Sources: FBI investigation continues into 'odd' computer link between Russian bank and Trump Org.
19 replies, posted
[quote]
(CNN)Federal investigators and computer scientists continue to examine whether there was a computer server connection between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank, sources close to the investigation tell CNN.
Questions about the possible connection were widely dismissed four months ago. But the FBI's investigation remains open, the sources said, and is in the hands of the FBI's counterintelligence team -- the same one looking into Russia's suspected interference in the 2016 election.
One U.S. official said investigators find the server relationship "odd" and are not ignoring it. But the official said there is still more work for the FBI to do. Investigators have not yet determined whether a connection would be significant.
The server issue surfaced again this weekend, mentioned in a Breitbart article that, according to a White House official, sparked President Trump's series of tweets accusing investigators of tapping his phone.
CNN is told there was no Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant on the server.
The FBI declined to comment. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
In addition, companies involved have provided CNN with new explanations that at times conflict with each other and still don't fully explain what happened.
The story -- of a possible connection between computer servers -- is a strange tale because there are no specific allegations of wrongdoing and only vague technical evidence.
Internet data shows that last summer, a computer server owned by Russia-based Alfa Bank repeatedly looked up the contact information for a computer server being used by the Trump Organization -- far more than other companies did, representing 80% of all lookups to the Trump server.
It's unclear if the Trump Organization server itself did anything in return. No one has produced evidence that the servers actually communicated.
Slate and The New York Times were first to report the unusual server activity.
The Times said the FBI had concluded there could be an "innocuous explanation." And cybersecurity experts told CNN this isn't how two entities would communicate if they wanted to keep things secret.
But for those who have studied the data, the activity could suggest an intent to communicate by email during a period of time when ties between the Trump Organization and Russia are being closely scrutinized because of Russia's alleged involvement in hacking the emails of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign chief John Podesta.
...
Another computer researcher, Richard Clayton of Cambridge University, said it's just plain weird.
"It's not so much a smoking gun as a faint whiff of smoke a long way away. Maybe there's something else going on. It's hard to tell," said Clayton, who has independently examined the scant evidence available.
[B]What is known:[/B]
Last year, a small group of computer scientists obtained internet traffic records from the complex system that serves as the internet's phone book. Access to these records is reserved for highly trusted cybersecurity firms and companies that provide this lookup service.
These signals were captured as they traveled along the internet's Domain Name System (DNS).
These leaked records show that Alfa Bank servers repeatedly looked up the unique internet address of a particular Trump Organization computer server in the United States.
In the computer world, it's the equivalent of looking up someone's phone number -- over and over again. While there isn't necessarily a phone call, it usually indicates an intention to communicate, according to several computer scientists.
What puzzled them was why a Russian bank was repeatedly looking up the contact information for mail1.trump-email.com.
Publicly available internet records show that address, which was registered to the Trump Organization, points to an IP address that lives on an otherwise dull machine operated by a company in the tiny rural town of Lititz, Pennsylvania.
[b]From May 4 until September 23, the Russian bank looked up the address to this Trump corporate server 2,820 times -- more lookups than the Trump server received from any other source.
As noted, Alfa Bank alone represents 80% of the lookups, according to these leaked internet records.
Far back in second place, with 714 such lookups, was a company called Spectrum Health.
Spectrum is a medical facility chain led by [B]Dick DeVos, the husband of Betsy DeVos, who was appointed by Trump as U.S. education secretary.[/B]
[B]Together, Alfa and Spectrum accounted for 99% of the lookups.[/B]
[/quote]
[URL="http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/09/politics/fbi-investigation-continues-into-odd-computer-link-between-russian-bank-and-trump-organization/index.html"]CNN[/URL]
[b]Friendly reminder that Alfa Bank was named in the Steele dossier[/b]
Well, uh. Keep pulling those threads, FBI.
Somehow I don't think this investigation will just go away like the White House wants it to.
Gotta love those "sources." I mean, hey, it's not like they've been wrong in the past.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51938586]Gotta love those "sources." I mean, hey, it's not like they've been wrong in the past.[/QUOTE]
So you seriously see absolutely nothing strange about DeVos being connected in this?
[QUOTE=Llamaguy;51938590]So you seriously see absolutely nothing strange about DeVos being connected in this?[/QUOTE]
What? You picked like one line out of the article as if it was the focus. No one is even intimating that DeVos is connected with the Russian thing in the article.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51938595]What? You picked like one line out of the article as if it was the focus. No one is even intimating that DeVos is connected with the Russian thing in the article.[/QUOTE]
The primary issue is why Trump chose DeVos. So far, approximately 4 or 5 of Trumps cabinet had Russian ties. Then, this resurfaced with her father's connections.
