So, libs, what say you to this?

[ChrisL]

Do go on about the Russians though. Don't let logic and reason get in your way. The TRUTH will come out, and if it leaves you libs in piles of shrieking sobbing masses on the floor, then that is okay too.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Russian hacking has been confirmed and verified.

 

[ChrisL]

The metadata is where the information is coming from, that and the expert opinions of the computer experts who have NOTHING to gain or lose. Not only computer experts but also experts at dealing with Russians in the past and dealing with Russian spies and their MO, etc. These are experts who used to work in the government in some capacity who are analyzing the data independently.

so crowdstrike lied?

WASHINGTON —

U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has revised and retracted statements it used to buttress claims of Russian hacking during last year's American presidential election campaign. The shift followed a VOA report that the company misrepresented data published by an influential British think tank.

In December, CrowdStrike said it found evidence that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app, contributing to heavy losses of howitzers in Ukraine's war with pro-Russian separatists.

VOA reported Tuesday that the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), which publishes an annual reference estimating the strength of world armed forces, disavowed the CrowdStrike report and said it had never been contacted by the company.

Ukraine's Ministry of Defense also has stated that the combat losses and hacking never happened.

Some see overblown allegations

CrowdStrike was first to link hacks of Democratic Party computers to Russian actors last year, but some cybersecurity experts have questioned its evidence. The company has come under fire from some Republicans who say charges of Kremlin meddling in the election are overblown.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

i still believe that that giant bunny who tried to eat Jimmy Carter is also behind the leaks

 

[jc456]

Why would the dnc leak that info ?

If it wasn't a hack, why do fed law enforcement agencies say it was a hack ?

cause they got paid off. duh!!!

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

russia.

Vodka, The Mariinsky Theatre, Mikhail Glinka's "Ruslan and Ludmila", Lev Yashin and Zenit Saint Petersburg among many other delights.

Stratford57

 

[easyt65]

That the DNC leaks were due to Russia hacking or was it an inside job? Vote please! Thank you!

1. In a link I posted today it stated experts who investigated concluded that the rate at which the information was downloaded could not have been accomplished by external Russian hackers, that it had to be perpetrated locally / from the inside. They concluded that the download was isolated to the Eastern Standard Time Zone, most probably from the Va / D.C. area. Finally, they concluded that the information was changed to a Russian format AFTER it was downloaded, most probably an attempt to throw investigators off. Their final conclusion was THERE WAS NO RUSSIAN HACK.

2. Before the DNC declared there had been a hack of DNC e-mails resulting in the embarrassing exposure of personal / inner-DNC e-mails, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz had already re-hired the terrorist-connected Pakistani spies who were banned from the House for illegally accessing classified House files. DWS ALSO HAD GIVEN AWAN ACCESS TO DNC E-MAILS...THE ONES THAT WERE 'HACKED'...ALONG WITH THE USERNAMES AND PASSWORDS FOR THOSE ACCOUNTS.

3. During all of this Julian Assange had declared Seth Rich was his inside leaker.

This ain't rocket science - all one has to do is look at all the information and use common sense. There was no Russian Hack. This was a cover-up of inside leaks / DWS' Pakistani espionage and an opportunity to both distract and attack Trump with the false accusations of Russian hacking with his collusion.

Furthermore, if the Russian Spy agency wanted a potential way into DNC accounts, Hillary's campaign manager's brother was WORKING FOR THE RUSSIAN SPY AGENCY that supposedly 'hacked' the DNC e-mails.
- Why was Tony Podesta EVER investigated for his connection to the Russian Spy program that 'hacked' the e-mails?

There was no Russian Hack.....unless the Pakistanis were working for / with DWS who was working with / for Hillary. As soon as DWS was fired as DNC Chairwoman Hillary IMMEDIATELY hired her to be part of the Hillary campaign...and when Awan was arrested trying to flee the country, lo and behold it was Hillary's lawyer who became Awan's attorney. Too many coincidences and connections there....

 

[jc456]

I have no doubt that somewhere along the way, Wikileaks went to work for Russia, if not from day one. I even said this on this forum before the 2016 campaign. It has always been obvious to me Assange is a marxist fuckwad.

except that he isn't. wow. you sure do think for everyone.

 

[rightwinger]

You do realize that Mueller's investigation can take many paths and many of those could turn towards Hillary, Wasserman Schultz and the DNC. As with most of these open ended witch hunts, they don't shut down until someone is found guilty of something even if it is only remotely tied to the original investigation.

Right now, it is following the money

And the money trail is leading right to the Trump camp. Next step, offer Flynn and Manafort immunity for turning on Trump

Doesn't look like it. Looks as if the DNC computers were "hacked" by an insider and leaked to Wikileaks by a person or persons who were disgusted by the behavior of the DNC, and this was the only way they felt they could do something about it.

Not what the FBI says. If I must decide between the FBI or Alex Jones,and Hannity, I'll go with the FBI

Alex Jones and Hannity? My report is taken from The Nation, which is a reputable liberal news site. Lol. Keep trying.

Executive Summary

Forensic studies of “Russian hacking” into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2016, data was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computer. After examining metadata from the “Guccifer 2.0” July 5, 2016 intrusion into the DNC server, independent cyber investigators have concluded that an insider copied DNC data onto an external storage device.


Then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (right) talks with President Barack Obama in the Oval Office, with John Brennan and other national security aides present. (Photo credit: Office of Director of National Intelligence)

Key among the findings of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack. Of equal importance, the forensics show that the copying was performed on the East coast of the U.S. Thus far, mainstream media have ignored the findings of these independent studies [see here and here].

Independent analyst Skip Folden, who retired after 25 years as the IBM Program Manager for Information Technology, US, who examined the recent forensic findings, is a co-author of this Memorandum. He has drafted a more detailed technical report titled “Cyber-Forensic Investigation of ‘Russian Hack’ and Missing Intelligence Community Disclaimers,” and sent it to the offices of the Special Counsel and the Attorney General. VIPS member William Binney, a former Technical Director at the National Security Agency, and other senior NSA “alumni” in VIPS attest to the professionalism of the independent forensic findings.

The recent forensic studies fill in a critical gap. Why the FBI neglected to perform any independent forensics on the original “Guccifer 2.0” material remains a mystery – as does the lack of any sign that the “hand-picked analysts” from the FBI, CIA, and NSA, who wrote the “Intelligence Community Assessment” dated January 6, 2017, gave any attention to forensics.

NOTE: There has been so much conflation of charges about hacking that we wish to make very clear the primary focus of this Memorandum. We focus specifically on the July 5, 2016 alleged Guccifer 2.0 “hack” of the DNC server. In earlier VIPS memoranda we addressed the lack of any evidence connecting the Guccifer 2.0 alleged hacks and WikiLeaks, and we asked President Obama specifically to disclose any evidence that WikiLeaks received DNC data from the Russians [see here and here].

Addressing this point at his last press conference (January 18), he described “the conclusions of the intelligence community” as “not conclusive,” even though the Intelligence Community Assessment of January 6 expressed “high confidence” that Russian intelligence “relayed material it acquired from the DNC … to WikiLeaks.”

Obama’s admission came as no surprise to us. It has long been clear to us that the reason the U.S. government lacks conclusive evidence of a transfer of a “Russian hack” to WikiLeaks is because there was no such transfer. Based mostly on the cumulatively unique technical experience of our ex-NSA colleagues, we have been saying for almost a year that the DNC data reached WikiLeaks via a copy/leak by a DNC insider (but almost certainly not the same person who copied DNC data on July 5, 2016).

