Joe diGenova: What To Expect From The Horowitz IG Report

[g5000]

An interesting interview with one of the men most hated by the communists!

What a sore loser!

He is saying that if the Inspector General, who was appointed by Trump lickspittle William Barr, fails to find anything wrong with the FISA warrant, then that means FISA is broken and should be abolished.


Conversely, if the IG does find something wrong with the FISA warrant, then that means FISA is broken and should be abolished.



BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

Priceless.

This is a guy the tards think is smart?!?!

 

[colfax_m]

Give me a plausible scenario where the fact that they didn't have access to the physical hardware makes any difference?

explain why they would refuse to allow access? I think that says much more than any of your dick related assumptions.

I've said it multiple times. To avoid disruption to their operation. Handing over images is industry standard.

Now give me a plausible scenario when not having direct access to the hardware would make any difference. Tell me why I should find this so unusual or concerning.

you have a link? let's see that explanation. I asked what crowdstrike investigated. why wouldn't the FBI see what they saw?

Does the FBI say they were unable to determine who hacked the DNC because they lacked access to the hardware?

yep. Jeh Johnson said so too.

BTW, wasn't Comey the FBI? just asking cause you keep smelling your own shit.

Do you have a link?

 

[jc456]

explain why they would refuse to allow access? I think that says much more than any of your dick related assumptions.

I've said it multiple times. To avoid disruption to their operation. Handing over images is industry standard.

Now give me a plausible scenario when not having direct access to the hardware would make any difference. Tell me why I should find this so unusual or concerning.

you have a link? let's see that explanation. I asked what crowdstrike investigated. why wouldn't the FBI see what they saw?

Does the FBI say they were unable to determine who hacked the DNC because they lacked access to the hardware?

yep. Jeh Johnson said so too.

BTW, wasn't Comey the FBI? just asking cause you keep smelling your own shit.

Do you have a link?

DNC refuses to allow feds access to hacked email server

 

[iceberg]

well you're simply making assumptions. all i want is what is needed to resolve the crime. ie - access to the crime scene for an analysis.

this was prevented.

i would be mad if trump prevented it, the DNC did, my brother did...some things you just don't do w/o a good solid stated reason. to pretend i'd extend my "anger" at something else is again, simply an assumption on your part.

what adds uncertainty to the finds is the FACT that a 3rd party provided all the facts. why you're ok with that is beyond me.

If you claim the images could have been altered, then the servers could have been altered. If they had access to the hardware, we'd be no closer. This is all a red herring.

There is more than enough evidence to resolve the crime without the physical hardware.

ok - we're going to keep going in circles with you allowing the DNC benefit of doubt i simply fail to believe you'd allow for trump also. i'd not allow either side the leeway to tell me what is ok and not ok to investigate.

i'm out. you can circle on and never provide the requested links. tired of asking for them and just getting your opinion.

What's more likely.

1. The DNC didn't want disruption in their operations to allow the FBI to take their servers.
2. The DNC was engaged in an elaborate cover up of who hacked their servers which evaded detection by US intelligence, the FBI and the special prosecutor.

This is just too ridiculous of a story to take seriously.

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.

 

[iceberg]

explain why they would refuse to allow access? I think that says much more than any of your dick related assumptions.

I've said it multiple times. To avoid disruption to their operation. Handing over images is industry standard.

Now give me a plausible scenario when not having direct access to the hardware would make any difference. Tell me why I should find this so unusual or concerning.

you have a link? let's see that explanation. I asked what crowdstrike investigated. why wouldn't the FBI see what they saw?

Does the FBI say they were unable to determine who hacked the DNC because they lacked access to the hardware?

yep. Jeh Johnson said so too.

BTW, wasn't Comey the FBI? just asking cause you keep smelling your own shit.

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.

 

[colfax_m]

I've said it multiple times. To avoid disruption to their operation. Handing over images is industry standard.

Now give me a plausible scenario when not having direct access to the hardware would make any difference. Tell me why I should find this so unusual or concerning.

you have a link? let's see that explanation. I asked what crowdstrike investigated. why wouldn't the FBI see what they saw?

Does the FBI say they were unable to determine who hacked the DNC because they lacked access to the hardware?

yep. Jeh Johnson said so too.