There's a reason why the FBI is still giving this investigation. That alone is worth bringing up.
[QUOTE=Llamaguy;51938623]The primary issue is why Trump chose DeVos. So far, approximately 4 or 5 of Trumps cabinet had Russian ties. Then, this resurfaced with her father's connections.
There's a reason why the FBI is still giving this investigation. That alone is worth bringing up.[/QUOTE]
Why do you say that? It wasn't in the article at all.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51938714]Why do you say that? It wasn't in the article at all.[/QUOTE]
Could you be more specific about what you're saying wasn't in the article?
[QUOTE=bitches;51938720]Could you be more specific about what you're saying wasn't in the article?[/QUOTE]
The DeVos/Russian connection. The only connection that I can see is that both the Russian bank and DeVos's business had connected that the Trump email, but there was no connection between DeVos and the bank anywhere.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51938742]The DeVos/Russian connection. The only connection that I can see is that both the Russian bank and DeVos's business had connected that the Trump email, but there was no connection between DeVos and the bank anywhere.[/QUOTE]
I agree that this doesn't indicate Russian involvement with DeVos.
However, your first post in this thread states doubt over the article as a whole, not the tidbit information about DeVos. The article itself doesn't say that DeVos is a Russian spy or anything, so you can't have been referring to anything about DeVos when questioning the article's source.
So, in regard to your original topic in which you claim that this information as a whole is unfounded, perhaps you should wait and see if the FBI releases a statement saying CNN made it all up before jumping to "FAKE NEWS" conclusions.
[QUOTE=bitches;51938865]I agree that this doesn't indicate Russian involvement with DeVos.
However, your first post in this thread states doubt over the article as a whole, not the tidbit information about DeVos. The article itself doesn't say that DeVos is a Russian spy or anything, so you can't have been referring to anything about DeVos when questioning the article's source.
So, in regard to your original topic in which you claim that this information as a whole is unfounded, perhaps you should wait and see if the FBI releases a statement saying CNN made it all up before jumping to "FAKE NEWS" conclusions.[/QUOTE]
I was simply pointing out that it's another claim made solely on the back of anonymous sources. These types of claims have been very shaky in the past and are prone to being totally false. It's a good thing to note.
The whole thing about the DeVos/Russia connection was brought up by Lamaguy and I had no idea why.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51938878]I was simply pointing out that it's another claim made solely on the back of anonymous sources. These types of claims have been very shaky in the past and are prone to being totally false. It's a good thing to note.
The whole thing about the DeVos/Russia connection was brought up by Lamaguy and I had no idea why.[/QUOTE]
Fortunately this particular piece of news claims the the FBI as its source. Even just anonymous FBI members still means the source is the FBI; the FBI themselves could denounce this news immediately if they felt news media were abusing their name to push fake stories.
It's the FBI's ability to do so and in the doing cast CNN in a majorly negative light that makes it more reasonable to assume this information is true for the time being.
"what if" isn't a constructive conversation when the "what if" isn't reasonable to begin with. It distracts from the larger issue: further evidence of Russian ties to the Trump administration.
[QUOTE=bitches;51938887]Fortunately this particular piece of news claims the the FBI as its source. Even just anonymous FBI members still means the source is the FBI; the FBI themselves could denounce this news immediately if they felt news media were abusing their name to push fake stories.
It's the FBI's ability to do so and in the doing cast CNN in a majorly negative light that makes it more reasonable to assume this information is true for the time being.
"what if" isn't a constructive conversation when the "what if" isn't reasonable to begin with. It distracts from the larger issue: further evidence of Russian ties to the Trump administration.[/QUOTE]
The FBI doesn't generally comment on things until it has a completed statement and/or feels that it's totally necessary. To demand that the FBI, as an agency, denounce every single anonymous claim about every possible investigation is silly.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Anonymous sources may be enough for you, but it sure isn't for me, especially after the large number of false stories pushed by anonymous sources recently.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51938936]The FBI doesn't generally comment on things until it has a completed statement and/or feels that it's totally necessary. To demand that the FBI, as an agency, denounce every single anonymous claim about every possible investigation is silly.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Anonymous sources may be enough for you, but it sure isn't for me, especially after the large number of false stories pushed by anonymous sources recently.[/QUOTE]
If a major national TV news outlet, one of the top three sources of news in the US, could lie about what the FBI is doing any time it wanted, there would be a crisis.
