over an internet connection. (Most connection speeds are measured at megabits per second, not megabytes; 22 megabytes per second is 176 megabits per second.) Most households don’t get internet speeds that high, but enterprise operations, like the DNC — or, uh, the FSB — would have access to a higher but certainly not unattainable speed like that.
    http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/08/t...ncoherent.html

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    46,754
    "Conclusive proof, or even strong evidence, that the DNC emails were leaked by an insider and not by Russian-sponsored hackers would indeed be a huge story — among other things, it would contradict the near-unanimous opinion of U.S. intelligence agencies, and raise some very serious questions about their objectivity and neutrality."
    ================================================== ================================================== =========

    It is only three US Intelligence agencies out of 17. That is hardly unanimous.


    As to the speed of the data transfer:
    from the article:
    According to Skip Folden, a former IBM program manager and independent analyst, 22.7 megabytes per second is beyond unlikely under the circumstances–unless you’re downloading the files directly using a storage device like a USB drive. He said:

    “A speed of 22.7 megabytes is simply unobtainable, especially if we are talking about a transoceanic data transfer. Transfer rates of 23 MB/s are not just highly unlikely, but effectively impossible to accomplish when communicating over the Internet at any significant distance. Further, local copy speeds are measured, demonstrating that 23 MB/s is a typical transfer rate when using a USB–2 flash device (thumb drive).”



    As to the report’s second contention–that the Guccifer 2.0 documents were tainted to cast curious eyes toward Russia–Folden notes that a simple peeling away of the documents’ top layer of metadata shows the sloppy and intentional misattribution.


    The report is lengthy and doesn’t stop there. Lawrence notes multiple additional problems with the now-broken narrative: CrowdStrike is essentially an arm of the DNC itself; Dmitri Alperovitch, CrowdStrike’s co-founder and chief technology officer is consumed by Russophobia; the FBI has never once examined the DNC’s servers by themselves; that famous Intelligence Community Assessment breathlessly reported as the cumulative work of 17 national security agencies was actually the work of three “hand-picked” analysts.







    According to Skip Folden, a former IBM program manager and independent analyst, 22.7 megabytes per second is beyond unlikely under the circumstances–unless you’re downloading the files directly using a storage device like a USB drive. He said:

    “A speed of 22.7 megabytes is simply unobtainable, especially if we are talking about a transoceanic data transfer. Transfer rates of 23 MB/s are not just highly unlikely, but effectively impossible to accomplish when communicating over the Internet at any significant distance. Further, local copy speeds are measured, demonstrating that 23 MB/s is a typical transfer rate when using a USB–2 flash device (thumb drive).”
    “Every day that they don’t find something is good for me.“ Billie Dunn

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    46,754
    Very interesting the way this nymag article, in trying to debunk the Nation's arcticle, does not even acknowledge who the analysts were that did the research.

    NYMag says it is inept, non technical anonymous people. But in fact, the Nation gives the credentials of the 4 who made the critical analysis:


    The report mostly relies on the work of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), which was founded in 2003 in order to push back against the false claims of Iraqi WMD emanating from the second Bush White House. Despite mostly being ignored by the media so far, VIPS diligently set to work on unraveling the cocoon of misinformation surrounding Russiagate and the DNC hack narrative.

    Four members of VIPS are currently concentrating on the task. They are: (1) William Binney, the NSA’s former technical leader who also designed many of the programs now in use by the agency; (2) Kirk Wiebe, a former senior analyst with the NSA’s SIGINT Automation Research Center; (3) Edward Loomis, the former technical director at the NSA’s Office of Signal Processing; and (4) Ray McGovern, former chief of the CIA’s Soviet Foreign Policy Branch.

    First, VIPS noted, the NSA has the technical prowess to root out exactly what happened because their publicly known programs alone are capable of capturing any and all electronic transfers of data. As VIPS noted, “If NSA cannot produce such evidence—and quickly—this would probably mean it does not have any.”
    “Every day that they don’t find something is good for me.“ Billie Dunn

  5. #5
    BritsKate's Avatar
    BritsKate is offline Past mistakes should teach you to create a wonderful future.
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    American Expat living in England
    Posts
    5,906
    We'll have to see if there's more debunking - in all honesty, I could find nearly nothing on it at all. I tend to place my confidence, first and foremost, in US intelligence agencies whose consensus is the DNC hack was perpetrated by Russian operatives.

