A crime was committed. The DNC was hacked, and the integrity of the latest American election for president was compromised beyond what the electoral college already does. Let’s review a number of suspects and associated evidence.
RUSSIA
Considerable circumstantial evidence points to Russian hacking of the DNC and subsequent interference in the presidential campaign. Here is one incomplete summary with good bullet points, but flawed analysis.
The attacker or attackers registered a deliberately misspelled domain name used for email phishing attacks against DNC employees, connected to an IP address associated with APT 28/Fancy Bear.
Malware found on the DNC computers was programmed to communicate with an IP address associated with APT 28/Fancy Bear.
Metadata in a file leaked by “Guccifer 2.0″ shows it was modified by a user called, in cyrillic, “Felix Edmundovich,” a reference to the founder of a Soviet-era secret police force. Another document contained cyrillic metadata indicating it had been edited on a document with Russian language settings.
Peculiarities in a conversation with “Guccifer 2.0″ that Motherboard published in June suggests he is not Romanian, as he originally claimed.
The DCLeaks.com domain was registered by a person using the same email service as the person who registered a misspelled domain used to send phishing emails to DNC employees.
Some of the phishing emails were sent using Yandex, a Moscow-based webmail provider.
A bit.ly link believed to have been used by APT 28/Fancy Bear in the past was also used against Podesta.
It is incomplete because it does not list that the same servers have been used in multiple attacks in the U.S. and Germany. Nor do they list evidence linking Wikileaks with Guccifer 2.0. The subsequent analysis in the link is flawed in several ways. The IP and server connections are not explored. Superb tradecraft and sloppy mistakes in Word metadata are not mutually exclusive, and a few mistakes in document metadata is not necessarily screwing up over and over again. Focusing on relevant attacks by a group is not confirmation bias (If I attribute a car theft to a criminal organization based on their other car thefts, and not their prostitution ring, that is focusing on relevant evidence, not confirmation bias). And, few, if anybody holds the notion that APT28 has a narrow focus on American political targets. In fact, evidence suggests the DNC hacker targets are widespread, and expanding.
Still, the evidence is incomplete and largely circumstantial. That is why we need an independent and transparent investigation.
CIA
Recent posting of CIA documents on Wikileaks, if authentic, reveal CIA programs in cyber warfare. Leaving aside the potential for data collection and privacy invasion, which a review of the CIA response, along with my diaries and comments will reveal as significant concerns, it opens the possibility that the CIA hacked the DNC. In spite of tenuous reasoning for motivations and logical inconsistencies, this avenue can still be explored. Among the recently revealed CIA projects is one called Umbrage, which might be used to conduct attacks while masquerading as other perpetrators. This has been used to speculate that the CIA hacked the DNC in the guise of the Russians or independent criminal organizations.
That the CIA is involved in cyber warfare should not be a surprise. In an ideal world they would not be engaging in such activities. In reality, it would be troubling from a defense perspective if they were not incorporating digital components into their arsenal. Among available strategies, masquerading is not novel. Any organization with any advanced capabilities should be capable of deception such as this. In addition, they don’t need to steal the malware being mimicked. It could easily be found in infected machines and re-engineered.
In short, I am aware of no revelations to date that can implicate the CIA in DNC hacks any further than tenuous speculation that is nonexistent in comparison to linking the DNC hacks with Russia. Yes the CIA or other groups could have masqueraded as foreign entities. However, such speculation is a step or more beyond the inferences needed to implicate Russia. Furthermore, this line of inquiry does not address established links between Trump administration and campaign officials with Russia, and now the purveyor of DNC emails.
UKRAINE
There is some suggestion that the groups hacking the DNC, Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, are not affiliated with Russia, but with the Ukraine.
These state sponsored, Russian language hackers in Eastern European time zones have shown with the Surkov hack they have the tools and experience to hack states that are looking out for it. They are also laughing at US intel efforts.
The hackers also made it clear that they will do anything to serve Ukraine. Starting a war between Russia and the USA is the one way they could serve Ukraine best, and hurt Russia worst. Given those facts, if the DNC hack was according to the criteria given by Alperovitch (CrowdStrike co-founder), both he and these hackers need to be investigated.
This one is also a step beyond the direct connection to Russia. It also involves masquerading. Even so, there is some interesting information here that could be checked out. Public vetting and verification of sources is certainly called for. An independent, official investigation would likely do better.
UNKNOWN CONNECTIONS
Some, while acknowledging the DNC hack, cast doubt on the connections between the hackers and Russia. It is true that a irrefutable connection has not been established. Therefore, the true affiliations of the hackers remain unknown. Most seem to agree that the attacks involved Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear, though the true hackers might have been masquerading as these hacker groups. Whatever doubt is cast, there is little support for other sources. Perhaps it was the CIA, Ukrainians, Independent hackers, and/or organized criminals. The M.O. appears to fit Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear, while the apparent motivation is in line with Russian objectives in international political operations. An independent and transparent investigation promises to clarify these uncertainties.
