So, libs, what say you to this?

[BULLDOG]

I picked up this article at another forum. This is the much more likely scenario than a big Russian/Trump ridiculous conspiracy theory. What do you think?

A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack

It is now a year since the Democratic National Committee’s mail system was compromised—a year since events in the spring and early summer of 2016 were identified as remote hacks and, in short order, attributed to Russians acting in behalf of Donald Trump. A great edifice has been erected during this time. President Trump, members of his family, and numerous people around him stand accused of various corruptions and extensive collusion with Russians. Half a dozen simultaneous investigations proceed into these matters. Last week news broke that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had convened a grand jury, which issued its first subpoenas on August 3. Allegations of treason are common; prominent political figures and many media cultivate a case for impeachment.

The president’s ability to conduct foreign policy, notably but not only with regard to Russia, is now crippled. Forced into a corner and having no choice, Trump just signed legislation imposing severe new sanctions on Russia and European companies working with it on pipeline projects vital to Russia’s energy sector. Striking this close to the core of another nation’s economy is customarily considered an act of war, we must not forget. In retaliation, Moscow has announced that the United States must cut its embassy staff by roughly two-thirds. All sides agree that relations between the United States and Russia are now as fragile as they were during some of the Cold War’s worst moments. To suggest that military conflict between two nuclear powers inches ever closer can no longer be dismissed as hyperbole.

All this was set in motion when the DNC’s mail server was first violated in the spring of 2016 and by subsequent assertions that Russians were behind that “hack” and another such operation, also described as a Russian hack, on July 5. These are the foundation stones of the edifice just outlined. The evolution of public discourse in the year since is worthy of scholarly study: Possibilities became allegations, and these became probabilities. Then the probabilities turned into certainties, and these evolved into what are now taken to be established truths. By my reckoning, it required a few days to a few weeks to advance from each of these stages to the next. This was accomplished via the indefensibly corrupt manipulations of language repeated incessantly in our leading media.

We are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception.

Lost in a year that often appeared to veer into our peculiarly American kind of hysteria is the absence of any credible evidence of what happened last year and who was responsible for it. It is tiresome to note, but none has been made available. Instead, we are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception. These officials profess “high confidence” in their “assessment” as to what happened in the spring and summer of last year—this standing as their authoritative judgment. Few have noticed since these evasive terms first appeared that an assessment is an opinion, nothing more, and to express high confidence is an upside-down way of admitting the absence of certain knowledge. This is how officials avoid putting their names on the assertions we are so strongly urged to accept—as the record shows many of them have done.

We come now to a moment of great gravity.

There has been a long effort to counter the official narrative we now call “Russiagate.” This effort has so far focused on the key events noted above, leaving numerous others still to be addressed. Until recently, researchers undertaking this work faced critical shortcomings, and these are to be explained. But they have achieved significant new momentum in the past several weeks, and what they have done now yields very consequential fruit. Forensic investigators, intelligence analysts, system designers, program architects, and computer scientists of long experience and strongly credentialed are now producing evidence disproving the official version of key events last year. Their work is intricate and continues at a kinetic pace as we speak. But its certain results so far are two, simply stated, and freighted with implications:

• There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the initial “hack,” as alleged, that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer.

Quick.Send a copy of that to Mueller. I'll bet he never heard any of that, so he thinks he should continue with his investigation just like he was told to do. He'll probably buy you a popsicle for your efforts,

You do realize that Mueller's investigation can take many paths and many of those could turn towards Hillary, Wasserman Schultz and the DNC. As with most of these open ended witch hunts, they don't shut down until someone is found guilty of something even if it is only remotely tied to the original investigation.

There has already been extensive investigation into the people you mention. The FBI spent a year. Various right wing led committees spent longer than that. None could find evidence of wrong doing. If they can find valid evidence of wrong doing, then good, but I highly doubt that will happen. If there was anything there, all those separate investigations would have found it. I don't condone a witch hunt for either party, but there have been too many lies relating trump's campaign contacts with russian government agents to not investigate potential connection between them and the proven russian interference into our elections.

 

[BlindBoo]

Rush discussed the article today! An ultra left wing magazine had ultra left wing IT folks check out what was available and they confirmed Russia had absolutely no part in it! Leftwingnuts are going to have to make another trip to CVS to restock on Prep H.

As we already knew, Seth Rich leaked the DNC emails to Wikileaks. "Collusion" and "Interference" are buzzwords the Swamp is using to conflate the issue and confuse the butthurt folks

Behind Fox News' Baseless Seth Rich Story: The Untold Tale

The story, which first aired in May, was retracted by Fox News a week later. Fox News has, to date, taken no action in response to what it said was a failure to adhere to the network's standards.

 

[Faun]

I picked up this article at another forum. This is the much more likely scenario than a big Russian/Trump ridiculous conspiracy theory. What do you think?

A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack

It is now a year since the Democratic National Committee’s mail system was compromised—a year since events in the spring and early summer of 2016 were identified as remote hacks and, in short order, attributed to Russians acting in behalf of Donald Trump. A great edifice has been erected during this time. President Trump, members of his family, and numerous people around him stand accused of various corruptions and extensive collusion with Russians. Half a dozen simultaneous investigations proceed into these matters. Last week news broke that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had convened a grand jury, which issued its first subpoenas on August 3. Allegations of treason are common; prominent political figures and many media cultivate a case for impeachment.

