Evidence of State-sponsored Hacking of DNC

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I have spoken about the OP in previous post in this thread. I believe the OP is just a distraction from the revelations. Again, not convinced it was Russia. How are they so advanced in their hacking but in the same breath stupid enough to get caught? If i were a hacker I would be leaving bread crumbs that points to Russia or China for this very reason.

Doesn't matter if you call your self a Democrat or not, you are a left leaning person and your post in many threads show that. Weather or not you want to apply a label to your self is up to you, but if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, chances are, its a duck.

originally posted by: FauxMulder
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I have spoken about the OP in previous post in this thread. I believe the OP is just a distraction from the revelations. Again, not convinced it was Russia. How are they so advanced in their hacking but in the same breath stupid enough to get caught? If i were a hacker I would be leaving bread crumbs that points to Russia or China for this very reason.

You could review the evidence and see for yourself, but I'm sure you won't do that since it is easier to deny and remain in ignorance. By the way your talk here clearly says you know nothing about how information security works.

Doesn't matter if you call your self a Democrat or not, you are a left leaning person and your post in many threads show that. Weather or not you want to apply a label to your self is up to you, but if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, chances are, its a duck.

Great. What else would you like to tell me about myself that I don't know, Mr. Arrogant?

a reply to: Krazysh0t


As I've already stated, I have reviewed the evidence. I've also considered the source, considered the possible motives for pushing this narrative so hard. Have you?

I'm arrogant because I point out that you lean left in your politics?

originally posted by: FauxMulder
a reply to: Krazysh0t


As I've already stated, I have reviewed the evidence. I've also considered the source, considered the possible motives for pushing this narrative so hard. Have you?

I'm arrogant because I point out that you lean left in your politics?

I see. You are weighing your preconceived biases harder than actual evidence. I guess there is nothing to discuss then because I can't argue with biases if you can't be open minded. No wonder you care so much about my political affiliation. You are so partisan its not even funny.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: FauxMulder
a reply to: Krazysh0t


As I've already stated, I have reviewed the evidence. I've also considered the source, considered the possible motives for pushing this narrative so hard. Have you?

I'm arrogant because I point out that you lean left in your politics?

I see. You are weighing your preconceived biases harder than actual evidence. I guess there is nothing to discuss then because I can't argue with biases if you can't be open minded. No wonder you care so much about my political affiliation. You are so partisan its not even funny.

The exact same statement could be said to you. If you read what I wrote earlier, I would love to see some dirt leaked on the other side but as of yet they have not been hacked and exposed.

I think WHAT was exposed is more important than WHO exposed it. That is my position and its non-partisan.

a reply to: theantediluvian

That's a lot to go through, but all of it has been available for quite some time.

One thing is consistently missing, however. What is the evidence in particular that Fancy bear and cozy bear are state-sponsored by the Russian government?

a reply to: FauxMulder

Well the law cares about WHO and that is also what the topic is about. If that doesn't sit well with you then you can see your way out of the thread. Derailing it with your your pet peeves is just poor form though and really just makes it look like you desperately deflecting because you find the subject material uncomfortable to talk about.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: FauxMulder

Well the law cares about WHO and that is also what the topic is about. If that doesn't sit well with you then you can see your way out of the thread. Derailing it with your your pet peeves is just poor form though and really just makes it look like you desperately deflecting because you find the subject material uncomfortable to talk about.

You guys are always throwing the word deflection out there. The whole focus on the who IS the deflection. Forget about the massive corruption that was exposed, its those pesky Russians you need to worry about!!! Blah blah blah.

originally posted by: FauxMulder

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: FauxMulder

Well the law cares about WHO and that is also what the topic is about. If that doesn't sit well with you then you can see your way out of the thread. Derailing it with your your pet peeves is just poor form though and really just makes it look like you desperately deflecting because you find the subject material uncomfortable to talk about.

You guys are always throwing the word deflection out there. The whole focus on the who IS the deflection. Forget about the massive corruption that was exposed, its those pesky Russians you need to worry about!!! Blah blah blah.

And that is the meat and potatoes.

a reply to: FauxMulder

Thread title:

Evidence of State-sponsored Hacking of DNC

You:
"We should talk about the revelations instead".

