#Guccifer2 and #Guccifer3 Trending on Twitter

a reply to: VivreLibre

I don't know but how do we verify it? It's not like it'd be hard to fake those unless there is some way to verify them that I don't know about.

Not much use for documents that could be fake, especially since they are coming from God knows who.

All that matters is that they say what people want to believe. The DNC database will contain all the dirt they have been collecting on Trump. If it is not released, this will look like a partisan "dirty trick."

a reply to: VivreLibre

I don't know but how do we verify it? It's not like it'd be hard to fake those unless there is some way to verify them that I don't know about.

Not much use for documents that could be fake, especially since they are coming from God knows who.

All that matters is that they say what people want to believe. The DNC database will contain all the dirt they have been collecting on Trump. If it is not released, this will look like a partisan "dirty trick."

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: VivreLibre

I don't know but how do we verify it? It's not like it'd be hard to fake those unless there is some way to verify them that I don't know about.

Not much use for documents that could be fake, especially since they are coming from God knows who.

All that matters is that they say what people want to believe. The DNC database will contain all the dirt they have been collecting on Trump. If it is not released, this will look like a partisan "dirty trick."

that was already "leaked" assuming it was even real. 237 is a lot for someone to fake, though.

www.thesmokinggun.com...

originally posted by: VivreLibre

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: VivreLibre

I don't know but how do we verify it? It's not like it'd be hard to fake those unless there is some way to verify them that I don't know about.

Not much use for documents that could be fake, especially since they are coming from God knows who.

All that matters is that they say what people want to believe. The DNC database will contain all the dirt they have been collecting on Trump. If it is not released, this will look like a partisan "dirty trick."

that was already "leaked" assuming it was even real. 237 is a lot for someone to fake, though.

www.thesmokinggun.com...

Thanks for the link. Looks legit.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: DJW001

What is Guccifer?

Are you familiar with the original hacker who used that name?

These 2 others are not him because he is in FBI custody and has been granted immunity as part of a plea bargain.

Correct. The FSB is using that code name to give their campaign an aura of authenticity.

Interesting claim, DJW001, from someone who admitted that as of 7:48 this morning, you did not even know who the original Guccifer is.

Then, at 07:55, you suddenly know and claim Guccifer2 + Guccifer3 are tied to the FSB ?


LOL

While the DNC claims they were hacked by the Russian government, no further info has been provided, including ties to Guccifer 2 and 3

Link to your "claim" regarding Guccifer2 , Guccifer3 and the FSB ?

Or do you have a direct hotline to the Kremlin ?

Incidentally, Julian Assange/Wikileaks has stated that they might release information tied to Clinton's personal server

www.breitbart.com...

No one knows who Guccifer 2.0/3.0 is tied to: could just as well be Wikileaks, Anonymous, FSB, MSS, NOGOFO...

a reply to: DJW001

All that matters is that they say what people want to believe. The DNC database will contain all the dirt they have been collecting on Trump. If it is not released, this will look like a partisan "dirty trick."

That was my first thought. Just reading the front page, first post, I see "Guccifer#2" and "Guccider#3" hacked the DNC....Uh... You mean GOP2 and GOP3?

If we are going to get leaks I want them on DNC & GOP! Not a single one. Don't let one get off looking clean while the other gets tanked. That's exactly what you'd expect from dirty politics, and dirty politics is not the truth, it's the half truth.

This forum and this topic in general was just so much better before sock puppet accounts took it over and injected politics. God knows if they are even around anymore, they don't need to be, the "alternative" crowd is more obsessed with BS political lies than common mainstream followers.

Here's the only thing you are going to get out of both sides of the political system = they are all full of sh## and it doesn't matter who's elected. There. Solved the big mystery for everyone.

originally posted by: boncho
a reply to: DJW001

All that matters is that they say what people want to believe. The DNC database will contain all the dirt they have been collecting on Trump. If it is not released, this will look like a partisan "dirty trick."

That was my first thought. Just reading the front page, first post, I see "Guccifer#2" and "Guccider#3" hacked the DNC....Uh... You mean GOP2 and GOP3?

If we are going to get leaks I want them on DNC & GOP! Not a single one. Don't let one get off looking clean while the other gets tanked. That's exactly what you'd expect from dirty politics, and dirty politics is not the truth, it's the half truth.

This forum and this topic in general was just so much better before sock puppet accounts took it over and injected politics. God knows if they are even around anymore, they don't need to be, the "alternative" crowd is more obsessed with BS political lies than common mainstream followers.

Here's the only thing you are going to get out of both sides of the political system = they are all full of sh## and it doesn't matter who's elected. There. Solved the big mystery for everyone.

Has it occurred to you that perhaps the reason that DNC server was successfully attacked springs from a general cavalier attitude towards all things IT security? Even now, Clinton minimizes its' importance; this is seemingly not the case for the RNC, who views cyber security in the same light as Defense and National security.

Hackers exploit carelessness; they don't function on your concept of being "fair" in making sure they also attack the RNC if they attacked the DNC; Guccifer attacked the private Clinton server because it was poorly set up.

RNC servers may also have their own issues
Time will tell.

a reply to: boncho

Here's the only thing you are going to get out of both sides of the political system = they are all full of sh## and it doesn't matter who's elected. There. Solved the big mystery for everyone.

So we should just bend over and accept it because there's nothing we can do?

We shouldn't even discuss the issues as they arise and let them do whatever they want regardless of what restrictions they wish to place upon us?

You're right, they are both full of #, but damned if I'm not gonna call them on it as long as I have breath (virtual and literal) to say so!

