Support NeoGAF

[RustyNails]

There's a thread about CIA's assessment. However I didn't find any thread on FBI's conclusion.
'We're drawing very different conclusions': The FBI and the CIA can't agree on the motives of Russian hacks

The FBI, however — while agreeing that the hacking campaign originated in Russia — has been reluctant to align itself with the CIA and assign a motive to the cyberattacks. A senior FBI counterintelligence told the House Intelligence Committee last week that the bureau was still not sure whether Russia's "specific goal" was to get Trump elected.

"There's no question that [the Russians'] efforts went one way, but it's not clear that they have a specific goal or mix of related goals," a US official present at the hearing said.

The CIA report said the Russians had also breached the Republican National Committee but chose not to release any of the information, lending credence to the idea that the Kremlin made a specific and targeted effort to embarrass Democrats.

The FBI has not yet said whether the RNC was targeted. Reince Priebus, the chair of the RNC and incoming White House chief of staff, denied that the committee had been hacked.

Democrats pissed off at FBI

Even so, Democrats at last week's hearing were apparently frustrated by the FBI official's reluctance to say that the hacking campaign had been designed to hurt Clinton and boost Trump.

Of course, Republicans clung to FBI's assessment

Republicans seemed to agree with the FBI official's assessment, however, that the CIA lacked evidence when it told a Senate panel last week that the Russians clearly preferred Trump to Clinton — and tried to damage the Democrats' reputation accordingly.

"Republicans are from Mars, Democrats are from Venus," a Republican lawmaker said during the hearing, according to an aide who was present. "We're looking at the same evidence and drawing very different conclusions."

The article however says that they don't have clear evidence linking Moscow with the hackers.

Russia's fingerprints were all over the cyberattacks, cybersecurity officials concluded in the days and weeks after the breaches. But it has been difficult to prove that Moscow specifically ordered hackers to attack Podesta and the DNC. The hackers were apparently middlemen, rather than Kremlin employees.

It is unclear what the US government will do to retaliate against Russia. The Obama administration has been weighing various measures, from sanctions to authorizing covert action against computer servers in Russia, The New York Times reported. But Obama has yet to sign off on anything concrete.

Hack me if old.

 

[Air]

I wonder what they're expecting to find that would prove motives? A note from Putin saying "from Russia with love"?

 

[guek]

While they dispute the motive, they don't offer an alternative either and aren't denying the possibility, just the certainty of the claim.

 

[Escape Goat]

Like sand through an hourglass...

 

[Funky Papa]

A senior FBI counterintelligence told the House Intelligence Committee last week that the bureau was still not sure whether Russia's "specific goal" was to get Trump elected.

This should be old news by now.

Russia's apparent goal was not to get Trump elected, but to mess with the electorate and seed distrust towards the system. He's not a Manchurian candidate. Putin happened to hit the jackpot when Trump went supernova and made his damn best to get the best ROI from then on.

 

[HellforLeather]

While they dispute the motive, they don't offer an alternative either and aren't denying the possibility, just the certainty of the claim.

This, but dont expect that to be the popular message from this report.

 

[Wilsongt]

Of course they would.

 

[MightyKAC]

So basically it was Republicans, Russian Hackers and the FBI Vs the Democratic Party this election cycle.

Am I getting that right?

 

[ZealousD]

They deny the truth because the truth is inconvenient.

 

[Rushersauce]

Let them fight.gif

 

[mreddie]

Like sand through an hourglass...

 

[maquiladora]

The same FBI that fucked up Hillary's campaign with their nothingburger Emailz 2.0 bullshit? Fuck Comey.

As for motives...lol...you only have to look at some of the people Trump is appointing to key positions and you'll understand the motive. It's obvious as hell.

 

[Marvie_3]

Of course

 

[Nafai1123]

Gee, I wonder why Trumpland would be so reluctant to agree with the CIA....

 

[dan2026]

Huh I didn't know Trump owned the FBI.
He really does have fingers in every pie.

 

[Eidan]

This should be old news by now.

Russia's apparent goal was not to get Trump elected, but to mess with the electorate and seed distrust towards the system. He's not a Manchurian candidate. Putin happened to hit the jackpot when Trump went supernova and made his damn best to get the best ROI from then on.

I thought the thrust of the CIA's accusation was that the RNC was also hacked, but Russia released no information. Which the RNC denies. I think it's hard to deny that if Russia is simply holding onto info on Republicans and Trump, it had a clear goal of electing their chosen candidate.

 

[Cipherr]

Theres people in the other thread clinging to the idea that we dont know these attacks originated in Russia. Now we have this showing universal agreement that they did.

I fully expect those posters to quietly shimmy on over to beating the drum of "not knowing their intentions" while never directly addressing that they were wrong to ignore the smoke fire and whatnot about where these attacks were coming from in the first place.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

There's a thread about CIA's assessment. However I didn't find any thread on FBI's conclusion.
'We're drawing very different conclusions': The FBI and the CIA can't agree on the motives of Russian hacks



Democrats pissed off at FBI

Of course, Republicans clung to FBI's assessment

The article however says that they don't have clear evidence linking Moscow with the hackers.

