MSNBC intelligence expert: WikiLeaks is releasing falsified emails not really from Hillary Clinton

[Bill USA]

..somebody else has probably already posted this, but for those like me, who missed it, here it is for you.


http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/intelligence-expert-confirms-latest-hillary-clinton-email-dump-from-wikileaks-is-full-of-forgeries/26242/

The latest release from WikiLeaks, a collection of emails supposedly hacked from the account of Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, is getting very little public attention due to the fact that it contains nothing particularly scandalous to begin with, and the fact that it was released just as Donald Trump’s campaign was imploding in a sexual assault scandal. But those who have examined the Clinton email dump have found something fascinating: several of the emails aren’t real, and aren’t even good forgeries.

Malcolm Nance, a U.S. intelligence expert and MSNBC analyst, has issued what he’s calling an “official warning.” He’s reporting that the emails in question “already proving to be riddled with obvious forgeries” and goes on to add that they’re “not even professionally done.” Nance announced his conclusion via Twitter just a few hours after the supposed emails were released. MSNBC host Joy-Ann Reid retweeted his warning, adding “FYI” to her own audience.

WikiLeaks had spent the past month claiming that it would be releasing election-altering hacked information on Hillary Clinton which would cost her the election. But the bizarre advance hype, coupled with repeated delays and a surreal middle-of-the-night press conference last week in which absolutely no information was revealed, suggested that they had nothing all along.

This evening’s email dump, which appears to have been specifically timed on a Friday evening in order to avoid the scrutiny of the major media outlets, has revealed relatively little of interest. Some of the emails purport to contain the transcripts of Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street speeches, but use odd phrases such as “and/or” which would not have been included in the original prepared text of a speech and would not have been spoken out loud by someone giving a speech.

[underpants]

1. I think I've found the culprit

[misterhighwasted]

3. Bwwwaaaahhhhaa!!

Thanks

[red dog 1]

19. LOL

Good one!

[misterhighwasted]

2. Lame ass hackers. "they’re not even professionally done"

No one proof read them?
Haa..that leaves Trump, once again, the big butt of his own huuuge joke...

[Wilms]

4. I'd be slow to roll with NewsBin or Nance.

Except the only fraud here was Nance’s claim, not any of the documents published by WikiLeaks. Those were all real. Indeed, at Sunday night’s debate, when asked directly about the excerpts of her Wall Street speeches found in the release, Clinton herself confirmed their authenticity. And news outlets such as the New York Times and AP reported — and continue to report — on their contents without any caveat that they may be frauds. No real print journalists or actual newsrooms (as opposed to campaign operatives masquerading as journalists) fell for this scam, so this tactic did not prevent reporting from being done.

But it did signal to Clinton’s most devoted followers to simply ignore the contents of the release. Anyone writing articles about what these documents revealed was instantly barraged with claims from Democrats that they were fakes, by people often pointing to “articles” like this one.

https://theintercept.com/2016/10/11/in-the-democratic-echo-chamber-inconvenient-truths-are-recast-as-putin-plots/

[SunSeeker]

6. Speaking of crap sources...Glenn Greenwald can go to hell. nt

[Wilms]

8. Not sure why you'd regard him as a "crap source".

But it sounds like you don't like the fact that he messed with the ruling class.

[SunSeeker]

10. Ah, so quick with the personal insult.

Greenwald would be so proud of you.

[Wilms]

11. I meant no insult.

[SunSeeker]

12. Yes you did.

Suggesting my disapproval of GG is because he allegedly "messed with the ruling class" is utterly offensive and wrong on so many levels.

Spare me the feigned cluelessness.

[Wilms]

13. What is it you disapprove of him? n/t

[SunSeeker]

15. Glenn Greenwald is a pompous bully utterly bereft of integrity.

This sums him up nicely:

https://extremeliberal.wordpress.com/2013/11/04/glenn-greenwald-perpetually-wrong-but-allowed-to-be-so/

[Wilms]

16. OK. Now that we got that out of the way...

...there's is the leaked documents.

[SunSeeker]

17. Yes, the documents hacked and falsified by Putin and distributed by Trump & Wikileaks. nt.

[Wilms]

22. You'll notice my link above calls in to question those assertion.

In fact, the campaign acknowledged it.

[SunSeeker]

23. You mean Greenwald called it into question. That is your "link above."

And what the Clinton campaign "acknowledges" is that it cannot vouch for the authenticity of the emails posted by Wikileaks.

[Wilms]

25. "Clinton herself confirmed their authenticity..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=168364

[SunSeeker]

26. No she didn't. That is Greenwald's false characterization. nt

[Wilms]

27. WaPo

Clinton appears to confirm leaked speech excerpts were real

But asked about one key email released by Wikileaks—an email in which Clinton’s staff discussed excerpts from some of the paid speeches she has refused to make public—Clinton did not deny it was authentic. In her answer, she seemed to confirm that, in fact, that critical email was indeed accurate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-updates/general-election/real-time-fact-checking-and-analysis-of-the-2nd-2016-presidential-debate/clinton-appears-to-confirm-leaked-speech-excerpts-were-real/?tid=a_inl

[SunSeeker]

28. That is very different from the assertion that scumbag Greenwald made.

WaPo did NOT say Hillary and her campaign confirmed all of the emails or indeed ANY of the emails were authentic and undoctored. She just answered a question about what she meant about "private" versus "public" positions she discussed in a paid speech she did. All WaPo says is that Hillary did not deny the one email she was asked about was authentic, and by addressing some of its content, "appeared" to authenticate it.

As the WaPo article notes, the Clinton campaign has not authenticated the emails. Thus, your WaPo link confirms Greenwald is a liar.

[Wilms]

29. Well, Greenwald didn't say all of the emails were legit.

He said...

Indeed, at Sunday night’s debate, when asked directly about the excerpts of her Wall Street speeches found in the release, Clinton herself confirmed their authenticity.

So he drops the WaPo's "appears to". And within the context of what's being referred to...are we not to think the offered clarification is sufficient?

[SunSeeker]

30. Yes he did. "Confirmed their authenticity" is a lie. Words matter. nt

[Wilms]

31. So, in the context of her clarifying the statements...

...you believe the document to be unreliable?

[SunSeeker]

36. No one confirmed the authenticity of that email, let alone all the rest of the emails.

And with what Nance noted, it is clear at least some of the emails were doctored. Thus, any email from that doctored trove at Wikileaks is suspect until authenticated by the sender or receiver of the particular email.

[Wilms]

37. Thanks for your relevant remarks.

[Bill USA]

32. Sept 23 letter from the Office of the Dir of Natnl Intel talks of Russian disinformation campaign

DEAR DONALD TRUMP AND VLADIMIR PUTIN, I AM NOT SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL

A classified report submitted last summer to the congressional intelligence committees and a September 23 letter from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence specifically identified Sputnik as a central participant in a Russian disinformation campaign designed to use hacking and other techniques to interfere with the American election while strengthening Moscow’s global influence.

“Moscow appears to use monetary support in combination with other tools of Russian statecraft, including propaganda in local media, direct lobbying by the Russian Government, economic pressure, and military intimidation,’’ the letter says. “Russian trolls and other cyber actors post comments on the Internet, maintain blogs, challenge ‘pro-Western’ journalists and media narratives, and spread pro-Russian information on social media.”

~~
~~

American officials have recently been predicting that manipulated documents would soon be appearing in outlets like Sputnik, which, until now, has been a source of some real records. On October 6, 16 former high-level intelligence officials, senators and other experts on national security released a cautionary letter about the methods that Russia uses in these campaigns.

“It is imperative that we focus on the broad disinformation campaign that is already underway,’’ the officials wrote. “What is taking place in the United States follows a well-known Russian playbook: First leak compelling and truthful information to gain credibility. The next step: release fake documents that look the same. This leaves a discredited actor in the position of denying the authenticity in the merciless court of public opinion, just weeks before an election.”

According to these officials, Russia has used these techniques in Estonia, Georgia, Ukraine, the Netherlands, Germany and now in the United States.
(more)

[Wilms]

33. Even if true, in the context of her clarifying the statements...

...do you believe the document to be unreliable?

[Bill USA]

34. going by the WaPo article, it "appears" clinton confirmed that the excerpts were from a speech she

gave. A document which contains a discussion of a few excerpts from a speech is not basis for saying the document gives an accurate picture of the message of the entire speech. What Clinton "appears" to have confirmed is that the document includes excerpts from a speech she gave.

as the article I referred to pointed out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016168359#post32

American officials have recently been predicting that manipulated documents would soon be appearing in outlets like Sputnik, which, until now, has been a source of some real records. On October 6, 16 former high-level intelligence officials, senators and other experts on national security released a cautionary letter about the methods that Russia uses in these campaigns.

“It is imperative that we focus on the broad disinformation campaign that is already underway,’’ the officials wrote. “What is taking place in the United States follows a well-known Russian playbook: First leak compelling and truthful information to gain credibility. The next step: release fake documents that look the same. This leaves a discredited actor in the position of denying the authenticity in the merciless court of public opinion, just weeks before an election.”

According to these officials, Russia has used these techniques in Estonia, Georgia, Ukraine, the Netherlands, Germany and now in the United States.

my interest is in the big picture of what the Russians are doing.

WikiLeaks is an enabler of the Russian campaign to promote their candidate, the Donald.

Russia would not release "hacked" emails (as modified, added to) if they were identifiable as the source of he "hacked" emails. They are sensitive enough to World opinions so as to prefer to not be identified as the hacker into a U.S. political party's emails system.

