#Guccifer2 and #Guccifer3 Trending on Twitter

a reply to: M5xaz

TextHas 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

Hillary didn't setup the server, the guy who set it up was qualified to know better.

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: M5xaz

TextHas 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

Hillary didn't setup the server, the guy who set it up was qualified to know better.

Hillary didn't set it up, but she is on record telling multiple lies about it.
It has been proven that she knew better. Six times alone through the State Department IG report.

a reply to: butcherguy

You say that there is partisanship because the hackers have not released info that they hacked from the RNC as well as the DNC.

Where do I say that? I said that there is partisanship because whichever group has leaked the DNC information has not also leaked information the DNC has that might reflect badly on Trump. Of course, it is possible that the hack was only of low security level material, and that the Trump dirt was more highly classified and therefore was not hacked. I have acknowledged the possibility that the RNC has better security.

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.

Correct; that would be in keeping with the definition of "non-partisan," treating each party equally.

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....

Why do you have a problem with the concept of non-partisan? If they are able to hack both, they should release the stolen data equally.

The whole reason that I ever replied to you!
Now you claim that you have said none of this?

Said none of what? And why are you trying to make this thread about me? Who do you think is responsible for releasing the data hacked from the DNC? Why are they making it public? Why does none of it reflect badly on Trump? Why has there been no data stolen from the RNC made public?

a reply to: DJW001

Why do you have a problem with the concept of non-partisan? If they are able to hack both, they should release the stolen data equally

Do you have proof that they hacked both?
If so, please produce it.
Seems that I went over this once already.

a reply to: DJW001

Why do you keep insisting that the information is from a "DNC" server?

Guccifer hacked Hillary Clinton's private server, used for her and her aide's State Department email, Clinton Foundation, and apparently emails with the DNC regarding her campaign. (All against the regulations regarding federal cyber security and FOIA.)

Since this hack would have been a couple of years ago, there is no reason to think it would contain DNC information regarding Trump's campaign.

And again, Guccifer could care less what political party Hillary belongs to. His hack was not partisan in nature.

a reply to: butcherguy

My point was that it would have been unlikely to have the server unsecured by accident. This was likely done on purpose.

a reply to: interupt42

The server was not secure because the guy who set it up was not qualified to set up a secure government server.

You may want to research Brian Pagliano, including his immunity deal.

Hillary had him set up a private server to avoid FOIA, thus attempting to hide her activity and communications.

Experts have said he did not have qualifications or permission to do this, and everyone involved should have known better.

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: butcherguy

My point was that it would have been unlikely to have the server unsecured by accident. This was likely done on purpose.

Sorry I missed your point.
I agree.
It does appear that some things are far too stupid to have been done by any professional, by accident.

a reply to: BlueAjah

Why do you keep insisting that the information is from a "DNC" server?

Because that is the topic of this thread: the information from the hacked DNC server being released by someone-- or something-- using the handle Guccifer2 and Guccifer3

Guccifer hacked Hillary Clinton's private server, used for her and her aide's State Department email, Clinton Foundation, and apparently emails with the DNC regarding her campaign. (All against the regulations regarding federal cyber security and FOIA.)

Which is why the current hacker(s) is (are) using that name.

Since this hack would have been a couple of years ago, there is no reason to think it would contain DNC information regarding Trump's campaign.

The current info drop contains the DNC's current Trump talking point strategy, as you would know if you were following the thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And again, Guccifer could care less what political party Hillary belongs to. His hack was not partisan in nature.

Whoever is responsible for this round appears to have political motivation.

a reply to: DJW001

Ah good one! I had actually not looked at the Smoking Gun article. I was looking at the tweets themselves, which originally appeared to be from Clinton's server hack.

So, it does seem like information is coming from both sources now. Thank you!

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: IAMTAT

More Hillary lies exposed.

How many now?

about 500 lies ?

just make up any number, that's what the right is good at.....and keep repeating it, it satisfies the FOXNEWS crowd...so, your in good company

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: IAMTAT

More Hillary lies exposed.

