(03-21-2017 03:36 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 03:05 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 02:56 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 02:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Nobody is laughing. Russia interfered in our election. Sad that only one side seems to care about that.

They did?

How so? What proof is there of anything of significance?

Ask Comey.

Nah, that really isn't how this is supposed to work. Sorry.

You made the claim, can you back it up? With anything?

Comey's testimony yesterday. Google it.

(03-21-2017 03:37 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 03:28 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 02:27 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 02:23 PM)MonarchManiac Wrote:  NOOOOO! INFORMED VOTERS! WE CAN'T HAVE IT!

The only reason you were "informed" is because Russia stole information. How that does not bother every American I'll never know.

All that info China stole thru years of hacking on Obama's watch was no big deal either. Of course, the Chinese did it to American companies and not the democrat party, so now it's a big deal. UFB...

When did anyone here ever suggest that any China hacks were no big deal? Sorry if we don't jump all over them now, but it's not really current news...nor do I even remember it being much of a discussion on here. Sorry.

I'm not talking about what was discussed on here. I'm talking about the actions - or lack thereof - taken by the U.S. gov't to deal with the Chinese hacking. Problem is that you should care about it. DNC was hacked in 2015/2016 - right? Based on the news that's the narrative. But we've seen the news reports of hacking of other non-gov't entities by foreign powers - China most notably - with no action taken by the gov't. The question that SHOULD be asked is: Why is the DNC hacking issue the only issue that people care about? C'mon, it's becoming comical! It's so blatantly self serving that it's easy to see by most.

They should market Prozac the size of those huge sweet tarts we used to love as a kid for our progressive friends.

(03-21-2017 03:39 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 03:36 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 03:05 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 02:56 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 02:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Nobody is laughing. Russia interfered in our election. Sad that only one side seems to care about that.

They did?

How so? What proof is there of anything of significance?

Ask Comey.

Nah, that really isn't how this is supposed to work. Sorry.

You made the claim, can you back it up? With anything?

Comey's testimony yesterday. Google it.

I posted this to you on page 3 and I believe page 5 ...

lets try it again on page 7 of this thread

http://csnbbs.com/thread-813092-post-141...id14199625
http://csnbbs.com/thread-813092-post-141...id14199740

Unless the FBI looked at the servers and tracked the hack....

how can he say it was the Russians? The DNC refused to let the FBI look at their server. I think the question should be..why? It almost make you think they feared the FBI finding something that pointed to laws being broke. Why else would you fear the top law dog in the USA taking a look.

But then the democrats want to use something he says as a gold star that it was Russia.

Answer the below:

Why did they refuse the request of the FBI to trace the hack if it was "a attack on our election"

Not only that if this was a attack on the integrity of the election of a president....

why didn't the FBI impound those servers and do their job?

So when did it actually become this threat to our county? Let me guess..after Donald Trump won and Hillary lost?

(03-21-2017 03:43 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 03:37 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 03:28 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 02:27 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 02:23 PM)MonarchManiac Wrote:  NOOOOO! INFORMED VOTERS! WE CAN'T HAVE IT!

The only reason you were "informed" is because Russia stole information. How that does not bother every American I'll never know.

All that info China stole thru years of hacking on Obama's watch was no big deal either. Of course, the Chinese did it to American companies and not the democrat party, so now it's a big deal. UFB...

When did anyone here ever suggest that any China hacks were no big deal? Sorry if we don't jump all over them now, but it's not really current news...nor do I even remember it being much of a discussion on here. Sorry.

I'm not talking about what was discussed on here. I'm talking about the actions - or lack thereof - taken by the U.S. gov't to deal with the Chinese hacking. Problem is that you should care about it. DNC was hacked in 2015/2016 - right? Based on the news that's the narrative. But we've seen the news reports of hacking of other non-gov't entities by foreign powers - China most notably - with no action taken by the gov't. The question that SHOULD be asked is: Why is the DNC hacking issue the only issue that people care about? C'mon, it's becoming comical! It's so blatantly self serving that it's easy to see by most.

Just because you didn't see a visible display against China does not mean that some actions weren't taken does it?

Quote:Chinese Lessons
The US strategy in China was in many ways the polar opposite of a knee-jerk, hack-back approach. It was a years-long series of diplomatic and legal efforts, all aimed at curbing Beijing’s economic espionage. And according to security firms like FireEye and Crowdstrike, which have closely tracked state-sponsored intrusions and often served as remediation consultants called in after the hacks, those efforts worked. At the very least, they stemmed China’s hundreds of attacks on American private sector targets, if not its more traditional espionage against US government agencies.

In a report FireEye released last June, researchers documented the decline in monthly attacks by 72 Chinese hacker groups from more than 60 attacks per month for most of 2013 to five or fewer attacks in most months of 2016. (Shown in the graph below.) The company even blamed the disappearing Chinese attacks for a serious drop in its own revenue and stock price. Many of its customers were no longer being victimized.

Obama Curbed Chinese Hacking, But Russia Won’t Be So Easy

From what I've just read about China, they chose a quieter approach so as not to damage fragile relations with China. Was that the best policy? Who knows...but according to the data, it seems to have worked.

(03-21-2017 03:45 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 03:39 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 03:36 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 03:05 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 02:56 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  They did?

How so? What proof is there of anything of significance?

Ask Comey.

Nah, that really isn't how this is supposed to work. Sorry.

You made the claim, can you back it up? With anything?

Comey's testimony yesterday. Google it.

I posted this to you on page 3 and I believe page 5 ...

lets try it again on page 7 of this thread

http://csnbbs.com/thread-813092-post-141...id14199625
http://csnbbs.com/thread-813092-post-141...id14199740

Unless the FBI looked at the servers and tracked the hack....

how can he say it was the Russians? The DNC refused to let the FBI look at their server. I think the question should be..why? It almost make you think they feared the FBI finding something that pointed to laws being broke. Why else would you fear the top law dog in the USA taking a look.

But then the democrats want to use something he says as a gold star that it was Russia.

Answer the below:

Why did they refuse the request of the FBI to trace the hack if it was "a attack on our election"

Not only that if this was a attack on the integrity of the election of a president....

why didn't the FBI impound those servers and do their job?

So when did it actually become this threat to our county? Let me guess..after Donald Trump won and Hillary lost?

Don't know.
Don't know.
Wrong, when it happened.

(03-21-2017 03:39 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 03:36 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 03:05 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 02:56 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 02:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Nobody is laughing. Russia interfered in our election. Sad that only one side seems to care about that.

They did?

How so? What proof is there of anything of significance?

Ask Comey.

Nah, that really isn't how this is supposed to work. Sorry.

You made the claim, can you back it up? With anything?

Comey's testimony yesterday. Google it.

Just as I suspected, you can't produce anything of significance. Got it.

(03-21-2017 03:51 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 03:43 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 03:37 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 03:28 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 02:27 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  The only reason you were "informed" is because Russia stole information. How that does not bother every American I'll never know.

All that info China stole thru years of hacking on Obama's watch was no big deal either. Of course, the Chinese did it to American companies and not the democrat party, so now it's a big deal. UFB...

When did anyone here ever suggest that any China hacks were no big deal? Sorry if we don't jump all over them now, but it's not really current news...nor do I even remember it being much of a discussion on here. Sorry.

I'm not talking about what was discussed on here. I'm talking about the actions - or lack thereof - taken by the U.S. gov't to deal with the Chinese hacking. Problem is that you should care about it. DNC was hacked in 2015/2016 - right? Based on the news that's the narrative. But we've seen the news reports of hacking of other non-gov't entities by foreign powers - China most notably - with no action taken by the gov't. The question that SHOULD be asked is: Why is the DNC hacking issue the only issue that people care about? C'mon, it's becoming comical! It's so blatantly self serving that it's easy to see by most.

Just because you didn't see a visible display against China does not mean that some actions weren't taken does it?

Quote:Chinese Lessons
The US strategy in China was in many ways the polar opposite of a knee-jerk, hack-back approach. It was a years-long series of diplomatic and legal efforts, all aimed at curbing Beijing’s economic espionage. And according to security firms like FireEye and Crowdstrike, which have closely tracked state-sponsored intrusions and often served as remediation consultants called in after the hacks, those efforts worked. At the very least, they stemmed China’s hundreds of attacks on American private sector targets, if not its more traditional espionage against US government agencies.

