When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ? Part 2

@parados,

Which of the 17 Intelligence agencies with Specific evidence is Crowdstrike.com?

Also, the specific evidence they have is " Both adversaries engage in extensive political and economic espionage for the benefit of the government of the Russian Federation and are believed to be closely linked to the Russian government’s powerful and highly capable intelligence services."

Not very specific at all. Pretty sure that would be an "F" if sited in any kind of official paper as specific evidence.

2 Replies

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

That's cute, if i ever labored under the impression you were a grown man, I have to send you boundless thanks for proving yourself to be such a YOU.

His master has shown him the way... tantrums, ignorance, and lies.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

a quip

Oh good, you're awake.

Do you have those links you said you had? You know specific evidence that has been presented about Russia being behind the hacking?

You said you had information about 17 intelligence agencies + specific evidence.

You were quite adamant that you had this information and I am still waiting for you to produce it.

Anytime would be fine, I am anxious to read it all.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

You realize we went through this same **** with Obama's birth certificate, right? No amount of evidence is enough, because it doesn't fit your narrative, so you will just keep asking for more and more.

You can choose to listen to 17 US intelligence agencies, and reliable private security firms, or you can choose to listen to kooky old John McAfee.

I'm pretty sure which one you will choose, and I'm not going to run around doing more research in the hopes that just one more piece of evidence will convince you.

You're not Galileo, insisting "it still moves" in the face of the church oppressing you. You're closer to the guy walking down the street waving his arms trying to bat the voices away.

1 Reply

Yes, 17 intelligence agencies really did say Russia was behind hacking

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/

Eliza Collins , USA TODAY 2:45 p.m. EDT October 21, 2016
10.0k Shares facebook sharetwitter shareemail shareemail share

17 intelligence agencies really did say Russia was behind hacking WIBBITZ
Russian President Vladimir Putin on Oct. 19, 2016.

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Oct. 19, 2016. (Photo: Odd Andersen, AFP/Getty Images)

Donald Trump’s claim that the United States has "no idea" who is behind recent email hacks is just not true.

The fact-checking website Politifact says Hillary Clinton is correct when she says 17 federal intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia is behind the hacking.

“We have 17, 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyber attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin. And they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing,” Clinton said during Wednesday's presidential debate in Las Vegas.

Trump pushed back, saying that Clinton and the United States had “no idea whether it is Russia, China or anybody else.”

But Clinton is correct. On Oct. 7, the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement on behalf of the U.S. Intelligence Community. The USIC is made up of 16 agencies, in addition to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities."

While the agencies all issued the statement together, Trump spokesman Steven Cheung told Politifact he took Clinton to be implying each agency came to the conclusion independently, a situation Cheung finds "unlikely."

This summer, Wikileaks released a trove of emails from the Democratic National Committee. And over the past two weeks, Wikileaks has been releasing Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails. The Clinton campaign has neither confirmed or denied the authenticity of the emails, though they have pushed back on certain emails and warned that stolen information could be altered.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

That is a pretty easy one.

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national

Quote:

For Immediate Release
DHS Press Office
Contact: 202-282-8010

The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations.

__

and what is that USIC?

https://www.intelligencecareers.gov/icmembers.html

Quote:

Seventeen separate organizations unite to form the Intelligence Community (IC).

The overall efforts of the IC are administered by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). ODNI's role is to organize and coordinate the efforts of the other 16 IC agencies. Those agencies are divided into three groups:

Program Managers, who advise and assist the ODNI in identifying requirements, developing budgets, managing finances and evaluating the IC's performance

Departmentals, which are IC components within government departments outside of the DoD that focus on serving their parent department's intelligence needs

Services, which encompass intelligence personnel in the armed forces, and which primarily support their own service branch's needs

Quote:

Office of the Director of National Intelligence

Central Intelligence Agency

Defense Intelligence Agency

Federal Bureau of Investigation

National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency

National Reconnaissance Office

National Security Agency/Central Security Service

Department of Energy

Department of Homeland Security

Department of State

Department of Treasury

Drug Enforcement Administration

U.S. Air Force

Army Intelligence

U.S. Coast Guard

U.S. Marine Corps, Marine Corps Intelligence Activity

U.S. Navy

__

Google and 1.2 seconds are our friends.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

17 intelligence agencies have stated it and there is evidence. The evidence exists even if it is not from a specific agency. I don't believe anyone stated the ONLY evidence is from those agencies.

