Was he really behind the DNC hacks?

Was he really behind the DNC hacks?

Other urls found in this thread:

paulcraigroberts.org/2016/12/18/the-striking-audacity-of-the-coup-in-process-paul-craig-roberts/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cozy_Bear
arstechnica.com/security/2016/12/the-public-evidence-behind-claims-russia-hacked-for-trump/
archive.fo/OJjlI
nytimes.com/2015/11/25/world/europe/turkey-syria-russia-military-plane.html?_r=0
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

lol no but you gotta blame someone for their failure

We don't know.

no, but it's always convenient to blame le ebil russian boogeyman

Almost certainly. State sponsored hacking is easy (due to most people just running whatever program is on a USB stick left in their workplace's parking lot) and deniable. Wikileaks/Assange has also been a Russian puppet since at least 2010 so it makes sense for them to disseminate their hacked material through them as well.

Define: hacking
2. gain unauthorized access to

I'm quite certain that he has unauthorized access to the publically leaked DNC emails.

computer hacking belongs in

It is true, I saw him personally penetrating the firewall in a very toxicly masculine way.

Nope. He wasn't because he didn't need to bother.
He didn't need to bother because Americans are
great and sabotaging themselves, by themselves.
Ergo he didn't have to do shit, nor did he.

doesn't matter, pointing fingers doesn't change
instead of offloading blame onto others everyone that is surprised needs to look deep into their soul and find 1 reason it's their fault and then fucking kill themselves for being a dense clueless fuck.

"russian hackers" are russian in the same way "lulzsec" was "NATO hackers"

no. all this russian hacker talk is a diversion. what's important is what's IN THE EMAILS and not who hacked them.

they all blame russians now for everything because they are trying to delegitemize Trump's win.

it's a soft-coup in process.

paulcraigroberts.org/2016/12/18/the-striking-audacity-of-the-coup-in-process-paul-craig-roberts/

At this point it's all politics. None of us* have any of the evidence needed to actually support our beliefs.

* unless you work at the CIA

Producing false news on FB and manipulating the voters with it isn't hacking.

Americans blaming someone for meddling in someone else's elections and government is the pinnacle of irony that even makes all of the 9 levels of Hell blush.

Don't worry OP, the manufactured evidence that the Russians did it will come out soon. Just takes some time to prep it and cover all angles.

"fake news" is CNN's poor attempt at memetic warfare
they will be crushed by the dank and minced by the edge of the new memes that will be rolled out soon.

t. rushin haxrs

I would chose headshot. No debate, hack or meme can stop a good assassin. I'm sure the new election will have a better line up than this 2 scum.

Clinton still agonizing. Sure.

Yes. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cozy_Bear

The real question to ask is whether trump and his campaign were also colluding with Russia (very likely given his reluctance to release tax returns and the people he is appointing).

>produced false news
>as determined and stated by the same people who produced the non-existent WMD's in Iraq that would later pave the way towards the destruction of a country and its economy and industry, resulting in an unstable society without any solid government and with people massively leaving, and finally a giant load of arms and tech that would fall into the hands of fundamentalists and result in the creation of ISIS/ISIL because some dumbfuck decided that pulling out weapons and tech along with the troops, or at least destroying them, would cost too much money, which then resulted in Syria and more mass immigration due to another destroyed country

So what if he did? (which he most likely didn't but whatever) He allowed the truth to come out

Actually its admirable how they managed to shift the focus on the subject of who was behind it from the actual content of the leak. The brainwashing is really do wonders.

answer yes
putin own american ass
next, you. ))))

Follow the cites and:
>One of them—nicknamed Fancy Bear by the cyber-security firm Crowdstrike—is thought to be linked to Russian military intelligence, the GRU.
>[Cozy Bear] was engaged in traditional espionage, quietly collecting information about the party’s inner workings—a high-priority target for any foreign government, but particularly the Kremlin. Its interests, and the more sophisticated technical means it used, suggest that it was working for another part of Russia’s intelligence apparatus.

Very strong evidence.

According to from WikiLeaks, it was a DNC insider, so not even a "hack" but a leak.

From what I know, WikiLeaks are pretty truthful; I'm not sure they have ever posted fake documents. With what they are doing, I think honesty would be what they would strive for to maintain credibility. Dems are obviously politically motivated to find a scapegoat, so I would take what they say with a grain of salt.

