Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1

    Default Was the DNC hacked by Russia?

    Is there any reason we should now trust the Democrat hired firm Crowdstrike's word that Russia hacked the DNC? Is there any reason we should trust the FBI when they accepted Crowdstrike's assessment and never took a look at the DNC server?

    Why did the DNC not want the FBI to look at the server? Or is that story even true? Perhaps the DNC and the FBI were in cooperation on the hacking narrative just as they were on the dossier (as we now know).

    Some months back this article appeared in nation citing VIPS analysis of the "hacking" narrative. They say it is highly likely that it was an inside job. VIPS investigation here is led by William Binney formerly the NSA's technical director.

    https://www.thenation.com/article/a-...ears-dnc-hack/ (the article is long and specific on the theory that this was NOT a Russian hack

    Behind the ICA lie other indefensible realities. The FBI has never examined the DNC’s computer servers—an omission that is beyond preposterous. It has instead relied on the reports produced by Crowdstrike, a firm that drips with conflicting interests well beyond the fact that it is in the DNC’s employ. Dmitri Alperovitch, its co-founder and chief technology officer, is on the record as vigorously anti-Russian. He is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, which suffers the same prejudice. Problems such as this are many.

    “We continue to stand by our report,” CrowdStrike said, upon seeing the VIPS blueprint of the investigation. CrowdStrike argues that by July 5 all malware had been removed from the DNC’s computers. But the presence or absence of malware by that time is entirely immaterial, because the event of July 5 is proven to have been a leak and not a hack. Given that malware has nothing to do with leaks, CrowdStrike’s logic appears to be circular.


    Finally, Assange who got the material, has always adamantly stated that the material did not come from Russia. If Russia did not hack the DNC - then this would destroy the whole Russian collusion narrative, which was wholly created by Hillary Clinton and the FBI.


  2. #2

    Default

    Now we find out that not only did the FBI never inspect the servers that were allegedly hacked by the Russians, they didn't even get the actual report of Crowdstrike's analysis. They got a redacated copy of Crowdstrike's report claiming it looked like Russian hacking, from the DNC. The entire 'Russia hacked the DNC' narrative that this is all based on, has never been investigated or verified by the FBI. It's absolute madness.

    https://www.scribd.com/document/4134...strike-Reports
    If at first you don’t succeed, then maybe you just suck. – Kenny Powers

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bga1 View Post
    Is there any reason we should now trust the Democrat hired firm Crowdstrike's word that Russia hacked the DNC? Is there any reason we should trust the FBI when they accepted Crowdstrike's assessment and never took a look at the DNC server?

    Why did the DNC not want the FBI to look at the server? Or is that story even true? Perhaps the DNC and the FBI were in cooperation on the hacking narrative just as they were on the dossier (as we now know).

    Some months back this article appeared in nation citing VIPS analysis of the "hacking" narrative. They say it is highly likely that it was an inside job. VIPS investigation here is led by William Binney formerly the NSA's technical director.

    https://www.thenation.com/article/a-...ears-dnc-hack/ (the article is long and specific on the theory that this was NOT a Russian hack

    Behind the ICA lie other indefensible realities. The FBI has never examined the DNC’s computer servers—an omission that is beyond preposterous. It has instead relied on the reports produced by Crowdstrike, a firm that drips with conflicting interests well beyond the fact that it is in the DNC’s employ. Dmitri Alperovitch, its co-founder and chief technology officer, is on the record as vigorously anti-Russian. He is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, which suffers the same prejudice. Problems such as this are many.

    “We continue to stand by our report,” CrowdStrike said, upon seeing the VIPS blueprint of the investigation. CrowdStrike argues that by July 5 all malware had been removed from the DNC’s computers. But the presence or absence of malware by that time is entirely immaterial, because the event of July 5 is proven to have been a leak and not a hack. Given that malware has nothing to do with leaks, CrowdStrike’s logic appears to be circular.


