Russian Hackers Altered Emails Before Release to Wikileaks

[apnu]

Source: Motherboard Vice, NPR, and MSNBC

New evidence is emerging that content from the DNC emails accessed by Russian hackers may have been altered before being released to Wikileaks. This added layer of information joined with the timing of the release and Trump’s cozy relationship with Putin paint a picture of deep collusion and planning aimed at fracturing any potential Democratic unity at the most crucial point in the 2016 presidential election cycle.

Thomas Rid at Motherboard Vice reported on the discovery this morning:

The metadata in the leaked documents are perhaps most revealing: one dumped document was modified using Russian language settings, by a user named “Феликс Эдмундович,” a code name referring to the founder of the Soviet Secret Police, the Cheka, memorialised in a 15-ton iron statue in front of the old KGB headquarters during Soviet times. The original intruders made other errors: one leaked document included hyperlink error messages in Cyrillic, the result of editing the file on a computer with Russian language settings. After this mistake became public, the intruders removed the Cyrillic information from the metadata in the next dump and carefully used made-up user names from different world regions, thereby confirming they had made a mistake in the first round.

Then there is the language issue. “I hate being attributed to Russia,” the Guccifer 2.0 account told Motherboard, probably accurately. The person at the keyboard then claimed in a chat with Motherboard’s Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai that Guccifer 2.0 was from Romania, like the original Guccifer, a well-known hacker. But when asked to explain his hack in Romanian, he was unable to respond colloquially and without errors. Guccifer 2.0’s English initially was also weak, but in subsequent posts the quality improved sharply, albeit only on political subjects, not in technical matters—an indication of a team of operators at work behind the scenes.

Rid went on to add:

The metadata show that the Russian operators apparently edited some documents, and in some cases created new documents after the intruders were already expunged from the DNC network on June 11. A file called donors.xls, for instance, was created more than a day after the story came out, on June 15, most likely by copy-pasting an existing list into a clean document.

Although so far the actual content of the leaked documents appears not to have been tampered with, manipulation would fit an established pattern of operational behaviour in other contexts, such as troll farms or planting fake media stories. Subtle (or not so subtle) manipulation of content may be in the interest of the adversary in the future. Documents that were leaked by or through an intelligence operation should be handled with great care, and journalists should not simply treat them as reliable sources.

Read more: http://www.peacock-panache.com/2016/07/russian-hackers-emails-wikileaks-23928.html

---

The plot thickens.

[C_U_L8R]

1. I smell a trump.

Stink.

[apnu]

6. I don't think Trump is smart enough to orchestrate this.

He's not that savvy. I think this is the Russians and/or other global powers working to help Trump. I would be greatly surprised if Trump has any knowledge of this. I mean this is the guy who tried to give a response speech in Virgina and all he could do was call some people names and complain about the hotel's A/C. This is not a guy who can operate the levers of Russian hackers (state sponsored or not) to change data before giving it to WikiLeaks.

So is it for Trump? Certinaly. By Trump? Doubtful.

[bucolic_frolic]

12. Could still be arm's length

'do whatever you have to do'

There is, in the spook trade, a basically Cold War term
'agent without portfolio'

Mission Impossible: 'the agency will disavow any knowledge of your actions'

[apnu]

13. Maybe, I dunno.

Its all symantics at this point. Clearly the data was washed before going to WikiLeaks who are easily lead and manipulated, and it was released at a highly convenient time for Trump. None of this is organic or by accident.

[enid602]

124. obama

Convenient for Trump, or inconvenient for Obama? Obama talked Nato partners into sanctioms against Russia. Putin will never forgive him.

[cstanleytech]

19. No, he isnt smart enough to pull it off but he certainly has the money to hire such people.

That's not a claim that he did it nor is it even meant to insinuate that he did rather it is simply a statement of fact that is clearly rich enough to afford to hire someone to do it if he wanted to.

[Chemisse]

107. I don't even think he's smart enough to hire someone to do it.

His sons might be, though.

[Kingofalldems]

22. His loudmouth spokesman is though.

[LiberalFighter]

127. Yes, Paul Manafort likely has strong ties with people in Russia

[procon]

40. You're right, Trump isn't sophisticated enough to plan something that complex.

But someone else smarter than he is, sure could. Given his ego, and how he's impressed by flattery, beautiful women, and important people, it's easy to see how Trump could have seduced and manipulated by foreign agents. How hard would it be to exploit a self absorbed, informed, vain and petty little man like Trump, convince him that it was his own clever idea, dangle the promise of revenge to bring down his opponent, just by telling him how great he is?

[FighttheFuture]

68. I agree. Trump is smart enough to suck up to other strong men who in turn may help him

out. Trump is a master manipulator at the emotional level and very good at taking and appropriating what he needs for the moment. Putin is much smarter though, and I suspect Putin sees Trump as a very useful tool to sow discord and weaken the US in the long term; just like he saw in his soul-mate, George W Bush. Helping Trump now works well for both of them.

I would not put it past Trump to have some pre-knowledge of this, however. That in itself would be very damming for Trump if it is ever shown. Still, he may not have; Trump is very good on capitalizing the moment.