In a report FireEye released last June, researchers documented the decline in monthly attacks by 72 Chinese hacker groups from more than 60 attacks per month for most of 2013 to five or fewer attacks in most months of 2016. (Shown in the graph below.) The company even blamed the disappearing Chinese attacks for a serious drop in its own revenue and stock price. Many of its customers were no longer being victimized.

Obama Curbed Chinese Hacking, But Russia Won’t Be So Easy

From what I've just read about China, they chose a quieter approach so as not to damage fragile relations with China. Was that the best policy? Who knows...but according to the data, it seems to have worked.

Good find. I have not seen this info before. Of course they profited handsomely from the prior years espionage. Hate to play armchair QB, but how were any of these targets of Chinese espionage made whole? Without that, it seems like the hole in the dam was plugged but the damage was already done.

(03-21-2017 03:53 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 03:45 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 03:39 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 03:36 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 03:05 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Ask Comey.

Nah, that really isn't how this is supposed to work. Sorry.

You made the claim, can you back it up? With anything?

Comey's testimony yesterday. Google it.

I posted this to you on page 3 and I believe page 5 ...

lets try it again on page 7 of this thread

http://csnbbs.com/thread-813092-post-141...id14199625
http://csnbbs.com/thread-813092-post-141...id14199740

Unless the FBI looked at the servers and tracked the hack....

how can he say it was the Russians? The DNC refused to let the FBI look at their server. I think the question should be..why? It almost make you think they feared the FBI finding something that pointed to laws being broke. Why else would you fear the top law dog in the USA taking a look.

But then the democrats want to use something he says as a gold star that it was Russia.

Answer the below:

Why did they refuse the request of the FBI to trace the hack if it was "a attack on our election"

Not only that if this was a attack on the integrity of the election of a president....

why didn't the FBI impound those servers and do their job?

So when did it actually become this threat to our county? Let me guess..after Donald Trump won and Hillary lost?

Don't know.
Don't know.
Wrong, when it happened.

Your answer to #3 Can't be correct...at least not to the DNC or the FBI. If it was a crime against our election then it's falls under the federal code and the FBI. Since they did not get a warrant for the servers wouldn't you agree they did not see this as a attempt to hack the election ?

So if the FBI did not get the servers or even take a look at them how do you think the head man can say it was Russia? Wouldn't you agree they are taking someone else word on this?

If this was such a important crime "hacking the election"...you must have a opinion on why to this day the FBI or no government agency have seen those servers?

Doesn't it look like the FBI sees this a little different than you do?

(03-21-2017 04:02 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 03:51 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 03:43 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 03:37 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 03:28 PM)miko33 Wrote:  All that info China stole thru years of hacking on Obama's watch was no big deal either. Of course, the Chinese did it to American companies and not the democrat party, so now it's a big deal. UFB...

When did anyone here ever suggest that any China hacks were no big deal? Sorry if we don't jump all over them now, but it's not really current news...nor do I even remember it being much of a discussion on here. Sorry.

I'm not talking about what was discussed on here. I'm talking about the actions - or lack thereof - taken by the U.S. gov't to deal with the Chinese hacking. Problem is that you should care about it. DNC was hacked in 2015/2016 - right? Based on the news that's the narrative. But we've seen the news reports of hacking of other non-gov't entities by foreign powers - China most notably - with no action taken by the gov't. The question that SHOULD be asked is: Why is the DNC hacking issue the only issue that people care about? C'mon, it's becoming comical! It's so blatantly self serving that it's easy to see by most.

Just because you didn't see a visible display against China does not mean that some actions weren't taken does it?

Quote:Chinese Lessons
The US strategy in China was in many ways the polar opposite of a knee-jerk, hack-back approach. It was a years-long series of diplomatic and legal efforts, all aimed at curbing Beijing’s economic espionage. And according to security firms like FireEye and Crowdstrike, which have closely tracked state-sponsored intrusions and often served as remediation consultants called in after the hacks, those efforts worked. At the very least, they stemmed China’s hundreds of attacks on American private sector targets, if not its more traditional espionage against US government agencies.

