-BREAKING- FBI backs CIA view that Russia intervened to help Trump win

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: rickymouse
I hate these threads made by Trump haters. Can't they see that many people knew from Hillary that Russia was getting involved somewhat and they still voted for Trump because they disliked Hillary so much. They lost a lot of Bernie supporters who went over and voted for Trump. She screwed Bernie over, that was a very bad thing to do. She thinks she is above the law it appears.

I really don't care anymore, I hope this country gets split into a bunch of small countries already. We might as well have borders between us, trade homes with the crazy people so they can all move into one area and go on their own.

Gives new meaning to red country and blue country. I agree. although we still can have mutual defence pacts.

This whole thing is so dumb, they are accusing Russia of a crime for telling the truth.

a reply to: rickymouse

True. but stupid is as stupid does.

cant wait until people stop talking about this. this is the dumbest # ive ever heard. no #ing # Russia did what they could(and they might not have even done anything). it doesnt matter. Hillary gave Russia every reason to think shed wanna start a war with Russia. they painted hillary as a criminal because thats wtf she is.

But most of all nothing is gonna come from this. you're all gonna cry and stomp around with your "not my president" BS and just like children eventually you'll forget all about it and life will go on.

there is no evidence. this isnt gonna go anywhere. just chill out you sore loser.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: muse7

You people keep flirting with civil war with your Russian conspiracy theories.

Be careful what you ask for.

So we should have a civil war because a foreign Government attacked us? If so, be it. Wait, are we supposed to be scared?

originally posted by: sopasdepollito
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss


Done carrying water for the Kremlin?

What was so bad about what they did, if anything?

Obama should have built a firewall.

Don't blame the Krem, bro.

a reply to: DonVoigt


Could be that you're putting your party before your country.

a reply to: burgerbuddy


You really believe that it's Obama's fault because he didn't "build a firewall?" The FBI, CIA, NSA and even HLS all believe that Russia was behind these hacks. What would Reagan do?

a reply to: Vasa Croe

You misread that paragraph:

By the time we reached the network-related functions during our analysis, the relevant IP addresses belonging to the C2 servers were no longer responding back as expected. In order to capture the necessary traffic we had to modify both of the aforementioned disk wiper components. One modification replaced one of the hard-coded C2 server IP addresses with a local address belonging to a decoy VM while changing references to the other hard-coded addresses to point to this local address instead.

What they're describing is actually just editing the hard-coded IP addresses in the samples and changing them to IPs in their lab so they could get them phoning home and sniff the traffic. No spoofing required.

My reasoning for the issue I see is that the claim from our intelligence community is that a foreign intelligence community is dumb enough to use something with a hard coded IP or code block that traces back directly to a previous known attack. That goes against EVERYTHING I have ever known about hacking. If caught, no old code is used....why? Because the trail leads DIRECTLY to you. What does a sneaky hacker do? Use code from other sources so if found it leads back to THEM!

I don't specialize in security these days (though ultimately I am responsible for the security of my company's networks) but I was an active hacker for many years, many years ago (early-mid 90's - early 00's) so I'm comfortable talking from experience.

This much is certain: there's clear evidence of iterative development over time based on samples recovered from a number of hacks. In other words, somebody has been actively devloping the implants and using them for an extended period. That's not particularly unusual because a lot of time is put into developing these tools. It is interesting that they don't seem to be using employing obsfuscation but the software is otherwise advanced, including a modular design that reduces footprint and also minimizes how much of the the software is exposed to being recovered by security pros.

I can't rule out a frame but CrowdStrike monitored them for weeks, so they were actually capturing traffic between the implants and the C2 nodes. So unless CrowdStrike (and I would assume the FBI was called in at some point?) is behind the frame, these things were there and working. They're newer versions with enough code that they're being described as possibly being dev'd for this attack (but again, from the same code base). The inclusion of this hard-coded C2 node linking to the German hack (and the reuse of the SSL cert) would have had to have been premeditated. They would have had to replicate the entire C2 infrastructure too. Then there was months of the spearphishing attacks. At the end of the day, for this to be somebody else pretending to be APT28, I would assume that they spent months crafting a very elaborate camouflage ON TOP of actually doing the hack and with the intention of throwing Russia under the bus if they got caught.

Is it possible? Eeeeeh..it is but so are a lot of things. It doesn't seem likely. That's why this need to be thoroughly investigated and that's going to require the incoming administration being on board. I'm wondering what human intelligence the CIA (or others) have gotten too. I guess we'll see what develops.

We have been involved in other countries affairs for years. We have made sure certain leaders are elected as well and just got beat at our own game. I just can't get to fired up about that aspect of it. I do think we knew what was happening all along and did nothing.

originally posted by: projectvxn
You're purposefully twisting my meaning.

I don't want war.

I'm warning you about war.

I don't suffer from normalcy bias. You seem to think everything is fine and this is just a political debate. It isn't.

It is just a political debate. People say stupid things in political debates all the time.

At the end of the day, it comes down to who the military accepts as the rightful President, and who Congress recognizes. A civil war is impossible unless the military fractures.

Wild fantasies are how people cope with stuff.

originally posted by: projectvxn
I'm not loyal to Trump.

I'm loyal to the US and her people. All of them.

If the establishment is so hell bent on upending a legitimate election based on nothing more than unsubstantiated accusations like our OP is making ("Putin's Puppet" for example) you will get chaos. Guaranteed.

We've literally had 24 years now of politicians claiming their opponent is an illegitimate president. From Obama and the rumor he wasn't born a US citizen, to Bush Jr and the 8 years of complaints that he lost the popular vote, and all the shady stuff in Florida. To Clinton who they impeached after years of lawsuits.

It probably goes back further than that too, but I'm too young to remember it.

a reply to: theantediluvian

A hacker I doubt it I'm sure you would've hacked GOP servers pre-election if you could've

The governments hacking each other was nothing new. The US causing a proxy war in a Russian ally state was.

a reply to: theantediluvian


The facts do not matter, the facts can be manufactured to fit the agenda. Half of the population haven't got a clue, or don't really care. The next move is to lay the " facts " before the electoral committees. The outcome of their decision is the next move on the board. If the "facts" are so "compelling" as to cause them to have a change of heart. I mean if their was a serious possibility of facing the noose you would do anything to get out of it.
By the same token other factions would have noticed that certain patterns of behaviour have been observed over the years, leading to obvious conclusion with regards to this administrations final agenda. Their will always be an antithesis.
Assassination as a political tool would be pointless because as compromised politicians they are just actors following the script.Who live a good life for doing what they are told. These other factions lets call them ghosts, would know this and by now would have identified the Producers long ago. Their wouldn't be more than a handful. So we can assume that the Producers have long had ghosts around them, that's why they are so paranoid because they don't know who they are.
The Producers will tell the Directors what the script is, and then they will direct the actors on their performance. We have a rough idea who the Producers are, and we know who the Directors are ...we don't know who the Ghosts are. This is the logical strategic all outcome of M.A.D

originally posted by: Willtell
So what are they going to do about it?

NOTHING

Obama says their going to retaliate. Oh Really. What is he going to do in a month?


Because Trump certainly isn't going to retaliate he might give Putin the congressional medal of honor

Exactly. It is unlikely the Russians are going to receive any retaliation for their actions. Obama shuffles feet and plays golf and throws out empty threats, liberals just wring their hands, cry like infants and grasp at straws. Trump and the Republicans practically tripping over themselves for the chance to bend over and be Putin's little bitches. So the Russians can add a notch to the score card. They got us good, and we won't to anything about it.

The benefit of this situation is that all the cards are on the table, and we at least are under no delusions about the treasonous scum that will be at the helm of this country for the next 4 years. It might help Americans get some perspective on what it's like to be ruled by a foreign backed puppet government, much like we've been doing to other people for years. Good education.

Just another "sources , he said she said" gossip session . Never any names....
Why ? If they printed names , these sources would take em to court with libel charges (if the sources are truly real people and not figments of the imagination)
Pathetic or pathological

a reply to: muse7

Have all the evidence you need. Just released by the CIA

a reply to: muse7

Putin's puppet? Last I checked Romney thought Putin was a problem and Obama lambasted him for suggesting it and then told Russia after he won he would be able to help them out more.

TRUTH about Clinton was exposed. Regardless of the source, truth is a good thing.

Clinton won the popular vote in every single state she carried - as did Trump. However she did not win a national popular vote because we dont have one. She won California by more than 4-5 million votes over Trump and Trump won the most states. Clinton DID NOT win a popular majority either. In order to claim that a person needs more than 50%. She received 47% - a PLURALITY and a razor thin one at that.


Clinton went dark, waiting almost a year before engaging the press. She lied about the email server and kept getting caught every time she lied about it. Even her campaign said early on she had a credibility issue.

She ignored a large chunk of the Democratic base - blue collar voters. When she declared she would put coal out of business, then back tracked when it began to hurt her in the polls, people started waking up that she cannot be trusted. Her campaign attacked journalists who dared question what he was doing.

The DNC / campaign officials on the ground in Iowa and Michigan saw the problem that was occurring and begged the campaign to change things up and the campaign refused. Whats even worse is the people on the ground in MI tried to reach the top tier Clinton campaign staff to let them know and that staff basically told them they were not important enough to speak to people at that high of a level.

Arrogance, treating people like they are beneath them, turning her back on her base coupled with her divisive rhetoric while lying / trying to cover up her stupidity all the while trying to run on obamas record is what cost her the election. Screwing Bernie Sanders out of the nomination also turned off a large chunk of democratic support. Her comments like - people living in their parents basement and deplorables didnt help her.

She did not want to earn votes. She felt this was owed to her and that it should be accepted as fait accompli.