    Finally, Assange who got the material, has always adamantly stated that the material did not come from Russia. If Russia did not hack the DNC - then this would destroy the whole Russian collusion narrative, which was wholly created by Hillary Clinton and the FBI.
    Wow, calling Mike Pompeo a liar. BOLD

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    5,952
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    If FBI CI inspected the DNC computers for evidence, it would not be made public, even in court filings. It would be considered secret to top secret in nature and would not be revealed outside of the FBI. It would not even be made known to the Director of the FBI. The CI work is far more compartmental than you understand. The agency is divided up into tasks that are not always compatible for information sharing. Just saying that action and mission might preclude the investigation to be cut off so that proper CI activities be fully track the extent of the hackers network. I would venture to guess that the CI mission covers more than DNC computers, but NGO computers as well. Those CI activities would not ever see the light of day but are important to the survival of the USA. That dossier is small potatoes and not the main story and you people continue to focus on the wrong aspects of this nation and its CI efforts.
    You can call me Shirley. The "S" has to stand for something!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    So. MN
    Posts
    3,542

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dean S View Post
    If FBI CI inspected the DNC computers for evidence, it would not be made public, even in court filings. It would be considered secret to top secret in nature and would not be revealed outside of the FBI. It would not even be made known to the Director of the FBI. The CI work is far more compartmental than you understand. The agency is divided up into tasks that are not always compatible for information sharing. Just saying that action and mission might preclude the investigation to be cut off so that proper CI activities be fully track the extent of the hackers network. I would venture to guess that the CI mission covers more than DNC computers, but NGO computers as well. Those CI activities would not ever see the light of day but are important to the survival of the USA. That dossier is small potatoes and not the main story and you people continue to focus on the wrong aspects of this nation and its CI efforts.
    From a former FBI agent: the above is complete bullschitt.
    Please consider donating to this site; especially if you are a frequent poster.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by justthefacts View Post
    Wow, calling Mike Pompeo a liar. BOLD
    And exactly how did I do that?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    31,231
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LesBolstad View Post
    From a former FBI agent: the above is complete bullschitt.
    True , but a great troll of the idiot left on the board. When DeanO does this, let it ride until the lefties blow themselves up.
    Kingdom Warriors

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    5,952
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default So, your telling me...

    Quote Originally Posted by LesBolstad View Post
    From a former FBI agent: the above is complete bullschitt.
    ...that the FBI does not play by the rules of technical information gathering, classification, and compartmentalization of information like any other intelligence agency in the United States?

    That must be why the FBI occasionally has to bring in outside assets to do their CI work for them. And, it also explains why you are seen by me as completely off your rocker. It really explains a great deal.

    What explains me is my grammatical title mistake.
    You can call me Shirley. The "S" has to stand for something!

  9. #9

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by justthefacts View Post
    So what? Not sure why you felt compelled to lie? Beeg never called Pompeo a liaras you calimed. You could have just said Pompeo seems to believe they did.
    If at first you don’t succeed, then maybe you just suck. – Kenny Powers

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Costa Rican Gopher View Post
    So what? Not sure why you felt compelled to lie? Beeg never called Pompeo a liaras you calimed. You could have just said Pompeo seems to believe they did.
    Wow, calling Pompeo naive and gullible. Bold.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by justthefacts View Post
    As CIA director Pompeo is going to publicly stand by his agency until it is proven that they pushed a false story. The story you cited is from November 2017 when some sane people still believed the dossier. It is obvious that the previous leadership hid a ton of information from the Trump administration and Pompeo was newly incoming when that assessment was made. The assessment was very broad, stating that Russian tried to interfere (as they always do). We are now finding out and Pompeo has learned since November 2017 that the part of the assessment that was based on the dossier was false and that any part of the assessment of DNC hacking allegedly by Russia is built on paper thin evidence that would not stand up in court (as Roger Stone's attorneys are proving now).

    Did Russia attempt to interfere in the 2016 election? You bet they did! They provided disinformation for the dossier - bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton's DNC.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •