The New York Times Explains How It Became An "Instrument Of Russian Intelligence"

Tyler Durden's picture

In a massive (in a literal sense, printing at 25 pages and over 8,000 words as there is little new information revealed in the piece itself) expose issued by the NYT tited "The Perfect Weapon: How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the U.S." and meant to piggyback on the WaPo's recent reporting and solidify the left-leaning media's case that Hillary lost the election, the New York Times try to summarize all the recent publicly available information on alleged Russian hackings of everything from the DNC server to the Podesta email.

While the 8,000 words do provide a good recap of the widely accepted mainstream media version of events, we hoped to find some actual incremental news, like, for example: proof, so we promptly scoured the report for any incremental evidence that Russia was indeed behind the hack - after all that's what the NYT is writing about. Alas, we could not find it, instead there was nothing but more innuendo, more "believes", and more "possible linkages." Some examples:

  • American intelligence officials said they believed that the hackers were associated with two Russian intelligence agencies.
  • Investigators believe that the G.R.U., or a hacking group known as Fancy Bear or A.P.T. 28, was the second group to break into the D.N.C., but it has played a bigger role in releasing the committee’s emails.
  • A self-proclaimed hacker that investigators believe was a group acting as an agent of the G.R.U. It published documents itself and leaked a series of D.N.C. documents.
  • A hacking group possibly linked to the agency, the main successor to the K.G.B., entered Democratic National Committee servers undetected for nearly a year, security researchers said. The group was nicknamed Cozy Bear, the Dukes or A.P.T. 29 for “advanced persistent threat.”

Finally, on Wikileaks:

  • The website released about 50,000 emails from the Democratic National Committee’s computer servers. It is unclear how WikiLeaks obtained the emails. But Russian intelligence agencies are prime suspects, researchers said.

This, despite recent refutations by both Wikileaks, and those close to them, that the source is not Russian, although short of naming the disgruntled employee, this particular case of fingerpointing will remain an impasse indefinitely. Making matters for the mainstream narrative - i.e. the one pushed by the NYT - worse, overnight Reuters reported that the ODNI - the top US spy agency - refused to endorse the CIA's "assessment" that Russia was behind the hacking, citing a "lack of evidence" - which just happens to be the weakest link in the attempt to demonize Putin - one which the NYT likewise fails to address.

That out of the way, the NYT does an awesome job of presenting even more unconfirmed innuendo as undisputed fact, all of which points in one direction. Russia in general, and the Kremlin in particular, are responsible for Hillary's failure: there are 98 instance of the word Russia or Russian in the article. Some examples:

  • At least one computer system belonging to the D.N.C. had been compromised by hackers federal investigators had named “the Dukes,” a cyberespionage team linked to the Russian government.
  • An examination by The Times of the Russian operation — based on interviews with dozens of players targeted in the attack, intelligence officials who investigated it and Obama administration officials who deliberated over the best response — reveals a series of missed signals, slow responses and a continuing underestimation of the seriousness of the cyberattack.
  • The D.N.C.’s fumbling encounter with the F.B.I. meant the best chance to halt the Russian intrusion was lost. The failure to grasp the scope of the attacks undercut efforts to minimize their impact. And the White House’s reluctance to respond forcefully meant the Russians have not paid a heavy price for their actions, a decision that could prove critical in deterring future cyberattacks.
  • The low-key approach of the F.B.I. meant that Russian hackers could roam freely through the committee’s network for nearly seven months before top D.N.C. officials were alerted to the attack and hired cyberexperts to protect their systems. In the meantime, the hackers moved on to targets outside the D.N.C., including Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, John D. Podesta, whose private email account was hacked months later.
  • By last summer, Democrats watched in helpless fury as their private emails and confidential documents appeared online day after day — procured by Russian intelligence agents, posted on WikiLeaks and other websites, then eagerly reported on by the American media, including The Times. Mr. Trump gleefully cited many of the purloined emails on the campaign trail.

In the case of those "Russian" hackers identified by the NYT, the publication itself admits that "attribution, as the skill of identifying a cyberattacker is known, is more art than science."

It is often impossible to name an attacker with absolute certainty. But over time, by accumulating a reference library of hacking techniques and targets, it is possible to spot repeat offenders. Fancy Bear, for instance, has gone after military and political targets in Ukraine and Georgia, and at NATO installations.

