• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

DNC hacker ‘Guccifer 2.0’ reportedly identified as Russian intel officer

Mach said:
Which defendant are you referring to? (there is none)
If someone shows up in court and we intend to take their rights away (Jail, fines, whatever), then they will get due process, you can be sure.


If the FBI has the server, and reported it, it would also be a "written opinion by somebody who saw the server". So much for your argument.

Your arguments go nowhere, because it's right wing noise, meant to help destabilize the nation. And you know it.
Click to expand...

And the defense would have access to examine the server.
 
Mach said:
You think it looks suspicious, that's OK. No one cares.
FBI, NSA, CIA, 7+ expert cyber-security companies, they are not concerned, and you don't like that. That's OK too. No one cares.
Click to expand...

That's ok, no one cares what the **** you think either.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Politifact? Why not just let the DNC write it?
Click to expand...

politifact provided their explanation.

First of all, John Podesta never worked for the DNC.

Trump claimed that Podesta denied handing over a DNC server to intelligence agencies, but Podesta never chaired the DNC, nor had any involvement in the DNC’s handling of their email server, according to DNC spokesperson Adrienne Watson.

"I had nothing to do with the Democratic National Committee — I chaired Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign," Podesta wrote in an op-ed for the Washington Post. "So there was no DNC server for me to refuse to give, and I was never asked for one."
Click to expand...

In his testimony in January on the cyber attacks, then-director of the FBI James Comey said the agency never got access to the machines themselves, but obtained access to the forensics from a review of the system performed by CrowdStrike, a third-party cybersecurity firm.

"We got the forensics from the pros that they hired which -- again, best practice is always to get access to the machines themselves, but this my folks tell me was an appropriate substitute," Comey said.

"The DNC coordinated with the FBI and federal intelligence agencies and provided everything they requested, including copies of DNC servers," Watson said. She added that the copy contains the same information as the physical server.

The FBI joined CrowdStrike’s efforts to boot Russia from the server, but then-Homeland Security Department secretary Jeh Johnson complained the DNC rebuffed their offer to help. This was because Russia was already out of their system by then.

Trump's mentioning the CIA’s involvement came as a surprise to both Podesta and the DNC.

"The CIA has no role in domestic intelligence-gathering — in fact, it’s prohibited," Podesta wrote in his op-ed. "The CIA would never ask anyone at the DNC for a server. Whether the FBI asked the DNC for access to a server, I don’t know, beyond what I’ve read."

According to Watson, the CIA never requested access to the email server. The CIA provided no comment, but notes on its website its mission is focused on overseas, rather than domestic, intelligence-gathering.
Click to expand...

Did John Podesta deny CIA and FBI access to DNC server, as Donald Trump claims? | PolitiFact
 
OpportunityCost said:
That's ok, no one cares what the **** you think either.
Click to expand...

I think your post looks suspicious, honest word.
Maybe we need some due process to determine if it's absurd?

You do understand this is about the argument. I care about you personally.
As far as argumentation goes, whether you like something or not, or claim to be suspicious or not, just isn't relevant (unless that were the topic!).
You need more than that to make a reasonable argument is the point.

Because there is no more to that argument, as you can see in this thread (and others like it from past debate), it seems as though you (and others like you) are simply trying to cloud the issue for political whatever...
 
Last edited:
Mach said:
I think your post looks suspicious, honest word.
Maybe we need some due process to determine if it's absurd?
Click to expand...

Mach, I have been respectful to you up until that point, maybe you should try that from the outset.
 
OpportunityCost said:
No, you're right, he worked for Hillary.
Why do I have questions about the validity of the hacking? I don't know, I like proof. Seems I am not alone. https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/
Click to expand...

The Nation published the "debunking soft retraction/clarification" of that shortly after:
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-leak-or-a-hack-a-forum-on-the-vips-memo/

But you don't get off that easy. It was one published article with a HYPOTHESIS based on a small group of people who claimed basically that the transfer speed was so high, they didn't feel as though it could be done across the (internet), and thus had to be a USB drive, and therefore, an inside job.

One guy with a CT, vs FBI, homeland, CIA, 7+ cyber security firms. As a matter of national security, you're willing to literally believe a guy's article from the Nation...amidst countless articles to the contrary, and all those professional organizations, private and public. Do you think they are *all* in on this OC? That's the definition of CT. Everyone...all these reputable companies.

That you would believe that, is ****ING SCARY.

Right wing pushed it so hard after it was published that they convinced Mike Pompea at CIA to listen to what the sole conspiracy theorist voice that was the basis for that article, had to say.
https://theintercept.com/2017/11/07/dnc-hack-trump-cia-director-william-binney-nsa/

They listened, and that was that. He had nothing. That is EVEN SCARIER. That the conspiracy theory nonsense has reached such a fever pitch that director of CIA meets with a conspiracy theorist out of deference to Trump/right wing narrative.



