Vault 7, Wikileaks releases "Marble"

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: FlyingFox
Anti-Hillary materials released include FIOA from Judicial Watch, publications by the FBI and widespread intrusions into Hillary's unsecured server. So, I'm not sure if ~Russians~ can be blamed for Trump's win, regardless of a few lines of code that says "maybe".

Russians are not responsible for Clinton's defeat, the arrogance of the Democratic party is. That is not the point. Russia is hacking private citizens and the government, and disseminating lies and propaganda in order to manipulate you and me. Do you have a problem with that or not?

ALL major intelligence services are doing this routinely, to one another and the general populations within their scope in the digital age.

Frankly, they ought to be fired if they were not doing it.

The real gullibility is believing that one agency is more moral than the other, when a realist would readily accept as patently bloody obvious, they're all up to the necks in the proverbial where this digital eavesdropping and manipulation IN the digital age is concerned.

There isn't a funded, resourced intelligence agency in the world that doesn't have wet dreams considering all the possibilities for exploitation that have yet to be dreamed up using tomorrow's technology to spy, control, influence, manipulate and obfuscate...if there is, they ought to think about flipping burgers or stacking shelves instead of intelligence work, because this is today's reality, and tomorrow's will make today's look like someone earwigging a conversation over your shoulder.

It's going to get worse, from ALL agencies. Only the really gullible would believe otherwise.

a reply to: MysterX

There isn't a funded, resourced intelligence agency in the world that doesn't have wet dreams considering all the possibilities for exploitation that have yet to be dreamed up using tomorrow's technology to spy, control, influence, manipulate and obfuscate...if there is, they ought to think about flipping burgers or stacking shelves instead of intelligence work, because this is today's reality, and tomorrow's will make today's look like someone earwigging a conversation over your shoulder.

Exactly. Given that fact, all one needs to ask is "who did the chaos of the 2016 election benefit?" People who claim that it was American tampering cannot explain what strategy those tactics supported, On the other hand, I have shown that Russia has a global program to undermine liberal democracy:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

These same tactics are now in evidence in the upcoming French elections:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


If one of the members who are so strenuously denying Russia's involvement could explain why the United States government would deliberately undermine the population's trust in it, I would be willing to consider their explanation.

a reply to: anonfamily

Long before the election, and all this Russian hacking bullsh!t that you were spoon fed, Hillary Clinton was doing things to cause conflict with Russia. She was on a war path with Russia.

That is definitely the line the Kremlin has been putting out ever since she was Secretary of State.

Now that she lost the election, all of a sudden all this Russian hacking crap has come up. Don't you find that odd at all?

Don't you find it odd that the candidate the Kremlin feared most was subject to a campaign of hacks, leaks, disinformation, hate mongering, online trolling, and blatant lies on social media? Must be a coincidence.

a reply to: DJW001

It's quite straightforward who 'attempted to benefit'...the DNC as an organisation, wanted to divert attention away from their fatally flawed internal security measures, not least of which was Clinton's criminally lax IT security, if you could even call it security.

The 'hacking' was internal, fatal security flaw.

Likely candidate was Seth Rich, computer-voting software specialist - murdered shortly after the 'hack' conveniently for the DNC.

The Russians were the convenient scapegoat (and still are to a certain extent), which served several purposes ...to cover the DNC's internal security problems, the subsequent murder of the responsible party, and to associate the Russians with Trumps victory, which i'm sure they hoped if enough traction was generated, *could possibly* have led to a new election process following their humiliating defeat.

The DNC benefited and such is their respect for their countrymen, they tried to hoodwink not only the American people, but also the entire world hoping to gain further, possibly even usurping the US election process into the bargain. That, i believe was the plan, which is now backfiring and threatens to take down big names, maybe even an ex-president or so, and probably, hopefully an ex-secretary of State, among others.

Have the Russians spied on the US?

Of course they have, as i've said earlier, it would be extremely remiss of them if they hadn't or don't.

Have the Chinese, British, Israeli, Iranians, Germans, French, Japanese, Australians, Americans, in fact everybody with the technological capability with which to do so, spying on one another, continually?

Of course they are.

It's like putting a group of 5 year olds alone in a room with a bowl of sweeties on the table and telling them not to eat any...you know full well, if they're able to sooner or later they are going to eat at least some of those sweeties, regardless...because they want to, and because they can.

a reply to: MysterX

It's quite straightforward who 'attempted to benefit'...the DNC as an organisation, wanted to divert attention away from their fatally flawed internal security measures, not least of which was Clinton's criminally lax IT security, if you could even call it security.

How would publishing Podesta's emails divert attention from the DNC's security problems? On the contrary, it highlighted them. What's more, the exposure of the party's routine "dirty tricks" was used in an attempt to alienate Sanders supporters. Then there was the barrage of "fake news." Was the DNC responsible for that, too? What strategy did that tactic support? And the trolls? Sponsored by the DNC? To what end?

Your theory makes no sense whatsoever, but it does manage to integrate the "Killary" meme.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: MysterX

It's quite straightforward who 'attempted to benefit'...the DNC as an organisation, wanted to divert attention away from their fatally flawed internal security measures, not least of which was Clinton's criminally lax IT security, if you could even call it security.

How would publishing Podesta's emails divert attention from the DNC's security problems? On the contrary, it highlighted them. What's more, the exposure of the party's routine "dirty tricks" was used in an attempt to alienate Sanders supporters. Then there was the barrage of "fake news." Was the DNC responsible for that, too? What strategy did that tactic support? And the trolls? Sponsored by the DNC? To what end?

Your theory makes no sense whatsoever, but it does manage to integrate the "Killary" meme.

I'm not saying the leak was intended to divert attention away from those emails and the server scandal...that was FULLY intended to highlight those issues, obviously...the invention that became the Russian hack-gate was and still is, the obfuscation ploy.

You knew that was what i was saying...right?

If you want to talk about it DJ, i'm ready and willing to converse with you, but if you want to take cheap shots while ignoring the blatantly obvious, find someone else K?

a reply to: MysterX

I'm not saying the leak was intended to divert attention away from those emails and the server scandal...that was FULLY intended to highlight those issues, obviously...the invention that became the Russian hack-gate was and still is, the obfuscation ploy.

Then who was behind the leak and why? And do you consider the constant stream of unfavorable coverage in the Russian media impartial coverage? And the distortions set out on the net by fellow travelers like globalresearch? And the rumors and lies on social media? Was that all coincidence? Or does it all seem to be part of an organized campaign? And if it is an organized campaign, who did it benefit? It was certainly not the Democratic Party, so who?

a reply to: DJW001

Just a word about these matters, DJW001.

It is by no means the case that every time information comes out which is damaging to a person, administration or party, that information is the issue of their opponents. Sometimes it is the issue of journalism or whistle blowing. Furthermore, the notion that Clinton had to have lies published about her to make her seem less desirable as a candidate is sheer bull. The only choice anyone had last election was not whether or not they got screwed, but which end from, and that is ALL.

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Necrose

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Necrose

And let me know what you guys think.

I think the Russians are getting desperate. They are setting it up so that gullible people will blame the CIA for Russia's espionage.

Why would they even bother? Them CIA & NSA are spying on every country in the world, so Russians can too, right?

Yes, but right now the Russians want to convince Americans that it was the CIA that was interfering in the United States election, not Russia. Some puppet will be along in a minute to make that claim. Just wait and see.

And the CIA has tools to make it look like it was anyone else besides themselves.

But...Russia...

sigh

Wasn't one of the most damning pieces of so called evidence that it was Russian hacking some "evidence" conviently left behind by the hackers that implied using a Cyrillic keyboard of something of that nature?

Now we know for sure that the CIA masks their hacking by looking like it comes from our "enemies". What better way to frame someone than by making it look like they did it by leaving amaeturish clues behind? Nah.......The CIA and other three letter agencies would NEVER do that, right?

On the whole Trump/Russian Collusion .......Where was the same outrage with Reagan working with the mullahs in Iran to get the hostages released BEFORE he was officially President? That's seems to me to be a far greater overreach of the president elect than simply talking with foreign officials.

a reply to: DJW001

Because I am an America and I didn't vote for Hillary because Russia told me, but because I research on her background of deceive corruption and greed, you know she does have a long track of it.

Russia have nothing on me.

Corruption should always be unveiled so people can see what goes on around them, I do have a lot of faith in my fellow human beings.

Some interesting points and updates.

I'm still waiting for WikiLeaks to air another country's dirty laundry and not just the US.

a reply to: DJW001

Well there are conspiracy theories... And then there are delusions.

a reply to: marg6043

Because I am an America and I didn't vote for Hillary because Russia told me, but because I research on her background of deceive corruption and greed, you know she does have a long track of it.

How much of her "track record" was accurate, and how much did you get online? If you voted for Grump, did you do an equal amount of research?

a reply to: pavil

Where was the same outrage with Reagan working with the mullahs in Iran to get the hostages released BEFORE he was officially President?

If you were alive at the time, you would know that the outrage was there, and if Oliver North hadn't fallen on his sword, Reagan would be remembered very differently. Do you think Flynn will fall on his sword?

a reply to: TrueBrit

It is by no means the case that every time information comes out which is damaging to a person, administration or party, that information is the issue of their opponents. Sometimes it is the issue of journalism or whistle blowing.

Agreed. It is not just that bad things were said about Clinton, it is that the whole thing seemed coordinated. Why no leaks that made Trump look bad... until now?

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: DJW001

You know it doesn't matter, all the Russian affair is never going to take the fact that US spying agencies are corrupted and working against the American people while spying on them and that is a fact.

That is your opinion. I have explained in detail why political chaos in the United States is of value to Russia. A nation divided cannot take a stand against Russian designs on the world stage. For the Russians, therefore, it doesn't matter who won the election, so long as the process seems illegitimate.

Why do you believe it would be in the best interests of the CIA and/or FBI to put Donald Trump in office?

then i think u need to ask yourself, why is the media pushing this atmosphere of intolerance and hate. they are the ones fomenting division and chaos, soros aswell and his behavior is extremely transparent. he obviously loves chaos cause from chaos comes profit. old rothschild tactic to increase wealth. so maybe we need to investigate those people going by your logic. many people on the right were calling for the previous administration to up their cyber security efforts for years. im not on the right but i was in many of the forums on this very site. russia has been hacking everything for over a decade. even your supermarkets, targets, walmarts, etc have all been hacked by russians. the part i question is how people like u can defend it either way and try to blame that on the lefts loss when it was their own dirty laundry getting aired that did the damage, on top of hillary coughing up giant chunks of snot, passing out, doing very few rallies or townhall meetings, but its the russians fault. meanwhile the left is letting their own party off the hook for screwing them out of a candidate that most likely would have beaten trump without a problem. bernie had the fervor of the people but they sqaushed that and created division within their own party by their own actions. also i love u believe the russians would be the biggest winners from this and not the opposing party to the one in office, you know the biggest beneficiary of all.

a reply to: DJW001

I was alive and no one was going after Reagan in late 79 and 80. Oliver North was much later. He worked out a deal to have them released on the day of his innaguration. What a coincidence. My memory is fine.

a reply to: TheScale

Soros and Rotschild? And people say that Trump's alt-right fanatics aren't Anti-Semitic? Why the squirrel? Shouldn't you have a frog avatar? You might find this thread eye opening:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: pavil

I was alive and no one was going after Reagan in late 79 and 80.

I assume that you were living in a "red state" and limited your news consumption to the three major TV stations, the then "mainstream media."