[Chemisse]

110. Those around him would be foolish to let him in on it.

He is utterly unable to control is braggartly mouth.

[FighttheFuture]

113. Plausible Deniability takes on a new level of meaning when working with Trump!!

[lewebley3]

106. Trump is not the one doing the thinking: He doesn't do this: He hires hit men

Putin also owes Trump money: this is Mussolini and Germany all over:
I think that the congress should call for an investigation.

After all Trump is mobbed up!

[Cosmocat]

139. Correct this is sll putin

Trump is just his fredo, a dimwitted dupe.

[workinclasszero]

146. What about Paul Manafort though?

Trump's campaign chairman with Russian connections?

[radical noodle]

152. Trump isn't smart enough but Manafort probably is...

[bigbrother05]

73. Agree, looks like he outsourced his oppo research

Add that to the GOP propensity for rat f**king and Trump's Russian connections and the plausibility increases. Not sure even Trump would directly throw in with Putin, but there is no way the Russian mafia could do such a thing without Putin's spooks knowing about it. They (mafia) could have subbed out the work to the gov't hackers or just bought what the Russians already had.

[Koinos]

82. More like a Manafort.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

131. Trump is Putin's Useful Idiot. . . . . nt

[George II]

2. I suspected that minutes after they were "leaked".

[calimary]

14. The timing STINKS. That alone started setting off alarm bells for me.

Awfully fishy...

[lewebley3]

111. Congress need to investigate if Trump is in bed with our enemies: We need hearings!!!

Especially is Putin owes Trump money: we need to know if Trump is
selling this country out.

[calimary]

133. OR... dare I suspect... if Trump owes Putin money?

Evidently, there are substantial investments in Trump & Co. from Russia. One of Donald's sons was quoted as saying they have a lot of money coming in from Russia - Russian investors buying their properties, for example.

At a minimum, Trump appears to have a deep financial dependence on Russian money from persons close to Putin. And this is matched to a conspicuous solicitousness to Russian foreign policy interests where they come into conflict with US policies which go back decades through administrations of both parties. There is also something between a non-trivial and a substantial amount of evidence suggesting Putin-backed financial support for Trump or a non-tacit alliance between the two men.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-putin-yes-it-s-really-a-thing

[lewebley3]

150. Trump should be investigate by the CIA and congress: Obama need call for hearings

[workinclasszero]

147. Trump is now receiving national security briefs

and that info could be going directly to Moscow for all we know!

[lewebley3]

149. Trumps has no core values of right or Wrong: Obama need to put the CiA on Trumps tail

[workinclasszero]

151. Agreed

Pump him full of false info and see how quick it winds up in Moscow!

[thesquanderer]

20. Still if the *content* of the emails were fraudulent...

...the DNC would have made that claim (rather than owning up, apologizing, and having DWS step down). So even if something was done to alter the files for some yet to be divined reason, the substance of the content appears to be legit regardless.

[uawchild]

25. "Although so far the actual content of the leaked documents appears not to have been tampered with"

The article is just spin, deep inside it even admits:

"Although so far the actual content of the leaked documents appears not to have been tampered with"

good lord. read the article.

[thesquanderer]

27. Right. That's my point.

It makes no sense to use this as a premise to somehow delegitimize the emails, when all indications are that the content is on the level.

[George II]

32. "Some yet to be divined reason"? Are you not aware of the connection between Putin...

...and Trump and Manafort's influence in the Ukraine and Russia?

[Laser102]

47. I've heard that. Scary stuff. Could we be opening our elections to Russian interference? Putin is

hoping for a trump presidency because he knows he can manipulate the dumb and insane.

[thesquanderer]

51. I was talking specifically about the purpose of these specific alterations. (n/t)

[uawchild]

26. "Although so far the actual content of the leaked documents appears not to have been tampered with"

Thats from thee OP article, did you even read it?

Or did you mean you suspected a misleading headline would be posted and deep in the article the truth would be stated that

"the actual content of the leaked documents appears not to have been tampered with" ?

[BlueCaliDem]

3. It's a good thing this is being widely reported in our media.

[workinclasszero]

148. MSM always on the job protecting our freedom

x a billion!

[ehrnst]

4. Taking their cue from the GOP Benghazi 'investigation'. (nt)

[bluedye33139]

5. Not so sure about altering content

Rid at Motherboard says "so far the actual content of the leaked documents appears not to have been tampered with," but the time stamps and other signs of manipulation give a time frame and establish that these are Russian intelligence actions.

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/all-signs-point-to-russia-being-behind-the-dnc-hack

[apnu]

8. Right Rid is mentioned in my original link.

But thanks for the full vice.com link put in the clear.

[bluedye33139]

10. It's a slog to read through!

But it is a very thorough article. Beyond doubt, Russian intelligence compiled the release.

[Democat]

36. You aren't sure?

Are you concerned?

[bluedye33139]

39. I'm not "concerned," if

if by "concerned" you mean "I want to throw mud on to the Hillary Clinton campaign," as the word is commonly used on this discussion board

[Mc Mike]

7. Figures. rec, thanks, nt.

[Tarheel_Dem]

9. Very interesting. n/t

[Blue Idaho]

11. Well surprise, surprise, surprise...

Looks like the Trump/Putin campaign is depending on us becoming their "useful idiots."

