[tptacek]

So, just to see if I can follow this: the claim here is that Crowdstrike attributed the DNC hack to Russia --- as did the US IC and DHS --- to curry favor with the Democrats, who were not in power at the time the attribution occurred, presumably so that when they re-took power sometime in the future they'd pay Crowdstrike back? As a reminder: the current administration is deeply invested in a narrative that every aspect of the 2016 election was essentially on the up-and-up, and that the DNC leaks were fair game, as they had to be, since the President enthusiastically exploited them on the campaign trail, at one notorious point even publicly begging for additional leaks. The GOP, which controlled both houses of Congress when the attribution occurred, is also famously indentured to that President, who, again, would like nothing in the universe more than to shift accusations to Russia back at the DNC itself.

The conspiracy theory here doesn't even make surface-level sense.

[cwkoss]

I think a more plausible theory is that the 'cybersecurity industrial complex' has a vested interest in general increases in cybersecurity spending. DNC had an interest in distracting from the previous HRC email leak.

Guccifer2.0 didn't really leak anything damning - so perhap this 'leak' was a red herring. DNC insiders could have performed the 'hack' and fabricated the evidence of attribution, then perform the 'leaking' themselves. DNC gets a distraction and makes opponent look friendly w/ foreign power, Crowdstrike gets more revenue from increased paranoia.

Probably incorrect... but more plausible.

[tptacek]

Your theory is that, in the middle of an election, after there already being an email scandal, the DNC faked another one, and then got Crowdstrike and the United States intelligence community to go along with it? That's more plausible than... what?

[resters]

The US IC and DHS clearly have strategic reasons for wanting to crack down on Russia, as evidenced by the strong level of centrist support for doing so.

Crowdstrike decided to make a series of announcements expressing confidence that there had been Russian state sponsored attacks on the DNC server, and did not offer any evidence of it.

When the US IC released its report, the report referred to the Crowdstrike findings, but also excluded evidence. The report appears to have been copied and pasted from previous releases, and contained virtually no useful information.

Yes, you can trust the US IC that the attack was a state actor quality, Russian sponsored triumph, but these are the same experts who helped sell the Iraq war. We learned very importantly during the Iraq war that we should simply not trust their claims without hard evidence.

They are now trying to sell a war against Iran, and will ilkely use many of the same techniques and tactics to do so.

I despise Donald Trump at least as much as anyone, but I think the Russia narrative was mostly unsubstantiated and largely overblown. Why? Not due to a conspiracy, but for the same simple reason that anything Iran does at present will be framed as highly aggressive and a reason for war -- the centrist view wants it.

It's important not to involve Trump in the reasoning about any of this. Trump liking or encouraging something, or disliking it, etc., has no impact on whether or not it is true. Trump is a clown who should be ignored.

Crowdstrike most likely enjoyed getting a lot of PR for "finding" the Russian attack. But I have yet to see evidence that the attack was actually Russian state actors and was not either someone else spoofing them or a sloppy third tier amateur funded by some pro-Russian oligarch (or similar).

To those promoting the "get tough on Russia" narrative, it doesn't matter, Russia is Russia and it is threatening. But I think we should all take a step back and realize that most parties involved in this have some skin in the game and are apt to use the factual uncertainty to make claims that support their agenda. I'd argue that even the specific attribution of the attack as Russian, and the implication that the server was only attacked by one government/group is agenda-driven, IMHO.