From the information available, we conclude that the same inside-DNC, copy/leak process was used at two different times, by two different entities, for two distinctly different purposes:

-(1) an inside leak to WikiLeaks before Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, that he had DNC documents and planned to publish them (which he did on July 22) – the presumed objective being to expose strong DNC bias toward the Clinton candidacy; and

-(2) a separate leak on July 5, 2016, to pre-emptively taint anything WikiLeaks might later publish by “showing” it came from a “Russian hack.”

I wonder why the FBI doesn't agree with that. Is the FBI really a secret society run by Hillary, the Illuminati, and space aliens with the goal of destroying our country? We're DOOMED!!!!!!

Maybe the FBI doesn't read The Nation

If the FBI got its Intel from Fox News like conservative do....this investigation would be over by now

 

[Rexx Taylor]

well being Hillary is always "Leaking"...I can just assume she is one of the leakers

 

[ChrisL]

Right now, it is following the money

And the money trail is leading right to the Trump camp. Next step, offer Flynn and Manafort immunity for turning on Trump

Doesn't look like it. Looks as if the DNC computers were "hacked" by an insider and leaked to Wikileaks by a person or persons who were disgusted by the behavior of the DNC, and this was the only way they felt they could do something about it.

Not what the FBI says. If I must decide between the FBI or Alex Jones,and Hannity, I'll go with the FBI

Alex Jones and Hannity? My report is taken from The Nation, which is a reputable liberal news site. Lol. Keep trying.

Executive Summary

Forensic studies of “Russian hacking” into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2016, data was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computer. After examining metadata from the “Guccifer 2.0” July 5, 2016 intrusion into the DNC server, independent cyber investigators have concluded that an insider copied DNC data onto an external storage device.


Then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (right) talks with President Barack Obama in the Oval Office, with John Brennan and other national security aides present. (Photo credit: Office of Director of National Intelligence)

Key among the findings of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack. Of equal importance, the forensics show that the copying was performed on the East coast of the U.S. Thus far, mainstream media have ignored the findings of these independent studies [see here and here].

Independent analyst Skip Folden, who retired after 25 years as the IBM Program Manager for Information Technology, US, who examined the recent forensic findings, is a co-author of this Memorandum. He has drafted a more detailed technical report titled “Cyber-Forensic Investigation of ‘Russian Hack’ and Missing Intelligence Community Disclaimers,” and sent it to the offices of the Special Counsel and the Attorney General. VIPS member William Binney, a former Technical Director at the National Security Agency, and other senior NSA “alumni” in VIPS attest to the professionalism of the independent forensic findings.

The recent forensic studies fill in a critical gap. Why the FBI neglected to perform any independent forensics on the original “Guccifer 2.0” material remains a mystery – as does the lack of any sign that the “hand-picked analysts” from the FBI, CIA, and NSA, who wrote the “Intelligence Community Assessment” dated January 6, 2017, gave any attention to forensics.

NOTE: There has been so much conflation of charges about hacking that we wish to make very clear the primary focus of this Memorandum. We focus specifically on the July 5, 2016 alleged Guccifer 2.0 “hack” of the DNC server. In earlier VIPS memoranda we addressed the lack of any evidence connecting the Guccifer 2.0 alleged hacks and WikiLeaks, and we asked President Obama specifically to disclose any evidence that WikiLeaks received DNC data from the Russians [see here and here].

Addressing this point at his last press conference (January 18), he described “the conclusions of the intelligence community” as “not conclusive,” even though the Intelligence Community Assessment of January 6 expressed “high confidence” that Russian intelligence “relayed material it acquired from the DNC … to WikiLeaks.”

Obama’s admission came as no surprise to us. It has long been clear to us that the reason the U.S. government lacks conclusive evidence of a transfer of a “Russian hack” to WikiLeaks is because there was no such transfer. Based mostly on the cumulatively unique technical experience of our ex-NSA colleagues, we have been saying for almost a year that the DNC data reached WikiLeaks via a copy/leak by a DNC insider (but almost certainly not the same person who copied DNC data on July 5, 2016).

