Mueller Indicts 12 For Russian Hacking

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Kharron

and it comes the day after strzok testifies and the day of pages testimony.

Just like the manufactured outrage over separating illegal immigrant minors as required by the Flores ruling came the day the IG report was released.

And two days before a historic meeting with a president of a government being investigated for collusion. I have to go with the one that is directly related.

There is no such crime as collusion in the federal body of law (criminal).

I used a wrong term. Does not make it go away. Let's not argue semantics.

It is highly more likely that charges against Russian military agents, two days before the summit have more to do with the summit than covering up a theatrical hearing into bias, that is really only remotely related to these charges.

If you step back and look at this it can almost look like a warning for our president, help for him. This shows that Putin lied to us and since the operation was most definitely military, he knew about it and he most likely gave the order. These charges tell our president to be careful of who he's dealing with, especially in that private meeting.

a reply to: JinMI

So our resident princess interior designer that advocates for carpet (eww) is named Karen?

The only little dream I dream when reading her comments is Strzok's smarmy voice.

Don't bother to respond lil' one, I am a drive-by commenter. Must be the zip code I reside in

Thanks man. There def are, it’s just that due to special political interests saner folks are rarely featured right now in the mainstream media.

Yes, this political strategy is dangerous. In the attempt to destroy trump and retain establishment dem power, their actions don’t just threaten Trump but also actual genuine liberal values and the Democratic Party itself. Their cynical myopia has no alignment with justice or long term sustainability.

a reply to: JBurns

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: theantediluvian

No there is not. No forensic analysis of the server was ever done.

I really don't feel inclined to go through this for the 1,000th time. In terms of publicly available evidence, I've discussed it over and over again. I'll just point you to a few things you can ignore and move on.

Dell SecureWorks:

IRON TWILIGHT Supports 'Active Measures'

Follow-up from SecureWorks working with AP:

Inside story: How Russians hacked the Democrats’ emails

ThreatConnect:

FANCY BEAR Has an (IT) Itch that They Can't Scratch

Again, that's just *some* of the publicly available evidence having nothing to do with the DNC or CrowdStrike, the DNC network, servers, etc.

Again, we know 100% that John Podesta was phished. The entire thing is laid out in excruciating detail. We know 100% from publicly available information that it was part of a larger campaign and who the other targets were. This isn't even disputable.

Again, there's all sorts of forensic data coming from primarily ISPs that we the FBI would have gotten which isn't public knowledge. The implants on the DNC and DCCC networks phoned home to C&C servers. Those servers weren't on the DNC network. Looking at the indictment, it would appear that multiple ISPs did cooperate. The know for instance, about activity on the one C&C server in Arizona including when software on the server itself was updated.

Again, that has NOTHING to do with the DNC server except in that it independently corroborates the information coming out of the DNC (via CrowdStrike). And also, to that specific "but muh servers!" point, CrowdStrike imaged everything and rebuilt from bare metal. That's all in the lawsuit. In fact, considering that their servers were probably virtualized, the actual "drives" were likely VHDs sitting on a storage server so actual imaging would even be required, just copying the VHDs. If copies of the VHDs were given to investigators, that's basically the same thing as handing over physical drives for most purposes. (no idea if they were).

You're hiding behind a couple talking points that were never even close to the mic droppers that you believe and the overwhelming evidence in support of what you don't want to believe because you've committed yourself to denial.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Yes, that is right.

Go ahead, try to tell him how to conduct his foreign policy.

He'd possibly laugh at you, but certainly ignore you. He is President. Your role in that stops at electing him. The ball is now in his court, to conduct the US diplomatically in accordance with his agenda.

MAGA

originally posted by: neo96


They're still not over the 2000 election

Not only that they continue to lie about it as well. Contrary to the false narrative (outright lies) Democrats push Florida did not cost them the election in 2000.

In typical Democrats arrogance they assumed to trust their internal polling which told them at the time W. Virginia and its 4 electoral votes was safely a blue state so Gore never campaigned there in great amounts. Bush was able to pick off W. Virginia which put him over the 270 requirement. Had Gore won W. Virginia he would have been President, even with Bush winning Florida.

Since Democrats are to arrogant to admit they were wrong they opt instead to blame the electoral college and push a popular vote agenda.

Since that kind of change requires modification to he US Constitution they are trying to back door it by using state legislatures by adopting a national popular vote bill in each state. This law kicks in when enough states adopt it and the combination of those states meet 270 electoral votes.

It would allocate a states electoral college votes to the candidate who wins the non existent national popular vote.

An example pretend the law is already in effect in enough states to meet the 270 threshold and pretend New Mexico adopted the law -
If the people of the state of New Mexico vote for the Republican candidate and that candidate wins in the state but a Democrat wins the nonexistent national popular vote the electoral votes for that state would be awarded to the Democratic candidate and not the republican candidate.

All the while Democrats bitch about voter disenfranchisement...

Put this law into effect and abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement so illegal immigrants (referred to as undocumented democrats) can flood in coupled with blue states pushing to allow for non citizens to be able to vote....

you see where this illegal and unconstitutional act goes...

Ok so can someone tell me if there was forensic evidence of a hack and what kind of attack it was with specifics not generalizations?

Also what does this have anything to do with Trump?

Ill guess nothing ahead of time

a reply to: theantediluvian

How did the "hackers" replicate and acquire the IP address of the server?

Just curious I'm assuming this had to have been logged by the ISP

I meant to say geolocate

originally posted by: crtrvt
Must be some be some brainwashed cultists or Russian trolls in this thread straight up claiming "the left" somehow framed Russia for all this. You're siding with Russia over all of the intelligence agencies? Cray and y'all are only in for more deep disappointment in life.

Why should we believe US intelligence? They never investigated the server; they just uncritically accepted the conclusion of Crowdstrike, who was hired by the DNC, thus we can reasonably suspect that they provided the conclusion they were being paid to provide. The FBI was literally forbidden to examine the server. (Gee, I wonder how many white-collar criminals wish they could simply forbid the government to examine their computers.) Plus, the guys running those agencies at the time (Comey, Brennan) are blatantly anti-Trump, which further calls into question the validity of their agencies' conclusions.

On the other hand, we have guys like Julian Assange and Kim Dot Com, who claim to have been personally involved in the escapade, insist that it was internal leaks (not any kind of hack), and that the Russians were not involved.

originally posted by: toysforadults
Ok so can someone tell me if there was forensic evidence of a hack and what kind of attack it was with specifics not generalizations?

Also what does this have anything to do with Trump?

Ill guess nothing ahead of time

No - Crowdstrike did the "analysis" of the server however no law enforcement agency performed an analysis. The "hack" is based entirely on crowdstrikes result and as someone else pointed out crowdstrike already had to retract its findings.

The DNC refused several FBI requests for the server in question.

There is absolutely no forensic evidence it was a hack and the report crowdstrike released was analyzed and it was discovered download speeds are consistent with a direct transfer of files (pc to USB) and NOT internet download speeds. Given the fact it would have been an international connection the speeds would have been even lower.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

I've been following Kim on Twitter for a long time ans he has confirmed several times it was Seth Rich

a reply to: CrawlingChaos

They were in Arizona.

a reply to: Xcathdra

So how can Meuller even file an indictment without forensic evidence?

Those disk drives need to hashed and DD'd and then there is a step by step process for creating a court proceeding when it comes to technology

This case is going nowhere

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Kharron

and it comes the day after strzok testifies and the day of pages testimony.

Just like the manufactured outrage over separating illegal immigrant minors as required by the Flores ruling came the day the IG report was released.

Lmao. The IG report that showed no evidence of the conspiracy that Trump and his supporters choose to believe in? The IG report that showed no evidence of bias affecting the Clinton email investigation?

And the 10 hour #show from yesterday was a joke. Basically, no new information at all, just a bunch of ranting Trump loyalists berating Peter Strzok in a competition to get the best soundbite for Fox News. It just progressively worse as the hours went by. How many wanted to castigate Strzok for having an affair? Did that seem reasonable to you? That people loyal to a man who has cheated on all three of his wives would question the integrity of Strzok because he had an affair?

Meanwhile, he gave a similarly lengthy testimony behind closed doors that the Republicans refuse to release.

Nobody but the Trump audience that the fiasco kangaroo court was put on for care about it, much less are somehow fearful because of it, least of all Robert Mueller.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

They were in Arizona.

Uh... What ?

a reply to: theantediluvian

This case is going nowhere without the server and network logs that actually provide the evidence

Also anything they produce now will be useless for technical reasons I care not to explain

a reply to: theantediluvian

The IG report that showed no evidence of bias affecting the Clinton email investigation?

You should re-read pages 421-434. Because the IG states Bias was prevalent, and then goes on to discuss how the txt messages commited various violations of FBI statues and was never disciplined ; Showing Bias at higher levels.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Isurrender73

What corruption? There was nothing in the emails but boring business schedules.
I don't think half you guys read a single email. You're borrowing outrage on something you don't know about. Someone said OMG so you're all OMG.

For one thing, the various leaks confirmed that the DNC conspired to make sure Bernie Sanders didn't get nominated. That was hugely significant to Sanders supporters.

a reply to: kurthall

I heard it speculated because of the midterms that he'd either finish before then or hold off until after. If you find it just PM me. Thanks.