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.

 

FBI never looked at the server REDUX

page: 1
51
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+33 more 
posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 08:27 AM
link   
It seems that the argument about the FBI never looking at the DNC server bleeds out in to different threads all of the time, and so I thought I would just make a thread here to discuss it.

Now let me start by saying I am not a tech expert in any way whatsoever.

What I am is someone who can smell BS.

And my friends, this story stinks of BS.

We know that the FBI investigation into Russia is one of their biggest in recent memory. The Russian interference could have swung an election for President, its even been called an act of war and still could lead to an actual war. The investigation has been going on since before trump was elected, its discussed endlessly by the media every day.

Its a huge deal, I am sure we can all agree.

Given that, it seems clear the all involved; the FBI, the DNC that was supposedly hacked, would want to leave no stone unturned. In fact, thats exactly the rational these groups give into why we need to look decades back into everyone connected to trumps financials; because this crime was so huge, we should look as thoroughly as possible at any possible connection.

Well given the FBI and DNC's stance on that, I find it more than odd that still, to this day, the FBI has NEVER LOOKED AT THE SERVER! This is the only piece of physical evidence. Other than the russian trolls on Facebook, this is the crux of the entire investigation into everything else russia related.

The trump tower meeting, george papadopolous, etc.; all of it is based on the fact that the russians hacked the DNC and Podesta, and the only piece of evidence to prove that is what was on the server.

Now there is some debate on rather the FBI never requested access to the server, or the DNC didnt allow them.

I have seen some say the DNC didnt know the FBI wanted access, or that communication got messed up. Ok so then give them access NOW! But still they havent, over two years after the fact.

Here is what Comey testified to.


The FBI requested direct access to the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) hacked computer servers but was denied, Director James Comey told lawmakers on Tuesday.

The bureau made “multiple requests at different levels,” according to Comey, but ultimately struck an agreement with the DNC that a “highly respected private company” would get access and share what it found with investigators.

“We’d always prefer to have access hands-on ourselves if that’s possible,” Comey said, noting that he didn’t know why the DNC rebuffed the FBI’s request.


thehill.com...

So he says they really wanted to get access to the server, and prefer to have direct access.

Surely there is a reason they prefer that, because there is no way the FBI will know if a copy given to them by a third party will be a 100% precise copy.

So right of the bat, we have the head of the FBI admitting in such a huge case, they were unable to use their most preferred method in their investigation.

This alone should anger everyone!

Why wouldnt the FBI insist on seeing the server, given the importance of the investigation.

And now to the other point; why wouldnt the DNC not allow the FBI to see the actual server?

Now keep in mind, the response to us that are outraged the FBI didnt look at the server is to say that a copy of the server is just as good.

And after much debate, I will concede that I am convinced a copy can be just as good: IF it is the FBI that made the copy.

The problem here is that it was not the FBI that made the copy, but the DNC hired firm Crowdstrike.

Now I admit that I am not the most tech savvy person in the world, but I know this; it is impossible to know if a copy is 100% the same as an original if you never get to see the original.

And the FBI STILL hasnt been allowed to see the original.

Now back to my question; why wouldnt the DNC not allow the FBI to see the actual server?

There are only two explanations I see that could even possibly explain this.

1. The DNC and there firm crowdstrike had incentive to make it look like russia did this, and so they did just that and didnt want the FBI to see the server and realize Crowdstrike was manufacturing evidence to blame russia.

I know that people will scream "CONSPIRACY THEORIST" about this, so for the sake of this post, I will focus on option 2.

2. The DNC had something (probably not connected to the hack in any way) to hide on the server that they didnt want the FBI to see.

This is the best explanation I have heard.

But this raises several questions.

What sort of dirt was more important to hide than getting to the bottom of the russian hack? Given the DNC and FBI stance on needing to raid trumps lawyers in the middle of the night, wiretap people, etc., doesnt that imply they to would be willing to give up some of their privacy to solve this crime?

But I guess as always, their own standards dont apply to them.

And this is the biggest point I want to make.

If the DNC insisted that the FBI work with a copy of their server provided by a firm they hired, because they had something they didnt want the FBI to see on their actual server, then this proves the copy is not exactly the same.

If the copy was exactly the same, then whatever the DNC was trying to hide from the FBI would show up on the copy anyways.

Now given the gravity of the situation, why would the FBI take any chance at all with points 1 or 2 I listed above?

Would the FBI allow michael cohen to send them a copy of his digital devices? Of course not, because they would be worried things could have been hidden, purposefully or not by cohen.

But in this case, with the most important piece of physical evidence in one of the biggest cases they have; they take that chance.

This shows that both the FBI and the DNC did not have stopping russian interference as their number one priority.

This investigation is instead more about helping the democrats by going as easy as possible on them at every stage, and hurting trump by going as hard as possible after his team.


edit on 30-8-2018 by Grambler because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Spying and espionage have been conducted by all big players in modern history.

The bigger story to me is that the partisan population picks and chooses what they want to believe for political leverage.

The Republicans dismiss claims Russians had any impact on the election, and don't even humor they got any information that could be used against the US.

The Democrats dismiss China has done anything the Russians have been accused of.

That's a blanket statement and I know it doesn't hold true for everyone.

Either way, any stories of country conducting cyber espionage on political actors won't really matter. The partisans will just make sure there is disinformation campaigns to suppress the stories.

On one hand some will exaggerate the stories, and their opponents will downplay them, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Right, we know that partisans will all spin.

That is why having a non partisan investigative agency is my biggest concern.

It is clear that this was not the case in the investigations into hillary and trump.

Worse than that, it appears that there is good evidence that there was actual corruption by people in the intel agency.

Think of this; we live in a country where one of the heads of the democratic party can go on tv and say trump better watch out criticizing the intel agency, because they have ways of getting back at him.

And deep down, we all know that is true.

How is this acceptable, no matter what you political party is?

That is why my position the entire time is that I am more concerned about corruption of the intel agencies than any crimes trump or hillary supposedly committed.

If trump or hillary committed crimes; fine charge them.

But the people that want to ignore or encourage the intel agencies corruption to take either of those two or anyone else down are making a big mistake.
edit on 30-8-2018 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Grambler

Spying and espionage have been conducted by all big players in modern history.

The bigger story to me is that the partisan population picks and chooses what they want to believe for political leverage.

The Republicans dismiss claims Russians had any impact on the election, and don't even humor they got any information that could be used against the US.

The Democrats dismiss China has done anything the Russians have been accused of.

That's a blanket statement and I know it doesn't hold true for everyone.

Either way, any stories of country conducting cyber espionage on political actors won't really matter. The partisans will just make sure there is disinformation campaigns to suppress the stories.

On one hand some will exaggerate the stories, and their opponents will downplay them, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.



Ummm...all very well and good...obfuscation...

Your post has nothing whatsoever to do with the premise of the OP...

The OP asks why have the FBI not to date looked at the physical server...and...why has the DNC to date not given law enforcement access to the physical server...?

Another very troubling question is...why did the FBI not seize the server...and maintain access to it instead of merely asking pretty please...?

These are very valid and thought provoking questions...to which we have yet to receive any answers...that were not obfuscatory and misdirectional…

This begs a further set of questions...why...and what or whom is being protected by this purposeful misdirection...

Also...Grambler makes some further good points with his questions as per why the hardon for trumps lawyer and the soft ball with the DNC...





YouSir



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

The FBI requested direct access to the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) hacked computer servers but was denied, Director James Comey told lawmakers on Tuesday.


It still amazes me how the top law enforcement agency couldn't get their hands on the main evidence of an foreign country meddling in the U.S. presidential election.


The bureau made “multiple requests at different levels,” according to Comey, but ultimately struck an agreement with the DNC that a “highly respected private company” would get access and share what it found with investigators.


Smart move.

Ask their friends to """investigate""" the server and release to the sheeple what couldn't implicate any of them.


“We’d always prefer to have access hands-on ourselves if that’s possible,” Comey said, noting that he didn’t know why the DNC rebuffed the FBI’s request.


Deep down everyone knows this answer.

People who refuse to admit that something fishy happened with the FBI/DNC relation under Comey direction are the ones that will never stop defending the Democratic Party, no matter how corrupt it is.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: YouSir

My point wasn't to discredit or question OP. He did raise some very good points, and I hope to get the definitive answers too.

What I was trying to say is that we can throw any wish of correcting any of these issues so long as both sides keep throwing their spin on the issues.

Foreign spying/espionage has always been a problem, it's just recently we've met measurable resistance (to my knowledge) on addressing them.

Edit: My mission here isn't to argue, as we don't have all the information and facts for me to be able to do so anyways. But I think the most efficient way of addressing issues is by identifying the root cause(s). I don't see our nation truly "fixing" anything until we get the partisan circus out of the conversation.
edit on 30-8-2018 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-8-2018 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Until the populace can come to agreement on what threatens our way of life, I don't see how we can put public pressure on our government to correct the issues.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Media didnt care when foreign govts infiltrated Obama.


+5 more 
posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

And I will just go ahead and say giving the FBI a copy is not the same even in the virtual server world.

My company was hit by ransomware neither carbon black nor crowdstrike would accept a copy they wanted the physical device so crowdstrike handing the FBI copy is a JOKE!



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Media didnt care when foreign govts infiltrated Obama.


There's more to it than just that. This is not a new problem, foreign entities are constantly infiltrating sensitive data as we are with them. I notice it's just a new trend for people to use it for political discussion rather than a national security one.

FBI director Wray said over a month ago that China is our broadest threat, the Media did pick up on it, but the public didn't really care until it fit a partisan agenda, I did a thread on it when it was released.... Didn't catch much traction.
Thread


He said he thinks China, from a counterintelligence perspective, represents the broadest and most significant threat America faces. China wants to replace the United States as the most powerful economic engine in the world and is infiltrating American businesses to get an edge.



"We have economic espionage investigations in all 50 states" that can be traced back to China, Wray said. "It covers everything from corn seeds in Iowa to wind turbines in Massachusetts and everything in between.



"The volume of it. The pervasiveness of it. The significance of it is something that I think this country cannot underestimate."

source



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Martin75



And I will just go ahead and say giving the FBI a copy is not the same even in the virtual server world.


In this context, yes it is. They were only looking for information, which a copy of the device would give them.



My company was hit by ransomware neither carbon black nor crowdstrike would accept a copy they wanted the physical device so crowdstrike handing the FBI copy is a JOKE!


Well, no #. Of course they would want the physical device. If they are being hired to access the threat and remove it from the original device, a copy would be pointless.

Unless you thought removing some threat from a copy would solve the issue on the original device.

Is that what you thought would happen?



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

No, I'm talking forensic. Which is what the FBI should be doing.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Grambler

Until the populace can come to agreement on what threatens our way of life, I don't see how we can put public pressure on our government to correct the issues.


I would postulate that foreign governments are not the problem, your own government is the problem.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: introvert

No, I'm talking forensic. Which is what the FBI should be doing.


Then your example is ridiculous.

All of the info the FBI would need is in those copies they were provided.
edit on 30-8-2018 by introvert because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-8-2018 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 09:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Martin75


In this context, yes it is. They were only looking for information, which a copy of the device would give them.



The why would comey say they would have preferred to have access to the physical server?

And why wouldnt the fbi just leave Cohen submit a copy of his devices a firm he hired made?

But I guess this is the new standard.

Law enforcement just will now trust people to make their own copies of any digital evidence they want to look at.





edit on 30-8-2018 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 09:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: LightSpeedDriver

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Grambler

Until the populace can come to agreement on what threatens our way of life, I don't see how we can put public pressure on our government to correct the issues.


I would postulate that foreign governments are not the problem, your own government is the problem.


I'd go further and say it's our citizens that are the problem. The government is merely a representation of who we put into power.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: introvert

No, I'm talking forensic. Which is what the FBI should be doing.


Then your example is ridiculous.

All of the info the FBI would need is in those copies they were provided.


I doubt it, depending on the chipset it's running, the Intel chip security flaw could have hidden code that would raise a red flag. Assuming something is hacked, examining just the computing hardware, or a copy of it could leave some stones un turned.

It's also important to examine the network and see how packets are sent and received to see if there are any anomalies.


edit on 30-8-2018 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: introvert

No, I'm talking forensic. Which is what the FBI should be doing.


Then your example is ridiculous.

All of the info the FBI would need is in those copies they were provided.

Because every time you copy a file it copies? Perfectly, every time. If everything else is perfect. There isn't some other code to do something else with it? You know how this works....
Come on now.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: LightSpeedDriver

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Grambler

Until the populace can come to agreement on what threatens our way of life, I don't see how we can put public pressure on our government to correct the issues.


I would postulate that foreign governments are not the problem, your own government is the problem.


I'd go further and say it's our citizens that are the problem. The government is merely a representation of who we put into power.


Cognitive dissonance, imho. Blame the peace-loving, tax-paying citizens who want nothing more than to live their lives.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: LightSpeedDriver

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: LightSpeedDriver

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Grambler

Until the populace can come to agreement on what threatens our way of life, I don't see how we can put public pressure on our government to correct the issues.


I would postulate that foreign governments are not the problem, your own government is the problem.


I'd go further and say it's our citizens that are the problem. The government is merely a representation of who we put into power.


Cognitive dissonance, imho. Blame the peace-loving, tax-paying citizens who want nothing more than to live their lives.


That's how democracies work. The people running the show were put there by guess who?

We have a very unhealthy democracy, only around 50% of eligible people vote on a good day for presidential elections. So how many out of that 50% keep up with current events?

The only time you can put all blame on the government is monarchies and fascist regimes.

So part of the problem lays in your comment, that too many Americans want nothing more than to live their lives, not vote, then bitch when things aren't going their way.




top topics



 
51
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join