DNC LEAK
Ex-British ambassador Craig Murray claims that the DNC emails posted on Wikileaks were not from any hacking, but from a DNC leak. This claim is tenuous, but also remains unproven. What is known is that Wikileaks denied receiving DNC emails from Russians but they did post or tweet about those from Guccifer 2.0, who has been linked to the Russians. Was there a DNC leak. If so, was it a separate affair, or did they go through Guccifer 2.0? Wouldn’t an investigation increase our chances of answering these questions?
CONCLUSIONS
Given accepted evidence that there was foreign interference in American politics, along with the documented lies about meeting with Russians by Trump administration and campaign officials, calling for investigation into the DNC hack and Trump administration ties to Russia is grounded in evidence
This is not the same as the fact-free tea party outrage over Obama’s birth place. Nor is it equivalent to massive partisan efforts to catch Bill Clinton in a lie about sex. This is a call to investigate evidence of interference in the already flawed American democratic process by a hostile foreign power.
This does not absolve the United States for any of its transgressions. Moreover, the long-term outcomes of American interference in democratic processes in Iran and countries throughout the Americas indicate that this monkey wrenching of the latest U.S. presidential election warrants serious concern.
Concern about these events and calling for an investigation does not equate with unjustified demonization of Russia, the USSR, or communism. Warnings to avoid McCarthyism need to be heeded. Nevertheless, the current government of Russia is a criminal kleptocracy that is widely believed to have interfered in the politics of other countries similarly to the ways in which the process in the United States was disrupted. This is not unfairly singling out Russia. It is following evidence.
No reasonable person would predetermine the outcome of an investigation. Existing evidence points strongly to Russian state actions. Perhaps Russia would be absolved in an investigation, and independent criminals or the CIA would be implicated. Perhaps there is a combination of culprits. Even if we learn more about the culprits, the outcome could be disappointing, as we learned in Iran-Contra, and the Warren and 9/11 commissions, among others. Independent investigation, ideally free of partisan or national cover-ups, is still warranted.
Neither would anybody in their right mind use the DNC hack as the primary or sole pretext for war. Obama imposed sanctions. They seem to be sufficient and effective. They should not be removed without a proper investigation of the DNC hacks and connections between Trump and Russia.
To date, attention to the DNC hacks and Trump connections with Russia has impacted the administration. The Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, has promised to recuse himself from related investigations after being caught lying to congress about his communications with Russian officials. Also, the White House has replaced a foreign agent, Michael Flynn, with H. R. McMaster, while also appearing to add a Putin critic, Fiona Hill. As far as I know, there is no documentation of Hill being offered this position prior to Flynn’s departure.
Investigating the DNC hacks and Russian influence in the White House does not imply acceptance of spying, data harvesting, hacking, disinformation, or cyber warfare by any individual, organization, corporation, or nation. These are serious issues that threaten the integrity of the internet, our ability to discern fact from fiction, and our ability to participate as well informed citizens in a functioning democracy. While access to campaigns is important, the information on the democrats that was gained from this hack and leak are outweighed by the potential involvement of a foreign power in political campaigns, and disruption this can cause in legitimate elections. Further investigations, debates, and democratic oversight of these topics must be escalated and continued for the foreseeable future.
Discussing the amount of resources that this investigation warrants is a valid debate. Myopic focus on this one subject might affect the allocation of resources to other worthwhile efforts. To date, while individuals have spent significant time on Russia, overall, left wing/progressive/liberal movements have been able to oppose other Trump and Republican efforts with varying degrees of success, as is evident in Muslim ban rallies and lawsuits, opposition to Obamacare repeal, Trumpcare confrontations, uncovering of lies by Trump agency head nominees, and continued attention to the damage they are doing to the agencies they now lead.
Supporting Democrats in their calls to investigate the DNC hacks and Russia does not equal complete and unquestioning support for these Democrats. For example, any Democrats voting to approve the agency heads noted above need to be called out for these votes. In addition, corporate money and big donations are a continuing problems through much of the U.S. political landscape. Last in this incomplete list, neoliberal and militaristic policies remain subjects of intense and worthwhile debate.
In summary, there is little or no debate about whether the DNC was hacked, which appeared to involve Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear. Doubts have been cast over connecting these hacking groups to Russia, or whether these groups are Ukrainians masquerading as Russians, or whether the CIA or other hackers masqueraded as Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear. An even more thinly sourced claim attempts to pin it on a DNC leak. To date, the most clearly defined connection involves the Russian government. Still, the connection is not proven. Solid connections may never be proven. However, an official, independent and transparent investigation is as likely as any other efforts to most clearly illuminate any connections that can possibly be drawn with solid evidence.