The president’s ability to conduct foreign policy, notably but not only with regard to Russia, is now crippled. Forced into a corner and having no choice, Trump just signed legislation imposing severe new sanctions on Russia and European companies working with it on pipeline projects vital to Russia’s energy sector. Striking this close to the core of another nation’s economy is customarily considered an act of war, we must not forget. In retaliation, Moscow has announced that the United States must cut its embassy staff by roughly two-thirds. All sides agree that relations between the United States and Russia are now as fragile as they were during some of the Cold War’s worst moments. To suggest that military conflict between two nuclear powers inches ever closer can no longer be dismissed as hyperbole.

All this was set in motion when the DNC’s mail server was first violated in the spring of 2016 and by subsequent assertions that Russians were behind that “hack” and another such operation, also described as a Russian hack, on July 5. These are the foundation stones of the edifice just outlined. The evolution of public discourse in the year since is worthy of scholarly study: Possibilities became allegations, and these became probabilities. Then the probabilities turned into certainties, and these evolved into what are now taken to be established truths. By my reckoning, it required a few days to a few weeks to advance from each of these stages to the next. This was accomplished via the indefensibly corrupt manipulations of language repeated incessantly in our leading media.

We are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception.

Lost in a year that often appeared to veer into our peculiarly American kind of hysteria is the absence of any credible evidence of what happened last year and who was responsible for it. It is tiresome to note, but none has been made available. Instead, we are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception. These officials profess “high confidence” in their “assessment” as to what happened in the spring and summer of last year—this standing as their authoritative judgment. Few have noticed since these evasive terms first appeared that an assessment is an opinion, nothing more, and to express high confidence is an upside-down way of admitting the absence of certain knowledge. This is how officials avoid putting their names on the assertions we are so strongly urged to accept—as the record shows many of them have done.

We come now to a moment of great gravity.

There has been a long effort to counter the official narrative we now call “Russiagate.” This effort has so far focused on the key events noted above, leaving numerous others still to be addressed. Until recently, researchers undertaking this work faced critical shortcomings, and these are to be explained. But they have achieved significant new momentum in the past several weeks, and what they have done now yields very consequential fruit. Forensic investigators, intelligence analysts, system designers, program architects, and computer scientists of long experience and strongly credentialed are now producing evidence disproving the official version of key events last year. Their work is intricate and continues at a kinetic pace as we speak. But its certain results so far are two, simply stated, and freighted with implications:

• There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the initial “hack,” as alleged, that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer.

^^^ Alternative facts.

We know the DNC was not only hacked, they were hacked by Russians. We know this because former FBI Director James Comey confirmed this when he testified under oath and there had been zero evidence discovered to refute that.

BURR: Do you have any doubt that the Russian government was behind the intrusions in the DNC and the DCCC systems, and the subsequent leaks of that information?

COMEY: No, no doubt.​

There is NEW evidence according to data analysis by computer scientists, programmers, etc., that the leaks came from inside the DNC and the emails were copied to a thumb drive that was physically inserted into the computer. Lol.

You have no such evidence. You have an article stating "researchers" are making that claim. You don't even know if those "researchers" had access to any of the information our intelligence agencies have. And some of their claims are obviously outrageous; such as, do we even know that John Podesta’s e-mail address was in fact “phished”?

While your source pretends like that's not even known, the stark reality is that yes, it is known, and it's known that Russians were behind it. It's indisputable at this point. How do we know this? Because Roger Stone's tweets with the hacker have been released to the public. One in particular where Stone relishes over Podesta about to find himself in a barrel just days before Podesta's emails were dumped on the Internet.

You dupes are fucked in the head.

That's not what the article says. The article says exactly what I said. But you keep going with your "The Russians" delusion. I couldn't care less. Intelligent people will read and consider the article instead of dismissing it due to partisanship and silly ideological differences.

You moron, I cut & pasted this verbatim from the article you linked...

Do we even know that John Podesta’s e-mail address was in fact “phished”?​

... so g'head, tell me again how that's not what the article says.

 

[rightwinger]

It is especially damaging to you libs because it comes from one of your OWN who are also starting to realize just how much damage you are doing to our country with your temper tantrums.

The investigation of Trump is coming from Republicans
Democrats do not have the political power to investigate

The sanctions against Russia came from Republicans
Democrats do not have the votes in Congress to pass sanctions

 

[ChrisL]

The report says that "forensic investigators, intelligence analysts, system designers, program architects, and computer scientists of long experience and strongly credentialed are now producing evidence disproving the official version of key events last year. Their work is intricate and continues at a kinetic pace as we speak."

The group found that "there was no hack of the Democratic National Committee's system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else."

The report continues, "Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC's system."

So, who leaked the emails?

Was it someone at the DNC who, after a bruising primary season, didn't like Hillary Clinton? It's possible.

Could it have been the infamous Awan brothers who acted not only as IT aides to Congress, but as IT consultants to the DNC? It's not only possible, but feasible given what we know now.

Or could it have been the DNC itself, leaking emails disguised as a hack to illicit sympathy and to create confusion in the election?

No one knows just yet, but investigators are getting closer to pinpointing the source.

Until they do, it looks like the DNC owes a big apology to Russia and to President Trump.

For a year the DNC allowed Russia to take the fall for a hack that never happened. They also suggested that then-candidate Trump would condone such criminal activity, when it's been demonstrated that Democrats are the ones who clearly have a problem keeping information technology safe.

First, it was Hillary Clinton storing emails on her own personal server, bleaching 33,000 emails and destroying BlackBerry SIM cards.

Next, it was Huma Abedin storing official State Department emails on her laptop at home which she shared with her husband Anthony Weiner – known in the sexting world as "Carlos Danger" – clearly someone who has little self-control over his own devices, both electronic and otherwise. Law enforcement believed the laptop had been hacked, according to the official FBI search warrant.

Next came the revelation that former DNC chairwoman and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., knowingly allowed an IT aide to remain on staff after law enforcement discovered he had breached the House Intelligence Committee and House Foreign Affairs Committee mainframes. In fact, she helped him circumvent the House ban on his employ by turning him into an "adviser" who continued to have access to dozens of top Congress members' documents and emails. She provided Imran Awan the password to her iPad containing DNC emails around the time the "hack" took place.

Of course, people probably won't hear much about this on the evening news. The mainstream media is great at pushing fake Russian narratives that even The New York Times calls "sensational, unverified." However, the media is not as good at admitting when the trail has gone cold.

When is a Russian 'hack' not a hack? Evidence suggests DNC email hack was an inside job

 

[BULLDOG]

I picked up this article at another forum. This is the much more likely scenario than a big Russian/Trump ridiculous conspiracy theory. What do you think?

A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack

It is now a year since the Democratic National Committee’s mail system was compromised—a year since events in the spring and early summer of 2016 were identified as remote hacks and, in short order, attributed to Russians acting in behalf of Donald Trump. A great edifice has been erected during this time. President Trump, members of his family, and numerous people around him stand accused of various corruptions and extensive collusion with Russians. Half a dozen simultaneous investigations proceed into these matters. Last week news broke that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had convened a grand jury, which issued its first subpoenas on August 3. Allegations of treason are common; prominent political figures and many media cultivate a case for impeachment.

The president’s ability to conduct foreign policy, notably but not only with regard to Russia, is now crippled. Forced into a corner and having no choice, Trump just signed legislation imposing severe new sanctions on Russia and European companies working with it on pipeline projects vital to Russia’s energy sector. Striking this close to the core of another nation’s economy is customarily considered an act of war, we must not forget. In retaliation, Moscow has announced that the United States must cut its embassy staff by roughly two-thirds. All sides agree that relations between the United States and Russia are now as fragile as they were during some of the Cold War’s worst moments. To suggest that military conflict between two nuclear powers inches ever closer can no longer be dismissed as hyperbole.

All this was set in motion when the DNC’s mail server was first violated in the spring of 2016 and by subsequent assertions that Russians were behind that “hack” and another such operation, also described as a Russian hack, on July 5. These are the foundation stones of the edifice just outlined. The evolution of public discourse in the year since is worthy of scholarly study: Possibilities became allegations, and these became probabilities. Then the probabilities turned into certainties, and these evolved into what are now taken to be established truths. By my reckoning, it required a few days to a few weeks to advance from each of these stages to the next. This was accomplished via the indefensibly corrupt manipulations of language repeated incessantly in our leading media.

We are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception.

Lost in a year that often appeared to veer into our peculiarly American kind of hysteria is the absence of any credible evidence of what happened last year and who was responsible for it. It is tiresome to note, but none has been made available. Instead, we are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception. These officials profess “high confidence” in their “assessment” as to what happened in the spring and summer of last year—this standing as their authoritative judgment. Few have noticed since these evasive terms first appeared that an assessment is an opinion, nothing more, and to express high confidence is an upside-down way of admitting the absence of certain knowledge. This is how officials avoid putting their names on the assertions we are so strongly urged to accept—as the record shows many of them have done.

We come now to a moment of great gravity.

There has been a long effort to counter the official narrative we now call “Russiagate.” This effort has so far focused on the key events noted above, leaving numerous others still to be addressed. Until recently, researchers undertaking this work faced critical shortcomings, and these are to be explained. But they have achieved significant new momentum in the past several weeks, and what they have done now yields very consequential fruit. Forensic investigators, intelligence analysts, system designers, program architects, and computer scientists of long experience and strongly credentialed are now producing evidence disproving the official version of key events last year. Their work is intricate and continues at a kinetic pace as we speak. But its certain results so far are two, simply stated, and freighted with implications:

• There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the initial “hack,” as alleged, that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer.

Quick.Send a copy of that to Mueller. I'll bet he never heard any of that, so he thinks he should continue with his investigation just like he was told to do. He'll probably buy you a popsicle for your efforts,

You do realize that Mueller's investigation can take many paths and many of those could turn towards Hillary, Wasserman Schultz and the DNC. As with most of these open ended witch hunts, they don't shut down until someone is found guilty of something even if it is only remotely tied to the original investigation.