===================
Excerpts:
The article largely reported on a recently published memo prepared by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), which argued, based on their own investigation, that the theft of the DNC e-mails was not a hack, but some kind of inside leak that did not involve Russia.
Click to expand...

Subsequently, Nation editors themselves raised questions about the editorial process that preceded the publication of the article. The article was indeed fact-checked to ensure that Patrick Lawrence, a regular Nation contributor, accurately reported the VIPS analysis and conclusions, which he did.
Click to expand...

Even the group that published the misleading CT stuff directed at the president, turns out, had disagreements on publishing the memo in the first place:
We have also learned since publication, from longtime VIPS member Thomas Drake, that there is a dispute among VIPS members themselves about the July 24 memo.
Click to expand...

But of course, when the right wing media pushes a narrative, it's going to show up in search. It was much harder to find the debunked article, even having read it before, it took me half an hour to find it again.
 
Mach said:
The Nation published the "debunking soft retraction/clarification" of that shortly after:
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-leak-or-a-hack-a-forum-on-the-vips-memo/

But you don't get off that easy. It was one published article with a HYPOTHESIS based on a small group of people who claimed basically that the transfer speed was so high, they didn't feel as though it could be done across the (internet), and thus had to be a USB drive, and therefore, an inside job.

One guy with a CT, vs FBI, homeland, CIA, 7+ cyber security firms. As a matter of national security, you're willing to literally believe a guy's article from the Nation...amidst countless articles to the contrary, and all those professional organizations, private and public. Do you think they are *all* in on this OC? That's the definition of CT. Everyone...all these reputable companies.

That you would believe that, is ****ING SCARY.

Right wing pushed it so hard after it was published that they convinced Mike Pompea at CIA to listen to what the sole conspiracy theorist voice that was the basis for that article, had to say.
https://theintercept.com/2017/11/07/dnc-hack-trump-cia-director-william-binney-nsa/

They listened, and that was that. He had nothing. That is EVEN SCARIER. That the conspiracy theory nonsense has reached such a fever pitch that director of CIA meets with a conspiracy theorist out of deference to Trump/right wing narrative.



===================
Excerpts:




Even the group that published the misleading CT stuff directed at the president, turns out, had disagreements on publishing the memo in the first place:


But of course, when the right wing media pushes a narrative, it's going to show up in search. It was much harder to find the debunked article, even having read it before, it took me half an hour to find it again.
Click to expand...

Let's set one thing straight. I am skeptical of both sides version of what did and did not occur. I am skeptical of the results of NSA when at the time it was led by known liars like Brennan and Clapper. I am skeptical because the first step is to examine the physical hard drive in any hack. One reason why it looks like an internal breach is because they succumbed to numerous phishing attempts. Another reason to be skeptical is we don't know if the guy claiming to be the hacker is or if he is taking the fall for whatever reason. There are a lot of questions to be examined.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Let's set one thing straight. I am skeptical of both sides version of what did and did not occur. I am skeptical of the results of NSA when at the time it was led by known liars like Brennan and Clapper. I am skeptical because the first step is to examine the physical hard drive in any hack. One reason why it looks like an internal breach is because they succumbed to numerous phishing attempts. Another reason to be skeptical is we don't know if the guy claiming to be the hacker is or if he is taking the fall for whatever reason. There are a lot of questions to be examined.
Click to expand...
Skeptical of both sides isn't a choice, it's just saying you "don't know". Taken to the extreme, skepticism is just as dangerous as anything else taken to the extreme.
It's another form of false equivalency.

NSA, CIA, FBI, Crowdstrike's team, Securworks team + 5 other firms teams + countless public technical analysis
vs
A single VIPs memo that made bad assumptions, and was basically retracted/clarified

Saying you are skeptical of each side, and therefore either could be correct or wrong, is just not reasonable.
 
When you realize russians are bigger patriots than the democrat party
 
poweRob said:
Hardly anything like letting inforwars write the conspiracy bull**** you guys are running with.
Click to expand...

I don't quote infowars, never have, never will. Politifact tends towards a left wing bias. Its just not a good fact checker.
 
Mach said:
Skeptical of both sides isn't a choice, it's just saying you "don't know". Taken to the extreme, skepticism is just as dangerous as anything else taken to the extreme.
It's another form of false equivalency.

NSA, CIA, FBI, Crowdstrike's team, Securworks team + 5 other firms teams + countless public technical analysis
vs
A single VIPs memo that made bad assumptions, and was basically retracted/clarified

Saying you are skeptical of each side, and therefore either could be correct or wrong, is just not reasonable.
Click to expand...

Who was the head of the NSA? Clapper.
Who was the head of the CIA? Brennan.
Who was the head of the FBI? Comey.

We know all three have lied under oath before Congress. WHY should they be believed? Why aren't their conclusions suspect?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom