The FBI's fractured fairytale

[kwc57]

that's a lot of what attkisson is saying in her scenario.

all of this stems from a meeting trump jr had where someone said "i got dirt on hillary".

so there must be collusion even though the bulk of their convo had nothing to do with "dirt".

the rest is made up bullshit that has gotten way out of hand to cover up *how* this made up bullshit made it to the light of day.

1. I don't think it was Trump Jr, what meeting was that? Maybe you meant Papadopolous instead, who was connected with the Trump campaign.

2 So somebody goes to him over some booze and says "I got some dirt on Hillary". So what? That's not on Papadopolous, he hasn't done anything wrong, not yet anyway. So there's nothing yet to indicate any collusion on his part.

3. This so-called "dirt", was it from the emails the Russians got when they hacked into the DNC servers? [What a bunch of dumb fucks, not to protect their servers.] Or was it from the 30,000+ emails they probably got from hacking into Clintons MFing private unprotected server in her basement when she was SoS?

Let's keep in mind that the DNC servers have never been analyzed. The DNC refused to turn them over for any forensics. All we know is from a company hired by the DNC. A highly respected group of former government computer forensic folks say that the data transfer rates that were provided are impossible to do over the internet and can only be accomplished by direct access like a thumb drive.....meaning it was an inside job.

Yes I’m sure your favorite conspiracy website said that

Government knows DNC hacker was Russian intel officer: report

you do realize the download speeds hit when copying the files was usb territory and not possibl via remote connections, correct?

*sigh*

Okay super sleuth, corroborate that conspiracy with a single link that doesn’t attribute that theory to The Nation and the anonymous analyst they spoke to.

You do realize that The Nation is liberal, correct?

 

[kwc57]

just because you say so, huh.

ok. trump didnt collude.

wow this IS much easier thanks!

There has been NOTHING to indicate that Trump or anyone in his campaign colluded with the Russians in any way to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. Did they have meetings? Sure, everybody has meetings. But is there evidence that any collusion took place? NOT ONE BIT.

I'm still waiting for somebody to tell me what evidence did the FBI/DOJ have in July 2016 that convinced them they had just cause to spy on the Trump campaign. They are not supposed to decide to spy on any American citizen without verified, substantiated evidence of wrong-doing, they're supposed to have SOMETHING upon which to justify what they did. And right now I don't see a damn thing.

Should the DOJ have hired Mueller as a Special Prosecutor to look into what transpired in the 2016 election with respect to any Russian influence? Yeah sure, I got no problem with that, and many Repubs have supported that action. But that was long AFTER what the FBI did in July 2016 and even before that to the Trump campaign. got a big problem with that, and I do not believe any Repub has said that the so-called "Spygate" operation was reasonable or appropriate.

that's a lot of what attkisson is saying in her scenario.

all of this stems from a meeting trump jr had where someone said "i got dirt on hillary".

so there must be collusion even though the bulk of their convo had nothing to do with "dirt".

the rest is made up bullshit that has gotten way out of hand to cover up *how* this made up bullshit made it to the light of day.

1. I don't think it was Trump Jr, what meeting was that? Maybe you meant Papadopolous instead, who was connected with the Trump campaign.

2 So somebody goes to him over some booze and says "I got some dirt on Hillary". So what? That's not on Papadopolous, he hasn't done anything wrong, not yet anyway. So there's nothing yet to indicate any collusion on his part.

3. This so-called "dirt", was it from the emails the Russians got when they hacked into the DNC servers? [What a bunch of dumb fucks, not to protect their servers.] Or was it from the 30,000+ emails they probably got from hacking into Clintons MFing private unprotected server in her basement when she was SoS?

Let's keep in mind that the DNC servers have never been analyzed. The DNC refused to turn them over for any forensics. All we know is from a company hired by the DNC. A highly respected group of former government computer forensic folks say that the data transfer rates that were provided are impossible to do over the internet and can only be accomplished by direct access like a thumb drive.....meaning it was an inside job.

nope!

not true at all!

Why the latest theory about the DNC not being hacked is probably wrong

Perhaps if the DNC would make their servers available to the FBI for analysis, the actual truth could be determined. Claiming the Russians hacked it and that Trump colluded with them fits their agenda much better than an inside job. We will never know, will we?

 

[TheOldSchool]

1. I don't think it was Trump Jr, what meeting was that? Maybe you meant Papadopolous instead, who was connected with the Trump campaign.

2 So somebody goes to him over some booze and says "I got some dirt on Hillary". So what? That's not on Papadopolous, he hasn't done anything wrong, not yet anyway. So there's nothing yet to indicate any collusion on his part.

3. This so-called "dirt", was it from the emails the Russians got when they hacked into the DNC servers? [What a bunch of dumb fucks, not to protect their servers.] Or was it from the 30,000+ emails they probably got from hacking into Clintons MFing private unprotected server in her basement when she was SoS?

Let's keep in mind that the DNC servers have never been analyzed. The DNC refused to turn them over for any forensics. All we know is from a company hired by the DNC. A highly respected group of former government computer forensic folks say that the data transfer rates that were provided are impossible to do over the internet and can only be accomplished by direct access like a thumb drive.....meaning it was an inside job.

Yes I’m sure your favorite conspiracy website said that

Government knows DNC hacker was Russian intel officer: report

you do realize the download speeds hit when copying the files was usb territory and not possibl via remote connections, correct?

*sigh*

Okay super sleuth, corroborate that conspiracy with a single link that doesn’t attribute that theory to The Nation and the anonymous analyst they spoke to.

You do realize that The Nation is liberal, correct?

So?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Perhaps if the DNC would make their servers available to the FBI for analysis, the actual truth could be determined.

The FBI doesn’t need them. Unlike you, they know a thing or two about computers.

 

[iceberg]

There has been NOTHING to indicate that Trump or anyone in his campaign colluded with the Russians in any way to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. Did they have meetings? Sure, everybody has meetings. But is there evidence that any collusion took place? NOT ONE BIT.

I'm still waiting for somebody to tell me what evidence did the FBI/DOJ have in July 2016 that convinced them they had just cause to spy on the Trump campaign. They are not supposed to decide to spy on any American citizen without verified, substantiated evidence of wrong-doing, they're supposed to have SOMETHING upon which to justify what they did. And right now I don't see a damn thing.

Should the DOJ have hired Mueller as a Special Prosecutor to look into what transpired in the 2016 election with respect to any Russian influence? Yeah sure, I got no problem with that, and many Repubs have supported that action. But that was long AFTER what the FBI did in July 2016 and even before that to the Trump campaign. got a big problem with that, and I do not believe any Repub has said that the so-called "Spygate" operation was reasonable or appropriate.

that's a lot of what attkisson is saying in her scenario.

all of this stems from a meeting trump jr had where someone said "i got dirt on hillary".

so there must be collusion even though the bulk of their convo had nothing to do with "dirt".

the rest is made up bullshit that has gotten way out of hand to cover up *how* this made up bullshit made it to the light of day.

1. I don't think it was Trump Jr, what meeting was that? Maybe you meant Papadopolous instead, who was connected with the Trump campaign.

2 So somebody goes to him over some booze and says "I got some dirt on Hillary". So what? That's not on Papadopolous, he hasn't done anything wrong, not yet anyway. So there's nothing yet to indicate any collusion on his part.

3. This so-called "dirt", was it from the emails the Russians got when they hacked into the DNC servers? [What a bunch of dumb fucks, not to protect their servers.] Or was it from the 30,000+ emails they probably got from hacking into Clintons MFing private unprotected server in her basement when she was SoS?

Let's keep in mind that the DNC servers have never been analyzed. The DNC refused to turn them over for any forensics. All we know is from a company hired by the DNC. A highly respected group of former government computer forensic folks say that the data transfer rates that were provided are impossible to do over the internet and can only be accomplished by direct access like a thumb drive.....meaning it was an inside job.

nope!

not true at all!

Why the latest theory about the DNC not being hacked is probably wrong

Perhaps if the DNC would make their servers available to the FBI for analysis, the actual truth could be determined. Claiming the Russians hacked it and that Trump colluded with them fits their agenda much better than an inside job. We will never know, will we?

and if the left is this pissed trump has not turned over his taxes, you can be DAMN GOOD AND SURE they'd be pissed if trump never turned over this type of evidence.

 

[TheOldSchool]

that's a lot of what attkisson is saying in her scenario.

all of this stems from a meeting trump jr had where someone said "i got dirt on hillary".

so there must be collusion even though the bulk of their convo had nothing to do with "dirt".

the rest is made up bullshit that has gotten way out of hand to cover up *how* this made up bullshit made it to the light of day.

1. I don't think it was Trump Jr, what meeting was that? Maybe you meant Papadopolous instead, who was connected with the Trump campaign.

2 So somebody goes to him over some booze and says "I got some dirt on Hillary". So what? That's not on Papadopolous, he hasn't done anything wrong, not yet anyway. So there's nothing yet to indicate any collusion on his part.

3. This so-called "dirt", was it from the emails the Russians got when they hacked into the DNC servers? [What a bunch of dumb fucks, not to protect their servers.] Or was it from the 30,000+ emails they probably got from hacking into Clintons MFing private unprotected server in her basement when she was SoS?

Let's keep in mind that the DNC servers have never been analyzed. The DNC refused to turn them over for any forensics. All we know is from a company hired by the DNC. A highly respected group of former government computer forensic folks say that the data transfer rates that were provided are impossible to do over the internet and can only be accomplished by direct access like a thumb drive.....meaning it was an inside job.

nope!

not true at all!

Why the latest theory about the DNC not being hacked is probably wrong

Perhaps if the DNC would make their servers available to the FBI for analysis, the actual truth could be determined. Claiming the Russians hacked it and that Trump colluded with them fits their agenda much better than an inside job. We will never know, will we?

and if the left is this pissed trump has not turned over his taxes, you can be DAMN GOOD AND SURE they'd be pissed if trump never turned over this type of evidence.

Why don’t they subpoena it? OOPS! CONSPIRACY BLOWN!

 

[iceberg]

Perhaps if the DNC would make their servers available to the FBI for analysis, the actual truth could be determined.

The FBI doesn’t need them. Unlike you, they know a thing or two about computers.

this is bullshit on every level possible.

congrats on hitting the height of stupid before i had lunch today.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Perhaps if the DNC would make their servers available to the FBI for analysis, the actual truth could be determined.

The FBI doesn’t need them. Unlike you, they know a thing or two about computers.

this is bullshit on every level possible.

congrats on hitting the height of stupid before i had lunch today.

^ doesn’t know a single fucking thing about this topic

 

[iceberg]

Perhaps if the DNC would make their servers available to the FBI for analysis, the actual truth could be determined.

The FBI doesn’t need them. Unlike you, they know a thing or two about computers.

this is bullshit on every level possible.

congrats on hitting the height of stupid before i had lunch today.

^ doesn’t know a single fucking thing about this topic

pretty sure if you want to see if a computer was hacked, you get on it and pull the av logs to find out. you backtrace where the entry point came from and how they did it and what permissions that "how" entailed to better determine where else they could have gone.

no. nothing at all.

later on, horsenuts.

 

[kwc57]

Perhaps if the DNC would make their servers available to the FBI for analysis, the actual truth could be determined.

The FBI doesn’t need them. Unlike you, they know a thing or two about computers.

Ahhhh, they are clairvoyant. They can draw conclusions out of thin air instead of physical analysis. I guess they can just round up anyone they believe to be a criminal instead of having to do an investigation and basing findings on evidence. I think I see the disconnect here. This is America, not the old USSR. You're confused comrade. The FBI indeed knows a thing or two about computers, but they have to have access to them to determine what has happened on them.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Perhaps if the DNC would make their servers available to the FBI for analysis, the actual truth could be determined.

The FBI doesn’t need them. Unlike you, they know a thing or two about computers.

this is bullshit on every level possible.

congrats on hitting the height of stupid before i had lunch today.

^ doesn’t know a single fucking thing about this topic

pretty sure if you want to see if a computer was hacked, you get on it and pull the av logs to find out. you backtrace where the entry point came from and how they did it and what permissions that "how" entailed to better determine where else they could have gone.

no. nothing at all.

later on, horsenuts.

Face it dude. You fell victim to the echo chamber. A conspiracy piece about an anonymous analyst was spread across the internet by rightwing media and social networks, covered by all the usual rightwing nutjob sites, probably spread around by Russia bots, and you were played like a chump into believing it. You probably still think Pizzagate was real.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Perhaps if the DNC would make their servers available to the FBI for analysis, the actual truth could be determined.

The FBI doesn’t need them. Unlike you, they know a thing or two about computers.

Ahhhh, they are clairvoyant. They can draw conclusions out of thin air instead of physical analysis. I guess they can just round up anyone they believe to be a criminal instead of having to do an investigation and basing findings on evidence. I think I see the disconnect here. This is America, not the old USSR. You're confused comrade. The FBI indeed knows a thing or two about computers, but they have to have access to them to determine what has happened on them.

They had a physical analysis. If they thought it was insufficient, or that the DNC was committing treason with fake information creating conflict with a foreign power, they would subpoena it. Or, the GOP controlled government could subpoena it.

Not even Trump denies Russian sabotage anymore.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Funny how when the FBI ran COINTELPRO spying programs against MLK, Malcolm and even the Beatles for that matter -- I remember when the FBI murdered Fred Hampton -- these same conservatives so concerned about the FBI now thought it was all fine when those tactics were used against people they don't like...

fuck your concern, its fake and it definitely won't be something you mind if its done to those "other people"

 

[Care4all]

sigh....

1-The FBI notified the Clinton Campaign IT mgr in late 2015 that Russian operatives were trying to access their files... the IT manager did not heed to their warnings....the FBI cyber division was aware of the Russian hackers and notified the campaign, BEFORE the campaign / DNC emails were hacked, that someone was trying to hack them.

2-Papadopolous in March or April of 2016 was told by a Russian operative that the Russians had dirt on Hillary, thousands of campaign emails. This was 3 months BEFORE Guccifer claimed he got the hacked emails, and this techie called Forensicator intentionally or mistakenly used what transmitted to/from Guccifer on July 5th, for his analysis....Guccifer was a third party to try to hide where the hacks originated.

3- The FBI received a copy of the server, along with CrowdStrike's analysis....which was good enough, coupled with the information the FBI had gathered that they tried to warn the campaign IT mgr about

4- In addition to this, cyber security is a doggy dog world....competition is steep....the cyber firms often cut each other's throats in policing one another... 5 competitive cyber security firms agreed with crowd strike's analysis based on their own information they had gathered on it.

 

[task0778]

sigh....

1-The FBI notified the Clinton Campaign IT mgr in late 2015 that Russian operatives were trying to access their files... the IT manager did not heed to their warnings....the FBI cyber division was aware of the Russian hackers and notified the campaign, BEFORE the campaign / DNC emails were hacked, that someone was trying to hack them.

2-Papadopolous in March or April of 2016 was told by a Russian operative that the Russians had dirt on Hillary, thousands of campaign emails. This was 3 months BEFORE Guccifer claimed he got the hacked emails, and this techie called Forensicator intentionally or mistakenly used what transmitted to/from Guccifer on July 5th, for his analysis....Guccifer was a third party to try to hide where the hacks originated.

3- The FBI received a copy of the server, along with CrowdStrike's analysis....which was good enough, coupled with the information the FBI had gathered that they tried to warn the campaign IT mgr about

4- In addition to this, cyber security is a doggy dog world....competition is steep....the cyber firms often cut each other's throats in policing one another... 5 competitive cyber security firms agreed with crowd strike's analysis based on their own information they had gathered on it.

When Papadopolous was told by somebody that the Russians had dirt on Hillary, how do you know if it was thousands of campaign emails? How do you know it wasn't some of those 30,000+ emails that might've been hacked from that unsecured server she had in her basement while she was SoS? Guccifer's hacked emails were not from the DNC, they were from Hillary's unsecured server years before.

 

[westwall]

sigh....

1-The FBI notified the Clinton Campaign IT mgr in late 2015 that Russian operatives were trying to access their files... the IT manager did not heed to their warnings....the FBI cyber division was aware of the Russian hackers and notified the campaign, BEFORE the campaign / DNC emails were hacked, that someone was trying to hack them.

2-Papadopolous in March or April of 2016 was told by a Russian operative that the Russians had dirt on Hillary, thousands of campaign emails. This was 3 months BEFORE Guccifer claimed he got the hacked emails, and this techie called Forensicator intentionally or mistakenly used what transmitted to/from Guccifer on July 5th, for his analysis....Guccifer was a third party to try to hide where the hacks originated.

3- The FBI received a copy of the server, along with CrowdStrike's analysis....which was good enough, coupled with the information the FBI had gathered that they tried to warn the campaign IT mgr about

4- In addition to this, cyber security is a doggy dog world....competition is steep....the cyber firms often cut each other's throats in policing one another... 5 competitive cyber security firms agreed with crowd strike's analysis based on their own information they had gathered on it.

If the dnc server were truly hacked, why then did they not turn it over to the FBI so that it could be analysed to determine WHO hacked it. They actually can do that you know.....unless you don't want them to know....

 

[Care4all]

sigh....

1-The FBI notified the Clinton Campaign IT mgr in late 2015 that Russian operatives were trying to access their files... the IT manager did not heed to their warnings....the FBI cyber division was aware of the Russian hackers and notified the campaign, BEFORE the campaign / DNC emails were hacked, that someone was trying to hack them.

2-Papadopolous in March or April of 2016 was told by a Russian operative that the Russians had dirt on Hillary, thousands of campaign emails. This was 3 months BEFORE Guccifer claimed he got the hacked emails, and this techie called Forensicator intentionally or mistakenly used what transmitted to/from Guccifer on July 5th, for his analysis....Guccifer was a third party to try to hide where the hacks originated.

3- The FBI received a copy of the server, along with CrowdStrike's analysis....which was good enough, coupled with the information the FBI had gathered that they tried to warn the campaign IT mgr about

4- In addition to this, cyber security is a doggy dog world....competition is steep....the cyber firms often cut each other's throats in policing one another... 5 competitive cyber security firms agreed with crowd strike's analysis based on their own information they had gathered on it.

When Papadopolous was told by somebody that the Russians had dirt on Hillary, how do you know if it was thousands of campaign emails? How do you know it wasn't some of those 30,000+ emails that might've been hacked from that unsecured server she had in her basement while she was SoS? Guccifer's hacked emails were not from the DNC, they were from Hillary's unsecured server years before.

we know that the Clinton server was not hacked, the FBI went through it with a fine tooth comb....fbi stated it was not hacked... if she had used the State Dept system, we know that State.gov gets hacked over 40,000 attempt's and infiltrations a year.... ironically, her unknown server email, might have actually protected us all.....

 

[task0778]

sigh....

1-The FBI notified the Clinton Campaign IT mgr in late 2015 that Russian operatives were trying to access their files... the IT manager did not heed to their warnings....the FBI cyber division was aware of the Russian hackers and notified the campaign, BEFORE the campaign / DNC emails were hacked, that someone was trying to hack them.

2-Papadopolous in March or April of 2016 was told by a Russian operative that the Russians had dirt on Hillary, thousands of campaign emails. This was 3 months BEFORE Guccifer claimed he got the hacked emails, and this techie called Forensicator intentionally or mistakenly used what transmitted to/from Guccifer on July 5th, for his analysis....Guccifer was a third party to try to hide where the hacks originated.

3- The FBI received a copy of the server, along with CrowdStrike's analysis....which was good enough, coupled with the information the FBI had gathered that they tried to warn the campaign IT mgr about

4- In addition to this, cyber security is a doggy dog world....competition is steep....the cyber firms often cut each other's throats in policing one another... 5 competitive cyber security firms agreed with crowd strike's analysis based on their own information they had gathered on it.

If the dnc server were truly hacked, why then did they not turn it over to the FBI so that it could be analysed to determine WHO hacked it. They actually can do that you know.....unless you don't want them to know....

Could be there's other stuff on those servers that the DNC would be embarrassed by if it got out. Maybe even illegal stuff. It's suspicious as hell when you get hacked but you won't let the FBI have the server so they can figure out who did it, etc. As you say, unless you don't want them to know.

 

[Care4all]

sigh....

1-The FBI notified the Clinton Campaign IT mgr in late 2015 that Russian operatives were trying to access their files... the IT manager did not heed to their warnings....the FBI cyber division was aware of the Russian hackers and notified the campaign, BEFORE the campaign / DNC emails were hacked, that someone was trying to hack them.

2-Papadopolous in March or April of 2016 was told by a Russian operative that the Russians had dirt on Hillary, thousands of campaign emails. This was 3 months BEFORE Guccifer claimed he got the hacked emails, and this techie called Forensicator intentionally or mistakenly used what transmitted to/from Guccifer on July 5th, for his analysis....Guccifer was a third party to try to hide where the hacks originated.

3- The FBI received a copy of the server, along with CrowdStrike's analysis....which was good enough, coupled with the information the FBI had gathered that they tried to warn the campaign IT mgr about

4- In addition to this, cyber security is a doggy dog world....competition is steep....the cyber firms often cut each other's throats in policing one another... 5 competitive cyber security firms agreed with crowd strike's analysis based on their own information they had gathered on it.

If the dnc server were truly hacked, why then did they not turn it over to the FBI so that it could be analysed to determine WHO hacked it. They actually can do that you know.....unless you don't want them to know....

crowd strike, the cyber security firm hired, was using the original server to investigate, but they gave a copy of the server to the FBI.... FBI said, that was good enough.... they could have pursued the original if it was really needed, via subpoena, I suppose.

BUT off the bat, why would the Clinton campaign trust the FBI/Comey....? He had just broken protocol and smeared a citizen, he was not going to charge with a crime, in a half hour public flogging diatribe, to hurt her election chances?

 

[task0778]

sigh....

1-The FBI notified the Clinton Campaign IT mgr in late 2015 that Russian operatives were trying to access their files... the IT manager did not heed to their warnings....the FBI cyber division was aware of the Russian hackers and notified the campaign, BEFORE the campaign / DNC emails were hacked, that someone was trying to hack them.

2-Papadopolous in March or April of 2016 was told by a Russian operative that the Russians had dirt on Hillary, thousands of campaign emails. This was 3 months BEFORE Guccifer claimed he got the hacked emails, and this techie called Forensicator intentionally or mistakenly used what transmitted to/from Guccifer on July 5th, for his analysis....Guccifer was a third party to try to hide where the hacks originated.

3- The FBI received a copy of the server, along with CrowdStrike's analysis....which was good enough, coupled with the information the FBI had gathered that they tried to warn the campaign IT mgr about

4- In addition to this, cyber security is a doggy dog world....competition is steep....the cyber firms often cut each other's throats in policing one another... 5 competitive cyber security firms agreed with crowd strike's analysis based on their own information they had gathered on it.

When Papadopolous was told by somebody that the Russians had dirt on Hillary, how do you know if it was thousands of campaign emails? How do you know it wasn't some of those 30,000+ emails that might've been hacked from that unsecured server she had in her basement while she was SoS? Guccifer's hacked emails were not from the DNC, they were from Hillary's unsecured server years before.

we know that the Clinton server was not hacked, the FBI went through it with a fine tooth comb....fbi stated it was not hacked... if she had used the State Dept system, we know that State.gov gets hacked over 40,000 attempt's and infiltrations a year.... ironically, her unknown server email, might have actually protected us all.....

I do not believe this is true. I'll need to see the link where the FBI stated that her unsecured server was not hacked. After she cleaned it with a rag, bleached it, and beat the hell out of it with a hammer, they would know that? And to say that her unsecured server was unknown? BULLSHIT. Guccifer knew, and you can bet your ass a whole lot of other people knew too, and most of them are not our friends. And then to say that unprotected server might actually have protected us all from hacking? ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT! We know that attempts to hack the US State Dept and other federal agencies probably number in the thousands, but that doesn't mean they were successful.