John McAfee: No Proof Russians Hacked The Election

89 thoughts on “John McAfee: No Proof Russians Hacked The Election

  1. Tony From Long Island

    Why the hell is anything from Alex Jones allowed on this site?

    How is this a credible source of information?

    The headline itself is contradicted by several reports by the intelligence community . . . .or is that all fake news now?

    #sad!

  2. George Phillies

    The actual reports are much more ambiguous than parts of the press are reporting. Also, readers who go through Politico will find statements from Congressional Democrats who (i) are reading the actual raw intelligence data (ii) are not finding anything dramatic though they are still looking, and (iii) are concerned that the Colosseum mob excuse me, their gentle constituents may be annoyed with them when they report there is smoke but no fire. Note also that Comey’s denials were very precisely worded. Finally, note that the historical record set by Clapper is that these intelligence people are happy to lie to Congress.

  3. Andy

    “Tony From Long Island
    March 21, 2017 at 07:13
    Why the hell is anything from Alex Jones allowed on this site?

    How is this a credible source of information?”

    Because John McAfee just ran for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination last year, and although he did not win it, he is still newsworthy, and the purpose of IPR is to report on things related to minor party and independent candidates.

  4. DJ

    It’s here because the poster wanted it here. Knowledge isn’t biased about where it comes from and credibility is a “proof is in the pudding” axiom. I suspect McAffee has a bit of credibility when it comes to computers and the internet. If you don’t like it, don’t watch it. If there is “credible” proof it’s not an accurate assessment, by all means, post it.

    The bru-ha-ha is ALL BS by those unhappy with Trump and are the same group who said nothing about Clinton’s Chinese involvement.

  5. Jill Pyeatt

    “The bru-ha-ha is ALL BS by those unhappy with Trump and are the same group who said nothing about Clinton’s Chinese involvement.”

    These people also ignore Clinton’s involvement with Russia, which is documented. There is no evidence that Russia was involved in the past election, although the intelligence agencies have been looking since July. This should be soooo over by now.

  6. Jill Pyeatt

    The fact that I’ve corrected the record about Russia doesn’t mean I’m a Trump supporter. It means that we should be past this stupid non-issue and get to exposing Trump’s more serious bad deeds, such as drone-bombing a mosque and killing over 40 innocents.

    The Russia issue is to Republicans like the birther issue was for Democrats.

  7. Tony From Long Island

    Andy: ‘ . . . .Because John McAfee just ran for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination last year, and although he did not win it, he is still newsworthy, and the purpose of IPR is to report on things related to minor party and independent candidates. . . . ”

    It could be from David Nolan himself and it still would be garbage from a conspiracy theory website.

  8. Tony From Long Island

    DJ: ” . . . . The bru-ha-ha is ALL BS by those unhappy with Trump and are the same group who said nothing about Clinton’s Chinese involvement. . . . . ”

    There are two separate things:

    1) Russia tried to influence our election using cyber means. That is pretty much accepted.

    2) The Trump people were in Cahoots with Russia. – This is still an open investigation.

    Chinese involvement? Are you going to cite another alex jones story for that?

  9. Tony From Long Island

    Jorge Filipe: ” . . . go through Politico will find statements from Congressional Democrats who (i) are reading the actual raw intelligence data (ii) are not finding anything dramatic though they are still looking, . . . ”

    Only a small few have been given the classified briefing. They have not commented directly on what they were briefed . . . because it’s classified!!

    Jorge Posada: ” . . . . The actual reports are much more ambiguous than parts of the press are reporting . . . ”

    No. They’re not. They state pretty categorically that Russia hacked into both the Dems and Reps and then disseminated what they felt would be in their best interest.

  10. Andy

    “Tony From Long Island
    March 21, 2017 at 11:20
    Andy: ‘ . . . .Because John McAfee just ran for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination last year, and although he did not win it, he is still newsworthy, and the purpose of IPR is to report on things related to minor party and independent candidates. . . . ‘

    It could be from David Nolan himself and it still would be garbage from a conspiracy theory website.”

    Tony just provided us an excellent example of closed minded thinking.

  11. Andy

    Tony From Long Island said: “1) Russia tried to influence our election using cyber means. That is pretty much accepted.”

    Even if this is true (which I doubt). the US government has influenced the elections in other countries for a long time.

    Also, we were going to be screwed no matter what happened in the last presidential election. The only other person would would have won would have been Hillary Clinton, and we’d certainly be no better off if she had been elected. Even the Libertarian Party’s ticket sucked, not that the LP stood any real chance of winning that race no matter who was on the LP ticket.

  12. Tony From Long island

    Andy: ” . . . .Tony just provided us an excellent example of closed minded thinking. . . . ”

    yeah, you got me . . . I give Alex jones no credibility. Guess I’m closed minded.

    I am far from the only person on this board who thinks you are a nut bag conspiracy theorist. Most tolerate you quietly. I don’t.

  13. Tony From Long island

    Andy: ” . . . . Even if this is true (which I doubt). the US government has influenced the elections in other countries for a long time. . . . ”

    Children use this comeback “Mommy . . . he did it too . . . ”

    Guess you don’t care that the integrity of our election was compromised. No big deal to the guy who thinks mass shootings are fake and staged.

  14. Tony From Long island

    Andy: ” . . . .Also, we were going to be screwed no matter what happened in the last presidential election. The only other person would would have won would have been Hillary Clinton . . . . ”

    Really? You’re going to go back to the old “she’s no better . . . ”

    You look at the 60 days of a continuous daily shit storm and honestly say “she’d be no better.”

    I am not talking about policy or taxes, or military or any issue you can name. I am not big fan of Mrs. Clinton as I have noted numerous times, but come on! This guy is just an utter joke. He can not string two coherent sentences together and can’t go more than a day without insulting someone (or some country).

    A true international embarrassment

    #sad!

  15. George Phillies

    The source for wikileaks specified…covered in the Guardian iirc…that the source for the emails was an internal leak, with a data handoff in DC, and not Russian hacking.

    The classified material being examined was not a briefing, it was direct access to the raw data.

    Someone could have leaked a claim that the RNC was trying to tilt the nomination to Trump, the way the DNC (Wasserman and Brazile) tried to tilt the nomination to Clinton, but no one would ever have believed it.

  16. Tony From Long Island

    George: ” . . . .The classified material being examined was not a briefing, it was direct access to the raw data . . . ”

    Comey’s own words during the hearing yesterday was that it was a brief . . . but 6 of one, half a dozen of the other . . .

    Goerge: ” . . . .The source for wikileaks specified…covered in the Guardian iirc…that the source for the emails was an internal leak . . . ”

    Hard to follow your syntax, but you are taking WikiLeaks on their word as to where they got it? I’ll go with our intelligence experts.

    That someone in the Clinton Camp leaked every single one of Podestas’ e-mails is laughable on it’s face.

  17. Jim

    Tony From Long Island “Chinese involvement? Are you going to cite another alex jones story for that?”

    I think the reference is to Bill Clinton’s presidency. There were a number of illegal donations from the Chinese to Clinton and other Democrats totaling millions of dollars from 1994-96. Gore was having fundraisers at a Chinese Buddhist temple in California, other money was coming through the Chinese embassy in Washington DC. Some of it was traced back to Chinese military intelligence. This was followed in 1996 and 1998 by the sales of two satellites from a US company to China, over the objections from Clinton’s National Security team because the components of the satellites would provide a huge boost to Chinese rocket technology. The owner of that company just happened to be a major Democratic donor.

  18. dL

    Hard to follow your syntax, but you are taking WikiLeaks on their word as to where they got it? I’ll go with our intelligence experts.

    I will go w/ the cypherpunks & libertarians @wikileaks over the liars and stasi at the FBI, thank you.

    That someone in the Clinton Camp leaked every single one of Podestas’ e-mails is laughable on it’s face.

    Don’t know who leaked the data(DNC and Clinton Foundation are separate cases), but the claim that foreign intel organs are officially in the business of sourcing their spycraft to wikileaks is an extraordinary one. Would be unprecedented. Not to mention a fantastic development: The Spy who jumped into the public frying pan.

  19. Jim

    dL “the claim that foreign intel organs are officially in the business of sourcing their spycraft to wikileaks is an extraordinary one.”

    Can you think of a better place to dump it? Let’s say they’re objective was to create a PR nightmare for Hillary and cause chaos on the D side of the campaign. They wouldn’t even waste time digging through what they hacked. The US media would do that for them. All they had to do was dump it somewhere.

  20. Tony From Long Island

    dL ” . . . .but the claim that foreign intel organs are officially in the business of sourcing their spycraft to wikileaks is an extraordinary one. . . . . ”

    What? It’s perfect for plausible deniability. They give it to someone who gives it to Assange.

  21. George Phillies

    Comey’s hearing is irrelevant to the main Congressional effort, in which Congress has direct access to the raw intelligence data and is examining it.

    The claim that wikileaks got the material from an internal leak is not from wikileaks; it is from iirc The Guardian. Believe the FBI, the folks who gave us COINTELPRO? Or Clapper, the dude who was caught lying to Congress? Well, no, only a total idiot would do that.

  22. dL

    Can you think of a better place to dump it?

    What? It’s perfect for plausible deniability.

    Spooks are not in the business of sourcing their spycraft. There’s a difference between (1) planting a story or a document and (2) handing over your spycraft to an independent journalist organization for analysis and distribution. Now I don’t doubt the American spooks are involved in a media cointelpro to dupe gullible ppl that’s how the Russian spooks operate. yeah… quite a bit of half truths at play, particularly the intentional conflation of engaging in spycraft(duh!) w/ sourcing the spycraft to a western journalist org like wikileaks(LOL!). Plausible deniability must meet the threshold of “plausible.”

  23. Jim

    dL “Spooks are not in the business of sourcing their spycraft. There’s a difference between (1) planting a story or a document and (2) handing over your spycraft to an independent journalist organization for analysis and distribution. Now I don’t doubt the American spooks are involved in a media cointelpro to dupe gullible ppl that’s how the Russian spooks operate. yeah… quite a bit of half truths at play, particularly the intentional conflation of engaging in spycraft(duh!) w/ sourcing the spycraft to a western journalist org like wikileaks(LOL!). Plausible deniability must meet the threshold of “plausible.”

    “LOL!” and “I don’t believe it!” are not convincing arguments. If their only goal was to cause problems for Hillary and hide their trail, wikileaks was perfect. The only goal was anonymous distribution. They didn’t have to plant a story or do analysis. They knew they could rely on the media to make a mountain out of some molehill buried in those emails if the mere fact that those around her couldn’t secure their data on top of sending classified emails by unsecured email wasn’t enough.

  24. Tony From Long Island

    HORE-HEY: ” . . . . Comey’s hearing is irrelevant to the main Congressional effort, in which Congress has direct access to the raw intelligence data and is examining it. . . . ”

    First of all, not every member of congress has access to the data. Second, who do you think showed them the data? …..Comey

    How is Comey’s hearing “irrelevant” to the congressional effort? It’s a friggin congressional hearing! Part said “congressional effort!” Sometimes it is difficult to follow your train of thought . . . but then again, you think I’m a moron and a ‘total idiot,’ so that might explain it.

