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: 8
51
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Now on to point 1.

The evidence you provide falls in to two categories as I said, evidence based on crowdstrikes released info, and evidence of the russian attempting to phish or hack before.

Lets start with info based on crowdstrikes releases.

So for example, you post this artilce form threatconnect as proof.

www.threatconnect.com...


On June 15, 2016 our partner, Crowdstrike, published a blog article detailing the breach of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) by two Russia-based threat groups, one of which is dubbed FANCY BEAR (also known as APT28 or Sofacy).


So your independent evidence proving crowdstrike is correct is from crowdstrikes partner?

How does that help?

And other articles have taken info given by crowdstrike, and came to conclusions. But none of them got to see the physical server, so this doesnt solve the problem of what if crowdstrike, rather intentionally or not, didnt have an exact replica of the server and all of the evidence.


Now the other froms of evidence you give, which is of Russia attempting or doing other hacks.

This does not prove that russia did this hack.

Again, i can provide you of evidence of the chinese trying over and over to hack various servers. If one of those servers is hacked today, even one targeted by china in the past, that doesnt prove china did this hack.

So your NYT article (behind a pay wall for me sorry) www.nytimes.com...

Ok a guy told the DNC russia was trying to hack them. That doesnt prove russia was the ones who hacked the DNC in teh wikileaks dump. (BTW, why did the DNC ignore the warnings? Seems fishy and incredibly dumb)


Next article. www.secureworks.com...

This just says that russia was phishing all kinds of people and groups, including people connected to hillary.

That does not prove that russia was successful with these, or that they did this hack that leaked to wikileaks.

Again, if I could provide details that in 2015 china was also phishing may people, including the DNC, does that prove that it wasnt russia that hacked the dnc, but china? Of course not.

Next article. www.yahoo.com...

Yahoo told this woman a state actor tried to phish her. Ok, was it successful? Was it the same hack that was the wikileaks dump? Why didnt everyone on hillarys campaign using yahoo that was hacked get this same message?

It also states that this shows the russians phished way more personal details of people than just the DNC hack.

well if these phish attempts were all from the same hack, why not release that material as well?

The point with all three of these articles is that it is entirely possible that russai was attempting phishing activties, and maybe was even successful, but that they were not the ones that hacked the DNC who gave info to wikileaks.

In fact russia could have hack part of the wikileaks material, or all and more with these attempts idenitified outside crowdstrike, and that doesnt prove they were the ones that hacked the dnc in this insatnce and gave the info to wikileaks.

In fact, it is quite possible that russia hacked the dnc, and china, or israel, or any other country, or that there was a leak of info from inside the dnc at the time there was a hack.


So this means that all of your arguments as to why there is no point in questioning the fact the FBI never looked at the server is erroneous.

You have t prove that there was no chance whatsoever that looking at the physical server could have helped the fbi, seeing as how there is no downside to them looking at it.

Otherwise the FBI intentionally did not use their full investigative prowess in this case, they sacrficed some of it to appease the DNC, which is inexcusable.




posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Now for everyone who finds those last three posts too long.



From this thread, it is easy to see that reasonable people can have disagreement on tech issues, or outside crowdstrike proof of a russian hack.

The point is though that the FBI should have used there best methods to investigate this.

The fbi and comey have admitted that means getting the physical server.

There has been no good reason given whatsoever as to why the DNC wouldnt let the FBI look at the server.

This means in one of the biggest cases they ever had, the FBI felt it was more important to bow down to the DNC than use there best methods to solve russian interference into the election.

That is the main point.










(also shame on you if you didnt read the long posts!)



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


All of that ignores the issue.

You have no answer to why the DNC wouldnt let them have access to the server, and why the FBI didnt insist upon it.


I don't believe it does.

You're right, we do not know why the DNC (DWS?) didn't give the FBI direct access to their servers. There are a range of legitimate and less than legitimate possibilities for that decision. And of course they're not all equally probable. For instance, "They were hiding proof of alien contact" is improbable (probably).