Hack me if old.

First it was to deny Russian involvement in light of evidence of it.

Now it's to call into question any motive.

If they didn't have a clear desire in affecting the outcome, why wouldn't they have released hacked RNC material?

Lie big, GOP, lie big.

 

[Byakuya769]

"We cannot confirm that this was their express goal. They're just ecstatic at this unanticipated windfall of a victory and subsequent cabinet position selections."

Get the fuck out of here.

 

[Blader]

Elections are zero-sum games. Either a Republican wins or a Democrat wins. The hacking and release of only Democratic party and Clinton campaign emails, and no such effort on the Republican side, should make it abundantly clear that the aim was always to elevate Trump over Clinton. If it was to cause general havoc, they would've released information from both parties.

This should be old news by now.

Russia's apparent goal was not to get Trump elected, but to mess with the electorate and seed distrust towards the system. He's not a Manchurian candidate. Putin happened to hit the jackpot when Trump went supernova and made his damn best to get the best ROI from then on.

The crux of the CIA's assessment is that Russia was specifically looking to elect Trump, and not just fuck with the system, which was the initial assessment released back in October. Trump doesn't have to be a Manchurian candidate for Moscow to see him as a useful idiot that they should elevate to the presidency.

 

[LCGeek]

Really the assholes who did nothing since september of last year, are questioning other people's assessment. What's pathetic is democrats not having any balls to call out russian interference when I just watched republican whine to death about emails and benghazi for how long?The hypocrisy on the right either from republican supporters or their leaders is so fucking two faced.

 

[darscot]

This is so laughable, it reminds me of the comedy bit that you just deny no matter what. Even when you get caught in bed with another women you just say it wasn't me. Trump could literally get caught blowing Putin and people would still just say there is no connection.

 

[Maxim726X]

This should be old news by now.

Russia's apparent goal was not to get Trump elected, but to mess with the electorate and seed distrust towards the system. He's not a Manchurian candidate. Putin happened to hit the jackpot when Trump went supernova and made his damn best to get the best ROI from then on.

I don't know why it would be considered such a leap to assume that Putin did want him elected.

There wouldn't have been a party in the Kremlin if Clinton won, that much is for certain.

Further, if there really is evidence that the RNC was hacked and nothing was released... Then it clearly seems that they favored one side, no?

 

[Biske]

Isn't it obvious?

The clear goal was to fuck with Clinton. All the fuckery was focused on Clinton.

Helping Trump.

Helping Trump get elected.


Now if you wanna be a real ass about it you can call it a wash and just say "they just wanted to fuck with our election"

Which they clearly did.


But then... why are folks so okay with that?


Any other time Republicans would be going nutso over Russia.


But suddenly stuff Russia helps them and "what? what you talkin about Russia? Russia is great."

 

[SpideySenses]

If "there's no question that [the Russians'] efforts went one way" then surely this is just semantics? They wanted to damage Clinton, which would help Trump. They wanted to help Trump, which would hinder Clinton. They wanted to influence the election, which would help the weaker candidate. They wanted the weaker candidate, which would help their influence on US policies.

I know the FBI are in the bag for Trump but they're not even arguing against what the CIA are truly saying.

 

[Bleepey]

This is so laughable, it reminds me of the comedy bit that you just deny no matter what. Even when you get caught in bed with another women you just say it wasn't me. Trump could literally get caught blowing Putin and people would still just say there is no connection.

The Shaggy/Eddie Murphy defence.

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

This should be old news by now.

Russia's apparent goal was not to get Trump elected, but to mess with the electorate and seed distrust towards the system. He's not a Manchurian candidate. Putin happened to hit the jackpot when Trump went supernova and made his damn best to get the best ROI from then on.

That's Russia's foreign policy goal in a nutshell, isn't it? Not a nefarious ploy to insert a Kremlin agent in the White House, it's simply to keep Russia's geopolitical opposition disorganised and disrupted.

That Adam Curtis short film explains the theory pretty well.

 

[hammysaurusrex]

Damaging Clinton was inherently helping to support Trump. That's the way our election system works. The only people who believe otherwise are idiot college Freshmen and, apparently, the FBI.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

The FBI not even trying to hide thier bias, They couldnt even come up with an alternative theory, absolutely pathetic.

 

[ZealousD]

This should be old news by now.

Russia's apparent goal was not to get Trump elected, but to mess with the electorate and seed distrust towards the system. He's not a Manchurian candidate. Putin happened to hit the jackpot when Trump went supernova and made his damn best to get the best ROI from then on.

1. The information that was sent to Wikileaks explicitly targeted Hillary Clinton and Democrats. We did not get e-mails from the Trump team or the RNC.
2. Trump has no compelling public self-interest in denying Russia's involvement in disrupting our election, but he does it anyway. It doesn't improve his image whether the hacker is Russian, Chinese, or a guy in his bed. It only helps Russia, which makes it easy to assume that Trump has interest an in supporting Russia.
3. Rex Tillerson. Come on. This is too easy.

Russia absolutely had sufficient reasons to support Trump. And there's no reason that these two goals have to be mutually exclusive.

