Reply With Quote
How does the Guccifer persona make sense, unless they wanted credit? This person(s) was mind-boggling sloppy.
The theory the VIPS statement was disproving was that the files were stolen remotely from Romania or somewhere in eastern europe. That was the theory the FBI sources were going with at the time. If you read the VIPS report that is what they are disproving.
How does the Guccifer persona make sense, unless they wanted credit? This person(s) was mind-boggling sloppy.
This is the thing with indictments and prosecutions: before you actually put it in front of a judge, you better damn well know you have the evidence.
Why? Because god forbid one of these days one of these indicted Russian fellas set foot outside Russia, and gets nailed, they're going to go in front of the judge and the prosecution will have to show and prove what they allege.
This is why it's way more serious if there's an actual indictment for, say, pedophilia, than if somebody in Spurstalk or Twitter tells you you're a pedo. You can dismiss the latter, but the former, you better damn well have an alibi, because you can bet your ass they didn't show up on a hunch.
And that's why you have to take indictments much more seriously than a twitter thread, or why I keep telling you to show me a criminal indictment. Because with the latter I know there's at least plausible evidence. With the former I don't know .
Bend over. I'll show you what a backbone is.i'll pretend i know what a backbone is and say thanks
It makes sense to network to rogue places like Wikileaks, which is government agnostic... and I dare say, anti-government. I'm pretty sure if Assange knew he was being played, he wouldn't have gone for it.
The appearance of independence is paramount for an en y like that. In that sense, well played GRU.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_backbonei'll pretend i know what a backbone is and say thanks
Seems easy to make indictments against foreigners who you know will never ever step foot in a US courtroom. I’d like to know how they made attribution to specific individuals.
It isn't easy, because it can be a career ender and a reputation killer. You could argue those guys will never be caught, but the possibility is always there, PLUS, there's an actual judge oversight.
There's much easier ways for intelligence agencies to spread the same kind of info without exposing themselves to a judge or the high bar of submitting evidence to allegations. I'm sure you're well aware of the MSM, and information/disinformation campaigns.
Those are all valid, alternate tools, which have a much lower bar. Once you actually make it into a legal do ent in front of a judge, the onus becomes on you to prove the case, if that day arrives.
That's why indictments are indeed a high bar, and despite some stellar cases that the government didn't win, generally speaking, almost 90% of criminal cases end up with either a plea-bargain or a guilty verdict.
Yes very sloppy. Not the usual modus operandi of a professional in a goverment intelligence agency especially one from USA, Israel, France, Russia, China, UK, Germany. those are the top notch intelligence agencies. I heard Pakistan, India and Turkey are in the next tier.
Russian GRU assassins!
actually VIPS report claims DNC email hacks leaked to wikileaks were and INSIDE job
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/2...nce/?print=pdf
"July 5, 2016: In the early evening, Eastern Daylight Time, someone working in
the EDT time zone with a computer directly connected to the DNC server or DNC
Local Area Network, copied 1,976 MegaBytes of data in 87 seconds onto an
external storage device. That speed is much faster than what is physically
possible with a hack."
But cybersecurity experts say the report is full of holes.
“In short, the theory is flawed,” John Hultquist, director of intelligence analysis at FireEye, a firm that provides forensic analysis, told The Hill.
“The author of the report didn’t consider a number of scenarios and breezed right past others. It completely ignores all the evidence that contradicts its claims.”
Another expert, Rich Barger, director of security research at Splunk, told The Hill that the theory that the data was downloaded onto a USB stick was also flawed.
“This theory assumes that the hacker downloaded the files to a computer and then leaked it from that computer,” he said.
https://nypost.com/2017/08/15/new-re...ob-not-russia/
honestly, I don't expect much from Chris, tbh.. he seems to enjoy the conspiracies on the same level boutons enjoys the VRWC....
But really, the indictment is actually a pretty good read, tbh...
Some random guy from FireEye has a conspiracy so ElNono is going with that.
Believe is a strong word, it's difficult to take any politico seriously.
That said, Trump knows the buttons he's pushing. He's very unlikely to ever reach people that are not his audience, but he does know what works for his audience.
I'm going with the Department of Justice investigation. You guys can go with some conspiracy from a group that doesn't have to answer to a judge
I actually have no beef with my bro che, and my berraco hater, tbh... they're certainly nowhere near the resident loons..
I'm going with the Department of Justice investigation. You guys can go with some conspiracy from a group that doesn't have to answer to a judge
pretty much the only thing that can be concluded without a doubt is that the FBI, in possession of the drive images, logs, and even physical machines should damn well know exactly and without a shadow of a doubt if it was a leak or a hack.
but they won't say and only have "high confidence" or "moderate confidence"
Any and all of them when and if they get caught, and it's not just the Russians, but the prosecutors also.
You might think it's hilarious, that's your premise, but an actual indictment is a serious matter. Like I said, only 10% of criminal indictments end up in not guilty. Cases like these aren't fishing expeditions.
Neither the Russians nor the prosecutors are worried about this ever going to trial. Unlike the lol troll farm case this will never see a courtroom.
Pretty safe bet the indicted Russians should be worried if they ever decide to set foot somewhere where the US can grab em.
I do agree about prosecutors though. Since they actually presented an indictment, they have 90% odds the evidence they have to back up the claims are good.
If the indicted are actual GRU agents there is a 99% they are never grabbed by the US. Prosecutor odds are irrelevant.
Wouldn't be the first ruskies spies caught. OBL didn't think he was going to get caught either.
Much to your chagrin, prosecutor odds are indeed relevant: they give credibility towards the level of evidentiary research that go into indictments.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