  25. Jill Pyeatt

    “No big deal to the guy who thinks mass shootings are fake and staged.”

    Yes, and that’s proven by the many mass shootings that have occurred under Trump’s administration. Oh, wait…

  26. George Phillies

    I said “main”, and the data from the reports I have seen is CIA and NSA.

  27. Jill Pyeatt

    “That someone in the Clinton Camp leaked every single one of Podestas’ e-mails is laughable on it’s face”.

    Seriously, Tony–stop believing those fake news sites.

    I believe that disgruntled Democrats leaked the emails, although maybe not all of them. Many of the lost emails were found on Wieners’ laptop (under a file called “Life Insurance).

    The writers of the emails have not denied that the emails were genuine, and not one Wikileak has been proven to be false. And we’d probably be at war with Russia by now if Missy Clinton had won.

  28. Tony From Long Island

    Jill: ” . . . Yes, and that’s proven by the many mass shootings that have occurred under Trump’s administration. Oh, wait… . . . ”

    Jill, it’s been 60 friggin days!! Jeez! wow. 60 days proves that mass shootings are fake? None ever happened while Bush was President I guess.

    Also, your seething hatred of Hillary Clinton makes you unable to have an independent thought or post on anything related to her.

  29. Jill Pyeatt

    “The US media would do that for them.”

    Except the Mainstream Media hasn’t. That’s why alternative media and citizen journalists like me are doing it. This is the whole reason the dumb #Fake News nonsense was created: to try to discredit the tons of information we were and are putting out.

  30. Tony From Long Island

    You just told me to stop reading Fake new sites . . . then say that fake news is nonsense . . .. hmm

    . . . . no such thing as “mainstream media . . . ” just media . . . some better than others.

  31. Jill Pyeatt

    Thanks for the links, Jim. So, there has been paltry coverage from the Mainstream Media. Considering the tremendous volume of information we’ve learned from Wikileaks, those links have just covered a few of the earlier revelations.

  32. dL

    “LOL!” and “I don’t believe it!” are not convincing arguments.

    Jim, when s/o claims pigs are flying(i.e, extraordinary claims), the burden is on the one making the extraordinary claim. LOL! is a typical response to a typical extraordinary claim. To say LOL! is not a convincing argument that “pigs are not flying” is the fallacy of the misplaced burden.

    Spooks do not source their spycraft. That’s why they are called spooks. Government intel orgs do not source their spycraft. Oh, I have no doubt the FBI might claim the Ruskies are in the business of sourcing their spycraft. But ask the FBI if the FBI is in the business of sourcing their spycraft. No need, actually. The FBI just recently dropped their entire child porn sting cases to avoid having to disclose their spycraft.
    http://gizmodo.com/fbi-drops-all-charges-in-child-porn-case-to-keep-sketch-1793009653

    Didn’t just fall off the turnip truck. Wasn’t born yesterday. Not a gullible person. I’ve known about Julian Assange going back to the 90s. Wikileaks for a decade. I don’t get my info re: computer security/hacking from cable/satellite TV news speculation.

  33. Jim

    I picked out a few at random from before the election. There are thousands upon thousands.

  34. Jim

    dL “Spooks do not source their spycraft. That’s why they are called spooks. Government intel orgs do not source their spycraft. blah, blah, blah…”

    Information isn’t collected for the sake of collecting information. The purpose of collecting information is to act on it. That action can be unique to the circumstance.

  35. dL

    Information isn’t collected for the sake of collecting information. The purpose of collecting information is to act on it. That action can be unique to the circumstance.

    blah, blah, blah…

    FIFY RE: the proper identification of useless content filler posing as a demonstration of absolutely nothing

  36. DJ

    Tony From Long Island
    March 21, 2017 at 11:22

    DJ: ” . . . . The bru-ha-ha is ALL BS by those unhappy with Trump and are the same group who said nothing about Clinton’s Chinese involvement. . . . . ”

    There are two separate things:

    1) Russia tried to influence our election using cyber means. That is pretty much accepted.
    …………………..

    Accepted by whom? The press? The same press that ignores all democrat foibles?
    The credibility you’re looking for isn’t in the msm. It, like the gov’t, lost its credibility a long time ago.

    2) The Trump people were in Cahoots with Russia. – This is still an open investigation.
    …………..

    In cahoots with? Or corresponding with? An open investigation is a joke. There’s always an investigation, they make congress look relevant.

    Chinese involvement? Are you going to cite another alex jones story for that?
    …………………

    No. I paid attention when Bill Clinton was in office. Did you?

    Like I said, knowledge (good, bad or indifferent) isn’t biased where it comes from.
    I’ll add it can manifest itself in ways unimaginable.

    Kinda like the knowledge the msm and gov’t puts out everyday. Most of it is worthless BS to distract from the real problems we have. But, it manifests itself and gets believers to direct their attention away from the real problems created by those “in cahoots” with one another inside the beltway to continue their reign of benevolent tyranny.

  37. Jim

    You’re still not making an argument. All you’re doing is saying over and over again ” LOL! No Way! No, I don’t believe it! It can’t be true! Turnip Trucks!” And then, ironically, whining about me posting useless content.

    You seem to be under the impression that there are rules which govern how Russian intelligence agencies act in every circumstance and they cannot operate outside of the lines you have imagined. And I think that’s ridiculous and they will act in whatever manner circumstances require.

  38. dL

    You’re still not making an argument.

    Jim, I clearly stated the burden is on you to demonstrate that Russia is sourcing their spycraft to wikileaks. It’s not on me , brah. Extraordinary claims require proof. And I mean proof. Not conjecture, not speculation, not a plausible scenario, not a B movie plot. Not a MSNBC talking head. Not an Alex Jones rant. Proof. I’m competent enough in the area of computer security/hacking to be able to independently assess the merit of any proof .

    And then, ironically, whining about me posting useless content.

    And I’m not whining about anything, brah. I merely C&P’d your original response, giving it the proper contextual respect it deserved.

  39. Andy

    “Tony From Long island
    March 21, 2017 at 11:48
    Andy: ‘ . . . .Tony just provided us an excellent example of closed minded thinking. . . . ‘

    yeah, you got me . . . I give Alex jones no credibility. Guess I’m closed minded.”

    Your opinion of Alex Jones is not relevant to this being newsworthy for IPR. John McAfee ran for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination last year. This alone makes this newsworthy for IPR.

    “I am far from the only person on this board who thinks you are a nut bag conspiracy theorist. Most tolerate you quietly. I don’t.”

    Lots of people agree with me on lots of things as well.

    Who gives a shit about your stupid comments? You are probably the dumbest person who posts here.

  40. Tony From Long Island

    Andy: ” . . . .Who gives a shit about your stupid comments? You are probably the dumbest person who posts here. . . . ”

    Coming from a conspiracy theorist, I am honored with the title! Thanks. What about Anthony D? Are we equally stupid because we both call you on your shit?

  41. Tony From Long Island

    DJ:

    1) Russia tried to influence our election using cyber means. That is pretty much accepted.
    …………………..

    Accepted by whom? The press? The same press that ignores all democrat foibles?
    The credibility you’re looking for isn’t in the msm. It, like the gov’t, lost its credibility a long time ago.

    1) There is no such thing as this mysterious “MSM.” There is media . . . some you like, some you don’t.

    2) Accepted by pretty much the entire country except paranoid anti-government anarchists, who stock up on canned foods and ammunition to fill the bunker they are building in their back yards (many of whom post here . . . ) and Republicans who are afraid of upsetting those few constituents of theirs who stock said bunkers.

    I’ll give you a link to the report, but I know you won’t believe a word because it came from THE GOVERNMENT!! http://documents.latimes.com/read-us-intelligence-report-russian-hacking/

  42. DJ

    Tony From Long Island
    March 22, 2017 at 08:46

    DJ:

    1) Russia tried to influence our election using cyber means. That is pretty much accepted.
    …………………..

    Accepted by whom? The press? The same press that ignores all democrat foibles?
    The credibility you’re looking for isn’t in the msm. It, like the gov’t, lost its credibility a long time ago.

    1) There is no such thing as this mysterious “MSM.” There is media . . . some you like, some you don’t.
    ……………..

    I don’t recall saying anything about anything “mysterious”. Main Stream Media, (which is quite obvious) which I’m sure you find credible is alive and well, though suffering tremendous credibility problems, and their election campaigning for Hillary is icing on that cake. The media has always been politically subjective, but, thanks to the internet and independents there are now other sources of info for those of us who know something ain’t quite right but aren’t eloquent enough, or have the desire, to publish our thoughts.
    But, you’re right. Some I like and some I don’t. I can be as subjective as they can, but, my subjectivity doesn’t sway elections and I don’t pretend to be smart.

    2) Accepted by pretty much the entire country except paranoid anti-government anarchists, who stock up on canned foods and ammunition to fill the bunker they are building in their back yards (many of whom post here . . . ) and Republicans who are afraid of upsetting those few constituents of theirs who stock said bunkers.
    ……………

    Can you provide “credible” evidence of your theory? Not a single person I’ve talked to believes it, and I assure you, neither they, nor I have a bunker. One of my buddy’s (who is a a few years older than me) is a life long democrat and recognizes it for what it is. Distraction. And he can’t stand Trump.

    I’ll give you a link to the report, but I know you won’t believe a word because it came from THE GOVERNMENT!! http://documents.latimes.com/read-us-intelligence-report-russian-hacking/
    …………..

    Why wouldn’t I believe it? I went through 12 pages and it’s a typical CYA by the fed gov’t filled with “assessment”, which as far as I can tell isn’t “proof” of anything. It’s an assessment with a very predictable outcome. Exacerbate the distraction- to do what? Distract- from the real problems we face, those being the corruption of federal employees who have to justify their existence so it/they can continue their reign of benevolent tyranny under the guise of “protecting” “We the people”.

    We’re so far off course it’s ridiculous and there is NO going back (without a great deal of suffering) it doesn’t matter who is elected to what position or what label they use to sell their diatribe.

    The ONLY difference between the R and D inside the beltway is the rhetoric used to sell BS to ensure (and insure) they remain in positions of authority, which is, IMO, diametrically opposite the original intent of the US coming about in the first place.

    ALL federal employees are supposed to be the servants. “We the people” the master, especially of our own destiny and not but one politician in recent history recognized that. In our early History Davy Crockett recognized it and is the only congress critter I have ANY regard for. All the R and D BS is distraction to divide and conquer-and it’s been very successful.

  43. George Phillies

    “There is no such thing as this mysterious “MSM.”” I’m sorry, what planet are you posting from?

  44. Tony From Long Island

    George . . . . yawn . . . .

    “mainstream media” is a made up nothing term. Some media is good , some isn’t. The fun thing is . . . YOU get to decide!

    Media, like everything, is made up of people, who are all fallible.

  45. Tony From Long Island

    George . . . *yawn*

    “mainstream media” is a made-up nothing term. Some media is good and some is bad. The fun thing is . . . YOU get to decide! yay!!

    Media is made up of people . . . who are fallible.

  46. Tony From Long Island

    I also would like to object to the Name of This Thread. Leave it to Andy to use a Vague Headline . . . clickbait . .

    “No Proof Russians Hacked The Election”

    What does that mean exactly? Did they literally hack into electronic ballot boxes and change vote tallies? Almost certainly no (though when will we learn and have a paper back up for EVERY vote . . . New York does).

    Did they steal private information and use it to advance their agenda? Almost certainly – and in many different forms.

    So, did they “hack” the election? Probably not. Did they “influence” the election? Without a doubt.

    Too many people don’t care apparently.

  47. George Phillies

    Readers who take Tony seriously on this should consider coverage pre-November of who was going to be elected President. MSNBC at least had a short — before the election was called — mea culpa session in which the realized they had been getting contrary warnings that Trump was ahead in the Democratic firewall states, and chose to ignore them. There is coverage of this at FiveThirtyEight.com and Sean Trende’s columns on RealClearPolitics.com

  48. Jill Pyeatt

    Okay, if you don’t like Andy’s title, Tony, here’s one I suggest:

    “There is Absolutely No Hard Evidence that Russia Was Involved in 2016’s Election Despite Multiple Intelligence Agencies Looking Since July”

  49. Tony From Long Island

    “There is no evidence because Jill doesn’t want there to be, so there will never be any” might work better.

    As for Jorge, pre-election national polls had Hillary winning by around 5 points. Well, she won by 3 points.. . . damn they were so inaccurate!

    I’ll give the link again but it won’t matter to Jill because it’s all clicks and pops since it comes from the government

    http://documents.latimes.com/read-us-intelligence-report-russian-hacking/

  50. dL

    I’ll give you a link to the report, but I know you won’t believe a word because it came from THE GOVERNMENT!!

    Nah, I read it. The report is a fucking joke.

    “We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC to wikileaks. Moscow most likely chose wikileaks because it’s self-proclaimed reputation for authenticity. Disclosures through wikileaks did not contain any evident forgeries.”

    Evidence to support this claim:

    (1) Putin denied Russian involvement, calling accusations against Russia a distraction.
    (2) Julian Assange once had a TV show on RT

    Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, lol, lolo lol lol, lol, lol, lol, lol. What a hoot.

    Doesn’t even meet the threshold standard of a straight to cable movie plot. No one with an ounce of critical faculties can take that seriously.

    To point out: there probably is little doubt that Russia state intel hacked the DNC, maybe even the Clinton Foundation. Along w/ 10 other state intel organs(the Israelis, the Chinese, the Russians, etc), not to mention probably one or two US domestic organs(CIA, NSA). Zero evidence however that Russian intel sourced their spycraft to wikileaks. Zero. Zero. Zero. Zero. Zero evidence Julian Assange is on the Russian government payroll. Zero. Zero. Zero.

  51. dL

    dL. so . . . . where did WikiLeaks get it from . . . ?

    I don’t know. The point of Wikileaks is ANONYMOUS leaked document sourced journalism. You are not supposed to know who leaked the documents. Anonymity is key to sources trusting wikileaks as a reliable publisher.

  52. Great ideas

    I wonder if secret government agencies under the direct control of Trump and his loyalists are paying Andy Jacobs (and Alex Jones) to post deceptive articles like this one, laughably denying the undeniable facts about Putin’s beachhead for the takeover of the US government using his paid agent, Donald Trump, and Trump’s entire inner circle which consists 100% of paid Putin agents and loyalists. As for McAfee, I don’t know if Trump much less Putin would bother to pay him. I suspect he can be had for the price of granting him an interview on Alex Jones or anywhere else that gets more than a few hundred audience members to help him maintain some name recognition to use in his pump and dump penny stock schemes.

  53. Jim

    dL “I clearly stated the burden is on you to demonstrate that Russia is sourcing their spycraft to wikileaks. It’s not on me , brah. Extraordinary claims require proof. And I mean proof. Not conjecture, not speculation, not a plausible scenario, not a B movie plot. Not a MSNBC talking head. Not an Alex Jones rant. Proof. I’m competent enough in the area of computer security/hacking to be able to independently assess the merit of any proof .”

    Moving the goalposts? Now you want proof. Earlier you said it didn’t meet the threshold of plausibility. The fact that the CIA, FBI, and NSA agreed with high confidence that the Russians did the hack and fed it to wikileaks ought to be enough achieve plausibility to any reasonable person, even if short of concrete proof – which is classified, as I’m sure you know.

    >>We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks.

    That’s what the report says. You can believe it or not, but claiming it isn’t plausible is ridiculous.

  54. Tony From Long Island

    Ok, so I don’t go as far as Mr. Idea. Andy is just a rube, not a paid rube. At least I’m not flying solo here anymore. Donde esta Antonio?

  55. dL

    Also, just to make clear: I could care less if Russia actually did source their spycraft to wikileaks. Indeed, what a wonderful development if the spooks of the world started sourcing their spycraft to independent journalist organizations like Wikileaks. Can’t imagine any better reform/transparency outcome short of mass abolition of the spook agencies. Then again, I’m a liberal, not a statist or a nationalist. And I’m not on any government payroll. Of course, people who are nationalists or on a govt payroll might have a different opinion.

  56. Andy

    “Jill Pyeatt
    March 22, 2017 at 12:31
    Okay, if you don’t like Andy’s title, Tony, here’s one I suggest:”

    This is NOT “my” title. I copied the title of the video that somebody else titled verbatim for the IPR post.

  57. Andy

    “Tony From Long Island
    March 22, 2017 at 08:40
    Andy: ‘ . . . .Who gives a shit about your stupid comments? You are probably the dumbest person who posts here. . . . ‘

    Coming from a conspiracy theorist, I am honored with the title!”

    “Conspiracy theorist” as a pejorative was concocted by the CIA to smear people who are critical thinkers and who question what people in the government say and do.