[uawchild]

33. "the actual content of the leaked documents appears not to have been tampered with"

Sigh, you did actually READ the OP article right? That is a quote from that article.

[Blue Idaho]

45. Ok, but how does that square with:

"New evidence is emerging that content from the DNC emails accessed by Russian hackers may have been altered before being released to Wikileaks."

and

"The metadata show that the Russian operators apparently edited some documents, and in some cases created new documents after the intruders were already expunged from the DNC network on June 11."

My reading difficulties make it hard for me to see a distinction here. Can you help me out?

[uawchild]

57. Sure, Thanks for the opportunity to add clarity to this misleading article

The OP article is trying to mislead readers into thinking the emails are frauds and that they were altered to say things the DNC didn't really say.

This is of course not true.

They try to insinuate this by the Headline and the very first sentence of the OP:

"Russian Hackers Altered Emails Before Release to Wikileaks


Source: Motherboard Vice, NPR, and MSNBC

New evidence is emerging that content from the DNC emails accessed by Russian hackers may have been altered before being released to Wikileaks. "

Only after going on about meta data levels does the article ADMIT:

"Although so far the actual content of the leaked documents appears not to have been tampered with"

Does that clear up the misleading bait and switch game this article played? Just look how many posters here were fooled by it and are saying things like "I suspected as much as soon as those emails were released".

The OP NEVER claims the "actual content", by that they mean words ATTRIBUTED to the DNC, were altered in ANY WAY.

SO, are you assuming that the article says the words attributed to the DNC were in any way altered? if you are, you are wrong, the article makes that clear -- even though it did its best to bury that point.

[Blue Idaho]

86. Thank You.

I don't have an a problem believing the emails are likey true, but I am deeply concerned about the route It took for information to surface. I see this as two seperate issues.

First - there are the email contents.

Second - the very real possibility that Russia or their operatives are putting their thumb on the scale to get Trump in office.

As I see it, it's possible for both of those things to be true at the same time.

Thanks Again.

[uawchild]

96. NO, thank you.

I agree that the source of the leaks is also worth discussing, I am only taking issue here with how misleading this article was about the contents of the leaked emails.

Thanks for the reply.

[RapSoDee]

15. Scuzzy Republican dirty tricks with their evil Rooski comrades

[crosinski]

140. Russians not Polish!!!!!

... that would be 'evil Roosky comrades,' not 'Rooski.' Sorry, had to clear that up or my Polish ancestors would never forgive me.

[RapSoDee]

141. OK, Evil Rooskys & Republicans - Casino Comrades

Sucks big time either way in their gawdforsaken Roosky-Republican crusade against America.

[crosinski]

142. Yes it does suck ...

I hope Trump's tax returns will connect the dots further.

And thanks for humoring me. I only post now and then, and usually after I've had a glass of wine!

[NWCorona]

16. This would be easy to prove as the DNC can cross check with their original emails.

[uawchild]

23. The CONTENTS were not tampered with. READ the ARTICLE

read the actual article, the headline and first paragraphs are just spin.

"Although so far the actual content of the leaked documents appears not to have been tampered with"

THAT's from this OP article. Good lord

[NWCorona]

41. Yeah, I didn't read the article as it did seem like spin.

I just said that as through out all this. The DNC hasn't questioned the validity of the leaked emails and if they were manipulated they would have said so.

[uawchild]

48. EXACTLY

So what WAS the purpose of such a misleading OP article?

[NWCorona]

53. It seems people want to act like what the Russians are doing is new.

I remember vividly Netanyahu and his trip to speak to the Republicans. How he was all chummy with Romney. I think that was more blatant than this leak.

[bullsnarfle]

128. Sounds to me

like its somebody trying to stir up sh*t.

[Loki]

17. Surprise, surprise,

you've been gamed. If people didn't see this coming, well they failed to pay attention.

[uawchild]

28. You have been gamed

In the op article:

"the actual content of the leaked documents appears not to have been tampered with"

did you even read the article? Seems so many people posting have not.

[Loki]

31. No, we have been gamed, and it's not by the DNC.

[NWCorona]

43. Why are we acting like foreign involvement is new in presidential politics?

[Orrex]

18. Remember how upset people were about China in 1996?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy

Even now this is cited as evidence of the Clintons' "corruption," when the investigation amounted to little more than a dry fart.


Yet today we have evidence of a Presidential candidate and a foreign power collaborating to disrupt the Presidential Election, and the big story is that some assholes at the convention booed the speakers.

[uawchild]

21. "Although so far the actual content of the leaked documents appears not to have been tampered with"

Did any of you even READ the OP?

"Although so far the actual content of the leaked documents appears not to have been tampered with"

The ACTUAL CONTENT of the LEAKED DOCUMENTS appears NOT TO HAVE BEEN TAMPERED WITH.

What a misleading OP article headline. I wonder why?

Why do I even bother to point out the truth here, it seems a hopeless task. Good Lord.

