Fake News (the fight we needed to have?)

[TheDeamon]

Spicer's claim was that agents had their hands cuffed, that some rules might have limited how many deportations there could have been. Comparing Obama's deportations to Bush's doesn't have anything to do with that. It immediately calls into question any other AP fact checking (A shortcut to use in the future, to avoid doing as much research).

Don't bother to read the comments, you won't find anyone pointing out anything other than "Trump is great!" or "Trump sucks!"

LA Times has a more factual view:

Under President Obama, immigration officials increased deportations to an annual peak of about 400,000 people in 2012.

Following widespread outcry from immigration advocates, Homeland Security backed down on deportations, ordering agents to focus on expelling criminals, repeat immigration violators and recent arrivals. As a result, deportation totals fell to about 240,000 last year.

That second paragraph is certainly proof enough to consider Spicer's statement true, I would judge.

But also telling with the L.A. Times, they support the pro-Obama (anti-Trump) statistics first(knowing many will likely stop reading after getting that confirmation), then they get to pointing out that Obama did in fact restrict ICE enforcement options in his final year.

[TheDrake]

Remember the old reading comprehension tests? They're supposed to teach you to read the WHOLE THING.

[TheDeamon]

Remember the old reading comprehension tests? They're supposed to teach you to read the WHOLE THING.

Yes, and that will shield them legally, but that isn't human behavior, particularly in this day and age where a Goldfish can demonstrate a longer attention span than many Adults.

[rightleft22]

For the Trump to complained about fake news while relying on his rhetoric technique of “truthful hyperbole“  “innocent lying” is hypocritical at best or signs of a psychotic break at worse.

That Trumps acolytes don’t notice the dissonance or don’t care is troubling and short sighted. Worse they don’t realize that Trump and or the puppet masters behind the movement despise them for following them.

The Party that fears big government, the loss of constructional rights, and ‘freedom’ is in the process of creating the biggest government America has ever been ruled under.  all hail the “new political order” and it will rule.

[Seriati]

That's a lot of memes and slogans at once, how about you walk through why you think they have merit.

[cherrypoptart]

Trump told all of those lies and yet...

he's doing exactly what he said he was going to do.

That's why the left hates him so much.

[TheDeamon]

For the Trump to complained about fake news while relying on his rhetoric technique of “truthful hyperbole“  “innocent lying” is hypocritical at best or signs of a psychotic break at worse.

Add "inverted pyramid" to the list, although he's usually on the receiving end of that, aside from Breitbart and maybe Fox.

That Trumps acolytes don’t notice the dissonance or don’t care is troubling and short sighted. Worse they don’t realize that Trump and or the puppet masters behind the movement despise them for following them.

Or they're so jaded they don't really care, they've concluded everyone involved at that level lies. So it is more a question of which one is selling what.

The Party that fears big government, the loss of constructional rights, and ‘freedom’ is in the process of creating the biggest government America has ever been ruled under.  all hail the “new political order” and it will rule.

And a LOT of Republicans and Conservatives in congress and in the nation at large will push back because of that. The problem there is very few of the Republican Congressional critters place Conservatism very high on their priority list.

[rightleft22]

Trump told all of those lies and yet...
he's doing exactly what he said he was going to do.
That's why the left hates him so much...

That a false and dishonest argument
The left has always disliked Trump
During the Campaign Trump strategically keep details of how he would implement his promises. "Promises" obscured behind the smoke screen of his fake news / truthful hyperbole that always put into quesion what 'he really would do' (which way to many people fell for.  I suspect if he shared his plan of banning seven specific countries that that just might have woken up the Left.
the idea that such a move will make America safe and great again... is absurd.

That you acknowledge and don’t care that Trump used lies to achieve his agenda is disturbing and also unmasks you for what you are.
That you are unconsciously surrendering the values you have argued for in the past foolish

Be careful what you wish for. History starts now….
Enjoy your new world order.

[Seriati]

Fake News or real?   CNN is reporting that they have been blocked from today's White House briefing (and internet outrage has already made the rounds, with claims of first Amendment violations).  Is this real or fake?

How about some details.  The type of briefing was changed from a full on tv briefing with everyone invited to an off camera in office briefing where the "pool" is invited.  The pool is guaranteed only one media member from the networks and one from print, and they are charged with passing on what they find out to the rest of the media.  Spicer elected to expand the pool and instead of inviting just one network invited four (NBC, CBS, ABC and Fox).

So what do you think is it fake news or real that CNN was excluded when the White House actually invited 3 more networks than is typical for this type of briefing?

[TheDrake]

Well, they were excluded (white house confirmed the list). They attempted to enter the room and were blocked. AP refused to enter under the circumstances voluntarily. It is an unusual move, but not at all the Constitutional crisis people are making it out to be.

[Seriati]

So if they'd only done the typical for such a briefing and invited say NBC, would it be reasonable for CBS, ABC and FOX to run headlines acting like this was something atypical?  Not sure not invited is the same as excluded (which implies a right to be there).

[Seriati]

Lol, now their headline is all caps "UNPRECEDENTED ACT"

Notwithstanding that if you read their article, they themselves make it clear that the normal group for this kind of press briefing would exclude them more often than not.  They are really complaining that the White House did more than its required to and that is somehow unprecedented.

