This deserved it's own thread. I would welcome debate - but please watch the video first.
The truth about blaming Russia
- Thread starter MegaPoke
- Start date
Great video! This is clearly an attempt at self fulfilling prophecy. Talk about this lie enough and on every lying liberal propaganda site and eventually the gerbils will believe. Later when the whole lie is debunked people absolutely will still believe it true and that there was a coverup. Reminds me how "hands up don't shoot" sprouted legs and still is repeated today, even though it was absolute BS then and is now.
What can be debated? Sore losers are still trying to drag Hildabitch's mangled rotting corpse across the finish line. As soon as I saw that Trump won, I told my wife there's no way that lumpy sack of shit will concede quietly and with dignity. She has too much money on the line to become politically irrelevant.
This continues to kill me.
You will believe an internet conspiracy theory about a pedophile ring, yet you will NOT believe an intelligence report put out by the CIA, both simply because of your political affiliation.
There is something very, very wrong about that on an elementary level.
You will believe an internet conspiracy theory about a pedophile ring, yet you will NOT believe an intelligence report put out by the CIA, both simply because of your political affiliation.
There is something very, very wrong about that on an elementary level.
How would you handle faithless electors selecting someone other than Trump? Part of the process right?
His intonation and whiny voice is more than I can stand... 30 seconds was more than enough.
I continue to have an open mind about the pedo ring. No reason not to. Not sure "belief" was a line ever firmly crossed. It was an interesting discussion on a discussion forum. So what?
Conversely, the CIA is not famous for revealing completely accurate, altruistic public statements on its intelligence findings . And it's currently in contradiction to the FBI's statement.
After hysterical campaigns blaming the following for Hilllary's setbacks and failures:
Pepe the cartoon frog
The alt-right
Director Comey
Fake news
Russians
and affiliated attempts to undermine the election by:
Protests/riots
Intimidation of electors
Recounts fraudulently raising money
And now, days before the EC vote, a politicized agency (not unlike what we've seen out of Loretya Lynch's justice department) is not a stretch.
Excuse me if I don't take the CIA at their word just yet. It's pretty gullible to do so - and ironic considering your disdain for sketchy sources. Especially considering the timing.
Too bad. You were the one person I was interested in discussing this with.
I lied... well not a lie. I buckled down and watched it through. I can only say he is very selective in who he finds credible... Julian Assange more credible than CIA officials (yes unnamed), ascribing some rogue element of the CIA to an attempt to foment civil war? Please. Whiny is right. Nut up and let the process work...
Serious question for you dudes... Some of you know I work with some pretty cool stuff.
Tonight I have been testing our AI that scores sentiment. I have a stub that grabs the Don's last 20 tweets and scores them on two dimensions. The first is magnitude - the extent to which the machine NLP is confident in scoring sentiment and then a sentiment score itself. The magnitude ranges from 0 to inf. The score is -1 to +1 with negative being well negative sentiment. Here are scores from tonight through yesterday... give me your feedback:
{ timestamp: 'Tue Dec 13 04:41:33 +0000 2016',
