Joe diGenova: What To Expect From The Horowitz IG Report

[iceberg]

not going to play what's more likely.

what's more likely is that if you're the victim of a crime you don't get to tell police what they get to investigate. please show me where this is common practice and maybe we can go on. til then this is just bluster and hype and guesswork on your part.

if the DNC didn't want the disruption, source that fact and show me they said that. your saying that is a likely reason simply won't cut it.

when you act strangely, you being doubt upon yourself you're willing to look past. i'm sure if trump did this you'd not say "hey they just didn't want to be bothered...".

When it comes to hacking, sending forensic copies and not actual hardware is common practice.

In some versions of the servergate conspiracy theory now espoused by Trump, nothing less than physical possession of the hardware will suffice, because Crowdstrike, a respected security firm helmed by a former senior FBI agent, might be part of the deep state’s efforts to frame Putin. White scoffs at that notion, noting that National Republican Congressional Committee is one of Crowdstrike’s customers.

“I’ve done incident response for defense contractors and healthcare groups, this is all standard practice,” said White. “It’s completely defensible in terms of best practices and what was going on.”

When the computers belong to a cooperating victim, seizing the machines is pretty much out of the question, said James Harris, a former FBI cybercrime agent who worked on a 2009 breach at Google that’s been linked to the Chinese government.

“In most cases you don’t even ask, you just assume you’re going to make forensic copies,” said Harris, now vice president of engineering at PFP Cyber. “For example when the Google breach happened back in 2009, agents were sent out with express instructions that you image what they allow you to image, because they’re the victim, you don’t have a search warrant, and you don’t want to disrupt their business.".

Trump’s ‘Missing DNC Server’ Is Neither Missing Nor a Server

This isn't actually strange at all. Do you have anything to offer suggesting that it is unusual?

simply depends on the hack and how they got in. firmware vulnerabilities, environment vulnerabilities not on the server (ie - firewall, web server, sql server and the like) but at this point again - we seem to be giving every benefit of the doubt to a group that wouldn't let the FBI even have a copy - just trust crowdstrike.

The FBI and special council determined how they got in. They used stolen credentials from a spearphishing attack.

You see, you ask me for something to corroborate, but it's never enough. There is no satisfying your doubt. It's impossible.

well phishing isn't really a hack when you give your password out now is it?

in any event, i've posted many facts and articles to support my position. you post things like "well this makes sense to me so i'll run with it" and now call me impossible because i won't accept that.

if i tell you how *I FEEL* about something, you going to let me call it fact and that i must be right, or ask for more?

i'm betting door #2. so expect no less from me. but if all we're gonna do is dance around the questions with your suppositions then i'm gonna move on.

The extent of your position is just doubt. It's just skepticism. There's no more to it. No alternative conclusion. No evidence suggesting something else happened.

Your facts and articles in support of your position are loaded with their own holes. Everywhere from VIPS to Imran Awan. All irrelevant or easily debunked.

then extent of your buy-off is just hope.

bye.

 

[colfax_m]

Do you have a link?

pretty sure its next to your link given to me as to why the DNC felt they were too busy to allow the FBI to look at the actual server.

Never claimed to have one from the DNC.

I'll ask you instead. Did the FBI feel they were unable to identify the source of the hack because they didn't have access to the hardware?

that would be a hard question to answer since the FBI had to rely on crowdstrike to get their info.

FBI Never Saw CrowdStrike's Entire Hacking of DNC Report: But Used It As Primary Source Anyway - The Lid

Both the FBI and the Democratic Party admitted that the crime-fighting agency based its decision to blame Russians for hacking into the DNC computers on a report commissioned by the DNC and generated by CrowdStrike. Yes, our intelligence agencies agree it was all the Russians fault. But can one trust the veracity of that determination when the FBI relied exclusively on information from a report by Crowdstrike who were being paid by the Democratic Party? Especially if they’ve never seen the entire report?
-----
so basically the FBI took the DNC's word from them and Crowdstrike it was the Russians.

now - would you allow that from a company that had this happen recently?

