Trump Leading Witness Revenge Acts

[Mick]

That the FBI permitted DNC to deny them access to the servers is just another item on Comey's laundry list of failures; a subpoena and we'd never have been talking about this.

Did he get access to the RNC servers? Lifelong Republican Comey's shortcomings are legendary.

What does the FBI not getting direct access to the servers and using the same group they have used in the past to analyze the images have to do with Preventing Russia from hacking it anyway? The only people doubting it was Russia are Trump and his minions.

 

[Mick]

I've already listed the counter measures I'm aware of. There is no such thing as a completely secure network. If they are determined and skilled, other countries will continue breaching government networks just as we intrude on theirs.

So, yes; in the end, retaliation and trying to stay one step ahead is all you've got.

When obama expelled the russian diplomats and placed sanctions on them that was retaliation.

 

[C-south]

When obama expelled the russian diplomats and placed sanctions on them that was retaliation.

Yep. What a hypocrite.

 

[NCFisher]

First, the notion that Trump was against, concerned about, or in any way caring about the DNC server hack is ABSOLUTELY LAUGHABLE !!!! Trump openly encouraged the hacking of DNC servers. Russia, if you're listening ....

Second, Trump has admitted the Russian effort one or two times, strained, at the point of a gun, hating it, and within hours denounced it. To this day he will not admit it.

Third, you claim its a "false choice" to blur the distinction between them trying to help him win, and actually achieving it. Fact is, we KNOW, for a CERTAINTY, that they tried to help Trump win. That alone is grounds to take action. That alone is grounds to admit it happened.

That it cannot be known whether they were successful is immaterial to the point above. But, I understand why the Fox numbskulls keep pointing that out. If it cannot be proven that it worked, no harm no foul.

Nonsense; it was clearly a political jab related to Clinton's "missing" emails. It's the same out of context smear tactic as "He said Nazis were good people"...what the hell is wrong with you people, that you stoop to such lowbrow, transparent BS? Or do you simply lack a sense of humor or discretion?

Perhaps you confuse "Russia hoax" or "witch hunt!" as synonymous with saying Russia did not interfere in our elections; they're not the same thing, any more than acknowledging Ukraine officials interfered is not saying Russia didn't. That would be your only defense.

Putin's goal was that Hillary lose, period, their feud dating years before 2016. Trump was incidental, evidenced by the fact that Russian agit-prop supported Bernie and to a lesser degree, Stein, until Hillary was nominated. The Repub nominee could have been Ronald Reagan, and Putin would have agitated on his behalf.

I did cut short and reply without reading the last couple sentences of your prior reply, my mistake. But you do sound as if you are two if you want Trump to say "Russia meddled to help me win". You got Russia meddled; be content.

 

[NCFisher]

When obama expelled the russian diplomats and placed sanctions on them that was retaliation.

Which Trump did, too. And cyber-attacked their power grid. For stuff they did while O was prez.

Attacking their power grid likely indicates he won't sit on his hands while Russia is actively intruding again. Retaliating after someone has had their way with you is some satisfaction, I guess, but with hardened infrastructure and counter measures, he seems willing to "do the job that Democrat presidents won't do" and retaliate when it matters.

 

[NCFisher]

Did he get access to the RNC servers? Lifelong Republican Comey's shortcomings are legendary.

What does the FBI not getting direct access to the servers and using the same group they have used in the past to analyze the images have to do with Preventing Russia from hacking it anyway? The only people doubting it was Russia are Trump and his minions.

I don't know; did he ask for access? They certainly asked DNC: The FBI says the Democratic Party wouldn't let agents see the hacked email servers
Comey is an ideological, never-Trumper bureaucrat? I know.

Images include whatever data the administrator elects. So, regardless of who doubts what, if you can't put your hands on the original, you're seeing a copy of whatever the admin setup to copy.

Which is why Comey stated FBI forensics always prefer having the original; it's proper evidence handling and processing. Especially when it's used to support a Russiaaaah! narrative in a presidential campaign.

 

[Mick]

I don't know; did he ask for access? They certainly asked DNC: The FBI says the Democratic Party wouldn't let agents see the hacked email servers
Comey is an ideological, never-Trumper bureaucrat? I know.