Now you are just playing games. Childish games at that.

1 Reply

@parados,

Not sure about childish, but certainly straight out of the Trump camp's talking points....

Quote:

While the agencies all issued the statement together, Trump spokesman Steven Cheung told Politifact he took Clinton to be implying each agency came to the conclusion independently, a situation Cheung finds "unlikely."

Of course, the bulk of the Trump team's talking points are head-asplodingly stupid as they keep trying to polish this turd keep hope alive.

0 Replies

@bobsal u1553115,

Yep, that's the politifact post about the subject. I've seen it and a good portion of it is true.

Can you point out the "specific evidence" posted in it? It sure seems to me to be a culmination of events where some may be linked to methods used by official Russian agencies while others may be third party hackers that also happen to be operating outside of Russian influence.

They piled a bunch of stuff together and conjectured who did it. No real specific evidence though, right?

Let's look at the statements

Quote:

The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts.

That is 2 distinct statements...
first we have this: "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations."
Ok, I will stipulate that the USIC is comprised of 17 "Intelligence agencies". That's fine even though I seriously doubt most of them had anything to do with investigating email hacks. There is "Specific evidence" that "Fancy Bear" and "Cozy Bear" (freaking Russians and their bears.) were inside the servers of the DNC as the Crowdstrike source showed. Yes I did read that and it was interesting. That is probably the same things as what we do to our friends and Allies (Remember the Snowden leaks about the NSA snooping? Were those wikileaks ok by your standards or were they also evil stuff released by the Russians?)
The issue is that they want to include the Guccifer 2.0 hacks as also being official Russian spying and most experts disagree with that. They have gone through and examined all the released posts by Guccifer 2.0 and the pair of Bears and the dates don't line up.

The second sentence: "The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts." is extraordinarily vague.

They are NOT saying "We are confident that Russia leaked these docs through Wikileaks/DCleaks.com/Guccifer 2.0 persona." This sentence was carefully worded to make it appear as if they were all connected.

But, ALL of the evidence, let me repeat that, ALL of the evidence is circumstantial that Russia leaked anything. Do I think that the Russian government has spy agencies that are all up in our business? You betcha. Do I think that the Russian government has probably hacked everything that it can get it's big ol' bear paws on? You betcha. Do I think Russia leaked a bunch of documents to wikileaks in an effort to stain Hillary's chances of being President? Not even for a second. Not even on a vodka driven night of binge drinking and dancing around the fire barrel.

So, when you say that 17 Intelligence agencies have specific evidence that Russia leaked emails, I call bullshit and that you are merely struggling with your ill conceived notions of party loyalty and lick spittle agreement with anything crooked Hillary says or does.

0 Replies

McGentrix's posts are not atypical of the GOP which led to Trump's nomination. Trump is really not outside the norm as those in the GOP are now trying to make out and neither is McGentrix's stringing out these Trump talking points.

There have been quite a few news opinion pieces on the subject in recent days, but, as usual I find the words of the President to be the most articulate and to the point on the subject.

Remarks by the President at Democratic Party of Florida Grassroots Organizing Event

I'm going to miss him. I already do thinking of him being gone.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

Quote:

You realize we went through this same **** with Obama's birth certificate, right?

These heroes know somewhere in the dim recesses of their lizard brains that our intelligence agencies identified Russian sources for the hacks. Just like they always knew Obama was born in the US.

But all that is really beside the point for them. They are bereft - no candidate, nothing of substance to say, no wit, no wisdom...
So they do useless crap like ask for endless verification for things they already know, and by the way, don't give a **** about.

Pieces of work.

