White House fails to make case that Russian hackers tampered with election

[bananas]

http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/12/did-russia-tamper-with-the-2016-election-bitter-debate-likely-to-rage-on/?comments=1

White House fails to make case that Russian hackers tampered with election

US issued JAR billed itself as an indictment that would prove Russian involvement.

DAN GOODIN - 12/30/2016, 3:09 PM

Talk about disappointments. The US government's much-anticipated analysis of Russian-sponsored hacking operations provides almost none of the promised evidence linking them to breaches that the Obama administration claims were orchestrated in an attempt to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.

The 13-page report, which was jointly published Thursday by the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI, billed itself as an indictment of sorts that would finally lay out the intelligence community's case that Russian government operatives carried out hacks on the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Clinton Campaign Chief John Podesta and leaked much of the resulting material. While security companies in the private sector have said for months the hacking campaign was the work of people working for the Russian government, anonymous people tied to the leaks have claimed they are lone wolves. Many independent security experts said there was little way to know the true origins of the attacks.

Sadly, the JAR, as the Joint Analysis Report is called, does little to end the debate. Instead of providing smoking guns that the Russian government was behind specific hacks, it largely restates previous private-sector claims without providing any support for their validity. Even worse, it provides an effective bait and switch by promising newly declassified intelligence into Russian hackers' "tradecraft and techniques" and instead delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups.

<snip>

[pbmus]

1. Why am I reading something older than snot...

[bananas]

6. It's less than three weeks old, and it's still valid.

Two days ago, 20+ intelligence veterans wrote an open letter to Obama asking him for some real evidence:

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/01/17/a-demand-for-russian-hacking-proof/

A Demand for Russian ‘Hacking’ Proof
January 17, 2017

More than 20 U.S. intelligence, military and diplomatic veterans are calling on President Obama to release the evidence backing up allegations that Russia aided the Trump campaign – or admit that the proof is lacking.

<snip>

As President for a few more days, you have the power to demand concrete evidence of a link between the Russians and WikiLeaks, which published the bulk of the information in question. Lacking that evidence, the American people should be told that there is no fire under the smoke and mirrors of recent weeks.

<snip>

Six days ago, the lawfare blog pointed out:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/why-are-trump-allegations-hanging-around-when-they-havent-been-substantiated

Why Are the Trump Allegations Hanging Around When They Haven’t Been Substantiated?

By Susan Hennessey, Benjamin Wittes
Thursday, January 12, 2017, 5:39 PM

<snip>

We now know that the FBI has been looking into the material in these documents for approximately seven months; a large number of reporters have been diligently working to verify leads for nearly as long. What does it mean that, currently and at the time of the briefings to the President and President-elect, no specific allegations have been verified?

On one hand, the fact that no specifics appear to have been validated should give everyone a lot of pause. If someone puts a lot of falsifiable facts on the table and large numbers of people spend large amounts of time trying to corroborate them and cannot do so, that generally tends to indicate that they are not true.

<snip>

James Clapper is responsible for much of the bad intelligence about Iraq's WMD's:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/01/idiots-pushed-iraq-war-now-stirring-hysteria-russia-part-2.html

The Same Officials Who Pushed the Iraq War Are Now Stirring Up Anti-Russia Hysteria

Posted on January 6, 2017 by WashingtonsBlog

The main U.S. intelligence official pushing claims that Russia hacked the Democratic party is James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence.

But Clapper was responsible for a lot of the bogus intelligence which led to the Iraq war. Newsweek reported in 2010:

President Obama’s nomination of Pentagon intelligence chief James Clapper as intelligence czar could reignite the Bush-era debate over how and why agencies overstated Saddam Hussein’s weapons-of-mass-destruction arsenal before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. Clapper played an important role in that estimate; from 2001 to 2006 he headed the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon unit responsible for interpreting spy-satellite photos and other technically gathered intelligence like air particles and soil samples. And now the conservative Washington Times is reviving the argument, reporting that in Clapper’s judgment the Iraqi dictator evaded the post-invasion WMD search by hiding at least part of the arsenal across the border in shortly before the invasion.

<snip>

[pbmus]

7. Your screen name is good....I like bananas...

[Denzil_DC]

10. It wouldn't have hurt to make it clear in your OP

that this was the December report. Otherwise, given the number of current posts on this of all days, I'd imagine many DUers would assume this was actually news.

Thanks to pbmus for pointing this out.

[shraby]

2. Since the date of this article, it was decided to form a bi-partisan committee to hold

and investigation with subpoena powers.

[bananas]

8. Hope it doesn't turn into another HUAC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence.[1] It also means "the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism."[2] The term has its origins in the period in the United States known as the Second Red Scare, lasting roughly from 1950 to 1956 and characterized by heightened political repression as well as a campaign spreading fear of influence on American institutions and of espionage by Soviet agents.

<snip>

"McCarthyism" soon took on a broader meaning, describing the excesses of similar efforts. The term is also now used more generally to describe reckless, unsubstantiated accusations, as well as demagogic attacks on the character or patriotism of political adversaries. During the McCarthy era, thousands of Americans were accused of being communists or communist sympathizers and became the subject of aggressive investigations and questioning before government or private-industry panels, committees and agencies. The primary targets of such suspicions were government employees, those in the entertainment industry, educators and union activists. Suspicions were often given credence despite inconclusive or questionable evidence, and the level of threat posed by a person's real or supposed leftist associations or beliefs was often greatly exaggerated. Many people suffered loss of employment and/or destruction of their careers; some even suffered imprisonment. Most of these punishments came about through trial verdicts later overturned,[4] laws that were later declared unconstitutional,[5] dismissals for reasons later declared illegal[6] or actionable,[7] or extra-legal procedures that would come into general disrepute.

The most notable examples of McCarthyism include the speeches, investigations, and hearings of Senator McCarthy himself; the Hollywood blacklist, associated with hearings conducted by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC); and the various anti-communist activities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) under Director J. Edgar Hoover. McCarthyism was a widespread social and cultural phenomenon that affected all levels of society and was the source of a great deal of debate and conflict in the United States.

<snip>

[Squinch]

3. Since this walk down memory lane was first published, things have changed. You might want to

read up on the developments in the last three weeks.

[bananas]

9. Not much has changed, see my reply above.

Post #6 by me:
"It's less than three weeks old, and it's still valid."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=174803

Also, see "A Demand for Russian 'Hacking' Proof - Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016174768

[Chakaconcarne]

4. Why?

[Bill USA]

5. the report that was released was the declassified report. the Intel community said it had no

intentions of informing Russia of their methods and techniques of identifying Russia as the source of the hack.

Incredibly obtuse criticism.

[Sunlei]

11. Let's see the classified material before we start carrying water for Republicans unfit president

[Blue_Tires]

12. Goodin's argument is spurious at best...

It's also three weeks old, so you should find something better.

[LanternWaste]

13. Three ex-analysts demanded Churchill publicly provide the English people

Three ex-analysts demanded Churchill publicly provide the English people with evidence Enigma had been cracked when the first spider bombe was delivered to Bletchley Park in 1940.

Would arguably have been the worst decision made by the Western Allies to do so. But it certainly would have sated the curiosity of the dull and witless.