Go ahead, be played, focus onPUTIN. lol

Now a misleading headline trying to trick people that don't read the actual articleit that the RUSSIANS doctored the emails, good grief.

[Kingofalldems]

24. So who leaked the emails?

[NWCorona]

44. Is it the contents or who leaked them?

[emulatorloo]

29. The truth is coming out. Seems like it may not confirm your 'Truth' at all.

This article and others are about the source of the leaks. We're able to walk and chew gum at the same time here.

If Russia is attempting to manipulate our election I want to know about it.

That's a separate issue from the catty emails.

[uawchild]

42. WRONG: "Russian Hackers Altered Emails Before Release to Wikileaks"

THAT is what this article was about THAT is the thrust of its first half going on about altered metadata. lol

Then deep down it admits that the ACTUAL CONTENT of the leaked emails was NOT TAMPERED WITH.

The purpose was to fool casual readers into thinking the emails were fraudulent, which is just not the case.

Come on, own up, admit the headline is totally misleading at least. Can you be fair enough to do just that?

[emulatorloo]

52. The source of the leak is a separate issue from the content of the leak

They are both important stories.

There are stories about the source of the leak, and their are stories about the content.

This is a story about the SOURCE of leak.

And as you note the article is quite clear that it is about tracking down the source and that the content was not altered.

You imply the intent of the article is to 'fool casual readers' but that's not supported by the content of the article.

Could the headline have been better? Sure. But I pretty much think most headlines could be better.

[uawchild]

64. The headline AND first sentence make it very clear what the subject of the OP is -- the CONTENT.

The headline AND first sentence make it very clear what the subject of the OP is -- the CONTENT.

How did you manage to ignore this:

"Russian Hackers Altered Emails Before Release to Wikileaks [View all]

New evidence is emerging that content from the DNC emails accessed by Russian hackers may have been altered before being released to Wikileaks."

lol

Content, altered emails... gee, seems you are wrong. The entire purpose of this misleading article seems to be just to insinuate that the emails are frauds, that the ACTUAL CONTENT, that is what the DNC itself said in them, was altered.

That is simply NOT TRUE and the OP article even admits this, though it buried that fact deep in the story:

"Although so far the actual content of the leaked documents appears not to have been tampered with"

[emulatorloo]

75. Look, the article says the content wasn't altered. You yourself confirm

the article says the content wasn't altered. It is there in black and white.

You keep insisting article is deceptive when it isn't. You are making a mountain out of a molehill, I think possibly because you don't understand the conventions journalists use to construct articles.

[Hortensis]

87. Good grief. Maybe we should wait for further info?

The document says content was altered, then it says it was not altered.

Imo, anyone who tries to set up a fortified position on either statement should just be left alone to defend it in solitary glory.

[emulatorloo]

91. Article says metadata altered, content not altered

I don't have a 'fortified position'.

I'm able to distinguish between the content of the leak and the source of the leak.

Article does that as well. Am uncomfortable with efforts to misrepresent what the article actually says.

[uawchild]

95. lol Once AGAIN, why the article is DECEPTIVE.

"Russian Hackers Altered Emails Before Release to Wikileaks [View all]

New evidence is emerging that content from the DNC emails accessed by Russian hackers may have been altered before being released to Wikileaks."

The article LEAD with THAT, THAT is what makes it DECEPTIVE. lol

Look at all the posters here that are saying stuff like "If the emails aren't real why did DWS resign".

THEY WERE DECEIVED BY THIS MISLEADING ARTICLE.

Why you consistently choose to ignore the HEADLINE and TOPIC SENTENCE of this misleading article is beyond me.

[apnu]

54. Just so you know, meta data is important too.

The fact that it clearly passed through Russian hands and it clearly was manipulated brings it to suspect. Its the timing and the release of the data showing collusion between Russian hackers, who may or may not be state-sponsored, WikiLeaks for the benefit of Trump. Any involvement of Trump or his campaign, right now, is speculation. But Robert Reich on FB posted some interesting facts to remember.

https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/1264840986861828

1. Trump's debt load has grown dramatically over the last year, from $350 million to $630 million. At the same time, he’s been blackballed by all major US banks.
2. Post-bankruptcy, Trump has become highly reliant on money from Russia -- most of which has over the years become increasingly concentrated among oligarchs close to Vladimir Putin.
3. Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign manager and top advisor, spent most of the last decade as top campaign and communications advisor to Viktor Yanukovych, the pro-Russian Ukrainian Prime Minister and then President whose ouster in 2014 led to the on-going crisis and proxy war in Ukraine. Yanukovych was and remains a close ally of Putin.
4. Trump's foreign policy advisor on Russia and Europe is Carter Page, a man whose entire professional career has revolved around investments in Russia and who has deep and continuing financial and employment ties to Gazprom, which, in turn, is part of Putin’s financial empire.
5. Over the course of the last year, Putin has aligned all Russian state controlled media behind Trump.
6. The Trump Camp was totally indifferent to the Republican Party platform, with one exception: They changed the party platform to eliminate assistance to Ukraine against Russian military operations in eastern Ukraine. Not incidentally, this is the single most important issue to Putin.
7. Trump is also suggesting the US and thus NATO might not come to the defense of NATO member states in the Baltics in the case of a Russian invasion -- another important issue to Putin.

