US Officially Blames Russia

[Arcade22]

I didn't see this covered anywhere yet, so could someone tell me how they know the Russians hacked the DNC when they've never even looked at the DNC servers? I'd really like to understand this because I am certainly confused about it. I thought to determine if something had been hacked you had to examine the files on a server for the malware? Anybody?
Chris B.

I'm pretty sure they would just need to look up the relevant logs that recorded the internet traffic to-and-from the server. That way they would be able to see who sent and received messages, if not actually what was in that those messages as well.

From what i read they got access through a phising email so it's quite possible that there wasn't any actual malware on the DNC server but rather it would've been on someones personal/work computer instead.

 

[Childlike Empress]

From what i read they got access through a phising email so it's quite possible that there wasn't any actual malware on the DNC server but rather it would've been on someones personal/work computer instead.

Again, the DNC and Podesta mails are two separate data sets. In the Podesta mails is an exchange where Podesta receives a phishing mail, asks his aides what to do about it, an aide replies that it is legitimate (and now claims he meant to write illegitimate ), and apparently Podesta clicked the phishing link and entered his password, which was p@ssw0rd.

That's why Assange says a 14 year-old could have "hacked" Podesta. Which doesn't mean that the phisher is the source for the data set. It just means that these people are incompetent.

 

[Crossbow]

I am thinking that Trump is about to get into some serious trouble.

Since Trump ran his election much like Nixon did in 1972, where Nixon decisively won the election, but resigned in disgrace about two and half years later due to the Watergate scandal.

In this case, it is becoming quite obvious that Russian government did indeed try to interfere with the US election via computer shenanigans, then if it can be shown that Trump was somehow in collusion with Russians and/or Putin over this issue, then Trump could soon face impeachment and a trial in the Senate.

 

[phiwum]

I am thinking that Trump is about to get into some serious trouble.

Since Trump ran his election much like Nixon did in 1972, where Nixon decisively won the election, but resigned in disgrace about two and half years later due to the Watergate scandal.

In this case, it is becoming quite obvious that Russian government did indeed try to interfere with the US election via computer shenanigans, then if it can be shown that Trump was somehow in collusion with Russians and/or Putin over this issue, then Trump could soon face impeachment and a trial in the Senate.

I don't think the Republicans have the decency to impeach their president, I'm sorry to say. There are good conservatives, decent men, but they're not leading the Republicans at present. For gosh sakes, even McCain endorsed Trump. Cruz, too, not that he's on the top of my list for a principled conservative. He essentially gave the speech at the convention not because of conservative values, but because his family was insulted.

Anyway, I think that at present, the Republicans would never impeach their dear leader. In a couple of years, we'll see whether power changes.

 

[seayakin]

I don't think the Republicans have the decency to impeach their president, I'm sorry to say. There are good conservatives, decent men, but they're not leading the Republicans at present. For gosh sakes, even McCain endorsed Trump. Cruz, too, not that he's on the top of my list for a principled conservative. He essentially gave the speech at the convention not because of conservative values, but because his family was insulted.

Anyway, I think that at present, the Republicans would never impeach their dear leader. In a couple of years, we'll see whether power changes.

If Trump's popularity nose dived, I think there are a lot of Republicans who would have no problem impeaching him. However, that is a big "if".

 

[Childlike Empress]

Again, the DNC and Podesta mails are two separate data sets. In the Podesta mails is an exchange where Podesta receives a phishing mail, asks his aides what to do about it, an aide replies that it is legitimate (and now claims he meant to write illegitimate ), and apparently Podesta clicked the phishing link and entered his password, which was p@ssw0rd.

That's why Assange says a 14 year-old could have "hacked" Podesta. Which doesn't mean that the phisher is the source for the data set. It just means that these people are incompetent.

And btw, the Podesta mail data set isn't from Killary's cowboy server @hillaryclinton.com, but from his gmail account. So if "Putin hacked" that account, he hacked gmail.

This stuff is totally ridiculous and the freaks peddling it belong in a padded cell next to Killary, close enough to hear her snore.

 

[tyr_13]

And btw, the Podesta mail data set isn't from Killary's cowboy server @hillaryclinton.com, but from his gmail account. So if "Putin hacked" that account, he hacked gmail.
This stuff is totally ridiculous and the freaks peddling it belong in a padded cell next to Killary, close enough to hear her snore.

You don't have any credibility on this subject, as the highlighted makes completely clear. If you can't understand that your account can be hacked without the entire service being hacked, then you don't understand enough to comment on what might or might not be valid arguments for or against Russian hacking.

 

[Childlike Empress]

You don't have any credibility on this subject, as the highlighted makes completely clear. If you can't understand that your account can be hacked without the entire service being hacked, then you don't understand enough to comment on what might or might not be valid arguments for or against Russian hacking.

"Hacking" means using a tech vulnerability to gain access. Obtaining a password by phishing is social engineering at best. Certainly nothing you need a "state actor" for, a moderately clever 14-year-old is sufficient.

