Jump to content
The Education Forum

The inevitable end result of our last 56 years


Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:
23 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

You have done this at least a half-dozen times now - with Crowdstrike and the Mueller Report conclusions - where you describe my position as “egregious” “misrepresentation” followed by a block quote which essentially corresponds to my representation.

I said “there was no direct evidence of exfiltration”.

Your quoted text confirms:  We did not have concrete evidence…it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually was.”

You are just trolling on these issues.

You’re just presenting that out of context, as usual.  You keep ignoring the fact Fancy Bear staged an exfiltration of the DNC data.  We’re supposed to think that’s a coincidence in light of all the Trump campaign lying about extensive contact with Russians?

You didn’t grasp the meaning of this passage?

MR. SCHIFF: lt provides in the report on 2016, April 22nd, data staged for exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor.

 

MR.HENRY: Yes, sir.  So that, again, staged for, sure which, I mean, there’s not -- the analogy I used with Mr. Stewart earlier was we don't have video of it happening, but there are indicators that it happened. There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case, it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually was. 

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 6.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

5 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

Jeff I have my own experiences with this stuff but I'll give you some examples that I know can be shared and I have intimate knowledge of.

In a CI investigation the purpose of that investigation is not to develop a criminal case to prosecute. As an example, the Purple Japanese code was a closely guarded secret whose product was not allowed to be even public knowledge until the seventies. There were many potential prosecutions that weren't pursued because the cost of revealing that information was deemed too steep. It's just common sense. I realize that makes for an unfair argument and those claims should be looked at skeptically but I suspect you don't look at these things like a National Security official would.

Venona information was kept even longer, even though it was compromised by Philby, because the relevant agencies involved in the decryption effort knew that Russia had no idea what we were able to decrypt nor the extent. Keep in mind these were 40-50 year old decryptions (I think they revealed them in 1995).

Binney's revelation of the NSAs copying of domestic communications wasn't anything surprising to anyone who knows about their likely interests but I can safely assume it's dwarfed by the accumulated data regarding Russia, China, Iran and so on. There are huge data centers in several places world wide churning through that information I'm sure. And they will continue to do so as intel doesn't have an expiration date.

What you seemed to be asking for is proof in a legal sense that what the IC is asserting is true (they've provided plenty) that satisfies your strict requirements but have no interest or skepticism regarding Russia and their actions and motives. Like they're lilly-white roses which is why I have questioned whether you have a relationship with RT or somebody you haven't disclosed. In your world there is nobody more deserving of defending than Russia, Putin et al.

But the cases you refer did not result in publicized indictments. And the concept of “proof in a legal sense” is the foundation of your country’s justice system. You instead transfer these requirements onto me  - “what you seem to be asking for…”. “your strict requirements…”

Situations such as the Cuban Missile Crisis featured exactly directed exposure of “sources and methods” because the United States was making serious accusations against an adversary and had to back such allegations with evidence for the international community. It is notable in the contemporary situation that serious allegations of direct manipulation of internal politics were not expressed through international bodies as previously, but were largely publicized solely domestically. I noted this three years ago - Russiagate is/was all about domestic US politics. The Mueller indictments against Russian Federation nationals was entirely domestic political theatre - deliberately released with extensive media coverage on the eve of Trump’s one and only meeting with Putin. The obviousness of this observation shouldn’t be controversial, or lead to vague suppositions of relationships or items “not disclosed’. At all times on this subject I have referred to primary open source documentation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

You’re just presenting that out of context, as usual.  You keep ignoring the fact Fancy Bear staged an exfiltration of the DNC data.  We’re supposed to think that’s a coincidence in light of all the Trump campaign lying about extensive contact with Russians?

You didn’t grasp the meaning of this passage?

MR. SCHIFF: lt provides in the report on 2016, April 22nd, data staged for exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor.

 

MR.HENRY: Yes, sir.  So that, again, staged for, sure which, I mean, there’s not -- the analogy I used with Mr. Stewart earlier was we don't have video of it happening, but there are indicators that it happened. There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case, it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually was. 

" it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually was."

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

I noted this three years ago - Russiagate is/was all about domestic US politics. The Mueller indictments against Russian Federation nationals was entirely domestic political theatre - deliberately released with extensive media coverage on the eve of Trump’s one and only meeting with Putin. The obviousness of this observation shouldn’t be controversial, or lead to vague suppositions of relationships or items “not disclosed’. At all times on this subject I have referred to primary open source documentation.

Emphasis mine.

There was no extensive media coverage  of either the Russia/DNC hack or the Steele Dossier prior to the 2016 election.

As usual Jeff Carter can’t square that with his conspiracy theories, so he’ll continue to ignore it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

There was no extensive media coverage  of either the Russia/DNC hack or the Steele Dossier prior to the 2016 election.

 

13 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Unfamiliar with circumstantial evidence?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

But I wasn't referring to media coverage of the 2016 election.

