CrowdStrike couldn't say for sure Russians stole DNC emails...

[Ronson]

At 3:06.

Ed Henry vacillates between saying "Putin" and "Russia" as though they are interchangeable. It's possible Putin wanted Trump to win and the military wanted Hillary to win, and then it's a matter of who actually meddled; one, both or neither.

The Russian "duma" while in session cheered when Trump won, so we know who they wanted anyway. But I still say Putin hates Hillary and he never would have wanted her to win, or any of the Obama gaggle.

[Juvenal]

So, for those who don't know, a hash value of a file means you take a big file and mix up the data in a clever way to get a much smaller value (e.g. 97f674d1e001697fd685da6ce17789b9). The odds of two different files having the same hash value is effectively 0 (should be 1 / (2^128)).

I think 16^32 is more intuitive, or some variation on 2^10 ~ 1000 hence 1000^12.8 or roughly a trillion to one for decimal dinosaurs.

That's not even in the same ballpark as the orders of magnitude generated by DNA matches. Those numbers run on 4^bases. Matching up a thousand base pairs is just a warm up and that's already 2^2000 ~ 10^200, leaving hash crashing probabilities in their digital dust.

But any road, the basics are there. It's a trillion to one odds that it's the same file. That's enough, all by itself, even before you look at the fact we had digital eyes on the GRU operation after one of the fancy bears forgot to fire up his VPN leaving his tookus hanging out for the world to see.

Yes, Even Elite Hackers Make Dumb Mistakes
By Lily Hay Newman
03.25.2018

That's from 2018. No one who's honest would be trying to resurrect the claim it wasn't Russia at this point, except maybe a Russian asset pushing Russian agitprop because that's what they do.

Russian disinformation network is said to have helped spread smear of U.S. ambassador to Ukraine
By Isaac Stanley-Becker
Dec. 17, 2019 at 10:01 a.m. EST

[Juvenal]

Just The News is the site Solomon launched after getting booted from the Hill.

An internal review following his removal resulted in editor's notes being added to 14 Solomon pieces.

The Hill's review of John Solomon's columns on Ukraine
BY THE HILL STAFF - 02/19/20 09:00 AM EST

As early as 2018, he was removed from the Hill's news staff after something of a writer's rebellion. After he wrote up the "Do Not Prosecute" list, disinformation that made its way into the impeachment hearings, the writing was on the wall. They had to dump him. The criticism was bringing down the entire organization. The Wemple blog is just one example, but it's pretty damning.

Opinions
John Solomon leaves behind lasting damage at the Hill

By Erik Wemple
Media critic
November 15, 2019 at 6:44 p.m. EST

He's shameless.

Link added. The byline names Olivia Beavers as the reporter of the article published 11/15/19 01:58 PM EST, five hours before the Wemple piece.

Three months later, the Hill did the full take-down on his Ukraine reports cited above.

[rogue06]

Didn't he end up dead?

The victim of a fairly strange robbery.

[Mountain Man]

The victim of a fairly strange robbery.

So strange, in fact, that nothing was actually taken from him, so I'm not sure on what basis the police ruled it a "botched robbery".

[rogue06]

So strange, in fact, that nothing was actually taken from him, so I'm not sure on what basis the police ruled it a "botched robbery".

And IIRC it took place hours after he left to walk home which was like 5 minutes away.

[DivineOb]

Seth Rich? Holy moly you guys...

In any case, are we done on this? Juvenal pointed about the VPN thing which I had forgotten about and which is incredibly strong evidence.

[seanD]

Seth Rich? Holy moly you guys...

In any case, are we done on this? Juvenal pointed about the VPN thing which I had forgotten about and which is incredibly strong evidence.

By beef is with the intelligence community about this subject. They've proven in the past they aren't trustworthy, and they've proven they're still not trustworthy, neither is the democratic political party that serve as their political surrogates. As far as Crowdstrike, I didn't know the specifics about the DNC server issue until you pointed that out.

[Mountain Man]

I think 16^32 is more intuitive, or some variation on 2^10 ~ 1000 hence 1000^12.8 or roughly a trillion to one for decimal dinosaurs.

That's not even in the same ballpark as the orders of magnitude generated by DNA matches. Those numbers run on 4^bases. Matching up a thousand base pairs is just a warm up and that's already 2^2000 ~ 10^200, leaving hash crashing probabilities in their digital dust.

But any road, the basics are there. It's a trillion to one odds that it's the same file. That's enough, all by itself, even before you look at the fact we had digital eyes on the GRU operation after one of the fancy bears forgot to fire up his VPN leaving his tookus hanging out for the world to see.

Yes, Even Elite Hackers Make Dumb Mistakes
By Lily Hay Newman
03.25.2018

That's from 2018. No one who's honest would be trying to resurrect the claim it wasn't Russia at this point, except maybe a Russian asset pushing Russian agitprop because that's what they do.

Was this ever actually confirmed? I ask because the Daily Beast report doesn't offer any substantiation other than their say-so ("The Daily Beast has learned..."), and they make reference to Mueller's embarrassing Russian troll farm indictment fiasco, a move that blew up in the dirty cop's face when it became clear that he didn't have the evidence to support the charges, and the case was eventually dropped by the Department of Justice.

[Juvenal]

Was this ever actually confirmed? I ask because the Daily Beast report doesn't offer any substantiation other than their say-so ("The Daily Beast has learned..."), and they make reference to Mueller's embarrassing Russian troll farm indictment fiasco, a move that blew up in the dirty cop's face when it became clear that he didn't have the evidence to support the charges, and the case was eventually dropped by the Department of Justice.

Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election

There's excruciating detail from designators for the individual GRU units involved, the hundreds of spearphishing attacks targeting the DCCC, including the specific attack a week earlier that provided access to the servers, and the google searches used to mine idioms used by the Guccifer 2.0 persona for its WordPress account.


The further suggestion that evidence was lacking for the indictments is contradicted by the filing which instead cites the need to protect recently reclassified information.


And lastly, the repetition of baseless accusations against Mueller warrants pushback. There is no evidence of any personal profit by Mueller. On the contrary, he has devoted a lifetime to serving the public, beginning with his decision to volunteer for service in Vietnam, where he was decorated for his service, including the Bronze star with V for valor, the Purple Heart, and various commendation medals.

After resigning his commission, he devoted a lifetime to the Justice Department, serving in roles from U.S. Attorney to FBI director, and his resumption of a minor role as a simple homicide prosecutor at a substantial paycut after leaving the FBI directorship.

His appointment as FBI director came after a unanimous, 98-0 vote of approval in the Senate, a week before the attacks on 9/11. His reputation as a conservative Republican was responsible for his nomination. His reputation as an exemplary public servant was responsible for the overwhelmingly bipartisan support.

Mueller's service to our country has always been beyond reproach, and no less so when he warned that Russia's attacks on our country are ongoing, perhaps perfectly exemplified by these resurrected attempts to absolve Russia for its responsibility for the hacks during the 2016 campaign. These attacks, reckless of the overwhelming evidence long since provided against them, can only serve the interest of a hostile foreign power, and warrant the question whether your interest in supporting a particular candidate is more important than your interest in supporting your country.

[Mountain Man]

Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election

There's excruciating detail from designators for the individual GRU units involved, the hundreds of spearphishing attacks targeting the DCCC, including the specific attack a week earlier that provided access to the servers, and the google searches used to mine idioms used by the Guccifer 2.0 persona for its WordPress account.


The further suggestion that evidence was lacking for the indictments is contradicted by the filing which instead cites the need to protect recently reclassified information.


And lastly, the repetition of baseless accusations against Mueller warrants pushback. There is no evidence of any personal profit by Mueller. On the contrary, he has devoted a lifetime to serving the public, beginning with his decision to volunteer for service in Vietnam, where he was decorated for his service, including the Bronze star with V for valor, the Purple Heart, and various commendation medals.

After resigning his commission, he devoted a lifetime to the Justice Department, serving in roles from U.S. Attorney to FBI director, and his resumption of a minor role as a simple homicide prosecutor at a substantial paycut after leaving the FBI directorship.

His appointment as FBI director came after a unanimous, 98-0 vote of approval in the Senate, a week before the attacks on 9/11. His reputation as a conservative Republican was responsible for his nomination. His reputation as an exemplary public servant was responsible for the overwhelmingly bipartisan support.

Mueller's service to our country has always been beyond reproach, and no less so when he warned that Russia's attacks on our country are ongoing, perhaps perfectly exemplified by these resurrected attempts to absolve Russia for its responsibility for the hacks during the 2016 campaign. These attacks, reckless of the overwhelming evidence long since provided against them, can only serve the interest of a hostile foreign power, and warrant the question whether your interest in supporting a particular candidate is more important than your interest in supporting your country.

I'm aware of what the dirty cop's report says, and his case for Russian hacking is exceptionally weak.

None of this means that the Mueller report's core finding of "sweeping and systematic" Russian government election interference is necessarily false. But his report does not present sufficient evidence to substantiate it.

https://www.realclearinvestigations....ng_claims.html

I'm also aware of the dirty cop's excuse for why he couldn't prosecute the case against the 13 Russian ham sandwiches trolls, which begs the question: why did he indict them if he wasn't ready to take the case to trial? It's pretty obvious that he was just looking to add another trophy to his mantle in order to give the false appearance of a legitimate investigation and that he never expected the defendants to actually contest the charges and force him to sheepishly tell the judge that the dog ate his homework.

[DivineOb]

I'm aware of what the dirty cop's report says, and his case for Russian hacking is exceptionally weak.

MM, I've already demonstrated you to be totally unwilling to actually dig into the original data sources when drawing your conclusions (e.g. the supposed FBI docs which demonstrate lying and evidence withholding). Why should we assume you have actually looked in depth at the original sources in this case (e.g. the Mueller Report itself)?

[Mountain Man]

MM, I've already demonstrated you to be totally unwilling to actually dig into the original data sources when drawing your conclusions (e.g. the supposed FBI docs which demonstrate lying and evidence withholding). Why should we assume you have actually looked in depth at the original sources in this case (e.g. the Mueller Report itself)?

Help me out here: Are you appealing to the ad hominem fallacy, or the genetic fallacy?

[DivineOb]

Help me out here: Are you appealing to the ad hominem fallacy, or the genetic fallacy?

Neither of those.

Ad hominem would be if I attacked you unjustly and discarded your argument for that reason e.g. I said you cheated on your wife with her sister so your argument is invalid. I did nothing of the sort.

Claiming the genetic fallacy in this case is even further off base.

What I'm doing is accurately characterizing you as someone who likes to copy / paste without reading or understanding what is actually being said. This is true and clearly evidenced recent (i.e. as of last week) behavior.

[Mountain Man]

Neither of those.

Ad hominem would be if I attacked you unjustly and discarded your argument for that reason e.g. I said you cheated on your wife with her sister so your argument is invalid. I did nothing of the sort.

Claiming the genetic fallacy in this case is even further off base.

What I'm doing is accurately characterizing you as someone who likes to copy / paste without reading or understanding what is actually being said. This is true and clearly evidenced recent (i.e. as of last week) behavior.

Right, so it's the ad hominem fallacy. Thanks for clarifying.