Top-Secret NSA Report Details Russian Hacking Effort Days Before 2016 Election

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Yeah, I linked to the document earlier in the thread.

That said, it doesn't matter what she "thought," though (and she could have just said that to try to save her ass).

Additionally, if she had top secret clearance why would there be fake documents under a top secret heading?

Does the NSA routinely create fake top secret reports? If they do, that's an entirely (and very important) issue in itself.

ETA:

Unless they knew it was a fake top secret doc (that was accessibly insecure), and wanted it to get leaked for some other agenda. Possible, but I don't buy it. Even that is too conspiratorial for me.

a reply to: Liquesence

I am under the impression she (Reality) thought the document was real and the contractor (not Reality) the reporter (presumably from the Intercept) used to try and vet the document told the reporter it was fake.

The reporter then ran with the story from an unverifiable source based on a document they were told was fake.

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Yeah, I linked to the document earlier in the thread.

That said, it doesn't matter what she "thought," though (and she could have just said that to try to save her ass).

Additionally, if she had top secret clearance why would there be fake documents under a top secret heading?

Does the NSA routinely create fake top secret reports? If they do, that's an entirely (and very important) issue in itself.

ETA:

Unless they knew it was a fake top secret doc (that was accessibly insecure), and wanted it to get leaked for some other agenda. Possible, but I don't buy it. Even that is too conspiratorial for me.

The CIA has written fraudulent documents if my memory serves me correctly. I suppose the NSA could do it also, especially if it served to benefit them in some way.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Yeah, I linked to the document earlier in the thread.

That said, it doesn't matter what she "thought," though (and she could have just said that to try to save her ass).

Additionally, if she had top secret clearance why would there be fake documents under a top secret heading?

Does the NSA routinely create fake top secret reports? If they do, that's an entirely (and very important) issue in itself.

ETA:

Unless they knew it was a fake top secret doc (that was accessibly insecure), and wanted it to get leaked for some other agenda. Possible, but I don't buy it. Even that is too conspiratorial for me.

The CIA has written fraudulent documents if my memory serves me correctly. I suppose the NSA could do it also, especially if it served to benefit them in some way.

I'm not saying they can't or couldn't (or even don't). If they created a fake report and tried to fish for someone to "steal and leak" it, that's one thing. But from what I said, which you quoted: do they routinely plant fake reports under a top secret heading hoping to snare someone, or even hoping it will get released?

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

But the intercept apparently authenticated the document before they released it, and the NSA requested A) it not be published (indicative of authenticity) and B) that redactions be made first when The Intercept said they would publish anyway(also indicative of authenticity).

Unless the entire report is a leaked NSA fabrication to finger Russian.

a reply to: Liquesence

...or to nab an NSA leaker, Reality Winner?

a reply to: Liquesence

Are you sure on authentication? Everything I have seen was they said it was fake (the source the media outlet used)? Of course that could have been a farce in order to prevent it from being published.

I also thought I read somewhere that a very very few number of people at this location had access to the report (6 if I recall correctly). I'll try to find the source where I read that so until then grain of salt.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I also thought I read somewhere that a very very few number of people at this location had access to the report (6 if I recall correctly)

Six, yes, I mentioned that earlier in the thread.

Are you sure on authentication? Everything I have seen was they said it was fake (the source the media outlet used)? Of course that could have been a farce in order to prevent it from being published.

I am not 100% sure, no, but everything seems to indicate it is authentic, unless, as mentioned earlier, it is all an elaborate fabrication by the NSA. Everything I have seen says it's real. And yes, it could have been a farce to prevent publication, including the supposed "do not publish this" and the "but if you do we want redactions" to make it officials.

It still seems to be an authentic document, from what I have seen.

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Yeah, I linked to the document earlier in the thread.

That said, it doesn't matter what she "thought," though (and she could have just said that to try to save her ass).

Additionally, if she had top secret clearance why would there be fake documents under a top secret heading?

Does the NSA routinely create fake top secret reports? If they do, that's an entirely (and very important) issue in itself.

ETA:

Unless they knew it was a fake top secret doc (that was accessibly insecure), and wanted it to get leaked for some other agenda. Possible, but I don't buy it. Even that is too conspiratorial for me.

The CIA has written fraudulent documents if my memory serves me correctly. I suppose the NSA could do it also, especially if it served to benefit them in some way.

I'm not saying they can't or couldn't (or even don't). If they created a fake report and tried to fish for someone to "steal and leak" it, that's one thing. But from what I said, which you quoted: do they routinely plant fake reports under a top secret heading hoping to snare someone, or even hoping it will get released?

It would be hard to find that out, unless Snowden might be able to tell us.

In this time when the administration is openly admitting it is going after potential leakers...it's very possible (in fact, probable) that the document is leaker bait.

If so,...it worked.

a reply to: Xcathdra

It was in the search warrant:

The U.S. Government Agency conducted an internal audit to determine who accessed the intelligence reporting since its publication. The U.S. Government Agency determined that six individuals printed this reporting. These six individuals included WINNER. A further audit of the six individuals' desk computers revealed that WINNER had e-mail contact with the News outlet. The audit did not reveal that any of the other individuals had e-mail contact with the News outlet.

She wasn't very bright about how she went about this, or she had no clue as to the capabilities of the government to track down the sourcing of the documents.

Or she wanted to get caught.

a reply to: Liquesence

It doesn't provide any details. Where is the data? It's a deep state assessment. Probably faked.

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: alphabetaone

This is an interesting angle..

Sen. Warner says that many more states were targeted by Russian GRU than was shared in the original intelligence report released last year, plus at least one SW Company responsible for Voting Device SW.

He also said that he wanted to make it public, but that the Fed. legally considers the States and the Company "Victims", so they would have to sign off on making it public.

Of course the voting SW company doesn't want it known they were potentially hacked. Not sure what various states motivation would be for not making it public...beyond embarrassing or legal liability?

Maybe that has to do with her motive?..

www.usatoday.com... /

I would think that a foreign government trying to hack our elections would trump(no pun intended) the "victims" in this case.It should be made public.

a reply to: amfirst1

I think it's a recycled document...originally compiled and manufactured to discredit VR Systems, but when it became obsolete after Hillary's loss, was re-purposed and amalgamated with 'Russia-Russia-Russia' sauce...to become a tempting leaker lure.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

It is having one effect... It is keeping the Russia thing front and center in the media. It is being spun as a leak under this administration and media outlets are pointing out she met with her Republican rep a month or so ago.

Something smells fishy with this whole thing.

For an analyst with classified clearance and whom can speak multiple languages she releases a report that contains absolutely nothing of importance?

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: amfirst1

I think it's a recycled document...originally compiled and manufactured to discredit VR Systems, but when it became obsolete after Hillary's loss, was re-purposed and amalgamated with 'Russia-Russia-Russia' sauce...to become a tempting leaker lure.

This theory sounds very good.

imo: massive psyops

a reply to: Liquesence

The NSA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence were both contacted for this article. Officials requested that we not publish or report on the top secret document and declined to comment on it. When informed that we intended to go ahead with this story, the NSA requested a number of redactions. The Intercept agreed to some of the redaction requests after determining that the disclosure of that material was not clearly in the public interest.

Yeah the part that they left out is "the NSA has been working diligently to make up any BS we can throw out so we can save Hillary and made this up, but it is not in the best interest of the public to know this"...

Seriously... First was the claim "all intelligence agencies were part of an intelligence report", then we found out it was only three and the NSA was amongst them...

...
Scope
This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies.
...

www.dni.gov...

Then we read the "intelligence report" and it was full of assumptions of what the FBI, the NSA, and CIA "thought the Russians would do". Not to mention, do people forget that according to the DHS itself in the "intelligence report stated"...

Let's remind those who seem to have forgotten.

...
Russian intelligence obtained and maintained access to elements of multiple US state or local electoral boards.
DHS assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying.
...

www.dni.gov...

Let's get to the juicy part of that "last intelligence report"...

...
Public Disclosures of Russian
-
Collected Data.
We assess with high confidence that the GRU used the Guccifer 2.0 persona, DCLeaks.com, and WikiLeaks to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets.
...

www.dni.gov...

So, in other words, based on nothing but claims from the Obama/Clinton NSA, FBI, CIA, which we have found more and more to be pro-Hillary and against Trump, they tried to claim that the DNCleaks and the wikileaks was data "the Russians hacked". Yet of course for those of us who have followed this we know from the start that the DNCleaks and wikileaks were apparently leaks from a DNC analyst who was a Bernie supporter and he, read Seth Rich, gave this trove of information to wikileaks.

That's without mentioning the fact that the DNC denied the FBI access to their servers, and instead contracted a cyber security company "CrowdStrike" which had published false claims about "these same Russian hackers having destroyed most of Ukraine's artillery". "CrowdStrike" revised their report on the "Russian hackers decimated Ukraine's activity" after the Ukraine, and the intelligence sources used by "Crowdstrike" stated that the whole thing was made up by "CrowdStrike"...

Now the "deep state" apparently is using "another Bernie supporter" to try to once again claim "the Russians were the ones who hacked the info"...

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: and14263

Oh ...are we admitting Russia hacked the DNC?

No one hacked the Clinton's server..remember?

Lol.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

This story has been a godsend for Russian trolls. They can fulfill their daily quota denying every aspect of it. As you have pointed out, the NSA has essentially authorized this "leak." It is their way of presenting vital facts to the American public in the face of potential treason in the White House. "Russiagate" is not going away.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: amfirst1

I think it's a recycled document...originally compiled and manufactured to discredit VR Systems, but when it became obsolete after Hillary's loss, was re-purposed and amalgamated with 'Russia-Russia-Russia' sauce...to become a tempting leaker lure.

This theory sounds very good.

imo: massive psyops

haha if he were to be right about his assumption it wouldn't be a psyop, it would be a sting operation.