So there is a connection between Trump and Putin, plus ample motive for Putin and Russia to mess with the Election.

[Doodley]

89. In addition.....

Trump has repeatedly praised Putin and indirectly defended the killing of journalists in Russia, while Putin has praised Trump. Why?

Trump Tweeted in 2013: "Do you think Putin will be going to The Miss Universe Pageant in November in Moscow - if so, will he become my new best friend?"

Trump described a New York Times article written by Trump as “amazingly well-written” and said it made Obama look like “a schoolchild.” Why?

Trump Tweeted in 2014: "Putin has become a big hero in Russia with an all time high popularity. Obama, on the other hand, has fallen to his lowest ever numbers. SAD" Why?

Trump, when asked in May on Fox News if he had ever met Putin, said "no comment." Why?

Trump has refused to show his tax returns. Why? What is he really trying to hide?

[Democat]

37. You seem heavily invested in defending Republicans

How many posts in this thread alone?

[Hissyspit]

145. Nope, just heavily invested in not putting up with bullshit like the kind Republicans do.

[The_Casual_Observer]

30. Oh right, the content hasn't been altered

What horseshit. The whole pile is worthless. Anybody who would py any attention to that shit is a fool.

[uawchild]

34. its from this OP Article ! lol

"Although so far the actual content of the leaked documents appears not to have been tampered with"

READ the OP ARTICLE.

So you are saying this article is misleading horseshit?

[Democat]

38. Your post count is skyrocketing as you defend Trump

Keep going!

[tenderfoot]

101. Excellent observation

[emulatorloo]

35. Did article claim content had been altered? No

Article is about the source of the leak. Totally separate issue.

Don't know about you but I am interested to find out if Russia is attempting to manipulate our elections.

Evidence is piling up that they are.

[uawchild]

46. Why yes it did in the Headline and the FIRST sentence, did you read those?

Russian Hackers Altered Emails Before Release to Wikileaks


Source: Motherboard Vice, NPR, and MSNBC

New evidence is emerging that content from the DNC emails accessed by Russian hackers may have been altered before being released to Wikileaks.

GOOD LORD. Did you EVEN read the FIRST sentence of this misleading article? It's going out of its way to insinuate to casual readers that the CONTENT was altered.

You think casual readers say "oh, metadata layers were altered" no, as demonstrated in this thread they scream "I knew those emails were fakes!"

THEY, like you, just don't read what is actually written in this OP article.

[Democat]

50. More defending of Trump?

You never stop.

[Kingofalldems]

97. Could you combine all your Trump defenses into one post?

I see you have at least 10 in this thread, and all are pretty much the same post.

[Bluenorthwest]

49. Then Brad Marshall needs to stand up and say he never said he'd do to bigots to bait

Bernie's religion to them. If that was not true the Party needs to make that clear instantly and with no hesitation. If it is true, they should not in any way attempt to downplay the nastiness of it.

[workinclasszero]

55. What if Trump is actively working with Putin??

[apnu]

56. That would be treason.

There I said it.

[workinclasszero]

60. Yes indeed

I believe you are correct.

He and his campaign people better not be pullin this shit.

There will be hell to pay when the truth comes to light eventually.

[truthisfreedom]

58. DINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDING!!!

[emulatorloo]

59. Yeah, that's the big question.

Gut feeling is this a freebie from Putin and Trump's not involved. Even though it is clear Putin wants Trump to win.

However would not be terribly surprised if investigators find differently. Manafort is pretty sketchy.

I guess we'll wait and see.

[workinclasszero]

62. Probably but..

we are talkin about Trump that wants to win everything at all costs and has reputed ties to mobsters and is a well know fan of Putin.

IOW, I wouldn't put it past him.

[RandySF]

61. And we followed the shiny ball down the rabbit hole.

[Festivito]

63. Of course it is tomorrow there most of today.

Julian says he verified the emails and that some came from after the last known hack, meaning to indicate that it probably was not the Russians, but, rather, an inside job not requiring a noticeable hack.

[Ghost Dog]

65. The documents referred to are not the emails.

Last edited Tue Jul 26, 2016, 01:16 PM - Edit history (1)

They are documents leaked in June.

Dee: http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/06/guccifer-leak-of-dnc-trump-research-has-a-russians-fingerprints-on-it/

And: https://www.wired.com/2016/06/chaotic-whodunnit-follows-dncs-trump-research-hack/

[B2G]

66. Then why did DWS resign?

I mean, if the content wasn't accurate, why not dispute them?

[apnu]

72. You're missing the point

The point is signs point towards Russians mucking about with the American electorate process. Or are you cool with other nation-states interfering with our election?

As for DWS, she was bad at her job, we all knew this. We knew this before the primaries started. Inside Democratic Party people knew this but were unable to remove DWS. Her incompetence and partisan hackery led us to this. Led the DNC to bungle the hack despite warnings from the government months ago. http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/politics/democratic-convention-dnc-emails-russia/

All this led to DWS downfall. Its not just the emails or her unprofessional conduct in them, its way more than that.