tweet: 'I will hold a press conference in the near future to discuss the business, Cabinet picks and all other topics of interest. Busy times!',
sentiment: { magnitude: 1, score: 0.5 } }
---
{ timestamp: 'Tue Dec 13 04:26:13 +0000 2016',
tweet: 'Even though I am not mandated by law to do so, I will be leaving my busineses before January 20th so that I can focus full time on the......',
sentiment: { magnitude: 0.2, score: 0.2 } }
---
{ timestamp: 'Mon Dec 12 00:32:28 +0000 2016',
tweet: 'Will be interviewed on @FoxNews at 10:00 P.M. Enjoy!',
sentiment: { magnitude: 1, score: 0.5 } }
---
{ timestamp: 'Tue Dec 13 00:33:05 +0000 2016',
tweet: 'I will be making my announcement on the next Secretary of State tomorrow morning.',
sentiment: { magnitude: 0, score: 0 } }
---
{ timestamp: 'Mon Dec 12 13:21:20 +0000 2016',
tweet: 'Unless you catch "hackers" in the act, it is very hard to determine who was doing the hacking. Why wasn\'t this brought up before election?',
sentiment: { magnitude: 1.2, score: -0.6 } }
---
{ timestamp: 'Mon Dec 12 13:26:13 +0000 2016',
tweet: 'The F-35 program and cost is out of control. Billions of dollars can and will be saved on military (and other) purchases after January 20th.',
sentiment: { magnitude: 0.7, score: 0 } }
---
{ timestamp: 'Tue Dec 13 04:32:01 +0000 2016',
tweet: 'Presidency. Two of my children, Don and Eric, plus executives, will manage them. No new deals will be done during my term(s) in office.',
sentiment: { magnitude: 1.2, score: 0 } }
---
{ timestamp: 'Mon Dec 12 23:40:48 +0000 2016',
tweet: 'The final Wisconsin vote is in and guess what - we just picked up an additional 131 votes. The Dems and Green Party can now rest. Scam!',
sentiment: { magnitude: 1.8, score: 0 } }
---
{ timestamp: 'Sat Dec 10 19:09:13 +0000 2016',
tweet: 'October 2015 - thanks Chris Wallace @FoxNewsSunday! https://t.co/VEsgPcWq7z',
sentiment: { magnitude: 0.4, score: 0.4 } }
---
{ timestamp: 'Sat Dec 10 19:09:28 +0000 2016',
tweet: 'RT @FoxNewsSunday: Sunday-- our exclusive interview with President-elect @realDonaldTrump \nWatch on @FoxNews at 2p/10p ET \nCheck your local…',
sentiment: { magnitude: 0, score: 0 } }
---
{ timestamp: 'Sat Dec 10 14:14:23 +0000 2016',
tweet: 'A very interesting read. Unfortunately, so much is true.\nhttps://t.co/ER2BoM765M',
sentiment: { magnitude: 1.2, score: 0 } }
---
{ timestamp: 'Sat Dec 10 18:41:12 +0000 2016',
tweet: 'RT @TrumpInaugural: Counting down the days until the swearing in of @realDonaldTrump & @mike_pence. Check in here for the latest updates. #…',
sentiment: { magnitude: 0.5, score: 0.2 } }
---
{ timestamp: 'Sun Dec 11 15:29:10 +0000 2016',
tweet: 'Whether I choose him or not for "State"- Rex Tillerson, the Chairman & CEO of ExxonMobil, is a world class player and dealmaker. Stay tuned!',
sentiment: { magnitude: 0.4, score: 0.2 } }
---
{ timestamp: 'Sat Dec 10 14:11:49 +0000 2016',
tweet: 'Reports by @CNN that I will be working on The Apprentice during my Presidency, even part time, are ridiculous & untrue - FAKE NEWS!',
sentiment: { magnitude: 0.9, score: -0.9 } }
---
{ timestamp: 'Mon Dec 12 22:25:52 +0000 2016',
tweet: '#ThankYouTour2016 \n\nTue: West Allis, WI. \n\nThur: Hershey, PA. \n\nFri: Orlando, FL. \n\nSat: Mobile, AL. \n\nTickets:… https://t.co/OJ8S7iVzFx',
sentiment: { magnitude: 1.2, score: 0.1 } }
---
{ timestamp: 'Mon Dec 12 01:02:14 +0000 2016',
tweet: 'Just watched @NBCNightlyNews - So biased, inaccurate and bad, point after point. Just can\'t get much worse, although @CNN is right up there!',
sentiment: { magnitude: 1.5, score: -0.7 } }
---
{ timestamp: 'Sun Dec 11 12:56:18 +0000 2016',
tweet: 'I will be interviewed today on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace at 10:00 (Eastern) Network. ENJOY!',
sentiment: { magnitude: 0.6, score: 0.3 } }
---
{ timestamp: 'Sun Dec 11 13:12:06 +0000 2016',
tweet: 'Being at the Army - Navy Game was fantastic. There is nothing like the spirit in that stadium. A wonderful experience, and congrats to Army!',
sentiment: { magnitude: 1.8, score: 0.4 } }
---
{ timestamp: 'Mon Dec 12 13:17:54 +0000 2016',
tweet: 'Can you imagine if the election results were the opposite and WE tried to play the Russia/CIA card. It would be called conspiracy theory!',
sentiment: { magnitude: 0.4, score: 0 } }
---
{ timestamp: 'Sun Dec 11 13:51:47 +0000 2016',
tweet: 'I spent Friday campaigning with John Kennedy, of the Great State of Louisiana, for the U.S.Senate. The election is over - JOHN WON!',
sentiment: { magnitude: 1.2, score: 0.6 } }
---
Tonight I have been testing our AI that scores sentiment. I have a stub that grabs the Don's last 20 tweets and scores them on two dimensions. The first is magnitude - the extent to which the machine NLP is confident in scoring sentiment and then a sentiment score itself. The magnitude ranges from 0 to inf. The score is -1 to +1 with negative being well negative sentiment. Here are scores from tonight through yesterday... give me your feedback:
{ timestamp: 'Tue Dec 13 04:41:33 +0000 2016',
tweet: 'I will hold a press conference in the near future to discuss the business, Cabinet picks and all other topics of interest. Busy times!',
sentiment: { magnitude: 1, score: 0.5 } }
---
{ timestamp: 'Tue Dec 13 04:26:13 +0000 2016',
tweet: 'Even though I am not mandated by law to do so, I will be leaving my busineses before January 20th so that I can focus full time on the......',
sentiment: { magnitude: 0.2, score: 0.2 } }
---
{ timestamp: 'Mon Dec 12 00:32:28 +0000 2016',
tweet: 'Will be interviewed on @FoxNews at 10:00 P.M. Enjoy!',
sentiment: { magnitude: 1, score: 0.5 } }
---
{ timestamp: 'Tue Dec 13 00:33:05 +0000 2016',
tweet: 'I will be making my announcement on the next Secretary of State tomorrow morning.',
sentiment: { magnitude: 0, score: 0 } }
---
{ timestamp: 'Mon Dec 12 13:21:20 +0000 2016',
tweet: 'Unless you catch "hackers" in the act, it is very hard to determine who was doing the hacking. Why wasn\'t this brought up before election?',
sentiment: { magnitude: 1.2, score: -0.6 } }
---
{ timestamp: 'Mon Dec 12 13:26:13 +0000 2016',
tweet: 'The F-35 program and cost is out of control. Billions of dollars can and will be saved on military (and other) purchases after January 20th.',
sentiment: { magnitude: 0.7, score: 0 } }
---
{ timestamp: 'Tue Dec 13 04:32:01 +0000 2016',
tweet: 'Presidency. Two of my children, Don and Eric, plus executives, will manage them. No new deals will be done during my term(s) in office.',
sentiment: { magnitude: 1.2, score: 0 } }
---
{ timestamp: 'Mon Dec 12 23:40:48 +0000 2016',
tweet: 'The final Wisconsin vote is in and guess what - we just picked up an additional 131 votes. The Dems and Green Party can now rest. Scam!',
sentiment: { magnitude: 1.8, score: 0 } }
---
{ timestamp: 'Sat Dec 10 19:09:13 +0000 2016',
tweet: 'October 2015 - thanks Chris Wallace @FoxNewsSunday! https://t.co/VEsgPcWq7z',
sentiment: { magnitude: 0.4, score: 0.4 } }
---
{ timestamp: 'Sat Dec 10 19:09:28 +0000 2016',
tweet: 'RT @FoxNewsSunday: Sunday-- our exclusive interview with President-elect @realDonaldTrump \nWatch on @FoxNews at 2p/10p ET \nCheck your local…',
sentiment: { magnitude: 0, score: 0 } }
---
{ timestamp: 'Sat Dec 10 14:14:23 +0000 2016',