I really think CNN has gone off the deep end.  Ever since they got called out for running with the Fake News story on the unconfirmed Russian blackmail of Trump they've been acting like an "aggrieved" teenager with an attitude.

[rightleft22]

Trump told all of those lies and yet..
he's doing exactly what he said he was going to do

I’ve been hearing that as an excuse or comeback to argument a lot lately... as if it actually means anything

I just don’t get it. 
I mean that statement only makes sense if applied to the fools that voted for him and who might be upset about Trump “doing what he said he was going to do. 
The popular vote said no to trump and disagreeing/protesting is a valid response to a man who is attempting a coup like control of the US democracy. 

[Pete at Home]

Be careful what you wish for. History starts now….
Enjoy your new world order.

I’ve been hearing that as a comeback to factual corrections a lot lately... as if it actually means anything

I just don’t get it. 
I mean that statement only makes sense if applied to the folks that voted for him.  Not for those who simply correct alternative facts and hysterical claims against him.

The popular vote said no to trump and disagreeing/protesting is a valid response to a man who is attempting a coup like control of the US democracy.

Disagreeing/protesting is valid, but using Andrew Jackson's complaints against John Quincey Adams to refer to losing the election as a "coup" is not valid, and using such language is tantamount to calling for an actual coup.

Be careful what you wish for. History started a long time ago, and it helps to put things in their historical context.

[TheDeamon]

The popular vote said no to trump and disagreeing/protesting is a valid response to a man who is attempting a coup like control of the US democracy.

The popular vote also said "NO" to Hillary, so who is supposed to be running this show by that logic?

[TheDeamon]

The popular vote said no to trump and disagreeing/protesting is a valid response to a man who is attempting a coup like control of the US democracy.

Disagreeing/protesting is valid, but using Andrew Jackson's complaints against John Quincey Adams to refer to losing the election as a "coup" is not valid, and using such language is tantamount to calling for an actual coup.

Be careful what you wish for. History started a long time ago, and it helps to put things in their historical context.

Which isn't even to mention the "alternate reality" one would need to live in where a 48% Plurality of the popular vote somehow constitutes "majority support" for Hillary Clinton as President of the United States.

[rightleft22]

Using a word like coup was intentional.

History starts everyday. Any study of the past show time and again that change happens slowly (unnoticed) then all at once (usually with the people wondering how it happened)


Perhaps you think its not possible to undermined democracy and turn it into a new world order. Yet such things have been done in the past
You have a leader constantly attacking the media for false news while relying on truthful hyperbole, misdirection and and out right lies himself.  And America is letting him
His attacks on the media seldom explain what part of a news story is false (and his followers let him) and there is enough evidence to show that Trump labels anything that shows him in a negative light as being false. (and his followers lets him)
You have a leader who want to, no going to, increasing the military, homeland security, boarder security... a force with, if again he has his way, little oversight from the public. Don't worry you can trust him.

You think the system and Constitution will protect you from any misuse of such a force, maybe, but its not a sure thing, history has shown that playing with this type of fire tends to end badly.

[Pete at Home]

Using a word like coup was intentional.

History starts everyday. Any study of the past show time and again that change happens slowly (unnoticed) then all at once (usually with the people wondering how it happened)


Perhaps you think its not possible to undermined democracy and turn it into a new world order. Yet such things have been done in the past

I think it's quite possible.  I think it's been happening for some time now.  But that threat isn't just coming from Trump, but also from those who are calling for his removal and claiming false facts against him.

You have a leader constantly attacking the media for false news while relying on truthful hyperbole, misdirection and and out right lies himself.  And America is letting him
His attacks on the media seldom explain what part of a news story is false (and his followers let him) and there is enough evidence to show that Trump labels anything that shows him in a negative light as being false. (and his followers lets him)
You have a leader who want to, no going to, increasing the military, homeland security, boarder security... a force with, if again he has his way, little oversight from the public. Don't worry you can trust him.

I worry, and I don't trust him.  I worry that when he does do something seriously wrong, that the opposition will have discredited themselves with BS attacks against him.

I suspect but can't prove that Trump's allies, not his foes, planted that idiotic Russia piss story.  Knowing that every stupid lie they tell against Trump makes him stronger, makes his lies more bearable, "more sinned against than sinning."

[TheDeamon]

Using a word like coup was intentional.

History starts everyday. Any study of the past show time and again that change happens slowly (unnoticed) then all at once (usually with the people wondering how it happened)


Perhaps you think its not possible to undermined democracy and turn it into a new world order. Yet such things have been done in the past

. . .

You think the system and Constitution will protect you from any misuse of such a force, maybe, but its not a sure thing, history has shown that playing with this type of fire tends to end badly.

Being someone who has had close contact with the "tin foil hat" crowd since 1992, has been sympathetic to many of their claims, and even somewhat agreeable with other concerns they've raised in years past. I can fully relate. Many of the people you're arguing against probably "get it" better than you do. The "world" you now find yourself in is strange and frightening. Welcome to where many of them were 8 years ago, or where a number of people went back in 1992(and have remained) after George H. W. Bush gave his "New World Order" speech followed by Bill Clinton becoming PotUS in '93.

