It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Evidence of State-sponsored Hacking of DNC
page: 5share:
originally posted by: theantediluvian
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?
I love this. I really mean that! Perhaps the best post you've ever done. Keep up the great work!
edit on 14-12-2016 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
because: (no reason given)
a reply to: Krazysh0t
The evidence it wasn't them is from the source itself, Wikileaks. And you could say that isn't a valid source, but why would they lie? What difference does it make.
And fine, well just say that isn't a valid source. So here we are stuck in a conundrum. Because now no one will be happy with whomever we source given that they are either anonymous or negate the opposing arguement.
Unless you view Obama, who gets reports from all agencies a valid source. In which case the arguement is done. He said they didn't hack us, merely influenced via information and probably some fake news. That's freedom of speech, anyonr can say whatever they want and the burden of vetting that lies on the critical thinking of people absorbing said content.
The evidence it wasn't them is from the source itself, Wikileaks. And you could say that isn't a valid source, but why would they lie? What difference does it make.
And fine, well just say that isn't a valid source. So here we are stuck in a conundrum. Because now no one will be happy with whomever we source given that they are either anonymous or negate the opposing arguement.
Unless you view Obama, who gets reports from all agencies a valid source. In which case the arguement is done. He said they didn't hack us, merely influenced via information and probably some fake news. That's freedom of speech, anyonr can say whatever they want and the burden of vetting that lies on the critical thinking of people absorbing said content.
originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Krazysh0t
The evidence it wasn't them is from the source itself, Wikileaks. And you could say that isn't a valid source, but why would they lie? What difference does it make.
To protect their sources for one... By the way, "why would they lie?" isn't a valid legal defense.
And fine, well just say that isn't a valid source. So here we are stuck in a conundrum. Because now no one will be happy with whomever we source given that they are either anonymous or negate the opposing arguement.
Really? I haven't seen you address a single source in the OP while simultaneously demanding I address your sources.
Unless you view Obama, who gets reports from all agencies a valid source. In which case the arguement is done. He said they didn't hack us, merely influenced via information and probably some fake news. That's freedom of speech, anyonr can say whatever they want and the burden of vetting that lies on the critical thinking of people absorbing said content.
Obama isn't a subject matter expert either. You keep ignoring the fact that the evidence presented in the OP is DIRECTLY from an SME on the matter. Not only do they know what they are talking about but they were DIRECTLY involved with the investigation. If any opinion is the most valid its that opinion. When are you going to get around to addressing that or are you just planning on dancing around the issue all day?
(post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss removed for a manners violation)
originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Krazysh0t
[snipped]
Seeing how this is a red herring and has nothing to do with the OP or the evidence contained within I'll just ignore it and move on with my life.
edit on 12.14.2016 by Kandinsky because: Snipped quote of removed post
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Actually I'm sorry, the news source I originally heard that story from spun it. What he actually said is...
source
So fine. They did it. What now? Do we sit hear and act like we are victims of something we helped create? The whole world knows the biggest hacker is he NSA.
So you want to complain you went around the play ground throwing rocks at kids and lay down and cry when you get hit back, be my guest.
What difference will it make sitting here and whining.
Actually I'm sorry, the news source I originally heard that story from spun it. What he actually said is...
"That was a month before the election. This was not a secret,” the president said in the interview which was recorded over the weekend just after a report by the CIA emerged asserting that Russian hacking had sought to help Donald Trump's candidacy, a claim that the president-elect dismissed as "ridiculous".
source
So fine. They did it. What now? Do we sit hear and act like we are victims of something we helped create? The whole world knows the biggest hacker is he NSA.
So you want to complain you went around the play ground throwing rocks at kids and lay down and cry when you get hit back, be my guest.
What difference will it make sitting here and whining.
a reply to: CriticalStinker
At the very LEAST we shouldn't be making this out to be no big deal. This also means that Trump's new idea of improved relations with Russia may not be such a great idea. It shows we need to keep a more wary eye on Russia as well as demand they account for their crimes. We don't have to go to war, but we there are non-violent ways to hold Russia accountable. I hear they HATE the sanctions we keep leveling against them. Let's start there. Add more of them.
The ends don't justify the means.
At the very LEAST we shouldn't be making this out to be no big deal. This also means that Trump's new idea of improved relations with Russia may not be such a great idea. It shows we need to keep a more wary eye on Russia as well as demand they account for their crimes. We don't have to go to war, but we there are non-violent ways to hold Russia accountable. I hear they HATE the sanctions we keep leveling against them. Let's start there. Add more of them.
The ends don't justify the means.
edit on 14-12-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)
a reply to: Krazysh0t
This is their reaction to us sanctioning them after Crimea in the first place.
This is the problem, we go around the world pissing on people's feet telling them it's water and we cry if anyone tags us back.
Was it wrong for them to invade Crimea? Not my place to answer considering there are ethnic Russians there that were suffering from the US most likely tampering with with Ukraine as a whole.
But for arguments sake we'll say it was wrong. So they get hit with sanctions for going into Crimea where ethnic Russians are yet the UN told us no to Iraq and we get nothing. We helped the rise of ISIS and the destruction of Syria and Libya.
After the sanctions, Russians currency is worth about half. So they will hit back.
In the end your question seems to be should I be concerned with them exposing truths of corruption from the DNC who are the ones who truly rigged this election.
They colluded to oust Bernie, they colluded to prop up Trump. It didn't work so now all their woes are supposed to be blamed on Russia, seems like lack of accountability to me.
This is their reaction to us sanctioning them after Crimea in the first place.
This is the problem, we go around the world pissing on people's feet telling them it's water and we cry if anyone tags us back.
Was it wrong for them to invade Crimea? Not my place to answer considering there are ethnic Russians there that were suffering from the US most likely tampering with with Ukraine as a whole.
But for arguments sake we'll say it was wrong. So they get hit with sanctions for going into Crimea where ethnic Russians are yet the UN told us no to Iraq and we get nothing. We helped the rise of ISIS and the destruction of Syria and Libya.
After the sanctions, Russians currency is worth about half. So they will hit back.
In the end your question seems to be should I be concerned with them exposing truths of corruption from the DNC who are the ones who truly rigged this election.
They colluded to oust Bernie, they colluded to prop up Trump. It didn't work so now all their woes are supposed to be blamed on Russia, seems like lack of accountability to me.
There's no proof anywhere that CrowdStrike's "findings" are genuine.
Remember who hired them in the first place, and CS is the only one publishing their own "results".
All companies have their price.
Remember who hired them in the first place, and CS is the only one publishing their own "results".
All companies have their price.
a reply to: seagull
Assange never claimed that the source was a "Clinton insider." He has however flatly denied that the source of the DNC/Podesta emails published by Wikileaks is Russia. That much at leat is true. In fact, I can't find a quote where Murray characterized the source as a "Clinton insider" either. He has said "insider" a number of times and emphasized that the documents were leaked.
The quote that he gave to the Guardian that he republished in an excerpt on his site is:
Here's what he said to Sputnik
Also this:
Before discussing the former, I will point out about the latter that not even Julian Assange can say with certainty that WL has never published material received from a "any proxy of the Russian government." Craig Murray on the other hand is in absolutely no position at all to know whether or not that claim is true or not.
Unless John Podesta gave his emails to Wikileaks, there's another problem with Murray's statement. John Podesta's emails were taken from Gmail. Unless this source is an employee of Google who is also part of "official circles in Washington DC" then by definition, the Podesta emails cannot be characterized as a leak.
Now back to the earlier statement. It's interesting that he gave a specific place and time for discovering the source. Also the language is very interesting. "Discovered?" Let me point out another excerpt from Murray's website (link above):
Notice how eager he is to demonstrate how in the know he is? He has access! He says "Julian and I" twice to show just how much access he has. (basically partners!)
How does that comport with his statement about "discovering the source" at the John Adam's Award ceremony? Which btw, was held on September 25th of this year. So despite his insinuations, his identification of the source didn't come from Assange but rather a "discovery" at the end of September?
Are you getting the impression that somebody is talking out of school? (possibly out of his ass?)
Side note: Murray's claim also directly contradicts the impression kowingly fostered by Julian Assange that Seth Rich was the source and was assassinated. If Seth Rich wasn't the source (he was murdered July 10th), why would Assange & co allow people to believe this?
Ironically, if you believe Murray, you also have to believe that Assange isn't above deliberate deception.
Assange never claimed that the source was a "Clinton insider." He has however flatly denied that the source of the DNC/Podesta emails published by Wikileaks is Russia. That much at leat is true. In fact, I can't find a quote where Murray characterized the source as a "Clinton insider" either. He has said "insider" a number of times and emphasized that the documents were leaked.
The quote that he gave to the Guardian that he republished in an excerpt on his site is:
"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."
Here's what he said to Sputnik
"The source of these emails and leaks has nothing to do with Russia at all. I discovered what the source was when I attended the Sam Adam's whistleblower award in Washington. The source of these emails comes from within official circles in Washington DC. You should look to Washington not to Moscow."
Also this:
When asked about whether or not WikiLeaks have ever published information at the behest of Moscow, Mr. Murray said:
"WikiLeaks has never published any material received from the Russian government or from any proxy of the Russian government. It's simply a completely untrue claim designed to divert attention from the content of the material."
Before discussing the former, I will point out about the latter that not even Julian Assange can say with certainty that WL has never published material received from a "any proxy of the Russian government." Craig Murray on the other hand is in absolutely no position at all to know whether or not that claim is true or not.
Unless John Podesta gave his emails to Wikileaks, there's another problem with Murray's statement. John Podesta's emails were taken from Gmail. Unless this source is an employee of Google who is also part of "official circles in Washington DC" then by definition, the Podesta emails cannot be characterized as a leak.
Now back to the earlier statement. It's interesting that he gave a specific place and time for discovering the source. Also the language is very interesting. "Discovered?" Let me point out another excerpt from Murray's website (link above):
Now both Julian Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia. Do we credibly have access? Yes, very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access to the source of the leak. The people saying it is not Russia are those who do have access. After access, you consider truthfulness. Do Julian Assange and I have a reputation for truthfulness? Well in 10 years not one of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks has released has had its authenticity successfully challenged. As for me, I have a reputation for inconvenient truth telling.
Contrast this to the “credible sources” Freedland relies on. What access do they have to the whistleblower? Zero. They have not the faintest idea who the whistleblower is. Otherwise they would have arrested them. What reputation do they have for truthfulness? It’s the Clinton gang and the US government, for goodness sake.
Notice how eager he is to demonstrate how in the know he is? He has access! He says "Julian and I" twice to show just how much access he has. (basically partners!)
How does that comport with his statement about "discovering the source" at the John Adam's Award ceremony? Which btw, was held on September 25th of this year. So despite his insinuations, his identification of the source didn't come from Assange but rather a "discovery" at the end of September?
Are you getting the impression that somebody is talking out of school? (possibly out of his ass?)
Side note: Murray's claim also directly contradicts the impression kowingly fostered by Julian Assange that Seth Rich was the source and was assassinated. If Seth Rich wasn't the source (he was murdered July 10th), why would Assange & co allow people to believe this?
Ironically, if you believe Murray, you also have to believe that Assange isn't above deliberate deception.
edit on 2016-12-14 by
theantediluvian because: (no reason given)
a reply to: theantediluvian
So let's just go with the narrative that Russia did do it (I'm waiting for conclusive evidence but to be honest it wouldn't make much of a difference to me).
Then what? We focus all of our anger from this cycle on Russia? Obama got all his assessments from various agencies and said it didn't really change this election.
So we focus on Russia and sweep under the rug that the DNC effectively got Trump elected by ousting Bernie and propping up Trump with CNN.
So let's just go with the narrative that Russia did do it (I'm waiting for conclusive evidence but to be honest it wouldn't make much of a difference to me).
Then what? We focus all of our anger from this cycle on Russia? Obama got all his assessments from various agencies and said it didn't really change this election.
So we focus on Russia and sweep under the rug that the DNC effectively got Trump elected by ousting Bernie and propping up Trump with CNN.
a reply to: theantediluvian
WikiLeaks offers $20,000 reward over murder of Democrat staffer Seth Rich (10 August 2016 • 11:55pm)
Why do you think he'd have $20,000 of interest in Seth Rich if he 'didn't know' him?
WikiLeaks offers $20,000 reward over murder of Democrat staffer Seth Rich (10 August 2016 • 11:55pm)
Why do you think he'd have $20,000 of interest in Seth Rich if he 'didn't know' him?
a reply to: HUMBLEONE
See my last post. Craig Murray says he "discovered" the source when he met the source in Washington DC at the John Adam's Award ceremony. That ceremony took place on September 25th of this year, more than two months after Seth Rich was murdered.
Those in the Seth Rich is the source camp and those in the Craig Murray is telling the truth camp are faced with an inescapable conflict.
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.
See my last post. Craig Murray says he "discovered" the source when he met the source in Washington DC at the John Adam's Award ceremony. That ceremony took place on September 25th of this year, more than two months after Seth Rich was murdered.
Those in the Seth Rich is the source camp and those in the Craig Murray is telling the truth camp are faced with an inescapable conflict.
a reply to: theantediluvian
If he revealed the actual person at an event like that, he'd be jeopardizing the source, no?
If he revealed the actual person at an event like that, he'd be jeopardizing the source, no?
a reply to: theantediluvian
I work in computer security. I am a Sr. Security Engineer. As someone who can be considered an expert in my field, I fully expect Russia to hack the DNC (and the RNC). I also expect at least 4-5 other countries to hack both groups as well, as it would be a treasure trove of information on any of the incoming presidents.
so even with the (very weak) evidence that russia hacked the DNC, can you please provide the evidence that they are responsible for the leak? (protip, you cant.)
So, until you have EVIDENCE of the russians not only hacking, but also LEAKING the documents, this isnt based in fact. its based in speculation. I have as just as much evidence that proves Santa Claus leaked the DNC documents that anyone else has that Russia leaked the docs.
Not sure if i can be more clear on this.
I work in computer security. I am a Sr. Security Engineer. As someone who can be considered an expert in my field, I fully expect Russia to hack the DNC (and the RNC). I also expect at least 4-5 other countries to hack both groups as well, as it would be a treasure trove of information on any of the incoming presidents.
so even with the (very weak) evidence that russia hacked the DNC, can you please provide the evidence that they are responsible for the leak? (protip, you cant.)
So, until you have EVIDENCE of the russians not only hacking, but also LEAKING the documents, this isnt based in fact. its based in speculation. I have as just as much evidence that proves Santa Claus leaked the DNC documents that anyone else has that Russia leaked the docs.
Not sure if i can be more clear on this.
edit on 14-12-2016 by Vizzle because: Russia hacked my ATS account. or was it santa clause?
originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: HUMBLEONE
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.
See my last post. Craig Murray says he "discovered" the source when he met the source in Washington DC at the John Adam's Award ceremony. That ceremony took place on September 25th of this year, more than two months after Seth Rich was murdered.
Those in the Seth Rich is the source camp and those in the Craig Murray is telling the truth camp are faced with an inescapable conflict.
He say's he discovered the source, he doesn't say I met the source.
So he could have just found out who it was. Doesn't mean the guy cant be dead.
EDIT: Here is what was said "The source of these emails and leaks has nothing to do with Russia at all. I discovered what the source was when I attended the Sam Adam's whistleblower award in Washington. The source of these emails comes from within official circles in Washington DC. You should look to Washington not to Moscow."
edit on 14-12-2016 by FauxMulder because: (no reason given)
a reply to: CriticalStinker
Obama got all the assessments and then sought advice from a bipartisan "gang of 12" from Congress as to whether or not the White House should publicly state that the view of US intelligence services was that Russian state-sponsored hackers were behind the DNC hack (and the related DCCC hack — there's forensic evidence tying them together). Let's not forget also that Colin Powell was hacked and though their identities have not been made public, apparently so were persons/orgs from the GOP (though not the RNC itself).
Should Obama have disregarded the input of McConnell and the other GOPer from that bipartisan gang of 12 (Nune I would assume?)? The Democrats certainly think so. I'm on the fence. Personally, I appreciate that instead of taking unilateral action, President Obama sought bipartisan support from Congress and didn't act when he didn't get it.
That's all water on the bridge now though. The election has happened.
Even accepting that Russia was behind one or more of the hacks (or all of them) it's impossible to quantify what effect that it had on the outcome of the election. It's a difficult conversation to even have. Despite the large amount of garbage speculation that was generated by the Wikileaks releases, there was also obvious evidence of malfeasance and corruption within some of the emails.
That this information became known under these circumstances doesn't change the truth.
In my opinion, the point that is continually lost here is that the evidence of the DNC's wrongdoing doesn't somehow make the RNC better. We have no way of knowing because we were given one-half of the information necessary to make that comparison. Imagine if emails had come out from the RNC, Trump campaign, etc and they'd been much worse?
Then what would your position be?
As to what should be done at this point? We should move forward and make sure this doesn't happen again. Trump should get on the right side of this and encourage a thorough investigation. He should then, as President of the United States of America, act upon the information that is revealed by this investigation. I don't have any specific recommendations if the evidence is conclusive. I certainly wouldn't suggest going to war but it should certainly factor into our relations with Russia and not from a position of gratitude.
Obama got all the assessments and then sought advice from a bipartisan "gang of 12" from Congress as to whether or not the White House should publicly state that the view of US intelligence services was that Russian state-sponsored hackers were behind the DNC hack (and the related DCCC hack — there's forensic evidence tying them together). Let's not forget also that Colin Powell was hacked and though their identities have not been made public, apparently so were persons/orgs from the GOP (though not the RNC itself).
Should Obama have disregarded the input of McConnell and the other GOPer from that bipartisan gang of 12 (Nune I would assume?)? The Democrats certainly think so. I'm on the fence. Personally, I appreciate that instead of taking unilateral action, President Obama sought bipartisan support from Congress and didn't act when he didn't get it.
That's all water on the bridge now though. The election has happened.
Even accepting that Russia was behind one or more of the hacks (or all of them) it's impossible to quantify what effect that it had on the outcome of the election. It's a difficult conversation to even have. Despite the large amount of garbage speculation that was generated by the Wikileaks releases, there was also obvious evidence of malfeasance and corruption within some of the emails.
That this information became known under these circumstances doesn't change the truth.
In my opinion, the point that is continually lost here is that the evidence of the DNC's wrongdoing doesn't somehow make the RNC better. We have no way of knowing because we were given one-half of the information necessary to make that comparison. Imagine if emails had come out from the RNC, Trump campaign, etc and they'd been much worse?
Then what would your position be?
As to what should be done at this point? We should move forward and make sure this doesn't happen again. Trump should get on the right side of this and encourage a thorough investigation. He should then, as President of the United States of America, act upon the information that is revealed by this investigation. I don't have any specific recommendations if the evidence is conclusive. I certainly wouldn't suggest going to war but it should certainly factor into our relations with Russia and not from a position of gratitude.
a reply to: theantediluvian
You've only given us an insinuation towards that, that I've seen.
But you tell me, would he really want to 'give up' his source? If he deflects an unreasonable question like that would it inherently mean he;'s a LIAR?
You've only given us an insinuation towards that, that I've seen.
But you tell me, would he really want to 'give up' his source? If he deflects an unreasonable question like that would it inherently mean he;'s a LIAR?