Evidence of State-sponsored Hacking of DNC

a reply to: Sunwolf

This is what is known as reaching way out there!Anything to justify the loss of a very unpopular candidate,right?

Ummm. No? You didn't read anything either did you?

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: muSSang

Your always looking for an excuse! Just face it you lost.

Oh, I get it! You assume that I must feel like "I lost" because you feel that Trump winning the election was a "win" for you? Lmao.

Well after your 150 anti-trump threads you kinda did lose.

The position of the ODNI, which oversees the 17 agency-strong U.S. intelligence community, could give Trump fresh ammunition to dispute the CIA assessment, which he rejected as "ridiculous" in weekend remarks, and press his assertion that no evidence implicates Russia in the cyber attacks.

a reply to: Ohanka

How bloody stupid would a hacker have to be not to mask their location?

I don't have an answer for you because your comment doesn't make any sense. It doesnt make any sense because you didn't read the posts and you're responding to what you think I might have said.

a reply to: theantediluvian

www.washingtonpost.com... dfadfa-bef0-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.81dc58eaffdf

senior FBI officials reportedly told a closed session of the House Intelligence Committee that the CIA's claims are "direct and bald and unqualified."

"When the WaPo posted last Friday's story about a "secret" CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election, the readers of the Bezos-owned publication took it as gospel, despite, as we promptly noted, there being no evidence provided by the CIA, and as we learned today, the FBI openly resisting the CIA's assessment. It now appears that once again the WaPo may have been engaging in "partial fake news", as it did with its Nov. 24 story about "Russian propaganda fake media."

According to Reuters, the so-called overseers of the U.S. intelligence community as it supervises the 17 agency-strong U.S. intelligence community, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), while not disputing the CIA's analysis of Russian hacking operations - something which would be unprecedented for the US spy industry and would telegraph just how partisan and broken the country's intelligence apparatus has become - ODNI has refused to endorse the CIA's assessment "because of a lack of conclusive evidence" that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton."

www.zerohedge.com...

Hey!!!

I read it.... i even understand the tricky IT terminology and i asked questions in return... i like the way you ignore real debate... perhaps thats why people dosregard your futile attempts....

Heres another q for you to ignore..

What do you want to happen about all your claims... if you could run the show for a week.. what would your noble, honest and good intentions do?

Ps im assuming you have noble and good intentions cause your a die hard hillary lover.. and the only people that love hillary are true blue all american apple pie eating god fearing patriots whove bever lied , cheated, stolen or said a bad word their while life.

First and foremost, thank you for this information. Knowing what is happening is vital to stopping what is happening after all.

I hate caveat, or warnings of intent, but on the boards today we need them. I am not being sarcastic or partisan, or attacking you with my questions. I honestly am interested in what other people think, especially informed people.

1. During the primary season, both parties made it clear that they were private organizations with the rights and abilities to make their rules as they see fit as to candidates and bylaws.

2. The "state sponsored" warning from Yahoo is odd, did that start after the Sony Pictures Hack, and if so are there earlier screen grabs than the DNC incident?

3. While I could 100% agree that government intervention is warranted on the grounds of "the DNC as major political party plays a significant part in national security". Is there any other reason government would involve itself so deeply in a private entity being hacked?

4. Is the major concern not so much the actual hacking of private information - of private citizens - from a private organization, but rather the exposing of one sides dirty laundry during a highly contentious political campaign.

5. Do you feel there is anything to be said about the American media system airing the dirty laundry of one side of the same campaign, even if some of the information came in the form of "leaks" rather than hacks.

*I think both sides were flawed Brother. I believed we were circling the drain no matter who got the Big Chair. With Trump, it seems we can look forward to an EPAct on steroids very shortly. We'll all fight in our own ways and do what we see as right for those that come after. I don't agree with much of what you write, but I read everything I see because I know it comes from an educated source. No man every suffered by being over educated. I hope you respond, but more importantly I hope you read my post for what it is, an honest attempt at dialogue.*

a reply to: Agit8dChop

If the Russian Hackers had so much ability, why target Podesta and not Clinton? Why didn't they hit Clinton's (illegal) private server before she ignored the subpoena and wiped them? Why couldn't Chinese hackers disguise them self as Fancy Bear? Better yet, why couldn't the CIA disguise themselves and go in?

Had you read what I posted, you would have seen that SecureWorks did show the campaign website being targeted. The fact that you felt compelled to put specify illegal is pretty funny. Were you shaking with self-righteous indignation as you wrote your post?

It's certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that the Chinese or the CIA would masquerade as Russian hackers. If they've been doing it, they also did it when they hacked the German parliament and the DCCC as there is forensic evidence that is known linking those hacks with the DNC hack. There's also the fact that two separate groups were operating simultaneously. So if it was a single actor masquerading as the Russians, why the bother masquerading as two different Russian state-sponsored groups? Does that make sense to you?

The position of the ODNI, which oversees the 17 agency-strong U.S. intelligence community, could give Trump fresh ammunition to dispute the CIA assessment, which he rejected as "ridiculous" in weekend remarks, and press his assertion that no evidence implicates Russia in the cyber attacks.

You pasted that because you don't know what it means. In fact, I bet you don't even know what the ODNI is or who the current DNI is. If you did, you might realize how ridiculous the assertion you're trying to make is.

The positon of the ODNI is the same as the FBI. In fact, the difference between the positions of the ODNI, FBI and the CIA is that the CIA has concluded that the hacks/leaks were intended to assist Donald Trump in winning the election and the other two are saying that the evidence they have isn't conclusive enough to THAT point to make that statement.