BTW, wasn't Comey the FBI? just asking cause you keep smelling your own shit.

Do you have a link?

DNC refuses to allow feds access to hacked email server

There is no one from the FBI in that link saying they could not identify who hacked the DNC.

 

[colfax_m]

I've said it multiple times. To avoid disruption to their operation. Handing over images is industry standard.

Now give me a plausible scenario when not having direct access to the hardware would make any difference. Tell me why I should find this so unusual or concerning.

you have a link? let's see that explanation. I asked what crowdstrike investigated. why wouldn't the FBI see what they saw?

Does the FBI say they were unable to determine who hacked the DNC because they lacked access to the hardware?

yep. Jeh Johnson said so too.

BTW, wasn't Comey the FBI? just asking cause you keep smelling your own shit.

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?

 

[colfax_m]

If you claim the images could have been altered, then the servers could have been altered. If they had access to the hardware, we'd be no closer. This is all a red herring.

There is more than enough evidence to resolve the crime without the physical hardware.

ok - we're going to keep going in circles with you allowing the DNC benefit of doubt i simply fail to believe you'd allow for trump also. i'd not allow either side the leeway to tell me what is ok and not ok to investigate.

i'm out. you can circle on and never provide the requested links. tired of asking for them and just getting your opinion.

What's more likely.

1. The DNC didn't want disruption in their operations to allow the FBI to take their servers.
2. The DNC was engaged in an elaborate cover up of who hacked their servers which evaded detection by US intelligence, the FBI and the special prosecutor.

This is just too ridiculous of a story to take seriously.

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.

 

[jc456]

you have a link? let's see that explanation. I asked what crowdstrike investigated. why wouldn't the FBI see what they saw?

Does the FBI say they were unable to determine who hacked the DNC because they lacked access to the hardware?

yep. Jeh Johnson said so too.

BTW, wasn't Comey the FBI? just asking cause you keep smelling your own shit.

Do you have a link?

DNC refuses to allow feds access to hacked email server

There is no one from the FBI in that link saying they could not identify who hacked the DNC.

are you saying hearsay isn't more accurate than actual quoted statements?

"The DNC," Mr. Johnson said at the time, "did not feel it needed DHS' assistance at that time. I was anxious to know whether or not our folks were in there, and the response I got was the FBI had spoken to them, they don't want our help, they have CrowdStrike."

 

[jc456]

QUOTE="colfax_m, post: 23634026, member: 72716"]

you have a link? let's see that explanation. I asked what crowdstrike investigated. why wouldn't the FBI see what they saw?

Does the FBI say they were unable to determine who hacked the DNC because they lacked access to the hardware?

yep. Jeh Johnson said so too.

BTW, wasn't Comey the FBI? just asking cause you keep smelling your own shit.

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?[/QUOTE]
then how is it you can make the statement you made? explain your lie then.

 

[g5000]

Three days earlier, special counsel Robert Mueller published an indictment of 12 officers from the GRU, the Russian military intelligence service, for interfering in the 2016 U.S. election, including by hacking into the DNC. The indictment is historically unprecedented in scope and detail. The FBI named-and-shamed two specific GRU units, their commanding officers and 10 subordinate officers while revealing stunning details of Russia’s hacking tradecraft. And a close read of it all shows why Trump’s “DNC didn’t give the server to the FBI” conspiracy theory makes no sense.

First off, CrowdStrike, the company the DNC brought in to initially investigate and remediate the hack, actually shared images of the DNC servers with the FBI. For the purposes of an investigation of this type, images are much more useful than handing over metal and hardware, because they are bit-by-bit copies of a crime scene taken while the crime was going on. Live hard drive and memory snapshots of blinking, powered-on machines in a network reveal significantly more forensic data than some powered-off server removed from a network. It’s the difference between watching a house over time, carefully noting down who comes and goes and when and how, versus handing over a key to a lonely boarded-up building. By physically handing over a server to the FBI as Trump suggested, the DNC would in fact have destroyed evidence. (Besides, there wasn’t just one server, but 140.)

