H.A. Goodman - NSA LOSES TOP SECRET DIGITAL WEAPONS. SHADOW BROKERS HACK NSA.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/08/sh...okers-be-back/

H.A. Goodman - WIKILEAKS: SETH RICH IS WIKILEAKS SOURCE, NOT GUCCIFER 2 SOURCE. G2 Tried to Discredit Rich
Styxhexenhammer666 - Bombshell DM Release Indicates Seth Rich was Likely DNC Leaker According to Guccifer 2.0

"The "Shadow Brokers" hacker group has released malware allegedly created by the US National Security Agency (NSA)."

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39553241

H.A. Goodman - WIKILEAKS BREAKING NEWS: JULIAN ASSANGE DESTROYS DNC RUSSIAN HACKING MYTH: Democracy Now Interview

H.A. Goodman - WIKILEAKS: 2 5% FEDERAL RESERVE FUNDS TO CIA. CIA Emergency Plan Exposed

I'm far to the left
but ask me how (the) D.T.(s) won the white house simple people have not forgotten how badly slick willy screwed them

And, once again, don't forget that "just because it's on WikiLeaks, doesn't mean that it's authentic!"

The easiest person to deceive is the person who wants to believe you. This person will be predisposed to accept whatever you say, whatever you say!

Well they have been much more credible than any of the so-called 'news' sites.

This seems relevant to the topic at hand:

Lionel Nation - The First Goal of Truth Is Consistency

These are supposed to be "classified US Government documents." However, unless someone has a security clearance that I don't know about, how would they actually know?

They wouldn't.

They couldn't.

Therefore, it would be extremely easy – and, extremely effective – to feed misinformation, and/or outright falsification, through this channel ... knowing that the material would be accepted prima facie as "authentic," merely because of the identity of the channel that (supposedly) "leaked" it.

Personally, I stopped believing WikiLeaks a long time ago, because their entire premise seems to be based on the notion that one hundred percent of the people in the US Government who are supposed to be protecting secret information are actually jock-straps. It also strains my sense of credibility to believe the breadth of information that they supposedly have access to: "have they really tapped into Donald Trump's electric razor?"

I frankly don't believe it anymore.

So this was intended as misinformation? https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails...3225#efmAGIAHu - if thats the case Madame Cyberhack wouldn't have anything bad to say about wikileaks. If it is classified or top secret and it has gotten released some how, thats the government's fault. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXacQU2yyUg

If this is some sort of dis-information campaign - then it seems a rather illogical one.

I honestly don't believe that the Secretary of State knows exactly how his/her communications are secured. And, I absolutely do not believe that Mrs. Clinton asked for top-secret material to be on a public mail server in non-encrypted form ... she has staff for that, and can rightly expect them to do their job of properly securing the diplomatic communiques of the United States Government.

Someone within the government, however, just might be a traitor for releasing any such material to the public.

But it strains my credibility now that so much information has appeared. That, somehow, "whoever's doing it is still doing it," hasn't been arrested as a spy and shot, etcetera. Implying that there are a lot of jock-straps working for our Government, every one of them betraying it.

Or – it could be falsehood. If you're not cleared (and, working in the right area), you really don't know. It's not hard to create a plausible-looking document that contains false "top secret" information. (During World War II, they strapped a suitcase full of the stuff to the wrists of a dead man, as though from a downed airplane, and let him and it wash up onto the shore.) If the information matches your preconceptions, you are very likely to believe it. Especially if you cannot know any better.

I just don't believe it anymore.

Well she is still rather incompetent in the matter and complacent. She was told by officials NOT to use her blackberry on multiple occasions but did. If her so-called IT staff knew they were dealing with sensitive information, then they are also incompetent for using a personal server in the first place. Its not the fault of wikileaks.

Yes, how dare this traitor release her emails to wikileaks and confirm our suspicions about Madame Cyberhack? That person was Seth Rich - confirmed leaker - I wonder what happened to that 'traitor'........hrmmm Well I guess that traitor got what he deserved right? I wonder who orchestrated the 'robbery' - since nothing on his person was stolen - must be a rather incompetent robber...

Well you can at least count out Seth Rich - and yes he was shot.

Well until there are revelations, irrefutable revelations about the credibility of said documents and wikileaks as a whole, I see no reason not to treat it as authentic. Again, its not my problem that these documents got out. If even someone like Podesta had such an easily guessed password that Seth Rich could obtain DNC info and then probably send it to Guccifer2.0 who passed it along to wikileaks, I am just going to point and laugh at just how incompetent these officials are, and continue reading.

Whereas I choose to take the opposite tack: unless there are further breaches of security to confirm that the documents are authentic, I have no reason to believe that they are. I am much more inclined to presume that they are a clever and effective forgery.

Also, stop and think about what you just said about Podesta, Seth, and Guccifer. We're not talking about bustin' an SSH (or was it telnet?) password here: we're talking about a military computer network certified to contain top secrets (and "over the top" secrets). How silly to think that there would be any "password to be guessed," when every day we connect to certificate-protected VPNs that require us to enter random numbers from the tokens dangling from our keychains ... just to get to garden-variety business records? Doubtless the security is far stronger than that, and doubtless there are people who do nothing all day long but to look for intrusions.

Remember what happened to Zimmerman's telegram. Remember how and why the USA won the Battle of Midway. Remember the poster: "Because Somebody Talked!"

If you ever visit the National Cryptologic Museum (the un-classified section) at Fort Meade, you will see these posters everywhere, with a tag-line: "The Message Is Still The Same." They tell me that those posters are everywhere throughout the NSA Headquarters.

I have never had a security clearance – I declined a job that would have required one, because I didn't want someone poking-around my life without paying me a lot more money than they were offering. (And, who wants to work for the US Government, anyway?) But I can easily imagine the multiple layers and levels of security, and compartmentalization and "need to know™," that would necessarily be de rigueur in any such network.

Therefore, when the data "just shows up," even "on a DVD-ROM held by a soldier in a battlefield" (never mind why a foot-soldier would have a DVD in the first place ...), my B0Z0 bit is flipped very-firmly "on." To me, these stories are not at all credible.

Well I haven't heard Podesta state any of the sort - and he did not even try to claim it was a forgery. Those emails were his along with Hillary. The DNC was not a 'military' computer system, it was just a political one. As for any 'secrets' again that is Hillary's fault and/or her IT staff for using a private server that happened to get a few classified emails. If Hillary was stupid enough to still go against the very recommendations of NSA/CIA and use her blackberry on occasion - again its her fault on that. I doubt also any sort of real hacking was involved, if the DNC servers were that insecure, that is the fault of the IT staff. The only reason I bring up also Seth Rich is again the manner in which he died. It is confirmed he was the DNC leaker, so I suppose implicitly you agree with whoever shot him. Not even being brought in by authorities, to be questions, tried, and punished, but rather killed in a way that pretty much lends itself to said conspiracies.

Except this is not Midway. This is not a 'noble' battle that the US is waging.

I do not have such clearance either, but if it is all part of the same group - maybe they should at least change the way each group communicate with each other?

I do not know if you are referring to the video footage leaked by Manning - but it seems to me if the US military did not want to have such footage see the light of day, then it is their own fault for not securing it.

Oh, I suspect that they did secure it. It's nonsensical for a buck-soldier in a war zone to have "video footage" of any kind.

Basically, to me, a lot of the "tantalizing premises" at work here cause my bozo-bit to flip. It does not ring true. Irresistibly tantalizing though it might appear to be, I openly suspect that "this is a new and unique form of deception." People are not questioning it, only because they don't want to believe that it might not be everything that it purports to be.