An affordable price is probably the major benefit persuading people to buy drugs at www.americanbestpills.com. The cost of medications in Canadian drugstores is considerably lower than anywhere else simply because the medications here are oriented on international customers. In many cases, you will be able to cut your costs to a great extent and probably even save up a big fortune on your prescription drugs. What's more, pharmacies of Canada offer free-of-charge shipping, which is a convenient addition to all other benefits on offer. Cheap price is especially appealing to those users who are tight on a budget
Service Quality and Reputation
Although some believe that buying online is buying a pig in the poke, it is not. Canadian online pharmacies are excellent sources of information and are open for discussions. There one can read tons of users' feedback, where they share their experience of using a particular pharmacy, say what they like or do not like about the drugs and/or service. Reputable online pharmacy canadianrxon.com take this feedback into consideration and rely on it as a kind of expert advice, which helps them constantly improve they service and ensure that their clients buy safe and effective drugs. Last, but not least is their striving to attract professional doctors. As a result, users can directly contact a qualified doctor and ask whatever questions they have about a particular drug. Most likely, a doctor will ask several questions about the condition, for which the drug is going to be used. Based on this information, he or she will advise to use or not to use this medication.
Early negotiations revealed that General Cartwright would not serve more than 6 months in jail if that is applied in sentencing and up to a $250,000 fine. Now per the FBI release, read the words carefully as they do demonstrate a breach of protection of classified material in this case relating to Stuxnet which was the computer code used to infect the Iranian nuclear program.
Additionally, this also demonstrates how the FBI took years for this comprehensive investigation which was unlike that of what was applied to Hillary Clinton and her violation of essentially the same non-disclosure and lack of protection to top secret data and material.
Former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Pleads Guilty to Federal Felony in Leak Investigation
Retired General James E. Cartwright, 67, of Gainesville, Virginia, pleaded guilty to making false statements in connection with the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. The guilty plea was entered in the District of Columbia.
The announcement was made by Acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security Mary B. McCord, U.S. Attorney Rod J. Rosenstein for the District of Maryland and Assistant Director in Charge Paul M. Abbate of the FBI’s Washington Field Office.
“General Cartwright violated the trust that was placed in him by willfully providing information that could endanger national security to individuals not authorized to receive it and then lying to the FBI about his actions,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General McCord. “With this plea, he will be held accountable.”
“People who gain access to classified information after promising not to disclose it must be held accountable when they willfully violate that promise,” said U.S. Attorney Rosenstein. “We conducted a thorough and independent investigation included collecting tens of thousands of documents through subpoenas, search warrants and document requests, and interviewing scores of current and former government employees. The evidence showed that General Cartwright disclosed classified information without authorization to two reporters and lied to federal investigators. As a result, he stands convicted of a federal felony offense and faces a potential prison sentence.”
“Today, General Cartwright admitted to making false statements to the FBI concerning multiple unauthorized disclosures of classified information that he made to reporters,” said Assistant Director in Charge Abbate. “This was a careful, rigorous, and thorough multi-year investigation by special agents who, together with federal prosecutors, conducted numerous interviews, to including Cartwright. The FBI will continue to take all necessary and appropriate steps to thoroughly investigate individuals, no matter their position, who undermine the integrity of our justice system by lying to federal investigators.”
According to his plea agreement, Cartwright is a retired U.S. Marine Corps four-star general who served as the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from Aug. 31, 2007, to Aug. 3, 2011, and as Commander of the U.S. Strategic Command from 2004 to 2007. During that time, Cartwright held a top secret security clearance with access to sensitive compartmented information (SCI).
Cartwright signed more than 36 non-disclosure agreements related to Department of Defense programs. The forms explain that the recipient is obligated by law and regulation not to disclose classified information without authorization. The forms also contain warnings that any breach of the agreement may violate federal criminal law. In addition, Cartwright received annual training about handling classified information.
On Sept. 1, 2011, Cartwright retired from the U.S. Marine Corps. Upon his retirement, Cartwright maintained his top secret clearance. The clearance enabled him to engage in consulting and private employment, including sitting on a special committee of the board of directors of a defense contractor, which oversaw the company’s classified U.S. government contracts.
At the time of his retirement, Cartwright again signed a “Classified Information Non-Disclosure Agreement,” which included warnings “that unauthorized disclosure…by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation.”
Between January and June 2012, Cartwright disclosed classified information to two reporters without authorization. Some of the information disclosed to the reporters was classified at the top secret level. Each reporter included the classified information in published articles. In addition, the classified information that Cartwright communicated to one reporter was included in a book.
FBI agents interviewed Cartwright on Nov. 2, 2012. During the interview, Cartwright gave false information to the interviewing agents, including falsely stating that he did not provide or confirm classified information to the first reporter and was not the source of any of the quotes and statements in that reporter’s book. In addition, Cartwright falsely stated that he had never discussed a particular country with the second reporter, when in fact, Cartwright had confirmed classified information about that country in an email to the reporter.
Cartwright faces a maximum sentence of five years in prison for making false statements to federal investigators. The maximum statutory sentence is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes. The sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the court. U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon has scheduled sentencing for January 17, 2017.
Acting Assistant Attorney General McCord and U.S. Attorney Rosenstein commended the FBI for its work in the investigation and thanked Assistant U.S. Attorneys Leo J. Wise and Deborah A. Johnston of the District of Maryland, Trial Attorney Elizabeth Cannon of the National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section and National Security Chief Harvey Eisenberg of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, who are handling the prosecution.
For those who have been asking, here is the ABC – Diane Sawyer YES ABC – George Stephanoplous LIKELY ABC – David Muir YES Bloomberg – John Heillman Bloomberg/MSNBC – Jonathan Alter Bloomberg – Mark Halperin Buzzfeed – Ben Smith NO/IN KOREA CNN – Erin Burnett YES CNN – Gloria Borger CNN – John Berman CNN – Jeff Zucker YES CNN – Kate Bouldan Huffington Post – Arianna Huffington MSNBC – Alex Wagner MSNBC – Ed Schultz TRYING MSNBC – Rachel Maddow MSNBC – Phil Griffin YES MSNBC – Beth Fouhy NO/IN PA MSNBC – Thomas Roberts YES NBC – Savannah Gutherie New Yorker – Ryan Liza NO/IN LA NPR – Mike Oreskes NO/OUT OF COUNTRY NY Post – Geofe Earl YES NYT – Amy Chozik YES NYT – Maggie Haberman YES NYT – Pat Healey YES NYT – Jonathan Martin YES NYT – Gail Collins YES POLITICO – Glenn Thrush Tina Brown YAHOO – Matt Bai YES PEOPLE – Sandra Sobieraj Westfall PBS – Charlie Rose YES VICE – Alyssa Mastramonoco YES GPG – Mike Feldman CBS – Gayle King CBS – Norah O’Donnell MSNBC – Joe Scarborough NO/IN PA MSNBC – Mika Brzezinski New Yorker – David Remnick YES MORE – Betsy Fisher Martin *From:* Jesse Ferguson [mailto:[email protected]] *Sent:* Monday, April 6, 2015 5:31 PM *To:* ‘Mandy Grunwald’ *Cc:* ‘Amanda Renteria’; ‘Huma Abedin’; ‘Marlon Marshall’; ‘Robby Mook’; ‘Nick Merrill’; ‘Jennifer Palmieri’; ‘[email protected]’; ‘Kristina Schake’; ‘Margolis, Jim’; ‘Joel Benenson’; ‘John Podesta’; ‘Marissa Astor’ *Subject:* RE: Press Dinners – Full Info Invite to reporters just went out today – so will circulate the press list of attendees tomorrow so everyone has in advance. Thanks. *From:* Mandy Grunwald [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *Sent:* Monday, April 6, 2015 5:25 PM *To:* Jesse Ferguson *Cc:* Amanda Renteria; Huma Abedin; Marlon Marshall; Robby Mook; Nick Merrill; Jennifer Palmieri; [email protected]; Kristina Schake; Margolis, Jim; Joel Benenson; John Podesta; Marissa Astor *Subject:* Re: Press Dinners – Full Info Wow. These weren’t on my schedule. I was planning to leave NYC after the shoot Thursday. I might be able to get to Podesta’s Thursday night. Can you please send the press list for each? Thanks Mandy Grunwald Grunwald Communications 202 973-9400 On Apr 6, 2015, at 5:10 PM, Jesse Ferguson <[email protected]> wrote: We wanted to make sure everyone on this email had the latest information on the two upcoming dinners with reporters. Both are off-the-record. 1) Thursday night, April 9th at 7:00p.m. Dinner at the Home of John Podesta. His address is 3743 Brandywine St NW in Washington, DC. This will be with about 20 reporters who will closely cover the campaign (aka the bus). 2) Friday night, April 10th at 6:30p.m. Cocktails and Hors D’oeuvre at the Home of Joel Benenson. His home address is 60 E. 96th Street, #12B, New York, 10128. This is with a broader universe of New York reporters. We understand if it’s too hard to make it, not a big deal, but great if you can. Let me know if you have any questions.
****
Now for the money:
Journalists shower Hillary Clinton with campaign cash
Far fewer making contributions to Donald Trump, analysis shows
ProPublica: New Yorker television critic Emily Nussbaum, a newly minted Pulitzer Prize winner, spent the Republican National Convention pen-pricking presidential nominee Donald Trump as a misogynist shyster running an “ugly and xenophobic campaign.”
On the nation’s left coast, Les Waldron, an Emmy Award-winning assignment editor at television station KFMB, the CBS affiliate in San Diego, swung right in July, shooting $28 to Trump.
Conventional journalistic wisdom holds that reporters and editors are referees on politics’ playing field — bastions of neutrality who mustn’t root for Team Red or Team Blue, either in word or deed.
But during this decidedly unconventional election season, during which “the media” has itself becomeaprominentstoryline, several hundred news professionals have aligned themselves with Clinton or Trump by personally donating money to one or the other.
In all, people identified in federal campaign finance filings as journalists, reporters, news editors or television news anchors — as well as other donors known to be working in journalism — have combined to give more than $396,000 to the presidential campaigns of Clinton and Trump, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis.
Nearly all of that money — more than 96 percent — has benefited Clinton: About 430 people who work in journalism have, through August, combined to give about $382,000 to the Democratic nominee, the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis indicates.
About 50 identifiable journalists have combined to give about $14,000 to Trump. (Talk radio ideologues, paid TV pundits and the like — think former Trump campaign manager-turned-CNN commentator Corey Lewandowski — are not included in the tally.)
Generally, the law obligates federal candidates only to disclose the names of people making contributions of more than $200 during a single election cycle, along with their addresses and employer and occupation. That means it’s likely that many more journalists have given the Clinton or Trump campaigns cash, but in amounts too small to trigger reporting requirements.
Together, these journalist-donors work for news organizations great and small, from The New York Times to sleepy, small-town dailies. While many of them don’t primarily edit or report on political news, some do.
And each news professional offers his or her own unique take on a basic question: Why risk credibility — even one’s livelihood — to help pad a presidential candidate’s campaign account?
Simpson today describes herself as an “academic” and “former journalist.” Therefore, she says she’s “free to do many things I was prohibited from doing as a working journalist,” including giving money to Clinton.
“I have been waiting for the day our country would have a woman president,” Simpson said. “When Hillary decided to run, I was delighted because I couldn’t think of a more qualified woman to seek the high office.”
Waldron, of KFMB in San Diego, describes himself as a “lower case ‘l’ libertarian,” and believes journalists like him who both vote and make small-dollar political donations are within their rights to do so.
Why give money to Trump, a man who Forbes last month estimated is worth $3.7 billion? To fight against Clinton.
“I’m a big, big fan of the United States Constitution,” Waldron said, and Clinton “seems to care very little for the Constitution.”
Said TheNew Yorker’s Nussbaum: “I rarely write about politics, but it’s true that the RNC-on-TV posts verged on punditry, and I can understand the concern about disclosure.”
Donations often banned
Almost any U.S. citizen or foreign national with a U.S. green card may, by law, give money to a federal political candidate.
But major news organizations often restrict, if not prohibit, their journalists (and occasionally non-journalist employees) from making political campaign contributions.
The news organizations’ overriding concern: Such contributions will compromise journalists’ impartiality or seed the perception that journalists are biased toward certain politicians or political parties.
The New York Times’ ethics handbook declares that its staffers may not give money to, or raise money for, political candidates or election causes. “Any political giving by a Times staff member would carry a great risk of feeding a false impression that the paper is taking sides,” it reads.
The Associated Press is even more blunt with its journalists, stating that “under no circumstances should they donate money to political organizations or political campaigns.”
CNN spokeswoman Bridget Leininger said the cable network “does not allow editorial staff to contribute to candidates or political parties.”
And while some journalists do give politicians money, the vast majority do not.
“Not having that affiliation helps me feel more independent,” said Margaret Sullivan, The Washington Post’s media columnist, and a former New York Timespublic editor and Buffalo Newseditor and vice president. “I wouldn’t do it, and when I was supervising a newsroom, we had rules against it. It’s a good discipline, I think.”
Although journalists may have a right to give money to political candidates, the act of doing so “easily could be perceived as a conflict of interest,” said Paul Fletcher, editor-in-chief of Virginia Lawyers Weekly, who recently served as president of the Society of Professional Journalists.
So concerned about bias was former Washington Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. that he didn’t even vote.
No restrictions
Strict political contribution policies are not, however, universal among news organizations.
What’s patently prohibited at one news organization may be perfectly permissible at another.
Some outlets also differentiate among newsroom employees: A reporter covering a governmental agency, for example, might be punished for cutting checks to a U.S. Senate or presidential candidate. But the resident arts correspondent or star sports writer? Play ball.
Take Orange County Register restaurant critic Brad Johnson in California, who this year made dozensofsmall–dollar contributions to Clinton’s campaign that total more than $750.
Digital First Media’s Southern California News Group, of which The Orange County Register is a part, expressly prohibits news reporters from engaging in campaign activities “related to candidates, campaigns or issues which they may cover,” news group Executive Editor Frank Pine said. But while Johnson fits the broad definition of “journalist,” Pine doesn’t consider Johnson a news reporter — and therefore, he’s free to give the Clinton campaign money.
Johnson concurs: “I don’t cover politics. I don’t do investigative reporting. I’m just interested in finding the best pad thai and sharing what I find with our readers.”
Ryne Dittmer covers hard news as the county and education editor of the Liberty Tribune of Liberty, Missouri. He’s contributed $625 to Clinton’s presidential committee.
But Liberty Tribune Managing Editor Amy Neal said Dittmer, who declined to comment, did not violate any newsroom standards.
“We support the individual’s right to align themselves in their personal lives with the political ideologies that they choose, just as we support their right to worship — or not — in the way they choose,” Neal said. “As journalists, we expect accuracy, objectivity and fairness from our staff. Ryne Dittmer’s work certainly reflects those standards.”
Coverage area is Santa Cruz Sentinel city editor Julie Copeland’s rationale for why contributing nearly $300 to Clinton’s campaign is kosher, but campaigns closer to home are not.
“I supervise local news coverage at a small paper in California,” Copeland said. “I do not, and would never, involve myself in any city council, school board or other small municipal race we cover.”
Julie Lane, a reporter at the Shelter Island Reporter on Long Island in New York, has given more than $800 to Clinton’s campaign. Lane says she covers only local political races — nothing presidential — and her “personal ethics would prohibit me from taking an open stand” in any of them.
Then there’s Ellen Ratner, who leads the Talk Media News service and reports on federal government for her company. She also serves as a Fox News commentator. Ratner has given nearly $2,800 to Clinton’s campaign, explaining she contributed the money at the request of a man who made a $100,000 contribution to help hercharitable efforts in war-ravaged South Sudan.
“I am happy to help him out … It is well known that I am a ‘wacko, liberal Democrat,’” Ratner said, adding this about her journalistic work: “I will put our news product right down the middle as opposed to just about anyone’s news product.”
Longtime television host Larry King, who now hosts a program on Russian-owned TV network RT and has called Trump “a great friend,” is also a Clinton donor, having given her campaign $2,700 in May. In June, King said he intends vote for Clinton because he disagrees with Trump’s stances on such issues as immigration and abortion.
Several journalists employed by Thomson Reuters, which operates the Reuters news agency, have likewise given Clinton money — and one has given to Trump. That’s fine, said company spokeswoman Abbe Serphos, as “Reuters journalists are permitted to make charitable or political contributions as long as they don’t conflict with their reporting responsibilities.”
Fox Sports spokesman Erik Arneson, responding to questions about three current and former employees who gave Clinton money, said the network “supports employees’ personal involvement in the political process as long as it is compliant with strict federal, state and local laws governing political contributions and interactions with government officials.”
Media executives are also often free from corporate policies restricting political donations, and some prominent news publishers and newsroom leaders routinely make campaign contributions.
So, too, are former New Republic Publisher Chris Hughes, Vogue Editor-in-Chief Anna Wintour, Vanity Fair Features Editor Jane Sarkin, Hollywood Reporter Publisher Lynne Segall, Elle Editor-in-Chief Roberta Myers and Lesley Jane Seymour, the former editor-in-chief of More and Marie Clare. Each has given Clinton at least $2,700. Some aren’t shy about it, with Hughes, who also co-founded Facebook, conducting a fundraiser for Clinton last year at his Manhattan home.
Although Trump has often been more accessible to mainstream news reporters than Clinton, his campaign has banned certain news organizations from his rallies, and he has lambasted journalists as “dishonest,” “scum,” “horrible,” “sleazy” and “disgusting and corrupt.” He regularly complains about his coverage by the “crooked media.”
So how do Trump campaign officials feel about journalists and media executives giving money to Clinton?
“Considering that we’re witnessing the single biggest coordinated media attack in political history, it should come as no surprise,” Trump spokesman Jason Miller told the Center for Public Integrity. “If the [Federal Election Commission] viewed their biased hit pieces against Mr. Trump as in-kind contributions, they would have exceeded their maximum allowable gift limits a long time ago.”
Several news reporters or journalism professionals, including Sally York of The Argus-Press of Owosso, Michigan, refused to discuss their political giving in 2016.
York, who covers local affairs and sometimes writes about politicians and government, has made contributions to Clinton’s campaign that add up to $374.
Barbara Bedell, who writes about community news for the Times Herald-Record in Middletown, New York, said she’s a “very private person” and didn’t want to discuss theseveralcontributions she’s made this election cycle to the Republican National Committee and the Trump campaign.
And Cristi Hegranes, founder and executive director of the Global Press Institute, a San Francisco-based organization that trains women journalists in developing nations, gave Clinton $227 and also declined to comment.
Rick Hasen, a University of California, Irvine, law and political science professor who edits the Election Law Blog, says journalists shouldn’t abstain from making campaign contributions — big or small — just because they’re journalists.
“That is a choice for each journalist to make,” Hasen said, “and I do not see it as a problem so long as it is adequately disclosed.”
Evidence of bias?
For some journalists, campaign contributions do become problematic.
Quite problematic.
Ask MSNBC, which in 2010 suspended Keith Olbermann, who at the time hosted a news show on the network, for making contributions to Democratic political candidates.
Last year, Karen Loberg, a photojournalist at the Ventura County Star north of Los Angeles, made a $1,000 contribution to the Clinton campaign in order to attend a private fundraiser in Provincetown, Massachusetts, where she was visiting a friend. Loberg said she thought the contribution would “go under the radar,” but she nevertheless defended her right to give it.
“It’s my freedom of speech — what I do on my own time is my business,” Loberg said, adding that her friend later reimbursed her for the $1,000 Clinton donation anyway.
Except such a reimbursement is troublesome: Loberg’s name — not that of her friend, who Loberg declined to identify — appears on federal financial disclosures filed by the Clinton campaign. Such a transaction is informally known as a “straw donation” and is, on its face, illegal: “No person shall make a contribution in the name of another person,” federal law states.
Michael Toner, a former Republican FEC chairman, and Scott Thomas, a former Democratic FEC chairman, both agreed that Loberg and her friend likely broke the law, although it’s unlikely the FEC or U.S. Department of Justice would pursue the matter because of the contribution’s size and scope.
Loberg said she did not know straw donations are illegal. She also said she was, at the time she donated to Clinton’s campaign, unaware that the Ventura County Star frowned on its newsroom employees making political contributions.
John Moore, editor of the Ventura County Star, said Loberg’s donation is a “personnel matter,” and referred questions about Loberg’s donation to parent company Gannett, which declined to comment on what it, too, described as a “personnel matter.”
Gannett’s statement did note that the company asks its journalists to “refrain from any activity that may compromise our goal to maintain journalistic independence,” which includes remaining “free of outside interests, investments or business relationships that may compromise the credibility of our news report” and maintaining “an impartial, arm’s length relationship with anyone seeking to influence the news.”
Loberg later expressed regret. “I’m very concerned about losing my job,” she said. (Gannett confirmed she is still employed by the Ventura County Star.)
Other journalists have this year appeared to violate their news organizations’ political activity policies, including Melia Robinson, a reporter at Business Insider who contributed $541 to Clinton’s campaign.
Business Insider spokesman Mario Ruiz declined to comment on Robinson’s donation but pointed to the online publication’s employee conflict of interest policy, which expressly prohibits several kinds of political activity, including “making any level of financial contribution to a candidate’s campaign for elected office or any political action committee supporting individual candidates for elected office.”
Robinson did not reply to several requests for comment.
Jonah Kessel, a Hong Kong-based staff videographer for TheNew York Times, gave U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ campaign several hundred dollars earlier this year while Sanders was still running against Clinton in the Democratic primary. For reasons unclear, the Sanders campaign later refunded the donations to Kessel, who did not respond to requests for comment.
“Under newsroom rules, Times journalists should not make political contributions,” New York Times spokeswoman Eileen Murphy said, adding, “Jonah’s editors are discussing this issue with him and reminding him of the policy.”