In other news, the ODNI's position (and the FBI's) is that that Russian intelligence operations were behind the hacks. On that point, there's a consensus.

also, your ''evidence'' shouldn't include CNN interviewing some random saying ''we have evidence Russian Intelligence were hacking....'' .... this sounds like another WMD/IRAQ scam...

Dmitri Alperovitch isn't a random. He's the co-founder and CTO of CrowdStrike. Clearly you didn't read anything either and went straight for the YouTube video?

If Russia hacking the DNC, leaking the TRUTH to the people allowed a man wanting PEACE to become president over a women wanting war.. then i say BRAVO RUSSIA!

No. The Russians didn't leak the "truth" — they leaked half of the "truth." I get that most of you are hysterical emotional reactionaries but please pull your heads out of your asses. Do you really want Russia picking and choosing sides in our elections? Because you think it worked out well this time?

Do you imagine that the Russians would hack the DNC as a public service to Americans? Lmao. That's right up there with believing that we fight wars out of a desire to liberate oppressed peoples.

At any rate, that's not what this thread was about. You like the rest of the crybully mob didn't bother to read anything.

a reply to: theantediluvian

You put in all this work. Don't stoop to their level.

...
The bottom line is not who hacked whom or what, but the revelation of the hacks.

If it was any rogue hacker or our own divided federal intelligence, or a foreign nation, are you not rather glad that light was shed on the character you would have likely be calling President elect right now?

Moving forward, we can only hope the infiltration is not deep enough to influence our policies via some 'i have more dirt on the other guys too, " forcing our policies to go their way... Whomever' they' may be.
S&f

a reply to: Agit8dChop

What do you want to happen about all your claims... if you could run the show for a week.. what would your noble, honest and good intentions do?

What do I want to happen? I want a thorough investigation of the various hacking of politicians, groups, staffers and election commission websites with bipartisan oversight by Congress. Luckily for me, that's probably what's going to happen because the congressional leaders don't seem to be frantically trying to ignore the appalling implications of a foreign government (and one with which we have an adversarial relationship) even ATTEMPTING to influence our election through cyber warfare.

I'd also like for our next President to stop being such a thinskinned b# and put his fragile ego aside for a moment and consider what he's doing.

Ps im assuming you have noble and good intentions cause your a die hard hillary lover.. and the only people that love hillary are true blue all american apple pie eating god fearing patriots whove bever lied , cheated, stolen or said a bad word their while life.

You'd be better off if you stopped assuming. You'd certainly be wrong less. I've never been a die hard supporter of any politician in my life.

a reply to: theantediluvian

The only leaders I truly wanted got suppressed by the very system that made this cycle possible.

That being said, the same agencies that said Russia hacked (HRC) said five other foreign states did too.


So why am I only supposed to be be concerned of the Russians?

Tell me, if I'm lost in hysteria for my "dear leader" (give me a break) than why just the Russians? Hell, if we're going off the same intelligence than surely I should be concerned of the rest.

And if it is acceptable she got hacked than why elect her knowing so many powers would have leverage.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I agree you can bet they hacked everyone but only released the dirt on the Democrats, I bet If they don't like how things are going they will release all the dirt on Trump at a later date creating more trouble in the USA.

Your forgetting that Assange eluded to the fact the Seth Rich was the DNC leak. We can't talk to Rich about it though, he was conveniently murdered.

www.thegatewaypundit.com...

Hmmmmm. Wonder who sponsored this thread? A tale steeped in hypotheticals does not make any of this even remotely close to the truth.

a reply to: theantediluvian

It would seem Assange disagrees with you...

Inside job...

Interesting, no?

a reply to: theantediluvian

It just seems that people on the left are so concerned with WHO hacked vs what was revealed and when someone who believes that it is more important what we learned from the hacks speaks out, there is a standard response from you guys. "You just like it because it helped your guy THIS time." Or some other insult about how we just blindly adore our dear leader. But you ignore the fact that many of us would love to see what people on the other side are hiding as well. So all these attack lines are just hypothetical BS because it wasn't the RNC that was hacked and until they are we will continue to point out that crap we learned, or rather the crap we KNEW which was confirmed.

To me all of this is just a huge distraction from all of the things we learned from these hacks/leaks. Friends of Bill, the collusion between the Democratic party and the media, rigging of the Democratic primary, debate questions being leaked to Hillary, asking the DNC what questions they should ask Trump during and interview, asking permission from the Clinton campaign to use quotes or approve a piece before it is published, the list goes on and on.

Also after reading this long, well put together thread I'm still not convinced it was Russia. They supposedly have this GREAT GREAT ability to do these hacks but they cant hide who they are? If I was a hacker, putting "Russian" bread crumbs would be the perfect distraction to avoid detection.

Anyway, I hope you all can remember what you learned about the DNC from these hacks. Or will the Democratic party push to keep vilifying Russia so the next time they are in power we can have WWIII? All because the Queen wasn't crowned.

The next couple of years should be very informing when to hacks turn to the other party and areas of government and we see the dirt they are involved in.

And if it stops it also states something.

a reply to: testingtesting

Seems unlikely.

The more likely scenario is she who shall not be named pissed one of her inner circle off somehow or other, and they stabbed her in the back.

The sort of hacks the Russians are being accused of are casus belli.

The more likely scenario is she who shall not be named pissed one of her inner circle off somehow or other, and they stabbed her in the back.

If so that then invalidates much of the argument of recent time. No hacks, the server was not compromised, wasn't a bad situation and the material getting out wasn't her fault.

The hunt would need to move on to another person.

was the DNC hacked? probably.

are all major organizations hacked? certainly.

My issue is the smear against Trump for his "Russian ties" being attached to this.