 

[radios shipping overview]

The DNC hacks worked so well to turn the party against itself that people are still having the same internal arguments they had right after the convention.

We have to get past this, or the "state actor of unknown motives" has already won.

 

[FantasticMrFoxdie]

FBI: "No you're the puppet!"

 

[Evo X]

When's the CIA vs FBI movie coming out?

 

[Blader]

Really the assholes who did nothing since september of last year, are questioning other people's assessment. What's pathetic is democrats not having any balls to call out russian interference when I just watched republican whine to death about emails and benghazi for how long?The hypocrisy on the right either from republican supporters or their leaders is so fucking two faced.

Democrats have been calling out Russian interference for weeks and months, but they have very little power to do anything about it.

 

[Breads]

Russia's disruption motives are working!

 

[Cybit]

Remember, CIA assessments are "which way is more likely", while FBI assessments are "could we prove this in court". That's the main difference between the two - the CIA, once it thinks there is a greater than 50% chance, will go for it, while the FBI (being the domestic police agency) is going "could we prove this in court if challenged?" in their minds.

 

[btrboyev]

The same FBI who thought it was a good idea to fuck Clinton over a week before the election?

 

[curls]

Another perspective:

The Kremlin has rejected the hacking accusations, while the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has previously said the DNC leaks were not linked to Russia. A second senior official cited by the Washington Post conceded that intelligence agencies did not have specific proof that the Kremlin was “directing” the hackers, who were said to be one step removed from the Russian government.

Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims “bullshit”, adding: “They are absolutely making it up.”

“I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.

“If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA’s statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States.

“America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it’s not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever.”

Guardian

I am under no doubt that Russia and others were backing Trump. BTW

 

[Baki]

While they dispute the motive, they don't offer an alternative either and aren't denying the possibility, just the certainty of the claim.

Well FBI already showed it wasn't impartial by interfering with the campaign.

So not surprised with this.

 

[-Plasma Reus-]

Russia's fingerprints were all over the cyberattacks, cybersecurity officials concluded in the days and weeks after the breaches. But it has been difficult to prove that Moscow specifically ordered hackers to attack Podesta and the DNC. The hackers were apparently middlemen, rather than Kremlin employees

They obviously don't hire Kremlin employees to do this.

The CIA isn't going to use white house IP addresses/people's names when it's hacking the kremlin lol


Anyway, this is super obvious what is going on.

What can be done if the FBI clearly is corrupt?

 

[Steejee]

Another perspective:



Guardian

I am under no doubt that Russia and others were backing Trump. BTW

'Close associate of Assange' doesn't lend a lot of credibility these days.

 

[KDR_11k]

Does the FBI even have expertise on dealing with foreign attacks like this? I'd think the CIA is much more experienced with interpreting foreign intents.

 

[D4Danger]

While they dispute the motive, they don't offer an alternative either and aren't denying the possibility, just the certainty of the claim.

the other theory is they targeted Clinton because they thought she'd win and were going to use what they stole against her.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html?_r=0

“No one was all that eager to impose costs before Election Day,” said another participant in the classified meeting. “Any retaliatory measures were seen through the prism of what would happen on Election Day.”

Instead, when Mr. Obama’s national security team reconvened after summer vacation, the focus turned to a crash effort to secure the nation’s voting machines and voter-registration rolls from hacking. The scenario they discussed most frequently — one that turned out not to be an issue — was a narrow vote in favor of Mrs. Clinton, followed by a declaration by Mr. Trump that the vote was “rigged” and more leaks intended to undercut her legitimacy.

chances are they were working every angle they could and left unchecked became more and more brazen.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

Does the FBI even have expertise on dealing with foreign attacks like this? I'd think the CIA is much more experienced with interpreting foreign intents.

This has nothing to do with experience or competency, the fbi has proven thier dedication to trump on numerous occassions and they are continuing to do it. Its disgusting, they didnt even give a plausible alternative, they just defended trump by basically saying " nuh uh!".

 

[Nikodemos]

This is the same FBI which thought it was a good idea to lob a bunch of nothing to the public just before election day, right?

 

[Trojita]

the other theory is they targeted Clinton because they thought she'd win and were going to use what they stole against her.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html?_r=0

Occam's Razor says this is bullshit since you wouldn't leak things like this out ahead of time if you planned on using the information for subterfuge or blackmail later.

 

[PantherLotus]

Comey should be investigated immediately.

 

[D4Danger]

Occam's Razor says this is bullshit since you wouldn't leak things like this out ahead of time if you planned on using the information for subterfuge or blackmail later.

True but at the same time nobody (literally nobody) thought Trump would win so why would they plan for that? Also no one really knows what they took, only what they've leaked.

It seems much more likely they were just targeting everyone and everything they could and whatever the outcome they'd have played a hand in it.

 

[hammysaurusrex]

It would be one thing if the FBI had evidence that countered the CIA's facts. But simply saying "but, but, but... we're not convinced yet" rings hollow given their behavior this past year.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

This is the same FBI which thought it was a good idea to lob a bunch of nothing to the public just before election day, right?

They also didnt make thier trump investigation public because they "didnt want to influence the election".