U.S. Government Releases “Proof” of U.S. Election Hacking by Russians

Gary Markstein, as above.

Edit: Original post still below, but I’ve been informed by several of the Threat Researchers with whom I work that this report is not supposed to be considered as the government’s proof, merely things that organisations can use in order to protect themselves.

With that understood, it still furthers a narrative that I consider to be dishonest, and whose purpose is to put Trump in the Catch-22 as below.

=-=-=-=-= ORIGINAL POST BELOW =-=-=-=-=

Here’s the “proof” [PDF Link] of the supposed hacking of the US elections:


Fully 7.5 pages of the 13 are “Mitigation Strategies”. The rest details “Grizzly Steppe”, which is a mishmash of various campaigns and an amalgamation of  the previously known APT28 and APT29.


APT28 and APT29 compromised “a political party” in the US. (Hhhmmm… which one I wonder?) APT29 basically before Trump was in the race, and APT28 after.


“Using the harvested credentials, APT28 was able to gain access and steal content, likely leading to the exfiltration of information from multiple senior party members. The U.S. Government assesses that information was leaked to the press and publicly disclosed.”

That’s the proof. Two sentences.

“The U.S. government assesses”

The U.S. government assesses things all the time, which doesn’t mean they are correct (or wrong, but they end up there most of the time – see Iraq for instance).

“likely leading to”

That’s just not proof. I’m sorry. That’s not how proof works.

Then: “leaked to the press”. Presumably, they’re NOT referring to material sent to Wikileaks? Or did they just suggest that Wikileaks is now considered part of the press?

This still isn’t proof. It shows that there was a compromise by the Russians, but that’s about as likely as water flowing downhill. Incidentally, the Chinese were likely in there too, but where’s the evidence of that? Why did they not look for that, or investigate literally *anything* else? Julian Assange is on record as saying it was a disgruntled DNC staffer who gave him most of the material. Literally anyone who supported Bernie Sanders would fit that bill.

Keep in mind here that:

1 – Putting Trump up as a candidate to knock down was the idea of the Democratic Party.

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3828897/Hillary-Clinton-s-campaign-wanted-elevate-Donald-Trump-extreme-Republicans.html

2 – The issue of rigging the primary in favour of Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders was the idea of the Democratic Party.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/24/debbie-wasserman-schultz-resigns-dnc-chair-emails-sanders

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wikileaks-emails-show-dnc-favored-hillary-clinton-over_us_57930be0e4b0e002a3134b05

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/debbie-wasserman-schultz-and-the-dnc-favored-hillary_us_57b365a4e4b0b3bb4b0800bd

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/bernie-sanders-us-election-president-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-democrats-primary-results-a7408451.html

3 – Project Veritas ran roughshod over the Democratic Part because of people in the Democratic Party.

(Whether or not you believe them, it still happened due to hubris on the parts of those individuals, all of whom eventually were fired.)

Source: Google Project Veritas and actually watch some of the videos. The sheer arrogance on these people is stunning.

4 – Hillary Clinton was a bad candidate.

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/hillary-clinton-just-admit-terrible-president-candidate-donald-trump-vote-voting-times-election-a7395921.html

Source: http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2016/08/06/25-reasons-not-to-vote-for-hillary-clinton-n2202375

Source: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/catherinedunn/2016/09/27/200-reasons-hillary-clinton-is-unfit-to-be-president-n2223804

Source: https://soapboxie.com/us-politics/Why-Donald-Trump-is-Not-as-Dangerous-as-Hillary

5 – Hillary Clinton ran a bad campaign.

Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-hillary-clinton-lost-bad-campaign-perspec-20161114-story.html

Source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/14/seven-reasons-why-hillary-clinton-lost-and-donald-trump-won.html

(Even Bill Clinton thought it according to that link!)

You can say what you like about those links above – that they’re biased (they are) and that I’m biased (I am – I can’t stand that woman). That doesn’t mean they’re wrong – it might mean you won’t accept them, but it doesn’t mean they are wrong. (Yes, it also doesn’t guarantee their rightness, but then Donald Trump will be President next year, so the wrongness, if any, is certainly more moot than previously.)

The bottom line is that the Russian thing is an attack on Trump. It’s obvious at this point that by setting the situation up as he has, the petulant Obama will force Trump to either:

Leave the sanctions in place, thereby legitimising the hacking story.


Remove the sanctions, thereby reinforcing claims he is a friend of Putin.

My guess is that the shrewd Trump will remove the sanctions, and makes friends with Putin. Trump is a business man, not a politician, and he knows that friendly, open markets, are better for business. He’s divesting himself of enterprise now, but in four years, he’ll have been President, can either not run (or run if he thinks he’ll win, but I think he’ll stand as a one-term man on purpose) and then capitalise on everything that comes from being a former President.