That's called offtopic. In other words a deflection. This thread is about the culprit behind the hacks whether you like that or not.

If the revelations are so important you can discuss them here. Hell that thread has a directory of ALL the threads about the revelations. You can necro any one of them to talk about it.

So I see your ante and raise you this.....

I have watched incredulous as the CIA’s blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story – blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it. There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton’s corruption. Yes this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also

www.craigmurray.org.uk...

That is quite a different story than the op no?

A little simple logic demolishes the CIA’s claims. The CIA claim they “know the individuals” involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition.

Oh no facts and logic....

As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two. And it should be said again and again, that if Hillary Clinton had not connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie, if she had not received advance notice of live debate questions to use against Bernie, if she had not accepted massive donations to the Clinton foundation and family members in return for foreign policy influence, if she had not failed to distance herself from some very weird and troubling people, then none of this would have happened.

Is that karma calling?

a reply to: shooterbrody

Hey, stop that. This thread isn't about who did the hacking........oh wait.....

a reply to: shooterbrody

Personal opinions don't dismiss hard evidence and paper (electronic) trails, mate. Even if they come from some dude's blog.

This picture is from one of my old uploads...... When the DNC gets caught or have lost..... What do they do...... Blame the Russians... deflect, deflect and cry LOL.



The DNC is very predictable and sadly funny.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

lol "some dude".......

Yeah this "some dude" has no credibility at all.......as opposed to the credibility of "unnamed sources".

As to your statement about so called "personal opinions"...

“I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.

So are you calling a former British ambassador a liar?

a reply to: shooterbrody

I'm saying that his opinion doesn't outweigh objective evidence to the contrary. The OP has literal evidence or claims from people who actually investigated this hack saying that it was Russian involved. Why would I believe an ambassador (no matter how distinguished) over them? Especially a former one; former government officials' opinions have as much meaning as your or my opinions on a subject by the way. Do you not know what a "subject matter expert" is or do you just not care?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Of course Russia obtains information on the US, what is new here? They aren't the only ones either. Similar sources claimed Hillary's email server had a high probability of being hacked by up to five foreign states.

The question isnt so much that Russia obtained much of this information, the question is did they leak it. And right now there is more evidence that they didn't. Why would they expose they had this information just so we could amp up security to prevent them from doing so in the future. And let me guess, they did it to sway the election, well the DNC emails didn't do to much for that IMO.

BTW, we even spy on our allies and have been caught doing so. So if the idea that foreign countries play by the same rules that we do, maybe we should change the rules instead of looking weak and fickle complaining other countries are adapting to the geopolitical climate we helped create.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

How is "I know who leaked them" an opinion?
You can believe him or not, but what he stated is in no way an opinion.
Too bad it does not fit the projected narrative of the russian bogeyman.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

It sure looks like you are trying to use circumstantial evidence to dismiss actual evidence here.

The question isnt so much that Russia obtained much of this information, the question is did they leak it. And right now there is more evidence that they didn't. Why would they expose they had this information just so we could amp up security to prevent them from doing so in the future. And let me guess, they did it to sway the election, well the DNC emails didn't do to much for that IMO.

There is evidence that you didn't post? If there is more evidence of this then where is it? Why haven't you posted it? Just saying it is the case doesn't make it so.

BTW, we even spy on our allies and have been caught doing so. So if the idea that foreign countries play by the same rules that we do, maybe we should change the rules instead of looking weak and fickle complaining other countries are adapting to the geopolitical climate we helped create.

Just stop with this excuse. The name of the game is that everyone acknowledges that all countries spy but you only call them on it when you are caught. We can't just STOP spying on others. It's not that simple. But we CAN prosecute and accuse the ones that we catch spying on us.

What happened to Trump's populist tone? I thought we are making American great again? How is giving a foreign country a pass on eroding one of our most honored institutions making America great again?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Krazysh0t

How is "I know who leaked them" an opinion?
You can believe him or not, but what he stated is in no way an opinion.
Too bad it does not fit the projected narrative of the russian bogeyman.

It's an opinion if he doesn't have any evidence to support his claim. You didn't answer my question, do you know what a "subject matter expert" is? Because you are continuing to make a very obvious appeal to authority fallacy.