If that's all I can do, then hurl words I will until even that is taken.

a reply to: M5xaz

Interesting claim, DJW001, from someone who admitted that as of 7:48 this morning, you did not even know who the original Guccifer is.

Asking for clarification of a poorly written opening post is not an admission of ignorance.

Then, at 07:55, you suddenly know and claim Guccifer2 + Guccifer3 are tied to the FSB ?

I'm sorry if you cannot appreciate sardonic humor. Like you, I do not know who actually hacked the DNC, but the FSB is the most logical candidate suggested so far. The RNC has probably hacked it, but they would not reveal what they learned. A private individual (such as the original Guccifer) might have, but the fact that they only hacked the DNC and not the RNC suggests partisanship one would not expect from WikiLeaks or Anonymous. This leaves an organization with a vested interest in the outcome of the American elections, and since Mossad probably supports Hillary....

While the DNC claims they were hacked by the Russian government, no further info has been provided, including ties to Guccifer 2 and 3

This is also what I have heard. Several security experts have shared that opinion, which is why I lean in that direction as well. Whoever it is wants Donald Trump to be the next President of the United States, or they would be digging up dirt on him. The talking points linked to above are DNC strategy, not previously undisclosed dirt on Trump.

Please pardon my ignorance but what is FSB?

originally posted by: JinMI
Please pardon my ignorance but what is FSB?

The Russian intelligence agency formerly known as KGB.

a reply to: DJW001

Ah ok, thank you.

a reply to: DJW001

. Like you, I do not know who actually hacked the DNC, but the FSB is the most logical candidate suggested so far. The RNC has probably hacked it, but they would not reveal what they learned. A private individual (such as the original Guccifer) might have, but the fact that they only hacked the DNC and not the RNC suggests partisanship one would not expect from WikiLeaks or Anonymous.

Before that, you said that partisanship was suggested because they had not leaked the Trump info.
After someone showed that the Trump info had been released... it is partisanship because the hackers didn't hack the RNC.
Is it possible that they were not able to hack the RNC?
I might be seeing partisanship, although it isn't necessarily from the hackers.

a reply to: butcherguy

Before that, you said that partisanship was suggested because they had not leaked the Trump info.

Correct.

After someone showed that the Trump info had been released... it is partisanship because the hackers didn't hack the RNC.

But no Trump info was released. What was released were the DNC's strategic talking points. Nothing in their possession that might actually incriminate Trump was released, so, yes, pro-Trump partisanship.

Is it possible that they were not able to hack the RNC?

That is possible, but highly unlikely. All manner of private corporations, banks, and government agencies that depend upon secrecy have been hacked. If the RNC has not been hacked it must have exceptional security. More likely, those who have hacked it do not want it made public so as not to alter the RNC's strategy in response.

I might be seeing partisanship, although it isn't necessarily from the hackers.

You are going to see whatever you want to see, no doubt.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: M5xaz

Interesting claim, DJW001, from someone who admitted that as of 7:48 this morning, you did not even know who the original Guccifer is.

Asking for clarification of a poorly written opening post is not an admission of ignorance.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: onequestion

What is Guccifer?

a reply to: BlueAjah

What is your point?

a reply to: DJW001

That is possible, but highly unlikely. All manner of private corporations, banks, and government agencies that depend upon secrecy have been hacked. If the RNC has not been hacked it must have exceptional security. More likely, those who have hacked it do not want it made public so as not to alter the RNC's strategy in response.

You say that I will see what I want to see.
Here you are telling us that since a lot of hacks have occurred before this that it means that a specific group had to have hacked the RNC.
That is a pretty low standard of proof.

a reply to: butcherguy

Here you are telling us that since a lot of hacks have occurred before this that it means that a specific group had to have hacked the RNC.

Where do I mention a specific group? If the RNC has been hacked, nothing has been leaked... that suggests that if it has been done whoever has done it (and there are many who would want to) are keeping it secret, presumably for strategic purposes.

On the other hand, whoever hacked the DNC (and it is certainly possible it has been done by more than one person or agency) has made the fact public, undoubtedly for strategic reasons.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: butcherguy

Here you are telling us that since a lot of hacks have occurred before this that it means that a specific group had to have hacked the RNC.

Where do I mention a specific group? If the RNC has been hacked, nothing has been leaked... that suggests that if it has been done whoever has done it (and there are many who would want to) are keeping it secret, presumably for strategic purposes.

On the other hand, whoever hacked the DNC (and it is certainly possible it has been done by more than one person or agency) has made the fact public, undoubtedly for strategic reasons.

You say that there is partisanship because the hackers have not released info that they hacked from the RNC as well as the DNC.
That would require the specific group that hacked the DNC to have hacked the RNC as well and released data to avoid partisanship in your eyes.
Whichever group you want to blame for the DNC hack, that is the group that has to produce RNC data to be nonpartisan in your eyes....
The whole reason that I ever replied to you!
Now you claim that you have said none of this?
Whatever dude.

a reply to: DJW001

I don't see any proof that the documents being leaked came from a "DNC" server.

It could all be from Hillary's private server. Guccifer did say:

it was like an email server she and others were using with political voting stuff.

He did not target her because she is Democratic. He found her after he hacked Blumenthal's email, and saw messages from her. Thus he got the information for her server, and hacked it just because it was there, because she is famous, and because he could. He said it was easy.

So, to claim that the information was hacked for partisan purposes is probably incorrect.

ETA: Now, the reason for hacking might be different than the intentions of releasing the information from the hack. It might be people who are anti-Hillary who are releasing the information available from the hack, just because it is available.

www.nbcnews.com...
www.msnbc.com...
nakedsecurity.sophos.com...