How about, "Because CrowdStrike was fabricating forensic evidence to blame a leak on Russia." ? To some people, disproportionately to many Trump supporters, this seems *highly probable* to the point that it's basically the only possibility they can imagine to exclusion of any other.

What evidence is there for this being the case though?

None. The only "evidence" is that the DNC didn't give the FBI direct access. That fact is not evidence that uniquely favors the above hypothesis. It could be claimed as evidence in support of pretty much anything.

If I said, "The fact that the DNC didn't give the FBI direct access could only mean that they didn't trust the FBI to handle their data," just repeatedly pointing out that the FBI didn't get direct access wouldn't persuade you of anything because that wouldn't rank as highly probable to you.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

Some people are primed to favor "Because CrowdStrike was fabricating forensic evidence to blame a leak on Russia" because that's the narrative that's been spun: Trump and friends claiming Russia didn't do it/calling it a hoax, constantly treating it as "questionable," Assange denying Russia was the source (a break with his own protocol) and insinuating that it could have been Seth Rich but falling short of saying one way or the other (citing the protocol he already broke in denying Russia was the source), the heaps and mounds of bull# about Seth Rich, the ridiculous "Forensicator" analysis that I've debunked a dozen times that people who don't know any better accept as *proof* that there was no hack ("Couldn't have been transferred at those speeds remotely!") — that "Adam Carter"/"Forensicator" # turns out to be as sketchy as it appears and at least half a dozen failed distractions that I can think of (manipulated G2 messages with stripper, the Binney thing — he no longer buys the "Forensicator" thing btw — Craig Murray claiming he received emails from a leaker in DC, Kim DotCom's bull# claims, etc).

A constant bombardment of speculation, innuendo and misinfo intended to persuade Trump supporters of basically anything except that the Russians had hacked the DNC.

How about proof that the DNC was hacked by the Russians? I can point to forensic evidence from multiple sources having nothing to do with CrowdStrike. It was the consensus of the relevant IC agencies. It's also the finding of the Mueller investigation which under different circumstances would be the end of it.

And all of these pieces fit together. Even if you use the fact that the DNC didn't give the FBI access as justification for ignoring what CrowdStrike published and what was given the FBI, what about all the rest of it?


The only answer you have given is perhaps the DNC wanted to hide something else.

This shows that the copy that the dnc authorized crowdstrike to send could not have been a complete replica of everything on the DNC server


I gave one possible reason but it's all pure speculation so what would the purpose of making up a bunch of alternatives?

And no, it does not show that at all. First off the DNC had 140 servers. How many of them were accessed by the hackers? Maybe they gave them perfect images of everything that was affected. Maybe they were hiding something that wasn't on any of the servers. Maybe they were afraid that there was something that they might not want out and were just being super cautious and they didn't withhold anything. Maybe they weren't trying to hide anything at all.

The point is that there's no evidence favoring any particular speculation. You saying well that if they were trying to hide anything that means they didn't give them legit images or gave them something incomplete is just more speculation.

This is what I don't get. There is forensic evidence at your disposal that refutes the notion that there was no hack and points a finger at Russia. No speculation required. Why doesn't that outweigh pure speculation?



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


I get hacked. The fbi is going to help me and wants to look at my server.

I have a naked photo of myself on my server, and dont want the fbi to see it.

How would hiring a firm to make an exact 100% replica of that server and giving them that going to help my situation at all? Seeing as how it is an exact copy, the FBI would still, see the nude photo of me.

The only way a copy would solve my dilemma is if it WASNT an exact copy, and didnt include the nude photo of me.


What if the nude picture was on your desktop that wasn't hacked and you just don't want the feds poking around your network? What if it was on a server that wasn't compromised that there'd be no need for them to see? What if you had a whole bunch of users and you weren't sure if any of them had nude pictures but you decided it would be a good idea to let somebody check the server before giving it to the FBI?

What if you didn't want them on your network because they might intercept a nude picture being sent to/from a mobile device? What if you were concerned that the FBI was going to leave something on your servers so they could get back in later and look for nude pics?