Yes, Democracies can be hijacked and overthrown, as we've seen happen internationally numerous times. Even the United States itself can be "hijacked" to various ends, as demonstrated by John Adams, Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and even Barack Obama as PotUS. Congressionally, we've even seen it happen with McCarthyism that I can recall off-hand.

Things can get bad when you're "under the thumb" of an opposing President with sufficient support, but history has also shown that it takes a LOT throw the Federal system off course. Also, the thing the Anti-Trump people are failing to realize is the long-term trajectory of the Federal Government has been towards the modern incarnation of "liberalism" (which scares me, frankly), and as such, while "Trump is scary" freaking out in his first month is overkill. Not even Glenn Beck was this hysterical in Obama's first month in office. While he may have gotten close to being this hysterical(regarding Obama) at points during Obama's first 2 years, I actually don't think he made it as far as "the left" has already  gone with Trump.

So that said, Trump raises a LOT of valid concerns, they're currently likely to only be short-term issues. As meaningful, lasting, change in the nature of the Federal Government is likely to require a decade or more of sustained control of the reigns of state. A cooperative congress during that time also helps considerably.

My concern is that "the opposition" (in the form of the Democrats/left-wing) are burning themselves out "in pursuit of the wrong things" right now. In some respects, I'm glad of that, because I don't like many aspects of their own respective agenda, so the sooner they render themselves functionally inert, the better. But in others, its bad because it leaves me wondering what the alternatives will be in 2 years.

Their focus should be on organising, educating, and preparing for 2018. Not on creating an ongoing political spectacle of unending opposition and protest to Everything Trump(tm).

But as it stands, early outcomes look to me like it'll likely be the Conservative/Libertarian(rather than reactionary/religious) aspects of the Tea Party acting during the Republican Primary races that will likely end up being the true backstop to anything particularly nefarious Trump may get up to. The Democrats and the left-wing still doesn't seem to "get it" but maybe they're still working through their 5 stages of grief.

Of course, the Libertarian approach to things further terrifies the Democrats on many fronts, ironic given the complaints right-left just voiced. Considering the Democrats are the one who typically advocate for ever increasing amounts of centralized (federal) control over things. The very same thing that is a pre-requisite of (quickly) implementing a tyrannical regime.

You don't build a build a very effective tyrannical regime by undermining your own power base by devolving control of things back to the citizens, or local communities(/states), themselves.

[Wayward Son]

There is an obvious reason why Trump wants to discredit major news sources as being "fake news."

If he can discredit them, then no one can question his version of facts, events, outcomes, and reasons.  Then he can control our perception of reality and mold it into whatever he wants.

Which works well for politics, but not for reality.  Because reality has this feature that it will affect you whether you believe in it or not.  It does not care.

But molding the perception of reality can keep you in power for quite a while if done right.

[TheDeamon]

Which works well for politics, but not for reality.  Because reality has this feature that it will affect you whether you believe in it or not.  It does not care.

But molding the perception of reality can keep you in power for quite a while if done right.

Trump is 70, I doubt he's very interested in this as a long term thing. Although who knows, maybe he's hoping this will start "a political dynasty" for his own family because of this. Lord knows, the media seems fixated on such things. First the Kennedy clan, then the Bush Family, followed by the Clinton's, they've even mentioned Obama's Daughters (and Michelle) for that matter.

I think Trump was looking to put his "stamp" on history, and being PotUS is a hard one to top. He's going to try to "fix" the myriad problems he had taken notice of from his perch in Trump Tower while he's staying the White House. Maybe help build up the "Trump" brand for his children, and clear away a lot of the Red Tape that would prevent them, and the many other Million and Billionaires he knows, from making money.

I doubt he's pursuing any kind of particularly deep agenda. Although if he turns out to be a Ferengi in  disguise we might have something to discuss on a wide range of other issues.

[TheDeamon]

Maybe help build up the "Trump" brand for his children, and clear away a lot of the Red Tape that would prevent them, and the many other Million and Billionaires he knows, from making money.

This should probably be expanded on a bit more: On the immigration front, Trump's Circle may not give two *censored*s about ethical, but they are concerned about legal. Which brings us back to Lincoln's maxim about the best way to get a bad law repealed is to strictly enforce it.

You need to pay more attention to some of the immigration rhetoric Trump has used, he supports legal immigration. What he doesn't like is the illegal stuff, because as a business who tries to keep his operations legal, the overabundance of illegal immigrants seeking work(and being reasonably effective at faking legal identities) makes it hard to keep his own organization compliant(as the media has verified). As well as making it harder for his company, and the companies of his associates, to compete against firms that are less scrupulous about legal compliance.

Trump knows full well that he can make money off of immigrants, but it is the legal side of things that creates the problem. He also knows the Democrat's attempted method of resolving things is nearing the definition of insanity(trying the same thing over and over again expecting a different result). As well as the illegal inflow also presenting valid national security concerns, which does seem to be something he does pay at least some attention to. Which means being the businessman he is, he's going to try a different approach, and break the log jam with a different approach, one with a seemingly eager support base. Well, they might be learning "be careful what you wish for" with Trump.

I'm still not convinced Trump is any kind of right-winger in any meaningful way beyond possibly being a "hardcore capitalist" as the Soviet Union would have labeled him. Which isn't as much of the Republican Party, or "the conservative masses" as some in here may want to believe. He's a Registered Republican who has lived in NYC for almost his entire life, and spent most of his Adult life as either Registered Democrat, or independent, his switch to republicanism came late in life. Of course, the same could be said of Ronald Reagan and his past interests in Communism.

[Seriati]

There is an obvious reason why Trump wants to discredit major news sources as being "fake news."

If he can discredit them, then no one can question his version of facts, events, outcomes, and reasons.  Then he can control our perception of reality and mold it into whatever he wants.

Or, he could be tired of watching the "neutral" media manipulate and guide stories to try and recreate the terms of the debate in ways that are completely hostile to his goals?

If you don't understand the power or the point of media manipulation, then why have you ever complained about Fox? 

But molding the perception of reality can keep you in power for quite a while if done right.

It certainly kept Obama in power for an extra term and almost put Hillary there instead of in prison, so I guess I have to agree with you.

[cherrypoptart]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/huppke/ct-paid-protesters-huppke-20170227-story.html

http://www.weaselzippers.us/224034-more-proof-of-paid-protesters-ad-asking-for-protesters-to-travel-to-protest-list-of-payouts-to-ferguson-protest-organizers/

I couldn't read the first story because it seems like you have to pay but the second one seemed good enough. The first is just a better source though I'm not sure it's the same story. Anyway, we were talking about paid protesters earlier. Maybe this is some information on how to sign up, where, and with whom. As they say, if you can get paid for doing what you love, or for doing what you were going to do anyway for free, you never have to work a day in your life.

[NobleHunter]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/huppke/ct-paid-protesters-huppke-20170227-story.html

http://www.weaselzippers.us/224034-more-proof-of-paid-protesters-ad-asking-for-protesters-to-travel-to-protest-list-of-payouts-to-ferguson-protest-organizers/

I couldn't read the first story because it seems like you have to pay but the second one seemed good enough. The first is just a better source though I'm not sure it's the same story. Anyway, we were talking about paid protesters earlier. Maybe this is some information on how to sign up, where, and with whom. As they say, if you can get paid for doing what you love, or for doing what you were going to do anyway for free, you never have to work a day in your life.

The first article is mocking the idea of paid protesters. The second one has some real convincing plain printouts showing alleged payouts. The amounts don't make the activity sound profitable if there's any real travel involved.

The real question regarding "paid protesters" is why now? If the left had the ability to pay for protests on the scale we've seen the last few weeks, why did they wait until they were frozen out of government to launch them? If they'd spent the last six years like this, they probably could have done a lot better at getting concessions out of the GOP.

[TheDrake]

Offering travel funding is a far cry from "paid protestors". Art supplies, permits, and t-shirts are normal things any group has to do - I certainly authorized those things when campaigning for FairTax. If you think nobody going to a tax day rally got their parking reimbursed, you'd be wrong. People in a picket line are getting help with food and necessities while on strike. Is the union "paying protestors"?

Also, assuming for the moment the veracity of an unsubstantiated printout in plain font, Take a look at the dates. There are about 40 line items for 3 months time. Do we really think that was the bulk of those protests?

The idea of the paid protestor argument is much like the Citizens United complaints. A very few are controlling and manipulating the masses. I don't see either one in that light.

[Seriati]

I mentioned, on another thread, about the Fake News connected with Session's "Russian contacts."   I found this article today, which bothered me because of the way the headline, "Could Attorney General Jeff Sessions face legal trouble?" implies that he could, whereas the article itself pretty much states he couldn't

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jeff-sessions-attorney-general-recusal-legal-consequences/

The whole point of writing that article is not to accurately report on the controversy, in which case based on the substance you'd have to label it fake news, but to create additional implications that there is something real here.

The media's power to make up a controversy is really without control.

[Seriati]

I seem to recall the incoming Obama administration being heavily involved in many many executive activities, including foreign policy, and they got nothing but praise for being pro-active.  I can't easily find any express references to them meeting with non-citizens about it, but I thought I recalled a number of such meetings occurring and being positively referenced by the press.

[NobleHunter]

Trump's people talking to foreign agents are a run of the mill scandal. Good for clickbait but not likely to come to anything. Trump's people lying about talking to foreign agents are what's causing real trouble.

[Fenring]

I was eating in a restaurant last night and there was a television on in the background. I heard some familiar types of sounds coming from it and realized, to my dismay, that I was being treated to some CNN coverage of Trump. It had been a little while since I'd observed CNN on the air, since I avoid television in general and especially 'news' channels, and it never ceases to amaze me how awful it is to listen to what they say on channels like this. It's really propaganda city, they don't even pretend anymore. I guess it's no surprise that CNN would be at war with Trump in particular, but I always found something smarmy and smug about how CNN personalities discuss issues. It's possibly even worse than FOX, at the risk of making this sound like hyperbole. Then again I've not seen all that much of FOX so maybe I avoided the worst of it.

