Obama Admin under pressure to provide "hacking" proof

[Anonymous]

What makes anyone think that the details would be publicly disclosed? Seems like they would be very confidential.

[Anonymous]

Remember when Romney talked about this and the Democrats and Obama laughed at him? I remember..the 80s called and they want their foreign policy back. That's what was said, liberals loved it.

Romney should have won 2012..he knows more than Obama apparently. In hindsight, what Reid did - lying about Romney - was worse. Reid lied, the Russians didn't lie, they just leaked the truth. I'm more angry at us for not being more thorough and not doing what the Russians did. I more upset we had to hear it from the Cossacks than our own "investigative" journalists.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So is there evidence or not?

The report today contained allegations and assertions but no evidence. I understand that a more detailed report (it would be hard to be less detailed) will be released in a few weeks.

So right now there is no evidence, but Obama is expelling diplomats?

Hopefully Obama has more information than has been released to the public. But, what has been released is nothing but unsupported assertions.

Further there is nothing in the report suggestive of a motive by the Russian hackers to specifically aid the election efforts of a particular candidate. Indeed there is no mention of possible specific motives, at all, other than what I would assume is generic and on-going spoofing and spying Boris Badenov activity. Even Russian spies have to justify their paycheck somehow. The report says they sent out the spearfishing to 1000 different targets and apparently only the most stupid targets actually took the bait. It seems purely coincidental that John Podesta and the DNC happened to be among the stupidest of the hacking targets, but I still don't see how that's Trump's fault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Foreign governments attempt to hack our government all the time which makes Hilary's private server scheme all the more laughable and scary. There are also claims that the DNC hacks were an inside job. Obama needs to provide proof on serious allegations against a foreign government like election tampering.

True. In light of the Democrats claiming Russian hacking is such a huge threat to America, how is that consistent with the conclusion that HRC was NOT criminally negligent?

And back to the deflections.

I'm going to guess that Obama didn't start talking publicly about this until the intelligence was irrefutable. Now whether we get to see the evidence is another thing.

How can such evidence be withheld?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Remember when Romney talked about this and the Democrats and Obama laughed at him? I remember..the 80s called and they want their foreign policy back. That's what was said, liberals loved it.

Romney should have won 2012..he knows more than Obama apparently. In hindsight, what Reid did - lying about Romney - was worse. Reid lied, the Russians didn't lie, they just leaked the truth. I'm more angry at us for not being more thorough and not doing what the Russians did. I more upset we had to hear it from the Cossacks than our own "investigative" journalists.

And Mr. Obama "kick Bibi in the nuts on the way out of office" still hasn't done anything about this supposedly horrible Russian hacking. Kicking out a bunch of diplomats who probably had nothing at all to do with the operation is just typical Obama spitefulness and posturing. If he was actually a competent president he would have kept them in the country and had our intelligence agencies or the FBI try to turn them into double agents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LOL did anyone read the disclaimer at the very beginning of the report?



DISCLAIMER: This report is provided “as is” for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within. DHS
does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory or otherwise. This document is
distributed as TLP:WHITE: Subject to standard copyright rules, TLP:WHITE information may be distributed
without restriction. For more information on the Traffic Light Protocol, see https://www.us-cert.gov/tlp.claimer


No warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within is essentially the Intelligence Community's way of telling us: "This is all complete bullshit but if you are stupid enough to believe it, shame on you."

That's a standard disclaimer used by DHS. I don't think it really means anything. For example you can find the same disclaimer here: http://amsig.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/ICS-ALERT-14-157-01P-Situational-Alert-for-Electronic-Highway-Signs.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Foreign governments attempt to hack our government all the time which makes Hilary's private server scheme all the more laughable and scary. There are also claims that the DNC hacks were an inside job. Obama needs to provide proof on serious allegations against a foreign government like election tampering.

True. In light of the Democrats claiming Russian hacking is such a huge threat to America, how is that consistent with the conclusion that HRC was NOT criminally negligent?

And back to the deflections.

I'm going to guess that Obama didn't start talking publicly about this until the intelligence was irrefutable. Now whether we get to see the evidence is another thing.

