Has WSJ Proven GOP Collusion With Foreign Hacker?

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Calling in CrowdStrike was a shady move on the DNC's part.
Dimitri is a Senior Fellow at The Atlantic Council.
Sony gets hacked by the NORKS, FBI investigates.
DNC gets hacked, CrowdStrike gets the call?

Dont forget the DNC has refused to allow the FBI to examine the serer. They (FBI etc) relied on a report from crowdstrike. The issue there is the method crowdstrike used with the Ukrainian mess was debunked. They used the same method for the DNC server.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Shady. Very Shady.

With literally $100's of billions of Sanctions in place strangling Russia and hurting it's trading partners, you use a firm with ties to the Atlantic Council to determine that Russia hacked the DNC? And put yet more sanctions on Russia because of this?

What Is CrowdStrike? Firm Hired By DNC Has Ties To Hillary Clinton, A Ukrainian Billionaire, And Google

In lieu of substantive evidence provided to the public that the alleged hacks which led to Wikileaks releases of DNC and Clinton Campaign Manager John Podesta’s emails were orchestrated by the Russian Government, CrowdStrike’s bias has been cited as undependable in its own assessment, in addition to its skeptical methods and conclusions. The firm’s CTO and co-founder, Dmitri Alperovitch, is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, a think tank with openly anti-Russian sentiments that is funded by Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk, who also happened to donate at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation.

In 2013, the Atlantic Council awarded Hillary Clinton it’s Distinguished International Leadership Award. In 2014, the Atlantic Council hosted one of several events with former Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who took over after pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted in early 2014, who now lives in exile in Russia.

The investigation methods used to come to the conclusion that the Russian Government led the hacks of the DNC, Clinton Campaign Chair John Podesta, and the DCCC were further called into question by a recent BuzzFeed report by Jason Leopold, who has developed a notable reputation from leading several non-partisan Freedom of Information Act lawsuits for investigative journalism purposes. On March 15 that the Department of Homeland Security released just two heavily redacted pages of unclassified information in response to an FOIA request for definitive evidence of Russian election interference allegations. Leopold wrote, “what the agency turned over to us and Ryan Shapiro, a PhD candidate at MIT and a research affiliate at Harvard University, is truly bizarre: a two-page intelligence assessment of the incident, dated Aug. 22, 2016, that contains information DHS culled from the internet. It’s all unclassified — yet DHS covered nearly everything in wide swaths of black ink. Why? Not because it would threaten national security, but because it would reveal the methods DHS uses to gather intelligence, methods that may amount to little more than using Google.

Source

If anything, I think the WSJ article provides more evidence that Seth Rich was involved.
Voter data was part of his job description.

But really, I do not see any new information in the WSJ article that was not already known.
Their interpretations are opinions.

a reply to: D8Tee

The flaw in your response is Russia was sanctioned for its invasion and occupation of Ukrainian territory. The false crowdstrike report dealt with the number of artillery pieces lost by Ukraine.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Yeah it gets so twisted.
G1 was the Romanian the FBI extradited to ask about what he had because of that tv interview. Turned out he was a liar he had nothing.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You know computer forensics is what crowd strike does right?
It's not like they had the kid down the street who's really good with computers review the data. Crowd Strike is a professional computer forensics company . The FBI wouldn't have done anything different as they have said that having crowd strike do it only slowed them down. No where have they said they were short changed or the examination was not thorough.
You guys make a big deal about this but the server was examined and the forensics revealed the intrusion by two separate Russian actors involved in the hack.
I don't see the point in relying on this argument. The server was examined. The FBI got all the data they needed.
Crowd Strike is not political.

a reply to: D8Tee

That total conspiracy bullshjt.

a reply to: theantediluvian

* Though this doesn't change my opinion of the murder of Seth Rich, I would be remiss if I did not point out that unlike the emails, this is exactly the sort of data that Seth Rich would be expected to have unbridled access to.

A journalist was interviewed on TV yesterday, that had just resigned from Sputnik News. He said he quit because they controlled everything he wrote, everything they all write, and he couldn't take it anymore.

During the interview, he verified the Russians started the story about Seth Rich.

