I need an answer to this question..

[usmbguest5318]

The first person to scream Russians came out of Clinton's campaign. Boom. We're done. Everything else is simply to make sure the show goes on.

Say what? The first thing I can recall was Trump imploring the Russians to hack for emails.

Nope. The very first person to scream Russians came from Clinton's campaign.

Okay. When?

 

[Disir]

PHILADELPHIA — Cold War-era intrigue permeated the 93-degree heat in Philadelphia on Monday, as Democrats sought to spread the idea that the release of thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee is part of a Russian effort to help elect Donald J. Trump.

“I do know this: that the Russians did the D.N.C. hack,” Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, told reporters.

She said she had learned of Russian involvement not through intelligence briefings, but through other means.

The hacking embarrassed party officials by showing that they seemed to favor Hillary Clinton over Senator Bernie Sanders in the primary, when they were supposed to be neutral.

Ms. Pelosi, asked whether she thought Mr. Trump played any role in the hack or release of the 20,000 emails, said, “I have no reason to think that.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/u...-of-russian-effort-to-elect-donald-trump.html

 

[Disir]

 

[Disir]

Hillary Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook suggested Sunday that internal DNC emails leaked last week were an effort from the Russians to help Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

“What’s disturbing to us is that experts are telling us Russian state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, and other experts are now saying that the Russians are releasing these emails for the purpose of actually of helping Donald Trump,” Mook said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”


“I don’t think it’s coincidental that these emails were released on the eve of our convention.”

Mook did not provide evidence that the Russians were trying to help Trump when pressed by CNN’s Jake Tapper to back up his charges, instead falling back on what “experts” were saying.

“This isn’t my assertion — there are a number of experts that are asserting this,” Mook said. “I think we need to get to the bottom of these facts. But that’s what experts are telling us. Experts are telling us it is, in fact, the Russians who hacked these emails.”

Last month, it was publicly revealed that Russian government hackers had broken into the Democratic National Committee computer servers, which contained opposition research on Trump. The DNC emails released by WikiLeaks on Friday showed DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and other DNC staffers being critical of the Bernie Sanders campaign.
Mook suggests Russians leaked DNC emails to help Trump

 

[Disir]

Relationships in Jeopardy?

Central to the attempts to learn more about Trump's true plans is the fear that, for the first time since World War II, an American president might terminate the trans-Atlantic alliance. Trump has described NATO as "obsolete" and announced that he would at the very least seek to renegotiate its framework. Countries like Germany, Trump has said, have to pay more of the costs for their own security in the future. Otherwise, the US would withdraw its troops.


In his talks with German officials, Clovis has attempted to assuage the Germans' concerns. His message: Things aren't nearly that dire. He claims that Trump is a businessman, who always negotiates everything. That's more or less what Wittig's reports to Berlin argue as well. This spring, Wittig met with Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Kushner took diligent notes during the discussion, but couldn't contribute anything revelatory about how Trump really ticks.

Jürgen Hardt, the trans-Atlantic coordinator for the German government, believes that "even a President Trump would not carelessly jeopardize solid relationships if he is elected." Berlin officials believe that Trump would back away from some of his most outrageous demands if he were elected. But they do think that he would focus on the question as to who should carry the future costs of the trans-Atlantic alliance. A Republican victory in the election could be expensive for Germany.

The same could be true for German business, according to an internal analysis by the Finance Ministry in Berlin. The report argues that a Trump victory would mean "a shrinking gross domestic product, fewer jobs and higher unemployment" -- developments which would negatively impact German exporters. Trump's economic ideas, furthermore, "aren't feasible," violate international or US law and could not "provide the foundation for a realistic economic policy."

Secret Meetings with Campaign: Germany Prepares for Possible President Trump - SPIEGEL ONLINE - International


What's behind the BS? Money. Always.

Why did the Republicans run to Clinton? The IMF told them to. Money. Always.

 

[usmbguest5318]

The first person to scream Russians came out of Clinton's campaign. Boom. We're done. Everything else is simply to make sure the show goes on.

Say what? The first thing I can recall was Trump imploring the Russians to hack for emails.

Nope. The very first person to scream Russians came from Clinton's campaign.

I saw your responses below. You're right about which side made the first claims about Russian interference and the act of hacking.

Now for the interesting parts:

• Mook/Pelosi were not making up that the DNC was hacked.
• They were not wrong that the Russians were behind it.

Hindsight thus shows us the Dems should have been believed from the start. That they weren't is troubling because it means that:

• a whole lot of people cannot truly see the political process as a trifle, that is, they think accusing another nation of malfeasant meddling in our political process is something our leaders would do purely for the sake of political gain. The actors who caused the hack/dupe to occur owe no allegiance to the U.S., but were they to, the hack/dupe and subsequent release would have been declared treason or sedition.
  
• a whole lot of people don't hold as sacrosanct the U.S. political process. The first thing that should have crossed the electorate's mind is that responsible people do not lightly make direct and overt assertions about the involvement of another world power. Though the context (domestic vs. international) differs, the McCarthy era's false accusations should be lesson enough for people to know better than to trifle like that. It is destabilizing, which in turn diminishes our credibility in the world, and that is exactly what Russia and China's government want to see happen. Quite simply, back "when America was great," the entire nation would have taken great offense from the get go.
• looking at the making-light of the Democrats' claims about Russian intervention, one has to question the sincerity of the proclaimed patriotism of the many who, rather than giving the benefit of the doubt, cried BS. That strongly suggests they place their party above their country. That's what Trump did. It's what a lot of his followers did. I don't find that acceptable. Of all the reasons for not wanting Trump as president, that one thing is, for me at least, singularly disqualifying.

(FWIW, a date would have been enough.)

Okay. When?

 

[flacaltenn]

I agree with the OP. These are questions that should be asked and answered. Just what good is having 17 intel agencies, if they're not going to do their jobs, but outsource such top secret national security info to private companies?

What did I miss?

• Did someone find classified content in Podesta's emails?
• If not, what is so "top secret national security" about a computer/email account, or the data on it, owned and operated by John Podesta?

The man was private citizen managing a political campaign. He was not, AFAIK, a government (ex) employee in possession of, storing or discussing via his email, vital secrets of any sort, physical or informational.

It's a National Security because the politicos and headlines are accusing the Kremlin of interfering with an election. That IMMEDIATELY becomes a matter of National Security. .Since your Dear Leader and some dumbshit Republicans are changing our entire Foreign Relations with Russia without providing confidence that tthe PRIMARY EVIDENCE was examined by ANY US Intelligence Agency. Including DEPORTING diplomats, sanctions and tougher demonstrations of military force. Anything that escalates foreign policy to THOSE levels should have triggered ACTION -- when the "evidence" was fresh and untainted.

Instead, because the alarms went unanswered for MONTHS -- all these "opinions" are based on "patterns of behavior" of Russian Intel operations rather than backed by evidence and fact.

 

[EverCurious]

And the reason the Clinton's came out with the "its the Russians" thing is because of... wait for it... CrowdStrike. They reported to the DNC that they "thought" the Russians did it.

 

[flacaltenn]

Reminder: John Podesta Wasn’t Hacked, He Was Duped Just Like The DNC

I suspect the general process described in the article is accurate. I have my doubts about some of the specific points noted in it. One that strikes me as dubious at best is this:

• The campaign had been the target of dozens of similar phishing emails at the time, Delevan said, and he knew this email was one of them. He accidentally typed “legitimate” instead of “illegitimate,” a mistake he says has “plagued him.”
  • I don't think there was anything accidental about it. Why not?
    • Because if it were an accident, Delevan would have immediately sent a follow up or called someone on the phone, or done something to make sure the email was ignored/deleted, not clicked on.
    • "Illegitimate" doesn't start with an "L." People don't accidentally type "l"e-g-i-t-i-m-a-t-e wnen [sic] they mean to type "il"-l-e-g-i-t-i-m-a-t-e. They may hit o-, k-, j- u-, 8- or 9-legitimate. That's if they are touch typists. If they are "hunt n peckers," they are looking at the keys, so they are even less likely to omit the "il."
      
      I left the "wnen," which should have been "when," to illustrate the point...typing the "n" was the typo I made typing the paragraph above. I didn't even realize it until I looked over the sentence and noticed the red spellcheck squiggle. I started to correct it, but decided to leave it and put in the "sic" just so it was clear I am paying attention to what I'm doing.
  • I agree with her distinction about "hack" vs. "dupe," but it's a distinction without a substantive difference.

As for the phishing code, that was disclosed in the FBI and DNI's report from about a week or more ago.

I concur that any 14 yr can conduct an email phish. It's nothing but making bait email that looks remarkably genuine. I don't know where they GOT the "code" from, since the phone was never taken into evidence by ANY of these agencies with thumbs up their asses while it was happening.

1) Name ONE agency that actually got access to Podesta's phone or the DNC servers.
2) How many OTHER intrusions were detected? Don't tell me the ONLY intrusion led back to the Kremlin.

All you've done here is expose the childish naivete that Dems seems to take regarding communications security. The ENTIRE "I'm with Her" campaign was run on Google mail account for which the password was "PASSWORD". (knowing a bit about code breaking and what tools are available to state actors --- again -- A 14 year could have figured that out in a hour or so. Doesn't lead back automatically to a state actor)

With that sort of security and my past knowledge of the SKILLS of State Intel Ops -- I'd say it's almost certain that 3 or 8 OTHER state actors were accessing Clinton servers, the DNC machines, and Podesta's phone. It's what they are expected to do !!!!

You SURE the Mossad didn't access any of those machines? Wanna bet WW3 on it? I need answers to questions and I want the diversions, excuses and bickering to stop...

 

[flacaltenn]

• Mook/Pelosi were not making up that the DNC was hacked.

• They were not wrong that the Russians were behind it.

If you can't answer the questions I'm asking in this thread -- your 2nd "fact" is WAY wrong..

 

[usmbguest5318]

I agree with the OP. These are questions that should be asked and answered. Just what good is having 17 intel agencies, if they're not going to do their jobs, but outsource such top secret national security info to private companies?

What did I miss?

• Did someone find classified content in Podesta's emails?
• If not, what is so "top secret national security" about a computer/email account, or the data on it, owned and operated by John Podesta?

The man was private citizen managing a political campaign. He was not, AFAIK, a government (ex) employee in possession of, storing or discussing via his email, vital secrets of any sort, physical or informational.

It's a National Security because the politicos and headlines are accusing the Kremlin of interfering with an election. That IMMEDIATELY becomes a matter of National Security. .Since your Dear Leader and some dumbshit Republicans are changing our entire Foreign Relations with Russia without providing confidence that tthe PRIMARY EVIDENCE was examined by ANY US Intelligence Agency. Including DEPORTING diplomats, sanctions and tougher demonstrations of military force. Anything that escalates foreign policy to THOSE levels should have triggered ACTION -- when the "evidence" was fresh and untainted.

Instead, because the alarms went unanswered for MONTHS -- all these "opinions" are based on "patterns of behavior" of Russian Intel operations rather than backed by evidence and fact.

The declaration is that the Kremlin hacked various private computers to obtain information that it then used to effect what amounts to a propaganda campaign that aimed to diminish a candidate's chances of winning the presidential election. Nobody (who deserves to be believed) is saying the Kremlin directly tampered with the election, that is, with the votes. Whether the disclosure of private citizens' emails had an impact on the voting is not something the USIC have opined upon; however they have stated that having such an impact was the aim of the Kremlin's distributing the emails it obtained from various Democratic sources and not distributing any content that it obtained from private (non-government employee) Republican citizen sources.

Is that impotant and worth doing something about? Yes. Is it a national security matter? No; it's hard to think of propaganda campaigns as national security matters. I'm sure some folks would like it to be that, but people would like to see all sorts of things be.

 

[flacaltenn]

• a whole lot of people cannot truly see the political process as a trifle, that is, they think accusing another nation of malfeasant meddling in our political process is something our leaders would do purely for the sake of political gain. The actors who caused the hack/dupe to occur owe no allegiance to the U.S., but were they to, the hack/dupe and subsequent release would have been declared treason or sedition.

• a whole lot of people don't hold as sacrosanct the U.S. political process. The first thing that should have crossed the electorate's mind is that responsible people do not lightly make direct and overt assertions about the involvement of another world power. Though the context (domestic vs. international) differs, the McCarthy era's false accusations should be lesson enough for people to know better than to trifle like that. It is destabilizing, which in turn diminishes our credibility in the world, and that is exactly what Russia and China's government want to see happen. Quite simply, back "when America was great," the entire nation would have taken great offense from the get go.

• looking at the making-light of the Democrats' claims about Russian intervention, one has to question the sincerity of the proclaimed patriotism of the many who, rather than giving the benefit of the doubt, cried BS. That strongly suggests they place their party above their country. That's what Trump did. It's what a lot of his followers did. I don't find that acceptable. Of all the reasons for not wanting Trump as president, that one thing is, for me at least, singularly disqualifying.

Bullet #1 -- State actors are EXPECTED to gather Intel on foreign politics. It's a primary mission statement. However in this case, the only assets, sources and methods, were from FILTERED DNC statements gained by employing CrowdStrike (a politically favorably inclined company). Those assets identified were outside the Kremlin Intel agencies. Specifcially, "cozy and fancy bears".. Now -- I have a hard time imagining why a 1st class Intel outfit would BURN valuable assets by making public intelligence gained. It's simply never done.

Bullet #2 -- Mostly true.. The alarms and sirens were going off last July and NOTHING apparently happened until election night. The crime scene disappeared WITHOUT the Admin or these "opinionated" agency heads taking ANY serious action. Multiple digits in ass. AND NOW -- they suddenly have "opinions". That stinks real bad.

Bullet #3 -- I am as FAR from a partisan as you will find on USMB. I've been ACTIVE 3rd party for 20|+ years. I just CARE about how you fanatically party animals are ruining my country and the tone of the dialogue. OBVIOUSLY this all BECAME political when giant fleets of govt vehicles and men with guns FAILED to show up and sequester the DNC machines as soon as the FBI WARNED of the possibility..

Now let me state -- As a Libertarian, I am totally against confiscating the digital comm of a private entity. But in THIS CASE -- that private entity being compromised WAS a matter of National Security and all these "opinionated" Intel Agencies are covering the fact that they SNOOZED or were TOLD to SNOOZE thru the entire affair...

 

[Lakhota]

Some food for thought...

The FBI’s new server screwup isn’t as bad as it sounds

 

[flacaltenn]

And the reason the Clinton's came out with the "its the Russians" thing is because of... wait for it... CrowdStrike. They reported to the DNC that they "thought" the Russians did it.

Why has not Congress even tried to subpoena the Crowdstrike reports?? Not that there's certainty that anything that got onto a written report by the contractor wasn't filtered by the DNC first anyways?

But where in the news is the request from Congress to subpoena the CrowdStrike evidence WITHOUT interference from the DNC?? Reasonable folks would expect that happen if we're forcibly deporting Russian diplomats.

 

[EverCurious]

Related:

I've heard that the police handed over Podesta's phone and Podesta himself handed over his laptop - I actually would imagine that they looked at those two... Although I too have heard reports that the FBI never looked at the DNC systems that were hacked.

That said, rumor is that Podesta /lost/ a cellphone and who knows where that ended up. I also seem to recall Clinton had misplaced a laptop or something as well ( related to her private server maybe? - videos really **** up my photographic memory and I've gotten so used to having it it's like videos don't even make it into long term storage, kinda sucks )

 

[flacaltenn]

Some food for thought...

The FBI’s new server screwup isn’t as bad as it sounds

I'm glad you're posting stuff that backs up my contentions here. Thanks !!!

However their excuses that ALL hacking analysis is "usually done thru private contractors" is false. That's why we ADDING new Federal ability every year. And this wasn't just a "hack". This is PRESUMED to be a foreign Intelligence operation. And ALL OF THAT is handled classically and BEST thru the Fed agencies if it is a matter of National Security..

 

[EverCurious]

Why has not Congress even tried to subpoena the Crowdstrike reports?? Not that there's certainty that anything that got onto a written report by the contractor wasn't filtered by the DNC first anyways?

But where in the news is the request from Congress to subpoena the CrowdStrike evidence WITHOUT interference from the DNC?? Reasonable folks would expect that happen if we're forcibly deporting Russian diplomats.

I'm not sure that the CrowdStrike reports are "secreted away" anywhere. I'm pretty sure I saw a media story where the reporter had seen the report. (Not that that means they reported on it truthfully.)

I'd look up CrowdStrike DNC hack and see what comes up, it might be out there to look at, not something I looked for. I just noted that CrowdStrike is the company that started saying they thought that Fuzzy Bear and Cozy Bear were Russian government agents. (and that was a long while ago, sometime before the DNC hacks if I remember right - of course the company [CrowdStrike] is also associated with Ukrainian's and being anti-Russia, but idk when that info came out nor if it's true.)

 

[flacaltenn]

Related:

I've heard that the police handed over Podesta's phone and Podesta himself handed over his laptop - I actually would imagine that they looked at those two... Although I too have heard reports that the FBI never looked at the DNC systems that were hacked.

That said, rumor is that Podesta /lost/ a cellphone and who knows where that ended up. I also seem to recall Clinton had misplaced a laptop or something as well ( related to her private server maybe? - videos really **** up my photographic memory and I've gotten so used to having it it's like videos don't even make it into long term storage, kinda sucks )

I heard about the "lost phone" deal too. But never actually confirmed it. Don't know if it happened. Clinton carried her unsecure shit ALL OVER THE WORLD. And there was probably feeding frenzy of Intel orgs listening in..

Which is another problem for the old Hill.. With that many people having information with which to blackmail you -- you'd never actually get a clearance going into another sensitive Govt job...

 

[Clementine]

The first person to scream Russians came out of Clinton's campaign. Boom. We're done. Everything else is simply to make sure the show goes on.

Say what? The first thing I can recall was Trump imploring the Russians to hack for emails.

You are deliberately continuing the lies. No, Trump didn't implore Russians to hack. He was referring to Hillary's missing emails, which Hillary claimed didn't exist. Trump suggested that Russia release them if they had them. Any hacking of her emails would have been done prior to her leaving the State Dept in 2013 and, at that time, no one knew who would be running for president. It was totally Hillary's fault that she disregarded security measures in the handling of State Dept emails. And, again, she claimed she never deleted any of the work emails. The left is pissed because someone proved that to be a lie.

The DNC emails are another matter entirely. And there is no evidence of hacking there. Assange has said all along that an insider leaked them. Because the insider had legal access, no hacking was required.

In both cases, the emails showed evidence of deep corruption, which the left continues to ignore as they attack those they think might be responsible for exposing what a criminal some libs are.

You guys think exposing Dems is the crime here.

This bogus claim of Russia supporting Trump has gone too far. The intolerance and shameless whining on the part of Dems is disgusting.

 

[Lakhota]

The first person to scream Russians came out of Clinton's campaign. Boom. We're done. Everything else is simply to make sure the show goes on.

Say what? The first thing I can recall was Trump imploring the Russians to hack for emails.

You are deliberately continuing the lies. No, Trump didn't implore Russians to hack. He was referring to Hillary's missing emails, which Hillary claimed didn't exist. Trump suggested that Russia release them if they had them. Any hacking of her emails would have been done prior to her leaving the State Dept in 2013 and, at that time, no one knew who would be running for president. It was totally Hillary's fault that she disregarded security measures in the handling of State Dept emails. And, again, she claimed she never deleted any of the work emails. The left is pissed because someone proved that to be a lie.

The DNC emails are another matter entirely. And there is no evidence of hacking there. Assange has said all along that an insider leaked them. Because the insider had legal access, no hacking was required.

In both cases, the emails showed evidence of deep corruption, which the left continues to ignore as they attack those they think might be responsible for exposing what a criminal some libs are.

You guys think exposing Dems is the crime here.

This bogus claim of Russia supporting Trump has gone too far. The intolerance and shameless whining on the part of Dems is disgusting.

Keep beating a dead horse! Hilarious!