    “Thanks. What about Anthony D? Are we equally stupid because we both call you on your shit?”

    Anthony D said that if Mitt Romney were to show up at the Libertarian National Convention in 2020, and declare that he wanted to be the Libertarian Party’s candidate for President, that he’d vote for him. He also served as a cheerleader and apologist for all of the many fumbles and deviations from libertarianism that came from Gary Johnson and Bill Weld. Given these facts, I would not put a lot of stock in his opinions.

  58. dL

    Moving the goalposts?

    No. Third time I’ve said this. Extraordinary claims require proof. And sorry Jim, I don’t share the same trust and admiration for the intel organs that you apparently have. “Trust what the government says” is not a rational threshold standard for any sane person.

  59. Tony From Long Island

    I don’t have an issue with Russia using WikiLeaks. Makes perfect sense to me. I have an issue with Russia’s handiwork in general.

    You’re a liberal? Pretty hard to tell.

  60. dL

    I have an issue with Russia’s handiwork in general.

    Might want try to worry more about your own government. Of course, Putin is an authoritarian bastard. But it’s not like we don’t have enough of those here.

    You’re a liberal? Pretty hard to tell.

    Absolutely. I would think it would be pretty easy to tell.

  61. Tony From Long Island

    Usually the paranoid anti-government type are libertarian / conservative . . . . maybe you are an old-school hippie liberal.

    I consider myself a Liberal but I am not anti government. That’s sorta the antithesis of a liberal philosophy to me.

    Government is not perfect. It is inherently corrupt. It’s made up of people. But we always should strive to improve it, make it more efficient, to make it more accessible to make it work for more and more people.

    I certainly put my loyalty to my own country’s government before I any others, but I am not a blind patriot (yes, republicans . . .we can use the word “patriot” too).

  62. dL

    Usually the paranoid anti-government type are libertarian / conservative

    Some things you should be paranoid about. ACLU, EFF, NARAL, LP, etc, and over 100 orgs during my life have sent me literature trying to raise money by scaring the shit out of me. Often they aren’t wrong.

    maybe you are an old-school hippie liberal.

    Before my time. Liberal means liberal. There are no different categories of it(classical, modern, old school etc).

    Government is not perfect. It is inherently corrupt. But we always should strive to make it more efficient.

    Does not follow.

    I view the state at best as a necessary evil that is often quite efficient at what it does. Inefficient government is a conservative canard. When it comes to the monopoly of state, I value inefficiency over efficiency.

    I certainly put my loyalty to my own country’s government before I any others, but I am not a blind patriot

    Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

  63. Jim

    dL “Third time I’ve said this. Extraordinary claims require proof. And sorry Jim, I don’t share the same trust and admiration for the intel organs that you apparently have. “Trust what the government says” is not a rational threshold standard for any sane person.”

    Yes, you keep saying that you think it is extraordinary. It doesn’t seem so to me or most other people.

    I have no admiration for the intel organs. As for trust, sometimes they tell the truth and sometimes not. Sometimes they’re right and sometimes not. The same is true for everyone here, including you.

    The case they lay out is plausible. It seems more likely than the leading alternative theory – that DNC staffer Seth Rich gave wikileaks the info after being prompted to do so by an environmentalist group backing Bernie, and was on his way to meet with the FBI the very morning that Hillary had him murdered for the leak.

  64. Bondurant

    I’d like to see McAfee run for the LP nomination again. Full of flaws but puts them on display and does not hesitate to acknowledge his baggage.

  65. Great ideas

    Bondurant: no way. He’s getting shut down for his penny stock pump and dump schemes, and additionally may still be extradited to Belize.

    dL: “Might want try to worry more about your own government. Of course, Putin is an authoritarian bastard. But it’s not like we don’t have enough of those here.” It’s true that Putin’s puppet, Donald Trump, is the same sort of would be dictator as Putin, but Putin is way ahead of his protege in developing dictatorship.

    Tony from Long Island: “Ok, so I don’t go as far as Mr. Idea. Andy is just a rube, not a paid rube. At least I’m not flying solo here anymore. Donde esta Antonio?” My Great ideas are plural, and you have more than a 50% chance of being wrong regarding my gender (I’m not telling). As for Andy Jacobs, why do you think it is so unlikely that he may be getting paid for his trolling here?

  66. dL

    It’s true that Putin’s puppet, Donald Trump, is the same sort of would be dictator as Putin, but Putin is way ahead of his protege in developing dictatorship.

    May or may not be the case. A different argument than the assertion Russia is sourcing their spycraft to wikileaks or wikileaks/Assange are Putin puppets. Sans evidence, the place you are going to is that government leaks will be dismissed by the target government as mere cointelpro by foreign intel spooks. If you want a good start on how to develop and maintain dictatorship, classifying efforts at government transparency==Putin stooge would be it.

  67. dL

    Yes, you keep saying that you think it is extraordinary.

    It would be unprecedented, hence extraordinary.

    It doesn’t seem so to me or most some other people.

    FIFY

  68. Jim

    dL “It would be unprecedented, hence extraordinary.”

    They can be, but are not necessarily the same. A perfect game in baseball is extraordinary, but there have been 23 of them. The first pitch ever thrown in a baseball game under modern rules was without precedent, but was not likely extraordinary in effort or effect.

    dl “It doesn’t seem so to me or most some other people. FIFY”

    See what I mean about being wrong sometimes?

    “The Pew Research Center survey shows 72 percent of Americans who have heard or read about the allegations of hacking the DNC and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s personal email account believe Russia was “definitely” or “probably” responsible. Only 17 percent think Russia was “probably not behind” the hacks, and 7 percent say Russia was “definitely not” culpable.”