And here, once again, comes inference which the NYT - and apparently the CIA - is happy to use in lieu of firm evidence:

That largely rules out cybercriminals and most countries, Mr. Alperovitch said. “There’s no plausible actor that has an interest in all those victims other than Russia,” he said. Another clue: The Russian hacking groups tended to be active during working hours in the Moscow time zone.

And hey, presto: it must be Russia. Which, incidentally, the Democrats quickly tried to spin in their favor:

In mid-June, on Mr. Sussmann’s advice, D.N.C. leaders decided to take a bold step. Concerned that word of the hacking might leak, they decided to go public in The Washington Post with the news that the committee had been attacked. That way, they figured, they could get ahead of the story, win a little sympathy from voters for being victimized by Russian hackers and refocus on the campaign.


But the very next day, a new, deeply unsettling shock awaited them. Someone calling himself Guccifer 2.0 appeared on the web, claiming to be the D.N.C. hacker — and he posted a confidential committee document detailing Mr. Trump’s record and half a dozen other documents to prove his bona fides.

For Zero Hedge readers who have followed our writing over the past 6 months, there is really nothing new in the entire NYT article, with one exception: despite not providing any proof that Russia is behind the hacks, the article drowns the readers in constant accusations that the Russian government is the guilty party, to the point where this allegation becomes fact, and in the process the NYT itself succumbs to spreading, you guessed it, "fake news" and government "propaganda." Amusingly , the NYT does realize this, and notes that "in recent days, a skeptical president-elect, the nation’s intelligence agencies and the two major parties have become embroiled in an extraordinary public dispute over what evidence exists that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia moved beyond mere espionage to deliberately try to subvert American democracy and pick the winner of the presidential election."

So is there actual evidence? Alas, on this one most important topic, the NYT is silent: there are 5 instances of the word "evidence" in the entire 8000+ word piece, and 0 instances of "proof" - the authors had hoped that drowning readers with "Russia, Russia, Russia" would be sufficient. It also had no problem presenting belief as fact, as noted above. To wit:

“There shouldn’t be any doubt in anybody’s mind,” Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency and commander of United States Cyber Command said at a postelection conference. “This was not something that was done casually, this was not something that was done by chance, this was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily,” he said. “This was a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect.”

Well, Mr. Rogers, we do have some doubt: could you please show us the evidence that would eradicate it? Alas, so far not a single liberal publication has been able to provide that particular missing link, and is why the latest rift between the pro-Clinton CIA and the pro-Trump FBI has opened up. As the NYT writes, “This tale of ‘hacks’ resembles a banal brawl between American security officials over spheres of influence,” Maria Zakharova, the spokeswoman for the Russian Foreign Ministry, wrote on Facebook.

Over the weekend, four prominent senators, two Republicans and two Democrats, joined forces to pledge an investigation while pointedly ignoring Mr. Trump’s skeptical claims.


“Democrats and Republicans must work together, and across the jurisdictional lines of the Congress, to examine these recent incidents thoroughly and devise comprehensive solutions to deter and defend against further cyberattacks,” said Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Chuck Schumer and Jack Reed.


“This cannot become a partisan issue,” they said. “The stakes are too high for our country.”

We agree: so let's see the evidence that would align everyone on the same side of the argument. What, there is none? And instead the objective press is making an emotional appeal is lieu of actual proof? That does not sound very professional. In fact, it sounds very "fake news"-ish.

One notable interlude is the previously reported story of one possible way that hackers penetrated John Podesta's email. As the NYT explains, for those who missed it, the hack and eventual release of a decade’s worth of Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails may have been caused by a typo.  Last March, Podesta received an email purportedly from Google saying hackers had tried to infiltrate his Gmail account. When an aide emailed the campaign’s IT staff to ask if the notice was real, Clinton campaign aide Charles Delavan replied that it was “a legitimate email" and that Podesta should “change his password immediately.”

Instead of telling the aide that the email was a threat and that a good response would be to change his password directly through Google’s website, he had inadvertently told the aide to click on the fraudulent email and give the attackers access to the account.  Delavan told the Times he had intended to type "illegitimate,” a typo "he still has not forgiven himself for making."

The email was a phishing scam that ultimately revealed Podesta’s password to hackers. Soon after, WikiLeaks began releasing 10 years of his emails. In late October the firm SecureWorks identified a account and WikiLeaks-released email that appeared to have been used to attack Podesta’s account.

Naturally, the fact that - according to this narrative - the crack group of Russian cyber hacks had to resort to a simplistic, childish malware  attack to get to a person's password, is seemingly completely ignored, as it the reality that if the "Russians" wanted Podesta's email, there were countless many, far more sophisticated ways of obtaining it.