CrowdStrike may have a prejudice against Russia. In March of 2017, the Voice of America VOA caught CrowdStrike creating a bogus and unrelated hacking charge against Russia, and making up the facts to prove its veracity. It seems that CrowdStrike is as politically motivated as everyone else in Washington, D.C. The VOA caught Crowdstrike lying about a claim of Russian hacking damaging Ukrainian technology. There was no hacking to blame on Russia or anyone else. The company who the DNC and FBI relied upon not only made up a crime that didn’t exist, but they blamed it on Putin’s Russia. Shouldn’t that call into question Crowdstrike’s report? At the very least that should have motivated the FBI to get a copy of the entire report about the DNC and investigate whether it was accurate?

It's really not hard to answer if you're being honest. If the FBI felt that they really couldn't determine who was at fault, then they wouldn't have made such a determination. But as we both know, they did. Aren't all investigations based at least a little bit on trust? Trust that your witnesses aren't lying. Trust that the documents handed over aren't forgeries. Trust that you're not hiding information that is relevant?

That's why you never rely solely on one source, right? The FBI didn't have to rely solely on Crowdstrike. But since every other source of information confirmed the findings of Crowdstrike's analysis, that adds credibility to their report.

why would you think i've been less than honest with you.

crowdstrike has a documented history of working with the DNC and Obama.
the FBI never directly looked at anything that i have seen, merely took what crowdstrike said as true.

if you can find where they looked and came to their own conclusion i'll invite you for the 100th time to link me up.

or you can sit here and question my honesty again and i'll just move you to ignore and get on with my life.

Crowdstrike has a history of working with a LOT of people including Republicans. The idea that the actual hardware is necessary to come to a conclusion flies in the face of the fact that the FBI did come to a conclusion.

It would be dishonest to ignore the facts that corroborate the conclusion. There's a mountain of information in the indictment of the GRU officers and the Mueller report.

Here's the indictment:
https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download

Muellers' report, starting page 36.
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

 

[FA_Q2]

That is actually an outright lie.

This talking point is getting tiring. Russia did not hack the elections. They ran a trolling ad farm. There is a MASSIVE difference.

Does Putin pay you for spreading misinformation, or do you just do it because that's what right wingers do?

Not a rightwinger. Not getting paid.

And our election was still not hacked.

Yes, it was. They hacked the servers at the RNC and the DNC and selectively leaked only the Democrats information. That's the definition of hacked. And then there is this.

Russia Targeted Election Systems in All 50 States, Report Finds

Hacking the RNC and DNC is not hacking our elections.

I certainly did not claim that they did not try and influence the election - that has been established. They, however, did not hack our election.

They did.

Florida Governor Says Russian Hackers Breached 2 Counties In 2016

And since over a dozen states still use voting machines with no paper audit trail, how do we know if they did anything?

30 percent of states still use paperless voting machines, EAC survey says

Yes, they accessed voter records. They STILL did not hack THE ELECTION.

And, yes, we would know because hacking leaves traces. the election system itself is full of checks that ensure the system works. It is where all the conspiracy theories come from when reporting gets those processes woefully incorrect.

 

[iceberg]

pretty sure its next to your link given to me as to why the DNC felt they were too busy to allow the FBI to look at the actual server.

Never claimed to have one from the DNC.

I'll ask you instead. Did the FBI feel they were unable to identify the source of the hack because they didn't have access to the hardware?

that would be a hard question to answer since the FBI had to rely on crowdstrike to get their info.

FBI Never Saw CrowdStrike's Entire Hacking of DNC Report: But Used It As Primary Source Anyway - The Lid

Both the FBI and the Democratic Party admitted that the crime-fighting agency based its decision to blame Russians for hacking into the DNC computers on a report commissioned by the DNC and generated by CrowdStrike. Yes, our intelligence agencies agree it was all the Russians fault. But can one trust the veracity of that determination when the FBI relied exclusively on information from a report by Crowdstrike who were being paid by the Democratic Party? Especially if they’ve never seen the entire report?
-----
so basically the FBI took the DNC's word from them and Crowdstrike it was the Russians.

now - would you allow that from a company that had this happen recently?

CrowdStrike may have a prejudice against Russia. In March of 2017, the Voice of America VOA caught CrowdStrike creating a bogus and unrelated hacking charge against Russia, and making up the facts to prove its veracity. It seems that CrowdStrike is as politically motivated as everyone else in Washington, D.C. The VOA caught Crowdstrike lying about a claim of Russian hacking damaging Ukrainian technology. There was no hacking to blame on Russia or anyone else. The company who the DNC and FBI relied upon not only made up a crime that didn’t exist, but they blamed it on Putin’s Russia. Shouldn’t that call into question Crowdstrike’s report? At the very least that should have motivated the FBI to get a copy of the entire report about the DNC and investigate whether it was accurate?

It's really not hard to answer if you're being honest. If the FBI felt that they really couldn't determine who was at fault, then they wouldn't have made such a determination. But as we both know, they did. Aren't all investigations based at least a little bit on trust? Trust that your witnesses aren't lying. Trust that the documents handed over aren't forgeries. Trust that you're not hiding information that is relevant?

That's why you never rely solely on one source, right? The FBI didn't have to rely solely on Crowdstrike. But since every other source of information confirmed the findings of Crowdstrike's analysis, that adds credibility to their report.

why would you think i've been less than honest with you.

crowdstrike has a documented history of working with the DNC and Obama.
the FBI never directly looked at anything that i have seen, merely took what crowdstrike said as true.

if you can find where they looked and came to their own conclusion i'll invite you for the 100th time to link me up.

or you can sit here and question my honesty again and i'll just move you to ignore and get on with my life.

Crowdstrike has a history of working with a LOT of people including Republicans. The idea that the actual hardware is necessary to come to a conclusion flies in the face of the fact that the FBI did come to a conclusion.

It would be dishonest to ignore the facts that corroborate the conclusion. There's a mountain of information in the indictment of the GRU officers and the Mueller report.

Here's the indictment:
https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download

Muellers' report, starting page 36.
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

like I said, you give your side every benefit of doubt no matter how large. you don't allow the other side the same leeway.

you question my honesty after I spent a lot of this am working hard to not be disrespectful and continue to ask for you to prove these things that you say.

you never do.

at this point I feel like I've been suckered I to a conversation with slade2000. he does the very same shit. I quit talking to him for the most part when he did the "if you are honest" crap.

 

[LaDairis]

Horowitz = 911 DEEP STATE TRAITOR = NEEDS TO GO

 

[kyzr]

Horowitz = 911 DEEP STATE TRAITOR = NEEDS TO GO

The Horowitz report has a "secret source" that justified the spying on Trump, not just the Steele Dossier.
We need to know what this "secret source" is. If it has anything to do with Komrad Brennan's CIA, I call bullshit.

 

[LaDairis]

Brennan = Zionist CIA 911 Traitor, former "Chief of Staff" to 911 mastermind George Tenet

 

[joaquinmiller]

Horowitz = 911 DEEP STATE TRAITOR = NEEDS TO GO

White Knight must have been his larval stage.

 

[colfax_m]

Never claimed to have one from the DNC.

I'll ask you instead. Did the FBI feel they were unable to identify the source of the hack because they didn't have access to the hardware?

that would be a hard question to answer since the FBI had to rely on crowdstrike to get their info.

FBI Never Saw CrowdStrike's Entire Hacking of DNC Report: But Used It As Primary Source Anyway - The Lid

Both the FBI and the Democratic Party admitted that the crime-fighting agency based its decision to blame Russians for hacking into the DNC computers on a report commissioned by the DNC and generated by CrowdStrike. Yes, our intelligence agencies agree it was all the Russians fault. But can one trust the veracity of that determination when the FBI relied exclusively on information from a report by Crowdstrike who were being paid by the Democratic Party? Especially if they’ve never seen the entire report?
-----
so basically the FBI took the DNC's word from them and Crowdstrike it was the Russians.

now - would you allow that from a company that had this happen recently?

CrowdStrike may have a prejudice against Russia. In March of 2017, the Voice of America VOA caught CrowdStrike creating a bogus and unrelated hacking charge against Russia, and making up the facts to prove its veracity. It seems that CrowdStrike is as politically motivated as everyone else in Washington, D.C. The VOA caught Crowdstrike lying about a claim of Russian hacking damaging Ukrainian technology. There was no hacking to blame on Russia or anyone else. The company who the DNC and FBI relied upon not only made up a crime that didn’t exist, but they blamed it on Putin’s Russia. Shouldn’t that call into question Crowdstrike’s report? At the very least that should have motivated the FBI to get a copy of the entire report about the DNC and investigate whether it was accurate?

It's really not hard to answer if you're being honest. If the FBI felt that they really couldn't determine who was at fault, then they wouldn't have made such a determination. But as we both know, they did. Aren't all investigations based at least a little bit on trust? Trust that your witnesses aren't lying. Trust that the documents handed over aren't forgeries. Trust that you're not hiding information that is relevant?

That's why you never rely solely on one source, right? The FBI didn't have to rely solely on Crowdstrike. But since every other source of information confirmed the findings of Crowdstrike's analysis, that adds credibility to their report.

why would you think i've been less than honest with you.

crowdstrike has a documented history of working with the DNC and Obama.
the FBI never directly looked at anything that i have seen, merely took what crowdstrike said as true.

if you can find where they looked and came to their own conclusion i'll invite you for the 100th time to link me up.

or you can sit here and question my honesty again and i'll just move you to ignore and get on with my life.

Crowdstrike has a history of working with a LOT of people including Republicans. The idea that the actual hardware is necessary to come to a conclusion flies in the face of the fact that the FBI did come to a conclusion.

It would be dishonest to ignore the facts that corroborate the conclusion. There's a mountain of information in the indictment of the GRU officers and the Mueller report.

Here's the indictment:
https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download

Muellers' report, starting page 36.
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

like I said, you give your side every benefit of doubt no matter how large. you don't allow the other side the same leeway.

you question my honesty after I spent a lot of this am working hard to not be disrespectful and continue to ask for you to prove these things that you say.

you never do.

at this point I feel like I've been suckered I to a conversation with slade2000. he does the very same shit. I quit talking to him for the most part when he did the "if you are honest" crap.

It’s not a matter of benefit of doubt when extensive amounts of evidence corroborate Crowdstrike’s report. You ask that I back it up, I have. I can’t make you read the background material and if you won’t acknowledge that it even exists, then we can’t even discuss it.

 

[Seawytch]

Does Putin pay you for spreading misinformation, or do you just do it because that's what right wingers do?

Not a rightwinger. Not getting paid.

And our election was still not hacked.

Yes, it was. They hacked the servers at the RNC and the DNC and selectively leaked only the Democrats information. That's the definition of hacked. And then there is this.

Russia Targeted Election Systems in All 50 States, Report Finds

Hacking the RNC and DNC is not hacking our elections.

I certainly did not claim that they did not try and influence the election - that has been established. They, however, did not hack our election.

They did.

Florida Governor Says Russian Hackers Breached 2 Counties In 2016

And since over a dozen states still use voting machines with no paper audit trail, how do we know if they did anything?

30 percent of states still use paperless voting machines, EAC survey says

Yes, they accessed voter records. They STILL did not hack THE ELECTION.

And, yes, we would know because hacking leaves traces. the election system itself is full of checks that ensure the system works. It is where all the conspiracy theories come from when reporting gets those processes woefully incorrect.

It is still hacking. Russia hacked our election system. We don't know if they did anything.

F.B.I. to Florida Lawmakers: You Were Hacked by Russians, but Don’t Tell Voters

 

[LaDairis]

Russia hacked our election system

The only thing "hacked" was Podesta's emails, a treasure trove of truth for American Voters regarding just how corrupt and dishonest the Democrats were in 2016...

Nobody has proven who did that hack. There are claims. The claims have no substantive proof at all.

PROVE WHO HACKED PODESTA and then come back....

 

[Seawytch]

Russia hacked our election system

The only thing "hacked" was Podesta's emails, a treasure trove of truth for American Voters regarding just how corrupt and dishonest the Democrats were in 2016...

Nobody has proven who did that hack. There are claims. The claims have no substantive proof at all.

PROVE WHO HACKED PODESTA and then come back....

I provided the links, crazy person. Russians successfully infiltrated elections systems in a number of states and actually succeeded in some. And yes, it was Russia. How are the interests of the United States served by denying this fact?

 

[LaDairis]

I provided the links

that William Brennan's holdovers in "intel" claimed Russia did it, but never substantiated it other than by claiming it.

As a birdbrained PARROT, you PARROT IT, and apparently think PARROTING = PROOF.

IT doesn't work that way.

The only thing that PARROTING ever proves is that the individual doing the PARROTING has a BIRDBRAIN......

 

[Care4all]

Do you think that unless they examine the original hardware, you cannot determine the origin of the hack?

i think when given a copy, a lot can change.

if trump said he was hacked, but only provided you a copy of his machine, do you trust it to be all there? authentic? i wouldn't. i would want to examine what he said was hacked. not a copy. not his blessed version. the actual server.

If you think the disc image could be altered, then so too could the hardware. Nothing changes. If they had turned over the hardware, the doubters would still be challenging the findings. Are you discounting the traffic logs and human intelligence that also contributed to the picture?

just admit that no US agency ever looked at any logs off of the server. that's just a fact that was verified by individuals in congressional testimony. Please, tell us differently.

I'm not aware of any testimony stating they had no access to the server logs. If you have that testimony, please provide it.

It appears to me they did have access because they were able to trace where the data flowed out of the DNC server onto the Russian's servers.

To operate X-Agent and X-Tunnel on the DCCC and DNC networks, Unit 26165 officers set up a group of computers outside those networks to communicate with the implanted malware.126 The first set of GRU-controlled computers, known by the GRU as “middle servers,” sent and received messages to and from malware on the DNC/DCCC networks. The middle servers, in turn, relayed messages to a second set of GRU-controlled computers, labeled internally The AMS Panel used to control X-Agent during the DCCC and DNC intrusions was housed by the GRU as an “AMS Panel.” The AMS Panel served as a nerve center through which GRU officers monitored and directed the malware’s operations on the DNC/DCCC networks.127 Investigative Technique on a leased computer located near Arizona.128

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

well fk numbnuts, Iceberg posted it earlier. you saw it.

QUOTE="iceberg, post: 23633114, member: 63397"]

Do you think that unless they examine the original hardware, you cannot determine the origin of the hack?

i think when given a copy, a lot can change.

if trump said he was hacked, but only provided you a copy of his machine, do you trust it to be all there? authentic? i wouldn't. i would want to examine what he said was hacked. not a copy. not his blessed version. the actual server.

If you think the disc image could be altered, then so too could the hardware. Nothing changes. If they had turned over the hardware, the doubters would still be challenging the findings. Are you discounting the traffic logs and human intelligence that also contributed to the picture?

it's not a disk image, it's a vm snapshot.

again i'll ask and if you choose to dodge the question again, i guess i'm done trying to reason with you.

why not simply look at the original configuration?

I answered above, perhaps you missed it.

I can answer that question. Because they were in the middle of a huge campaign and didn’t want a disruption that it would take to tear down their entire server system and build a new one from scratch.

Not an expert by any means and a VMsnapshot and a disc image are different so I was wrong on that one.

appreciate that. so we don't seem to be agreeing on much but you're not digging heels in - at least that's something to work with.

if it's a cloud configuration the vmsnapshot would likely take a bit depending on how much data is there but in the end, in theory, the DNC could have ran off that and turned the original over.

Comey: DNC denied FBI's requests for access to hacked servers

the Feds DID want to look at it. but was denied. many times. so the feds say they asked, the DNC says they never did. which is it? who do i believe here?

“The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated,” the official said.

“This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third party for information. These actions caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier.”

CrowdStrike, the private security firm in question, has published extensive forensic analysis backing up its assessment that the threat groups that infiltrated the DNC were associated with Russian intelligence.
-----
so, it had nothing to do with service disruption. if that was ever a stated reason please link that back to me. i've not seen it. all i've seen is they must use a copy and get their info from a 3rd party.

no direct access - request denied.
no real snapshot to look at
general info from a private security company

FBI says DNC rebuffed request to examine computer servers - CNNPolitics

cnn saying the same thing. FBI requests direct access, DNC saying "no you didn't". again, who here is lying?

you aspire to be a dick you're entire life huh?[/QUOTE]
That was BEFORE the DNC was hacked, the IT guy didn't take the FBI guy seriously about the FBI seeing fishy stuff going on... when they first asked the IT guy for it.