[TheDrake]

That's a pretty bad headline, along the level of push polling.

The headline should have read "Sessions unlikely to face legal trouble"

Looking at BBC headlines:

Democrats Call on Jeff Sessions to Quit
Sessions Steps Aside From Russia Investigation
Trump defends under-fire Attorney General Jeff Sessions

Unequivocally true, neutral tone, real journalism. Full disclosure, I didn't evaluate the articles, just the headlines.

[NobleHunter]

I think headlines are a good indicator of spin, well, headlines and the first few paragraphs. It's really noticeable with the Daily Mail which will have an outrage-grabbing and scandalous headline and makes inflammatory accusations in the first paragraphs but burying the boring details several paragraphs in. So the school mandating daily Islamic prayers turns out to just be giving students permission to go pray if they want.

Journalistic integrity isn't dead, it's just buried under the lede.

[TheDrake]

It would be like making a headline - "New England Patriots Blown Out for Most of Superbowl"

Yeah, it's true, but....

[TheDrake]

Dang it. Spoke too soon. Just saw a side bar on BBC: Mike Pence's email 'hypocrisy staggering'

The linked article headline doesn't match the promo: Mike Pence accused of hypocrisy for hacked private emails

Somebody punched it up a little for the <click>.

And within? ....

But former US President Bill Clinton's adviser Paul Begala said Mr Pence was guilty of "staggering" hypocrisy.
"I'm trying to choke down the vomit," Mr Begala told CNN. "I'm sickened. It's too spectacular. Irony has not only died, it drank a gallon of antifreeze, climbed to the top of the Washington Monument and threw itself off.

You're BBC. Who cares about what somebody told CNN? Also, Begala hasn't been mentioned in over a week on CNNs site, though I did find the interview.

Meanwhile, Begala seems to know about as much about what the word irony means as Alanis Morissette

[Seriati]

So this caught my eye, in an article about whether black people are wrongfully convicted at a greater rate than white people, CNN threw this "fact" out:

While black people represent 13% of the US population, they represent a whopping 47% of the 1,900 exonerations in the registry.

Okay, sounds bad right?  But when you consider that the prison population is roughly 40% black people, 40-47 is not quite such a dramatic difference.  With only 1900 samples, it could be the result of random variation (it could also be the result of deliberate activism).

The point of the article is good, and the argument may have merit, there may in fact be bias at play leading to more wrongful convictions.  In fact they do discuss one source of that bias, there are more black on white crimes than the reverse, and there is a special risk of misidentification in cross-race situations.  However, ignoring the most relevant comparison in favor of what is really a completely irrelevant comparison undermines the case being made, and earns a "fake news" label from me for today.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/07/politics/blacks-wrongful-convictions-study/index.html

Edited to add:  I probably should have done a write up on CNN labeling Trump's wiretapping claims "baseless," initially.  "Unsubstantiated," would have been appropriate but baseless is a conclusion that wasn't supportable.   I note as a matter of comparison, they never labeled the claim that the video caused Benghazi as baseless.

[Pete at Home]

I doubt he's pursuing any kind of particularly deep agenda. Although if he turns out to be a Ferengi in  disguise we might have something to discuss on a wide range of other issues.

If?  Disguise?  What disguise? http://2w6kxc22rrr9mabqt1mglgait6.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Donald-Trump-Ferengi-ears.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClshNh4UoAAGCsc.jpg

[Gaoics79]

It's really propaganda city, they don't even pretend anymore. I guess it's no surprise that CNN would be at war with Trump in particular, but I always found something smarmy and smug about how CNN personalities discuss issues. It's possibly even worse than FOX, at the risk of making this sound like hyperbole. Then again I've not seen all that much of FOX so maybe I avoided the worst of it.

I used to watch CNN incessantly. It was on almost non stop in my house while I cooked or cleaned or whatnot. Since I'd say around Ferguson I have found it harder and harder to watch. Now if I so much as watch for a few seconds by accident I have to race to change the channel to pretty much anything else - it's like acid on my brain.

Note: not all news has this effect on me. I can watch, say, CTV or CBC or other Canadian news channels without much problem.

I think CNN and other channels like it are simply not "news" channels as we would understand it. I am not sure what they are, but whatever you want to call it, I can't watch. It's like an allergy you develop to something that never bothered you before. One day you wake up covered in hives and can't tolerate it.

[Pete at Home]

CNN is just doing to African Americans today what they did to white Americans during the LA riots.  Gathering a core viewership of self-pitying fear slaves and outrage bitches.

But for CNN that was a matter of survival, not of politics.  After CNN basically invented the 24 hour news cycle, Fox News displaced CNN as the masters of white panic, so CNN had to find new groups to parasitize.

