Speculation: Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a sort of hero, because she did what was expected of her, and she took the fall for a larger cause.
Speculation. That’s what the public has as fact in a world of cyberpolitics. Why? Because facts, unlike events, are judged not by some ground reality (experience or perception) but by agreement as to sources and methods of producing those facts — sources and methods, things that, in the age of global networking and its offspring, cyber-intelligence and cyber-politics, are the most closely guarded of secrets. Therefore the assertion of fact that certain sources and methods were at play in certain events is itself questionable and subject to manipulation — and speculation.
So what? Well here’s what I think happened.
On June 14, 2016, the Washington Post carried the following lead by Ellen Nakashima of the Washington Post:
Russian government hackers penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National Committee and gained access to the entire database of opposition research on GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, according to committee officials and security experts who responded to the breach.
The intruders so thoroughly compromised the DNC’s system that they also were able to read all email and chat traffic, said DNC officials and the security experts.
The intrusion into the DNC was one of several targeting American political organizations. The networks of presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were also targeted by Russian spies, as were the computers of some Republican political action committees, U.S. officials said. But details on those cases were not available.
So you have two sources here 1) DNC officials and security experts and 2) U.S. officials.
If in fact these cyber breaches occurred (heh), we have a line of sourcing of information about them that leads us not to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, but to “U.S. officials” — which would indicate to me government political operatives, i.e., the White House. Note that, ultimately, DWS as Chair of the DNC served at the pleasure of the President. Note also that this information about hacking the campaigns was not a “leak.” It was offered by the DNC and unnamed “U.S. officials” — the former talking about the DNC hacks and the latter (U.S. officials) filling in that this had happened to Trump and other Republican operations. All named sources in the article either work for the DNC, are former government officials, or are affiliated with DNC lawyers or with the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, which was hired by the DNC to do damage assessment.
And you’ll note from the article that the Trump campaign when asked about hacking referred reporters to the Secret Service. In other words, no comment, go ask somebody that might know something that could harm Trump.
So what methods can we really see here and understand? This is the Washington Post, so we can expect that the sourcing was solid. It’s just anonymous when it comes to the “U.S. officials.” Here’s what Dmitri Alperovitch, CrowdStrike co-founder and chief technology officer, said about the methods employed by the hackers:
CrowdStrike is not sure how the hackers got in. The firm suspects they may have targeted DNC employees with “spearphishing” emails. These are communications that appear legitimate — often made to look like they came from a colleague or someone trusted — but that contain links or attachments that when clicked on deploy malicious software that enables a hacker to gain access to a computer. “But we don’t have hard evidence,” Alperovitch said.
In other words there are no details on methods here worth mentioning — unless part of CrowdStrike’s method is to deny knowing about the methods. In any case, Alperovitch goes on to spin a tale of America’s cyber-warriors tilting with several Russian spy shops who themselves compete for Putin’s favor. It’s a great story. But is it the truth? To a point yes, in general. But is it the story behind what really happened with the release of the DNC emails?
Here’s where I’ll go with this, as a hypothesis for further study:
President Obama was apprised of two fact sets before this article was published on June 14:
1) Russians security organs have the capability of hacking even hard targets sometime, and softer targets pretty much at will — behind our own capability, but not behind by a lot.
2) Donald Trump has a cozy relationship with Russian finance, and ultimately with people that answer to Putin.
When the DNC hack occurred, it was clear that the material could be used for disruption. But how bad was the breach? It confirmed what the Sanders campaign had been saying for months, that the DNC brass was stitching up aspects of the campaign to the advantage of Clinton. But by June 14 Sanders was done. I think Obama saw a way of exposing the Trump organization and Premier Putin to scrutiny and questioning with respect to (2) by linking it to (1). I suspect that Obama brought both Hillary and DWS is on the clever gambit.
So, the Washington Post article was a context or frame builder, anticipatory of a major leak at what would be the crucial time — right between the conventions. Was Wikileaks complicit with the Obama administration? Does it matter? We don’t really know where Wikileaks obtained the emails. That’s a closely guarded secret (see how it works?). What we do know is that the FBI was not involved until yesterday, when the Wikileaks material had its effect.
And there’s Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the good soldier, playing her part to the hilt — booed by her own state delegation, oh the slings and arrows! — taking the big one for the team. It’s a good story. She’ll be forgotten, of course, as many minor heroes are (but she might yet climb that greasy pole in the House!). She’s done her bit, as our champion Hillary drives Obama’s cyber-spear into that Benedict Arnold, Donald Trump.
A good story for a good night.