An advanced investigation of an advanced hacking operation requires significantly more than just access to servers. Investigators want access to the attack infrastructure—the equivalent to a chain of getaway cars of a team of burglars. And the latest indictments are rich with details that likely come from intercepting command-and-control boxes (in effect, bugging those getaway cars) and have nothing to do with physical access to the DNC’s servers.

The FBI and Robert Mueller’s investigators discovered when and how specific Russian military officers logged into a control panel on a leased machine in Arizona. They found that the GRU officers secretly surveiled an employee of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee all day in real time, including spying on “her individual banking information and other personal topics.” They showed that “Guccifer 2.0,” the supposed lone hacker behind the DNC hack, was in fact managed by a specific GRU unit, and even reconstructed the internet searches made within that unit while a GRU officer with shoddy English skills was drafting the first post as Guccifer 2.0. None of this information could have possibly come from any DNC server.

With help from the broader intelligence community, the FBI was able to piece all these details together into the bigger picture of the GRU’s vast hacking effort. The complexity of high-tempo, high-volume hacking campaigns means that attackers can make myriad mistakes; Mueller’s latest indictments reveal just how successful American investigators have been at exploiting those repeated errors and uncovering more and more information about what Russia did.

The Russian spies, for example, reused a specific account for a virtual private network (a purportedly secure communication link) to register deceptive internet domains for the DNC hack, as well as to post stolen material online under the Guccifer 2.0 front. Cryptocurrency payments—the kind the Russians used to pay for registering the DCLeaks.com site and their VPN—were neither as anonymous nor as secure as the GRU thought they would be. Third-party platforms including Google, Twitter and the link-shortening service Bitly were convenient and reliable for Russian hackers, but they could also be subpoenaed. Mueller’s team did exactly that, reconstructing how, when and how frequently Russian intelligence officers communicated with WikiLeaks, which they used as an outlet for the stolen material. The Russians weren’t even particularly careful: WikiLeaks and the Russians officers, in a major cock-up, encrypted the hacked emails, but did not encrypt the details of their collaboration. And in using a Bitly account to automate the shortened links sent out to targets of their email-phishing scheme, the GRU left an investigative gold mine: a vast target list of more than 10,000 potential victims’ email addresses.

American spies could even watch the Russian spies trying, in vain, to cover their tracks, likely in real time. Indeed, the Russian officers made so many mistakes that it is almost surprising the GRU even tried to be stealthy. The U.S. intelligence community has stunning visibility into GRU hacking operations—not just against the DNC, but against the Hillary Clinton campaign, the DCCC and state election infrastructure. The notion that all this high-resolution visibility hinges on physical access to “the DNC server” defies logic or even a basic understanding of what is actually happening.

The Mueller indictment of GRU officers is so detailed and comprehensive that it represents a major humiliation for what used to be one of the world’s most respected intelligence agencies.

What Mueller Knows About the DNC Hack—And Trump Doesn’t

 

[g5000]

The fact is, Trump cannot admit to himself that he would not be president without Putin's help. He is in serious denial about this and this explains why he desperately believes any fake conspiracy theory which lets Putin off the hook.

You have to remember, Trump is a birther. He is completely lacking in critical thinking skills, as are a great many of his true believers.

And now his stupidity and credulity and stubbornness have gotten him impeached.



Read the full Mueller report

The Arizona-based AMS Panel also stored thousands of files containing keylogging
sessions captured through X-Agent. These sessions were captured as GRU officers monitored
DCCC and DNC employees' work on infected computers regularly between April 2016 and June
2016. Data captured in these key logging sessions included passwords, internal communications
between employees, banking information , and sensitive personal information.

c. Theft of Documents from DNC and DCCC Networks
Officers from Unit 26165 stole thousands of documents from the DCCC and DNC
networks, including significant amounts of data pertaining to the 2016 U.S. federal election s.
Stolen documents included internal strategy documents , fundraising data , opposition research , and
emails from the work inboxes of DNC employeesY 0
The GRU began stealing DCCC data shortly after it gained access to the network. On Ap ril
14, 2016 (approximately three days after the initial intrusion) GRU officers downloaded rar .exe
onto the DCCC's document server. The following day , the GRU searched one compromised
DCCC computer for files containing search terms that included "Hillary ," "DNC, " "Cruz ," and
"Trump." 131 On April 25, 2016 , the GRU collected and compressed PDF and Microsoft documents
from folders on the DCCC ' s shared file server that pertained to the 2016 election. 132 The GRU
appears to have compressed and exfiltrated over 70 gigabytes of data from thi s file server. 133
The GRU also stole documents from the DNC network shortly after gaining access . On
April 22 , 2016, the GRU copied files from the DNC network to GRU-controlled computers. Stolen
documents included the DNC' s opposition research into candidate Trump .134 Betwe en
approximately May 25, 2016 and June 1, 2016 , GRU officers accessed the DNC's mail server
from a GRU-controlled computer leased inside the United States.

 

[colfax_m]

Does the FBI say they were unable to determine who hacked the DNC because they lacked access to the hardware?

yep. Jeh Johnson said so too.

BTW, wasn't Comey the FBI? just asking cause you keep smelling your own shit.

Do you have a link?

DNC refuses to allow feds access to hacked email server

There is no one from the FBI in that link saying they could not identify who hacked the DNC.

are you saying hearsay isn't more accurate than actual quoted statements?

"The DNC," Mr. Johnson said at the time, "did not feel it needed DHS' assistance at that time. I was anxious to know whether or not our folks were in there, and the response I got was the FBI had spoken to them, they don't want our help, they have CrowdStrike."

Cute quote. Two problems. Mr. Johnson is a member of the DHS, not the FBI. The DHS played no role in investigating the hack and determining the source. Second, Johnson does not say in that quote that the source of the hack was unable to be determined because of lack of access.

 

[colfax_m]

QUOTE="colfax_m, post: 23634026, member: 72716"]

you have a link? let's see that explanation. I asked what crowdstrike investigated. why wouldn't the FBI see what they saw?

Does the FBI say they were unable to determine who hacked the DNC because they lacked access to the hardware?

yep. Jeh Johnson said so too.

BTW, wasn't Comey the FBI? just asking cause you keep smelling your own shit.

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?

then how is it you can make the statement you made? explain your lie then.[/QUOTE]
I never lied. I said it was a very plausible explanation, backed up by numerous sources in the industry that this is standard operating procedure.

 

[iceberg]

you have a link? let's see that explanation. I asked what crowdstrike investigated. why wouldn't the FBI see what they saw?

Does the FBI say they were unable to determine who hacked the DNC because they lacked access to the hardware?

yep. Jeh Johnson said so too.

BTW, wasn't Comey the FBI? just asking cause you keep smelling your own shit.

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?

 

[iceberg]

ok - we're going to keep going in circles with you allowing the DNC benefit of doubt i simply fail to believe you'd allow for trump also. i'd not allow either side the leeway to tell me what is ok and not ok to investigate.

i'm out. you can circle on and never provide the requested links. tired of asking for them and just getting your opinion.

What's more likely.

1. The DNC didn't want disruption in their operations to allow the FBI to take their servers.
2. The DNC was engaged in an elaborate cover up of who hacked their servers which evaded detection by US intelligence, the FBI and the special prosecutor.

This is just too ridiculous of a story to take seriously.

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.

 

[colfax_m]

Does the FBI say they were unable to determine who hacked the DNC because they lacked access to the hardware?

yep. Jeh Johnson said so too.

BTW, wasn't Comey the FBI? just asking cause you keep smelling your own shit.

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.

 

[g5000]

Does the FBI say they were unable to determine who hacked the DNC because they lacked access to the hardware?

yep. Jeh Johnson said so too.

BTW, wasn't Comey the FBI? just asking cause you keep smelling your own shit.

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?

See post 151.

"The notion that all this high-resolution visibility hinges on physical access to “the DNC server” defies logic or even a basic understanding of what is actually happening."

 

[colfax_m]

What's more likely.

1. The DNC didn't want disruption in their operations to allow the FBI to take their servers.
2. The DNC was engaged in an elaborate cover up of who hacked their servers which evaded detection by US intelligence, the FBI and the special prosecutor.

This is just too ridiculous of a story to take seriously.

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.

 

[iceberg]

yep. Jeh Johnson said so too.

BTW, wasn't Comey the FBI? just asking cause you keep smelling your own shit.

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.