And a reliance on "circumstantial evidence" is not punk rock. Very disappointing Cliff, particularly your Assange smear on this day.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

But the cases you refer did not result in publicized indictments. And the concept of “proof in a legal sense” is the foundation of your country’s justice system. You instead transfer these requirements onto me  - “what you seem to be asking for…”. “your strict requirements…”

Situations such as the Cuban Missile Crisis featured exactly directed exposure of “sources and methods” because the United States was making serious accusations against an adversary and had to back such allegations with evidence for the international community. It is notable in the contemporary situation that serious allegations of direct manipulation of internal politics were not expressed through international bodies as previously, but were largely publicized solely domestically. I noted this three years ago - Russiagate is/was all about domestic US politics. The Mueller indictments against Russian Federation nationals was entirely domestic political theatre - deliberately released with extensive media coverage on the eve of Trump’s one and only meeting with Putin. The obviousness of this observation shouldn’t be controversial, or lead to vague suppositions of relationships or items “not disclosed’. At all times on this subject I have referred to primary open source documentation.

Jeff it's useless to present evidence to you of anything. The Cuban Missle Crisis sources and methods for confirming the assertions were RB 47s flying over the country. Wasn't a big secret. Even when I pointed out to you the Dutch compromised the IRA and tapped their cameras in the facility and videos them you still denied it.

The reason why I transfer them onto you is because you're the one demanding a full confession from Putin himself, in writing and notarized, as proof. You refuse to accept any possibility whatsoever that the IC assessments, congressional investigations, SSCI and several foreign government sources could amount to anything other than political shenanigans based on the claims of a former NSA official who has been out of the game for almost twenty years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

 

But I wasn't referring to media coverage of the 2016 election.

You cited “domestic political theater” and it’s attendant “extensive media coverage.”

Since there was no “extensive media coverage” of either the Russia/DNC hack story or the Steele Dossier prior to the election those stories played no part in any “domestic political theatre.”

That you studiously refuse to acknowledge this is telling.

Quote

And a reliance on "circumstantial evidence" is not punk rock.

Wtf are you talking about?  A notorious Russian hacker group set the stage to exfiltrate the DNC data but we’re supposed to believe they didn’t follow thru — why, exactly?

Quote

Very disappointing Cliff, particularly your Assange smear on this day.

I smeared Assange by accurately quoting him telling the truth that he received the data from a “non-state actor” like Roger Stone?

How is that a smear?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This may sound a bit ignorant. First, I am unable to follow these arguments well. But I am not confident in the stated conclusions of our intelligence community in regards to who is doing the hacking. I think the current hacking story might be worth looking at. Are our enemies really working for Putin and Xi? Are people here so certain of that? Hackers are really good at disguising themselves. How is our current anti Russian anti Chinese rhetoric any different than the old Anti Communist stance of our Intelligence Community? I’m not saying that Putin and Xi are innocents. I am saying that our true enemies are burrowed in to the anti Democratic forces very clearly at work here, inside our government, and inside many other governments. If I had to name them according to the political spectrum I would call these forces fascist. And frankly that includes Russia and China. The current hack may be the most serious situation facing us, and we really don’t know who is behind them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Douglas Caddy said:

A related film about CIA cocaine trafficking during the GHWB years is Kill the Messenger, about the late San Jose Mercury journalist Gary Webb.

Kill the Messenger (2014 film) - Wikipedia

Now, back to this interesting discussion of alleged Russian hacking...

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

This may sound a bit ignorant. First, I am unable to follow these arguments well. But I am not confident in the stated conclusions of our intelligence community in regards to who is doing the hacking. I think the current hacking story might be worth looking at. Are our enemies really working for Putin and Xi? Are people here so certain of that? Hackers are really good at disguising themselves. How is our current anti Russian anti Chinese rhetoric any different than the old Anti Communist stance of our Intelligence Community? I’m not saying that Putin and Xi are innocents. I am saying that our true enemies are burrowed in to the anti Democratic forces very clearly at work here, inside our government, and inside many other governments. If I had to name them according to the political spectrum I would call these forces fascist. And frankly that includes Russia and China. The current hack may be the most serious situation facing us, and we really don’t know who is behind them. 

Even without direct communications from whoever the actors are the various agencies that look at these things can do detailed traffic analysis to determine what is going on. The IC groups in all these countries play games with each other all the time and to sort through what may actually be happening from the outside looking in is very difficult. The Solaris dropper is a good example.

Although it's been claimed that we didn't know about it, it's just as likely we did but are playing possum IMO. It's possible and very probably likely that the attacks used against us (or anyone else) can be exploited and reveals the capabilities of the attackers. The state of AI is expanding exponentially in these type of areas and the US has no peer (aside from maybe China) and it's no longer required to babysit the mining efforts like it may have been 10 years ago. Its one of the main reasons Russia is trying to change it's internet access into more of an intranet. The problem with that is although you can limit your population's access to stuff you don't want them to see, your own outward access is narrowed and easier to follow.

It all very interesting but just remember one thing. It's our toy they're playing with, more or less.

Edited by Bob Ness
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Now, back to this interesting discussion of alleged Russian hacking...

Hahaha my God this thread does wander!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...