iceberg
Diamond Member
- May 15, 2017
- 36,788
- 14,921
- 1,600
Maybe. but who was destroying hard drives? who was refusing to allow their "crime scene" to be investigated? who had illegal Pakistani brothers running the servers?no. you'd have 140 VMs each doing it's own server function.Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the 140 servers are operating as a VM, they act as basically one machine, correct? Doesn't that mean it just pushes one image?i'm told there were 140 servers. that's a lot of disc images.but again, why not get direct access to the system? if you're going to stick with "disruption" then please show me where that was *EVER* cited by the DNC as to why they wouldn't allow it.
If you're looking for a direct quote from the DNC, I don't have it. Their line is they did everything asked and they're not backing away from it. We both know that disruption would have happened and this was months before a huge election, so it's as good an explanation as any. Or maybe they didn't want FBI operating in their closet, the same FBI that had been leaking about Clinton during the election.
I found a quote from the DNC spokesperson, apparently they did give disc images and forensic copies. Not just VM snapshots.
“The FBI was given images of servers, forensic copies, as well as a host of other forensic information we collected from our systems,” said Adrienne Watson, the DNC’s deputy communications director. “We were in close contact and worked cooperatively with the FBI and were always responsive to their requests. Any suggestion that they were denied access to what they wanted for their investigation is completely incorrect.”
The idea that the DNC was hiding the true source of the hack is very, very, very unlikely. They'd have to be criminal masterminds to pull off such an extensive operation and for what outcome?
again - as far as i'm concerned NOTHING has been said by the DNC to justify the refusal for the FBI to look at the server.
Anyway, this is Crowdstrike's business, I'm sure they know how to pull a copy quickly and efficiently. Crowdstrike is highly respected, in fact being used by the RNC for their security as well. Comey acknowledged they were highly respected if I recall correctly.
In the end, maybe the DNC hasn't publicly stated such, but wouldn't you agree that there are many plausible explanations for why they didn't produce the hardware? It seems rather standard for businesses to hand over images to the FBI but keep the hardware so they can get back to work.
active directory
printing
file shares
websites
sql/database
redundancy
it can go on and on. you'd usually stand up a VM with say Windows Server 2010 (for example) on it. then setup that server for the desired functions as you see above. while you can combine some roles, for many you just don't.
and if a "cloud" configuration there is no server to hand over, much less hardware to get back to work with. Amazon, Microsoft, Rackspace and many more provide cloud environments for while people can set all this up and from a local machine, you just access it, log in and it more or less acts as if it's on premise.
---
as for the file copy - yea that one can go many different ways. but again w/o actual access to the logs, you're taking people at their word and i know of no one who does that these days. and if we do, then assange himself said no russians handed him anything at all.
easy to call him a liar and serves a purpose to boot. but what if he didn't lie? what if the DNC did? if you were lying what would you do to cover your tracks?
we have the pakastani brothers and their role and that can't really be explained what they were doing in it all to begin with.
FBI investigating smashed hard drives from Wasserman Schultz IT worker's home, Pakistani brothers: Report
why are all these people smashing hard drives and destroying evidence? to me that alone causes the need for a lot of questions that need solid answers, NOT speculation and NOT defense and excuses by the very people you're investigating.
none of what the DNC made sense. hiding something would make sense but no one on the left wants to even pretend that could be what they were doing - hiding their activities.
Assange is a liar and has plenty of motivation to lie since he's gotten in bed with the Russians who aren't exactly afraid of getting their hands dirty.
The evidence that Russia hacked the DNC comes from many, many sources and they all corroborate the same story. All anyone else has done is attempt to inject uncertainty into it. There's no actual evidence of any other method or culprit.
The Daily Caller (not a legitimate news source in my opinion) pushed this conspiracy theory, but that was years ago. It never went anywhere because the truth was far less interesting.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...0b4170-93f2-11e7-b9bc-b2f7903bab0d_story.html
if we are going after character fine. let's go after all involved.