How can such evidence be withheld?

There is no evidence. Read the disclaimer at the beginning of the report, top of the first page. It specifically states that there are no warranties provided as to any of the content of the report. They are basically telling you upfront that they are providing you with unreliable "information" which no one should use as the basis of any actions or conclusions about anything. Obama is actually daring us to be stupid enough to believe that the report means whatever we want it to mean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Foreign governments attempt to hack our government all the time which makes Hilary's private server scheme all the more laughable and scary. There are also claims that the DNC hacks were an inside job. Obama needs to provide proof on serious allegations against a foreign government like election tampering.

True. In light of the Democrats claiming Russian hacking is such a huge threat to America, how is that consistent with the conclusion that HRC was NOT criminally negligent?

And back to the deflections.

I'm going to guess that Obama didn't start talking publicly about this until the intelligence was irrefutable. Now whether we get to see the evidence is another thing.

How can such evidence be withheld?

There is no evidence. Read the disclaimer at the beginning of the report, top of the first page. It specifically states that there are no warranties provided as to any of the content of the report. They are basically telling you upfront that they are providing you with unreliable "information" which no one should use as the basis of any actions or conclusions about anything. Obama is actually daring us to be stupid enough to believe that the report means whatever we want it to mean.

No, that's a standard DHS disclaimer on all its reports. It doesn't mean what you think it does. By "warranties" it means that you can't sue DHS for what they say. Likely they are more concerned about libel/defamation/tort claims wrt specific software etc they mention in their reports.

Still wondering why anyone believes that the public should be privy to every piece of evidence in what is no doubt a highly sensitive and top secret investigation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember when Romney talked about this and the Democrats and Obama laughed at him? I remember..the 80s called and they want their foreign policy back. That's what was said, liberals loved it.

Romney should have won 2012..he knows more than Obama apparently. In hindsight, what Reid did - lying about Romney - was worse. Reid lied, the Russians didn't lie, they just leaked the truth. I'm more angry at us for not being more thorough and not doing what the Russians did. I more upset we had to hear it from the Cossacks than our own "investigative" journalists.

And Mr. Obama "kick Bibi in the nuts on the way out of office" still hasn't done anything about this supposedly horrible Russian hacking. Kicking out a bunch of diplomats who probably had nothing at all to do with the operation is just typical Obama spitefulness and posturing. If he was actually a competent president he would have kept them in the country and had our intelligence agencies or the FBI try to turn them into double agents.

Okee dokee, Matlock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL did anyone read the disclaimer at the very beginning of the report?



DISCLAIMER: This report is provided “as is” for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within. DHS
does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory or otherwise. This document is
distributed as TLP:WHITE: Subject to standard copyright rules, TLP:WHITE information may be distributed
without restriction. For more information on the Traffic Light Protocol, see https://www.us-cert.gov/tlp.claimer


No warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within is essentially the Intelligence Community's way of telling us: "This is all complete bullshit but if you are stupid enough to believe it, shame on you."

That's a standard disclaimer used by DHS. I don't think it really means anything. For example you can find the same disclaimer here: http://amsig.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/ICS-ALERT-14-157-01P-Situational-Alert-for-Electronic-Highway-Signs.pdf

You have a serious and fatal cognitive bias. You're choosing to believe the part of the report you want to believe, and obviously will interpret it any old which way you want it to mean that suits you, which is exactly what the administration is hoping people do. But you disregard the part of the report which expressly tells you that there is no guarantee that any of the contents of the report are reliable.

It means exactly what it says: The contents of the report are not reliable information. The fact that DHS stamps this disclaimer on other of its publications, or every one of its publications, means you are being fed unreliable propaganda, or being told at best half truths. The problem with half truths is you never know which half is true.

[Anonymous]

Obama: "You wanna mess with our elections? OK, how about this ...." Boom. Expels 35 Russian diplomats from the US, shuts down 2 Russian compounds in the US, and specifically names Russian operatives and groups that are involved in cyberattacks.

Trump: "Let's just all get on with our lives."

