Vault 7....For all we know the CIA may have hacked the Democrats

[Elixir]

Why would any disinterested and rational person think this release casts doubt on the allegations about Russian involvement in the Presidential campaign?

Uh - has that happened? No - it's only the pro-Russia contingent around here that is singing that dissonant tune.

 

[PyramidHead]

Why would any disinterested and rational person think this release casts doubt on the allegations about Russian involvement in the Presidential campaign?

Uh - has that happened? No - it's only the pro-Russia contingent around here that is singing that dissonant tune.

The reason I have heard is that the 'fingerprints' left on the material that led US intelligence agencies to declare that Russia was behind the hacks can in fact be trivially replicated by people who know what they are doing. Apparently the CIA hated Trump so much that they made it look like Russia interfered with the election on his behalf, before anybody had a clue he was going to win, so that the charge of colluding with Russia could be leveled against the Trump administration when it came into power. Would've been a lot simpler to just rig the election if they have all that technological prowess, if you ask me.

 

[Elixir]

Uh - has that happened? No - it's only the pro-Russia contingent around here that is singing that dissonant tune.

The reason I have heard is that the 'fingerprints' left on the material that led US intelligence agencies to declare that Russia was behind the hacks can in fact be trivially replicated by people who know what they are doing. Apparently the CIA hated Trump so much that they made it look like Russia interfered with the election on his behalf, before anybody had a clue he was going to win, so that the charge of colluding with Russia could be leveled against the Trump administration when it came into power. Would've been a lot simpler to just rig the election if they have all that technological prowess, if you ask me.

Shee-hitt. One agency simply rigging the election doth not an engaging story make. Much mo betta to have an intricate story of intrigue, red herrings, double agents and multi-agency conspiracies. Are you trying to put our Russian trolls out of business or something?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Uh - has that happened? No - it's only the pro-Russia contingent around here that is singing that dissonant tune.

The reason I have heard is that the 'fingerprints' left on the material that led US intelligence agencies to declare that Russia was behind the hacks can in fact be trivially replicated by people who know what they are doing. Apparently the CIA hated Trump so much that they made it look like Russia interfered with the election on his behalf, before anybody had a clue he was going to win, so that the charge of colluding with Russia could be leveled against the Trump administration when it came into power. Would've been a lot simpler to just rig the election if they have all that technological prowess, if you ask me.

Yeah and the CIA is also faking Russia doing stuff in Europe as well. It is incredible the more elaborate conspiracy is accepted with absolutely no evidence supplied (excluding WMDs in Iraq) verses the much less elaborate conspiracy with a lot of circumstantial and coincidental evidence.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

If Russia had any role in hacking the DNC or John Podesta, we will never know. The CIA intentionally uses Russian malware and disguises their tracks to look like Russians. So, the government has no credibility to debunk Wikileaks’ assertion that a DNC insider leaked Podesta’s email...

Was that ever even in question? We already knew, months ago, that John Podesta was the source of those leaks. The only thing anyone was unsure about was whether or not it was one of Podesta's staffers or if Podesta leaked it himself for some reason.


...

So you go to a party somewhere, and all of the people at that party are the parents of your daughter's friends (they all go to the same school and hang out together). An hour in, the woman who lives three doors down from you comes up and whispers to you with a smug expression on her face, "Jenny just told me that her daughter isn't getting to do optionals this year even though she got a thirty seven all around. Which is funny, because Amy's girl is moving up to optionals and she only got a thirty five. Sounds like Jeffrey was involved, doesn't it?"

You know who Jenny is, and you know her daughter. You also know who Amy is, and you know her daughter too. You know that Jeffrey is the head coach of the wrestling team, the diving team and the gymnastics team at your high school. But beyond that, you have no idea what the fuck this person just said to you, partly because it's laced with jargon, but mostly because you aren't part of the little social clique that's been passing around "Jeffrey's been sleeping with Amy" rumors for the last six months. You aren't part of that sub-culture, so you don't get the context of what she's trying to imply, and the idea that Jeffrey would be making decisions based on favoritism or his desire to impress Amy's mom isn't consistent with what you know about him. So to you, the smug little trollup who just made this comment comes off as condescending and petty, and the moment she realizes you don't get the joke, she'll go back to her corner of the room and try again with someone who DOES.