Right now, it is following the money

And the money trail is leading right to the Trump camp. Next step, offer Flynn and Manafort immunity for turning on Trump

Doesn't look like it. Looks as if the DNC computers were "hacked" by an insider and leaked to Wikileaks by a person or persons who were disgusted by the behavior of the DNC, and this was the only way they felt they could do something about it.

Not what the FBI says. If I must decide between the FBI or Alex Jones,and Hannity, I'll go with the FBI

 

[Faun]

The report says that "forensic investigators, intelligence analysts, system designers, program architects, and computer scientists of long experience and strongly credentialed are now producing evidence disproving the official version of key events last year. Their work is intricate and continues at a kinetic pace as we speak."

The group found that "there was no hack of the Democratic National Committee's system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else."

The report continues, "Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC's system."

So, who leaked the emails?

Was it someone at the DNC who, after a bruising primary season, didn't like Hillary Clinton? It's possible.

Could it have been the infamous Awan brothers who acted not only as IT aides to Congress, but as IT consultants to the DNC? It's not only possible, but feasible given what we know now.

Or could it have been the DNC itself, leaking emails disguised as a hack to illicit sympathy and to create confusion in the election?

No one knows just yet, but investigators are getting closer to pinpointing the source.

Until they do, it looks like the DNC owes a big apology to Russia and to President Trump.

For a year the DNC allowed Russia to take the fall for a hack that never happened. They also suggested that then-candidate Trump would condone such criminal activity, when it's been demonstrated that Democrats are the ones who clearly have a problem keeping information technology safe.

First, it was Hillary Clinton storing emails on her own personal server, bleaching 33,000 emails and destroying BlackBerry SIM cards.

Next, it was Huma Abedin storing official State Department emails on her laptop at home which she shared with her husband Anthony Weiner – known in the sexting world as "Carlos Danger" – clearly someone who has little self-control over his own devices, both electronic and otherwise. Law enforcement believed the laptop had been hacked, according to the official FBI search warrant.

Next came the revelation that former DNC chairwoman and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., knowingly allowed an IT aide to remain on staff after law enforcement discovered he had breached the House Intelligence Committee and House Foreign Affairs Committee mainframes. In fact, she helped him circumvent the House ban on his employ by turning him into an "adviser" who continued to have access to dozens of top Congress members' documents and emails. She provided Imran Awan the password to her iPad containing DNC emails around the time the "hack" took place.

Of course, people probably won't hear much about this on the evening news. The mainstream media is great at pushing fake Russian narratives that even The New York Times calls "sensational, unverified." However, the media is not as good at admitting when the trail has gone cold.

When is a Russian 'hack' not a hack? Evidence suggests DNC email hack was an inside job

Again, ALL of that is refuted by Roger Stone's communications with the hacker. We know there was a hacker and we know he was Russian.

Sorry, but you won't be able to rewrite what has already occurred.

 

[ChrisL]

I picked up this article at another forum. This is the much more likely scenario than a big Russian/Trump ridiculous conspiracy theory. What do you think?

A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack

It is now a year since the Democratic National Committee’s mail system was compromised—a year since events in the spring and early summer of 2016 were identified as remote hacks and, in short order, attributed to Russians acting in behalf of Donald Trump. A great edifice has been erected during this time. President Trump, members of his family, and numerous people around him stand accused of various corruptions and extensive collusion with Russians. Half a dozen simultaneous investigations proceed into these matters. Last week news broke that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had convened a grand jury, which issued its first subpoenas on August 3. Allegations of treason are common; prominent political figures and many media cultivate a case for impeachment.

The president’s ability to conduct foreign policy, notably but not only with regard to Russia, is now crippled. Forced into a corner and having no choice, Trump just signed legislation imposing severe new sanctions on Russia and European companies working with it on pipeline projects vital to Russia’s energy sector. Striking this close to the core of another nation’s economy is customarily considered an act of war, we must not forget. In retaliation, Moscow has announced that the United States must cut its embassy staff by roughly two-thirds. All sides agree that relations between the United States and Russia are now as fragile as they were during some of the Cold War’s worst moments. To suggest that military conflict between two nuclear powers inches ever closer can no longer be dismissed as hyperbole.

All this was set in motion when the DNC’s mail server was first violated in the spring of 2016 and by subsequent assertions that Russians were behind that “hack” and another such operation, also described as a Russian hack, on July 5. These are the foundation stones of the edifice just outlined. The evolution of public discourse in the year since is worthy of scholarly study: Possibilities became allegations, and these became probabilities. Then the probabilities turned into certainties, and these evolved into what are now taken to be established truths. By my reckoning, it required a few days to a few weeks to advance from each of these stages to the next. This was accomplished via the indefensibly corrupt manipulations of language repeated incessantly in our leading media.

We are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception.

Lost in a year that often appeared to veer into our peculiarly American kind of hysteria is the absence of any credible evidence of what happened last year and who was responsible for it. It is tiresome to note, but none has been made available. Instead, we are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception. These officials profess “high confidence” in their “assessment” as to what happened in the spring and summer of last year—this standing as their authoritative judgment. Few have noticed since these evasive terms first appeared that an assessment is an opinion, nothing more, and to express high confidence is an upside-down way of admitting the absence of certain knowledge. This is how officials avoid putting their names on the assertions we are so strongly urged to accept—as the record shows many of them have done.