But none of that removes this one fact: Russians hacked our government and political parties and are trying to influence American politics. So, again, are you cool with that or not?

[B2G]

76. Of course I'm not "OK with that".

Foreign governments hack each other every day. Nothing new here.

[uawchild]

77. You are missing the point, the OP article was purposefully misleading

"Russian Hackers Altered Emails Before Release to Wikileaks [View all

New evidence is emerging that content from the DNC emails accessed by Russian hackers may have been altered before being released to Wikileaks."

The OP article goes out of its way to insinuate the CONTENT of the leaked DNC emails were messed with. Only buried deep in the story to they admit this was not really true:

"Although so far the actual content of the leaked documents appears not to have been tampered with"

but by then so many people seemed to have been taken in already by this misleading article.

Some posters continue to insist the real point of the story is the source of the leaks, but honestly, just reread the headline and very first sentence to see THAT SIMPLY is not true. The point is to insinuate the leaked DNC emails are fakes.

Again:
"Russian Hackers Altered Emails Before Release to Wikileaks [View all

New evidence is emerging that content from the DNC emails accessed by Russian hackers may have been altered before being released to Wikileaks."

[Hortensis]

98. Millions believe the emails prove misconduct,

which they may very well still do. We can't know at this point.

But the outrage was too large to tamp even if it were all phony, all the proof in the world would not have changed the minds of millions of enraged people who felt others were finally paying attention to their claims of uneven treatment, and so she stepped down for the good of the party, and the nation -- We have to win this one.

[avaistheone1]

67. Is that why the DNC already admitted wrongdoing?

[fleabiscuit]

70. What!?

Hackers, leakers, provocateurs, republicons, and talking yam millionaires can’t be trusted?

I’m astounded.

[Omaha Steve]

69. Maybe the DNC will release it's emails to prove it

IF they were altered, why the apologies instead of a denial?

[fleabiscuit]

74. Opps, wrong post.

What I meant to ask, has someone come forward saying they sent the emails in question?

[Omaha Steve]

83. Donna Brazile: 'I apologized' to Sanders Campaign video

She also confirms more emails will be leaked in the future.

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/donna-brazile-apologized-sanders-campaign-40835492

[emulatorloo]

100. Donna Brazille did the right thing. So happy DWS is gone.

Should have been gone a long time ago.

[uawchild]

80. Its a purposely misleading story

When it says THIS:

"Russian Hackers Altered Emails Before Release to Wikileaks [View all

New evidence is emerging that content from the DNC emails accessed by Russian hackers may have been altered before being released to Wikileaks."

It's trying to insinuate the leaked DNC emails are fakes, when in actuality it later admits deep in the story that the actual content of these emails was never tampered with.

Its some type of spin story to fool casual readers into thinking the DNC did not say what they did in the leaked emails.

[Dkc05]

90. Why would the DNC try and spin it?

What do they have to hide behind. The GOP and Russians are the responsible parties.

[emulatorloo]

81. The article does not say the content was altered.

Re-read the article, it is about the source of the leaks.

It does not assert content was altered.

The contents of the emails is an important story. This is not an article about the contents. It is an article about the source of the leaks.

Both stories are important.

I for one am interested to find out whether or not Russia is the source.

Again that is a separate story form content.

Repeating this article says in black in white that the content was not altered.

[uawchild]

84. Why do you keep saying: "The article does not say the content was altered."

When its been pointed out to you over and over again that is simply not true?

Here, again, READ the Headline and FIRST sentence, the TOPIC sentence as it is called:

"Russian Hackers Altered Emails Before Release to Wikileaks [View all]

New evidence is emerging that content from the DNC emails accessed by Russian hackers may have been altered before being released to Wikileaks."

Honestly, it seems you are trying to distract from the fact that this is just one INCREDIBLY MISLEADING story.

Why do you think so many people are saying stuff like "why did DWS apologize then"?

PEOPLE WERE MISLEAD ON PURPOSE BY THIS STORY.

Sheeeesh.

[emulatorloo]

94. We're done. I've not distracted from facts. I disagree with your assertion that the article is

misleading. Article says metadata was altered and confirms content was not altered. I feel that your spin on the articles intent is inaccurate and unconvincing as it is not supported by the actual content.

I have not cast aspersions on your character so I would appreciate you not casting aspersions on mine. I see others have questioned your motives and I don't like seeing that.

[uawchild]

109. You keep ignoring the overwhelmingly misleading lead in to this story.

I have posted the Headline and First sentence for you repeatedly. To argue that a latter admission made this a balanced presentation simply is not accurate.

As for whether I was casting dispersions on your character when I said this:

"Honestly, it seems you are trying to distract from the fact that this is just one INCREDIBLY MISLEADING story."

let me say that was not my intention and that I worded that badly.

Please accept my apology.

I should have said that honestly, it seems you are ignoring how incredibly misleading the introduction to this story is. It is clearly a bait and switch piece.