[Fenring]

I'm not sure if this is the right thread since there is a lot of cross-posting on the topics of Trump, the media, and Russia. But anyhow here's an article I just read on the topic of Crowdstrike's reliability and the "fact" that Russia "hacked" the DNC and Podesta:

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/03/23/rush-to-judgment/

Crowdstrike published an analysis that claimed a malware program supposedly unique to Fancy Bear, X-Agent, had infected a Ukrainian targeting application and, using GPS to geo-locate Ukrainian positions, had turned the application against the Ukrainians, resulting in huge losses:
[...]
The only problem with this analysis is that is isn’t true. It turns out that Crowdstrike’s estimate of Ukrainian losses was based on a blog post by a pro-Russian blogger eager to tout Ukrainian losses: the Ukrainians denied it. Furthermore, the hacking attribution was based on the hackers’ use of a malware program called X-Agent, supposedly unique to Fancy Bear. Since the target was the Ukrainian military, Crowdstrike extrapolated from this that the hackers were working for the Russians.

All somewhat plausible, except for two things: To begin with, as Jeffrey Carr pointed out in December, and now others are beginning to realize, X-Agent isn’t unique to Fancy Bear.

Adding this account to the fact that Wikileaks themselves claimed the data was not hacked but rather was leaked, and additionally the fact that one of the leaks had an insider admit that he was the one who leaked it.

For those still afraid that Russia 'hacked the election', I would suggest considering that you are being maneuvered into being afraid of Russia for reasons others than protecting the American election process.

[Gaoics79]

Fenring, I don't know the truth of this obviously nor could I possibly have an informed opinion (nor can anyone, really, outside of the intelligence community and some rare experts with intelligence experience).

But, after watching US intelligence lie to us, blatantly, directly, and without remorse concerning mass surveillance programs (those lies being fact, not conjecture), I'm not overly inclined to trust pronouncements coming from that quarter - just the opposite.

Moreover, it is obvious to anyone who has watched news in the past few years that parts of the US government, for whatever reason, are intent on attacking Putin and Russia. Note, I am not saying they are necessarily wrong about Putin in anything they say about him. I am just saying they obviously have alot of desire (completely apart from election hacking), to attack him, which in my mind gives them ample motive to villify him, regardless of who hacked or didn't hack the election.

All that said, my gut tells me that we're being manipulated alot. I don't really trust the news anymore, not on this subject.

[linuxfreakus]

I agree without inside info we can't have a truly informed opinion... but my opinion of crowdstrike has been pretty low ever since the CEO went on the interview circuit (I happened to see him on CNN) claiming they "caught them in the act".  Which seems absolutely ridiculous since they were never brought on until after the leaks (or the DNC lied about that *also*).  They could not have caught them in the act if they weren't watching yet.... and all his explanations for how they supposedly knew who they were watching were just a whole lotta technical nothing sauce.

I don't know how we are supposed to be able to believe anything anymore.... I don't know *what* happened, but I know that what we've been told cannot be true, at least not in the narrative sense (bits and pieces maybe).

[Seriati]

I don't know how we are supposed to be able to believe anything anymore.... I don't know *what* happened, but I know that what we've been told cannot be true, at least not in the narrative sense (bits and pieces maybe).

Start by remembering the old adage, actions speak louder than words.  Try to parse self interest and never trust anyone when they are claiming high principals, that by chance, happen to align with their naked self interest (which unfortunately is most of politics).

We can't get truth out of public accounts where the truth was never present, but we can rationally weed out a bunch of falsity.

[LetterRip]

I agree without inside info we can't have a truly informed opinion... but my opinion of crowdstrike has been pretty low ever since the CEO went on the interview circuit (I happened to see him on CNN) claiming they "caught them in the act".  Which seems absolutely ridiculous since they were never brought on until after the leaks (or the DNC lied about that *also*).  They could not have caught them in the act if they weren't watching yet.... and all his explanations for how they supposedly knew who they were watching were just a whole lotta technical nothing sauce.

I don't know how we are supposed to be able to believe anything anymore.... I don't know *what* happened, but I know that what we've been told cannot be true, at least not in the narrative sense (bits and pieces maybe).

It is quite common for those who have compromised a system to continue accessing it and continuing to slurp up data until the system has been patched, etc., so they could be 'caught in the act' of accessing the system and stealing more data.

Here is a post by crowdstrike,

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/

Rather than accuse anyone of lying, you might consider that you misheard or misunderstood....  crowdstrike had been responding to instrussions on the DNC network back to 2015...

[linuxfreakus]

It is quite common for those who have compromised a system to continue accessing it and continuing to slurp up data until the system has been patched, etc., so they could be 'caught in the act' of accessing the system and stealing more data.

Here is a post by crowdstrike,

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/

Rather than accuse anyone of lying, you might consider that you misheard or misunderstood....  crowdstrike had been responding to instrussions on the DNC network back to 2015...

It doesn't say that.  It says they "identified intrusion" going back that far.  Although it doesn't say how, nor does it say that they were inside the DNC servers and monitoring that far back.  According to their own statements and statements by DNC representatives, they were hired after the leaks came out.  Frankly, there is no way they could know for sure when any previous "intrusions" took place.  Once someone has access to a server, they can take data off or put data on it to make the appearance of anything they like.... perhaps they are looking at logs which have been preserved, but that still doesn't prove a lot....