What Wikileaks does is give Russia a way to get embarrassing/damaging emails (as modified, added to) out in the public eye to embarrass U.S. and possibly affect the U.S. Presidential election (they would rather have a twit like the Donald in there rather than have to face Hillary Clinton).

Russia helps WikiLeaks by giving them material to leak to give them more notoriety and grow their influence (and pump-up their collective egos). Wikileaks helps Russia by giving them cover. It could very well be, without WikiLeaks, Russia wouldn't be leaking any emails (bona fide or fabricated) due to the world-wide public relations negatives to being identified as the hacker.

It's a symbiotic relationship. Wikileaks is helping Russia achieve its aims - and providing deniability (Putin: "We didn't hack the U.S. emails. Obama is a idiot ...Ha-ha-ha." This enables Russia to get the "hacked" emails out AND say "Fuck you to Obama" (-- or to the U.S. Intelligence community) --- a win - win! At the same time Russia, by giving Wikeleaks material to leak, is boosting WikiLeaks "street-cred". WikiLeaks doesn't care if the emails are legitimate, hacked from the DNC, or are fabricated (or modified )emails. What the fuck do they care? The third party in all of this is, of course, GOP tv -- M$M. GOP-tv, which is actually the Public Relations arm of the GOP, gets some good copy to talk about and draw in more viewers. Notice how M$M doesn't have any qualms about reporting on WikiLeaks "hacked" emails trusting Julian Assange/WikiLeaks to authenticate them as genuine. As if they can be authenticated. The Public Relations arm of the GOP doesn't give a shit if they are real or just fabrications of Putin's stooges. And then they just might hurt Clinton enough to get the crotch grabber into the White House. What's to not like about this scam??

[Wilms]

35. Ohhh Kay!

[red dog 1]

20. Thanks for that link & info

I agree with you about NewsBin & Nance

[polynomial]

5. Future Crimes

A book out by Mark Goodman called “Future Crimes” is interesting in the way it describes hacking.

It reminds me of someone in my family having a hackneyed type personality working in IT.


That member of the family touted, or pestered family conversations in a bold manner as in being able to adjust IP addressing.

It is a shame that after a petty falling out in a vindictive argument, via emails with her, then my emails started to act weird.

It takes technical talent to be able to shift or manipulate emails, yet can be done knowing Internet Protocol, so called IP, addressing schemes.

Now talking about just family issues, not corporate or government systems. Yet, a spouse verse in IT talents could tamper with email in retaliation, as in a gamer, or reality real life game playing to be one up on the other person.

Way too many people play that life game in family, especially in the corporate environment.

The Future Crimes in IT may require Internet Police tracing even if one thinks malice was accomplish by family members. It will be the new rules...laws.

[Retired George]

7. input, which is something you put in

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. It's a bit of a game of 'telephone'; other actors have been inserting non-Wikileaks stuff

that is obviously made up; people warn about that; and then someone changes that into blaming Wikileaks, although it's not the Wikileaks stuff that people were talking about.

If you follow the trail of tweets back to the start you find this is what happened:

The Omnivore
?@OmnivoreBlog
@mtracey This is a MIND BLOWING Goldman Sachs transcript that hasn't gotten much air

https://t.co/8byzpNHIc8

https://twitter.com/OmnivoreBlog/status/784509759282110465

That t.co link goes to 'realtruenews', and is the obvious fake about "bucket of losers" which appeared before the Podesta email leak (see http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2480238 ). Whoever 'The Omnivore' is, they then said they thought it was obvious it was fake ("Are u mad at me for posting a joke article or because it was taken seriously by lots of people? Google"A Modest Proposal"&quot ; whether that's believable for them, I have no idea).

Then someone tweets about that, saying 'Trumpists are dirtying docs':

KA Semenova
?@SemenovaKA KA Semenova Retweeted The Omnivore
Please be skeptical of alleged #PodestaEmails. Trumpists are dirtying docs. Not all will be as lame as this one is.

https://twitter.com/SemenovaKA/status/784535123056332801

Then Nance refers to that:

Malcolm Nance
?@MalcolmNance Malcolm Nance Retweeted KA Semenova
Official Warning: #PodestaEmails are already proving to be riddled with obvious forgeries & #blackpropaganda not even professionally done.

https://twitter.com/MalcolmNance/status/784539641529720832

So, by now, it's not clear if he is saying the forgeries are in the Wikileaks stuff, or if (as actually happened) someone has tried to pass off something else as coming from Wikileaks.

Then DailyNewsBin gets it wrong: they interpret what Vance said as "WikiLeaks is releasing falsified emails not really from Hillary Clinton" without actually checking to see what he was tweeting about.

The moral of the story? Check what people are talking about, by following links, if there's any uncertainty at all. And don't count 'DailyNewsBin' as a news source, but rather as a partisan fan who writes before thinking or checking.

[Retired George]

38. This should be on Page One

If it isn't already. (Posting Before Looking. Bad George! BAD George!)