[emulatorloo]

112. Appreciate the apology n/t

[uawchild]

115. Thanks, I apologize a lot. lol

Honestly, I do. I think it's important on forums to admit one's own mistakes.

I try to do so when I inevitably misspeak or make misstatements of fact.

It's part of what makes me so lovable and well liked here on DU. lol

Cheers.

[emulatorloo]

118. ...

Totally understand your passion and appreciate you for it.

[Omaha Steve]

92. Thanks to both replies

I only read the OP and no replies when I posted.

[emulatorloo]

103. Thank you Steve!

[Dkc05]

78. I knew it was a set up all along. The Emails have been altered to make the DNC look bad.

It was evident that the hackers created some of the damaging email especially the ones that have been leaked on the Wiki site.

Now we need to prove that out. Will the DNC release the original version to a group of Media consultants for collaboration purposes. We have nothing to hide lets show them.

[barbtries]

85. it says above that at least so far, it appears that the content was not tampered with.

but for my money, DWS falling on her sword almost before i knew there were leaked emails and the thunderous silence from the DNC tell me that the picture they paint is a true story. don't you think the DNC would be screaming bloody murder if they were innocent? i do.

[Dkc05]

88. Yep you are correct

This situation is not pretty.

[RapSoDee]

79. Republicans in bed with the Rooskis

Me no like. Me like America. Me like Americans honoring and respecting America.

Why do Republicans hate America? Why are they into Dark Dealings with what their Saint Ronald Reagan used to call the Evil Empire.

[liberal N proud]

93. That destroys the credibility of anything they have or will leak.

So anything that was supposedly revealed and ultimately cost someone could be bogus and therefore anything they could leak in the future would be untrustworthy.

I have caught people tampering with email in attempt to accuse another employee of something. Once exposed the perpetrator quite before they could be fired.

[uawchild]

102. Were you just deceived by this misleading article? Seems so.

I understand that the HEADLINE and TOPIC SENTENCE of the OP are incredibly misleading when they say:

"Russian Hackers Altered Emails Before Release to Wikileaks [View all]

New evidence is emerging that content from the DNC emails accessed by Russian hackers may have been altered before being released to Wikileaks"

Who wouldn't think that meant the leaked DNC emails were faked? THAT was the whole purpose of this misleading article.

The truth is the ACTUAL CONTENTS were not altered, the OP admits that deeper in the article:

"Although so far the actual content of the leaked documents appears not to have been tampered with"

Its a bait and switch story and very disingenuous in its initial presentation.

[Democat]

104. Were you deceived by Donald Trump?

He's not going to help you no matter how much you try to help him.

[emulatorloo]

116. I think that's unfair to uawchild

Obviously I disagree with his interp of this article as you'll see in my posts above.

But I see a lot of anger in his/her posts at the obnoxious things said about Bernie in a few of the DNC emails. Not an atypical response around here these days.

[uawchild]

122. now now

Let's not start characterizing each other's emotional state now. lol

But, heh, notice that yet ANOTHER DU member was misled by the misleading introduction of this OP article?

C'mon, you got to see the trend by now.

We can disagree if the article was being purposely misleading and why, but its obvious that it WAS misleading to many posters in this thread.

[emulatorloo]

125. I'm defending you from accusations/insinuations that you are pro-Trump

If you'd like me to delete my defense of you I will be happy to!

[uawchild]

130. lol n/t

[Kingofalldems]

129. Maybe you should report this to Skinner or EarlG.

[HitchStop]

99. Okay then

Nothing to see folks, the thousands of emails have been created by those Russkies.. LOL
Can't people see the trees in the forest already?

[randome]

108. No one cares that a few emails dissed Sanders. His own colleagues stayed away from endorsing him.

None of this points to any actions taken against Sanders. None.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

[hueymahl]

105. Where is the evidence that it was done by Russian Hackers?

That is an attractive story that arguably helps the DNC, but I have not seen any real evidence to support it. Neither has Snopes.

http://www.snopes.com/2016/07/25/what-we-know-so-far-about-wikileaks-dncleaks/

Now Trump doing it, that actually rings a little more true. But no evidence of that either.

[apnu]

117. You didn't read the links in my OP

There's plenty of Russian characters in the meta data long with the files. Then there's the hacker who claims responsibility who doesn't appear to be Romanian as he claims to be.

You should read the article and the source links, you'll see there's Russian finger prints in the dump, just like there was US and Israeli fingerprints in the Stuxnet Worm that attacked Iran. Snopes is ignoring that data, despite the fact that the FBI and other agencies are looking into that right now. I don't thinks Snopes has all the info yet.

[hueymahl]

126. I did read your links

And I appreciate the links. And snopes may have a long way to go to get caught up.

But I don't want us to overstate our position. The existence of russian characters in the emails does not mean the Russians (as a country) are involved. I could mean that the hackers were russian, but not government related. It could mean that the RNC or Trump or any other private actor could have hired Russian hackers to see what they could do.

I have many, many clients that routinely use russian sources for programming and other computer services.

Could Russia the country be involved? Maybe. But to me, a more likely answer is some local actor (RNC, Trump, etc.) hired a computer group in russia with hacking skills. Or maybe they just did it on their own. Or maybe the DNC has a mole.