    This strikes me as playing into a conspiracy theory - much like Seth Rich - but that's moo.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    46,754
    Quote Originally Posted by BritsKate View Post
    We'll have to see if there's more debunking - in all honesty, I could find nearly nothing on it at all. I tend to place my confidence, first and foremost, in US intelligence agencies whose consensus is the DNC hack was perpetrated by Russian operatives.

    This strikes me as playing into a conspiracy theory - much like Seth Rich - but that's moo.
    The article you linked called the author of the Nations's article 'a crank.'

    Here is the bio of that 'crank.'
    http://patricklawrence.us/about/

    PATRICK LAWRENCE is a writer and columnist. He has published five books and is now at work on his sixth. He served as a correspondent abroad for many years and is also an essayist, editor, and critic. Lawrence has taught at universities in the U.S. and abroad and lectures widely. He currently produces two commentaries (weekly and bi-weekly), primarily on foreign affairs and the media.

    Lawrence was a correspondent and subsequently a columnist overseas for nearly thirty years, chiefly for the honorable and now defunct Far Eastern Economic Review, the (also honorable, also defunct) International Herald Tribune, and The New Yorker. He covered nearly every country in the region, a number of them extensively over many years. He won an Overseas Press Club Award for his reportage from Korea during the last years of the dictatorships. Lawrence served as News Editor of the Herald Tribune’s Asian edition before returning to the United States, in 2010.

    Lawrence wrote as “Patrick L. Smith” until shortening his name some years ago.

    Apart from his staff work, Lawrence’s reportage, commentary, essays, criticism, and reviews have appeared in The New York Times, Business Week, TIME, The Washington Quarterly, World Policy Journal, The Globalist, The Nation, Asian Art News,and numerous other publications. He is now foreign affairs columnist at The Nation. He makes frequent television and radio appearances.
    “Every day that they don’t find something is good for me.“ Billie Dunn

  7. #7
    BritsKate's Avatar
    BritsKate is offline Past mistakes should teach you to create a wonderful future.
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    American Expat living in England
    Posts
    5,906
    We'll have to agree to disagree on this - I'm just not buying it. When the head of one of our esteemed intelligence agencies proffers testimony or evidence the DNC leak was an inside job, I'll reconsider my stance.

    Until then, this strikes me as a concerted effort to undermine their experience and credibility which automatically causes me to question why. And further, if this is such a bombshell, why is there NO MSM reporting on this? Perhaps just too new?
    Last edited by BritsKate; 08-11-2017 at 06:16 AM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    46,754
    Quote Originally Posted by BritsKate View Post
    We'll have to see if there's more debunking - in all honesty, I could find nearly nothing on it at all. I tend to place my confidence, first and foremost, in US intelligence agencies whose consensus is the DNC hack was perpetrated by Russian operatives.

    This strikes me as playing into a conspiracy theory - much like Seth Rich - but that's moo.
    ONLY 3 of the 17 agencies have reported they 'believe' it was Russian hackers. But there is also evidence shown in wikileaks documents admitting that serious agencies can 'fake' things to have false fingerprints of other countries. So it could have been made to appear to have been done by Russians.

    Here is the link about it only being 3 agencies: FBI, CIA and NSA----and one would have to admit that the FBI is highly politicized at this time, as might be said about the CIA as well...

    FACT CHECK: Did 17 Intel Agencies ‘All Agree’ Russia Influenced The Presidential Election?


    During an interview Wednesday with the tech news outlet Recode, former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton discussed at length her belief that Russian interference in the 2016 election harmed her chances of winning.

    “Read the declassified report by the intelligence community that came out in early January,” said Clinton. “Seventeen agencies, all in agreement – which I know from my experience as a senator and secretary of state is hard to get – they concluded with ‘high confidence’ that the Russians ran an extensive information war against my campaign to influence voters in the election.”