We come now to a moment of great gravity.

There has been a long effort to counter the official narrative we now call “Russiagate.” This effort has so far focused on the key events noted above, leaving numerous others still to be addressed. Until recently, researchers undertaking this work faced critical shortcomings, and these are to be explained. But they have achieved significant new momentum in the past several weeks, and what they have done now yields very consequential fruit. Forensic investigators, intelligence analysts, system designers, program architects, and computer scientists of long experience and strongly credentialed are now producing evidence disproving the official version of key events last year. Their work is intricate and continues at a kinetic pace as we speak. But its certain results so far are two, simply stated, and freighted with implications:

• There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the initial “hack,” as alleged, that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer.

Quick.Send a copy of that to Mueller. I'll bet he never heard any of that, so he thinks he should continue with his investigation just like he was told to do. He'll probably buy you a popsicle for your efforts,

You do realize that Mueller's investigation can take many paths and many of those could turn towards Hillary, Wasserman Schultz and the DNC. As with most of these open ended witch hunts, they don't shut down until someone is found guilty of something even if it is only remotely tied to the original investigation.

Right now, it is following the money

And the money trail is leading right to the Trump camp. Next step, offer Flynn and Manafort immunity for turning on Trump

Doesn't look like it. Looks as if the DNC computers were "hacked" by an insider and leaked to Wikileaks by a person or persons who were disgusted by the behavior of the DNC, and this was the only way they felt they could do something about it.

Not what the FBI says. If I must decide between the FBI or Alex Jones,and Hannity, I'll go with the FBI

Alex Jones and Hannity? My report is taken from The Nation, which is a reputable liberal news site. Lol. Keep trying.

Executive Summary

Forensic studies of “Russian hacking” into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2016, data was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computer. After examining metadata from the “Guccifer 2.0” July 5, 2016 intrusion into the DNC server, independent cyber investigators have concluded that an insider copied DNC data onto an external storage device.


Then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (right) talks with President Barack Obama in the Oval Office, with John Brennan and other national security aides present. (Photo credit: Office of Director of National Intelligence)

Key among the findings of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack. Of equal importance, the forensics show that the copying was performed on the East coast of the U.S. Thus far, mainstream media have ignored the findings of these independent studies [see here and here].

Independent analyst Skip Folden, who retired after 25 years as the IBM Program Manager for Information Technology, US, who examined the recent forensic findings, is a co-author of this Memorandum. He has drafted a more detailed technical report titled “Cyber-Forensic Investigation of ‘Russian Hack’ and Missing Intelligence Community Disclaimers,” and sent it to the offices of the Special Counsel and the Attorney General. VIPS member William Binney, a former Technical Director at the National Security Agency, and other senior NSA “alumni” in VIPS attest to the professionalism of the independent forensic findings.

The recent forensic studies fill in a critical gap. Why the FBI neglected to perform any independent forensics on the original “Guccifer 2.0” material remains a mystery – as does the lack of any sign that the “hand-picked analysts” from the FBI, CIA, and NSA, who wrote the “Intelligence Community Assessment” dated January 6, 2017, gave any attention to forensics.

NOTE: There has been so much conflation of charges about hacking that we wish to make very clear the primary focus of this Memorandum. We focus specifically on the July 5, 2016 alleged Guccifer 2.0 “hack” of the DNC server. In earlier VIPS memoranda we addressed the lack of any evidence connecting the Guccifer 2.0 alleged hacks and WikiLeaks, and we asked President Obama specifically to disclose any evidence that WikiLeaks received DNC data from the Russians [see here and here].

Addressing this point at his last press conference (January 18), he described “the conclusions of the intelligence community” as “not conclusive,” even though the Intelligence Community Assessment of January 6 expressed “high confidence” that Russian intelligence “relayed material it acquired from the DNC … to WikiLeaks.”

Obama’s admission came as no surprise to us. It has long been clear to us that the reason the U.S. government lacks conclusive evidence of a transfer of a “Russian hack” to WikiLeaks is because there was no such transfer. Based mostly on the cumulatively unique technical experience of our ex-NSA colleagues, we have been saying for almost a year that the DNC data reached WikiLeaks via a copy/leak by a DNC insider (but almost certainly not the same person who copied DNC data on July 5, 2016).

From the information available, we conclude that the same inside-DNC, copy/leak process was used at two different times, by two different entities, for two distinctly different purposes:

-(1) an inside leak to WikiLeaks before Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, that he had DNC documents and planned to publish them (which he did on July 22) – the presumed objective being to expose strong DNC bias toward the Clinton candidacy; and

-(2) a separate leak on July 5, 2016, to pre-emptively taint anything WikiLeaks might later publish by “showing” it came from a “Russian hack.”

 

[MACAULAY]

Important thread by the O. P.

Possibility that the entire Mueller Investigation is based on a Fraud committed by the Obama Government and perpetuated by the New York Media.

Consider the implications of that.

 

[BULLDOG]

I picked up this article at another forum. This is the much more likely scenario than a big Russian/Trump ridiculous conspiracy theory. What do you think?

