Anonymous
Post 12/31/2016 12:00     Subject: Obama Admin under pressure to provide "hacking" proof
The reason the DHS report was unable to comment on multiple parties having been hacked is because this was a spear fishing exploit requiring an idiot like Podesta to actively give out his password to a phony website or link.

Very very few people are as stupid as either Podesta or HRC when it comes to internet security, so the actual number of targets that were compromised by the spear fishing looks very small (out of 1,000 targets mentioned in the report).

No one at the RNC was as stupid as Podesta. Therefore the spear fishing Russian hackers had no access. Therefore the DHS report mentions only a single party as having been compromised.
Anonymous
Post 12/31/2016 11:57     Subject: Obama Admin under pressure to provide "hacking" proof
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It's also known that the RNC was hacked, it's also known that the RNC was engaging in underhanded tactics like DWS was doing with Clinton vs. Sanders yet it was only the DNC emails that were leaked to Wikileaks by the hackers. Clearly the hackers were favoring one party over the other with the intent to manipulate the outcome.


Priebus has said that there was an attempt at a hack--but it was unsuccessful. Where is your proof that the RNC was hacked?

Seriously? I don't think it is any secret that the GOP establishment was not in favor of Trump, but when the voters selected him, they supported the chosen candidate. DNC actively worked against Sanders. I suspect that if RNC emails had been hacked that is what you would find. But, there is a difference between not being in favor of and actively working against.

And, what does "also known" mean?


The IC and House Homeland Security Committee said the RNC was hacked. The claim is that they didn't get anything but the fact is we don't really know what they did or didn't get from the RNC.

As for Priebus, he worked against some of the Republican candidates during the Primaries and that ended up benefiting Trump and when Trump began to emerge, Priebus went all in. It's self-evident from the fact that Trump is now rewarding Priebus with the Chief of Staff position that Priebus helped him.


Wrong. Nothing in the DHS 13 page report indicates that multiple political parties were hacked. It says "a" singular political party, not parties, was hacked. If there was any evidence at all that RNC was hacked, the DHS report would have said "parties", plural, were hacked.

It did not.

Propaganda by the Obama administration doesn't equal evidence or proof. Just like people now saying the Vermont grid was hacked, when it wasn't hacked.
Anonymous
Post 12/31/2016 11:13     Subject: Obama Admin under pressure to provide "hacking" proof
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It's also known that the RNC was hacked, it's also known that the RNC was engaging in underhanded tactics like DWS was doing with Clinton vs. Sanders yet it was only the DNC emails that were leaked to Wikileaks by the hackers. Clearly the hackers were favoring one party over the other with the intent to manipulate the outcome.


Priebus has said that there was an attempt at a hack--but it was unsuccessful. Where is your proof that the RNC was hacked?

Seriously? I don't think it is any secret that the GOP establishment was not in favor of Trump, but when the voters selected him, they supported the chosen candidate. DNC actively worked against Sanders. I suspect that if RNC emails had been hacked that is what you would find. But, there is a difference between not being in favor of and actively working against.

And, what does "also known" mean?


The IC and House Homeland Security Committee said the RNC was hacked. The claim is that they didn't get anything but the fact is we don't really know what they did or didn't get from the RNC.

As for Priebus, he worked against some of the Republican candidates during the Primaries and that ended up benefiting Trump and when Trump began to emerge, Priebus went all in. It's self-evident from the fact that Trump is now rewarding Priebus with the Chief of Staff position that Priebus helped him.


DP. Why did they leave this information out of the report? Guess the report is misleading or inaccurate then because it suggests that only one political party was hacked.
Anonymous
Post 12/31/2016 10:58     Subject: Obama Admin under pressure to provide "hacking" proof
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It's also known that the RNC was hacked, it's also known that the RNC was engaging in underhanded tactics like DWS was doing with Clinton vs. Sanders yet it was only the DNC emails that were leaked to Wikileaks by the hackers. Clearly the hackers were favoring one party over the other with the intent to manipulate the outcome.


Priebus has said that there was an attempt at a hack--but it was unsuccessful. Where is your proof that the RNC was hacked?

Seriously? I don't think it is any secret that the GOP establishment was not in favor of Trump, but when the voters selected him, they supported the chosen candidate. DNC actively worked against Sanders. I suspect that if RNC emails had been hacked that is what you would find. But, there is a difference between not being in favor of and actively working against.

And, what does "also known" mean?


The IC and House Homeland Security Committee said the RNC was hacked. The claim is that they didn't get anything but the fact is we don't really know what they did or didn't get from the RNC.

As for Priebus, he worked against some of the Republican candidates during the Primaries and that ended up benefiting Trump and when Trump began to emerge, Priebus went all in. It's self-evident from the fact that Trump is now rewarding Priebus with the Chief of Staff position that Priebus helped him.
Anonymous
Post 12/31/2016 10:31     Subject: Obama Admin under pressure to provide "hacking" proof
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cruh2p_Wh_4


Obama on video saying no way can ANYONE hack our elections.

Ho him.


Per Obama, "I'd advise Trump to quit whining..." He must be choking on these words now.

He's not choking yet, he's too busy flailing around desperately trying to salvage what little dignity, respect and legacy he can.
Anonymous
Post 12/31/2016 08:53     Subject: Obama Admin under pressure to provide "hacking" proof
Anonymous wrote:It's also known that the RNC was hacked, it's also known that the RNC was engaging in underhanded tactics like DWS was doing with Clinton vs. Sanders yet it was only the DNC emails that were leaked to Wikileaks by the hackers. Clearly the hackers were favoring one party over the other with the intent to manipulate the outcome.


Priebus has said that there was an attempt at a hack--but it was unsuccessful. Where is your proof that the RNC was hacked?

Seriously? I don't think it is any secret that the GOP establishment was not in favor of Trump, but when the voters selected him, they supported the chosen candidate. DNC actively worked against Sanders. I suspect that if RNC emails had been hacked that is what you would find. But, there is a difference between not being in favor of and actively working against.

And, what does "also known" mean?
Anonymous
Post 12/31/2016 08:50     Subject: Obama Admin under pressure to provide "hacking" proof
Anonymous wrote:It's also known that the RNC was hacked, it's also known that the RNC was engaging in underhanded tactics like DWS was doing with Clinton vs. Sanders yet it was only the DNC emails that were leaked to Wikileaks by the hackers. Clearly the hackers were favoring one party over the other with the intent to manipulate the outcome.


Actually, that's provably false according the DHS report. That report references spear fishing 1,000 or so targets, one of which succumbed being "a political party," singular, and not "political parties," plural.
Anonymous
Post 12/31/2016 08:48     Subject: Obama Admin under pressure to provide "hacking" proof
Show us where in the Homeland Security report that supposed "consensus" is referenced. The report doesn't even contain the word "election."
Anonymous
Post 12/31/2016 08:47     Subject: Obama Admin under pressure to provide "hacking" proof
It's also known that the RNC was hacked, it's also known that the RNC was engaging in underhanded tactics like DWS was doing with Clinton vs. Sanders yet it was only the DNC emails that were leaked to Wikileaks by the hackers. Clearly the hackers were favoring one party over the other with the intent to manipulate the outcome.
Anonymous
Post 12/31/2016 08:11     Subject: Obama Admin under pressure to provide "hacking" proof
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Proof? Faith should not require proof. If you don't believe or don't understand, you're not nuanced enough. Therefore, you should have blind faith, sheeple.


The Obama Administration got caught in a huge propaganda lie and has no way out. There is no "consensus" in the intelligence community that the motive of the Russian hacking--if indeed there was any Russian hacking--was to benefit Trump. There is no evidence of such a consensus. This was purely propaganda fed to the media by Obama administration operatives. This was all started because of Trump's sarcastic remark in the debate that the Russians should hack Hillary's email server (which they and the Chinese had probably already done anyway). Hillary jumped all over that as have the Democrats and haven't let go of it.

But now, when asked to present proof, there is none to present. So Obama acts like a clown and expels 35 Russian diplomats/spies who had nothing whatsoever to do with the alleged hacking.

Masterful performance, I hate to see him go.


The intelligence community says they do have a consensus. You say they don't. I'm going with them on this one, since your claim to insider knowledge is nada.


The only "consensus" actually presented was that it is thought that persons associated with Russian intelligence engaged in spear fishing against 1,000 some-odd targets and a very small percentage of targets were dumb enough to fall for it. One of those who fell for it was "a political party." There is no "consensus" that the election was affected. There was no consensus that the intent was to aid Trump.


Actually yes, there is a consensus that the aim was to help trump. At first there wasn't, because Comey wouldn't let the FBI publicly state that they agreed. But eventually even he relented and the FBI agreed as well. Reading is fundamental
Anonymous
Post 12/31/2016 08:06     Subject: Obama Admin under pressure to provide "hacking" proof
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cruh2p_Wh_4


Obama on video saying no way can ANYONE hack our elections.

Ho him.


Per Obama, "I'd advise Trump to quit whining..." He must be choking on these words now.


Add the one where Hillary says something about questioning the election being a threat to democracy, and you've got quite the collection of Dem leaders showing their ass.
Anonymous
Post 12/31/2016 07:57     Subject: Obama Admin under pressure to provide "hacking" proof
Anonymous wrote:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cruh2p_Wh_4


Obama on video saying no way can ANYONE hack our elections.

Ho him.


Per Obama, "I'd advise Trump to quit whining..." He must be choking on these words now.
Anonymous
Post 12/31/2016 07:47     Subject: Re:Obama Admin under pressure to provide "hacking" proof
Anonymous wrote:Does this count as proof? https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY%20STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

How else does an entity prove it has been hacked? Honestly I am not sure if anything short of being uploaded into the Matrix by Trump himself would be enough proof for the trolls.


If, by an entity being hacked, you mean that it's been compromised, I don't think anyone doubts that. We've seen the embarrassing emails that were made public (apparently because the DNC had god awful security and Podesta is the kind of moron to fall for a spear phishing attack). But that doesn't prove Russia "hacked our election" to install Trump or anything close.

Why do I get the feeling you would have been shrieking that we had abundant proof of Saddam's WMD back in 2001?

Look, I'm sorry that your candidate lost. Truly. I would've preferred her to Trump too. But the damage is done. All the sour grapes and finger pointing in the world isn't going to change what happened.
Anonymous
Post 12/31/2016 07:32     Subject: Re:Obama Admin under pressure to provide "hacking" proof
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/something-about-this-russia-story-stinks-w458439

Even that "conservative" magazine, Rolling Stone, things something smells in this hacking story.


Thanks for sharing. Good piece. God, some people will believe anything if it's what they want to hear.


I am a veteran engineer with internet security experience going back to '97. I have reviewed the evidence presented by Crowdstrike and the other firms. It's clearly the work of russian government hackers. There's no way to prove motive, but it was definitely them.

So frankly I don't care what this music magazine says. And given what you probably said about their journalistic integrity regarding the campus rape story, you shouldn't be relying on them either.


Well, master infosec expert, if you want to discredit the story legitimately, you would do well to realize it's a Matt Taibbi piece, much more than it is a "music magazine" piece.


Uh, he is neither technical nor a technical writer. He is a political and financial journalist who spent some time in Russia.

he would be more qualified to read a CT scan than to [b]interpret the technical evidence of russian hacking[b].



Either you didn't read his piece or you didn't understand it. Because it's not primarily about "interpreting technical evidence."


He wrote "But we don't learn much at all about what led our government to determine a) that these hacks were directed by the Russian government, or b) they were undertaken with the aim of influencing the election, and in particular to help elect Donald Trump."

I have seen publicly available evidence that is extremely compelling to refute point (a). i keep sharing it here, but no one understands what they are reading so it gets ignored.


You have seen it in the joint FBI-Homeland Security report? Because that's what Taibbi is talking about. If this smoking gun evidence you claim to have isn't in there, then someone screwed up because that would have been a good place to put it.

Also, the statement you quote is obviously not an attempt to "interpret technical evidence." It's merely summarizing what's in the report. That takes reading comprehension skills on Taibbi's part, not technical expertise.
Anonymous
Post 12/31/2016 01:20     Subject: Re:Obama Admin under pressure to provide "hacking" proof
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/something-about-this-russia-story-stinks-w458439

Even that "conservative" magazine, Rolling Stone, things something smells in this hacking story.


Thanks for sharing. Good piece. God, some people will believe anything if it's what they want to hear.


I am a veteran engineer with internet security experience going back to '97. I have reviewed the evidence presented by Crowdstrike and the other firms. It's clearly the work of russian government hackers. There's no way to prove motive, but it was definitely them.

So frankly I don't care what this music magazine says. And given what you probably said about their journalistic integrity regarding the campus rape story, you shouldn't be relying on them either.


Well, master infosec expert, if you want to discredit the story legitimately, you would do well to realize it's a Matt Taibbi piece, much more than it is a "music magazine" piece.


Uh, he is neither technical nor a technical writer. He is a political and financial journalist who spent some time in Russia.

he would be more qualified to read a CT scan than to [b]interpret the technical evidence of russian hacking[b].



Either you didn't read his piece or you didn't understand it. Because it's not primarily about "interpreting technical evidence."


He wrote "But we don't learn much at all about what led our government to determine a) that these hacks were directed by the Russian government, or b) they were undertaken with the aim of influencing the election, and in particular to help elect Donald Trump."

I have seen publicly available evidence that is extremely compelling to refute point (a). i keep sharing it here, but no one understands what they are reading so it gets ignored.