Glass house. Stone.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

And btw, the Podesta mail data set isn't from Killary's cowboy server @hillaryclinton.com, but from his gmail account. So if "Putin hacked" that account, he hacked gmail.

This stuff is totally ridiculous and the freaks peddling it belong in a padded cell next to Killary, close enough to hear her snore.

The only hacking during the election that we have absolute proof of:

 

[NoahFence]

I am thinking that Trump is about to get into some serious trouble.

Since Trump ran his election much like Nixon did in 1972, where Nixon decisively won the election, but resigned in disgrace about two and half years later due to the Watergate scandal.

In this case, it is becoming quite obvious that Russian government did indeed try to interfere with the US election via computer shenanigans, then if it can be shown that Trump was somehow in collusion with Russians and/or Putin over this issue, then Trump could soon face impeachment and a trial in the Senate.

Treason. Hang the ************

 

[Crossbow]

The only hacking during the election that we have absolute proof of:

It is good to know just what you consider to be of import.

 

[The_Animus]

I'm pretty sure they would just need to look up the relevant logs that recorded the internet traffic to-and-from the server. That way they would be able to see who sent and received messages, if not actually what was in that those messages as well.

But can't that be masked in various ways. What if they connect to a vpn and then the tor network? What if they set up anonymous servers in other countries and route it through there or even do it directly from there. What if they infect other computers or servers and use them to carry it out?

I'm no expert but it seems like there are ways to make it pretty difficult to tell.

I mentioned this earlier and no one cared to answer. They release a 13 page report that they claim proves it was Russia. MSM picks it up and says things like "bombshell report", and "FBI releases proof it was Russia". People come here and say "see, proof!". Did any of you read the report? It contains no proof of anything. It's just them claiming it was Russian groups x and y.

I wouldn't be surprised if Russia did do it but when the intelligence community and msm lies like that they don't get to turn around and whine about people not trusting them.

 

[Henri McPhee]

The silly thing is that America admits it has interfered in elections in Italy in the past. America and the CIA also seem to have been behind the coup in Chile when Allende was toppled and replaced by that fascist General Pinochet, who was so admired by Mrs. Thatcher.

 

[Childlike Empress]

I wouldn't be surprised if Russia did do it but when the intelligence community and msm lies like that they don't get to turn around and whine about people not trusting them.

And the question remains what "it" is. Hack Clinton, hack the DNC, hack Podesta's gmail account? Meddle with voting machines? Assange in the interview says that Obama uses "lawyer speak" and is "sneaky" in the non-claims he makes. Even Clapper yesterday seems to dance around any serious accusations, complains about mean RT and when Mad McCain asks him if "it" is an act of war, he says "not for me to decide". A totally bizarre spectacle.

 

[NoahFence]

The silly thing is that America admits it has interfered in elections in Italy in the past. America and the CIA also seem to have been behind the coup in Chile when Allende was toppled and replaced by that fascist General Pinochet, who was so admired by Mrs. Thatcher.

That was brought up yesterday in the Committee meeting. Basically, "hey guys, we do this too. We're in a glass house - put down those stones"

 

[Crossbow]

The silly thing is that America admits it has interfered in elections in Italy in the past. America and the CIA also seem to have been behind the coup in Chile when Allende was toppled and replaced by that fascist General Pinochet, who was so admired by Mrs. Thatcher.

Quite true!

The USA has messed around with the politics of many nations over the years, and therefore the USA is not in any moral position to order other nations from doing what the USA has been doing for some time now.

My concern, however, is that Trump may have been in cahoots with the Russian meddling. And if so, then that could be a very serious problem for both Trump and the USA.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Quite true!

The USA has messed around with the politics of many nations over the years, and therefore the USA is not in any moral position to order other nations from doing what the USA has been doing for some time now.

My concern, however, is that Trump may have been in cahoots with the Russian meddling. And if so, then that could be a very serious problem for both Trump and the USA.

I wouldn't say the US argument is moral or even that when the US did it that it was somehow not an act of war.

 

[Crossbow]

I wouldn't say the US argument is moral or even that when the US did it that it was somehow not an act of war.

Thanks much.

And considering how often you claimed that torture is legal in the USA, then I am sure that this opinions on what just defines an act of war is just as worthwhile.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Thanks much.

And considering how often you claimed that torture is legal in the USA, then I am sure that this opinions on what just defines an act of war is just as worthwhile.

I said it was Constitutional to make it legal.
I'm not making an argument here on what is an act of war. I'm saying I don't recall the US claiming their meddling was not an act of war.

 

[tyr_13]

"Hacking" means using a tech vulnerability to gain access. Obtaining a password by phishing is social engineering at best. Certainly nothing you need a "state actor" for, a moderately clever 14-year-old is sufficient.

Glass house. Stone.

And you don't need to hack Google to hack an email account on Google. Your assertion is foolish. It doesn't matter if the specific case in question was even hacking or not, you made an obviously untrue statement to cast doubt on the case for Russia's involvement.