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/poll-russia-dnc-campaign-hack-233428

    It’s not just intelligence agencies that say it was Russia. CrowdStrike, the security firm hired by the DNC to investigate the problem, concluded it was a Russian intelligence operation, as have Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant, Ars Technica, SecureWorks, ThreatConnect, and others.

  69. Tony From Long Island

    Mr. (or Ms.) Ideas ” . . . . .As for Andy Jacobs, why do you think it is so unlikely that he may be getting paid for his trolling here? . . . . ”

    Because he’s nobody. He’s insignificant. Obsolete. Not worth a dime. Anyone who would think of paying him for his nonsense is even more crazy than he is.

    How many people actually see his garbage? 50 maybe? Not a great investment.

  70. dL

    They can be, but are not necessarily the same. A perfect game in baseball is extraordinary, but there have been 23 of them. The first pitch ever thrown in a baseball game under modern rules was without precedent, but was not likely extraordinary in effort or effect.

    I wrote (Unprecedented) –> (Extraordinary). I didn’t write (Extraordinary) –> (Unprecedented). The latter statement does not follow from the first. A common logical error that goes by the term “affirming the consequent.”

    The first pitch ever thrown in a baseball game under modern rules was without precedent, but was not likely extraordinary in effort or effect.

    Too literal w/ the interpretation. Since Time t is always monotonically increasing and doesn’t loop, everything occurs at a unique time T, and hence everything that occurs technically would be unprecedented. That would render the term descriptively worthless. The convention is not to use it to describe a routine event that only differs from a preceding routine event by virtue of datetime stamp or contextual technicality change.

    dl “It doesn’t seem so to me or most some other people. FIFY”

    “Most” is defined by the 80-20 rule. You need 80% to breach that threshold. And one random sampling poll is not enough to reliably establish the overall population statistic for any number of reasons. For example, a WSJ/NBC poll pegged it at 50%.
    http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/poll-russia-hacked-election/2017/01/17/id/769068/

    It’s not just intelligence agencies that say it was Russia. CrowdStrike, the security firm hired by the DNC to investigate the problem, concluded it was a Russian intelligence operation, as have Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant, Ars Technica, SecureWorks, ThreatConnect, and others.

    Conflating hacking the DNC w/ sourcing the spycraft to Wikileaks.
    https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/

    I have absolutely no doubt –given the amateur hour of Hillary Clinton managing her own SMTP server security—that the Russians along w/ probably every other major intel organ in the world, penetrated the DNC. Do not dispute that. I do dispute that the Russians sourced their spycraft to Wikileaks. Not one shred of evidence to establish this. Assange and Wikileaks insists their source on this is not a state actor. Sans incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, I will give them the benefit of the doubt.

  71. Thomas L. Knapp

    Quoth Tony:

    “Hard to follow your syntax, but you are taking WikiLeaks on their word as to where they got it? I’ll go with our intelligence experts.”

    Well, what your intelligence experts say is this:

    The methods that we won’t explain to you about the hacking that we won’t prove to you even happened are consistent with Russian methods, which we can spoof; so you should trust us when we say that the Russians hacked the election because it’s us saying it. After all, we’re the people who told you about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction and who pinky-promised that of course we were never spying on Americans.

    And what Wikileaks says is this: In ten years we have never been caught in a single lie nor have we ever had so much as a single one of the documents that we’ve released turn out to be fake. And we say that we didn’t get the information we released from the Russian government, but rather as a leak from an insider at the original source organization.

    Anyone who believes the US intelligence community over Wikileaks deserves to lose all their money in a Nigerian email scam. And probably will, if they don’t get hit crossing the street first. That’s pretty much maximum fucking naivete.

  72. Tony From Long Island

    You mean I don’t have a rich uncle in Nigeria? Damn!!

    I want to make clear that I am not screaming that there was collusion between the Russians and Trump. There might have been, but that’s why there are investigations.

    I have no doubt, however, that Russia used cyber means in an attempt to influence our election. it was done directly and through surrogates. It was done by a tremendous amount of fake news propaganda about Hillary that targeted independents as well as Bernie Supporters. It was done by hacking the DNC, the RNC and Podesta. That’s just the tip of the iceberg.

    They easily took advantage of a dumbed down populace . As the current national embarrassment (I mean POTUS) would say . . . . #Sad!

  73. Thomas L. Knapp

    “and additionally may still be extradited to Belize.”

    Odd use of the word “still,” given that there has never been any chance at all of that happening.

    For one thing, McAfee is not a suspect in any crime in Belize.

    For another, the governments of Belize and the US do not extradite to each other.

  74. Thomas L. Knapp

    Tony,

    You write:

    “I have no doubt, however, that Russia used cyber means in an attempt to influence our election.”

    Yes, I understand that you are absolutely certain of claims for which precisely zero actual evidence has yet been publicly revealed. You’re welcome to your certainty. But for most of us, certainty is not a substitute for evidence.

  75. Thomas L. Knapp

    Tony,

    I’ve read the report. I’ve studied that data annex to the report.

    There’s no evidence there.

    If you actually read the report for yourself, as you apparently haven’t yet, you’ll find that it consists of “we say that X happened because here’s some stuff that doesn’t prove X happened.”

    The major claim in the report is that we should believe the Russian government was behind certain hacks because the “methods” were “consistent with” how Russian government hackers do things. As they were. Of course those same “methods” are also consistent with the way every other hacking entity, private or government-affiliated, worldwide, does things (including, as Vault 7 showed us, the CIA itself).

    The more data-centric claims have to do with IP addresses that are associated with other exploits believed to be attributable to the Russian state. All well and good, except that those addresses are Tor exit nodes. There’s no way to tell where the stuff that exits them came INTO them from … and every hacker in the universe uses them for that very reason.