    Verdict: False

    While the intelligence report she mentions does express ‘high confidence’ that Russia sought to undermine her campaign, it only represents the views of three agencies – the FBI, CIA and NSA. Clinton incorrectly claims this report shows consensus among 17 intelligence agencies.

    Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper himself appeared in front of Congress and explicitly pushed back on the idea that “17 intelligence agencies agreed,” stating flatly that it was just three.




    http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/01/fa...e-dnc-podesta/
    “Every day that they don’t find something is good for me.“ Billie Dunn

  9. #9
    BritsKate's Avatar
    BritsKate is offline Past mistakes should teach you to create a wonderful future.
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    American Expat living in England
    Posts
    5,906
    I think this has been debated ad nauseum. It was the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, and the ODNI - the literal top intelligence officer - which oversees 16 other agencies. Many agencies weren't involved in the Russian assessment (like Coast Guard Intelligence or the DEA) yet no agencies under its umbrella have refuted its findings or vocalized broad dissent. And CIA director Pompeo (nominated by Trump) has denounced WikiLeaks as a hostile intelligence service. Now, if you want to argue Pompeo's premise is flawed because he was for WikiLeaks before he was against it, I think that's valid. But, it could also be argued he's much more aware of their tactics in his current role than he was on the campaign trail too. So, again, I'm not going to believe WikiLeaks over US Intel heads.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    16,606
    The " Progressive" faction party hates Hillary Clinton. They also love Wiki leaks, believe in Seth Rich murder, pizzagate.

    That horrible Johnston woman from Australia who blogged something about someone should kill themselves, was it and then someone else tweeted it? I forget.

    Anyway, they are the "Progressives" who hate that Hillary stole the election from Bernie


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    6,642
    Quote Originally Posted by BritsKate View Post
    And further, if this is such a bombshell, why is there NO MSM reporting on this? Perhaps just too new?
    RSBM.

    It would actually surprise you that MSM wouldn't report on something that could tarnish the reputation of the Democratic party?? Really?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    5,354
    Was there incriminating information in those emails?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    New Orleans, LA
    Posts
    31,656
    ADMIN NOTE: Avoid copyright violations.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
    PODCAST ROW

    WEBSLEUTHS ON FACEBOOK
    __________________________________
    Always give generously of yourself to support your beliefs. And when you're knocked down, give more.




  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    622
    Quote Originally Posted by TTF14 View Post
    RSBM.

    It would actually surprise you that MSM wouldn't report on something that could tarnish the reputation of the Democratic party?? Really?
    If that were the case, they wouldn't have reported on:
    - Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her aide
    - Jane Sanders' legal problems
    - the recent DNC decision to support anti-abortion candidates, despite this being in opposition to the party's platform
    - Anthony Weiner's texting
    - Ben-freaking-ghazi
    - HER EMAILS


    Oh I could go on.

    The point being: the MSM reports on BOTH sides of the aisle. And rightfully so. It's not their fault that lately there's been more to report on from the Republican side.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    46,754
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysia View Post
    If that were the case, they wouldn't have reported on:
    - Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her aide
    - Jane Sanders' legal problems
    - the recent DNC decision to support anti-abortion candidates, despite this being in opposition to the party's platform
    - Anthony Weiner's texting
    - Ben-freaking-ghazi
    - HER EMAILS


    Oh I could go on.

    The point being: the MSM reports on BOTH sides of the aisle. And rightfully so. It's not their fault that lately there's been more to report on from the Republican side.
    They barely covered the D Wassermann Schultz story---glossing over it and leaving out main facts.

    They barely reported on Jane Sander's legal problems and make it appear like it was just a right wing conspiracy, and nothing she did wrong.

    They did not want to report much about Wieners behavior, but they did because there was no choice--it hit the news hard.

    There is not 'more' to report on the Republican side. The MSM has admitted that they want to 'resist' this administration so trashing and bashing the GOP is their mission.
    “Every day that they don’t find something is good for me.“ Billie Dunn

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. GUILTY WI - Tim Hack & Kelly Drew, both 19, Jefferson County, 9 August 1980
    By mssheila in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-18-2015, 09:58 AM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-20-2015, 08:23 PM
  3. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 03-16-2013, 07:01 AM