Images include whatever data the administrator elects. So, regardless of who doubts what, if you can't put your hands on the original, you're seeing a copy of whatever the admin setup to copy.

Which is why Comey stated FBI forensics always prefer having the original; it's proper evidence handling and processing. Especially when it's used to support a Russiaaaah! narrative in a presidential campaign.

You don't know what an image is then and probably unaware the first steps to investigating any cyber intrusion is to take it offline and create an image of the device and work from that image. The "preference" is not standard or necessary. Maybe you would understand if it was Equifax or Amazon that got hacked, is the FBI going to shut them down and take their servers? No because it's unnecessary.

 

[NCFisher]

You don't know what an image is then and probably unaware the first steps to investigating any cyber intrusion is to take it offline and create an image of the device and work from that image. The "preference" is not standard or necessary. Maybe you would understand if it was Equifax or Amazon that got hacked, is the FBI going to shut them down and take their servers? No because it's unnecessary.

Yeah, I know what an image is and how it differs from a backup, a clone, and what they're used for. The preference is for ensuring a repeatable process that delivers consistent quality of evidence. If I can't compare your copy to the source, I have to trust your work.

No, you wouldn't shut down Equifax, Amazon, or the DNC; that's what redundant systems are for. Amazon and Equifax would know this as a matter of SOX/corporate governance. The DNC - ha! ha! - who the hell knows.

With such an event regarding presidential candidates in an election year, you don't let a private IT firm hired by one of the political parties do your job. And you only deny law enforcement that access if you've something you don't wish divulged.

So, on one hand you guys say Trump threw intel/FBI under the bus, but then say FBI doesn't need access to the DNC assets even though FBI made repeated, multiple requests for access. Sound about right?

 

[FLVOL69]

Yeah, I know what an image is and how it differs from a backup, a clone, and what they're used for. The preference is for ensuring a repeatable process that delivers consistent quality of evidence. If I can't compare your copy to the source, I have to trust your work.

No, you wouldn't shut down Equifax, Amazon, or the DNC; that's what redundant systems are for. Amazon and Equifax would know this as a matter of SOX/corporate governance. The DNC - ha! ha! - who the hell knows.

With such an event regarding presidential candidates in an election year, you don't let a private IT firm hired by one of the political parties do your job. And you only deny law enforcement that access if you've something you don't wish divulged.

Bingo that’s why Crowdstrike was used as opposed to the FBI. I still believe it was an inside hack, the download speed of the documents prove it wasn’t done from Mother Russia despite the DNC’s claims

 

[AM64]

Even if the U.S. economy tanks between now and November like the Dems are hoping for, Trump has a “not it” card as we all watch what the killer crud bug is doing to global economies already.

Don't underestimate the dims. It will still be Trump's fault.

 

[Mick]

Yeah, I know what an image is and how it differs from a backup, a clone, and what they're used for. The preference is for ensuring a repeatable process that delivers consistent quality of evidence. If I can't compare your copy to the source, I have to trust your work.

No, you wouldn't shut down Equifax, Amazon, or the DNC; that's what redundant systems are for. Amazon and Equifax would know this as a matter of SOX/corporate governance. The DNC - ha! ha! - who the hell knows.

With such an event regarding presidential candidates in an election year, you don't let a private IT firm hired by one of the political parties do your job. And you only deny law enforcement that access if you've something you don't wish divulged.

So, on one hand you guys say Trump threw intel/FBI under the bus, but then say FBI doesn't need access to the DNC assets even though FBI made repeated, multiple requests for access. Sound about right?

I don't know what to tell you except you sound like someone that just has a talking point.

Our Work with the DNC: Setting the record straight

Do you have the DNC servers?

We have never taken physical possession of any DNC servers. When cyber investigators respond to an incident, they capture that evidence in a process called “imaging.” It involves making an exact byte-for-byte copy of the hard drives. They do the same for the machine’s memory, capturing evidence that would otherwise be lost at the next reboot, and they monitor and store the traffic passing through the victim’s network. This has been standard procedure in incident response investigations for decades. The images, not the computer’s hardware, provide the evidence.

 

[AM64]

I always find it silly to accept foreign countries interfering in our elections just because we have done it to others. Would you be fine with other countries attacking us just because we attacked someone?

Your willingness to accept it because it hurt Hillary and helping Trump is so transparent.

You know the solution to that is to put examples of foreign meddling on display instead of denying it exists? Which administration denied that "The Russians" were gaming our elections ... until they lost?

The far more sinister problem is the Chinese military hacking Equifax and stealing what they need for identity theft. Consider that and the possibility of real election meddling. What we needed was not a Space Command; we needed a Cyber Warfare Command.

 

[Mick]

You know the solution to that is to put examples of foreign meddling on display instead of denying it exists? Which administration denied that "The Russians" were gaming our elections ... until they lost?

The far more sinister problem is the Chinese military hacking Equifax and stealing what they need for identity theft. Consider that and the possibility of real election meddling. What we needed was not a Space Command; we needed a Cyber Warfare Command.

What would that look like? Internet monitoring, restricting access, more control of the internet?

 

[AM64]

What would that look like? Internet monitoring, restricting access, more control of the internet?

Certainly not more 9/11 type infringement. It's obvious that companies consider being hacked a part of the game; it doesn't seem they are that disturbed by it, so it would be nice if somebody actually investigated and got to the bottom. My science fiction solution is you detect a hacker and you use his connection to fry the SOB literally. Not possible, but there should be a way to at least manage access that foreign hackers use, and then US law against domestic hackers. People commit suicide over identity theft so make it a capital crime ... teach your kids better manners one way or the other. The point is cyber crime isn't taken seriously - just like white collar crime isn't generally taken that seriously. Maybe when one of our undeclared enemies takes down the power grid, we'll get the message.

 

[AM64]

I'm not sure. I don't think you can really blame Facebook ads for swaying an election. That's weak. But the hacking of the DNC, it could very well be argued, hurt the Dems. So who's fault is that? Should we blame the DNC for not better securing their computers? The American govt. for not preventing it? We can blame the Russians, but where does that get us? Do you truly believe anything we say or do is going to stop their attempts? I don't. I mean, short of going to war, which wouldn't end well for either side IMO. So the answer is we need to find a way to protect ourselves. Or we can just continue to pass the buck on blame. It should really be a bipartisan issue, but instead, we get each side trying to blame the other.

Hacking is the same as the old age problem of doors, locks, and thieves. Thieves aren't going away, so it's up to you to do your best to protect yourself from them. Unfortunately a lot of companies and even government agencies don't seem to be concerned enough and nobody appears to be held accountable for lax security. Now if the CEO at Equifax had to own up to the problem the old style Japanese way with a knife, I imagine security would have had his attention.

 

[AM64]

That is a weak position for you to assign me. It's easy to blame Obama but those underlying questions will remain for you to ponder. Should he have done something by EO or should congress do something and if so what? If you want to blame him for not doing something then you should be able to articulate what he should have done but didn't.

Maybe Obama the famous orator should have said "it's happening" and brought out coloring books to explain to the simple minded how the Russians could turn them against the chosen one by using Facebook as a weapon. Instead saying that there was nothing the Russians could do to impact the election gave all those dimwitted souls a false sense of security that made them vulnerable. Damn good thing (except for undertakers) that Hiliary didn't think of that scheme before the Russians.

 

[AM64]

So you guys disagree and think election security is not a bipartisan issue and we shouldn’t be worried about it? Because that was the conversation we were having: whether or not the parties can stop blaming each other long enough to address what ought to be a bipartisan issue.

As far as prudential questions concerning the contents of the bill, it’s really egregious that our framers didn’t think of a solution for that. It seems like they could have easily created a system that allowed the house and the senate a process of amendments to allow them to reach compromise on the solution to a particular issue when that issue has broad support among the public... It’s really amazing that we’ve made it as far as we have given that we were founded by a bunch of dolts who didn’t understand compromise. /s

There's still the matter of what good does it do to safeguard everything else if registration and voter identification is so shoddy that you don't know who is voting and in how many locations they are registered? I'd also imagine that a republican elected in IL might have a valid comment or so about voting irregularities - the other side might want to listen to him if they were being honest about fixing things rather than "fixing" things. That they didn't and the straight partisan vote says a lot about the process - they reformed what they wanted to and disregarded all the rest ... I think we were here earlier and called it impeachment.