Or how about you think that your contractor is more capable than the FBI and you just don't want them in the way? I mean should I just spitball ad nauseam here?


The point is that without being able to show any negative whatsoever for the fbi looking at the physical server, all people have to do is show that there was any amount of benefit to looking at the server, however small, to prove that the FBI do not act in the best possible way.

In other words, they acquiesced to the DNC over using all the tools available to them to solve this crime for the American people.

Proving that solving russian interference was not the top priority of the FBI.


What you seem to be forgetting is that the DNC were there victims. If you call the cops and say somebody has been throwing rocks through your windows. And you say, here's the rocks but I don't want you in my house, you may or may not make things less easy for the cops but they can't go to a judge and say, "Your honor, that man must let me in his house! He was a victim of a crime!"



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Question: if they were able to make "exact copies" as is implied, why didn't they swap the "copied" HD's with the original HD's?
Seems that would be the best solution, Now I am aware that that would have pulled the server offline for 5 min or so (HD's do fail and have to be replaced, so it does happen) Or is that "too easy/too much burden"? Is that just "too logical"?


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



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

These are getting long and it's getting late and I'm running on a sleep deficit so I'm to strive for brevity in the last couple posts.

All three of the points conclude:


Why risk this if there is no downside to looking at the physical server?


I think the same answers apply to all as well. What legal recourse did the FBI have to compel the DNC to give them direct access to their network?


That proves the FBI did not have solving russian interference as there top priority, and they were willing to appease the DNC above that.


See above. Also, let's consider the timeline. When was the FBI initially informed of what CrowdStrike had found? In May? When were the first emails released by WikiLeaks? End of July? At what point would it have dawned on the FBI that this was going to be what it became?

What was going on with the DNC network at the time? CrowdStrike booted the hackers, made the announcement and then what? Keep in mind this was in June of a particularly contentious campaign season. Do you think they just powered everything down and sat on their hands? Did they remove all the hardware, lock it up somewhere and rebuild the entire infrastructure from scratch?

Or did they grab images and then reinstall everything using existing hardware?


This is why you stance of "We know it was russians from other evidence, so there is no need to question why the FBI didnt look at the DNC server" is not a good one to have.


Except that the evidence contradicts the speculation that CrowdStrike hoaxed a hack and pinned it on the Russians. Isn't that the most important part?



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Just a quick blurb

I still disagree with you but am sleepy as well so I will go in depth tomorrow

But thanks for your responses and even if we disagree I respect the work you put into them



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


So your independent evidence proving crowdstrike is correct is from crowdstrikes partner?

How does that help?


I'm not sure what "partner" refers to there. It could simply refer to sharing of data, some sort of informal relationship like colleague, etc. At any rate, with the exception of the first resolution date being two days after the registration, some of the rest is research they did drawing on other sources. For instance:


In reviewing the Domain Whois information, our DomainTools integration reveals that the domain was registered on March 22, 2016 by frank_merdeux@europe[.]com.


You can verify that yourself from other sources.


And other articles have taken info given by crowdstrike, and came to conclusions. But none of them got to see the physical server, so this doesnt solve the problem of what if crowdstrike, rather intentionally or not, didnt have an exact replica of the server and all of the evidence.


Yes, it doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the images were legit but then, I didn't say it would.


Ok a guy told the DNC russia was trying to hack them. That doesnt prove russia was the ones who hacked the DNC in teh wikileaks dump. (BTW, why did the DNC ignore the warnings? Seems fishy and incredibly dumb)


It wasn't "a guy" — it was an FBI agent functioning in his capacity as an FBI agent. What it proves is that the FBI had *something* that indicated the attack and that it predated the CrowdStrike involvement by several months. It's also interesting that an identification of "The Dukes" (Cozy Bear) was given which would suggest that whatever the FBI had, that wasn't from CrowdStrike, pointed to that identification.

The story from the IT contractor was that he wasn't sure if it was a crank, that he didn't know who "The Dukes" was and had to Google them, that he checked all the server logs, didn't see anything and basically dropped the ball. What he should have done if he was uncertain is called the FBI and had them direct him back to the agent.

Seems super dumb but I don't know that it's fishy. Keep in mind this was like 6-7 months before CrowdStrike was called in so what's the thinking here?


This just says that russia was phishing all kinds of people and groups, including people connected to hillary.

That does not prove that russia was successful with these, or that they did this hack that leaked to wikileaks.


Check the second link (the AP story), that's what I actually excerpted. The first link was published two days after the announcement of the hack. This could have been tidier but I was composing on the fly and hunting down links of things from memory.

It evidences a couple of things but what they prove conclusively is that the Bitly shortened URL clicked by Podesta in the phishing email that led him to the server with the fake login where his credentials were captured was created as part of a massive phishing campaign. It shows when the link was created and it even proves when he clicked the link.

That article was the second in a series. If you follow the link to the first there's further details about the nature of the targets (I'll paste a block of it):


Secureworks’ list covers the period between March 2015 and May 2016. Most of the identified targets were in the United States, Ukraine, Russia, Georgia and Syria.

In the United States, which was Russia’s Cold War rival, Fancy Bear tried to pry open at least 573 inboxes belonging to those in the top echelons of the country’s diplomatic and security services: then-Secretary of State John Kerry, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, then-NATO Supreme Commander, U.S. Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove, and one of his predecessors, U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark.

The list skewed toward workers for defense contractors such as Boeing, Raytheon and Lockheed Martin or senior intelligence figures, prominent Russia watchers and — especially — Democrats. More than 130 party workers, campaign staffers and supporters of the party were targeted, including Podesta and other members of Clinton’s inner circle.

The AP also found a handful of Republican targets.

Podesta, Powell, Breedlove and more than a dozen Democratic targets besides Podesta would soon find their private correspondence dumped to the web. The AP has determined that all had been targeted by Fancy Bear, most of them three to seven months before the leaks.

“They got two years of email,” Powell recently told AP. He said that while he couldn’t know for sure who was responsible, “I always suspected some Russian connection.”

In Ukraine, which is fighting a grinding war against Russia-backed separatists, Fancy Bear attempted to break into at least 545 accounts, including those of President Petro Poroshenko and his son Alexei, half a dozen current and former ministers such as Interior Minister Arsen Avakov and as many as two dozen current and former lawmakers.

The list includes Serhiy Leshchenko, an opposition parliamentarian who helped uncover the off-the-books payments allegedly made to Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort — whose indictment was unsealed Monday in Washington.

In Russia, Fancy Bear focused on government opponents and dozens of journalists. Among the targets were oil tycoon-turned-Kremlin foe Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who spent a decade in prison and now lives in exile, and Pussy Riot’s Maria Alekhina. Along with them were 100 more civil society figures, including anti-corruption campaigner Alexei Navalny and his lieutenants.


There's another bit for you, the phishing campaign that got Podesta's emails *is the same one* that got Powell's. Where were Podesta's emails published? WikiLeaks. Powell's? Russian front site, DC Leaks on which there were private, passworded archives to which "Guccifer 2.0" gave various reporters access. Which further links to both to the DCCC hack because of course, "Guccifer 2.0" distributed stolen documents AND a voter info database that are known to have originated with the DCCC. (another thing I should have listed in my initial post) It also bears mention that according to the Mueller indictments, Fancy Bear gained access to the DNC network through a user at the DCCC.

As far as attribution goes, looking at the targets, it's the same composition of targets Fancy Bear is previously known to go after. The gist of the article is that the targets best fit the agenda of the Russian government and they do.


Yahoo told this woman a state actor tried to phish her. Ok, was it successful? Was it the same hack that was the wikileaks dump? Why didnt everyone on hillarys campaign using yahoo that was hacked get this same message?


That's a good question. She follows me on Twitter, I may just ask her. (she could also tell me "no comment" and block me) I tend to think *not* but I don't positively.



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 12:03 AM
link   
To those that claim its common practice to get an image of the server they are wrong. The FBI as a matter of protocol seize servers and they wanted to in this case but they were 'out powered' if you can believe that.