That's the DNC in a nutshell. The hacks had nothing to do with the Russians, that was mainly Clinton/Debbie's clumsy and poorly-coordinated attempt to establish a Trump/Russia link. They knew the link existed and they assumed everyone else did too, so claiming the Russians were involved in the hacking of a DNC server felt to them like the kind of rumor that would have gotten traction fast. Trouble is, the DNC's upper echelons live in such an impenetrable bubble of self-referential affirmation that it literally never occurred to them that nobody OUTSIDE the bubble was familiar with those rumors. "Trump is sleeping with Putin" is an inside joke in DNC circles and has been for years, so the idea of the Russians being involved in the leaks totally makes sense... but you wouldn't actually KNOW that unless you were part of that inner circle, so for everyone who isn't privy to those inside jokes, the accusation just looks stupid.

 

[Elixir]

If Russia had any role in hacking the DNC or John Podesta, we will never know. The CIA intentionally uses Russian malware and disguises their tracks to look like Russians. So, the government has no credibility to debunk Wikileaks’ assertion that a DNC insider leaked Podesta’s email...

Was that ever even in question? We already knew, months ago, that John Podesta was the source of those leaks. The only thing anyone was unsure about was whether or not it was one of Podesta's staffers or if Podesta leaked it himself for some reason.


...

So you go to a party somewhere, and all of the people at that party are the parents of your daughter's friends (they all go to the same school and hang out together). An hour in, the woman who lives three doors down from you comes up and whispers to you with a smug expression on her face, "Jenny just told me that her daughter isn't getting to do optionals this year even though she got a thirty seven all around. Which is funny, because Amy's girl is moving up to optionals and she only got a thirty five. Sounds like Jeffrey was involved, doesn't it?"

You know who Jenny is, and you know her daughter. You also know who Amy is, and you know her daughter too. You know that Jeffrey is the head coach of the wrestling team, the diving team and the gymnastics team at your high school. But beyond that, you have no idea what the fuck this person just said to you, partly because it's laced with jargon, but mostly because you aren't part of the little social clique that's been passing around "Jeffrey's been sleeping with Amy" rumors for the last six months. You aren't part of that sub-culture, so you don't get the context of what she's trying to imply, and the idea that Jeffrey would be making decisions based on favoritism or his desire to impress Amy's mom isn't consistent with what you know about him. So to you, the smug little trollup who just made this comment comes off as condescending and petty, and the moment she realizes you don't get the joke, she'll go back to her corner of the room and try again with someone who DOES.

That's the DNC in a nutshell. The hacks had nothing to do with the Russians, that was mainly Clinton/Debbie's clumsy and poorly-coordinated attempt to establish a Trump/Russia link. They knew the link existed and they assumed everyone else did too, so claiming the Russians were involved in the hacking of a DNC server felt to them like the kind of rumor that would have gotten traction fast. Trouble is, the DNC's upper echelons live in such an impenetrable bubble of self-referential affirmation that it literally never occurred to them that nobody OUTSIDE the bubble was familiar with those rumors. "Trump is sleeping with Putin" is an inside joke in DNC circles and has been for years, so the idea of the Russians being involved in the leaks totally makes sense... but you wouldn't actually KNOW that unless you were part of that inner circle, so for everyone who isn't privy to those inside jokes, the accusation just looks stupid.

So ... I s'pose that Clever Don-the-Con is withholding his taxes because releasing them would vindicate him of any association with Russians, which in turn would give those bumbling Dems a chance to rearrange their attacks on him. Much better to wait until the 2018 elections are incipient, and THEN release his taxes and show the Dems to be the conspiratorial wackos we already know them to be. Meanwhile, they will prove that Obama tapped Cheato's phone, which will be the final nail in their coffin, resulting in 90% republican majority in both houses?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So ... I s'pose that Clever Don-the-Con is withholding his taxes because releasing them would vindicate him of any association with Russians, which in turn would give those bumbling Dems a chance to rearrange their attacks on him. Much better to wait until the 2018 elections are incipient, and THEN release his taxes and show the Dems to be the conspiratorial wackos we already know them to be. Meanwhile, they will prove that Obama tapped Cheato's phone, which will be the final nail in their coffin, resulting in 90% republican majority in both houses?

Actually Obama released his "long-form" birth certificate and Trump still said he wasn't born in the US for years. Trump doesn't understand that documents mean things.

 

[Jayjay]

How did they know about the "real leak" before it happened?

Why do you think it was before?

Some of the evidence of Russian involvement is in the leaked documents themselves. Only way to plant that evidence is by doing it before the leak, which would be bizarre.

And they could be "pre-planting" "russian" hackers everywhere just in case. They have a budget. They could be hacking DNC for their own purposes. Former CIA people could be doing it too. And the fact that it looked like russians means that it was made to look like that. The fact is, if CIA (and FSB for that matter) wanted they could frame anyone, and that poor bastard will go to prison for the rest of his life.

And they could have staged the moon landing. Doesn't mean that it happened.

Furthermore, this latest CIA leak of hacking methods is probably valid (Snowden seems to think so), but it has absolutely nothing to do with DNC. It's just that pro-Russian trolls everywhere are trying to spin it to support their tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories. CIA hacking DNC, and staging Russia, to orchestrate both Trump victory and to get an excuse to wiretap Trump for some nefarious reasons yet uncovered? That doesn't make a lick of sense.

Show

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Was that ever even in question? We already knew, months ago, that John Podesta was the source of those leaks. The only thing anyone was unsure about was whether or not it was one of Podesta's staffers or if Podesta leaked it himself for some reason.


...

So you go to a party somewhere, and all of the people at that party are the parents of your daughter's friends (they all go to the same school and hang out together). An hour in, the woman who lives three doors down from you comes up and whispers to you with a smug expression on her face, "Jenny just told me that her daughter isn't getting to do optionals this year even though she got a thirty seven all around. Which is funny, because Amy's girl is moving up to optionals and she only got a thirty five. Sounds like Jeffrey was involved, doesn't it?"

You know who Jenny is, and you know her daughter. You also know who Amy is, and you know her daughter too. You know that Jeffrey is the head coach of the wrestling team, the diving team and the gymnastics team at your high school. But beyond that, you have no idea what the fuck this person just said to you, partly because it's laced with jargon, but mostly because you aren't part of the little social clique that's been passing around "Jeffrey's been sleeping with Amy" rumors for the last six months. You aren't part of that sub-culture, so you don't get the context of what she's trying to imply, and the idea that Jeffrey would be making decisions based on favoritism or his desire to impress Amy's mom isn't consistent with what you know about him. So to you, the smug little trollup who just made this comment comes off as condescending and petty, and the moment she realizes you don't get the joke, she'll go back to her corner of the room and try again with someone who DOES.

That's the DNC in a nutshell. The hacks had nothing to do with the Russians, that was mainly Clinton/Debbie's clumsy and poorly-coordinated attempt to establish a Trump/Russia link. They knew the link existed and they assumed everyone else did too, so claiming the Russians were involved in the hacking of a DNC server felt to them like the kind of rumor that would have gotten traction fast. Trouble is, the DNC's upper echelons live in such an impenetrable bubble of self-referential affirmation that it literally never occurred to them that nobody OUTSIDE the bubble was familiar with those rumors. "Trump is sleeping with Putin" is an inside joke in DNC circles and has been for years, so the idea of the Russians being involved in the leaks totally makes sense... but you wouldn't actually KNOW that unless you were part of that inner circle, so for everyone who isn't privy to those inside jokes, the accusation just looks stupid.

So ... I s'pose that Clever Don-the-Con is withholding his taxes because releasing them would vindicate him of any association with Russians...

No, I'm pretty sure the exact OPPOSITE of that would happen. In fact, I privately believe it would turn out to be WAY worse than we think; that Trump's candidacy was originally just a publicity stunt until one day he got a call from Papa Putin telling him to take the campaign all the way to the white house "or else."

It would probably be the end of Trump's career and his business empire... It's just that the only people who actually KNOW that would happen are a group of cliquish ninnies that only talk among themselves and haven't bothered to act on that information in a way that matters to anyone else.

To use the above analogy: Jeffrey really IS sleeping with Amy, and the accusations of favoritism are not entirely unfounded, but since the dance moms only talk among themselves in passive-aggressive gossip circles, it never occurs to any of them to actually report his conduct to somebody who might actually need to know about it.

Meanwhile, they will prove that Obama tapped Cheato's phone, which will be the final nail in their coffin, resulting in 90% republican majority in both houses?

