https://theintercept.com/2016/12/14/...ts-not-enough/

Here is an analytical write up from The Intercept about the whole Russian hacking.

The answer is, we will never know who did it. Only 2 people do. Julian Assange and the person that leaked it to him. Neither will divulge the truth about it and the circumstantial evidence tying this to Putin is laughable.

I am supposed to believr Putin hacked the Podesta email account with a phishing scam, saw Clinton's wall street speeches and immediately tells his stooges to get this to wikileaks? That isn't occam's razzor at all.

No. We do know. Funny how Trump was much less shy about blaming China for cyber attacks and calling them acts of war, wasn't it?

That write up is moronic. We can't trust the security company who caught Russia in the act because they, the security firm, was being paid to find out who was doing the attacking by the DNC?

Give me a break. No one is dumb enough to follow that line of "logic". It's nothing more than the author handwaving evidence he doesn't want to have to deal with.

wat

https://medium.com/@trentlapinski/ev...62f#.lbx832xny

More analysis on the Russian hacking and the FBI report.

The more scrutiny this report goes under the more it falls apart.

There are plenty of computer cyber experts not employed by the DNC that have been ripping apart this Russian hacking "evidence".

This isn't going to work and Dems are doubling down on it.

No you don't know who did it. Most definitely not from any report published by the White House or intelligence committee so far.

http://arstechnica.com/security/2016...ly-to-rage-on/

Here is more tech analysis of the hacks. Notice how this story is falling apart the more scrutinized it is?

Employed by the dnc. Just lol at you. Such pathetic nonsense.

The problem with your line here is that the outrage against Russian hacking is bipartisan. Why would McCain, Graham and McConnell go along with some fabricated Democrat attack?

how does assange know?

http://www.robertmlee.org/critiques-...steppe-report/

I can go on and on with critiques from cyber security firms. This FBI report did nothing to show "proof" of Russian hacking. We don't know anything about who did the hacking.

Lindsey Graham and McCain are bat**** crazy with foreign policy. And if you haven't noticed. Republicans in congress are not the brightest bulb in the box, considering the Ethics committee stupidity they tried to pull yesterday.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindse...Foreign_policy

I wouldn't listen to anything Graham has to say foreign policy wise since he is a disgusting war hawk.

Maybe he just really hates Russia and this is his opportunity to keep ****ting on them.

You still have me on the wrong side, man. I agree about the likely source. I'm just saying the evidence--in this case, a bunch of conjectures piled upon each other in a string of tweets by someone appropriating Allie Brosh's art--is not convincing. You think this garbage would make it past the laugh test in a CFAA case?

Relevant: https://theintercept.com/2017/01/04/...og-they-arent/

If you agree about the likely source, then what evidence are you looking at? Again, if you are just saying you are not 100% convinced then I'm with you. That the same account that hacked podesta is attempting to hack targets of interest to Russia is not inconsequential.

I'm no lawyer, so I have no idea. I'd guess no. I'm not looking for beyond-a-reasonable-doubt level evidence here, and I have no problem if people say they have doubts about the Russian conclusion.

Complete rejection of Russian involvement or claiming that all offenders are equally likely just isn't reasonable.

Sorry, who is this guy?

The ex-CEO of a company making WordPress themes. Right...

Any other hot takes from him about Democrat-related news?

So basically you've Googled for people questioning the report and you're quoting some idiot blogger who has no qualifications and no idea what he's talking about. Also, he uses "irregardless".

Moving on....

This article is criticising the quality of the report, not questioning the position of the administration. This is from the last paragraph:

And from Lee's article:

Again, being criticised here is the writing of the report. Lee is not saying that he thinks the claims of the administration are wrong, or that the report contains misinformation, or anything like that.

It would be one thing if your position was that Russia probably did the hacking but we don't have enough evidence to know. That's reasonable. Your claim instead is that the government is lying and that "this story is falling apart". That's a very different claim, unsupported by any of the links you've Googled up.

The technical evidence is pretty good, but circumstantial. It's not good enough right now for a "beyond reasonable doubt" conviction, but you're proposing as your alternative a vast partisan conspiracy where it makes no sense for most of the actors to be involved. This is the meeting you're imagining taking place:

At least 9/11 truthers had plausible motives for the creation of their giant conspiracy.

Well somebody buys the conspiracy.

i'm sure the department of info wars will do a good job spreading the kind of "information" trump wants out there

But not the FBI.

Been a few days since I said this but F trump voters.

One problem I had with this article (and I think the intercept does a similar thing):

is this claim:

Did it? Where?

If it is supposed to be an "indictment" then why is most of it about preventing cyber attacks?

I admit it's going to be hard to find a Republican who is not a disgusting war hawk.

This is from the link in the tweetstream that bobman linked to:

https://www.secureworks.com/research...oogle-accounts

So either Russian interests were behind the hack or someone went through A LOT of trouble to make it look like Russia was behind the hack. Hundreds and hundreds of phishing attempts. Repeated phishing attempts of targets that apparently weren't compromised. It just does not seem plausible that some other country would spend so much effort setting up Russia like this.

Greenwald, scourge of inadequately supported claims, has concluded that the allegations of Russia being behind the hacks are "ranting" about "imaginary Kremlin plots":

The actual Occam's Razor explanation here, by the way, is that NSA or someone has direct confirmation that Russia was behind this that they are unwilling to make public because it would compromise their sources and methods. The idea that the notoriously liberal intelligence community (!) and FBI (!!!) are just making **** up for the sheer pleasure of infuriating their new boss is laughable.

This, but also I meant to quote that Tien post earlier:

Most likely is that the Russians just hacked this information as a matter of course. We know from the reports that there were intrusion attempts against a range of journalists and various other targets. This is just what nation-states do, all the time, as part of intelligence-gathering efforts. Complaining about that is just pearl-clutching, the US does it too (remember the revelations that they spied on Merkel, etc etc).

What's new here is that information was selectively released by the Russians to try to influence the election. They probably didn't even bother reading most of it before releasing it. Selective release of private communications is virtually always damaging, it's the reason privacy laws and the Fourth Amendment exist.

ChrisV and bobman

We'll see soon enough on Friday. If that comprehensive intelligence report Obama orders doesn't give any direct evidence, it will confirm what I thought about this entire situation. If it does offer very convincing evidence, then I will be willing to admit I am wrong.

But telling me "We can't give you the real evidence just believe us" is a line of bull. That FBI report was a massive letdown.

One reason the conspiritarding is particularly weird is that people's starting assumption is that governments are doing nefarious things behind closed doors... and the conclusion from this is that it isn't likely that Russia, essentially a dictatorship, is engaging in covert cyber ops to find out what is going on inside one of America's major political parties? Wouldn't one assume that is the case even absent evidence of specific intrusions?

If the US doesn't name the names of all the spies on active duty in Russia, along with pictures and their location, WE CAN NEVER KNOW IF RUSSIA DID THE CYBER