In a report FireEye released last June, researchers documented the decline in monthly attacks by 72 Chinese hacker groups from more than 60 attacks per month for most of 2013 to five or fewer attacks in most months of 2016. (Shown in the graph below.) The company even blamed the disappearing Chinese attacks for a serious drop in its own revenue and stock price. Many of its customers were no longer being victimized.

Obama Curbed Chinese Hacking, But Russia Won’t Be So Easy

From what I've just read about China, they chose a quieter approach so as not to damage fragile relations with China. Was that the best policy? Who knows...but according to the data, it seems to have worked.

Good find. I have not seen this info before. Of course they profited handsomely from the prior years espionage. Hate to play armchair QB, but how were any of these targets of Chinese espionage made whole? Without that, it seems like the hole in the dam was plugged but the damage was already done.

Well yeah...but isn't that the problem with hacking in general? How can you ever put the paste back in the tube?

(03-21-2017 03:39 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 03:55 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 03:39 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 03:36 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 03:05 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 02:56 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Nobody is laughing. Russia interfered in our election. Sad that only one side seems to care about that.

They did?

How so? What proof is there of anything of significance?

Ask Comey.

Nah, that really isn't how this is supposed to work. Sorry.

You made the claim, can you back it up? With anything?

Comey's testimony yesterday. Google it.

Just as I suspected, you can't produce anything of significance. Got it.

Quote:STEFANIK: Stepping back more broadly, in the case of Russia, we know that cyber hacking is just one tactic that's typically part of a broader influence or information warfare campaign and we know the Russian government is ready and willing to employee hacking as but one of many tools in their toolkit to obtain information for use against the United States. Is there any evidence that Russia tried to hack other entities associated with the 2016 presidential campaign in addition to the DNC or the Clinton campaign operatives?

COMEY: Yes, many others.

STEFANIK: Can you specify those others? Did that include the RNC? Did that include any of the other campaigns of candidates in the primaries, either Democrats or Republicans?

COMEY: I think what we can say in an unclassified setting is what we have in the report that there were efforts to penetrate organizations associated with the Republican party and that -- I think that is what we said in the report. And that there were not releases of material taken -- hacked from any Republican associated organizations.

STEFANIK: But the hacking -- the use of cyber tools as part of their broader, whether you call it hybrid warfare or information warfare campaigns, it was done to both parties?

COMEY: Correct.

Full transcript: FBI Director James Comey testifies on Russian interference in 2016 election

(03-21-2017 02:56 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 02:52 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 02:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Only a leftist would consider the release of the truth as someone "hacking our election".

And apparently on a righty would dismiss a crime if it benefits them. Sad.

I asked you a few question in the post above. Let me ask you one other but part of one of those I already asked.

If a serious crime like hacking the DNC takes place...

who would you want investigating that crime. A company that was used to protect your server from being hack in the first place? Or the FBI?

We know which one the DNC picked

you're going to quickly learn he's a robobot...their al-gore-rhythm is utter flush material....

For clarification sake on the DNC hack...

1. The DNC did not refuse any FBI requests to examine the servers. The cooperated fully.
2. The servers were examined at the request of the FBI.
3. The examination was done by a third-party tech security company, CrowdStrike.

And no, I don't know why.
Report: FBI had private company examine DNC's hacked servers

(03-21-2017 03:39 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 03:36 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 03:05 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 02:56 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 02:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Nobody is laughing. Russia interfered in our election. Sad that only one side seems to care about that.

They did?

How so? What proof is there of anything of significance?

Ask Comey.

Nah, that really isn't how this is supposed to work. Sorry.

You made the claim, can you back it up? With anything?

Comey's testimony yesterday. Google it.

That's not how it works. You know this.

(03-21-2017 02:08 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This is just getting pathetic at this point.

Especially since the real Russian smoking gun is on the table, right next to Obama's Kenyan birth certificate.

It's kind of sad that folks like Mach and Tom have achieved birther level confirmation bias.

The bottom line is, the Clinton campaign fell for a phishing scam my 13 year old nephew would have laughed out of existance. All of this Russian hacking crap is nothing more than a ruse to cover up their abject stupidity. Smartest woman in the world? methinks not.

(03-21-2017 04:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  For clarification sake on the DNC hack...

1. The DNC did not refuse any FBI requests to examine the servers. The cooperated fully.
2. The servers were examined at the request of the FBI.
3. The examination was done by a third-party tech security company, CrowdStrike.

And no, I don't know why.
Report: FBI had private company examine DNC's hacked servers

So you believe Comey when he says the Russian's did it (which I'm not saying they didn't...I don't know) but you don't want to take him at his word when he's says directly. Someone is lying and since you believe the FBI when they say Russia..I assume you can tell which is lying?

"The FBI requested direct access to the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) hacked computer servers but was denied"

I'm not a huge fan of the news sites...well I'm using "News" loosely. So if this is one of those sites people don't believe is trust worthy let me know. I honestly hardly ever keep up with bullcrap. That's what most news is today.

I can't believe you failed to see the below.. I typed in dnc refuses fbi access to server and it was the first link. Maybe I'm just better at google :)

http://thehill.com/policy/national-secur...nc-servers

The FBI requested direct access to the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) hacked computer servers but was denied, Director James Comey told lawmakers on Tuesday.

Quote:The bureau made “multiple requests at different levels,” according to Comey, but ultimately struck an agreement with the DNC that a “highly respected private company” would get access and share what it found with investigators.

“We’d always prefer to have access hands-on ourselves if that’s possible,” Comey said, noting that he didn’t know why the DNC rebuffed the FBI’s request.

The director was testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee in a rare open session on Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election.

The DNC and the bureau have been quibbling in news reports over whether the FBI asked to examine its servers directly.

Here is what your link said...

Quote:The FBI did not look over the Democratic National Committee's servers before issuing a report that Russia had hacked the organization, according to a report published Wednesday evening. Other than the FBI, no federal agency has conducted an investigation into the DNC's email server since the incident was uncovered six months ago.

"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," said Eric Walker, the DNC's deputy communications director, according to the report.

Instead, Director James Comey's agency has relied on third-party tech security company Crowdstrike to confirm the DNC's servers were hacked, a U.S. official said.

"Beginning at the time the intrusion was discovered by the DNC, the DNC cooperated fully with the FBI and its investigation, providing access to all of the information uncovered by CrowdStrike - without any limits," said Walker.

RWT

I will say this again. Why would the DNC refuse the FBI's request to look at their servers if they believed this crime was so grieves that it was a threat to our election of a president? Had things on it that they did not was the top law dog in the USA to see?

But the bigger question is why the FBI did not just subpoena if this was basically the crime of the century? Since this goes totally against what the FBI likes to do. You might jump to the conclusion Comey could have been afraid of what he might find. It's clear that he did not want to bring charges against Hillary just a few weeks before this..

Hell I'm beginning to speculate like some people

Here's a few more links to the DNC refusal to turn over their servers

Comey: DNC denied FBI's requests for access to hacked servers ...
thehill.com/policy/.../313555-comey-fbi-did-request-access-to-hacked-dnc-servers
Jan 10, 2017 - The FBI requested direct access to the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) hacked computer servers but was denied, Director James ...
James Comey: DNC denied FBI direct access to servers during Russia ...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/.../james...servers-d/
Jan 10, 2017 - FBI Director James B. Comey, in his first public comments since the presidential election, said the bureau requested but was denied direct ...
Comey: FBI denied repeated requests to access DNC servers ...
http://www.foxnews.com/.../comey-fbi-den...-podest...
Jan 10, 2017 - FBI Director James Comey acknowledged Tuesday that his agency failed to get access to Democratic National Committee servers and the ...
FBI says DNC rebuffed request to examine computer servers ...
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/politics/f...owdstrike/
Jan 5, 2017 - "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 ...

Dem Rep Confirms Committee Will Probe FBI DNC Server Claim | The ...
dailycaller.com/.../dem-rep-confirms-committee-will-investigate-fbi-claim-dnc-denied...
Feb 27, 2017 - Dem Rep Confirms Committee Will Investigate FBI Claim DNC Denied It Access To Servers. Photo of Kerry Picket. Kerry Picket · Reporter.
DNC rejected FBI request to examine hacked email server, law ...
http://www.theblaze.com/.../dnc-rejected...law-enf...

