Do Our Intelligence Agencies Suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome?

anatta

100% recycled karma
It would be more than a little disturbing if we found out that our intelligence agencies suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome, especially with the inauguration of Donald Trump as our president only slightly more than two weeks away.

Nevertheless, we have been told that 17 -- count 'em, 17 -- of our intelligence agencies are sure that the computers of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee were hacked by Russians under direct orders of their capo di tutti capi Vladimir Putin himself. And, as we all know, Putin and Trump are bosom buddies, in cahoots to... well, we're not sure about that part, but they must be up to something.

But two current news reports throw a bit of that cold Siberian ice on the seventeen's putative assumption. And one of those reports comes from Vermont, which, although not Siberia, at this time of year is close enough. Apparently the Washington Post, ground zero these days when it comes to Trump Derangement Syndrome, got a story a bit wrong. You might even call it (gasp!) "fake news

As federal officials investigate suspicious Internet activity found last week on a Vermont utility computer, they are finding evidence that the incident is not linked to any Russian government effort to target or hack the utility, according to experts and officials close to the investigation.

An employee at Burlington Electric Department was checking his Yahoo email account Friday and triggered an alert indicating that his computer had connected to a suspicious IP address associated by authorities with the Russian hacking operation that infiltrated the Democratic Party. Officials told the company that traffic with this particular address is found elsewhere in the country and is not unique to Burlington Electric, suggesting the company wasn’t being targeted by the Russians. Indeed, officials say it is possible that the traffic is benign, since this particular IP address is not always connected to malicious activity.

The investigation by officials began Friday, when the Vermont utility reported its alert to federal authorities, some of whom told The Washington Post that code associated with the Russian hackers had been discovered within the system of an unnamed Vermont utility. On Friday evening, The Post published its report, and Burlington Electric released a statement identifying itself as the utility in question and saying the firm had “detected the malware” in a single laptop. The company said in its statement that the laptop was not connected to its grid systems.


The Post initially reported incorrectly that the country’s electric grid had been penetrated through a Vermont utility.


(The Post goes on solemnly to explain that the malware "does not appear to be connected with Grizzly Steppe, which U.S. officials have identified as the Russian hacking operation." Don't you just love "Grizzly Steppe"? John le Carré would probably have done a little better, but it's not bad.)

The Wages of Trump Derangement Syndrome

Anyway, amusing. But the other story is more pertinent and comes from someone no one ever accused of Trump Derangement Syndrome -- Sean Hannity. He had Julian Assange on his show and asked the WikiLeaks head the following:

HANNITY: Can you say to the American people, unequivocally, that you did not get this information about the DNC, John Podesta's emails, can you tell the American people 1,000 percent that you did not get it from Russia or anybody associated with Russia?

JULIAN ASSANGE: Yes. We can say, we have said, repeatedly that over the last two months that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party.

That appears definitive, but there's some slight equivocating by Assange when he says WikiLeaks' source for the Pedestal and DNC hacks "is not the Russian government and it is not a state party." It still could be some kind of Russian, but it would seem not to be connected to Putin at all, if we are to believe Assange.

Can we? I think most people agree that pretty much everything WikiLeaks has published over many years (I think ten at this point) has been accurate. For Assange to lie about something this important now would demolish his reputation. Why would he risk doing that? Well, there are reasons, of course. He could be a longtime Russian agent. But I'm skeptical.

Assange ascribes the reason for the current brouhaha about Russia to an attempt to wound Trump's reputation before he takes office. Given the timing, certainly that's part of it, even if Putin were involved. And there's this:

ASSANGE: Our source is not a state party, so the answer for our interactions is no. But if we look at our most recent statement from the US government, which is on the 29th of December, OK, we had five different branches of government, Treasury, DHS, FBI, White House presenting their accusations to underpin Obama’s throwing out 29 Russian diplomats. What was missing from all of those statements? The word WikiLeaks. It’s very strange.