1 Reply

@snood,

It's not like this is rocket surgery.... Wink

Russian hackers infiltrated Podesta's email, security firm says

Quote:

According to the cybersecurity firm SecureWorks, the fake Google domain in that link — first reported Thursday by Motherboard — matches one the hacker group Fancy Bear has employed in a wide-ranging spear-phishing campaign that has also targeted major U.S. political institutions, Clinton campaign figures and other top officials.

“The Google-spoofing domain in the Motherboard article is one we observed used by Fancy Bear,” SecureWorks researcher Tom Finney told POLITICO in an email.

Security researchers have long tied Fancy Bear to Russia's military intelligence agency, the GRU.

The Obama administration recently took the unprecedented step of blaming senior Russian officials for orchestrating the series of digital break-ins at the DNC and DCCC, but has not yet officially accused Moscow of being behind the Podesta hack.

Motherboard’s story included a redacted screenshot of the malicious Bitly link’s analytics page that showed the Podesta link redirecting to Fancy Bear’s fake Google domain. POLITICO independently reviewed the Bitly link’s analytics page and confirmed with SecureWorks that the domains matched.

Fancy Bear customized spear-phishing links for each target, encoding their email addresses within them.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Meanwhile, McGentrix is furiously composing a post that this isn't the 17 security agencies, and does not constitute proof, and why can't he call the heads of the agencies personally and have them send him all of the details on the investigations.....

0 Replies

@bobsal u1553115,

Politifact is proven to be in HRC's pocket.

Thanks, wikileaks.

PS-- Obama caught in a lie.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/hacked-email-shows-obama-knew-about-clintons-private-email-while-claiming-he-didnt/

Thanks again, wikileaks!

1 Reply

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

Politifact is proven to be in HRC's pocket.

Thanks, wikileaks.

PS-- Obama caught in a lie.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/hacked-email-shows-obama-knew-about-clintons-private-email-while-claiming-he-didnt/

Thanks again, wikileaks!

Oh. My. Gosh.

I'm voting for Johnson now!

Quote:

In a hacked March 7, 2015 email released by WikiLeaks Tuesday, Clinton spokesman Josh Schwerin highlighted Obama’s comments in an email to other staffers. “You probably have more on this, but it looks like POTUS just said he found out HRC was using her personal email when he saw it in the news,” he said.

Clinton’s former chief of staff at the State Department Cheryl Mills immediately followed up in a private email to campaign chairman John Podesta. “We need to clean this up,” she worried. “He has emails from her – they do not say state.gov.”

This is huge. Huge.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

This is huge? In comparison to what? Obama has a approval rating over 50%. That's huge! According to Washington Post, it's 54%.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

This is huge? In comparison to what? Obama has a approval rating over 50%. That's huge! According to Washington Post, it's 54%.

It's the FINAL straw CI. I mean, how can he be trusted if he received emails from Clinton that had something other than a .gov email address in the header?? And don't give me the BS answer that most email programs right now hide the email address unless you click on something like "expand details". I don't want to hear it!

Vote Johnson, or vote Trump. This is a game changer!!

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Vote for Trump the liar, narcissist, groper and scammer? Really?
Go to Trumplies.com. You might learn something important about this fraud.
Have you heard of Scion yet? His name is mud.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Vote for Trump the liar, narcissist, groper and scammer? Really?

I don't know how I can explain it any clearer.

Obama received an email from a Clinton email address and then went on TV and said he didn't know she had a separate server. I expect Obama himself to have a thorough understanding of the intricacies involved in email server management and sending/receiving emails over networks. I also expect my president to focus on the minutiae of every one of his employees and cabinet members. I expect him to be perfect in all things and he has REALLY let me down.

I can no longer support Obama and because he endorses Clinton I can no longer support her.

#imwithhim

2 Replies

@maporsche,

So she had a private server. What damage has that done to our country? Can you name one? It seems others in our government also used private servers. Many now think her career is now dead in the water, so she's got a long road ahead in this election. The people's will decide.

2 Replies

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ? Part 2

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know