>The Russian hackers rigged our election by telling everyone about how we rigged the primary

>brainwashing

Its not really brainwashing. The media elites have an interest in protecting their entrenched power and Democrats desperately want an excuse for the biggest political upset in modern politics. "Ebil communist Russia hacked the election so Trump would win" is a win/win for them. Never mind the fact that Russias economy is half the size of California's, or that the CIA's budget is the size of the entire Russian military's budget.

No way. Clinton is planning on running in the next election so she had to shit something out so she could get to work falsifying her image again.

>crowdstrike

Why would anyone trust the analysis of the company who failed to secure the network in the first place? Without outside intelligence, it's impossible to identify the source of a well-funded intrusion.

Perhaps next time, Pedosta won't keep "p@ssword" as his password for a whole year and refuse to use 2FA.

>mfw the Democrats of all people are now pushing the red scare

All the people over 40 years old must be rolling on the floor laughing their asses off.

phising emails from stupid corrupt dems isn't hacking

found the russian hacker, call this guy a fgt

Democrats are the war party now.

Also funny they are trying to blame elaborate Russian hacks when podesta just used a simple password and clicked a phishing link. Was probably some teenage American in a guy fawks mask.

>people just running whatever program is on a USB stick left in their workplace's parking lot

this is literally how stuxnet happened

no

0.2 Shekels have been deposited into your account

No Putin is known to be a good honest leader who has no qualm with the West, and has not vested interest in the US election.

There is really no reason to believe there is any connection between Russian and the DNC cracking.

5 pennies in yours.

Obama has literally said that it was not an elaborate or sophisticated attack.

America attempts to influence or at the very least interferes with just about every election for political office that takes place in the world and they now have the gall to accuse the Russian bogeyman of doing the same?

Oh, the hypocrisy, the irony.

>Why would anyone trust the analysis of the company who failed to secure the network in the first place?
Well there is also the FBI and CIA. Yes the FBI.

...

Literally anyone with one of a possible million political motivations, could have done this. I'd be surprised if Iran was not responsible, tbph.

>anonymous CIA officials said there were WMDs in Iraq, how dare you ask for evidence

LOL, saved, but to be fair, you could replace the image of Clit-on with that of just about anyone from US political life

>Claim American boogeyman
>Ridicule how Americans are claiming boogeyman

>Crimes
Citation needed. Also Hillary has publicly claimed that it was the FBI investigation that tipped the scale.

You were given evidence, you chose to dismiss it. Yes the CIA has a long history of doing stupid things. The CIA is also not the only ones making the claim..

Here is a compilation of known information regarding the attack.

arstechnica.com/security/2016/12/the-public-evidence-behind-claims-russia-hacked-for-trump/

There are two Russian state-sponsored advanced persistent threat groups that breached the DNC.

Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear.

From how it looks, they both breached the DNC without knowledge of each other doing so.

These are most likely two government agencies working independent of each other.

Basically probably how NSA and CIA cyber operations play out.

Wikileaks is but a russian puppet. It's pathetic they still claim otherwise.

>arstechnica

What are you? Some sort of brain dead hipster? Skinny jeans too tight for you?

>Here is a compilation of known information regarding the attack.
"But while the hackers may have been caught in the act digitally, the details by themselves don't offer definitive proof of the identity of those behind the anti-Clinton hacking campaign. Public details currently don't offer clear insight into the specific intent behind these hacks, either."

>These are most likely two government agencies working independent of each other.

Yep. One in Colorado. The other in Maryland.

>No shit.

nyet, I get my payment as vodka (actually 0.1 cl per (you)) so keep replying

Are you fucking retarded? I was talking about the Russian's, idiot.

>Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear.
This claim is being made based on the tools the hackers used. You do realize, those same tools can be purchased on "dark-nets", right?

This is again you choosing to dismiss evidence.

Wikileaks does not have to be a Russian puppet, to be a means with wish Russian can spread it's information

Yes, it is not definitive proof. It is circumstantial evidence.

Wow, it's literally nothing.

...

>no definitive proof
>still wants to start a war over it

kys, Hillary. You lost.

CNN said he is, so probably not.

archive.fo/OJjlI

>evidence

FFS, you twat!

I don't really see how the CIA can know for sure it's Russia behind this.

In any case it could be Russia, the US could be jerking our chain again like they were about Iraq, who knows?

You idiot. What makes you think the "Russians" are actually Russian?

>Oh wait, arse-technica LOL

Great I'm glad you moved on from claiming it's just leftist propaganda too "literally nothing".

>"star a war"
Yeah, this is the most mind numbing accusation coming from Trumpistas.

Wikileaks is also contradicting the US, and while I don't trust them as a source too much, they actually do lie less often than the USA does.

So don't know what to believe really.

>tfw you can't bother to change your password even though your emails have been leaked to everyone in the world

It is not just the CIA that it is claiming that it is the Russians involved. Retards keep spouting "CIA" because they were the first to claim the intentions.

What is Wikileaks contradicting the US on? Claiming it is not a Russian source?

There's no evidence for it, it's liberal propaganda meant to rationalize a systemic problem with the Democratic party.

>start a war

Yeah, half of Hillary's ads were "DRUMPF, NUCLEAR CODES?!?!" Hillary explicitly said that a cyber attack is an act of war, I don't see how it's far fetched to say this is the Democratic party pushing for war to cover up its own corruption.

...

Oh, don't forget James "The NSA isn't spying on Americans" Clapper said that Russia is responsible too.

This. Though I find it interesting how certain Obama and dems seem to be that it was Russia. I'm sticking with "unknown actor"

>Yeah, half of Hillary's ads were "DRUMPF, NUCLEAR CODES?!?!"
Are you dumb? How is this evidence that Hillary wants to start a war.

> Hillary explicitly said that a cyber attack is an act of war, I don't see how it's far fetched to say this is the Democratic party pushing for war to cover up its own corruption.
I am fairly sure she also literally explicitly said she does not want war with Russia, despite also bringing up their involvement in the whole email ordeal.

well, he said, they are kind of maybe responsible, but what the fuck do we know? We're still sorting through the records from 2002, because we hoover up all of the internet.

It points out the hypocrisy of saying Hillary wants war with Russia is outrageous. Hillary might say she doesn't want war, but that's exactly what a no fly zone would lead to, to say nothing of the collateral damage of funding more "moderate rebels" in Syria and a more aggressive posture towards Russia.

>Are you dumb? How is this evidence that Hillary wants to start a war.

um... she was constantly threatening no-fly zones in Syria for starters. plus she takes shit loads of money from the Saudis, who are just as opposed to Iran/Russia as anyone else.

I thought drumpfkins dumped the clinton-is-a-criminal talking point after trump immediately broke his promise to put her in jail the very second he was elected.

Why don't we blame the Chinese anymore like we used to just a few years ago?
I don't get the big bad Russia memes - they're pretty weak.

Because without Chinese money, the US would have an economy no better that Uganda's in a week

>I am fairly sure she also literally explicitly said she does not want war with Russia
That's why she dodged the question about whether she'd shoot down a Russian plane at the last debate, right?

Please, tell me how the country with a trade deficit is hurt by a trade war.

She doesn't WANT war with Russia, but she's going to do what she wants, and if that causes war with Russia, then that's all Putin's fault.

> Hillary explicitly said that a cyber attack is an act of war, I don't see how it's far fetched to say this is the Democratic party pushing for war to cover up its own corruption.
Yeah your own hypocrisy?

>Hillary might say she doesn't want war, but that's exactly what a no fly zone would lead to
No fly zone have literally being the standard go to tools for stabilizing regions for the US. It is not unprecedented to claim to want a no fly zone, with the explicit intent of preventing a more critical situation.

>to say nothing of the collateral damage of funding more "moderate rebels" in Syria and a more aggressive posture towards Russia.
Yes they are shit, they are also not the one that literally started the war.

nytimes.com/2015/11/25/world/europe/turkey-syria-russia-military-plane.html?_r=0
Where is the war?

Trumpistas everybody.

Only if said tools are available on the market. Which these weren't.

I wasn't the one who quoted arse-technica buddy

How would we fight ISIS if there's a no fly zone?

>they didn't start the war

The absurd US policy of regime change is responsible for this "war. " How many times do we have to fall for the "regime change" meme?

Not an argument. China benefits by trading with the US. They have a 500 billion dollar surplus. A trade war hurts them far more than it hurts us.

not trading with china means you dont get all the cheap chinese shit they sell you, you absolute imbecile

holy fuck.

The tools were available and well known, which is how researchers were able to identify them as previously used tools.

How will we go without McDonalds toys and tupperware?

Thanks, captain obvious. It also means that demand for their cheap shit falls by 30%, which would devastate their export-driven economy. Making Chinese products more expensive creates an opportunity for American firms to finally compete with Chinese products.