A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack

It is now a year since the Democratic National Committee’s mail system was compromised—a year since events in the spring and early summer of 2016 were identified as remote hacks and, in short order, attributed to Russians acting in behalf of Donald Trump. A great edifice has been erected during this time. President Trump, members of his family, and numerous people around him stand accused of various corruptions and extensive collusion with Russians. Half a dozen simultaneous investigations proceed into these matters. Last week news broke that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had convened a grand jury, which issued its first subpoenas on August 3. Allegations of treason are common; prominent political figures and many media cultivate a case for impeachment.

The president’s ability to conduct foreign policy, notably but not only with regard to Russia, is now crippled. Forced into a corner and having no choice, Trump just signed legislation imposing severe new sanctions on Russia and European companies working with it on pipeline projects vital to Russia’s energy sector. Striking this close to the core of another nation’s economy is customarily considered an act of war, we must not forget. In retaliation, Moscow has announced that the United States must cut its embassy staff by roughly two-thirds. All sides agree that relations between the United States and Russia are now as fragile as they were during some of the Cold War’s worst moments. To suggest that military conflict between two nuclear powers inches ever closer can no longer be dismissed as hyperbole.

All this was set in motion when the DNC’s mail server was first violated in the spring of 2016 and by subsequent assertions that Russians were behind that “hack” and another such operation, also described as a Russian hack, on July 5. These are the foundation stones of the edifice just outlined. The evolution of public discourse in the year since is worthy of scholarly study: Possibilities became allegations, and these became probabilities. Then the probabilities turned into certainties, and these evolved into what are now taken to be established truths. By my reckoning, it required a few days to a few weeks to advance from each of these stages to the next. This was accomplished via the indefensibly corrupt manipulations of language repeated incessantly in our leading media.

We are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception.

Lost in a year that often appeared to veer into our peculiarly American kind of hysteria is the absence of any credible evidence of what happened last year and who was responsible for it. It is tiresome to note, but none has been made available. Instead, we are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception. These officials profess “high confidence” in their “assessment” as to what happened in the spring and summer of last year—this standing as their authoritative judgment. Few have noticed since these evasive terms first appeared that an assessment is an opinion, nothing more, and to express high confidence is an upside-down way of admitting the absence of certain knowledge. This is how officials avoid putting their names on the assertions we are so strongly urged to accept—as the record shows many of them have done.

We come now to a moment of great gravity.

There has been a long effort to counter the official narrative we now call “Russiagate.” This effort has so far focused on the key events noted above, leaving numerous others still to be addressed. Until recently, researchers undertaking this work faced critical shortcomings, and these are to be explained. But they have achieved significant new momentum in the past several weeks, and what they have done now yields very consequential fruit. Forensic investigators, intelligence analysts, system designers, program architects, and computer scientists of long experience and strongly credentialed are now producing evidence disproving the official version of key events last year. Their work is intricate and continues at a kinetic pace as we speak. But its certain results so far are two, simply stated, and freighted with implications:

• There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the initial “hack,” as alleged, that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer.

Quick.Send a copy of that to Mueller. I'll bet he never heard any of that, so he thinks he should continue with his investigation just like he was told to do. He'll probably buy you a popsicle for your efforts,

You do realize that Mueller's investigation can take many paths and many of those could turn towards Hillary, Wasserman Schultz and the DNC. As with most of these open ended witch hunts, they don't shut down until someone is found guilty of something even if it is only remotely tied to the original investigation.

Right now, it is following the money

And the money trail is leading right to the Trump camp. Next step, offer Flynn and Manafort immunity for turning on Trump

I understand the narrative. Now, produce your evidence. You guys will believe anything an anonymous source tells you.

Why would you expect a poster on a message board to have all the evidence that the FBI just started looking for? Jumping the gun a little, aren't you?

 

[ChrisL]

You'd better BACK UP the Russia train before you get run off the tracks.

 

[ChrisL]

I picked up this article at another forum. This is the much more likely scenario than a big Russian/Trump ridiculous conspiracy theory. What do you think?

A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack

It is now a year since the Democratic National Committee’s mail system was compromised—a year since events in the spring and early summer of 2016 were identified as remote hacks and, in short order, attributed to Russians acting in behalf of Donald Trump. A great edifice has been erected during this time. President Trump, members of his family, and numerous people around him stand accused of various corruptions and extensive collusion with Russians. Half a dozen simultaneous investigations proceed into these matters. Last week news broke that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had convened a grand jury, which issued its first subpoenas on August 3. Allegations of treason are common; prominent political figures and many media cultivate a case for impeachment.

The president’s ability to conduct foreign policy, notably but not only with regard to Russia, is now crippled. Forced into a corner and having no choice, Trump just signed legislation imposing severe new sanctions on Russia and European companies working with it on pipeline projects vital to Russia’s energy sector. Striking this close to the core of another nation’s economy is customarily considered an act of war, we must not forget. In retaliation, Moscow has announced that the United States must cut its embassy staff by roughly two-thirds. All sides agree that relations between the United States and Russia are now as fragile as they were during some of the Cold War’s worst moments. To suggest that military conflict between two nuclear powers inches ever closer can no longer be dismissed as hyperbole.