But all is fair in "fake news" ans perpetuating a narrative.

And since this particular narrative is extremely time consuming, here is a simplifying infographic that supposedly explains all anyone who wants to believe the government's side of the story, needs to know.


But wait a minute, if it was common knowledge that the Russians were hacking the DNC, Podesta and anyone else close to Clinton with a computer - but not her own server of course, that was impenetrable to hacking by Russia, just ask the FBI - why didn't Obama call out the Russians? And here is the laugh out loud part of the entire NYT piece:

Mr. Obama was briefed regularly on all this, but he made a decision that many in the White House now regret: He did not name Russians publicly, or issue sanctions. There was always a reason: fear of escalating a cyberwar, and concern that the United States needed Russia’s cooperation in negotiations over Syria.


“We’d have all these circular meetings,” one senior State Department official said, “in which everyone agreed you had to push back at the Russians and push back hard. But it didn’t happen.”


So the Russians escalated again — breaking into systems not just for espionage, but to publish or broadcast what they found, known as “doxing” in the cyberworld.

That this is beyond stupid goes without saying, however if - in the odd chance it is also true - then it is not Russia, but president Obama who should be held accountable for not standing up to protecting US interests in what he clearly understood was a cyberwar.

But let's blame Putin for apparently outsmarting the entire US intelligence apparatus.

Actually, Putin also outsmarted the New York Times itself: as the paper admits, "by last summer, Democrats watched in helpless fury as their private emails and confidential documents appeared online day after day — procured by Russian intelligence agents, posted on WikiLeaks and other websites, then eagerly reported on by the American media, including The Times. Mr. Trump gleefully cited many of the purloined emails on the campaign trail."

And the punchline:

Though Mr. Assange did not say so, WikiLeaks’ best defense may be the conduct of the mainstream American media. Every major publication, including The Times, published multiple stories citing the D.N.C. and Podesta emails posted by WikiLeaks, becoming a de facto instrument of Russian intelligence.

To which, all we can say, is well done comrades: Vladimir is very proud of you for helping take down the candidate you yourselves endorsed.

Or something just as stupid, which continues the now month-old campaign of deflecting blame and accepting responsibility for Hillary's campaign which failed not because of some "Kremlin mastermind hackers", but because millions of disenfranchised workers in battleground states had had enough with a system that had forgotten all about them.

And now we sit back and wait for the next "fake news", "Russian hacker propaganda" hit piece to come out. Why not: after all just last week the Senate took the first step toward banning free speech with the passage of the "Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act." If nothing else, once passed into law, it will help mainstream outlets like the NYT regain the narrative they so painfully lost control over in 2016.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Yen Cross's picture

 New York <> WHO???

  What a disgrace to humanity

Jim in MN's picture

What I LOVE about this is it keeps the WEINER LAPTOP EMAILS right at the forefront of our social and political lives.


WHAT'S ON WEINER'S LAPTOP?????????????????????????????????

That would be Fit to Print.

CClarity's picture

Where oh where is Huma these days?  Walking the woods with the elusive purple one?   Or leaking more info?

Son of Loki's picture

rAny time the nyt or cnn says, "unnamed sources" you know it's total propaganda lies.

Ignatius's picture

Gaslighting, or as some have termed it, masslighting ("everyone's talking about it").

The irony, of course, and perhaps the purpose, is to cover the fact that the CIA suborns and subverts governments around the globe on a regular basis.  "Color Revolutions."  Sounds benign, like something of which your daughter would approve.  This is an propaganda attack to create 'facts on the ground' which are not facts at all.  More popcorn.

TBT or not TBT's picture

The NYT has been publishing Soviet and Russian propaganda since Duranty was covering Stalin's mass murder programs in the 30's.  They're still proud of that Pulitzer today. 



Save_America1st's picture

"Every major publication, including The Times, published multiple stories citing the D.N.C. and Podesta emails posted by WikiLeaks, becoming a de facto instrument of Russian intelligence."


well even though this had nothing to do with the Russians (or zeee Germanz), at least it was the first time in years and years that these fucks were actually printing anything truthful! 

bitchez got played!  lol

JRobby's picture

"We can do the innuendo, we can dance and sing"

"When its said and done we haven't told you a thing"

(D Henley) 

TBT or not TBT's picture

Said it twice.  Worth repeating.   



sushi's picture

Good thing HRC fooled those pesky Russkis by running an unsecured homebrew email server in the basement of her house. Last place the GRU, or anyone else, would suspect to find SCI NO FORN TOP SECRET info.


