FBI Never Looked At DNC Servers Before Announcing They Were Hacked By Russia

[Revmitchell]

The Federal Bureau of Investigation did not inspect the servers of the Democratic National Committee before declaring Russia responsible for last year's hacking, according to a report from Buzzfeed.

Buzzfeed reports:

Six months after the FBI first said it was investigating the hack of the Democratic National Committee’s computer network, the bureau has still not requested access to the hacked servers, a DNC spokesman said. No US government entity has run an independent forensic analysis on the system, one US intelligence official told BuzzFeed News.

“The DNC had several meetings with representatives of the FBI’s Cyber Division and its Washington (DC) Field Office, the Department of Justice’s National Security Division, and U.S. Attorney’s Offices, and it responded to a variety of requests for cooperation, but the FBI never requested access to the DNC’s computer servers,” Eric Walker, the DNC’s deputy communications director, told BuzzFeed News in an email.

http://www.hannity.com/articles/hanpr-election-493995/surprise-fbi-never-looked-at-dnc-15440512/

 

[InTheLight]

Wow, BuzzFeed "News". Really?

Hannity.com?

Outstanding.

 

[Rolfe]

And he complains about National Review.

 

[Revmitchell]

Wow, BuzzFeed "News". Really?

Hannity.com?

Outstanding.

So are you saying that the FBI did in fact request and look at those servers? What about the op is already proven incorrect?

 

[InTheLight]

So are you saying that the FBI did in fact request and look at those servers? What about the op is already proven incorrect?

I don't know if they looked at those servers or not. Maybe they don't need to look at them to reach their conclusions. Maybe they have methodology that doesn't require that. Or maybe the hackers weren't as good as they thought they were.

You need to prove that the FBI needs to look at the DNC servers to reach their conclusions.

 

[Revmitchell]

I don't know if they looked at those servers or not. Maybe they don't need to look at them to reach their conclusions. Maybe they have methodology that doesn't require that. Or maybe the hackers weren't as good as they thought they were.

You need to prove that the FBI needs to look at the DNC servers to reach their conclusions.

I don't need to prove anything. You attacked the source without addressing the content. I simply asked if you knew the content of the source was false. You do not know so it is your credibility on the line, not mine. I just posted a news story worth consideration.

 

[InTheLight]

I don't need to prove anything. You attacked the source without addressing the content. I simply asked if you knew the content of the source was false. You do not know so it is your credibility on the line, not mine. I just posted a news story worth consideration.

I sure did address the content. Your "news" story is begging the question. It is innuendo. It is "Rush Limbaugh-ism."

It is suggesting since the FBI didn't inspect the DNC servers their conclusions are suspect. That is innuendo.

 

[Revmitchell]

I sure did address the content. Your "news" story is begging the question. It is innuendo. It is "Rush Limbaugh-ism."

It is suggesting since the FBI didn't inspect the DNC servers their conclusions are suspect. That is innuendo.

No its reasonable questioning. Everyone should ask that question. If that is how you define "Rush Limbaugh-ism." then I'm all for it. Let's not forget you engage in innuendo all the time. I have pointed it out before. Let's stay consistent.

 

[InTheLight]

No its reasonable questioning. Everyone should ask that question. If that is how you define "Rush Limbaugh-ism." then I'm all for it. Let's not forget you engage in innuendo all the time. I have pointed it out before. Let's stay consistent.

Do you even know what begging the question means?

This is what you posted:
Six months after the FBI first said it was investigating the hack of the Democratic National Committee’s computer network, the bureau has still not requested access to the hacked servers, a DNC spokesman said. No US government entity has run an independent forensic analysis on the system, one US intelligence official told BuzzFeed News.

Is this supposed to be significant? Please tell us why this is significant.

Hannity doesn't tell us. Here is Hannity's headline:

SURPRISE! FBI Never Looked At DNC Servers Before Announcing They Were Hacked By Russia

Why is the fact that the FBI did not look at the DNC servers a SURPRISE! ?


BuzzFeed doesn't tell us. Here's what BuzzFeed says:
It’s unclear why the FBI didn’t request access to the DNC servers, and whether it’s common practice when the bureau investigates the cyberattacks against private entities by state actors

So, congratulations on posting Fake News.

 

[Revmitchell]

Do you even know what begging the question means?

This is what you posted:
Six months after the FBI first said it was investigating the hack of the Democratic National Committee’s computer network, the bureau has still not requested access to the hacked servers, a DNC spokesman said. No US government entity has run an independent forensic analysis on the system, one US intelligence official told BuzzFeed News.

Is this supposed to be significant? Please tell us why this is significant.

Hannity doesn't tell us. Here is Hannity's headline:

SURPRISE! FBI Never Looked At DNC Servers Before Announcing They Were Hacked By Russia

Why is the fact that the FBI did not look at the DNC servers a SURPRISE! ?


BuzzFeed doesn't tell us. Here's what BuzzFeed says:
It’s unclear why the FBI didn’t request access to the DNC servers, and whether it’s common practice when the bureau investigates the cyberattacks against private entities by state actors

So, congratulations on posting Fake News.

So you are saying that the FBI did in fact look at the server? Do you have something to back that up? otherwise there is no "fake news".

 

[InTheLight]

So you are saying that the FBI did in fact look at the server? Do you have something to back that up? otherwise there is no "fake news".

I don't know if they did or not. Let's assume that they didn't look at it. Explain why that is a SURPRISE or why it is newsworthy. Why should the FBI look at the DNC servers? The article makes it sound as if it's some sort of an oversight by the FBI. That is innuendo.

BuzzFeed: It’s unclear why the FBI didn’t request access to the DNC servers, and whether it’s common practice...

So, BuzzFeed, why is this news?

 

[Revmitchell]

I don't know if they did or not. Let's assume that they didn't look at it. Explain why that is a SURPRISE or why it is newsworthy. Why should the FBI look at the DNC servers? The article makes it sound as if it's some sort of an oversight by the FBI. That is innuendo.

BuzzFeed: It’s unclear why the FBI didn’t request access to the DNC servers, and whether it’s common practice...

So, BuzzFeed, why is this news?

Why is it not. If a server is being claimed to have been hacked how could they not look at it? How is it not newsworthy? It does appear to be an oversight. In fact it looks like they do not really want to know the truth. I want to know these things. If you do not then look the other way. Thats your right to be ignorant.

 

[InTheLight]

Why is it not. If a server is being claimed to have been hacked how could they not look at it? How is it not newsworthy? It does appear to be an oversight. In fact it looks like they do not really want to know the truth. I want to know these things. If you do not then look the other way. Thats your right to be ignorant.

Maybe the FBI could determine who the hacker was without needing to see the server. A simple examination of the email headers or content might have been all they need to see.

This so-called "news" story might as well been something like this:

"Doctor Doesn't Take Pulse of Cadaver!"
It is being reported that the coroner of Wright County did not take the pulse of a cadaver he had in the morgue. It is not known if taking the pulse of cadavers is the usual procedure or not, or if anything could be learned by doing so, but nevertheless we are reporting it.

Sent from my Moto Droid Turbo.

 

[777]

What happened was that the FBI outsourced this investigation to some private outfit named CrowdStrike, which was founded by a couple of real Russians. What CrowdStrike said last summer was that they found two independent Russian companies had hacked the DNC servers.

Still not sure the Russians leaked the info, one of the hackers just guessed Podesta's password, or so he says. Also not sure that the FBI has the jurisdiction to launch some investigation of the DNC, seems that the DNC would be more likely to tell the AG that they want an FBI investigation themselves.

 

[InTheLight]

Six months after the FBI first said it was investigating the hack of the Democratic National Committee’s computer network, the bureau has still not requested access to the hacked servers, a DNC spokesman said.

“The DNC had several meetings with representatives of the FBI’s Cyber Division and its Washington (DC) Field Office, the Department of Justice’s National Security Division, and U.S. Attorney’s Offices, and it responded to a variety of requests for cooperation, but the FBI never requested access to the DNC’s computer servers,” Eric Walker, the DNC’s deputy communications director, told BuzzFeed News in an email.

http://www.hannity.com/articles/hanpr-election-493995/surprise-fbi-never-looked-at-dnc-15440512/

Washington (CNN)The Democratic National Committee "rebuffed" a request from the FBI to examine its computer services after it was allegedly hacked by Russia during the 2016 election, a senior law enforcement official told CNN Thursday.

"The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated," a senior law enforcement official told CNN. "This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third party for information. These actions caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier."
This statement is in response to reports that the FBI never asked the DNC for access to the hacked systems.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/politics/fbi-russia-hacking-dnc-crowdstrike/

So, it appears the DNC is lying.

 

[HankD]

Hacking is relatively easy.

A password is often available in what is called a core dump.

If your system is accessible via a TCP/IP back door then thieves can capture a core dump of what is residing in your memory. They look for the obvious, passwords will have a special look to them which these thieves are talented at recognizing. Then they look again for the obvious, email passwords, Facebook, etc, etc.

Something called a "key logger" (look it up) can be down loaded to your system via a trojan email. It captures every character you input on your keyboard and can be read by whoever sent it to you via the internet (email, Facebook, etc...).

A keylogger is a type of surveillance software (considered to be either software or spyware) that has the capability to record every keystroke you make to a log file, usually encrypted. A keylogger recorder can record instant messages, e-mail, and any information you type at any time using your keyboard.

Google of "key logger".

This is one of our governments favorite ways to gather your data without your permission.

HankD