All this was set in motion when the DNC’s mail server was first violated in the spring of 2016 and by subsequent assertions that Russians were behind that “hack” and another such operation, also described as a Russian hack, on July 5. These are the foundation stones of the edifice just outlined. The evolution of public discourse in the year since is worthy of scholarly study: Possibilities became allegations, and these became probabilities. Then the probabilities turned into certainties, and these evolved into what are now taken to be established truths. By my reckoning, it required a few days to a few weeks to advance from each of these stages to the next. This was accomplished via the indefensibly corrupt manipulations of language repeated incessantly in our leading media.

We are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception.

Lost in a year that often appeared to veer into our peculiarly American kind of hysteria is the absence of any credible evidence of what happened last year and who was responsible for it. It is tiresome to note, but none has been made available. Instead, we are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception. These officials profess “high confidence” in their “assessment” as to what happened in the spring and summer of last year—this standing as their authoritative judgment. Few have noticed since these evasive terms first appeared that an assessment is an opinion, nothing more, and to express high confidence is an upside-down way of admitting the absence of certain knowledge. This is how officials avoid putting their names on the assertions we are so strongly urged to accept—as the record shows many of them have done.

We come now to a moment of great gravity.

There has been a long effort to counter the official narrative we now call “Russiagate.” This effort has so far focused on the key events noted above, leaving numerous others still to be addressed. Until recently, researchers undertaking this work faced critical shortcomings, and these are to be explained. But they have achieved significant new momentum in the past several weeks, and what they have done now yields very consequential fruit. Forensic investigators, intelligence analysts, system designers, program architects, and computer scientists of long experience and strongly credentialed are now producing evidence disproving the official version of key events last year. Their work is intricate and continues at a kinetic pace as we speak. But its certain results so far are two, simply stated, and freighted with implications:

• There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the initial “hack,” as alleged, that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer.

Quick.Send a copy of that to Mueller. I'll bet he never heard any of that, so he thinks he should continue with his investigation just like he was told to do. He'll probably buy you a popsicle for your efforts,

You do realize that Mueller's investigation can take many paths and many of those could turn towards Hillary, Wasserman Schultz and the DNC. As with most of these open ended witch hunts, they don't shut down until someone is found guilty of something even if it is only remotely tied to the original investigation.

Right now, it is following the money

And the money trail is leading right to the Trump camp. Next step, offer Flynn and Manafort immunity for turning on Trump

I understand the narrative. Now, produce your evidence. You guys will believe anything an anonymous source tells you.

Why would you expect a poster on a message board to have all the evidence that the FBI just started looking for? Jumping the gun a little, aren't you?

Are you serious? You think I came up with this data? I am just reporting on the latest news. Lol.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Need I apologize in advance, before posting the following suggestion....that the DNC and Bill's wife might......could have....
.....lied????

The premise here is that there never was a 'Russian hack.'

1. "Former NSA experts say it wasn’t a hack at all, but a leak—an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system.


2. All this was set in motion when the DNC’s mail server was first violated in the spring of 2016 and by subsequent assertions that Russians were behind that “hack” and another such operation, also described as a Russian hack, on July 5.

3. Possibilities became allegations, and these became probabilities. Then the probabilities turned into certainties, and these evolved into what are now taken to be established truths...This was accomplished via the indefensibly corrupt manipulations of language repeated incessantly in our leading media.


4. ...we are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception. These officials profess “high confidence” in their “assessment” ....Few have noticed since these evasive terms first appeared that an assessment is an opinion, nothing more, and to express high confidence is an upside-down way of admitting the absence of certain knowledge.


5. Forensic investigators, intelligence analysts, system designers, program architects, and computer scientists of long experience and strongly credentialed are now producing evidence disproving the official version of key events last year.


6. There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system.


7. Based on the knowledge of former officials such as Binney, the group [investigating the story of a Russian hack] knew that
(1) if there was a hack and
(2) if Russia was responsible for it, the NSA would have to have evidence of both. Binney and others surmised that the agency and associated institutions were hiding the absence of evidence behind the claim that they had to maintain secrecy to protect NSA programs.


8. On the evening of July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC’s server. The operation took 87 seconds. This yields a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second.

Time stamps in the metadata indicate the download occurred somewhere on the East Coast of the United States—not Russia, Romania, or anywhere else outside the EDT zone.

9. “It’s clear,” another forensics investigator wrote, “that metadata was deliberately altered and documents were deliberately pasted into a Russianified [W]ord document with Russian language settings and style headings.”

10. Time stamps in the metadata provide further evidence of what happened on July 5. The stamps recording the download indicate that it occurred in the Eastern Daylight Time Zone at approximately 6:45 pm. This confirms that the person entering the DNC system was working somewhere on the East Coast of the United States. "
A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack




SAY IT ISN'T SO!!!!

My faith in the Democrats would be.......shattered!!!!

 

[Snouter]

The [Seth Rich] story, which first aired in May, was retracted by Fox News a week later. Fox News has, to date, taken no action in response to what it said was a failure to adhere to the network's standards.

I never even saw the FOX story. I base my opinion on the fact that one of the all time top hackers in the world who runs Wikileaks basically confirmed Seth Rich was the source.

 

[ChrisL]

That the DNC leaks were due to Russia hacking or was it an inside job? Vote please! Thank you!

