NSA Experts Say DNC ‘Hack’ Was Actually a Leak and Inside Job

The DNC are not the ones that said the Russians hacked the data. Pay attention please.

 

You posted inside the quotes, so what you wrote won't show up. But didn't Crowdstrike "claim" that the intrusion came from Russia? Yes, yes they did.

.
One question had been answered: there was definitely someone rummaging around the DNC servers. But who? CrowdStrike checked its records, seeing whether the methods used for the hack matched any they already had on record. They did. Two groups, working independently, were secreting away information, including private correspondence, email databases and, reportedly, opposition research files on Donald Trump. "We realised that these actors were very well known to us," Alperovitch says. This is because of a handful of small but significant tells: data exfiltrated to an IP address associated with the hackers; a misspelled URL; and time zones related to Moscow. "They were called FANCY BEAR and COZY BEAR, and we could attribute them to the Russian government."

https://www.google.com/search?q=int...rome..69i57.3551j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

That shoots down that theory, that it was hacked in the US. Smells like fish, 3 weeks old lying in the sun. Fancy Bear? Cozy Bear? References to the old USSR? Sophisticated!!! Really?

 

Of course... this whole russkie business is a expedition.

 

A definition of intrusion proves exactly what? I mean other than your own obvious confusion.

 

It appears you do not know the difference between informed opinion and its opposite.

Forensicator, Binney, Loomis and Weibe are basically in the business. Thus their observations are far from opinion.

You(I presume) and I are NOT in the business, hence our observations are just plain vanilla opinion. At least I know the difference between the two.

 

Most, if not all of those men and women, meet the definition you post here. They are whistleblowers, no longer in the employ of the government. John Kiriakou did time in prison for blowing the whistle. Jeffrey Sterling is still there. Ann Wright resigned her commission.

They are whistleblowers, and you would rather trick yourself into believing otherwise.

 

I have no idea what point you're trying to make or why you posted this, especially while quoting my post to do it. Who said these men were not "basically" in the business? I didn't. Who is giving his/her opinion on their conclusions? I'm not.

Once again, they are credible men. I said that repeatedly. Once again, their analysis is their opinions based on the information they were able to access. I said that repeatedly. Once again, their opinions need to be accepted by the FBI and the other agencies in order for their opinions to have a meaningful difference in whatever the agencies are investigating. I said that repeatedly.

I suggest reading a person's posts before going off on a tangent that doesn't relate to any post made by that person at any time in the discussion.

 

Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant to say. You seemed to dismiss the findings, observations and opinions of Binney et al as being just opinions and somehow equal to yours or other posters. I merely pointed out theirs are informed opinions. I'm glad to see you walked that back, and apologize if I misread your posts.

You want validation from the FBI, and I say virtually everything the FBI says is motivated by political machinations. I do not trust the Agency, clearly you do. We agree to disagree.

 

You did misunderstand. I never "dismissed" anyones' opinions or findings. I also never offered my own opinion. I have no opinion on something I don't understand. I'm not a cyber security expert nor do I want to be. I didn't "walk" anything back, and your statement that I did is a lie.

I also never said anything about trusting the FBI. You continue to have absolutely no idea what I'm posting about. No, we don't agree to anything except you are making things up I never said. Kindly do not do that.

 

"Once again their opinions need to be accepted by the FBI and other agencies..." are your words dear lady, not mine. If that is not somehow seeking validation by the FBI, then you and I are not speaking the same language.

 

"Once again their opinions need to be accepted by the FBI and other agencies in order for their opinions to have a meaningful difference in whatever the agencies are investigating." Those are the words I posted. You conveniently either left that off, or you are just determined to ignore what I am clearly saying in my posts and look for a fight. I won't engage in that. My posts are clear. Stop reading things into them that are not there.

If you don't understand my posts, please consult a dictionary. I do not appreciate you lying about things I never said and twisting my words. Kindly do not do it again, and I will show you the same courtesy.

 

Do you ever, my friend?

 

Since they are no longer in the employ of any government agency they cannot by definition be whistleblowers in the case of the Russian hacking. At best they are experts in the field offering alternative opinions although from what I read they have done none of the analysis themselves and are relying on a rather dodgy opinion from Forensicator based somehow on some miraculous metadata released by Gussifer2.

 

They are.

 

Well probably although since they have never examined the actual data they have no expert qualifications to draw conclusions about anything.

 

There is NO actual data; all you guys have is a big, wet dream of impeaching president Trump. So, dream on.

 

It's funny what people will say when desperate enough.

Going back to the beginning of this, about a year ago, and then after the election, Hillary and the DNC attempted to have the public rationalize the shenanigans of Hillary and Company by blaming it on the Russians.

Binney and others in public interviews commented that it appeared to be a leak, and not a hack. In the meantime, nobody in the DNC or anywhere else could prove that the Russians had anything at all to do with it. Despite what we've learned from WikiLeaks and the various NSA tactics like attributing certain web actions on somebody else, the mainstream media has been calling it a hack by the Russians for all this time.

Now it has been proved that it was not a hack, and was indeed a leak, and many people are so deeply in denial that they can't let go. Americans are so thoroughly indoctrinated they quickly believe anything they are told by the media.

 

Holy crap, now Salon!

What if the DNC Russian “hack” was really a leak after all? A new report raises questions media and Democrats would rather ignore

This report also claims there is no apparent evidence that the hacker known as Guccifer 2.0 — supposedly based in Romania — hacked the DNC on behalf of the Russian government. There is also no evidence, the report’s authors say, that Guccifer handed documents over to WikiLeaks. Instead, the report says that the evidence and timeline of events suggests that Guccifer may have been conjured up in an attempt to deflect from the embarrassing information about Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign that was released just before the Democratic National Convention. The investigators found that some of the “Guccifer” files had been deliberately altered by copying and pasting the text into a “Russianified” word-processing document with Russian-language settings.

If all this is true, these findings would constitute a massive embarrassment for not only the DNC itself but the media, which has breathlessly pushed the Russian hacking narrative for an entire year, almost without question but with little solid evidence to back it up.

 

Getting interesting for sure.

 

Sorry but no Forensicator has not proved it wasn't a hack. Nobody else has seen his data or apparently his actual analysis. The four stooges are just trusting what an anonymous source told them. Actually looks like just another conspiracy theory than any actual science or analysis.

 

Well good. Someone has finally realized that the claim that the hack was not Russian has no data to back it up.

 

No, the people the DNC were paying said it.

 

So the DNC is paying the CIA, the FBI, Homeland Security, etc,etc,etc. Talk about conspiracy nutjobs

 

Where did the FBI and DHS get their information? From Crowdstrike, who was in the employ of the DNC.

You know, the two groups that the DNC REBUFFED from examining their servers.

 

Is there data to the claim the russkies did it? Show me.