It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: the2ofusr1
Calling in CrowdStrike was a shady move on the DNC's part.
Dimitri is a Senior Fellow at The Atlantic Council.
Sony gets hacked by the NORKS, FBI investigates.
DNC gets hacked, CrowdStrike gets the call?
What Is CrowdStrike? Firm Hired By DNC Has Ties To Hillary Clinton, A Ukrainian Billionaire, And Google
In lieu of substantive evidence provided to the public that the alleged hacks which led to Wikileaks releases of DNC and Clinton Campaign Manager John Podesta’s emails were orchestrated by the Russian Government, CrowdStrike’s bias has been cited as undependable in its own assessment, in addition to its skeptical methods and conclusions. The firm’s CTO and co-founder, Dmitri Alperovitch, is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, a think tank with openly anti-Russian sentiments that is funded by Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk, who also happened to donate at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation.
In 2013, the Atlantic Council awarded Hillary Clinton it’s Distinguished International Leadership Award. In 2014, the Atlantic Council hosted one of several events with former Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who took over after pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted in early 2014, who now lives in exile in Russia.
The investigation methods used to come to the conclusion that the Russian Government led the hacks of the DNC, Clinton Campaign Chair John Podesta, and the DCCC were further called into question by a recent BuzzFeed report by Jason Leopold, who has developed a notable reputation from leading several non-partisan Freedom of Information Act lawsuits for investigative journalism purposes. On March 15 that the Department of Homeland Security released just two heavily redacted pages of unclassified information in response to an FOIA request for definitive evidence of Russian election interference allegations. Leopold wrote, “what the agency turned over to us and Ryan Shapiro, a PhD candidate at MIT and a research affiliate at Harvard University, is truly bizarre: a two-page intelligence assessment of the incident, dated Aug. 22, 2016, that contains information DHS culled from the internet. It’s all unclassified — yet DHS covered nearly everything in wide swaths of black ink. Why? Not because it would threaten national security, but because it would reveal the methods DHS uses to gather intelligence, methods that may amount to little more than using Google.
* Though this doesn't change my opinion of the murder of Seth Rich, I would be remiss if I did not point out that unlike the emails, this is exactly the sort of data that Seth Rich would be expected to have unbridled access to.
We may as well consider the pee-pee document as evidence and wonder just who paid for that as well .
Which part is shady? I wonder how much the fbi outsources its forensic investigations? Especially in a case in which ALL of the details will be gone over many many times. I never knew the dnc had so much power over the fbi. I wonder how much other information used in this investigation has been "outsourced". Perhaps that is why we have gotten so few details.
Dont forget the DNC has refused to allow the FBI to examine the serer. They (FBI etc) relied on a report from crowdstrike. The issue there is the method crowdstrike used with the Ukrainian mess was debunked. They used the same method for the DNC server.
WASHINGTON — When Special Agent Adrian Hawkins of the Federal Bureau of Investigation called the Democratic National Committee in September 2015 to pass along some troubling news about its computer network, he was transferred, naturally, to the help desk.
His message was brief, if alarming. At least one computer system belonging to the D.N.C. had been compromised by hackers federal investigators had named “the Dukes,” a cyberespionage team linked to the Russian government.
The F.B.I. knew it well: The bureau had spent the last few years trying to kick the Dukes out of the unclassified email systems of the White House, the State Department and even the Joint Chiefs of Staff, one of the government’s best-protected networks.
Disclaimer; I can't read the article because its says I need to have an account.
But wait you told me on other posts that Guccifer 2.0 wasn't a hacker, and he may not even be Russian. He was just a distraction sent forth by Russia, and the real hackers were the super sophisticated Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear.
It seems this article is claiming Guccifer 2.0 was a hacker.
So which is it?
As I said in our previous discussion, it seems the facts seem to constantly shift for many to paint Trump in the worst possible light.
But really, I do not see any new information in the WSJ article that was not already known.
Their interpretations are opinions.