tweet: 'A very interesting read. Unfortunately, so much is true.\nhttps://t.co/ER2BoM765M',
sentiment: { magnitude: 1.2, score: 0 } }
---
{ timestamp: 'Sat Dec 10 18:41:12 +0000 2016',
tweet: 'RT @TrumpInaugural: Counting down the days until the swearing in of @realDonaldTrump & @mike_pence. Check in here for the latest updates. #…',
sentiment: { magnitude: 0.5, score: 0.2 } }
---
{ timestamp: 'Sun Dec 11 15:29:10 +0000 2016',
tweet: 'Whether I choose him or not for "State"- Rex Tillerson, the Chairman & CEO of ExxonMobil, is a world class player and dealmaker. Stay tuned!',
sentiment: { magnitude: 0.4, score: 0.2 } }
---
{ timestamp: 'Sat Dec 10 14:11:49 +0000 2016',
tweet: 'Reports by @CNN that I will be working on The Apprentice during my Presidency, even part time, are ridiculous & untrue - FAKE NEWS!',
sentiment: { magnitude: 0.9, score: -0.9 } }
---
{ timestamp: 'Mon Dec 12 22:25:52 +0000 2016',
tweet: '#ThankYouTour2016 \n\nTue: West Allis, WI. \n\nThur: Hershey, PA. \n\nFri: Orlando, FL. \n\nSat: Mobile, AL. \n\nTickets:… https://t.co/OJ8S7iVzFx',
sentiment: { magnitude: 1.2, score: 0.1 } }
---
{ timestamp: 'Mon Dec 12 01:02:14 +0000 2016',
tweet: 'Just watched @NBCNightlyNews - So biased, inaccurate and bad, point after point. Just can\'t get much worse, although @CNN is right up there!',
sentiment: { magnitude: 1.5, score: -0.7 } }
---
{ timestamp: 'Sun Dec 11 12:56:18 +0000 2016',
tweet: 'I will be interviewed today on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace at 10:00 (Eastern) Network. ENJOY!',
sentiment: { magnitude: 0.6, score: 0.3 } }
---
{ timestamp: 'Sun Dec 11 13:12:06 +0000 2016',
tweet: 'Being at the Army - Navy Game was fantastic. There is nothing like the spirit in that stadium. A wonderful experience, and congrats to Army!',
sentiment: { magnitude: 1.8, score: 0.4 } }
---
{ timestamp: 'Mon Dec 12 13:17:54 +0000 2016',
tweet: 'Can you imagine if the election results were the opposite and WE tried to play the Russia/CIA card. It would be called conspiracy theory!',
sentiment: { magnitude: 0.4, score: 0 } }
---
{ timestamp: 'Sun Dec 11 13:51:47 +0000 2016',
tweet: 'I spent Friday campaigning with John Kennedy, of the Great State of Louisiana, for the U.S.Senate. The election is over - JOHN WON!',
sentiment: { magnitude: 1.2, score: 0.6 } }
---
Are you referring to the "secret CIA report" from anonymous sources that WaPo and the NY Times reported about? What evidence does this report contain MajorMike?
Saw a Congressman on MSNBC who is on the intelligence committee and he said that he had been briefed in the last few days.
He flat out said that he couldn't give specifics but that there is only suspicion it was the Russians and there is no evidence the RNC was hacked.
He doesn't know who's leaking but it looks political to him. Naturally the biased reporter tried to get to admit it was Russians pushing for Trump and he said based on what he's seen that a ridiculous conclusion.
He made a really good point. Why would the Russians want Trump? He's already said he's going to build up the military "big time" and that is directly against the interests of the Russians. They know they'll get Obama 2.0 with Hillary and he's played right into their hands.
He flat out said that he couldn't give specifics but that there is only suspicion it was the Russians and there is no evidence the RNC was hacked.
He doesn't know who's leaking but it looks political to him. Naturally the biased reporter tried to get to admit it was Russians pushing for Trump and he said based on what he's seen that a ridiculous conclusion.