 

[BULLDOG]

Quick.Send a copy of that to Mueller. I'll bet he never heard any of that, so he thinks he should continue with his investigation just like he was told to do. He'll probably buy you a popsicle for your efforts,

You do realize that Mueller's investigation can take many paths and many of those could turn towards Hillary, Wasserman Schultz and the DNC. As with most of these open ended witch hunts, they don't shut down until someone is found guilty of something even if it is only remotely tied to the original investigation.

Right now, it is following the money

And the money trail is leading right to the Trump camp. Next step, offer Flynn and Manafort immunity for turning on Trump

Doesn't look like it. Looks as if the DNC computers were "hacked" by an insider and leaked to Wikileaks by a person or persons who were disgusted by the behavior of the DNC, and this was the only way they felt they could do something about it.

Not what the FBI says. If I must decide between the FBI or Alex Jones,and Hannity, I'll go with the FBI

Alex Jones and Hannity? My report is taken from The Nation, which is a reputable liberal news site. Lol. Keep trying.

Executive Summary

Forensic studies of “Russian hacking” into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2016, data was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computer. After examining metadata from the “Guccifer 2.0” July 5, 2016 intrusion into the DNC server, independent cyber investigators have concluded that an insider copied DNC data onto an external storage device.


Then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (right) talks with President Barack Obama in the Oval Office, with John Brennan and other national security aides present. (Photo credit: Office of Director of National Intelligence)

Key among the findings of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack. Of equal importance, the forensics show that the copying was performed on the East coast of the U.S. Thus far, mainstream media have ignored the findings of these independent studies [see here and here].

Independent analyst Skip Folden, who retired after 25 years as the IBM Program Manager for Information Technology, US, who examined the recent forensic findings, is a co-author of this Memorandum. He has drafted a more detailed technical report titled “Cyber-Forensic Investigation of ‘Russian Hack’ and Missing Intelligence Community Disclaimers,” and sent it to the offices of the Special Counsel and the Attorney General. VIPS member William Binney, a former Technical Director at the National Security Agency, and other senior NSA “alumni” in VIPS attest to the professionalism of the independent forensic findings.

The recent forensic studies fill in a critical gap. Why the FBI neglected to perform any independent forensics on the original “Guccifer 2.0” material remains a mystery – as does the lack of any sign that the “hand-picked analysts” from the FBI, CIA, and NSA, who wrote the “Intelligence Community Assessment” dated January 6, 2017, gave any attention to forensics.

NOTE: There has been so much conflation of charges about hacking that we wish to make very clear the primary focus of this Memorandum. We focus specifically on the July 5, 2016 alleged Guccifer 2.0 “hack” of the DNC server. In earlier VIPS memoranda we addressed the lack of any evidence connecting the Guccifer 2.0 alleged hacks and WikiLeaks, and we asked President Obama specifically to disclose any evidence that WikiLeaks received DNC data from the Russians [see here and here].

Addressing this point at his last press conference (January 18), he described “the conclusions of the intelligence community” as “not conclusive,” even though the Intelligence Community Assessment of January 6 expressed “high confidence” that Russian intelligence “relayed material it acquired from the DNC … to WikiLeaks.”

Obama’s admission came as no surprise to us. It has long been clear to us that the reason the U.S. government lacks conclusive evidence of a transfer of a “Russian hack” to WikiLeaks is because there was no such transfer. Based mostly on the cumulatively unique technical experience of our ex-NSA colleagues, we have been saying for almost a year that the DNC data reached WikiLeaks via a copy/leak by a DNC insider (but almost certainly not the same person who copied DNC data on July 5, 2016).

From the information available, we conclude that the same inside-DNC, copy/leak process was used at two different times, by two different entities, for two distinctly different purposes:

-(1) an inside leak to WikiLeaks before Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, that he had DNC documents and planned to publish them (which he did on July 22) – the presumed objective being to expose strong DNC bias toward the Clinton candidacy; and

-(2) a separate leak on July 5, 2016, to pre-emptively taint anything WikiLeaks might later publish by “showing” it came from a “Russian hack.”

I wonder why the FBI doesn't agree with that. Is the FBI really a secret society run by Hillary, the Illuminati, and space aliens with the goal of destroying our country? We're DOOMED!!!!!!

 

[ChrisL]

Well, I started an opinion poll so that you can vote on which you believe is the most likely scenario, the Russians did it or it was an inside job. Here is a link, so vote please. Thank you.

Do you believe . . .

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Russians hacked the DNC server

Well, that's the narrative anyway. Be a a good sheeple, don't think for yourself and keep spreading it.

You assume they care about the truth more than scoring political points for their party.

 

[Faun]

Well, I started an opinion poll so that you can vote on which you believe is the most likely scenario, the Russians did it or it was an inside job. Here is a link, so vote please. Thank you.

Do you believe . . .

Seriously?? What do you think an unscientific poll with a 99 point margin of error means?

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

That the DNC leaks were due to Russia hacking or was it an inside job? Vote please! Thank you!

I voted for an Inside Job, there was no Russian Hackers, there is no evidence to suggest that there were.

I also am taking the attitude of a Leftist here for a moment and commenting, I'm not tolerating a differing opinion or any hysterical gibbering, so don't start arguing