Anyone else notice that the NYT is now an over the top McCarthyite rag??

Squid-puppets a-go-go's picture

Anyone else notice they use robots to pretend to be real people on social media to try and discredit pizzagate?

bwaaahahaha nice way to confirm you're hiding something, assholes

SoDamnMad's picture

I'm still waiting for the WMDs to be found in Iraq (pre 2003) but maybe they were sneaked into Turkey, our NATO partner, and dropped on Syrian cities to make it appear Assad'sgovernment killed all those civilians.  Goota trust them white helmets fer sure.

RiverRoad's picture

Sorry New York times; your long-winded specious arguments cannot refute the fact that Hillary and Hillary alone is responsible for her failure.  No one has ever been a candidate for the presidency of this country with a resume as spotty and weak as hers. 

War Machine's picture

The NY Times has absolutely jumped the shark - the arrogance and smarmy ignorance required to generate that schizophrenic diatribe indicates people who have veered a but off planet.

Dear Paul Krugman:

please be aware that your dissembling, self-deluded moralistic solipsism can not possibly lead to Clinton being allowed to steal the election.

and this silly, transparent propaganda is sophomoric, at best.

you don't want civil war.

your team will not win such a war despite what the snake heads think.

'all heads have throats'


flaminratzazz's picture

President Obama has been forced to admit that Russia did not hack the U.S. elections as is being widely reported in the mainstream media. 

During an interview with the Daily Show’s Trevor Noah, Barack Obama denounced the conspiracy theory that Russians tampered with the American voting process.

We were frankly more concerned in the run up to the election to the possibilities of vote tampering, which we did not see evidence of,” he admitted. “And we’re confident that we can guard against.”

sushi's picture

If the Obama Demoncractic administration stood by and permitted Russian interference in the electoral process and said and did nothing then this is a prime reason for MAGA.

Why would you want to trust the same bozos twice?

bobbbny's picture

OK Julian, NOW!

ParticularlyStupidHumanoid's picture

"My analysis is that Trump would not be permitted to win. Why do I say that? Because he has had every establishment off his side. Trump does not have one establishment, maybe with the exception of the Evangelicals, if you can call them an establishment. Banks, intelligence, arms companies, foreign money, etc. are all united behind Hillary Clinton. And the media as well. Media owners, and the journalists themselves." - Assange, November 4th or before (the 8th being election day 2016).

Squid-puppets a-go-go's picture

So, even if we believe their theory, at worst it was the russians who gve pedopodestas emails to wikileaks ? So russians did the children and parents of america and haiti a great service. Is there some medal we can give putin?

ok anyway, so back to the business of jailing the pedophocracy....

Jim in MN's picture

"Telling the public about the subversion of the election is subverting the election."

Orwell weeps......................................

Breaking for NYT:

Bite me politely and Eat me completely.

Cabreado's picture


Small, entitled, juvenile fear.

War Machine's picture

raising on a busted flush, even if they succeed they get a civil war they lose in 3 weeks. tops.

The foreign and banking powers that have hijacked the Deep State must be neutralized with any means available as necessary.

froze25's picture

Why do you think Trump put top Military in his cabinet so quickly. Why do you think Trump got endorsements by basically ever General, Admiral, basically all the retired top  Brass, in existence. The military is draining the swamp through Trump. CIA is fighting tooth and nail to stay in power. They Came in with Bush Sr. and have been there since. Now the "army" is taking the country back for the people.

nmewn's picture

One thing you will never see in the NYT's...

"Boy, it sure would have been easier on the editors of the NYT's if Hillary wouldn't have used an UNSECURED EMAIL SERVER!"

peddling-fiction's picture

Probably with a "1234" password

AlexCharting's picture

There is one catastrophic flaw in this RUSSIAN ARE COMING strategy… Americans are NOT terrified of (or have hatred for) Russians. In this era of retarded multiculturalism, many Americans are realizing the cultural brotherhood between America and Russia. 

TBT or not TBT's picture

Half of America isn't even worried about socialism.  Another, even bigger fraction is OK with authoritarianism, at least in the abstract.   It is a good thing we are a federal republic where a great many things are not up to the vote.  

f8's picture

The Russians aren't literally coming. We would fucking destroy them in a defensive battle (assuming the world doesn't end from nukes). All of that was Russian propaganda, which is about all they do well these days. Their economy is in the shitter and Putin is wasting ~30% of GDP on military fighting dirty in Syria, Ukraine, and pretending they have a navy.

