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: Greven
Just for the sake of fact (not that I care about Hillary) I don't think it's been proven that Hillary's email server was hacked.
The DNC server(s) were hacked.
A paragraph summarizing the factors that led the FBI to assess that it was possible that hostile actors accessed Clinton’s server was added, and at one point referenced Clinton’s use of her private email for an exchange with then President Obama while in the territory of a foreign adversary. This reference later was changed to “another senior government official,” and ultimately was omitted.
Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account.
originally posted by: AutisticEvo
"Crowdstrike Co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch in the Washington Post published June 14, 2016 spoke of the lack of evidence as to how it was that somebody got onto the Democratic National Committee (DNC) servers to get the emails that were ultimately published on Wikileaks in July 2016. According to the Washington Post, “CrowdStrike is not sure how the hackers got in. The firm suspects they may have targeted DNC employees with ‘spearphishing’ emails… ‘But we don’t have hard evidence,’ Alperovitch said,” the report stated. Nor was Alperovitch really sure who had hacked the DNC emails: " gardnernews.com...
they were lacking evidence the whole time..
But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the
territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account.
However, the LHM also stated that the FBI identified one successful compromise of an account belonging to one of former President Clinton’s staffers on a different domain within the same server former Secretary Clinton used during her tenure. The FBI was unable to identify the individual responsible for the compromise, but confirmed that the individual had logged in to the former staffer’s account and “browsed email folders and attachments.” According to evidence we reviewed, the FBI also confirmed compromises to email accounts belonging to certain individuals who communicated with Clinton by email, such as Jake Sullivan and Sidney Blumenthal.
According to the LHM, the FBI also identified vulnerabilities in Clinton’s server systems and found that there had been numerous unsuccessful attempts by potential malicious actors to exploit those vulnerabilities. Nonetheless, the FBI Forensics Agent told the OIG that, although he did not believe there was “any way of determining...100%” whether Clinton’s servers had been compromised, he felt “fairly confident that there wasn’t an intrusion.” When asked whether a sophisticated foreign adversary was likely to be able to cover its tracks, he stated, “They could. Yeah.
The LHM stated that the FBI was limited in its intrusion analysis due to the “FBI’s inability to recover all server equipment and the lack of complete server data for the relevant time period.”
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Xcathdra
Funny how you failed to mention that he disappeared on haj, resurfaced in the United States a year later, and claimed to have been held hostage. His death warrant was probably signed the moment he disappeared, and Clinton's email was completely irrelevant.
putin wouldnt allow it and donald wont ask but it would have been funny
HELSINKI — President Trump said in an interview airing Sunday that he hadn’t thought of pressing Russian President Vladimir Putin on extraditing the dozen Russian officials charged with hacking Democratic emails, instead blaming the Democrats’ “bad defenses” for getting hacked during the 2016 campaign.
While in the US, Amiri appeared in a string of online videos that added to the mystery surrounding his case. In the first video, released by Iranian state TV, the scientist said he had been kidnapped in Medina, Saudi Arabia, in a joint operation by the CIA and Saudi intelligence and was being held captive in the US.
In the second video, released on YouTube, Amiri said he had decided to continue his studies in the US. In the third video, broadcast again by Iranian state TV, Amiri claimed to be on the run from the CIA. He then presented himself to the Iranian interest section at the Pakistani embassy in Washington, asking to go home.
He received a hero’s welcome in Tehran and was portrayed as someone who had fled American captivity. The Iranian media extensively covered his return and a deputy foreign minister greeted him at the airport.
What happened next is unknown until opposition websites reported that he had been imprisoned and tortured in jail.
Before his return to Iran, the then US secretary of state Hillary Clinton had said “Mr Amiri has been in the United States of his own free will” and that “he’s free to go, he was free to come, these decisions are his alone to make”.
In mid-July 2010, as Amiri returned to Tehran, the Washington Post reported that he was allegedly paid $5m by the CIA for the intelligence he had shared on Iran’s nuclear activities. Reports of Amiri’s imprisonment intensified speculation that he was forced to return by threats to his relatives, but the exact sequence of events that led to this remain unclear. In 2012, it was reported that he had been sentenced to 10 years in jail but Mohseni-Eje’i said on Sunday those reports were untrue and he had been sentenced to death from the beginning.
originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Lumenari
For those of us that understand transfer speeds, can you point out how the Russian hackers transferred the contents of a thumb drive to the Kremlin?
Just wondering, because math is important in the real world...
It's a complete joke that 22MB/s is unattainable over the Internet. I do 20MB/s+ between VPSes in Houston, TX and Windsor, Ontario on a regular basis.
More importantly, the Forensicator analysis is filled with GIANT holes. First and foremost, even if the gap times are the result of a bulk copy operation (rather than delays between selecting/copying), there's nothing to say exactly where they copying was done.
The files in question, despite what a lot of people mistakenly assume, were from the DCCC. The transfer could have been between two computers at the DCCC. It could have been between a DCCC computer and a C&C server in the US. It could have been between two computers back in Russia.
I actually do bulk file copies across a gigabit LAN fairly regularly on my work network and speeds in the low 20-30 MB/s range are typical.
originally posted by: BlueAjah
You know what would be really funny?
If Trump came back to the US with every Russian who was indicted, and demanded that they be brought to trial immediately.
I wonder if Mueller would be prepared for that?
Putin offered to question the 12 indicted for meddling in the election, and added that Mueller's team of investigators could be present for questioning, if U.S. officials would “reciprocate.” He suggested this would mean Russian agents could be present for questioning U.S. officers "of interest" to them.
The trial was supposed to resume on July 9, 2018. What happened on July 9? Nobody seems to know. All of the media outlets and internet sources are silent. The trial has been forgotten.
The purpose of this misdirection of substituting a new group of patsies for the old forgotten ones is that they will almost certainly never show up for a trial, as opposed to the inconvenient appearance of the previous defendants. The new defendants can be proudly displayed as shining examples of the effectiveness and competence of the Mueller investigation, which will allow it to extend its existence into perpetuity.
The government’s response to the motion to dismiss is due on July 16, with Concord’s reply due July 30.
originally posted by: C0bzz
Those indicted, and if the allegations are proven true, should be regarded as enemy combatants. The US should respond in the usual way it treats enemy combatants.