The only way they could actually prove that Obama tapped Cheato's phone is if the wiretap turned up evidence of a crime. Trump's kinda screwed either way that goes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Wikileaks dances to Moscow's tune these days.

Wiki Leaks hasn't changed.

When they lost their funding from the masses they could only turn to the devil for money.

 

[repoman]

Wiki Leaks hasn't changed.

When they lost their funding from the masses they could only turn to the devil for money.

I can't donate directly anymore?

I will try now...

yeah you can donate. I am not sure of the time period when it was difficult or impossible to donate.

 

[barbos]

Why do you think it was before?

Some of the evidence of Russian involvement is in the leaked documents themselves.

Refresh my memory with a link.

Only way to plant that evidence is by doing it before the leak, which would be bizarre.

And they could be "pre-planting" "russian" hackers everywhere just in case. They have a budget. They could be hacking DNC for their own purposes. Former CIA people could be doing it too. And the fact that it looked like russians means that it was made to look like that. The fact is, if CIA (and FSB for that matter) wanted they could frame anyone, and that poor bastard will go to prison for the rest of his life.

And they could have staged the moon landing. Doesn't mean that it happened.

Furthermore, this latest CIA leak of hacking methods is probably valid (Snowden seems to think so), but it has absolutely nothing to do with DNC.

Well, documents in the leak suggest that CIA hackers do try to make it look like it's Russians doing the hacking.

It's just that pro-Russian trolls everywhere are trying to spin it to support their tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories.

I was only half-seriously suggesting these theories. My most likely theory is that there is no evidence of Russian government involvement.

CIA hacking DNC, and staging Russia, to orchestrate both Trump victory and to get an excuse to wiretap Trump for some nefarious reasons yet uncovered? That doesn't make a lick of sense.

Show

 

[tupac chopra]

CIA statement on vault 7

We have no comment on the authenticity of purported intelligence documents released by Wikileaks or on the status of any investigation into the source of the documents. However, there are several critical points we would like to make:

CIA's mission is to aggressively collect foreign intelligence overseas to protect America from terrorists, hostile nation states and other adversaries. It is CIA's job to be innovative, cutting-edge, and the first line of defense in protecting this country from enemies abroad. America deserves nothing less.

It is also important to note that CIA is legally prohibited from conducting electronic surveillance targeting individuals here at home, including our fellow Americans, and CIA does not do so. CIA's activities are subject to rigorous oversight to ensure that they comply fully with U.S. law and the Constitution.

The American public should be deeply troubled by any Wikileaks disclosure designed to damage the Intelligence Community's ability to protect America against terrorists and other adversaries. Such disclosures not only jeopardize US personnel and operations, but also equip our adversaries with tools and information to do us harm.

Dean Boyd
Director, CIA Office of Public Affairs

CIA prohibited from collecting intelligence at home. But not from hacking Senate Intelligence Committee?



CIA admits it broke into Senate computers; senators call for spy chief’s ouster

An internal CIA investigation confirmed allegations that agency personnel improperly intruded into a protected database used by Senate Intelligence Committee staff to compile a scathing report on the agency’s detention and interrogation program, prompting bipartisan outrage and at least two calls for spy chief John Brennan to resign.

 

[barbos]

The reason I have heard is that the 'fingerprints' left on the material that led US intelligence agencies to declare that Russia was behind the hacks can in fact be trivially replicated by people who know what they are doing. Apparently the CIA hated Trump so much that they made it look like Russia interfered with the election on his behalf, before anybody had a clue he was going to win, so that the charge of colluding with Russia could be leveled against the Trump administration when it came into power. Would've been a lot simpler to just rig the election if they have all that technological prowess, if you ask me.

Yeah and the CIA is also faking Russia doing stuff in Europe as well.

Yes, latest CIA documents dump says so.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So did the CIA fake all the Russian propaganda and misinformation about Hillary, too, like from RT news and Internet websites? This is getting scary because it means our Deep State also controls Russia! So the CIA made it look like Russia did it and deliberately made Hillary lose through their propaganda--that way they could later make President Trump look bad.

Wait, instead of making Trump look bad because they hate him why didn't they just not do the propaganda in the first place and let Hillary win?

 

[barbos]

So did the CIA fake all the Russian propaganda and misinformation about Hillary, too, like from RT news and Internet websites? This is getting scary because it means our Deep State also controls Russia! So the CIA made it look like Russia did it and deliberately made Hillary lose through their propaganda--that way they could later make President Trump look bad.

Wait, instead of making Trump look bad because they hate him why didn't they just not do the propaganda in the first place and let Hillary win?

well, Jarhyn seems to suggest here that CIA wanted Trump to win.
People keep saying russian hackers this, russian hackers that. But what exactly they released which damaged Hillary? I understand that Podesta emails were result of separate "operation" which was phishing and there is no proof that it had anything to do with russians.
What piece of damaging information can be attributed to direct server hacking? Maybe "russians" were just snooping around without actually releasing anything significant and it was someone else who sent most damaging info to wikileak?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So did the CIA fake all the Russian propaganda and misinformation about Hillary, too, like from RT news and Internet websites? This is getting scary because it means our Deep State also controls Russia! So the CIA made it look like Russia did it and deliberately made Hillary lose through their propaganda--that way they could later make President Trump look bad.

Wait, instead of making Trump look bad because they hate him why didn't they just not do the propaganda in the first place and let Hillary win?

well, Jarhyn seems to suggest here that CIA wanted Trump to win.
People keep saying russian hackers this, russian hackers that. But what exactly they released which damaged Hillary? I understand that Podesta emails were result of separate "operation" which was phishing and there is no proof that it had anything to do with russians.
What piece of damaging information can be attributed to direct server hacking? Maybe "russians" were just snooping around without actually releasing anything significant and it was someone else who sent most damaging info to wikileak?

You completely missed the point. The POINT is that this wasn't only hacking--it was a concerted effort with multiple facets, including hacking and various propaganda fronts, some of which are CLEARLY Russian.

 

[barbos]

well, Jarhyn seems to suggest here that CIA wanted Trump to win.
People keep saying russian hackers this, russian hackers that. But what exactly they released which damaged Hillary? I understand that Podesta emails were result of separate "operation" which was phishing and there is no proof that it had anything to do with russians.
What piece of damaging information can be attributed to direct server hacking? Maybe "russians" were just snooping around without actually releasing anything significant and it was someone else who sent most damaging info to wikileak?

You completely missed the point. The POINT is that this wasn't only hacking--it was a concerted effort with multiple facets, including hacking and various propaganda fronts, some of which are CLEARLY Russian.

I don't recall concerted efforts to elect Trump. I recall concerted effort to trash Hillary and Obama and what do you expect? that russians like Hillary/Obama?
Don't worry, russians will hate Trump too, eventually. It's just they don't know him well yet.

 

[Mumbles]

Uh - has that happened? No - it's only the pro-Russia contingent around here that is singing that dissonant tune.

The reason I have heard is that the 'fingerprints' left on the material that led US intelligence agencies to declare that Russia was behind the hacks can in fact be trivially replicated by people who know what they are doing. Apparently the CIA hated Trump so much that they made it look like Russia interfered with the election on his behalf, before anybody had a clue he was going to win, so that the charge of colluding with Russia could be leveled against the Trump administration when it came into power. Would've been a lot simpler to just rig the election if they have all that technological prowess, if you ask me.

Well, there's another problem. The fact that the hacks were performed by Russians was also verified by independent groups that the DNC contracted - and every expert knows how to counteract the techniques that would be used to pull off the sort of thing that Wikileaks alleges. Of course, Wikileaks has always been a rather silly and alarmist anti-US group, so this is not a shock.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The reason I have heard is that the 'fingerprints' left on the material that led US intelligence agencies to declare that Russia was behind the hacks can in fact be trivially replicated by people who know what they are doing. Apparently the CIA hated Trump so much that they made it look like Russia interfered with the election on his behalf, before anybody had a clue he was going to win, so that the charge of colluding with Russia could be leveled against the Trump administration when it came into power. Would've been a lot simpler to just rig the election if they have all that technological prowess, if you ask me.

Well, there's another problem. The fact that the hacks were performed by Russians was also verified by independent groups that the DNC contracted - and every expert knows how to counteract the techniques that would be used to pull off the sort of thing that Wikileaks alleges. Of course, Wikileaks has always been a rather silly and alarmist anti-US group, so this is not a shock.

Wait, are you you trying to sell me on the idea that "experts" in the field of "cyber-security" "know" how better how to track hacking than not just random people on the Internet, but random people on the Internet with blogs?!