My point is, let's stick to what we know. It is a more powerful and credible defense when we do.

[emulatorloo]

121. "Why Experts Are Sure Russia Hacked the DNC Emails"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141531851

Evidence is starting to pile up, and remember that Snopes articles on current issues are works in progress.

[uawchild]

132. "The rush to blame Russia for the DNC email hack is premature"

It’s amazing how quickly the media are willing to forgo any skepticism and jump to conspiracy-tinged conclusions where Putin is involved. He has been linked to everything from Brexit, Jeremy Corbyn, Greece and Spain. People treat him like an omnipotent mastermind who secretly and effortlessly controls world events. Here’s an idea: maybe we should stop giving him so much credit?

Yes, there is some circumstantial evidence that the hack may have originated in Russia, but there are also many questions that haven’t been resolved. As Adam Johnson detailed, when you look closely, the evidence is shoddy and often contradictory. Even in the New York Times article that spent dozens of paragraphs speculating about Russian involvement concluded at the bottom: “It may take months, or years, to figure out the motives of those who stole the emails, and more important, whether they were being commanded by Russian authorities, and specifically by Putin.”

The bulk of the “evidence” has come from the statements of cybersecurity firms FireEye and Crowdstrike, both of which have lucrative contracts with the US government. As FireEye’s CEO once made clear, his company has a financial stake in nation-state hacking tensions.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/25/russia-blame-dnc-email-hack-premature

Oooo Let's REPEAT THAT LAST PARAGRAPH:

"The bulk of the “evidence” has come from the statements of cybersecurity firms FireEye and Crowdstrike, both of which have lucrative contracts with the US government. As FireEye’s CEO once made clear, his company has a financial stake in nation-state hacking tensions."

Well, that's what the Guardian UK has to say. Very interesting. And then there is this:

"If the allegations involving Russia are true, there are plenty more logical motivations besides evil genius-level electioneering, and the media should probably stop feigning shock that a country would stoop to this level. As Edward Snowden pointed out on Twitter with an accompanying NSA document, “Our government specifically authorized the hacking of political parties.” The US has also considered hacking and then releasing sensitive and embarrassing information in China in retaliation for cybersecurity attacks, as the New York Times reported last year."

Oooooo Lets REPEAT THAT too:

“Our government specifically authorized the hacking of political parties.” The US has also considered hacking and then releasing sensitive and embarrassing information in China in retaliation for cybersecurity attacks, as the New York Times reported last year."

Ooooo.... let the American exceptionalism excuses begin....

Can you say DOUBLE STANDARDS, boys and girls?

[They_Live]

114. What's Rove up to these days?

[lark]

119. Heard Trump on tv this morning acting like he had nothing at all to do with Russia and the hack.

He said Russia means nothing to him, well, that's a lie and a damned lie when just last week he basically said he wouldn't help another country if Russia invaded unless the country "was helping us" beforehand. In other words, Russia, take Ukraine, we won't raise one finger to help them. He wants his loans forgiven and wants to be president to get that. Wondered why he was doing this besides rank ego, now we have a big clue. His offer to 2 people to run the country as VP just shows how little interest he has in policy, except for letting Russia do whatever they want with his blessings.

[apnu]

120. Robert Reich has a run down of known facts of a Trump-Putin bromance on FB

https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/1264840986861828

[DFW]

123. Rove is probably hanging with whoever's calling himself "Felix Edmundovitch"

That's the "Феликс Эдмундович" of the article. The original man, Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky, from a place in today's Byelorus, and ethnically Polish, helped set up and found the Cheka, the original Soviet secret police. Dzerzhinsky Square in Moscow was where the KGB headquarters was located. The address alone was enough to cause fear in the Soviet days.

[Blue_Tires]

134. The plot thickens indeed...

[reorg]

135. not LBN, alerted

You have not correctly cited the source of this OPINION article, it's a blog with just one regular writer.

Have the rules for LBN changed?

It's for NEWS, not propaganda.

Whenever it goes against 'the Russians', though, everything seems possible these days.

[Rex]

137. 'Post the latest news from reputable mainstream news websites and blogs.'

Are you saying this site is not a reputable mainstream news website and blog? It is written into the LBN statement of purpose, look for yourself.

[reorg]

138. absolutely

it's a one-person operation and I have no idea why this person would be considered 'reputable'. He can only repeat stuff he reads elsewhere, it's not a news operation.

Mainly, though, my complaint is about the style of that article. Quite obviously it trumpets certain opinions and then cites parts of other 'news' articles to bolster its claims. Is this 'reputable' IYO? And what is the article a source of?

Finally the OP doesn't even cite the ACTUAL source where it is supposed to do that, but the secondary sources cited in the blog. I guess the OP must have felt that a one-man-blog is not reputable enough to be accepted as LBN.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

143. This is all speculation. Some or all of it may be true, or false. But it's complete speculation.

[Hissyspit]

144. "Although so far the actual content of the leaked documents appears not to have been tampered with"

[avaistheone1]

153. The horse has already left the barn.

The DNC already admitted and apologized for wrongdoing.