How many now?

about 500 lies ?

just make up any number, that's what the right is good at.....and keep repeating it, it satisfies the FOXNEWS crowd...so, your in good company

500 probably wouldn't cover Hillary for 6 months.
And she is pretty old now.

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.

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.

Your exact words were `What is Guccifer`, implying you did not even know it was a person.


Again, please provide link to your `claim` Guccifer 2 and 3 are tied to the FSB. The DNC does not make that claim, they were suspecting the Russians of being behind the attack. that is all.

Also, please provide a link to your statement that the RNC has hacked the DNC server

a reply to: M5xaz

Your exact words were `What is Guccifer`, implying you did not even know it was a person.

Correct; the OP gives absolutely no context.

Again, please provide link to your `claim` Guccifer 2 and 3 are tied to the FSB. The DNC does not make that claim, they were suspecting the Russians of being behind the attack. that is all.

I do not "claim" that they are linked to the FSB; I speculate that they possibly, even probably, are, for reasons I have explained several times in this thread.

Also, please provide a link to your statement that the RNC has hacked the DNC server

Where do I say that the RNC has hacked the DNC server? I said that if they have, they wouldn't publicize the fact. Incidentally, thank you for demonstrating how some people see what they want to see, not what is there. Now, could you please stop making me the subject of the thread?

a reply to: DJW001

In your 0548 post, talking about the DNC server, you state " The RNC has probably hacked it"

You constantly ask other posters and me to provide links, but you are seemingly reluctant.

This thread is not about you

a reply to: M5xaz

In your 0548 post, talking about the DNC server, you state " The RNC has probably hacked it"

Correct. Probably means that it is something desirable for them to do, and they have the resources to do it. The DNC has also probably hacked the RNC, because it is desirable for them to do, and they have the resources to do it.

You constantly ask other posters and me to provide links, but you are seemingly reluctant.

How can I provide a link to my own speculation?

This thread is not about you

You use the words "you" and "your" an average of twice in each line in this post alone.

a reply to: DJW001

No

You have leveled that inaccurate "about me" accusation against many other posters

This thread is solely about Guccifer 2/3 and providing sourceable information and links

a reply to: M5xaz

This thread is solely about Guccifer 2/3 and providing sourceable information and links

Since when has speculation been against T&C? I have floated an opinion and given several reasons why it is justifiable. Do you think it cannot be the FSB? Why not? If it is the work of a private hacker, why only the DNC? Why have they not released more dirt on Trump? Or do you believe that Trump is so squeaky clean that the DNC could not find any? Or perhaps it had better security than their list of donors (which is far more incriminating for them). Do you think it is the original Guccifer violating the terms of his plea bargain? Please, critique and analyze my theories.

As for genuine, "sourceable" information, I seriously doubt there will be any beyond speculation and kudos.

a reply to: butcherguy

Do you have proof that they hacked both?

No. I said that if the hacker hacked both, releasing only one set of data would be, by definition, partisan. And let me add that the partisanship need not be on the part of a Republican, or even American citizen. It seems to be designed to make the Democratic party look bad... not the Republican.

If so, please produce it.

Produce what? Proof of something I never claimed?

Seems that I went over this once already.

And either you still don't get it, or you are hoping no-one will notice that all you are doing is setting up a straw man.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: butcherguy

Do you have proof that they hacked both?

No. I said that if the hacker hacked both, releasing only one set of data would be, by definition, partisan. And let me add that the partisanship need not be on the part of a Republican, or even American citizen. It seems to be designed to make the Democratic party look bad... not the Republican.

If so, please produce it.

Produce what? Proof of something I never claimed?

Seems that I went over this once already.

And either you still don't get it, or you are hoping no-one will notice that all you are doing is setting up a straw man.

Here is your earlier post.
Note what you say:

. 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.

You infer partisanship because whatever person or group did not hack the RNC.
I don't know who did it, who all else that may have hacked or tried to hack.
You don't know either.... or you would provide some proof.
Because you have no idea if they did try to hack the RNC and were unsuccessful, you have no proof that there is any partisanship involved.

What is so hard to understand?