Evidence of State-sponsored Hacking of DNC

a reply to: drewlander

First if you know anything about anonymity you would also know I could sit behind a socks5 proxy out of Russia all day and you'd have no idea if I was Russian or American. That doesnt mean I am Russian.

Correct, and many of those who spend time in 4chan know how to proxy. There is an easy guide to do it too. Its usually done to maintain privacy and anonymity.
Combined With the knowledge below; you can easily google Russian Ip proxy list and you could appear to be in Russia while living in Hawaii. It's actually very easy a 12 year old can do it.









Edit: If one wants to frame someone all you need to do is get their IP address and use it as your own.

If the investigation is based solely on IP it would be different. The points being shown are much more.

Of course It still doesn't mean it is proof either way.

In the current world, I find it difficult to believe info coming from government sources and the data that may be key may well be locked up inside the governments.

a reply to: FauxMulder

It just seems that people on the left are so concerned with WHO hacked vs what was revealed

That is what really bothers me about this whole thing. The Left have been screaming their heads off about those dirty Russian and almost completely ignoring what was revealed. It's like they don't even care about the Clinton's criminal empire, they just need a scapegoat for losing the election.
Yes, Russia hacking us is a big deal. But, I don't see them raising a huge stink over China hacking us. Or any other country who steals our secrets. Nope. Just those dastardy Russians who exposed Hillary Clinton for what she really is.

Russians saved the world from pedophiles. Nice people

a reply to: theantediluvian

Excellent thread! EXCELLENT! Also reading the first page is HILARIOUS. You can easily tell who read your posts and who didn't. So many canned answers from people wanting to keep their heads in the sand. The best are the insinuations that you are reaching for straws. Like how you present TONS of literal evidence linking Russia to hacking the DNC and they call that reaching. Wow.

Anyways. I'm impressed. Great detective work there.

a reply to: SoulSurfer

If you read the OP and how the evidence is laid out you'd find out that proxies are irrelevant to this discussion. Did you get to part about how these hackers have criminal profiles similar to normal criminal profiles? Did you get to the part where these hackers tend to have unique signals because they don't want to share their warez? Proxy use is hacking 101. To think you can dismiss this hacking attempt by deflecting with the proxy excuse is way too basic.

the hack occurred, and it was Russia, no question. (for the sake of argument, that is all conceded)

Now, what information was released due to this hack?

Of the information released, how much of it was false information?

Do other countries ever participate in "hacking" and if so, how often does that happen? (And that is very relevant to the discussion)

I look forward to your insightful answers.

a reply to: theantediluvian

It wasn't Russia the one that hacked the DNC, People are looking a created desirable target, it was our own nation, security agencies to create who knows what in this nation. Is our job to find out why.

We have been under attack as a nation, to create divisions and discontent, but is not an outside force, the guilty ones is within our own borders.

Here in the UK some idiotic anti-Brexit MP is now suggesting that Putin was also behind the unfavourable Brexit vote outcome.

Additionally, an article in the Daily Express is also suggesting that Putin will order ME immigrants in Germany to molest / rape white German women to discredit Merkel at the next election.

I actually find the idiocy quite laughable and, if the comments to a lot of these stories appearing in the online versions are anything to go by, so do most other sane people!

a reply to: Britguy

Putin is the bogeyman of the modern era.

I hear he eats babies, too

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Raw, without salt.

We all need, apparently, a bogey-man to keep us awake at night. Amazing that it's the Russians!! Isn't it amazing how some things never, ever change?

1950--Be scared of the Russians.

1960--Be scared of the Russians.

1970--Be scared of the Russians.

1980--Be scared of the Russians.

1990--Be scared of the Russians.

2000--Be scared of the Russians.

2010--Be scared of the Russians.

2016--Be scared of the Russians.

Is anyone detecting a trend here? Yet how often have we really needed to be scared of the Russians? Not as often as some would have us believe... Cautious? Concerned? Surely. But scared that they're behind every little occurrence? Somehow I doubt it.

a reply to: seagull

I'm certainly not saying that we should be scared of the Russians 24/7 but with how casually you are dismissing the evidence put forth in the OP it comes across like you don't want to look at it. Did it ever occur to you that there MAY be some truth behind the concerns of worrying about Russia? Things like in the OP are prime examples.

Yet, instead of being outraged that a foreign government literally influenced one of our most sacred institutions, our Presidential elections, you are not JUST dismissing the prime suspect's involvement out of hand you are making jokes about it. All without even acknowledging or addressing a single shred of evidence put forth in the OP.

Deny ignorance maybe?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Casually? No.

I just think it much more likely that it was an inner-circle member of what's-her-names campaign, or a high level DNC insider. One of which just so happened to be murdered around the time of the leaks...rather convenient timing, IMHO--though not for him.

It's possible, I suppose, that Russia was involved in it... But what do they gain from it? There's so much to lose if it goes sideways on them in some fashion...casus belli--they'd be staring a war right smack dab in the face.

The simplest explanation is the insider being pissed off for some reason, and wanting what's-her-name to pay for it.

I'd much rather it be that, than a foreign power messing about. Wars have happened over less, and in our lifetimes, too.

a reply to: theantediluvian

While its troublesome that foreign agencies could be hypothetically tampering with our elections its more troubling that we need a foreign agency to disclose the rampant corruption in our elections.


Hacking at such a level will never be proved one way or another unless they did an amateur mistake which would be unlikely at that level.

On the other hand the message has already been proven true and has caused several high ranking DNC members to step down, but to than only be hired by Hillary.

This Russian angle is like the DNC Gulf of Tonkin incident.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Casually? No.

I just think it much more likely that it was an inner-circle member of what's-her-names campaign, or a high level DNC insider. One of which just so happened to be murdered around the time of the leaks...rather convenient timing, IMHO--though not for him.

Well what you think is likely doesn't prove anything. What is put forth in the OP is hard evidence. Not opinion. Got any of that?

It's possible, I suppose, that Russia was involved in it... But what do they gain from it? There's so much to lose if it goes sideways on them in some fashion...casus belli--they'd be staring a war right smack dab in the face.

I'm sure Russia knows that the best. Though Trump being buddies with Putin and praising his governance style sheds a lot of light on the subject if you'd bother to be objective about the situation.

The simplest explanation is the insider being pissed off for some reason, and wanting what's-her-name to pay for it.

Well according to the STRONG evidence in the OP its looking like the simplest explanation is Russia did it, but you'd have to read the OP to see that. Also some background knowledge in Information Security and at the minimum IT is probably necessary.

I'd much rather it be that, than a foreign power messing about. Wars have happened over less, and in our lifetimes, too.

Wishful thinking doesn't often work out in reality.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: seagull

...how casually you are dismissing the evidence put forth in the OP it comes across like you don't want to look at it.

Yet, instead of being outraged that a foreign government literally influenced one of our most sacred institutions, our Presidential elections,

Deny ignorance maybe?

How casually you dismiss the revelations from the hacking is what is so concerning.

Yet instead of being outraged that OUR OWN government is so corrupt and in bed with the media to influence one of our most sacred institutions, our presidential elections, you blindly shout about Russia's atrocities while defending your own parties.

Deny ignorance maybe?

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Raw, without salt.

We all need, apparently, a bogey-man to keep us awake at night. Amazing that it's the Russians!! Isn't it amazing how some things never, ever change?

1950--Be scared of the Russians.

1960--Be scared of the Russians.

1970--Be scared of the Russians.

1980--Be scared of the Russians.

1990--Be scared of the Russians.

2000--Be scared of the Russians.

2010--Be scared of the Russians.

2016--Be scared of the Russians.

Is anyone detecting a trend here? Yet how often have we really needed to be scared of the Russians? Not as often as some would have us believe... Cautious? Concerned? Surely. But scared that they're behind every little occurrence? Somehow I doubt it.

Holy snap....you're right X_X....

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Krazysh0t



I just think it much more likely that it was an inner-circle member of what's-her-names campaign, or a high level DNC insider. One of which just so happened to be murdered around the time of the leaks...rather convenient timing, IMHO--though not for him.

Seth Rich is the one wikileaks hinted as a possible insider. It is my belief that it was him that leaked the info. Julian Assange hinted at it awhile back during an interview. Meanwhile Julian assange has yet to be seen since mid Oct, which is another convenience.

originally posted by: FauxMulder

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: seagull

...how casually you are dismissing the evidence put forth in the OP it comes across like you don't want to look at it.

Yet, instead of being outraged that a foreign government literally influenced one of our most sacred institutions, our Presidential elections,

Deny ignorance maybe?

How casually you dismiss the revelations from the hacking is what is so concerning.

This thread isn't about the revelations. We have TONS of threads discussing the revelations and I've put my opinion in many of them. How about talking about the OP instead, Mr. Deflect?

Yet instead of being outraged that OUR OWN government is so corrupt and in bed with the media to influence one of our most sacred institutions, our presidential elections, you blindly shout about Russia's atrocities while defending your own parties.

Deny ignorance maybe?

I'm not a Democrat, Mr. Assumestoomuch.

Edited out cause this post deserves its own thread. **ignore*

a reply to: SoulSurfer

not important. If that's the truth, then there is nobody we can throw under the bus. Can't have that.
You know the rules, somebody has to be blamed.

And it's YYUGELY important that we deflect any and all attention from WHAT what hacked, and focus on who did it. Please never forget that.