    The report boils down to “believe it because we say so.” And on that count, Wikileaks has proven itself over and over to be far more trustworthy and reliable.

  76. Tony From Long Island

    TK . . . I’m surprised at you. The report is the UNCLASSIFIED version. Can you at least admit that the classified version likely contains just a bit more information?

  77. Thomas L. Knapp

    Tony,

    Presumably there is a classified version. If they want to declassify it, I’ll read it. “Trust us because we say so” is not evidence, especially from an organization with such a piss-poor record on both the honesty and competence fronts when its claims are disputed by an organization with an impeccable record as regards both those metrics.

  78. Tony From Long Island

    I have generally found you to be one of the more reasonable pessimists on here. Not on this subject I guess.

    I hope you are pessimistic to the point that you are unwilling to listen as the shit storm keeps growing by the day.

  79. Thomas L. Knapp

    Tony,

    I consider myself reasonable, too. To me, reasonable means looking at the evidence, if there is any. So if any evidence ever shows up, I’ll look at it. Until then, all I have are the competing claims of two institutions, one with a record of honesty and competence, the other with a record of dishonesty and incompetence. Ceteris paribus, I’m going to go with the former until I have a reason to do otherwise.

    But let’s talk about being reasonable. My recollection is that when Hillary Clinton was irrefutably and beyond a shadow of a doubt proven in public to have broken the laws relating to the handling of classified information, that was just a bunch of bullshit to try to “get her.” Why are you applying the opposite standard to this? Reason also seems to hinge on consistency.

    I note that one of your problems with some people on this site is that they seem to consider Alex Jones to be a credible source. To the best of my recollection, the only time I’ve ever mentioned Alex Jones in public was to point out that he’s a lying sack of shit.

  80. Tony From Long Island

    I am not saying that any person is guilty of anything. I told you I am waiting to see how things play out before declaring that there was any collusion. Things do seem to pop up daily however . . .

    The only people guilty of anything so far are the Russians who do this all the time, not just to us.

    Hillary was not shown to have broken any law. I seem to recall an investigation closing with no charges.

    I have never claimed you were an Alex Jones kool-ade drinker. That’s one of the ways you are reasonable 🙂

    I have never once (yet) stated that Darth Trump should be impeached. He should resign out of embarrassment for being completely over his depth . . . but that’s another story.

    Weekend . . . until Monday . . .

  81. Andy

    Thomas Knapp said: “I note that one of your problems with some people on this site is that they seem to consider Alex Jones to be a credible source. To the best of my recollection, the only time I’ve ever mentioned Alex Jones in public was to point out that he’s a lying sack of shit.”

    I have followed Alex Jones since 2001, and I have found him to be a pretty reliable source of information. He usually gets stuff right, and when he does not, he usually posts a retraction. Alex Jones was talking about the NSA and CIA engaging in illegal domestic spying years before the Edward Snowden and Wikileaks revelations, and he was proven to be 100% correct.

    Also, the fact that this interview was conducted on Infowars is not relevant to why it is newsworthy for IPR. The purpose of Independent Political Report is to report on things related to minor political parties, and minor political party and independent candidates. John McAfee ran for the Libertarian Party’s presidential nomination last year. He did not win the nomination, but he is still a relevant figure in the minor party and independent candidate world, and he is still a member of the Libertarian Party. So regardless of what one thinks of Infowars (which just so happens to be one of the biggest independent news operations around), John McAfee appearing on one of their news segments is relevant to IPR. Also, note that Alex Jones was not even the one interviewing John McAfee in this segment, it was Infowars reporter David Knight, who is a former member of the Libertarian Party (I said former member, because after Gary Johnson and Bill Weld won the LP’s presidential nomination last year, David Knight was so disgusted that he said that he was going to burn his Libertarian Party membership card).

    John McAfee could appear on Sesame Street and it would be newsworthy for Independent Political Report.

  82. Thomas L. Knapp

    Andy,

    I never said a word as to the newsworthiness of the story. I agree — McAfee is newsworthy for IPR.

    Tony,

    We seem to be talking about two separate things:

    (1) Were Russian state actors responsible for WikiLeaks receiving and releasing the DNC/Podesta emails?

    (2) Did Trump campaign/administration personnel collude with Russian state agents during the campaign for the purpose of affecting the outcome of the election?

    I have no strong opinions on (2) yet, but I wouldn’t be surprised. American presidential campaigns have a long record of colluding with foreign regimes to affect the outcomes of elections. It’s not like that’s usually a secret — almost all major party presidential candidates make it a point to visit Tel Aviv and publicly fellate the prime minister of Israel at least once in each campaign cycle, then brag about it on stage.

    On (1), I’ll believe it when I see evidence. Until I do, I go with the most credible and believable party to the matter, which is WikiLeaks.

  83. Tony From Long Island

    (1) yes (2) maybe

    Andy’s post on Alex Jones was predictable . . . . good nigt

  84. Thomas L. Knapp

    “(1) yes”

    Yes. I understand that you WANT that to be true. The problem is that so far not an iota of actual evidence has emerged to suggest it’s true. “Because I want to believe it and someone said I should so I will” is not evidence.

  85. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp
    March 24, 2017 at 15:50
    Andy,

    I never said a word as to the newsworthiness of the story. I agree — McAfee is newsworthy for IPR.”

    When I spoke of the newsworthiness of this story for IPR, I was referring to Tony, who thinks that anything from Infowars is “icky” and should not be posted as an article for IPR, even if it is completely relevant to IPR’s mission, which is to cover things related to minor political parties, and minor political party and independent candidates.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *