Joe diGenova: What To Expect From The Horowitz IG Report

[BULLDOG]

There was no physical server dumb ass. It was kept on the cloud.

great. then look at the original cloud server, not a lot of snapshots. you'd never allow trump or others to look at "copies" of evidence but demand full access. is it any wonder you don't want the same for YOUR side?

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.

Sure you would, but you have no idea what the best practices require. That's why we have specialists in certain things instead of just relying on someone who doesn't understand how things work.

been in IT for 30 years. yea, i have an idea.

now - you yell at someone for spreading false narratives yet you then in the same sentence scream SEVENTEEN AGENCIES LOOKED INTO IT!

i have proven that is a false narrative. why are you not chiding yourself for spreading lies?

30 years? Then you should understand a snapshot is the best way to determine what happened, and by who. Why are you asking stupid questions?
Why do you misquote me? I said all 17 agencies agree Russia hacked our elections, and they do.

 

[Seawytch]

It's NOBODY'S job to tell you anything. All 17 of our investigative agencies agree that Russia hacked our elections. If that isn't good enough for you, then you are an idiot.

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

 

[iceberg]

great. then look at the original cloud server, not a lot of snapshots. you'd never allow trump or others to look at "copies" of evidence but demand full access. is it any wonder you don't want the same for YOUR side?

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.

Sure you would, but you have no idea what the best practices require. That's why we have specialists in certain things instead of just relying on someone who doesn't understand how things work.

been in IT for 30 years. yea, i have an idea.

now - you yell at someone for spreading false narratives yet you then in the same sentence scream SEVENTEEN AGENCIES LOOKED INTO IT!

i have proven that is a false narrative. why are you not chiding yourself for spreading lies?

30 years? Then you should understand a snapshot is the best way to determine what happened, and by who. Why are you asking stupid questions?
Why do you misquote me? I said all 17 agencies agree Russia hacked our elections, and they do.

why do you keep saying 17 when only 4 really looked at it? cause you like bigger numbers as it makes you sound more official? please let me know the contributions the coast guard put into this report.

and how do we know we got the proper snapshot? we don't. we got *a* snapshot. who knows what condition it was in. why could they not simply look at the original configuration?

that question never seems to get answered.

 

[colfax_m]

There was no physical server dumb ass. It was kept on the cloud.

great. then look at the original cloud server, not a lot of snapshots. you'd never allow trump or others to look at "copies" of evidence but demand full access. is it any wonder you don't want the same for YOUR side?

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.

Sure you would, but you have no idea what the best practices require. That's why we have specialists in certain things instead of just relying on someone who doesn't understand how things work.

been in IT for 30 years. yea, i have an idea.

now - you yell at someone for spreading false narratives yet you then in the same sentence scream SEVENTEEN AGENCIES LOOKED INTO IT!

i have proven that is a false narrative. why are you not chiding yourself for spreading lies?

How much work in forensics did you do?

 

[colfax_m]

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.

Sure you would, but you have no idea what the best practices require. That's why we have specialists in certain things instead of just relying on someone who doesn't understand how things work.

been in IT for 30 years. yea, i have an idea.

now - you yell at someone for spreading false narratives yet you then in the same sentence scream SEVENTEEN AGENCIES LOOKED INTO IT!

i have proven that is a false narrative. why are you not chiding yourself for spreading lies?

30 years? Then you should understand a snapshot is the best way to determine what happened, and by who. Why are you asking stupid questions?
Why do you misquote me? I said all 17 agencies agree Russia hacked our elections, and they do.

why do you keep saying 17 when only 4 really looked at it? cause you like bigger numbers as it makes you sound more official? please let me know the contributions the coast guard put into this report.

and how do we know we got the proper snapshot? we don't. we got *a* snapshot. who knows what condition it was in. why could they not simply look at the original configuration?

that question never seems to get answered.

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.

 

[colfax_m]

Just to be clear, are you actually claiming that the hack of the DNC server was never “looked at”?

Are you aware of what Mueller was doing for 2 years?

Also, overthrowing Saddam was not “jacking with elections”. Saddam was not elected. Just didn’t want that one to slip by.

i'm saying the physical server was never looked at, no.

and forcing a country to hold elections in our style after ousting their government is certainly worse than putting ads on facebook to get people fighting.

There was no physical server dumb ass. It was kept on the cloud.

great. then look at the original cloud server, not a lot of snapshots. you'd never allow trump or others to look at "copies" of evidence but demand full access. is it any wonder you don't want the same for YOUR side?

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?

 

[iceberg]

great. then look at the original cloud server, not a lot of snapshots. you'd never allow trump or others to look at "copies" of evidence but demand full access. is it any wonder you don't want the same for YOUR side?

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.

Sure you would, but you have no idea what the best practices require. That's why we have specialists in certain things instead of just relying on someone who doesn't understand how things work.

been in IT for 30 years. yea, i have an idea.

now - you yell at someone for spreading false narratives yet you then in the same sentence scream SEVENTEEN AGENCIES LOOKED INTO IT!

i have proven that is a false narrative. why are you not chiding yourself for spreading lies?

How much work in forensics did you do?

how much bat guano do you collect in your off hours?

if we're going to be citing only professional experiences in how we express our opinions, this board is done.

 

[iceberg]

i'm saying the physical server was never looked at, no.

and forcing a country to hold elections in our style after ousting their government is certainly worse than putting ads on facebook to get people fighting.

There was no physical server dumb ass. It was kept on the cloud.

great. then look at the original cloud server, not a lot of snapshots. you'd never allow trump or others to look at "copies" of evidence but demand full access. is it any wonder you don't want the same for YOUR side?

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?

 

[iceberg]

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.

Sure you would, but you have no idea what the best practices require. That's why we have specialists in certain things instead of just relying on someone who doesn't understand how things work.

been in IT for 30 years. yea, i have an idea.

now - you yell at someone for spreading false narratives yet you then in the same sentence scream SEVENTEEN AGENCIES LOOKED INTO IT!

i have proven that is a false narrative. why are you not chiding yourself for spreading lies?

30 years? Then you should understand a snapshot is the best way to determine what happened, and by who. Why are you asking stupid questions?
Why do you misquote me? I said all 17 agencies agree Russia hacked our elections, and they do.

why do you keep saying 17 when only 4 really looked at it? cause you like bigger numbers as it makes you sound more official? please let me know the contributions the coast guard put into this report.

and how do we know we got the proper snapshot? we don't. we got *a* snapshot. who knows what condition it was in. why could they not simply look at the original configuration?

that question never seems to get answered.

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.

yet, creating a snapshot to turn over was so simple, right? i mean, it's good enough for the FBI.why not have them take on the snapshot and turn the original over?

man, you just painted yourself into a corner with that one.

 

[jc456]

I'm trying to NOT get my hopes too high for the horowitz report.

I DO have high expectations for the DURHAM report!

Conservatives are sure don’t seem to mind being strung along. Hope is always around the corner.

dude the irony in that statement is noted. impeach 45 since Nov 2016. too fking funny, what's today's date?

 

[colfax_m]

There was no physical server dumb ass. It was kept on the cloud.

great. then look at the original cloud server, not a lot of snapshots. you'd never allow trump or others to look at "copies" of evidence but demand full access. is it any wonder you don't want the same for YOUR side?

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.

 

[colfax_m]

I'm trying to NOT get my hopes too high for the horowitz report.

I DO have high expectations for the DURHAM report!

Conservatives are sure don’t seem to mind being strung along. Hope is always around the corner.

dude the irony in that statement is noted. impeach 45 since Nov 2016. too fking funny, what's today's date?

I never expected Trump to be impeached. Turns out he’s dumber than imagined. This wouldn’t be possible without him.

 

[jc456]

I'm trying to NOT get my hopes too high for the horowitz report.

I DO have high expectations for the DURHAM report!

Conservatives are sure don’t seem to mind being strung along. Hope is always around the corner.

dude the irony in that statement is noted. impeach 45 since Nov 2016. too fking funny, what's today's date?

I never expected Trump to be impeached. Turns out he’s dumber than imagined. This wouldn’t be possible without him.

a waste of tax payers money for an outcome correct? who is running that hoax? Again, your irony is noted.

 

[colfax_m]

Sure you would, but you have no idea what the best practices require. That's why we have specialists in certain things instead of just relying on someone who doesn't understand how things work.

been in IT for 30 years. yea, i have an idea.

now - you yell at someone for spreading false narratives yet you then in the same sentence scream SEVENTEEN AGENCIES LOOKED INTO IT!

i have proven that is a false narrative. why are you not chiding yourself for spreading lies?

30 years? Then you should understand a snapshot is the best way to determine what happened, and by who. Why are you asking stupid questions?
Why do you misquote me? I said all 17 agencies agree Russia hacked our elections, and they do.

why do you keep saying 17 when only 4 really looked at it? cause you like bigger numbers as it makes you sound more official? please let me know the contributions the coast guard put into this report.

and how do we know we got the proper snapshot? we don't. we got *a* snapshot. who knows what condition it was in. why could they not simply look at the original configuration?

that question never seems to get answered.

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.

yet, creating a snapshot to turn over was so simple, right? i mean, it's good enough for the FBI.why not have them take on the snapshot and turn the original over?

man, you just painted yourself into a corner with that one.

Because a snapshot is not a backup cannot restore a system without the parent disc.

(just learned that one since you brought it up).

 

[colfax_m]

I'm trying to NOT get my hopes too high for the horowitz report.

I DO have high expectations for the DURHAM report!

Conservatives are sure don’t seem to mind being strung along. Hope is always around the corner.

dude the irony in that statement is noted. impeach 45 since Nov 2016. too fking funny, what's today's date?

I never expected Trump to be impeached. Turns out he’s dumber than imagined. This wouldn’t be possible without him.

a waste of tax payers money for an outcome correct? who is running that hoax? Again, your irony is noted.

I don’t find accountability to be a waste of money. What is a waste is the amount of money we are spending so Trump can fight transparency in court.

 

[iceberg]

great. then look at the original cloud server, not a lot of snapshots. you'd never allow trump or others to look at "copies" of evidence but demand full access. is it any wonder you don't want the same for YOUR side?

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?

 

[jc456]

I'm trying to NOT get my hopes too high for the horowitz report.

I DO have high expectations for the DURHAM report!

Conservatives are sure don’t seem to mind being strung along. Hope is always around the corner.

dude the irony in that statement is noted. impeach 45 since Nov 2016. too fking funny, what's today's date?

I never expected Trump to be impeached. Turns out he’s dumber than imagined. This wouldn’t be possible without him.

a waste of tax payers money for an outcome correct? who is running that hoax? Again, your irony is noted.

I don’t find accountability to be a waste of money. What is a waste is the amount of money we are spending so Trump can fight transparency in court.

hahahahaha well Einstein, one needs to be in office to have committed an impeachable offense. when screams for impeachment ahead of inauguration, just makes it all a waste of money. again, your irony is noted.

 

[colfax_m]

Conservatives are sure don’t seem to mind being strung along. Hope is always around the corner.

dude the irony in that statement is noted. impeach 45 since Nov 2016. too fking funny, what's today's date?

I never expected Trump to be impeached. Turns out he’s dumber than imagined. This wouldn’t be possible without him.

a waste of tax payers money for an outcome correct? who is running that hoax? Again, your irony is noted.

I don’t find accountability to be a waste of money. What is a waste is the amount of money we are spending so Trump can fight transparency in court.

hahahahaha well Einstein, one needs to be in office to have committed an impeachable offense. when screams for impeachment ahead of inauguration, just makes it all a waste of money. again, your irony is noted.

Really? Republicans were saying the same thing when they expected Clinton to run.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...al-republicans-openly-discussing-impeachment/

Trump didn’t face impeachment until just a few months ago.

 

[colfax_m]

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?

It’s my understanding that a VM snapshot is not a backup and can it restore a system without the original hardware.

 

[jc456]

i'm saying the physical server was never looked at, no.

and forcing a country to hold elections in our style after ousting their government is certainly worse than putting ads on facebook to get people fighting.

There was no physical server dumb ass. It was kept on the cloud.

great. then look at the original cloud server, not a lot of snapshots. you'd never allow trump or others to look at "copies" of evidence but demand full access. is it any wonder you don't want the same for YOUR side?

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.