Their tradecraft is superb, operational security second to none and the extensive usage of ‘living-off-the-land’ techniques enables them to easily bypass many security solutions they encounter.

Yet the malware they supposedly used was outdated and poor quality 

They're acting like these intrusions took place over and over in order to steal emails... that simply is not the case.  The data was archived centrally, it was downloaded all at once.  The fact that it has lots of gaps just goes to show that the leaker or hacker (we still don't definitively know if the source wasn't a person who had access who simply saved them off) did not have prolonged access.  The server had a policy in place that deleted items older than 30 days unless they were placed in folders that preserved them, so you see a lot of missing data, but then there are tidbits of older threads that people had placed in folders to avoid having them deleted.

[LetterRip]

It doesn't say that.  It says they "identified intrusion" going back that far.

You are correct, my mistake.

Although it doesn't say how, nor does it say that they were inside the DNC servers and monitoring that far back.  According to their own statements and statements by DNC representatives, they were hired after the leaks came out.  Frankly, there is no way they could know for sure when any previous "intrusions" took place.  Once someone has access to a server, they can take data off or put data on it to make the appearance of anything they like.... perhaps they are looking at logs which have been preserved, but that still doesn't prove a lot....

With ISP cooperation they could likely do so.  Also depending on the setup they won't necessarily own the whole system.  Things can be set up with seperate logging.  Compromising for copying data can much lower priveleged than compromising to manipulate logging.

Their tradecraft is superb, operational security second to none and the extensive usage of ‘living-off-the-land’ techniques enables them to easily bypass many security solutions they encounter.

Yet the malware they supposedly used was outdated and poor quality 

I assume you are talking about the claims by 'Wordfence' about the FBI report on Grizzly Steppe? That was analysis of a single snippet of PHP included in the FBI report.  So comparing the opinion of Wordfence on what the FBI was willing to publicly release in a report as an example piece of code vs the complete forensic examination by counterstrike is idiocy.

Also a common bit of tradecraft for hacking is to use the least sophisticated and oldest tool that works that is publicaly available because it makes the forensic tracking job more difficult.  If you use a sophisticated piece of code it is far easier to track back to a specific group so you save them for only when you absolutely must use them.  This is also why extremely sophisticated hacking tools have ancient exploits that have been long patched on most systems rather than only using their zero day exploits that are garunteed to work on everything - it gives away far too much information.

They're acting like these intrusions took place over and over in order to steal emails... that simply is not the case.

There could be multiple intrustions for a variety of reasons.  The group that is claimed to have done the hack are known to take efforts to update their intrusion to maintain access and avoid detection.

The data was archived centrally, it was downloaded all at once.

Source?

The fact that it has lots of gaps just goes to show that the leaker or hacker (we still don't definitively know if the source wasn't a person who had access who simply saved them off) did not have prolonged access.

Or that they were trying to avoid detection.  It is common to use slow techniques for exfiltration to reduce risk of detection.

https://www.vthreat.com/2016/09/14/dns-tunneling/

[linuxfreakus]

With ISP cooperation they could likely do so.  Also depending on the setup they won't necessarily own the whole system.  Things can be set up with seperate logging.  Compromising for copying data can much lower priveleged than compromising to manipulate logging.

Even with ISP cooperation, I don't see how they could make the conclusions they have ostensibly made.

I assume you are talking about the claims by 'Wordfence' about the FBI report on Grizzly Steppe? That was analysis of a single snippet of PHP included in the FBI report.  So comparing the opinion of Wordfence on what the FBI was willing to publicly release in a report as an example piece of code vs the complete forensic examination by counterstrike is idiocy.

No, that was part of the blog post you cited.  But I agree, the grizzly steppe report is a joke. Nothing in it provides useful evidence.

Also a common bit of tradecraft for hacking is to use the least sophisticated and oldest tool that works that is publicaly available because it makes the forensic tracking job more difficult.  If you use a sophisticated piece of code it is far easier to track back to a specific group so you save them for only when you absolutely must use them.  This is also why extremely sophisticated hacking tools have ancient exploits that have been long patched on most systems rather than only using their zero day exploits that are garunteed to work on everything - it gives away far too much information.

If that is the case, then how are they so sure that these publicly available tools are really used only by this group?  Thats exactly what I was getting at.  The supposed hacking in this case was very mundane and unsophisticated. Could have been done by a high school kid... but even if it had been more sophisticated how can just looking at the malware really tell you much when you know that tools exist for "fingerprinting" to make it look like one type of attack or another.

There could be multiple intrustions for a variety of reasons.  The group that is claimed to have done the hack are known to take efforts to update their intrusion to maintain access and avoid detection.

*Could* be.  But also could be that they simply watched the news and wondered what else might be there for the taking.  One could speculate for months!  And many people are!

The data was archived centrally, it was downloaded all at once.

Source?

There is no source, it just seems obvious based on the bulk delivery and missing chunks due to the auto-deletion policy.

The fact that it has lots of gaps just goes to show that the leaker or hacker (we still don't definitively know if the source wasn't a person who had access who simply saved them off) did not have prolonged access.

Or that they were trying to avoid detection.  It is common to use slow techniques for exfiltration to reduce risk of detection.