He made a really good point. Why would the Russians want Trump? He's already said he's going to build up the military "big time" and that is directly against the interests of the Russians. They know they'll get Obama 2.0 with Hillary and he's played right into their hands.
This brouhaha by the liberal leftists is a classic display of what Butthurt looks like.
The pathetic life of butthurt losers is hilarious to behold. Especially Hillary Clinton. She and her "foundation" were up to their ears in indebtedness to foreign countries and leaders and they collectively knew they had the election rigged to such a degree that victory was inevitable. She has a lot of IOU's outstanding and will do anything but admit defeat, even accusing the victors of working with foreign entities to defeat her. It's the Clinton way to accuse others of what they themselves are guilty of on a grandiose level when the chips are down. Someone please give the woman a year's supply of butt ointment.
So most of you know that I'm a cyber-security analyst for a major oil company. One might even call it Yuuuge!
Ask anyone in the business and they'll tell you two things:
1. It is extremely difficult to authoritatively attribute a breach to a specific person or group. You can generally assess the tools, techniques and payload in order to get a general sense of who was the actor involved. But, if those tools are publicly known, then it could literally be anyone. For example, the Energetic Bear campaign was against oil and gas producers mainly in Europe. They developed some new tools that weren't common knowledge and attacked specific vulnerabilities not generally known to the public. So initial attribution was reasonably certain. However, over time the tools and knowledge got out and we saw more and more people using their successful techniques - or even twisting them slightly. But now, it is very difficult to attribute an attack with those same tools and methods back to the originators of the campaign.
Something similar is going on here. The assessment that it was the Russians (from what I can glean from the vague reports) is that the attribution to the Russians is based on code, tools, and techniques originally created in Russian. But, now they are widely known. To the extent that they are even purchasable as a toolset on the dark web. So basing an authoritative attribution based on those limited vectors of information is tenuous at best, and irresponsible at worst.
For example, the Sony Pictures breach was attributed by the CIA to North Korea. All of us in the cyber-security community immediately gave a "WTF?" response. North Korea doesn't have the capability to pull off what happened to Sony Pictures. Now, the North Koreans might have sponsored someone else and hired out the job. In fact, we now know that it was actually two female disgruntled employees that ex-filtrated most of the data and implanted the command and control malware that allowed the removal of Sony Pictures golden certificate. So when the federal intelligence community states that it was assuredly North Korea, they are simply making a political statement. Not a cyber one.
With only the public information to go on, my reasonably informed opinion is that someone in the CIA or US Cyber Command reviewed the data and found those tools and gave the Russian origin to the tools but probably didn't give an authoritative statement on the attribution to Russian. You just don't talk in absolutes in this field. Then, in an effort to make a political statement, someone is making that assessment sound much stronger than it was originally written.
2. Even assuming positive attribution, it is very difficult to ascribe motive in cases like these. Sometimes you can logically deduce motive if credit card data is stolen and then resold on the market. It was for monetary gain. Those are easy to deduce. However, it is still just a logic determination with out the perpetrators own admission.
So, anyone saying that it was defiantly the Russians doing this in order to get Trump elected is connecting a lot of dots that may or may not actually connect. And, you should suspect the motive of the person making that statement as solid evidence. It just isn't there.
Ask anyone in the business and they'll tell you two things:
1. It is extremely difficult to authoritatively attribute a breach to a specific person or group. You can generally assess the tools, techniques and payload in order to get a general sense of who was the actor involved. But, if those tools are publicly known, then it could literally be anyone. For example, the Energetic Bear campaign was against oil and gas producers mainly in Europe. They developed some new tools that weren't common knowledge and attacked specific vulnerabilities not generally known to the public. So initial attribution was reasonably certain. However, over time the tools and knowledge got out and we saw more and more people using their successful techniques - or even twisting them slightly. But now, it is very difficult to attribute an attack with those same tools and methods back to the originators of the campaign.