C'mon Donnie, I thought you were a tough guy. Someone punches you, and you say "let's just all get along" ?!?!? You're about to be the man of the house in just 20 days; show some sack for chrissake.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

jsteele wrote:Here is the joint report that details the Russian hacking:

https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296.pdf

Now that I've read the report, it is completely useless and provides no information of value. The report urges network administrators to check their logs for certain IP addresses, but then doesn't provide any addresses. The report is basically a fancy graphic and a list of best practices. It does nothing to confirm the hackers were Russian.

Jeff, it says "The U.S. Government confirms that two different RIS actors participated in the intrusion into a
U.S. political party." What else do you really expect it to say? I supposed you can just decide you don't believe it, but what's your standard for believing these sorts of documents?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Foreign governments attempt to hack our government all the time which makes Hilary's private server scheme all the more laughable and scary. There are also claims that the DNC hacks were an inside job. Obama needs to provide proof on serious allegations against a foreign government like election tampering.

True. In light of the Democrats claiming Russian hacking is such a huge threat to America, how is that consistent with the conclusion that HRC was NOT criminally negligent?

And back to the deflections.

I'm going to guess that Obama didn't start talking publicly about this until the intelligence was irrefutable. Now whether we get to see the evidence is another thing.

How can such evidence be withheld?

There is no evidence. Read the disclaimer at the beginning of the report, top of the first page. It specifically states that there are no warranties provided as to any of the content of the report. They are basically telling you upfront that they are providing you with unreliable "information" which no one should use as the basis of any actions or conclusions about anything. Obama is actually daring us to be stupid enough to believe that the report means whatever we want it to mean.

No, that's a standard DHS disclaimer on all its reports. It doesn't mean what you think it does. By "warranties" it means that you can't sue DHS for what they say. Likely they are more concerned about libel/defamation/tort claims wrt specific software etc they mention in their reports.

Still wondering why anyone believes that the public should be privy to every piece of evidence in what is no doubt a highly sensitive and top secret investigation?

LOL. I think it means exactly what it says. You're foolish or self-deluded if you choose to disregard those words.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Foreign governments attempt to hack our government all the time which makes Hilary's private server scheme all the more laughable and scary. There are also claims that the DNC hacks were an inside job. Obama needs to provide proof on serious allegations against a foreign government like election tampering.

True. In light of the Democrats claiming Russian hacking is such a huge threat to America, how is that consistent with the conclusion that HRC was NOT criminally negligent?

And back to the deflections.

I'm going to guess that Obama didn't start talking publicly about this until the intelligence was irrefutable. Now whether we get to see the evidence is another thing.

How can such evidence be withheld?

There is no evidence. Read the disclaimer at the beginning of the report, top of the first page. It specifically states that there are no warranties provided as to any of the content of the report. They are basically telling you upfront that they are providing you with unreliable "information" which no one should use as the basis of any actions or conclusions about anything. Obama is actually daring us to be stupid enough to believe that the report means whatever we want it to mean.

No, that's a standard DHS disclaimer on all its reports. It doesn't mean what you think it does. By "warranties" it means that you can't sue DHS for what they say. Likely they are more concerned about libel/defamation/tort claims wrt specific software etc they mention in their reports.

Still wondering why anyone believes that the public should be privy to every piece of evidence in what is no doubt a highly sensitive and top secret investigation?

LOL. I think it means exactly what it says. You're foolish or self-deluded if you choose to disregard those words.

So since it appears on everything DHS puts out, we can't actually believe anything from them. Including the DHS reports on terrorism and immigration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obama: "You wanna mess with our elections? OK, how about this ...." Boom. Expels 35 Russian diplomats from the US, shuts down 2 Russian compounds in the US, and specifically names Russian operatives and groups that are involved in cyberattacks.

Trump: "Let's just all get on with our lives."

C'mon Donnie, I thought you were a tough guy. Someone punches you, and you say "let's just all get along" ?!?!? You're about to be the man of the house in just 20 days; show some sack for chrissake.

How does expulsion of Russian diplomats, closing down 2 Russian compounds, etc., serve U.S. interests? It doesn't. It's another end of presidency temper tantrum by Obama, posturing at "acting tough," but accomplishing nothing in terms of advancing U.S. national interests.