The FBI doesn't have to denounce everything a preacher says on the street; they need to denounce major news outlets attempting to propagandize a public to an agenda based on outright falsehoods concerning their own organization.
It is not reasonable to conclude that the FBI being used as a source is merely "FAKE NEWS".
[QUOTE=bitches;51938959]If a major national TV news outlet, one of the top three sources of news in the US, could lie about what the FBI is doing any time it wanted, there would be a crisis.
The FBI doesn't have to denounce everything a preacher says on the street; they need to denounce major news outlets attempting to propagandize a public to an agenda based on outright falsehoods concerning their own organization.
It is not reasonable to conclude that the FBI being used as a source is merely "FAKE NEWS".[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying that they're lying. I'm saying that anonymous sources aren't trustworthy or reliable. Also, the FBI is not the source. Some unnamed individual within the FBI is a source.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51938969]I'm not saying that they're lying. I'm saying that anonymous sources aren't trustworthy or reliable. Also, the FBI is not the source. Some unnamed individual within the FBI is a source.[/QUOTE]
That's splitting hairs in regard to the point: CNN is pushing news backed by the FBI's name, which the FBI cannot allow to go unchecked by such a major publication.
[QUOTE=bitches;51938989]That's splitting hairs in regard to the point: CNN is pushing news backed by the FBI's name, which the FBI cannot allow to go unchecked by such a major publication.[/QUOTE]
But it's not backed with the FBI's name? It's backed by someone who is supposedly in the FBI. Those are entirely different things.
Here's a Reuters article from all the way back in 2014 discussing the problems with relying on anonymous sources and how it's a pretty new phenomena: [URL]http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2014/06/16/the-source-may-be-anonymous-but-the-shame-is-all-yours/[/URL]
If anything, it's gotten worse since then. Here's a quote from the article that accurately sums up my feeling on anonymous sources:
[QUOTE]"Anonymity benefits sources by allowing them to feed their versions almost unimpeded to the press if they locate a gullible or corrupt reporter. Anonymity benefits reporters, too, by potentially increasing their byline counts, by giving them “scoops” (however spurious or short-lived), and by signaling their availability to other anonymous sources.
The downsides of anonymity, of course, are too many to list in a column, but here are two: Anonymous sourcing reduces the pressure on official sources to take responsibility for their utterances. And it promotes the gaming of news outlets, with anonymous sources gravitating to the most pliant reporters and editors. Neither is good for the news.
Do anonymous sources have any place in journalism? Obviously there’s a difference between listening to anonymous sources and masked whistleblowers and putting into print what they say verbatim. I have nothing against anonymous sources who help guide reporters toward the verifiable — I just draw the line at routinely printing what they say."[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=sgman91;51939011]But it's not backed with the FBI's name? It's backed by someone who is supposedly in the FBI. Those are entirely different things.
Here's a Reuters article from all the way back in 2014 discussing the problems with relying on anonymous sources and how it's a pretty new phenomena: [URL]http://blogs.reuters.com/jackshafer/2014/06/16/the-source-may-be-anonymous-but-the-shame-is-all-yours/[/URL]
If anything, it's gotten worse since then. Here's a quote from the article that accurately sums up my feeling on anonymous sources:[/QUOTE]
It's impossible to argue a point with you if you're going to simply go in a circle.
The intent of CNN is to nationally publish a claim that the FBI is investigating Trump's Russian ties. That is indisputable. Their source being an anonymous member of the FBI does not change that fact, nor the importance that holds for the FBI in retaining its own public voice.
[QUOTE=bitches;51941314]It's impossible to argue a point with you if you're going to simply go in a circle.
The intent of CNN is to nationally publish a claim that the FBI is investigating Trump's Russian ties. That is indisputable. Their source being an anonymous member of the FBI does not change that fact, nor the importance that holds for the FBI in retaining its own public voice.[/QUOTE]
Are we not both going in a circle? I, personally, don't think an anonymous source is good enough to act on by itself. You do think it's enough.
For example, anonymous sources from within the DOJ made plenty of false claims about the Clinton investigation. This happens over and over again with "senior officials," "FBI officials," "CIA officials," DOJ officials," Etc. Here's an artcile talking about how the NYT quoted an anonymous white house official about North Korea being the source of a hack that ended up not being nearly that clear ([url]https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/12/29/anonywatch-department-of-ridiculous-reasons/?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fthe-public-editor[/url])
"a source said"
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.