From the information available, we conclude that the same inside-DNC, copy/leak process was used at two different times, by two different entities, for two distinctly different purposes:

-(1) an inside leak to WikiLeaks before Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, that he had DNC documents and planned to publish them (which he did on July 22) – the presumed objective being to expose strong DNC bias toward the Clinton candidacy; and

-(2) a separate leak on July 5, 2016, to pre-emptively taint anything WikiLeaks might later publish by “showing” it came from a “Russian hack.”

I wonder why the FBI doesn't agree with that. Is the FBI really a secret society run by Hillary, the Illuminati, and space aliens with the goal of destroying our country? We're DOOMED!!!!!!

Maybe the FBI doesn't read The Nation

If the FBI got its Intel from Fox News like conservative do....this investigation would be over by now

Only none of this has anything to do with Fox News. Lol.

 

[ChrisL]

The metadata is the physical evidence you have been seeking to prove whether or not this was a Russian hack job or an inside job. The metadata says it was an inside job, according to time stamps and speed of the downloads of the emails. Those are the facts.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

That's not what the article says. The article says exactly what I said. But you keep going with your "The Russians" delusion. I couldn't care less. Intelligent people will read and consider the article instead of dismissing it due to partisanship and silly ideological differences.

I've read the article, but that is all I have been able to find on the topic. Where has VIPS published the totality of their findings? No white paper, abstract, summary, peer review or outline with methodology from these 'professionals'?

According to the article, VIPS disclosed portions of their findings over the period from January to July with the earliest being to President Obama just before he left office. Where is a credible paper of of their findings? They've certainly had time to produce one replete with their findings. Or why not even an outline of their findings as a basis for their conclusions. For instance, how did VIPS get their hands on the metadata? Did the NSA, CIA or FBI supply it from their evidence from an ongoing investigation? That wouldn't pass any smell test nor does their claim at this time without much more information and PROOF.

I've looked since yesterday since the first OP on this jumped up on the forum. It's not credible until there is firm evidence to shitcan the findings of the 17 Intelligence agencies confirming Russian involvement.

 

[ChrisL]

Your Russian conspiracy theory is falling apart at the seams due to the facts, not that the Russians are completely innocent, but they did not hack into the DNC computer network according to the actual evidence that exists. The Russia hacking collusion theory is based on hypotheticals and circumstance, but no hard data like metadata.

 

[ChrisL]

That's not what the article says. The article says exactly what I said. But you keep going with your "The Russians" delusion. I couldn't care less. Intelligent people will read and consider the article instead of dismissing it due to partisanship and silly ideological differences.

I've read the article, but that is all I have been able to find on the topic. Where has VIPS published the totality of their findings? No white paper, abstract, summary, peer review or outline with methodology from these 'professionals'?

According to the article, VIPS disclosed portions of their findings over the period from January to July with the earliest being to President Obama just before he left office. Where is a credible paper of of their findings? They've certainly had time to produce one replete with their findings. Or why not even an outline of their findings as a basis for their conclusions. For instance, how did VIPS get their hands on the metadata? Did the NSA, CIA or FBI supply it from their evidence from an ongoing investigation? That wouldn't pass any smell test nor does their claim at this time without much more information and PROOF.

I've looked since yesterday since the first OP on this jumped up on the forum. It's not credible until there is firm evidence to shitcan the findings of the 17 Intelligence agencies confirming Russian involvement.

There are links in the link. Click on them.

 

[playtime]

russia.

Vodka, The Mariinsky Theatre, Mikhail Glinka's "Ruslan and Ludmila", Lev Yashin and Zenit Saint Petersburg among many other delights.

Stratford57

alrighty then.... but what's w/ the link? selling a vacation plan?

 

[iceberg]

That the DNC leaks were due to Russia hacking or was it an inside job? Vote please! Thank you!

I voted for an Inside Job, there was no Russian Hackers, there is no evidence to suggest that there were.

I also am taking the attitude of a Leftist here for a moment and commenting, I'm not tolerating a differing opinion or any hysterical gibbering, so don't start arguing

not betting on the one on the left again.

fucker cost me $20

 

[Votto]

I picked up this article at another forum. This is the much more likely scenario than a big Russian/Trump ridiculous conspiracy theory. What do you think?

A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack

It is now a year since the Democratic National Committee’s mail system was compromised—a year since events in the spring and early summer of 2016 were identified as remote hacks and, in short order, attributed to Russians acting in behalf of Donald Trump. A great edifice has been erected during this time. President Trump, members of his family, and numerous people around him stand accused of various corruptions and extensive collusion with Russians. Half a dozen simultaneous investigations proceed into these matters. Last week news broke that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had convened a grand jury, which issued its first subpoenas on August 3. Allegations of treason are common; prominent political figures and many media cultivate a case for impeachment.

The president’s ability to conduct foreign policy, notably but not only with regard to Russia, is now crippled. Forced into a corner and having no choice, Trump just signed legislation imposing severe new sanctions on Russia and European companies working with it on pipeline projects vital to Russia’s energy sector. Striking this close to the core of another nation’s economy is customarily considered an act of war, we must not forget. In retaliation, Moscow has announced that the United States must cut its embassy staff by roughly two-thirds. All sides agree that relations between the United States and Russia are now as fragile as they were during some of the Cold War’s worst moments. To suggest that military conflict between two nuclear powers inches ever closer can no longer be dismissed as hyperbole.

All this was set in motion when the DNC’s mail server was first violated in the spring of 2016 and by subsequent assertions that Russians were behind that “hack” and another such operation, also described as a Russian hack, on July 5. These are the foundation stones of the edifice just outlined. The evolution of public discourse in the year since is worthy of scholarly study: Possibilities became allegations, and these became probabilities. Then the probabilities turned into certainties, and these evolved into what are now taken to be established truths. By my reckoning, it required a few days to a few weeks to advance from each of these stages to the next. This was accomplished via the indefensibly corrupt manipulations of language repeated incessantly in our leading media.

We are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception.

Lost in a year that often appeared to veer into our peculiarly American kind of hysteria is the absence of any credible evidence of what happened last year and who was responsible for it. It is tiresome to note, but none has been made available. Instead, we are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception. These officials profess “high confidence” in their “assessment” as to what happened in the spring and summer of last year—this standing as their authoritative judgment. Few have noticed since these evasive terms first appeared that an assessment is an opinion, nothing more, and to express high confidence is an upside-down way of admitting the absence of certain knowledge. This is how officials avoid putting their names on the assertions we are so strongly urged to accept—as the record shows many of them have done.

We come now to a moment of great gravity.

There has been a long effort to counter the official narrative we now call “Russiagate.” This effort has so far focused on the key events noted above, leaving numerous others still to be addressed. Until recently, researchers undertaking this work faced critical shortcomings, and these are to be explained. But they have achieved significant new momentum in the past several weeks, and what they have done now yields very consequential fruit. Forensic investigators, intelligence analysts, system designers, program architects, and computer scientists of long experience and strongly credentialed are now producing evidence disproving the official version of key events last year. Their work is intricate and continues at a kinetic pace as we speak. But its certain results so far are two, simply stated, and freighted with implications:

• There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the initial “hack,” as alleged, that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer.

It was a Russian, yea, that's the ticket, it was a Russian leak!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Votto]

Why do you think the DNC does not want to turn over the servers for investigation?

Cuz they can't afford anymore servers, duh!

The DNC is run by poor folk like Hillary.

They are for the work'in man!

 

[The Derp]

I picked up this article at another forum. This is the much more likely scenario than a big Russian/Trump ridiculous conspiracy theory. What do you think?

Anyone who says the hack happened in July isn't being accurate. The hack happened earlier in the year, the leak of what was hacked happened in July.