Hurrah! Russian hacking report is out, and now we finally learned that “Putin … aspired to help President-elect ..”, however “NSA has moderate confidence” in that statement. Good intelligence work!
Putin just ASPIRED something and now we reading about it in a long-awaited intelligence report. It would be probably cheaper to buy any newspaper in Moscow and learn what Putin aspired, instead of involving hundreds of well-paid agents to do a guess work:
Just open the report and search for word “aspired”. It looks like this report is written by a cheating intern, who needs to write a certain number of pages and had to repeats the same statements several times just to fill in the space.
First, let’s check the vocabulary. What high confidence and moderate confidence means? Here we go:
As you can see that even High confidence judgements . . . does NOT imply that the assessment is a fact or a certainty; such judgments might be wrong.
Now, let’s look who issued this report. There are no names or signatures. The only attribution on the report is a fake seal of Director of National Intelligence. Please compare a fake seal on the report (left) and actual official seal (right). It means that when it will be time to uncover the lies, NSA will say that we do not know where this fake report came from. There is no our names or signatures or official seal of this report.
|This is a fake seal that appears on the report. In a few months we will hear the entire report is fake, and they do not know where this junk came from.||This is an actual seal that appears on Office of the Director of National Intelligence wiki entry|
Once again. Intelligence report has no names, no signatures and has a fake seal. How lazy is that?
Should we continue?
But let’s look at the sources of this masterpiece. What this report is based upon?
“. . .key judgments in this assessment rely on a body of reporting from multiple sources that are consistent with our understanding of Russian behavior“.
Wow! Over the course of last several months hey used psychology (!) to judge Russian behavior. I am telling you! Just take a few minutes to read this report before they hide it from sheer embarrassment:
Can you believe that all these competing intelligence agencies worked hard together (probably in one room in Hillary basement right next to mysterious server) for many months to reach a consensus on their “understanding of Russian behavior“. And this is were our tax dollars go to. Nice!
I just wanted to know what they manage to find out. Who did it? Wasn’t that the point of whole investigation? Let’s just note that the most obvious suspect is Julian Assange himself, who somehow knew John Podesta password (“password”) and who was hoping to free himself from Equdorian exile in London under incoming Trump administration. Instead of looking into obvious suspect, all intelligence agencies tells us a fascinating story that Russia uses propaganda just like any other Germany or Brazil:
They focused their attention on Russia’s propaganda machine, but to me it sounds just like propaganda. Please name one country that doesn’t have a “state-run propaganda machine”.
Did you also noticed that cyber operations were conducted against both US political parties. Usually, after each statement they rate it as high confidence, moderate confidence or low confidence. Apparently they have no confidence in that statement below:
Ok. Ok. I understand. You can’t disclose your sources, but if you say that “… Putin ordered an influence campaign … “, do you have any proof? I have two problems with that. First. Did you discover any corroborating documents, notes or emails? Anything? Something? Nothing? And second. Any campaign is an influence campaign. Both Clinton and Trump campaigns were influence campaigns. That is why they called campaigns:
You assess based on what? Apparently, song goes like this: “We asses that you asses that he assessed . . . ” and so on. But we highly assess your assessments.
When I saw a chapter “Determining Attribution in Cyber Incidents”, I thought that is it. Now they will tell how did they cracked this case out. But wait a second, ” … attribution of cyber operations difficult but not impossible“. OK. Fine. So, how did you do it? That’s is how:
I understand. It turns out, you do not need any intelligence at all. You can ask any wise analyst: “Who did this? This totally objective analyst using “a series of judgments” will name a perpetrator based on “possible motivations“. Perfect! That is how this whole report was written. And now we know why it took so long. All these intelligence agencies were looking all over for the smartest, most objective, most knowledgeable analyst. As soon as I saw this, I understood that this motivational essay is not an “intelligence report”. So much ado about nothing.
Outgoing administration wrote an editorial article full of judgments and statements with moderate confidence. Unfortunately for the outgoing administration, people understand how state-run propaganda machine operates. What we received today is an editorial of Washington Post masquerading as an “intelligence report“. Any reporter in any country could have written these several pages without ever needing assistance from intelligence community. I can only imagine how a lonely hacker sits in his stained chair somewhere in Oklahoma and grimaces how much attention his simple fishing schema caused.
Some administration. Some editorial. But this is not an “intelligence report”.
Just in case, here is a link to an “intelligence” editorial from desperate outgoing administration:
[2017-01-06 FRI 23:54 EST]
Navigate through the List
- Trump - Why no one knew? (2017/08/04)
- Democratic Machiavellian disciple opens his cards (unwillingly) (2017/08/12)
- Learn from Donald Trump skills of handling the press (по-русски) (2017/08/16)
- Russian hacking? - No. Putin aspired to help, but "NSA has moderate confidence" with a fake seal (2017/08/20)
- RUS: Споры о Трампе пересекают границы, делят семьи <br> EN: Arguments about Trump cross borders, divide families (2017/08/24)
- They " . . . conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry" - How? (2017/08/28)
- Only in America - Talking and Lying Icons (or eat a live armadillo) (2017/09/05)
- Wins and losses of Donald Trump after the Elections (2017/09/17)
- Evolutionary Benefits of Corruption (2017/09/21)
- Contradiction in US Economic Policy that Trump would need to address (2018/01/09)
- Clinton vs. Trump - Dream of businessman in White House trumps the dream of a woman in there (2018/01/10)
- Trump vs. Internationalists (2018/01/10)
- Why so many people annoyed with Trump? (2018/02/16)