SHOW AUDIO: Link is usually posted within about 72 hours of show broadcast. We take callers during this show.

TOPIC:  Was the Election Hacked by the Russians, and How Can We Know?

GUEST: Chris Sampson, Media Director, The Terror Asymmetrics Project on Strategy, Tactics & Radical Ideology (TAPSTRI) (More Details further down)

Welcome to Thinkwing Radio with Mike Honig (@ThinkwingRadio), a listener call-in show  airing live every Monday night from 9-10 PM (CT) on KPFT-FM 90.1 (Houston). My engineer is Bob Gartner.

Listen live on the radio or on the internet from anywhere in the world! When the show is live, we take calls at 713-526-5738. (Long distance charges may apply.)

For the purposes of this show, I operate on two mottoes:

• You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts;
  

  Houston Mayor Annise Parker [L] with Mike, just before the show. (Dec. 7, 2015)

• An educated electorate is a prerequisite for a democracy.

SIGNOFF QUOTE[s]:

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” ~ John F. Kennedy, March 13, 1962. Audio-only portion is from remarks on the first anniversary of the Alliance for Progress, 13 March 1962. Youtube Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLvIDFC6rLc

LINKS:

 SOURCES WHICH MAY BE RELEVANT TO OTHER DISCUSSION:

======================================================

• GUEST INFO: Chris Sampson, Media Director, The Terror Asymmetrics Project on Strategy, Tactics & Radical Ideology (TAPSTRI): TAPSTRI has been working in media development for over 20 years with experience in cyber, radio, television, multimedia development and team building.  As a geopolitical multimedia analyst he has been key to the collection of the TAPSTRI “Terrorpedia” multi-terabyte terrorist and political video/still imagery database.  Chris spent 15 years with Pacifica Radio learning the inner workings of production and broadcasting. He has worked with various independent media outlets as a radio host, researcher, producer. He has conducted hundreds of interviews in topics ranging from counter-terrorism, war crimes, and international politics to world music, media ownership, death penalty, environment and international news. [More at site. Click Link.)
  • LATEST ARTICLES
    • Attacks sweep the Muslim world
    • Bombings plague end of Ramadan
    • How is the US combating ISIS?
    • Was the Bangladesh attack premeditated?
    • U.S. officials worry about potential attacks at American airports
• Bears in the Midst: Intrusion into the Democratic National Committee,BY Dmitri Alperovitch, June 15, 2016 (From The Front Lines): CrowdStrike stands fully by its analysis and findings identifying two separate Russian intelligence-affiliated adversaries present in the DNC network in May 2016. On June 15, 2016 a blog post to a WordPress site authored by an individual using the moniker Guccifer 2.0 claimed credit for breaching the Democratic National Committee. This blog post presents documents alleged to have originated from the DNC. [Full Article]

CHRIS SAMPSON’S NOTES:

Some Definitions

• HACKING
  • What it is and what it isn’t-
    • Hacking is exploiting an existing environment for new possibilities
    • white hat-black hat-grey hat
  • APT-Advanced Persistent Threats
  • Exfiltration-Copying data from systems
  • Spear-Phishing: Targeting specific victims for malicious emails used to breach a system
  • Command and Control Server-A server used to deploy malware, commands, and retrieve data from an attack
  • RATs (Remote Access Tool)-Malware used to gain access to a system including ability to control keyboard, mouse, cam, microphone and keystroke.
  • DDoS– Distributed Denial of Service Attack- Overwhelm a server with data from multiple locations on the web.
  • Zero-Day Vulnerability/Exploit: A vulnerability that has existed from beginning of the program’s life left undetected until “zero-day” when it is detected. Exploits seek to use these gaps in security before detected by system owners.

 TYPICAL APT TARGETS FOR STATE ACTORS

• Military
• Embassies
• Defense Contractors
• Opposition to Russian government
• International Media
• National Security Departments

 

TYPICAL ATP TARGETS FOR CRIMINAL ORGS

• System admins
• Credit Card Gateways
• Membership Sites
• Info Used For Ransom

 METHOD: Spearphishing

• 3 methods
  Send link that uses javascript to open a fake sign in to Google or Microsoft mailing systems
  2. Send target to a website with infected malware that looks innocuous (honeytrap)
  3. Attach files to email, notably schedules in docx or pdf format

MISSION FLOW

1. Planning-Intel
2. Attack
3. Breach
4. C2 Servers
5. Exfiltration and further borrowing

 CURRENT TARGETS

• DNC
• DCCC
• WADA
• BUNDESTAG
• WARSAW
• ESTONIA
• GEORGIA
• LITHUANIA
• KRYGYZSTAN
• CRIMEA
• UKRAINE

SPECIFIC SUSPECT THREAT ACTOR

• APT28
  • Operating since 2007
    Likely grown from the independent hackers of St Petersburg cafes and former military
• APT29
  • GRU
• Eygeny Bogachev-Zeus Trojan
  • hacker name-lucky12345-slavik (Aleksey Belan-Jan 2012-Apr 2013)

OTHERS

• APT1-CHINESE
• APT30-CHINESE

The criterion of embarrassment is a critical analysis of historical accounts in which accounts embarrassing to the author are presumed to be true because the author would have no reason to invent an embarrassing account about himself.

• FAKE NEWS
• KOMPROMAT
• DISINFORMATSIA
• John Podesta’s email password was not “password”

 

• Russian Interference Could Give Courts Legal Authority To Install Clinton, By Alex Mohajer, Political Writer and Commentator (Huffington Post) 12/10/2016 06:28 am ET | Updated 6 days ago (12/13/2016)
  • …at least one federal court decision suggests there may be some federal case law on the question of whether it is possible to invalidate the outcome of an election after the fact when there is fraud, and replace a candidate benefitted by fraud with his opponent. The case, Marks v. Stinson, is the first and only known case in which a federal judge reversed an election outcome.
  • [In] a case originally brought before a federal district judge in Pennsylvania in 1993, which was subsequently appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 1994. The Third Circuit partially upheld the federal judge’s decision to intervene and invalidate a 1993 state senate election due to fraud. Interestingly, the federal district judge ordered the winner be removed from office and the subsequent vacancy be filled by his opponent.
  • In February 1994, after Stinson had already taken office, the federal judge ordered he “be removed from his State Senate office and that [his opponent, Bruce Marks] be certified the winner within 72 hours.”
  • Two of the elected officials who testified in the Pennsylvania case said under oath that they were aware of the fraud, had intentionally failed to enforce laws, and hurried to certify Stinson the winner in order to bury the story. To some, the narrative draws parallels to the Washington Post’s revelation that Republican Mitch McConnell was aware of the CIA’s conclusion that Russians had intervened and opted to do nothing.
  • The case deliberates interesting rationale that could theoretically be applied in part if, after Donald Trump assumes office, it is shown that Russian hacking (or any fraud, for that matter) robbed Hillary Clinton of the presidency. The case offers clues that imply courts may intervene.
  • There is also, of course, no constitutional Electoral College process or system in Pennsylvania, so the situations are not exactly analogous. But the reasoning behind the federal court’s decision may hold muster. It is not clear how the case would impact a presidential election.
  • | Updated 6 days ago [MARKS v. STINSON | 19 F.3d 873 (1994) | Leagle.com]
  • BREAKING: Russian Interference In The Election Just Handed Hillary The White House (DETAILS), December 10, 2016 New Century Times
    • His opponent in the race, Republican Bruce Marks was then made the winner. The judge who made the ruling, Judge Clarence Newcomer, said:

      “Substantial evidence was presented establishing massive absentee ballot fraud, deception, intimidation, harassment and forgery.”

      According to the New York Times: “Judge Newcomer ordered that Mr. Stinson, a 49-year-old former assistant deputy mayor of Philadelphia, be removed from his State Senate office and that Mr. Marks, a 36-year-old lawyer and former aide to United States Senator Arlen Specter, be certified the winner within 72 hours.”

 

• Differences between Liberals, Conservatives, Libertarians and neo-Conservatives
  • Left–right politics, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    • History of the terms: The terms “left” and “right” appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president’s right and supporters of the revolution to his left. One deputy, the Baron de Gauville, explained, “We began to recognize each other: those who were loyal to religion and the king took up positions to the right of the chair so as to avoid the shouts, oaths, and indecencies that enjoyed free rein in the opposing camp.” However the Right opposed the seating arrangement because they believed that deputies should support private or general interests but should not form factions or political parties. The contemporary press occasionally used the terms “left” and “right” to refer to the opposing sides.^[9]
  • Greens and Libertarians: The yin and yang of our political future, by Dan Sullivan (originally appearing in Green Revolution, Volume 49, No. 2, summer, 1992)
    • … Libertarians tend to be logical and analytical. They are confident that their principles will create an ideal society, even though they have no consensus of what that society would be like. Greens, on the other hand, tend to be more intuitive and imaginative. They have clear images of what kind of society they want, but are fuzzy about the principles on which that society would be based.
    • Ironically, Libertarians tend to be more utopian and uncompromising about their political positions, and are often unable to focus on politically winnable proposals to make the system more consistent with their overall goals. Greens on the other hand, embrace immediate proposals with ease, but are often unable to show how those proposals fit in to their ultimate goals.
    • The most difficult differences to reconcile, however, stem from baggage that members of each party have brought with them from their former political affiliations. Most Libertarians are overly hostile to government and cling to the fiction that virtually all private fortunes are legitimately earned. Most Greens are overly hostile to free enterprise and cling to the fiction that harmony and balance can be achieved through increased government intervention.
    • Amongst published researchers, there is agreement that the Left includes anarchists, communists, socialists, progressives, anti-capitalists, anti-imperialists, anti-racists, democratic socialists, greens, left-libertarians, social democrats, and social liberals.^[5][6][7]
    • Researchers have also said that the Right includes capitalists, conservatives, monarchists, nationalists, neoconservatives, neoliberals, reactionaries, imperialists, right-libertarians, social authoritarians, religious fundamentalists, and traditionalists.^[8]

__________________________________________________________________