 

[RockyTop85]

There's still the matter of what good does it do to safeguard everything else if registration and voter identification is so shoddy that you don't know who is voting and in how many locations they are registered? I'd also imagine that a republican elected in IL might have a valid comment or so about voting irregularities - the other side might want to listen to him if they were being honest about fixing things rather than "fixing" things. That they didn't and the straight partisan vote says a lot about the process - they reformed what they wanted to and disregarded all the rest ... I think we were here earlier and called it impeachment.

It (arguably) says something about a preliminary process of getting it through the House, sure. Doesn’t say anything about the process of making it into law which requires Republican participation. Which the republicans have withheld. Because they’re too busy blaming democrats for misusing their half of the process.

 

[vols40]

The house has passed a number of popular reform bills that are being subjected to what is called the speaker’s “scheduling veto” where McConnell refuses to schedule them for debate or vote. I’m not sure how much they’ve done since impeachment started but through last summer that’s basically all they did.

Some of those bills, like caps on prescription drug prices, made it into the state of the union as part of Trump’s agenda.

I don’t agree with the substance of many/most of the bills, including parts of this one, but there is a process for that.

Thank you Senator McConnell

 

[Mick]

Thank you Senator McConnell

You have no interest in bipartisan legislation do ya?

 

[AM64]

It (arguably) says something about a preliminary process of getting it through the House, sure. Doesn’t say anything about the process of making it into law which requires Republican participation. Which the republicans have withheld. Because they’re too busy blaming democrats for misusing their half of the process.

If you and I approach a problem, we both have valid inputs but see the importance differently, and I turn out a document that covers all my stuff and essentially nothing of yours, then I really couldn't fault you if you didn't go along. After all, once I got what I wanted, then I have no reason to support a second piece of work covering what you consider important. And that's especially true if I am the senior partner (or chairman). So, yes, it's on both sides, it's been going on for a long time, but it really escalated when Obama was elected and dims controlled everything ... remember how Obamacare was railroaded through because I'm sure a lot of republicans do. I think the gop has said "We're mad as hell and we aren't going to take it anymore."

 

[vols40]

You have no interest in bipartisan legislation do ya?

This is a pointless topic to speak on because Democrats are unwilling to be bipartisan.
Perfect example how long did the paper shredder say she was against Impeachment unless it was bipartisan. Mueller report comes out and it's a big nothing burger. Then in September she just annionts the House of Representatives in an Impeachment inquiry... Not calling a vote that would give the president the opportunity to be present and cross examine witnesses. So when v the left wants true bipartisanship we will talk

 

[FLVOL69]

This is a pointless topic to speak on because Democrats are unwilling to be bipartisan.
Perfect example how long did the paper shredder say she was against Impeachment unless it was bipartisan. Mueller report comes out and it's a big nothing burger. Then in September she just annionts the House of Representatives in an Impeachment inquiry... Not calling a vote that would give the president the opportunity to be present and cross examine witnesses. So when v the left wants true bipartisanship we will talk

Bipartisanship to the Democrats equates to capitulation on the Republican side. It’s one of the reasons they hate Trump so much

 

[RockyTop85]

If you and I approach a problem, we both have valid inputs but see the importance differently, and I turn out a document that covers all my stuff and essentially nothing of yours, then I really couldn't fault you if you didn't go along. After all, once I got what I wanted, then I have no reason to support a second piece of work covering what you consider important.

Let’s tweak the analogy to a workplace setting.

Boss comes to me asking for our report. I say “well AM64 did his part but it didn’t include my recommendations so instead of talking to him about it I put it on my desk and didn’t work on it anymore.”

Every boss I’ve ever had would tell me to gtfo.

 

[1972 Grad]

Bipartisanship to the Democrats equates to capitulation on the Republican side. It’s one of the reasons they hate Trump so much

That is exactly what bipartisanship means to Dems.