It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Top-Secret NSA Report Details Russian Hacking Effort Days Before 2016 Election

page: 19
29
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 01:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucidparadox

Strange how Carter and Clapper wanted Rogers gone. Again, this is all unnamed sources. Not sure what to make of that anymore. Did Washington hire some Hollywood screenwriters that are directing the action behind the scenes or what?


The heads of the Pentagon and the nation’s intelligence community have recommended to President Obama that the director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, be removed.

The recommendation, delivered to the White House last month, was made by Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr., according to several U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

Wapo
edit on 6-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 03:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence
really the nsa is going to let journalist publish top secret info. one would think they would have the legal authority to a seize top secret material b. make sure all copies were either deleted or otherwise destroyed and c inform journalist under threat of arrest not to divulge top secret intelligence.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 03:23 AM
link   
a reply to: DefaultNamesake83 how was this report authenticated and if someone at nsa is leaking top secret intel then justice department needs to go in and clean house because the nsa is supposed to be about getting intel not leaking it.




posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 04:11 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I thought the narrative of the NSA was cyberattacks could have effected the election?

I am just saying the recount effert by the Green Party after 2016 failed to produce any evidence of voter fraud/the election being hacked.

Many key states already recounted / checked for voter fraud / investigated for successful hacking which resulted in no evidence.

I referenced numerous articles saying there is no evidence the election was effected by hacking.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 04:21 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

No evidence of hacking came from that investigation.


edit on 6-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-6-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 06:31 AM
link   
This all comes across like Russia effected the databases... however they used them as a 'call list'??

Long live Putin for outing truths about the corrupt Clintons. Maybe he will do the same to Trum when he gets tired of him?



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 06:37 AM
link   
And that comes form the NSA!!

Oh the irony...



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 06:47 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux




I am just saying the recount effert by the Green Party after 2016 failed to produce any evidence of voter fraud/the election being hacked.

IIRC, the result of Jill Stein's efforts was that votes for Hillary were thrown out, due to irregularities.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 06:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: DAVID64
I can't say I trust anything coming out of the NSA lately....well..ever really. Since we found out they have the ability to make it look like other countries have hacked our systems, they've lost credibility when it comes to finger pointing.


Yes... good thing somebody revealed that on WikiLeaks. But who?



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 07:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: DAVID64
I can't say I trust anything coming out of the NSA lately....well..ever really. Since we found out they have the ability to make it look like other countries have hacked our systems, they've lost credibility when it comes to finger pointing.


Yes... good thing somebody revealed that on WikiLeaks. But who?

Us nobodies can't be sure of what goes on in the spook world. It is possible that there are factions inside of the various spy agencies that are fighting against one another, and it is possible that there are battles between the agencies themselves, like the CIA and the NSA.
I suppose that we will never know.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 07:27 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy


I suppose that we will never know.


The Kremlin's motto.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 07:29 AM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

So long as you accept that illegally obtained evidence is just as inadmissible as total fiction in court.

Reality Winner may have ended the whole Russian Collusion thing by breaking the law in releasing classified documents.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

I agree. I have not seen any evidence to support the idea they did hack the election.

What's important in this case, is apparently they did try.
edit on 6-6-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar


So long as you accept that illegally obtained evidence is just as inadmissible as total fiction in court.


This is what is confounding the investigation. Materials collected by the NSA and CIA are not admissible in court; that is why the FBI had to seek out a FISA warrant.


Reality Winner may have ended the whole Russian Collusion thing by breaking the law in releasing classified documents


How? The documents she leaked were not admissible evidence in the first place. In any event, all she has done is confirm that the NSA was on board with the unclassified joint statement that the Russians were attempting to influence the election. In this case, illegally.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 08:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
The document is trivial, providing nothing new and certainly no evidence linking Russia to anything.
Even CNN's anonymous sources are saying that this is no change to the January document.. so you must believe it's not new.


Do Not Trust The Intercept or How To Burn A Source


The NSA "intelligence report" the Intercept publishes along the piece does NOT show that "Russian military intelligence executed a cyberattack". The document speaks of "cyber espionage operations" - i.e someone looked and maybe copied data but did not manipulate anything. Espionage via computer networks is something every nation in this world (and various private entities) do all the time. It is simply the collection of information. It is different from a "cyberattack" like Stuxnet which was intended to create large damage,

The "attack" by someone was standard spearfishing and some visual basic scripts to gain access to accounts of local election officials. Any minor criminal hacker uses similar means. No damage is mentioned in the NSA analysis. The elections were not compromised by this operation. The document notes explicitly (p.5) that the operation used some techniques that distinguish it from other known Russian military intelligence operations. It might have been done by someone else.


 



The Intercept story was published on June 5. On June 3 the FBI already received a search warrant (PDF) by the U.S. District court of southern Georgia for the home, car and computers of one Reality Leigh Winner, a 25 year old former military language specialist (Pashto, Dari, Farsi) who worked for a government contractor.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Ended by typical damage control. Continued assertions inline with criminal or questionable activity doesn't play well in the court of public opinion. For example, I don't think even Nancy Pelosi would be giving Kathy Griffin a hug in public any time soon.

You have to wonder if the girl really feels like a Reality Winner at this point.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Story From WaPo
It started on May 30, when the news outlet showed authorities the printed materials and asked them to comment, according to the affidavit.

“The U.S. Government Agency examined the document shared by the News Outlet and determined the pages of the intelligence reporting appeared to be folded and/or creased,” the affidavit reads, “suggesting they had been printed and hand-carried out of a secured space.”


Why would the "U.S. Government Agency" allow the Intercept to publish this a week after reporting it?

Winner was arrested Saturday.

Why would would they let them publish 2 days after her arrest?

NBC News article

Barely an hour after a news organization published an article about a Top Secret National Security Agency document on Russian hacking, the Justice Department announced charges against a 25-year-old government contractor who a senior federal official says was the leaker of the document.

Why did they wait until after the story broke to announce charges?

Aren't charges stemming from a weekend arrest normally filed in the AM on Monday?

All of this happens within days of Megan Kelly's Putin interview and Comey's testimony (being aired by CBS...that in itself raises questions for me).

This all smells fishy to me.

I'm trying to find the exact date and time of the charges to compare to the date and time of the publishing.
Earliest i've found on the article is 2:44 pm June5th 2017.

Am I stretching here?



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: abago71

I have another question, you can't gain access to a function of a computer that doesn't exist, no matter if you use a virus, or have access to the computer at a desk.

What I mean is, if I have remote access to your computer, I can't open excel unless you have excel installed.

why would so many people have access to computers that have the capability to change the information in voting machines? seems like a massive security oversight to say the least.

I really hope there aren't 100s of people nationwide who have the capability on their computers to edit results, seems pointless.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: Liquesence
really the nsa is going to let journalist publish top secret info. one would think they would have the legal authority to a seize top secret material b. make sure all copies were either deleted or otherwise destroyed and c inform journalist under threat of arrest not to divulge top secret intelligence.


They can't stop it unless it is truly a national security issue, and then they have to go through the courts.

Threat of arrest for journalists? You need to study up on the First Amendment, prior restraint, and all that.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: abago71

PSYOPS in progress.




new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join