Mueller Indicts 12 For Russian Hacking

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.

From the IG Report:

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.

Notice that the above indicates there was something that was omitted from final version of the report, which indicated that communications between Obama and Clinton while in foreign territory, but was later omitted.

The IG Report has a section on intrusion tests which is too long to quote here.

Comey's testimony to Congress was quoted in the report:

Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account.

a reply to: BlueAjah

It Was possible. They did not say it was compromised and it's very unlikely.
Hint... Nothing attributed to Clinton's server has ever been released by any bad actors.
What would they be waiting for. She left office in 2012.

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..

Thank you for taking the time to lay it all out and back it up with facts, AE.

I'm with BlueAjah, it would make a great first thread, AE. If you decide to accept the mission holler with a pm if you don't mind as I have a small suggestion for you to consider.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Yes, possible. If you understand tech and read the details, the explanations make it more likely than just possible.

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.

Also, limited by this:

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.”

a reply to: tjack

Well said

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?

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.

and he put together a video saying he was kidnapped by US and Saudi intelligence in order to return, over the warnings given by US intelligence he could face death.

He was sentenced to 10 years UNTIL Clinton's emails discussed what he had given the US, at which point he was executed.


Funny how you leave that part out.

a reply to: BlueAjah

www.washingtonpost.com...

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.

putin wouldnt allow it and donald wont ask but it would have been funny

Gowdy to Trump: Ask Putin where "we can pick up the 25 Russians" indicted in Mueller probe

Gowdy not following to plan. Bud it's the deep state and her emails. Get with the program.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Whose program?

a reply to: Xcathdra

He was sentenced to 10 years UNTIL Clinton's emails discussed what he had given the US, at which point he was executed.

Sources, please.

a reply to: DJW001

Iran executes nuclear scientist who returned to country from US

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.

Are we assuming that you know the Bandwidth of the network in question? If Russia was to hack the HRC server (which was illegal to have in the first place) do you know what sort of outbound connection it had? Did the providers have a service policy or QoS policy for inbound or outbound traffic? You are normally a little more careful with your generalizations.

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?

I was close!

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.

I wonder if Mueller will take the offer, or will make some excuse because they called his bluff.

source

a reply to: BlueAjah

Why would he not?
Put up or shut up time.
With the problems and delays in the other "russia" case I wouldn't be surprised if Mueller brings this investigation to a sudden close.

www.americanthinker.com...

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.

and until the offer from putin

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.

surely someone will ask about the offer to question the accused?

oh well now lookie here:
www.courthousenews.com...

The government’s response to the motion to dismiss is due on July 16, with Concord’s reply due July 30.

perhaps we will hear more information on this case today?

Add another russian to the list, and this one have been arrested...
Maria Butina..

www.cnn.com...

I don't know why, but I think there may have been a rumor or something that this lady was actually putin's daughter.
anyone else remember something like this?

a reply to: dawnstar

I think this is not new news. This person was making contacts without declaring herself as a rep of Russian government. That's all she is being charged with.

I read the whole criminal complaint. It looks like she was in touch with people in the NRA, and tried to make contacts with people in government, so that they could set up relations with whoever won the election. I am pretty sure that every country's government tries to do that.

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.

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.

That's Hillary talking there.

Besides a thread dedicated to the Facts has already been made www.abovetopsecret.com...