-a senior FBI law enforcement official wrote in an email Thursday that "The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated."


www.wired.com...

FBI seize servers: duckduckgo.com...



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 12:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Before I forget, an addition to the above: remember that the first document Guccifer 2.0 published appears now to have come from Podesta's mail. Which links "Guccifer 2.0" to the Podesta emails. As I said, "he" shared other stuff that came straight from the DCCC like the voter data. The phishing of Podesta and Powell were done by the same people. The Powell emails were released through DC Leaks and "Guccifer 2.0" was giving out *individualized* passwords to archives on DC Leaks to different reporters.

So think that through for a second. All of those things are fairly solidly linked from publicly available data. And where did Podesta's emails ultimately end up? WikiLeaks. So unless he got phished twice, Podesta's stolen emails that were published by WikiLeaks can be tied back to "Guccifer 2.0" who we know also had stolen docs from the DCCC and who I should note, claimed more than once to have sent what he had to WikiLeaks.

Also, this:

These Messages Show Julian Assange Talked About Seeking Hacked Files From Guccifer 2.0


Best told BuzzFeed News she first reached out to Guccifer 2.0 in August 2016 after it posted on its WordPress account a call for journalists who wanted its files. “I sent them a Direct Message and referred to that, asking what they had in mind,” Best told BuzzFeed News over Signal. Best has experience posting large data sets, and wondered if she could host the files on archive.org, a nonprofit digital library.

But Guccifer 2.0 had another idea. “[I] gonna send a large trove to wikileaks,” it said. Best, who had DMed with WikiLeaks before, relayed that message to WikiLeaks in a direct message on Twitter. Neither party conveyed to her whether they had interacted together before.

“I told them that Guccifer 2.0 was considering giving me at least part of the cache, which is when they asked me to be their ‘agent,’ which they said I would get ‘credit’ for,” Best said. She didn’t agree to act as Assange’s agent, she said, but stopped messaging with Guccifer 2.0.

WikiLeaks was adamant in its communications with Best that it didn't want anyone else to leak the files.

“[T]hese other media groups are very likely to take a stupid initial angle,” WikiLeaks said in one message sent Aug. 12 at 9:14 p.m., adding that other news outlets would focus less on the content of the leaks than how they came to be. “‘We don’t know if its true. Possibly russians who knows blah blah blah.’”

WikiLeaks’s pitch worked. “I dropped the matter with both parties and never received or passed on any exclusive G2, DNC, Podesta, etc. documents,” Best said.

Less than an hour after WikiLeaks’s last message to Best, Guccifer 2.0 tweeted that it had handed those documents over.


I mean come on.



It also states that this shows the russians phished way more personal details of people than just the DNC hack.

well if these phish attempts were all from the same hack, why not release that material as well?


Well yes, the Bitly links show that. I think it would have been helpful if I had included a link to the story with the breakdown of the links initially.

They cast a wide net and the Clinton campaign and Democrats were a fraction of the overall target group. Interestingly, the Bitly stuff also shows that the initial targeting of Clinton campaign staff included addresses from the previous campaign for people who were not with the 2016 campaign which seems to indicate that they were sourced from web searching.

Then there's a point where it looks like they get a victim, gank the the victim's contacts and then in later rounds, use a much refined list of targets.


But one email made its way to the account of another staffer who’d worked for Clinton in 2008 and joined again in 2016, the AP found. It’s possible the hackers broke in and stole her contacts; the data shows the phishing links sent to her were clicked several times.


Ugh. I'm fading here. I think the first part of this post is responsive to some of the rest of your comments though. I have other stuff. I really hadn't planned on getting into the weeds on this or I would have gone back over some stuff.