I thought it was 35 Russian diplomats, but never mind, it is "very strange" that the word "WikiLeaks" was omitted. Scratch that -- it's not all that strange that Assange's organization was not mentioned because WikiLeaks, to most people, including me, connotes non-state actors, not Putin or any other fat cat. Think Scandinavian bohemians with a jaundiced attitude toward Russia and America, not to mention Germany, France, and just about everybody else.

In any case, the Podesta emails made great reading, if only for the schadenfreude. We shall see -- or not -- how they were obtained. Still, it's worth noting we have all heard the criticism of Donald Trump that he is not attending all his daily intelligence briefings. Maybe he knows something. Maybe he has something to fear.
https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/201...-trump-derangement-syndrome//?singlepage=true
 
what intelligence agencies? Lets be accurate. All we are going on here is the word of Washington Post.
 
that appears definitive, but there's some slight equivocating by Assange when he says WikiLeaks' source for the Pedestal and DNC hacks "is not the Russian government and it is not a state party." It still could be some kind of Russian, but it would seem not to be connected to Putin at all, if we are to believe Assange.
however Obama/McCain et all is acting like it's definative.

I read someplace that he sanctions on Russia were some of the most punative in a (while/ever /recently) - not sure.
One thing is becoming clear is that Obama did jump the shark. The report that went on about the Russians had a disclaimer "for informational purposes only"
Yet it's treated as gospel by Obama
 
Grizzly Steppe" - FBI, DHS Release "Report" On Russian Hacking

As part of the "evidence" meant to substantiate the unprecedented act of expelling 35 Russian diplomats and locking down two Russian compounds without a major concurrent political or diplomatic incident, or an act of war, and which simply provides an outlets for the Democrats to justify the loss of their candidate in the US presidential election (sorry, Putin did not tell the rust belt how to vote), the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI released a 13-page "report" on the Russian action done "to compromise and exploit networks and endpoints associated with the U.S. election", i.e., hack it.

As the DHS writes, "this document provides technical details regarding the tools and infrastructure used by the Russian civilian and military intelligence Services (RIS) to compromise and exploit networks and endpoints associated with the U.S. election, as well as a range of U.S. Government, political, and private sector entities. The U.S. Government is referring to this malicious cyber activity by RIS as GRIZZLY STEPPE."

Where things get awkward, however, is at the very start of the report, which prefaced by a broad disclaimer, according to which nothing in the report is to be relied upon and that everything contained in it may be completely false.

No really: "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."

hich then begs the question who provides warranties of any kind to the allegation that Russia hacked the election, the 13-page report supposedly provides technical details regarding tools and infrastructure used by Russian civilian and military intelligence services to “compromise and exploit networks and endpoints associated with the U.S. election, as well as a range of U.S. Government, political, and private sector entities.”

So with that useful background in mind, we present some more notable excerpts from the report, where we get an introduction to the alleged Russian "parties" - APT and APT 28. and note that nowhere in the report is it actually confirmed that these are the two alleged hackers or that they were instructed to "hack" the DHS (or the election as Obama puts it) by the Kremlin.

DHS%20report%201_0.jpg


While there is more in the report below,http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-29/grizzly-steppe-fbi-dhs-release-report-russian-hacking
essentailly what it does is blames several "known" Russian hacking organizations for what was simply a very unsophisticated phishing attack, one which could have been conducted by any 15-year-old in Cambodia or any other location around the globe.

The report comes as part of a slate of retaliatory measures against Russia issued Thursday by the Obama administration in response to the hacks. The Intelligence Community in October formally attributed the attacks to Russia, but provided no evidence to support its assessment. It is unclear if this report, for which the DHS "does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding" its contents is what is supposed to pass off as "proof" that Russia hacked the US election; if so, Putin will indeed be laughing all night.
 
They knew about the "hacks" months ago and no one cared. Until Trump won.

Not true, Russian meddling in our electoral system was covered in the second debate, remember the Donald's explanation that it was some 400lb fat guy sitting on his bed, and, the intelligence community bought before Congress in early September, inwhich it was squashed by McConnell
 
Grizzly Steppe" - FBI, DHS Release "Report" On Russian Hacking

As part of the "evidence" meant to substantiate the unprecedented act of expelling 35 Russian diplomats and locking down two Russian compounds without a major concurrent political or diplomatic incident, or an act of war, and which simply provides an outlets for the Democrats to justify the loss of their candidate in the US presidential election (sorry, Putin did not tell the rust belt how to vote), the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI released a 13-page "report" on the Russian action done "to compromise and exploit networks and endpoints associated with the U.S. election", i.e., hack it.

As the DHS writes, "this document provides technical details regarding the tools and infrastructure used by the Russian civilian and military intelligence Services (RIS) to compromise and exploit networks and endpoints associated with the U.S. election, as well as a range of U.S. Government, political, and private sector entities. The U.S. Government is referring to this malicious cyber activity by RIS as GRIZZLY STEPPE."

Where things get awkward, however, is at the very start of the report, which prefaced by a broad disclaimer, according to which nothing in the report is to be relied upon and that everything contained in it may be completely false.

No really: "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."

hich then begs the question who provides warranties of any kind to the allegation that Russia hacked the election, the 13-page report supposedly provides technical details regarding tools and infrastructure used by Russian civilian and military intelligence services to “compromise and exploit networks and endpoints associated with the U.S. election, as well as a range of U.S. Government, political, and private sector entities.”

So with that useful background in mind, we present some more notable excerpts from the report, where we get an introduction to the alleged Russian "parties" - APT and APT 28. and note that nowhere in the report is it actually confirmed that these are the two alleged hackers or that they were instructed to "hack" the DHS (or the election as Obama puts it) by the Kremlin.

DHS%20report%201_0.jpg


While there is more in the report below,http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-29/grizzly-steppe-fbi-dhs-release-report-russian-hacking
essentailly what it does is blames several "known" Russian hacking organizations for what was simply a very unsophisticated phishing attack, one which could have been conducted by any 15-year-old in Cambodia or any other location around the globe.

The report comes as part of a slate of retaliatory measures against Russia issued Thursday by the Obama administration in response to the hacks. The Intelligence Community in October formally attributed the attacks to Russia, but provided no evidence to support its assessment. It is unclear if this report, for which the DHS "does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding" its contents is what is supposed to pass off as "proof" that Russia hacked the US election; if so, Putin will indeed be laughing all night.

You are aware that your source is an opinion piece
 
You are aware that your source is an opinion piece
analysis -opinion..it's making the point that the whole report is of dubious worth for sanctions.
If you clik at the 2nd to last paragraph - there is a link to the actual report.

It's pretty skimpy. The recommendations really only go to how to secure from hacking-it identifies the hacking
but as the "opinion" says it's quite possible other besides the Russian code have used that code.

Most important is the disclaimer on the report itself- far from anything definative

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."
 
I'm not sure what your point is here.

It doesn't hit me as surprising that the intel community hasn't dumped their full intel.

Doing so would surely divulge our sources and methods.

After all, that IS what you are asking for.
 
what intelligence agencies? Lets be accurate. All we are going on here is the word of Washington Post.

You cons are hilarious.

Everyone on trump’s team complains that the CIA hasn’t given Trump its evidence against Putin. They neglect to mention that Trump, as president-elect, could ask for it, but he doesn’t.

“I’m sure he could get that intelligence briefing—right?—if he wanted to,” CNN’s Kate Bolduan on Friday. Conway changed the subject. (This week, according to Conway, Trump has finally “agreed” to be briefed.)
 
I'm not sure what your point is here.
It doesn't hit me as surprising that the intel community hasn't dumped their full intel.
Doing so would surely divulge our sources and methods.

After all, that IS what you are asking for.
not at all. Do you see any definitive conclusions here?
Sources and methods aren't needed. It traces the hacking's technical details -that's it.
this document provides technical details regarding the tools and infrastructure used by the Russian civilian and military intelligence Services (RIS) to compromise and exploit networks and endpoints associated with the U.S. election,
That's pretty skimpy . notice also the disclaimer -yet it's used as "definative proof" the Russian did the hacking.
It's the full reasoning for the Obama sanctions,yet
DHS "does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding" its content
 
Not true, Russian meddling in our electoral system was covered in the second debate, remember the Donald's explanation that it was some 400lb fat guy sitting on his bed, and, the intelligence community bought before Congress in early September, inwhich it was squashed by McConnell

McConnell can't quash it now, apparently. Obama must've believed old Mitch, because he didn't do squat until Hillary lost. Then he expelled a few diplomats.
 
anatta, its transparent this is political and not about intelligence or threat. If there was a true hack, Congress would be in a frenzy and evidence being combed over. It has not happened. it is the 'WMDs" but hacking instead.
 
anatta, its transparent this is political and not about intelligence or threat. If there was a true hack, Congress would be in a frenzy and evidence being combed over. It has not happened. it is the 'WMDs" but hacking instead.
the only thing I know for sure -and it's becoming clear -is that Obama jumped the shark.
It sure seems "poitical"in that he had toget his licks in before Congress holds hearings -Select or common Intelligenge.

I do tend to agree-given his frenzy of XOs (executive orders) which certainly in some cases look to
tie Trumps hands-like he ban on Arctic drilling.
That's particularly odious as Putin is drilling,but he can't use hi-tech Exxon equipment -because of previous Crimean sanctions.

So for all that. it does indeed appear trying to make Putin radioactive on the way out the door.
 
anatta, its transparent this is political and not about intelligence or threat. If there was a true hack, Congress would be in a frenzy and evidence being combed over. It has not happened. it is the 'WMDs" but hacking instead.

trump knows full well there was hacking but he's afraid to admit it. What's to keep him from saying that he read every briefing and concluded there was no hack, if that's the case?

Like your leader you guys are just afraid to face facts.
 
analysis -opinion..it's making the point that the whole report is of dubious worth for sanctions.
If you clik at the 2nd to last paragraph - there is a link to the actual report.

It's pretty skimpy. The recommendations really only go to how to secure from hacking-it identifies the hacking
but as the "opinion" says it's quite possible other besides the Russian code have used that code.

Most important is the disclaimer on the report itself- far from anything definative

Second Paragraph, "While there is more in the report below, essentially what it does is ..........,' as I noted, an opinion piece, an opinion piece your framing as documentation
 
anatta, its transparent this is political and not about intelligence or threat. If there was a true hack, Congress would be in a frenzy and evidence being combed over. It has not happened. it is the 'WMDs" but hacking instead.

"Congress would be in a frenzy and evidence being combed over," how gulible can one get?

Ah, the Russians influenced help half these guys get elected, did you really thing they were going to rush out and "investigate" it?
 
"Congress would be in a frenzy and evidence being combed over," how gulible can one get?

Ah, the Russians influenced help half these guys get elected, did you really thing they were going to rush out and "investigate" it?

the left wing elected idiots would be screaming to high heaven, its not happening
 
One word. NSA. Clinton was at fault for revealing classified information concerning deep cover agents in the Middle East. The NSA had the means, the method and the motivation to show this person just how the game is played. How difficult is it to issue any number of misdirected communications in order to deflect the deed at another entity? That's exactly why there will never be any objective, testable information concerning Russia's part in altering the election. There is no such evidence. If such evidence actually exists.....present it.
 
Second Paragraph, "While there is more in the report below, essentially what it does is ..........,' as I noted, an opinion piece, an opinion piece your framing as documentation

so read the report itself.
I gave you the link to the report-see it? It's not uncommon to use opinions -as long as the source material is there.
if you disagree, then refute it
 
Back
Top