That doesn't make any sense. They knew or should have known that there was not much in the way of security in place. If they were constantly monitoring and sending a few at a time that just leaves *more* chances to be detected and increases the chance that you'll miss out on the big score, and the deletion policy is a much more likely reason... better to just pull the data and have it in your hands to peruse at your leisure.  If they went back and kept taking more, then either they didn't send that stuff to wikileaks or they were not wikileaks source IMO.... and if they were planning to leak it they obviously had to know that the DNC was going to find out there was a leak/hack.

[LetterRip]

linuxfreakus,

you seem to think the PHP code was the only thing used, and concluding the hackers were unsophisticated, what is your basis for that belief?

Even with ISP cooperation, I don't see how they could make the conclusions they have ostensibly made.

It would confirm the content of any logs as far as the from where and when.  Also as I said the logs weren't necessarily compromised.

No, that was part of the blog post you cited.  But I agree, the grizzly steppe report is a joke. Nothing in it provides useful evidence.

Please feel free to quote the report, I didn't notice anything in the report that said or implied what you did.

If that is the case, then how are they so sure that these publicly available tools are really used only by this group?

Because sometimes the hackers have to bring out the more sophisticated tools and leave traces.  They do as much as they can with the tools that aren't specific to themselves, but usually that isn't sufficient to compromise the target to the degree required.  Also hackers are often careless and leave other traces - such as the times that things are carried out and not carried out.  It is also often the case that hackers have hubris and will leave signatures that they figure the investigators will be too dumb to figure out.

There are also nondeliberate signatures such as order that commands are carried out; what directories are explored first; etc.  Decisions that don't matter but there is no reason for any two hackers to choose the same order - but the same hacker will tend to stick to whatever order they happen to choose.

 

*Could* be.  But also could be that they simply watched the news and wondered what else might be there for the taking.  One could speculate for months!  And many people are!

The logs would provide a signature of what was being done, that a forensic investigator would be able to determine.  That is one of the points of logs...

There is no source, it just seems obvious based on the bulk delivery and missing chunks due to the auto-deletion policy.

It is also consistent with exfilitration designed to limit risk of detection.

That doesn't make any sense. They knew or should have known that there was not much in the way of security in place.

They knew or should have known nothing of the sort. There is different security at different layers.  Abnormal traffic is often an ISP level feature, whereas the type of security they compromised is a hosted system.

[Fenring]

Because sometimes the hackers have to bring out the more sophisticated tools and leave traces.  They do as much as they can with the tools that aren't specific to themselves, but usually that isn't sufficient to compromise the target to the degree required.  Also hackers are often careless and leave other traces - such as the times that things are carried out and not carried out.  It is also often the case that hackers have hubris and will leave signatures that they figure the investigators will be too dumb to figure out.

There are also nondeliberate signatures such as order that commands are carried out; what directories are explored first; etc.  Decisions that don't matter but there is no reason for any two hackers to choose the same order - but the same hacker will tend to stick to whatever order they happen to choose.

LR, anyone like me who isn't a data security analyst cannot possibly parse the details of a conversation such as you're having, but I can tell you for sure that I've never read any report, claim or evidence that any kind of 'signature' was left that could possibly identify the party responsible for the "hacks". Right from the horse's mouth their methodology was to track back to unidentifiable Russian source code, which they assume was used by Russians, and which they then claim had to have been orchestrated from the top-down because they (incorrectly) surmised that no operation not affiliated with the Kremlin could have pulled off that job. It's a long chain of reasoning involving several degrees of freedom, and even they never claimed their evidence was "hard". Going from this kind of claim - even if totally correct! - to "the Russians hacked the election" was already disingenuous bordering on propaganda.

[LetterRip]

Post removed at user's request. -OrneryMod

[LetterRip]

Fenring,

the evidence for attribution hasn't been released or even thoroughly disscussed in public.  We simply don't know what evidence there is (or isn't).  All we know is that experts in the FBI, CIA, and NSA who have seen the evidence are convinced.

There is no mention of the focus of attribution in any of the White House’s statements. Across multiple statements from government officials and agencies it is clear that the technical data and attribution will be a report prepared for Congress and later declassified (likely prepared by the NSA).

(Excellent critique and discussion of the Grizzle Steppe report here..)

http://www.robertmlee.org/critiques-of-the-dhsfbis-grizzly-steppe-report/

Neither the Grizzly Steppe nor crowdstrike reports are really evidentiary, so it is fine to be skeptical.  My objections are those who are insistent that there is good reason to believe it wasn't the Russians.

So far all I've seen are bogus claims and analysis with major misunderstandings of how hackers work and how the forensics is done.

If you want to say - "we the public don't have enough information to confirm the findings of CrowdStrike and the intelligence community" - I'm fully in agreement.

That isn't what is being claimed though.  Instead there are claims that it wasn't the Russians and evidence points to it not being the Russians, and it is all a liberal fantasy and conspiracy.

As to your question regarding 'signatures' - I'm talking of generalities here.  We don't know the findings of the report or what forensic evidence was available so all I can speak of is what would generally be available for forensic attribution not what was specifically available in this instance.