At ESPN, baseball news editor Claire Smith has made numeroussmall–dollarcontributions to Clinton’s campaign that add up to almost $600. Smith, who in a tweet last week described Trump as a “would-be dictator & sexual predator,” did not return requests for comment, and ESPN spokesman Ben Cafardo declined to comment.
But ESPN’s political advocacy policy states that employees such as Smith “must avoid being publicly identified with various sides of political issues” and that the sports network “discourages public participation in matters of political advocacy or controversy among editorial employees.”
Journalists’ political contributions are not, however, always what they appear to be.
Lauren Goode, an editor at tech and culture news outlet The Verge, explained that her $500 contribution in February to the Clinton campaign wasn’t about supporting Clinton’s candidacy — Goode just wanted, for reporting purposes, to get inside a fundraising event in Silicon Valley at which Clinton was speaking.
“Prior to the event I discussed the particular circumstances of this with the editor-in-chief at The Verge,” Goode explained, “and he approved it.”
Or consider the curious case of another New York Times journalist, Ruth La Ferla.
Federal records show the long-time fashion reporter gave Clinton’s campaign $250 in December.
Except La Ferla says she didn’t make the contribution. No way, no how.
“I don’t involve myself with political campaigns of any sort, not only because I work at the Times but because I am utterly indifferent to their outcome,” La Ferla wrote in an email. “It’s a mystery to me why my name is on that document … It does indeed appear that the Clinton campaign made an error.”
Clinton campaign spokesman Josh Schwerin was equally mystified: “This is the first we are hearing of this discrepancy, and so we are looking into this. If we find that an error or anything improper occurred, we will certainly take the appropriate steps to remedy it.”
The Clinton campaign — or any campaign — has several options for contributions it fears are illegal or otherwise doesn’t want: give the money back, donate the money to charity or disgorge it to the U.S. Treasury, which will add it to the federal government’s general fund
Don’t trust the liberal media?
About 28 percent of journalists say they affiliate with the Democratic Party, 7 percent the Republican Party and 14 percent an “other” party, according to a 2014 study by Indiana University-Bloomington professors Lars Willnat and David H. Weaver.
The rest of journalists — more than 50 percent — say they’re not affiliated with any political party.
Barbara Hough Roda, executive editor of LNP, the largest news organization based in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, said she wants her reporters to act without favor to any political party and for the public to indeed perceive her newsroom as independent.
But LNP has no formal policy prohibiting journalists from making political contributions, freeing LNP sportswriter Paula Wolf, who did not return a request for comment, to give money to Clinton’s campaign, as she did to the tune of more than $300.
Will LNP consider revising its policy after the 2016 election?
“I believe we will,” Roda said. “My preference would be that we err on the side of caution, so it would probably behoove us to take a look at this again.”
Nussbaum, the New Yorker television critic, has already instituted a new personal policy for making political campaign contributions.
“I’m not planning to contribute money in the future,” she said.
Russia Today’s UK bank accounts closed down, says editor
Unclear whether British government responsible for shutting down accounts of Moscow’s main instrument of propaganda in English-speaking world
Guardian: The UK bank accounts of Russian TV broadcaster Russia Today have been shut down, its editor-in-chief has said, in a move that the UK government appears to have been aware of.
In a tweet in Russian Margarita Simonyan said that “all the accounts” had been closed in the UK. She said the decision was final, adding sarcastically: “Long live freedom of speech!”
The channel received a letter from NatWest bank, Simonyan said. It said: “We have recently undertaken a review of your banking arrangements with us and reached the conclusion that we will no longer provide these facilities.”
The bank said that the entire Royal Bank of Scotland Group, of which NatWest is a part, would refuse to handle RT. According to Simonyan, the letter said the decision was final and that it was “not prepared to enter into any discussion in relation to it.”
It was unclear whether the British government was behind the move, but the foreign office was aware of the news when contacted by the Guardian and referred inquiries to the Treasury. The move – if confirmed – casts into doubt the ability of the Kremlin-backed news channel to carry on broadcasting. RT said on Monday it will continue operating.
The US and Britain said on Sunday that they were considering fresh measures and possible further sanctions against Moscow in protest at Russia’s continuing bombardment of civilians in eastern Aleppo.
Maria Zakharova, a Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman, wrote on Facebook: “It looks like, as it leaves the EU, London has decided to leave behind all its obligations towards freedom of speech. As they say, best to start a new life without bad habits.”
Russia Today – now known as RT – is the main instrument of propaganda for the Russian government in the English-speaking world. The channel presents itself as a left-leaning alternative to “mainstream news” under the slogan “Question More”?
In reality, however, its reporting assiduously reflects the Kremlin’s anti-western worldview. It has portrayed Russia’s military intervention in Syria as a campaign against terrorists, and reflects its official position that no civilians have been killed by Russian jets.
The channel typically invites studio guests who endorse the Kremlin’s anti-US views. Guests have included Jeremy Corbyn, Ken Livingstone and George Galloway. Another frequent contributor is the editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, who hosted his own chat show on RT.
In a statement on Monday RT struck a defiant tone, calling the decision “incomprehensible” and “without warning”. It added: “It is however not at odds with the countless measures that have been undertaken in the UK and Europe over the last few years to ostracize, shout down, or downright impede the work of RT.”
Since RT started broadcasting in the UK about 10 years ago, Ofcom has recorded breaches of the UK broadcasting rules on 14 occasions. It was last investigated in April for accusing the Turkish government of genocide against the Kurds.
Over the last year, Russia has built up an expeditionary Integrated Air Defense System (IADS) in Syria. Russia intends to use this IADS to push the potential cost of continued US coalition involvement in Syria past the threshold of acceptable risk. On 03 OCT the Russian military deployed the S-300 (NATO reporting name: SA-23) air defense system to the Syrian naval base in Tartus. Russian forces already operate the S-400 (NATO reporting name SA-21 Growler) long-range air defense system, which has a claimed range of 400km, as well as the S-200 (SA-5 Gammon), in Syria. Russia also operates a number of short-range air defense systems, including the Pantsir-S1 and Buk missile systems, as well as the naval version of the S-300 a Slava-class guided missile cruiser in the Mediterranean. In addition to the IADS, Syrian forces operate the Bastion coastal defense system out of Tartus.
Now that the Russian IADS in Syria is deployed and presumably fully functional, it changes the regional security situation in two ways. First, it confirms that the ongoing Russian deployment of disparate missile systems to Syria over the past year always intended to culminate in a fully functional IADS, rather than individual missile systems in different locations. SAM systems in the S-300 family (including the S-400) are designed to be both forwards and backwards compatible, which means that their component parts – command and control modules, search and fire control radars, missile launchers and missiles – may be used in different combinations.
Second, this deployable and road mobile IADS solely aims to threaten US and coalition aircraft and deter further involvement or escalation of coalition operations. There is no credible fixed wing, rotary wing, or ballistic missile threat to Russian forces in Syria from ISIS or any other potential adversary that would require a modern IADS. The only purpose of this IADS is to pressure US and coalition policy makers to cede the majority of Syrian airspace to Russian and Syrian aircraft in order to continue their campaign of targeting civilian populations for destruction or depopulation, as evidenced by recent Russian threats to shoot down U.S. coalition aircraft. This expeditionary, modular, and mobile Russian IADS is a significant upgrade over the legacy Syrian IADS. The component parts of the Syrian IADS were largely fixed, difficult if not impossible to move, and highly dependent on centralized command and control as well as external long range radar cuing. The interdependency of the legacy Syrian IADS meant that destroying any one component of the Syrian IADS would significantly reduce its efficacy. In contrast, the Russian expeditionary IADS is fully road mobile, with partial offroad capability, and modular, meaning each component can operate as a standalone SAM system or be organized as a genuine IADS, which is what Russia has now achieved. The Russian expeditionary IADS is much more survivable than the legacy Syrian IADS.
U.S. officials, including presidential candidate Hilary Clinton, have suggested establishing a no-fly zone in parts of northern Syria. This would mean using U.S. aircraft to patrol Syrian airspace in order to prevent Russian and Syrian planes from carrying out strikes. Russian expansion of its IADS network means that U.S. coalition aircraft risk being shot down while operating within Russia’s A2AD envelope. A shoot-down of a U.S. coalition aircraft would force the U.S. to either drastically escalate in order to answer Russia’s provocation, or to downscale or cease operations in Syria. Russia aims to present the U.S. with these two undesirable options on the assumption that the U.S. would choose to avoid any potential conflict. By establishing this expeditionary IADS in Syria, Russia aims to establish a de facto no-fly zone for US and coalition aircraft over much of Syria.
Those who donated to the NRSC between March 16 and October 5, 2016, conducted their transaction on a platform that was compromised by malicious code designed to steal credit card details and personal information. The NRSC quietly corrected the problem sometime around October 6, 2016.
The hacked storefront, which powers the NRSC donation system, was discovered by Willem de Groot – a Dutch developer who discovered thousands of compromised websites running vulnerable versions of the Magento e-commerce platform.
The compromised NRSC transactions included the donor’s first name, last name, email address, billing details (address, city, state, and zip code), employer details, occupation, card type, card number, card expiration, and security code.
Once the data was collected by the malicious code, the compromised transactions were then sent to one of two different domains.
Earlier this year, the criminals responsible for skimming the card data were using jquery-cloud[.]net to receive the compromised records. Later, the code on the NRSC website was altered to send skimmed transactions to jquery-code[.]su.
The malicious .su domain is still operational, and it’s hosted on a network (Dataflow) with some suspicious, if not outright criminal clients – including those that deal with drugs, money laundering, Phishing, and spam.
It isn’t clear who is behind the attack, as anyone can register a domain and obtain hosting. One interesting observation made by de Groot during his research, was that Dataflow and jquery-cloud[.]net came online together during the same week in November of 2015.
As mentioned, once the issue became public earlier this month, the NRSC quietly replaced the compromised storefront with a new one powered by WordPress.
Salted Hash attempted to reach out to the NRSC over the weekend, but the committee hasn’t responded to queries. As of October 17, the NRSC website makes no mention of the new storefront, or the compromised e-commerce platform.
Unfortunately, this means GOP supporters who had their credit card information compromised could be caught by surprise once their accounts show signs of fraudulent activity, and left completely unaware of the problem’s root cause.
During his research, de Groot determined that more than 5,400 storefronts were compromised by the same type of malicious code used on the NRSC domain. So far, he has discovered nine variants of the skimming code, suggesting that multiple people (or groups) are involved.
When de Groot reached out to victims, in an attempt to alert them about their compromised domains, many of the website owners failed to understand the full impact of the situation.
Some responded to the warnings by arguing to de Groot that the code added by the criminals didn’t matter because – “our payments are handled by a 3rd party payment provider” or “our shop is safe because we use HTTPS.”
Those responding like this are missing the bigger point; if the code running the payment processing system is compromised, 3rd-party processing and HTTPS will not prevent a criminal from obtaining your card data or personal information.
SAN FRANCISCO — On the morning of March 10, nine days after Hillary Clinton had won big on Super Tuesday and all but clinched the Democratic nomination, a series of emails were sent to the most senior members of her campaign.
At a glance, they looked like a standard message from Google, asking that users click a link to review recent suspicious activity on their Gmail accounts. Clicking on them would lead to a page that looked nearly identical to Gmail’s password reset page with a prompt to sign in. Unless they were looking closely at the URL in their address bar, there was very little to set off alarm bells.
From the moment those emails were opened, senior members in Clinton’s campaign were falling into a trap set by one of the most aggressive and notorious groups of hackers working on behalf of the Russian state. The same group would shortly target the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). It was an orchestrated attack that — in the midst of one of the most surreal US presidential races in recent memory — sought to influence and sow chaos on Election Day.
The hack first came to light on June 15, when the Washington Post published a story based on a report by the CrowdStrike cybersecurity firm alleging that a group of Russian hackers had breached the email servers of the DNC. Countries have spied on one another’s online communications in the midst of an election season for as long as spies could be taught to use computers — but what happened next, the mass leaking of emails that sought to embarrass and ultimately derail a nominee for president, had no precedent in the United States. Thousands of emails — some embarrassing, others punishing— were available for public perusal while the Republican nominee for president, Donald Trump, congratulated Russia on the hack and invited it to keep going to “find the 30,000 emails that are missing” from Clinton’s private email server. It was an attack that would edge the US and Russia closer to the brink of a cyberwar that has been simmering for the better part of a decade.
The group behind the hacks is known as Fancy Bear, or APT 28, or Tsar Team, or a dozen other names that have been given to them over the years by cybersecurity researchers. Despite being one of the most reported-on groups of hackers active on the internet today, there is very little researchers can say with absolute certainty. No one knows, for instance, how many hackers are working regularly within Fancy Bear, or how they organize their hacking squads. They don’t know if they are based in one city or scattered in various locations across Russia. They don’t even know what they call themselves.
The group is, according to a White House statement last week, receiving their orders from the highest echelons of the Russian government and their actions “are intended to interfere with the US election process.” For the cybersecurity companies and academic researchers who have followed Fancy Bear’s activities online for years, the hacking and subsequent leaking of Clinton’s emails, as well as those of the DNC and DCCC, were the most recent — and most ambitious — in a long series of cyber-espionage and disinformation campaigns. From its earliest-known activities, in the country of Georgia in 2009, to the hacking of the DNC and Clinton in 2016, Fancy Bear has quickly gained a reputation for its high-profile, political targets.
“Fancy Bear is Russia, or at least a branch of the Russian government, taking the gloves off,” said one official in the Department of Defense. “It’s unlike anything else we’ve seen, and so we are struggling with writing a new playbook to respond.” The official would speak only on condition of anonymity, as his office had been barred from discussing with the press the US response to Fancy Bear’s attacks. “If Fancy Bear were a kid in the playground, it would be the kid stealing all the juice out of your lunch box and then drinking it in front of you, daring you to let him get away with it.”
For a long time, they did get away with it. Fancy Bear’s earliest targets in Georgia, Ukraine, Poland, and Syria meant that few in the US were paying attention. But those attacks were where Fancy Bear honed their tactics — going after political targets and then using the embarrassing or strategic information to their advantage. It was in those earliest attacks, researchers say, that Fancy Bear learned to couple their talent for hacking with a disinformation campaign that would one day see them try to disrupt US elections.
“If Fancy Bear were a kid in the playground, it would be the kid stealing all the juice out of your lunch box and then drinking it in front of you, daring you to let him get away with it.”
ID: 9797661
In late July 2008, three weeks before Russia invaded Georgia in a show of force that altered the world’s perception of the Kremlin, a network of zombie computers was already gearing up for an attack against the Georgian government. Many of the earliest attacks were straightforward — the website of then-President Mikheil Saakashvili was overloaded with traffic, and a number of news agencies found their sites hacked. By Aug. 9, with the war underway, much of Georgia’s internet traffic, which routes through Russia and Turkey, was being blocked or diverted, and the president’s website had been defaced with images comparing him to Adolf Hitler.
Sophos Secruity
ID: 9797639
It was one of the earliest cases of cyberwarfare coinciding with a real-world physical war, and Fancy Bear, say researchers, was one of the groups behind it.
“When this group first sprung into action, we weren’t necessarily paying attention to the various Russian threat actors, inasmuch as we weren’t distinguishing them from each other,” said one former cybersecurity researcher, who has since left the private sector to work for the Pentagon. He said he could not be quoted on record due to his current job, but that in 2010, when he was still employed with a private company, they had only just started to distinguish Fancy Bear from the rest of the cyber operations being run by the Russian government.
Kurt Baumgartner, a researcher with the Moscow-based Kaspersky cybersecurity company, said the group had the types of financial and technical resources that only nation-states can afford. They would “burn through zero days” said Baumgartner, referring to rare, previously unknown bugs that can be exploited to hack into systems. The group used sophisticated malware, such as Sourface, a program discovered and named by the California-based FireEye cybersecurity company, which creeps onto a computer and downloads malware allowing that computer to be controlled remotely. Other programs attributed to Fancy Bear gave them the ability to wipe or create files, and to erase their footsteps behind them. FireEye researchers wrote that clues left behind, including metadata in the malware, show that the language settings are in Russian, that the malware itself was built during the workday in Moscow and St. Petersburg, and that IP addresses used in attacks could be traced back to Russian sources.
It wasn’t surprising to cybersecurity experts at that time that Russia would be at the forefront of a cyberattack on a nation-state. Along with China, the US, and Israel, Russia was considered to have one of the most sophisticated cyber-offensive capabilities in the world. While China appeared to have its offensive cyber teams largely organized within its military, the US under the NSA, and Israel under Unit 8200, much of Russia’s cyber operations remained obscure.
There are reports from inside Russia that have helped draw a better picture of Russia’s cyber ops. Russian investigative journalists, like Andrei Soldatov, author of The Red Web, have reported on how, following the dismantling of the KGB, Russia’s cyber operations were organized under the FSB, the KGB’s main successor agency. It was a unit operating under the FSB, for instance, that US intelligence officials believe was responsible for years-long cyber-espionage operations into the White House and State Department, discovered in the summer of 2015. At some point, Russia’s main foreign intelligence agency, the GRU, began its own cyber ops. Soldatov said it’s not clear exactly when that happened — though he says it was likely around the time of the war with Georgia — but Fancy Bear is the name given to the most notorious, and apparently prolific, group of hackers working under the GRU.
“Russia’s intelligence agency operates differently. You won’t see officers [in] uniform and hacking into infrastructure. They embed people in various infrastructure places, like ISPs, or power companies,” said Vitali Kremez, a cybercrime intelligence researcher with the Flashpoint cybersecurity firm. “To orchestrate the DNC hack wouldn’t require dozens of people, it would take two or three people, even one person, if he was talented enough. That person would have his orders for that part of the operation, and someone else, somewhere else, might have orders for a different part.”
For years, cybersecurity companies wrote up reports about Fancy Bear, often adding only in the postscript that the group they were talking about was working on behalf of Russia’s GRU. It wasn’t until last week that the US government officially named them as being tied to the highest echelons of Russia’s government.
“What first caught our attention about Fancy Bear was the targets it went after,” the Pentagon researcher said. “This was a group interested in high-stakes targets, and given who they were after — Georgia, Poland, Russian dissidents — it seemed obvious that a Russian government agency would be after those targets.”
In the years following Georgia, the targets that Fancy Bear went after grew in size, sophistication, and scope. One report, by Germany’s intelligence agency BfV, categorized the group as engaging in “hybrid warfare,” meaning a mix of conventional warfare and cyberwarfare. It gave the example of a Dec. 23, 2015, attack on Ukraine’s power grid that left more than 230,000 people without power, and said that Fancy Bear had also tried to lure German state organizations, including the Parliament and Angela Merkel’s CDU party, into installing malware on their systems that would have given the hackers direct access to German government systems. It’s unclear if anyone opened the emails that installed the malware.
The BfV report concluded that these “cyberattacks carried out by Russian secret services are part of multiyear international operations that are aimed at obtaining strategic information.” It was the first time a government had publicly named Fancy Bear as a Russian cyber operation. And there was one attack, on a French TV station, that cybersecurity researchers say was a precursor of things yet to come.
BuzzFeed News; Getty
ID: 9797703
It was just past 10 p.m. on April 8, 2015, when the French television network TV5Monde suddenly began to broadcast ISIS slogans, while its Facebook page started to post warnings: “Soldiers of France, stay away from the Islamic State! You have the chance to save your families, take advantage of it,” read one message. “The CyberCaliphate continues its cyberjihad against the enemies of Islamic State.”
The posts prompted headlines around the world declaring that the ISIS hacking division, known as the “cyber caliphate,” had successfully hacked into the French television network and taken over the broadcast.
It took nearly a month for cybersecurity companies investigating the attack to determine that it had, in actuality, been carried out by Fancy Bear. One of the companies, FireEye, told BuzzFeed News that they had traced the attack back to the group by looking at the IP addresses used to attack the station, and comparing them to IP addresses used in previous attacks carried out by Fancy Bear. The ISIS claims of responsibility planted on TV5Monde were just a disinformation campaign launched by the Russians to create public hysteria over the prospect of a terror group launching a cyberattack.
“Russia has a long history of using information operations to sow disinformation and discord, and to confuse the situation in a way that could benefit them,” Jen Weedon, a researcher at FireEye told BuzzFeed News following the attack. “In this case, it’s possible that the ISIS cyber caliphate could be a distraction. This could be a touch run to see if they could pull off a coordinated attack on a media outlet that resulted in stopping broadcasts, and stopping news dissemination.”
For nearly a month, headlines in France and across Europe had speculated about ISIS’ cyber capabilities and motives for the attack on TV5Monde. The stories setting the record straight, and reporting that a Russian group had, in fact, launched the attack, ran in a handful of newspapers for a day or two after the discovery.
At the same time, Fancy Bear was running other experiments, including a campaign to harass British journalist Eliot Higgins, and his citizen journalist website, Bellingcat. Higgins, who had published a number of articles documenting Russia’s alleged involvement in the shooting down of a Malaysian jetliner over Ukraine and the Russian shelling of military positions in eastern Ukraine, suddenly received an onslaught of spear-phishing emails. It wasn’t until this year, when Higgins saw a report by the ThreatConnect cybersecurity company on the DNC hacks that he realized that the emails targeting his site might have been similar to those targeting the DNC. He forwarded the spear-phishing emails to ThreatConnect, which confirmed that he, as well, had been targeted by Fancy Bear.
“I think it is possible that the things we were reporting on caught the eye of the hackers,” said Higgins. “More than anything it’s a badge of honor if they are going through so much effort to attack us. We must be getting something right.”
Russian media outlets, including Kremlin-owned Sputnik and Russia Today, have run articles suggesting that Bellingcat is linked to the CIA. The Bellingcat website has been defaced with personal photos of a contributor and his girlfriend.
“I think they are worried,” Higgins said. “So they are trying to discredit us.” He said it surprised him that the spear-phishing emails that targeted him and his campaign followed — almost to a formula — those sent to the DNC. The hackers didn’t bother to change the IP address, URL service, or fake Gmail message they used on either his website or the DNC. It was almost, he said, as if they didn’t mind being traced. “They have a government backing them that doesn’t care about taking down airliners, and bombing civilians in Syria so maybe they don’t care about being caught.”
Both Bellingcat and TV5Monde were, researchers now say, practice runs for Fancy Bear on the use of disinformation campaigns. People would remember a story about a ISIS-led cyberattack on France far more than a story pointing out that it was actually the Russians. Bellingcat’s work on exposing Russian operations would forever be linked, at least in the Russian media, to the accusations that they were CIA operatives. Fancy Bear was honing its skills.
The emails that Higgins, Clinton and the rest of the DNC received were variations of the millions of spear-phishing emails that go out each day. The success of those emails is predicated on the idea that everyone, no matter how savvy or suspicious, will eventually succumb to a spear-phishing attempt given enough time and effort by the attackers.
While Fancy Bear has used sophisticated — and expensive — malware during its operations, its first and most commonly used tactic has been a simple spear-phishing email, or a malicious email engineered to look like it was coming from a trusted source.
“These hacks almost always start with spear-phishing emails, because why would you start with something more complex when something so simple and easy to execute works?” said Anup Ghosh, CEO of the Invincea cybersecurity firm, which has studied the malware found on the DNC systems. “It is the easiest way to get malware onto a machine, just having the person click a link or open an executable file and they have opened the front door for you. Our analysis is on the malware itself, which had remote command and control capabilities. They essentially got the DNC to download malware which let them remotely control their computers.”
Once a spear-phishing email is clicked on, users not only give up their passwords but, in many cases, including in the case of the DNC, download malware onto their computers that gives the attackers instant access to their entire systems.
Cybersecurity experts report that 50% of people will click on a spear-phishing email. In the case of the Democratic Party, Fancy Bear’s success rate was about half of that — but good enough to get them into the accounts of some of the most senior members of the party.
From March 10, 2016, emails appearing to come from Google were sent to 108 members of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and another 20 people from the Democratic National Convention (DNC), according to research published by the cybersecurity firm SecureWorks. They found the emails by tracing the malicious URLs set up by Fancy Bear using Bitly, the same service used to target Bellingcat. Fancy Bear had set the URL they sent out to read accounts-google.com, rather than the official Google URL, accounts.google.com. Dozens of people were fooled.
“They did a great job with capturing the look and feel of Google”
ID: 9797677
“We were monitoring bit.ly and saw the accounts being created in real time,” said Phil Burdette, a senior security researcher at SecureWorks, explaining how they stumbled upon the URLs set up by Fancy Bear. Bitly also keeps data on when a link is clicked, which allowed Burdette to determine that of the 108 email addresses targeted at the Clinton campaign, 20 people clicked on the links (at least four people clicked the link more than once). At the DNC, 16 email addresses were targeted, and 4 people clicked on them.
“They did a great job with capturing the look and feel of Google,” said Burdette, who added that unless a person was paying clear attention to the URL or noticed that the site was not HTTPS secure, they would likely not notice the difference.
Once Democratic Party officials entered their information into the fake Gmail page, Fancy Bear had access to not just their email accounts, but to the shared calendars, documents, and spreadsheets on their Google Drive. Among those targeted, said Burdette, were Clinton’s national political director, finance director, director of strategic communications, and press secretary. None of Clinton’s staff responded to repeated requests for comment from BuzzFeed News.
In their June 14 report, CrowdStrike found that not only was Fancy Bear in the DNC system, but that another group linked to Russia known as Cozy Bear, or APT 29, had also hacked into the DNC and was lurking in the system, collecting information. The report stated, “Both adversaries engage in extensive political and economic espionage for the benefit of the government of the Russian Federation and are believed to be closely linked to the Russian government’s powerful and highly capable intelligence services.”
The linked names, say the cybersecurity researchers who come up with them according to their own personal whims, are no coincidence. While both bears sought out intelligence targets and infiltrated government agencies across the world, their styles were distinct. Cozy Bear would go after targets en masse, spear-phishing an entire wing at the State Department or White House and then lurking quietly in the system for years. Fancy Bear, meanwhile, would be more specific in its targets, aggressively going after a single person by mining social media for details of their personal lives.
Both bears were in the DNC system, but whereas Cozy Bear might have been there for years, undetected in the background, CrowdStrike has said that it was Fancy Bear, with their more aggressive intelligence-gathering operation, that tipped off security teams that something was amiss. It was also Fancy Bear, cybersecurity researchers believe, who was behind the disinformation campaigns that made public the thousands of emails from the DNC and Clinton.
Making those emails public, say cybersecurity experts and US intelligence officials, is what shifted the hack from another Russian cyber-espionage operation to a game changer in the long-simmering US–Russia cyberwar. Using the well-established WikiLeaks platform, as well as newly invented figureheads, ensured that the leaked emails got maximum exposure. Within 24 hours of the CrowdStrike report, a Twitter account under the name @Guccifer_2 was established and began tweeting about the hack on the DNC. One of the first tweets claimed responsibility for hacking the DNC’s servers, and in subsequent private messages with journalists, including BuzzFeed News, the account claimed that it was run by a lone Romanian hacker, and that he alone had been responsible for hacking into the DNC servers and, later, the Clinton Foundation, as well as senior members of Clinton’s staff. The account offered to send BuzzFeed News emails from the hacks and appeared to make the same offer to several US publications, including Gawker and the Smoking Gun.
Julian Assange, founder of the online leaking platform WikiLeaks Steffi Loos / AFP / Getty Images
ID: 9797668
Within the week, WikiLeaks had published more than 19,000 DNC emails. Though WikiLeaks would not reveal the source, Guccifer 2.0 gleefully messaged journalists that he had been the source of the leak. Few bought the story — a language analysis on the Guccifer 2.0 account showed it made mistakes typical of Russian speakers, and when asked questions in Romanian by reporters in an online chat, Guccifer 2.0 appeared to not be able to answer. Meanwhile, metadata in the docs, such as Russian-language settings and software versions popular in Russia, led cybersecurity experts to believe that not only were the emails leaked by Russia, but that Guccifer 2.0 was an account created by the Russian state to try and deflect attention.
The same week, a site calling itself DCLeaks suddenly appeared, claiming it was run by “American hacktivists,” and began publishing hacked emails as well.
US intelligence agencies now believe that Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks were created by Fancy Bear, or a Russian organization working in conjunction with Fancy Bear, in order to disseminate the hacked emails and launch a disinformation campaign about their origin. WikiLeaks, whose founder Julian Assange has been dogged by his own accusations of close ties to Russia, has refused to state how he got the emails.
“We hope to be publishing every week for the next 10 weeks, we have on schedule, and it’s a very hard schedule, all the US election-related documents to come out before Nov. 8,” Assange said in a recent press conference.
Just weeks before Americans go to the polls, no one knows what material is yet to be published.
ID: 9797650
In a background briefing earlier this year, one US intelligence officer described cyberwar as “a war with no borders, no innocents, and no rules.” The officer, who has been working on US cyberpolicy for over a decade, said he didn’t think it was a question of if the US and Russia would one day be fighting a full-out cyberwar — it was a question of when.
“They’ve been dancing around each other like two hungry bears for a long time. At some point, one of them is going to take a bite,” said the officer. (His use of the word “bears” appeared to be coincidental.)
The White House’s naming of the Russian government as being behind the hacks attributed to Fancy Bear took the US and Russia into uncharted territory. While no one used the word cyberwar, the statement by the Department of Homeland Security and Director of National Intelligence did not mince words.
“The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process,” the statement read. “We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.”
Russian President Vladimir Putin has continued to deny Russia’s involvement in the hacks and said the leaked emails are a “public service.” In a televised address this week, Putin said the hacks were not in Russia’s interest.
Russian President Vladimir Putin Sputnik / Reuters
ID: 9797675
“There’s nothing in Russia’s interest here; the hysteria has been created only to distract the American people from the main point of what was revealed by hackers. And the main point is that public opinion was manipulated. But no one talks about this. Is it really important who did this? What is inside this information — that is what important,” Putin said.
The US is still “writing the playbook,” as one Department of Defense official put it, on what happens next, though sanctions, diplomatic action, and offensive cyberattacks are all being considered. Members of Congress have come forward, asking the White House to take aggressive action against Russia. The two countries are, undoubtedly, facing the lowest point in relations in decades.
Fancy Bear and other Russian hacking groups are still active. As countries in Europe — including France, the UK, and Germany — face upcoming elections, what is to stop Fancy Bear from engaging in the same type of hacking and disinformation campaigns?
“They did this to the United States — there is nothing to stop them from doing this to our allies in Europe,” said Jason Healey, former White House director of cyber infrastructure, and a senior research scholar at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs. “We need to be working with our allies and sharing what we know so that this group doesn’t interfere with elections across Europe.”
Baumgartner, the researcher with Kaspersky, said he’s noticed big changes with Fancy Bear. They appear to be spreading out their operations and focus, he said.
“What used to be one focused and narrow group is now several subgroups,” he said. “They might be running independent of each other, or in parallel, but they seem to be spreading out operations.”
Higgins, who runs the Bellingcat website, said that after a lull of almost a year, he suddenly started getting spear-phishing emails again this week that look identical to the ones Fancy Bear hackers sent him last year.
“They’re sending them every day again,” said Higgins. “They are clearly not going to stop.”
CORRECTION
The Bellingcat website was defaced by photos of one of its contributors. The original version of this story stated that it was defaced with photos of its founder, Higgins.
I have been asked several times in the last month if we are prepared for nuclear war with Russia. My responses have consistently been yes but the United States is always prepared and the likelihood of a nuclear conflict is slim. Sure, there is always that threat, yet it is just that, a threat.
This site has published countless items in recent months regarding Russia and the most important of all of them is the Gerasimov Doctrine, a paper that very few have read. Okay, while it is important, below will summarize some items in cliff note fashion.
In July 2015, Putin stated that:
recent events show that we cannot hope that some of our geopolitical opponents will change their hostile course any time in the foreseeable future … we must respond accordingly to this situation … and take additional systemic measures in all key areas … [to] preserve our country’s social, political and economic stability. Much here will depend on consolidating the efforts of our state institutions and civil society and concentrating resources in priority areas.117 (Chatham House)
Steps to a war footing: Recently, Moscow ordered an nationwide military drill for several important reasons. 1. It needed it as a test to determine flaws. 2. The drill was part of the normal propaganda machine where, your government cares deeply about you.
There have been bunkers built and tours provided, there has been training for school children and the applications gas masks, directions throughout the country and who is in charge and has authority, the movement of nuclear weapons to other locations and missile testing.
***** But with all this chatter, are we at a point of a Cuban missile crisis? Well…all the symptoms are there and increasing for sure and American citizens should take notice. However….go slow, be measured and understand more of what needs to be understood and that is Russia itself. She is not a big threat to America as she is to Eastern Europe and Europe proper.
A recent NewsMax article noted that Russia has deployed warships to the English Channel and that Russia was on a economic war-footing. What is an economic war-footing? It has several definitions but most is can this country feed the hungry during a prolonged conflict and Russia will inflict financial damage to her adversaries. Ukraine and regions of Europe could be sacrificial lambs due to stopping energy resources such as gas and oil.
Let’s look closer at Russia:
****
Military and security mobilization
In part from Chatham House: The military aspects of Russia’s mobilization include the transition of the military and civil defence forces on to a war footing.37 This is largely a task concerned with complex administration – storing supplies and equipment; organizing and concentrating forces; coordinating men, equipment and transport with their missions; and deploying these assets as needed.
But it is also about the evolving conceptualization of the structure and role of the Russian armed forces. Thus the theme of mobilization sheds light on some enduring questions for the Russian leadership that go beyond the simple idea that mobilization is administration and ‘a staff problem’.
Indeed, mobilization has traditionally been related to how Moscow thinks about contemporary and future war. It has long been associated with the modernization of Russia’s armed forces, as the leadership has sought to work out the kind of force structures necessary to minimize the country’s weaknesses and maximize its advantages over opponents.
Facing a Turbulent Time:
Mobilization, with Difficulty Gerasimov’s brief discussion of mobilization in his February 2013 article has been almost entirely overlooked in the Western debate about Russian actions. Yet it is revealing, and offers a means of understanding the thinking of the Russian leadership and its actions during the past five years, and the direction in which it is taking Russia. Indeed, the ‘Gerasimov doctrine’ is best understood as a portent not of ‘hybrid’ warfare, but of Russian state mobilization. It discussed moving the economy on to a war footing, and pointed to the discussion of mobilization as preparedness, even readiness, proceeding before the outbreak of war.
At heart, Russian state mobilization is, in effect, grand strategy in emergency circumstances. Its implementation reflects a deliberate attempt to generate power and an acknowledgment of the problems that Moscow faces, both in terms of a complex and potentially hostile international environment and the dysfunctionalities of the Russian system. Mobilization is also about conceptualizing contemporary and future war, and preparing for the many and multifaceted challenges it poses. In current circumstances, this means both military combat readiness and the resilience and coordination of the wider system, including the MVD, security and investigation services, and other ministries.
Where are we, then, in terms of Russian mobilization? Given the definitions above, it appears that the Russian leadership is currently operating in the ‘mobilization preparation’ phase. It is taking measures to mobilize the economy, armed forces and state institutions, including explicitly stated actions to prepare Russia for the transition to war. In this it is moving towards a ‘mobilization readiness’ framework. In early 2014 Gerasimov stated that the General Staff had received additional powers for the coordination of federal organs, and that, ‘just in case’, a range of measures had been developed to ‘prepare the country for the transition to conditions of war’.113 Putin had used the same terminology following the Zapad-2013 exercises, and even earlier.114
This process has been under way for some time. If many in the West see relations with Russia in a post-Ukraine, post-2014 context, the Russian leadership is operating in a longer time frame that, though it has roots stretching back over a decade, is perhaps best depicted as a post-Arab Spring context. It is worth restating Gerasimov’s line in his article in February 2013 that ‘mobilization and concentration is not part of the period after the onset of the state of war, as in 1914, but rather unnoticed, proceeds long before that’.115 It is important to read this whole summary for context and perspective.
****** One last item and most significant, don’t underestimate the pro-active measures and defense systems of the United States. It is about the Navy and this summary will offer some comfort. You ask about the weakness of Obama making any decisions and signing his authorization? Sure, he is weak, but there are some thresholds he cannot ignore as Commander in Chief. It is the Pentagon and the Intelligence community that will prove the next measure to the National Security Council along with the House and Senate Arms Services Committee.