Sorry about off-topic.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Disclaimer; I can't read the article because its says I need to have an account.

But wait you told me on other posts that Guccifer 2.0 wasn't a hacker, and he may not even be Russian. He was just a distraction sent forth by Russia, and the real hackers were the super sophisticated Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear.

It seems this article is claiming Guccifer 2.0 was a hacker.

So which is it?

As I said in our previous discussion, it seems the facts seem to constantly shift for many to paint Trump in the worst possible light.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Yes I do and given the fact the method they used for Ukraine, a method that failed, is the exact same for the DNC, their conclusion can be called into question.

Let the FBI examine the server.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: D8Tee

That total conspiracy bullshjt.

democrats dont seem to mind bs conspiracy theories with the russia bs.

This is the interview I referred to in my earlier post. He talks about Russia/Seth Rich at around 4:15. But the interview in it's entirely is quite interesting. As far as Seth Rich, he said they really pushed that Seth Rich was the leaker, because that would tend to indicate Russia wasn't involved.

a reply to: D8Tee

Which part is shady?
I wonder how much the fbi outsources its forensic investigations?
Especially in a case in which ALL of the details will be gone over many many times.
I never knew the dnc had so much power over the fbi.
I wonder how much other information used in this investigation has been "outsourced".
Perhaps that is why we have gotten so few details.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Let the FBI examine the server.

It is almost like they didn't conduct an actual investigation at all.
They didn't take possession of the server.
They passed out immunity to all relevant players.
Then they pointed at "russia".

a reply to: shooterbrody

Which part is shady? I wonder how much the fbi outsources its forensic investigations? Especially in a case in which ALL of the details will be gone over many many times. I never knew the dnc had so much power over the fbi. I wonder how much other information used in this investigation has been "outsourced". Perhaps that is why we have gotten so few details.

We may as well consider the pee-pee document as evidence and wonder just who paid for that as well .

a reply to: Xcathdra

Dont forget the DNC has refused to allow the FBI to examine the serer. They (FBI etc) relied on a report from crowdstrike. The issue there is the method crowdstrike used with the Ukrainian mess was debunked. They used the same method for the DNC server.

FTR: the DNC denied this though I tend to believe the FBI over the DNC. As for the FBI and others relying on a report from CS, that is not accurate. CrowdStrike provided copies of the implants recovered and I'm sure in the case of the FBI, logs. I don't know what you mean when you say they used the same method?

What happened with the Ukranian artillery targetting app malware report was that instead of going straight to the source for raw data on artillery losses, they relied on a (IIRC Russian) blogger's inaccurate analysis of the data. Embarassing for CS but I'm not sure how this directly relates.

What seems to be consistently overlooked here is all of the lines of evidence that have nothing to do with CS. The first to finger APT29/Cozy Bear/"The Dukes" was actually the FBI in September of 2015, more than half a year before CS became involved.

The Perfect Weapon: How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the U.S.

WASHINGTON — When Special Agent Adrian Hawkins of the Federal Bureau of Investigation called the Democratic National Committee in September 2015 to pass along some troubling news about its computer network, he was transferred, naturally, to the help desk.

His message was brief, if alarming. At least one computer system belonging to the D.N.C. had been compromised by hackers federal investigators had named “the Dukes,” a cyberespionage team linked to the Russian government.

The F.B.I. knew it well: The bureau had spent the last few years trying to kick the Dukes out of the unclassified email systems of the White House, the State Department and even the Joint Chiefs of Staff, one of the government’s best-protected networks.

Off the top of my head, there was also forensic evidence of the attack snagged by Dell SecureWorks, there's even an email in the WL DNC email archive showing that Yahoo was alerting at least one staffer to a compromise of her email by "state-sponsored" attackers. There are other things publically known like the SSL certs used for one of the C&C servers that was linked to previous hacks attributed to APT29. Beyond that though is all the data from logs from various ISPs involved that hasn't been made public.

When you look at the totality of the evidence, it's clear that there was a hack. What is really the point of contention among security professionals is the stength of the attribution of the attack to Russia.

This isn't something that one could reasonably come to an informed opinion about with only casual consideration of some of the evidence. Each distinct proposition should be looked at individually.

Was the DNC hacked? The forensic evidence for this is pretty solid. Was the DNC hacked by Russia? The forensic evidence for this is compelling but nothing released to the public is a "smoking gun." It's possible that somebody framed APT28/APT29, it's also possible that either APT28, APT29 or both are not as has been long suspected, Russian state actors.

originally posted by: Sillyolme

You know computer forensics is what crowd strike does right?

They sure do.

For a Price.

a reply to: Grambler

Disclaimer; I can't read the article because its says I need to have an account.

But wait you told me on other posts that Guccifer 2.0 wasn't a hacker, and he may not even be Russian. He was just a distraction sent forth by Russia, and the real hackers were the super sophisticated Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear.

It seems this article is claiming Guccifer 2.0 was a hacker.

So which is it?

As I said in our previous discussion, it seems the facts seem to constantly shift for many to paint Trump in the worst possible light.

I still honestly do not understand why you think that there's some contradiction here. The article does in fact refer to "him" as a hacker because that's how Guccifer 2.0 presented "himself" but what about the events described is greatly impacted by swapping out "hacker" with "front for the real hackers?"

Whomever Guccifer 2.0 is/was, Guccifer 2.0 was asked for material by Nevins. Gigs of data were then provided to Nevins which Nevins shared. The same data was also made available to Roger Stone.

There are several competing hypotheses for who/what Guccifer 2.0 is. The one I favor, as I've said, holds that Guccifer 2.0 was not the hacker and was likely a hastily created persona. This is based on the disparities in sophistication evidenced in the hack and the s#show state of the metadata, the NGP VAN vulnerability fail, timing of his appearance, etc.

You keep looking for a contradiction that doesn't exist as far as I can tell.

The hypothesis I'm still favoring (remember, there's new info to be considered here) is that Guccifer 2.0 was a persona created and maintained by Russian intelligence and that the actual hackers, who were also Russian intelligence or in the employ of Russian intelligence, provided Guccifer 2.0 with a portion of the exfiltrated material.

Perhaps you can illuminate for me what about the above is contradicted by what I pointed out from the article?

a reply to: BlueAjah

But really, I do not see any new information in the WSJ article that was not already known.
Their interpretations are opinions.

So let me get this straight.

- You knew that a GOP operative from FL, Mr. Nevins, had contacted "Guccifer 2.0" and asked for stolen material from the Democrats? That's not an opinion, that's not an interpretation, that is exactly what Mr. Nevins has confirmed happened and there are screenshots of their communications to boot.

- You knew that following this request, 2.5 gigs of data were provided to Mr. Nevins which he then shared? Again, not an interpretation, not an opinion.

- You knew that this data was also shared with Roger Stone and that Roger Stone at the very least looked it over? Again, not an interpretation nor an opinion, this was confirmed by Roger Stone himself.

- You knew that Anthony Bustamante, a campaign consultant to Representative Brian Mast of Florida's 18th congressional district, also received this data and claims to have used it to "amp up some of his TV ad buys and reduce some mailed material ahead of the November election?" Again, not interpretation, not opinion, this is a claim straight from the mouth of Mr. Bustamante.

If you're answering that in fact you did not know these things and considering that none of these are opinons/interpretations, I don't really understand how your statement could be remotely true.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Because the article you link claims he was the hacker.

Is it your claim that the WSJ did this hard hitting piece finding all of this info, but they are wrong about the fact G@ was the hacker. Then why is the rest of the article to be trusted?

I am merely pointing out that you are deriving a theory from a bunch of articles that contrdict one another, and picking and choosing pieces to fit your narrative.

"G2 was the hacker and have a Florida GOP guy documents."

But if G2 was the hacker, he was so amateurish that he left Russian military peoples name on his hack

"G2 wasn't the hacker, it was super sophisticated other hackers. G2 was a front developed by russia for the russian hackers to through people off of the trail"

But many of your article say they aren't even sure that G2 is Russian.

"It doesn't matter. It was still the russians that hacked"

But if G2 wasn't Russian, then how does your WSJ article show any sort of Russian collusion.

And on and on.