He might turn things around though now that he has a puppet government installed in the US. We'll just have to see.

cheech_wizard's picture

>The Russians aren't literally coming.

That's because they are already here...

Russians are the second largest ethnic market in the united States behind the Mexicans... We must find out how Putin has smuggled over 3 million Russians into the country this right under the nose of the U.S. government. The quicker we build a wall between the Diomede islands the sooner we can bring a stop to this stealth invasion.

Standard Disclaimer: Mainstream media headlines tomorrow - Russia invades U.S.

Son of Captain Nemo's picture

God! I fucking ate this one up like the most exquisite "chocolate truffle" ever created!

GreatUncle's picture

Lol love it - Putin don't read secondhand news, he gets it first hand.

Wasn't Russia who hacked the DNC, Putin is a gifted cyber war genius too.

Elliott Eldrich's picture

The only real question to be asked is if the information provided by Wikileaks is true or not. Truth is truth, regardless of the source. Pointing the finger at the source of the truth is a time-honored tactic commonly employed by the guilty.

Cruel Joke's picture

As everyone and their dog are aware of we are now post truth. Everything is fake; fake news, fake prices, fake reporting, fake statistics, fake sources, fake evidence, fake companies and the list goes on...


I just want to say thank you to the media on the PropOrNot list - you guys keep me sane in this insane world. Especially ZeroHedge, Paul Craig Roberts and RT - THANK YOU!


And why hasn't been hacked? Come on Anonymous, don't be lazy, how hard can it be? Replace some of the names with NYT, WaPo, CNN etc..

Herdee's picture

Could be someone just sitting in their bed somewhere.

Ms No's picture

This is just amazing.  The Times is screaming about reporting on the leaks as if it is a treasonous crime to do so and yet neglect to cover the fact that the leaks revealed very serious crimes and meddling with the foundations of our very elections system.  They continuously exposing themselves as accomplices. 

These leakers did one hell of a job working these assholes over.  They can't recover and they just continue to make complete assholes of themselves.  The Times is dead and that is a beautiful thing.  They just continue to dig an even deeper hole.

I guess now we know what they meant when they said that they were going to do a better job at their reporting.  lol 

Catullus's picture

Or that all the supposed sources in this article are leaking information about the investigation to them.

Leaked sources tell us the information was hacked!

trulz4lulz's picture

So...where is the info? Evidence is always nice. I wanna see the receipts.


Spirit embarassing.

blindman's picture

oh my, the russians control the fed.
now we are truly fucked. can it get much

blindman's picture

the russians control exxon too?
polease say it ain't so.....
and they own goldman sucks too?

i'm melting .....(my little snowflake)

observer2017's picture

Why would Russia support a candidate who wants to "make America great again?" If that is true, what does it say about the alphabet agencies who consider such support a threat?

SillySalesmanQuestion's picture

Well, the MSM and the libflakes, shot their wad before the election. Now with their credibility and believability shot to smithereens, they're playing to an empty house. If by chance, they still think they can put the genie back in the bottle, us deplorables will have to show them, that they have gone the way of the dinosaurs and dodo birds.

booboo's picture

meh, those commie cocksuckers that have infiltrated every alphabet soup agency in america work day and nich against the "deplorables". It all stops at the end of a gun barrel and not until they have pushed us to the cliffs edge will the people revolt.

and concerning revolt

"These proceedings may at first seem strange and difficult, but like all other steps which we have already passed over, will in a little time become familiar and agreeable; and until an independence is declared, the Continent will feel itself like a man who continues putting off some unpleasant business from day to day, yet knows it must be done, hates to set about it, wishes it over, and is continually haunted with the thoughts of its necessity"

Thomas Paine


I prefer peace. But if trouble must come, let it come in my time, so that my children can live in peace.
Read more at:
SillySalesmanQuestion's picture

I feel your Paine booboo...thanks for the link. :-)

dark pools of soros's picture

What's their endgame? Nuke Russia? The pedo class was so close to cuckolding the entire white race and has no way to deal with men being men again

blindman's picture

there is this movie, "idiocracy",
i have never seen it but i wonder,
is this the time for such a title?

dlweld's picture

Little does the NY TIMES realize that right now – right now - they are instruments of Russian policy - playing right into Russia's hands - what better way to disrupt America than by sowing pointless doubts about the election? Perfect! Russia's outfoxed the Times yet again.