Jan 5, 2017 - “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 ...
FBI says DNC wouldn't give it direct access to hacked servers
https://www.engadget.com/2017/01/05/fbi-...o-servers/

(03-21-2017 04:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 03:39 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 03:55 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 03:39 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 03:36 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Ask Comey.

Nah, that really isn't how this is supposed to work. Sorry.

You made the claim, can you back it up? With anything?

Comey's testimony yesterday. Google it.

Just as I suspected, you can't produce anything of significance. Got it.

Quote:STEFANIK: Stepping back more broadly, in the case of Russia, we know that cyber hacking is just one tactic that's typically part of a broader influence or information warfare campaign and we know the Russian government is ready and willing to employee hacking as but one of many tools in their toolkit to obtain information for use against the United States. Is there any evidence that Russia tried to hack other entities associated with the 2016 presidential campaign in addition to the DNC or the Clinton campaign operatives?

COMEY: Yes, many others.

STEFANIK: Can you specify those others? Did that include the RNC? Did that include any of the other campaigns of candidates in the primaries, either Democrats or Republicans?

COMEY: I think what we can say in an unclassified setting is what we have in the report that there were efforts to penetrate organizations associated with the Republican party and that -- I think that is what we said in the report. And that there were not releases of material taken -- hacked from any Republican associated organizations.

STEFANIK: But the hacking -- the use of cyber tools as part of their broader, whether you call it hybrid warfare or information warfare campaigns, it was done to both parties?

COMEY: Correct.

Full transcript: FBI Director James Comey testifies on Russian interference in 2016 election

Of course they're trying to hack "us" just as we are constantly meddling in and snooping around their affairs. Been going on for 100 years or better, no surprise there.
The question was "anything of significance".

No, attempts to penetrate "organizations associated with the Republican party" is hardly significant. He doesn't even say definitively that they were able to penetrate said organizations, only that they didn't release anything.

So they tried, we think, we don't know if they were successful, and for their troubles they were able to produce and release..... nothing. That sound about right? lol.

So, again. Any proof they were able to hack anything of significance?

(03-21-2017 05:09 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 04:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  For clarification sake on the DNC hack...

1. The DNC did not refuse any FBI requests to examine the servers. The cooperated fully.
2. The servers were examined at the request of the FBI.
3. The examination was done by a third-party tech security company, CrowdStrike.

And no, I don't know why.
Report: FBI had private company examine DNC's hacked servers

So you believe Comey when he says the Russian's did it (which I'm not saying they didn't...I don't know) but you don't want to take him at his word when he's says directly. Someone is lying and since you believe the FBI when they say Russia..I assume you can tell which is lying?

"The FBI requested direct access to the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) hacked computer servers but was denied"

I'm not a huge fan of the news sites...well I'm using "News" loosely. So if this is one of those sites people don't believe is trust worthy let me know. I honestly hardly ever keep up with bullcrap. That's what most news is today.

I can't believe you failed to see the below.. I typed in dnc refuses fbi access to server and it was the first link. Maybe I'm just better at google :)

http://thehill.com/policy/national-secur...nc-servers

The FBI requested direct access to the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) hacked computer servers but was denied, Director James Comey told lawmakers on Tuesday.

Quote:The bureau made “multiple requests at different levels,” according to Comey, but ultimately struck an agreement with the DNC that a “highly respected private company” would get access and share what it found with investigators.

“We’d always prefer to have access hands-on ourselves if that’s possible,” Comey said, noting that he didn’t know why the DNC rebuffed the FBI’s request.

The director was testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee in a rare open session on Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election.

The DNC and the bureau have been quibbling in news reports over whether the FBI asked to examine its servers directly.

Here is what your link said...

Quote:The FBI did not look over the Democratic National Committee's servers before issuing a report that Russia had hacked the organization, according to a report published Wednesday evening. Other than the FBI, no federal agency has conducted an investigation into the DNC's email server since the incident was uncovered six months ago.

"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," said Eric Walker, the DNC's deputy communications director, according to the report.

Instead, Director James Comey's agency has relied on third-party tech security company Crowdstrike to confirm the DNC's servers were hacked, a U.S. official said.

"Beginning at the time the intrusion was discovered by the DNC, the DNC cooperated fully with the FBI and its investigation, providing access to all of the information uncovered by CrowdStrike - without any limits," said Walker.

lol

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app