Anyway, I'll respond tomorrow morning/afternoon to anything else you've posted. I'm crashing "early" (for me anyway) tonight.
edit on 2018-8-31 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 05:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Yes grambler I believe there was no Russian hack they made it up to deflect off the crimes the dnc was being implicated of being involved with as alluded by the leaked podestia emails and that is why the server was never seized by fbi because was ordered to let it go by lynch. I believe if the actual server was made available the amounts of criminal activity on it would be mind boogling. Could you imagine how quick the Bernie Sanders crowd would sue if the server corroborated the leaked emails saying that no matter what primary outcomes were Hillary was always going to be dnc candidate not bernie.. the amounts of finance crime and campaign fund violations would probably be extensive.



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 05:22 AM
link   
Also how on earth is anybody able to refuse the fib the first thing that boob comedy should have done when they denied him was went and got a search warrant and seized those servers. What Russia should do is sue the fib for slander for telling people they have evidence that Russia hacked and because they actually have no proof.



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 07:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler

What you seem to be forgetting is that the DNC were there victims. If you call the cops and say somebody has been throwing rocks through your windows. And you say, here's the rocks but I don't want you in my house, you may or may not make things less easy for the cops but they can't go to a judge and say, "Your honor, that man must let me in his house! He was a victim of a crime!"


You are correct but if the victim really wanted to ensure that the culprits would be captured before they were attacked again...they would allow them to fully gather the forensic evidence. Aka...they would be allowed to fully inspect the crime scene. See exactly where the rocks fell in relation to their projection through the window. Yes?

So once again...it would beg the question, why not? One logically would question your sincerity in claiming to be a victim? If you are not hiding some other nefarious act, Did you throw rocks through your own windows to seek victim status?

You have to admit that anyone would speculate. I have seen crime scenes...they always tape it off to ensure no one tampers with the evidence including the victims. This did not occur here with the DNC server...which technically was considered the scene of the crime. Why?
edit on 8 31 2018 by CynConcepts because: Quote / response correction



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

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


You mentioned you had made a thread regarding this issue here that you keep bringing up. I suggest you discuss it there. This isnt the focus or the topic of the OP yet you keep trying to push it. Lets focus on the OP



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
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?


How could they know if it was a true copy?

Why not give them access to the original server as requested?



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 12:47 PM
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.


It is? Can you prove that?

How can you prove that without comparing the copy to the original?



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

A lot going on here so hard to cover it all.

As to your answer to my example.

None of these would make sense.

We are not talking about the DNC not allowing the FBI to see other harddrives or servers that werent hacked.

If the DNC didnt want the FBI to see stuff on those hacked servers, and so they sent them a copy instead, that proves the copy was not the exact replica of the server, because it left off what the DNC was trying to hide from the FBI.

That material that would have been hidden could have had important evidence in it.

You actually mention in a few of your posts maybe the DNC didnt trust the FBI.

WHAT?

Now that is a valid reason to hamper a nation security investigation?

As far as the DNC being victims, they werent the only ones.

They cant have oit both ways. If the DNC wants this investigated as a national security matter (which clearly they do) they dont then get to say oh and you cant look at our servers because we dont feel like letting you.

And you well know that in an investigation such as this, the FBI could have demanded access to those servers in the name of national security if they wanted.

It is clear that the FBI wanted to see ther server, and backed down at the rquest of the DNC.

This again shows that the FBI was more interested in appeasing the DNC than stopping russian interference.



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

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.


Tje United States is not a democracy.



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: SorrowSong

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

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




You mentioned you had made a thread regarding this issue here that you keep bringing up. I suggest you discuss it there. This isnt the focus or the topic of the OP yet you keep trying to push it. Lets focus on the OP


Wow, you have 17 posts and you're already a mod, congratulations.

I mentioned it once to illustrate a point.

Here is my appeal, to you the mod. I did discuss the topic, I was just bringing up how people use these topics for political leverage...

So, if it's ok with you, the mod, can my posts stay?

Great, they can, thank you so much.

edit on 31-8-2018 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2018 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: SorrowSong

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

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.


Tje United States is not a democracy.


Yes it is, but if you want to get technical and split hairs, we'll call it what it is.

It's a democratic republic.

But this is the definition of democracy, which it looks like we fit into.

b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
webster



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join