Something similar is going on here. The assessment that it was the Russians (from what I can glean from the vague reports) is that the attribution to the Russians is based on code, tools, and techniques originally created in Russian. But, now they are widely known. To the extent that they are even purchasable as a toolset on the dark web. So basing an authoritative attribution based on those limited vectors of information is tenuous at best, and irresponsible at worst.
For example, the Sony Pictures breach was attributed by the CIA to North Korea. All of us in the cyber-security community immediately gave a "WTF?" response. North Korea doesn't have the capability to pull off what happened to Sony Pictures. Now, the North Koreans might have sponsored someone else and hired out the job. In fact, we now know that it was actually two female disgruntled employees that ex-filtrated most of the data and implanted the command and control malware that allowed the removal of Sony Pictures golden certificate. So when the federal intelligence community states that it was assuredly North Korea, they are simply making a political statement. Not a cyber one.
With only the public information to go on, my reasonably informed opinion is that someone in the CIA or US Cyber Command reviewed the data and found those tools and gave the Russian origin to the tools but probably didn't give an authoritative statement on the attribution to Russian. You just don't talk in absolutes in this field. Then, in an effort to make a political statement, someone is making that assessment sound much stronger than it was originally written.
2. Even assuming positive attribution, it is very difficult to ascribe motive in cases like these. Sometimes you can logically deduce motive if credit card data is stolen and then resold on the market. It was for monetary gain. Those are easy to deduce. However, it is still just a logic determination with out the perpetrators own admission.
So, anyone saying that it was defiantly the Russians doing this in order to get Trump elected is connecting a lot of dots that may or may not actually connect. And, you should suspect the motive of the person making that statement as solid evidence. It just isn't there.
I am sure you would agree you seldom if ever just walk away from a breach or sustained attack without doing forensics to glean what you can about methods and motivations...
If anyone would know about arrogance, it's Don Henley.
Actually we do. All the time. It depends on the scope and scale. Our response is to contain and then bring the company back to normal operations as quickly as possible. If we can collect forensic data we will. But we don't let that hamper our response plan.
We do try to understand the attacker and their motives. But only in support of any incident response in order to make our actions more effective and timely.
Forensics and attribution are for the law enforcement agencies. If we can assist in that we will. But, that's a secondary (even tertiary) concern.
This is just my opinion on the matter, but I do think the Russians may have interfered. But they (like everyone else) likely assumed Hillary was a foregone conclusion and had hoped to simply weaken her position. As someone else posted above, I don't think the Russians wanted an "alpha" like Trump in the WH, even if he has decent relations with Russia.
Heard a computer guy who used a lot of technical terms but he said from the look of the emails reproduced he believes the DNC was an inside job and the info was secretly embedded in images and downloaded not hacked.
You techies can explain what he's referring.
You techies can explain what he's referring.
That is a lot of data steganograph out. The thing I have heard is that the metadata on some of the files is so obviously Russian that it is unlikely that a Russian hacker would have be been so careless. A false flag?
Remember what Obama said to the Russian president before the 2012 election---
Mr Obama says: "On all these issues, but particularly missile defence, this, this can be solved but it's important for him to give me space."
Mr Medvedev replies: "Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you …"
Mr Obama retorts: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."
Mr Obama says: "On all these issues, but particularly missile defence, this, this can be solved but it's important for him to give me space."
Mr Medvedev replies: "Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you …"
Mr Obama retorts: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."
I think they definitely did not want Hillary to win as she openly was laying the groundwork for war with them - something globalists want for some insane reason.
As the hack of the DNC emails goes, f them. They should've had better security.
Don't trivialize the efforts of security professionals- only a handful have the money and capabilities to withstand attacks by state actors...
The truth about all this is the abysmal state of cyber security in the computer networks of the entire government. To some extent our ICBMs are relatively safe from commandeering by someone given they are still using floppy disks to run the silos/missile launch systems. The hackers probably don't remember how to or if they can hack a floppy disk operated system. I certainly don't remember much of DOS.
Last edited:
