Mueller Report Incoming

[tomilay]

The only way to understand Trump's behavior is to view human beings as animals.

Trump's behavior is textbook Narcissistic personality disorder.  His supporters who are tribal and don't pretend that there is a higher principle at play are also easy to understand.  The more puzzling ones are those who pretend that there might be honorable reasons to support him.

[Free]

Despite every intelligence agency in the US unequivocally stating that the Russians interfered in the 2016 elections via utilizing social media and hacking, you prefer to take the word of Donald Trump who says they didn't do that? 
Instead you are insisting the the DNC did it, without providing any actual evidence for that assertion?

Do you think the DNC hacked their own server? If so, where's your evidence?
I am curious as to why some republicans such as yourself think the way you do, because i haven't actually seen any actual evidence to support the claims you make.

Because there is no evidence 'muh russia' did anything to hack the DNC.  1, 7, 15 intel agencies can claim anything they want to cya but they provide no evidence this is true.

Just so you understand, I am an IT professional, and a "whitehat" hacker. I use my skills to basically "unhack" computer systems. I have been doing it since the 1990s, and am gainfully employed in the profession.

The evidence your security agencies have is not evidence that can be placed in your hands to look at. That's not how it works in the computer industry. The evidence they would have would be a collection of IP addresses that lead into Russia. They would also have "people on the ground" in Russia verifying the precise location of where those IP addresses lead to. An IP address works very much the same as addresses for people's homes. They are very precise, and can be tracked down to an exact computer in an exact location.

Then, the American agents on the ground in Russia would also locate those exact computers exactly where they are located, and would learn the exact name of the persons using them. To me, this is not rocket science, and there really isn't a mystery to it at all.

Your intelligence agencies would use those IP addresses to learn who is the internet service provider for them. Each IP address in the world is sequenced to a specific country and then a specific internet service provider. In America, those providers could be Bell, AT&T, Cable One, etc. The same would be true in Russia, but with Russian internet service providers.

Now, hacking isn't as much about breaking into computers as it is about gathering information. That's what modern hacking really is; gathering and stealing information. That's the whole point of breaking into computer systems these days.

But hackers can be detected, and they can be exposed. We see this all the time in the news regarding major hacks at major companies, and where the hacker was caught. IT professionals do indeed know how to catch them. Often IT professionals will not stop the hacker immediately just so they keep him connected to the computer long enough for the IT professional to basically "hack the hacker." It's like a game.

Now, here is the evidence for the DNC hack:

Timeline:

September 2015 - The FBI contacts the Democratic National Committee's help desk, cautioning the IT department that at least one computer has been compromised by Russian hackers. A technician scans the system and does not find anything suspicious.

November 2015 - The FBI reaches out to the DNC again, warning them that one of their computers is transmitting information back to Russia. DNC management later says that IT technicians failed to pass along the message that the system had been breached.

March 19, 2016 - Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta receives a phishing email masked as an alert from Google that another user had tried to access his account. It contains a link to a page where Podesta can change his password. He shares the email with a staffer from the campaign's help desk. The staffer replies with a typo - instead of typing "This is an illegitimate email," the staffer types "This is a legitimate email." Podesta follows the instructions and types a new password, allowing hackers to access his emails.

July 25, 2016 - The FBI announces it has launched an investigation into the DNC hack. Although the statement doesn't indicate that the agency has a particular suspect or suspects in mind, US officials say they think the cyberattack is linked to Russia.

October 6, 2016 - DCLeaks, a self-described collective of "hacktivists" seeking to expose the influence of special interests on elected officials, publishes a batch of documents stolen from Clinton ally Capricia Marshall. DCLeaks is later identified as a front for Russian military intelligence.

October 7, 2016 - The Department of Homeland Security and the Office of National Intelligence on Election Security issues a statement declaring that the intelligence community is "confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of emails from US persons and institutions." According to the statement, document releases on websites WikiLeaks and DCLeaks mirror the methods and motivations of past Russian-directed cyberattacks.

January 5-6, 2017 - Intelligence officials meet separately with Obama and Trump to present the results of their probe into cyber espionage during the presidential campaign. After the president and the president-elect are briefed, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence releases a declassified version of its classified report on Russian meddling. According to the report, hackers did not breach voting machines or computers that tallied election results but Russians meddled in other ways. Putin ordered a multifaceted influence campaign that included spreading pro-Trump propaganda online and hacking the DNC and Podesta. Bracing for a possible Clinton win, Russian bloggers were prepared to promote a hashtag #DemocracyRIP on election night. Paid social media users, aka "trolls," shared stories about Clinton controversies to create a cloud of scandal around her campaign.

June 21, 2017 - During a Senate hearing, a Department of Homeland Security official says that hackers linked to the Russian government targeted voting systems in up to 21 states.

September 6, 2017 - In a blog post, Facebook announces that more than 3,000 advertisements posted on the social network between June 2015 and May 2017 were linked to Russia, and specifically to a company named The Internet Research Agency.

September 22, 2017 - The DHS notifies select states that hackers targeted their election infrastructure before the vote on November 8, 2016. Although vote-counting systems were not impacted, computer networks containing voter info may have been scanned by Russian hackers. Some states reported attempts to infiltrate their computer systems.

July 13, 2018 - The Justice Department announces indictments against 12 members of the Russian intelligence agency, GRU, as part of special counsel Robert Mueller's ongoing investigation. The indictment accuses the Russians of engaging in a "sustained effort" to hack emails and computer networks associated with the Democratic party during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Now that I have explained to you in basic terms how hacking actually works, you should now be able to understand how they were caught and identified. Just because you personally don't have the evidence in your hands, or can see the evidence, by no means indicates the evidence doesn't exist. The evidence would be classified because releasing that actual evidence into the public domain would obviously be catastrophic. Imagine how many pissed off Americans would be retaliating against any Russian IP address they can find? You would see cyber warfare escalate to proportions so intense that it could literally kill the bandwidth on the world wide web. You would see people everywhere in America getting hacked in retaliation by ordinary Russian citizens who have half a clue. It would be like pandemonium on a stick of dynamite with a laser beam.

That kind of evidence can not, and should not, ever be released to the general public.

But the precise evidence does indeed exist, and I just showed you how it was obtained. You have all the world's best IT Professionals and best hackers working for your country. I assure you they would absolutely know what they are doing, and absolutely know who is responsible for the hacks. Like I said, it isn't rocket science. 

It's computer science.

If you have any further questions regarding this issue, please feel free to ask.

[Thumpalumpacus]

And all of yours.

Oh, dear, the dreaded "I'm rubber and you're glue" gambit. Whatever shall I do?

No doubt attempt another witty come-back.

Well, someone's gotta try here, with something more than third-grade rhetoric. Help a guy out, man, quit sandbaggin'.

[jerry mcmasters]

Oh, dear, the dreaded "I'm rubber and you're glue" gambit. Whatever shall I do?

No doubt attempt another witty come-back.

Well, someone's gotta try here, with something more than third-grade rhetoric. Help a guy out, man, quit sandbaggin'.

Some attempt.  Go to bed Thump.

[Thumpalumpacus]

You'll notice he has entirely avoided my point about emoluments in rebutting one false claim of his. You'll notice that he preferred instead to stick words in my mouth that I didn't write. I don't care what anyone else here writes. If he's going to dissimulate, I'm gonna let him have it with both barrels.

(No, @Rainy_D,  that wasn't actually a threat of violence, it's a turn of phrase we have down here.)

Your not comparing these people to animals right ??

But you were! 

No, I wasn't. I was saying that all humans, you, me, Mother Theresa, are in fact animals. That is not a comparison. That is a fact of nature. It is upheld by many different convergent strands of evidence.

Quote ~~  Fahrenthold and O'Connell report that the lobbying firm Qorvis/MSLGroup, working for the Saudis, paid for groups of veterans to have lavish stays at Trump's hotel while lobbying lawmakers against legislation the reigme opposed. But many of the veterans said they didn't realize the Saudi regime was paying for the trip or that they only found out later, leaving them feeling "duped."

https://www.salon.com/2018/12/07/veteran...e_partner/

At least 6 degrees of separation between Saudi's and Trump in this example of Orange Man Bad. 

I'm not sure what that has to do with me. Perhaps you should lay off the Old Milwaukee Light and hit the hay.

You bored me with your ADHD decade ago and you bore me still.  There really isn't a point in trying to have a discussion with you, it is beyond your capability.

I suppose that's why you're continuing to avoid my point about emoluments, eh? If you're not interested in my comments, that's cool. I will still make them. If you don't want -- or, more likely, cannot coherently reply -- to them, that's your business. But fancy footwork doesn't matter in a real discussion, one which doesn't traffic in tired political memes but actual substance.

Reply or not as you see fit, but I don't think I'll forget the points you're obviously avoiding. Keep dancing.

[Thumpalumpacus]

No doubt attempt another witty come-back.

Well, someone's gotta try here, with something more than third-grade rhetoric. Help a guy out, man, quit sandbaggin'.

Some attempt.  Go to bed Thump.

[Free]

It actually is quite defensible. There's a distinct difference in the level of danger between a child who lives in drug infested squalor with his crack whore mother and a child whose mother is merely trying to provide a better life for her child by trying to cross the border.

You are equivocating between the two when the fact is that they cannot be reasonably compared. So let's try to make a more fair comparison.

Let's pretend that we have a poor mother in the USA who barely has enough to survive. Yet, she makes sure her kids are fed and properly clothed, but doesn't have any money left over for much of anything else. Now, down the road from where that mother lives is Disney World. It's her child's birthday, but since she doesn't have any money she decides to try and sneak her child into Disney World. But the Disney cops catch her.

Should the Disney cops be allowed to incarcerate her for months, and ship her child off to some camp for months where the child has no access to its mother for months? If no, why not?

We already know 'why not.' It's would be considered to be inhumane according to the laws. Therefore ...

If it's inhumane to do that to an American mother and child, why is it humane to do it to a non-American mother and her child?

What say you?

Illegals who have no way to earn a living, provide a home for their minor, or any of the risks they are putting their minor children at is quite a bit different than a day at Disney.  But here's how it works in the USA for citizens:

Mothers who are arrested while having custody of a child ARE separated from that child.  I do not get to take a child behind bars as an American.  CPS (child protection services) is given custody until an agreement can be made (such as a family member taking custody) while mom waits to post bail or is released on recog.  If mom cant post bail and find a relative to take custody, yeppers it can be months.  Regardless, CPS will investigate the mom on bail or the relative before custody is returned to the parent/relative.  Oh, and sometimes CPS will petition for the mother to lose all parental rights and adopt the child out.

But you posted it as if you can equivocate it to a life threatening situation where a child's life is in immediate danger as per the crack whore endangering a child analogy.  My Disney analogy was to demonstrate the level of danger in comparison to a non American trying to cross the border illegally. If a mother with her child walks across the border illegally, what kind of actual real danger is she putting her child in? Oh she might be caught and detained, or she might make it across the border and become gainfully employed.

My point is that yes, just like the Disney women, she is breaking the law. Again like the Disney woman, she posed no real threat to any person in which excessive incarceration would be warranted. The Disney woman would be charged, and subsequently released the same day, and her child returned to her.

The point is the punishment is so excessive to the illegal woman insomuch that the welfare of the child is compromised to the point of psychological trauma. The Disney woman illegally crossed a border into Disney World, got caught, charged, and was released with her child the same day because the crime didn't fit further or excessive punishment.

Therefore, if you believe the law was just and correct for the Disney woman, why can it not also be applied to the illegal woman? If all she did was cross the border to America, how can such excessive penalties be justified in light of the trauma inflicted upon her young child?

Why not charge her, and then deport her with a warning that if she does it again she will face harsher penalties? At least that way she knows that if she becomes a repeat offender what the consequences will be.

Just because she is not an American by no means indicates she is an inferior human being who needs to be treated harsher than an American would be treated. 

The punishment is excessive, and simply doesn't fit the crime. The whole point of this type of punishment is to act as a deterrent to others crossing the border, but that does not excuse the fact that the punishment itself is excessive compared to other trespassing examples.

[Rainy_D]

---

It's computer science.

If you have any further questions regarding this issue, please feel free to ask.

You provided no link to verify your timeline. 

I was hacked once, and it was some jerk trying to sell fake watches, so yep, my site was sending info to a (iirc) Ukrainian site.  Little shit had created a whole store in an area of my website that was pretty static with hidden code to re-load the store if I deleted.  We played a game for a couple weeks as I set my htaccess to bounce him off to various places.  He left me a message via the log file something like 'yogodme.biz' or something like that, and left me alone. 
Banned tons of IPs from china, brazil, netherlands, germany, and Ukraine and Russian sites that were probing for weakness.

As for your timeline I see a lot of fault (make-believe to CYA).  Example:

quote ~~March 19, 2016 - Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta receives a phishing email masked as an alert from Google that another user had tried to access his account. It contains a link to a page where Podesta can change his password. He shares the email with a staffer from the campaign's help desk. The staffer replies with a typo - instead of typing "This is an illegitimate email," the staffer types "This is a legitimate email." Podesta follows the instructions and types a new password, allowing hackers to access his emails.

You work with normies.  This is an illegitimate email???  BS.  You type  DONT TYPE ANYTHING!  YOUR BEING HACKED or something very direct.   ITS A FAKE.... or something like Hey, that does not look right to me.   not illegitimate.

Translation, I am not buying the march 19 line  

quote ~~June 21, 2017 - During a Senate hearing, a Department of Homeland Security official says that hackers linked to the Russian government targeted voting systems in up to 21 states.

December 09, 2016 03:41 AM PT - An IP address from the Department of Homeland Security was the source of an attempted breach of the state's voter registration database, according to Georgia's secretary of state.

https://www.computerworld.com/article/31...o-dhs.html

Indiana isn’t alone with such recent DHS hacking claims as Idaho Secretary of State Lawerence Denney said he believes DHS may have attempted to hack its state election website around Nov. 8. It wasn’t a Russian IP address mucking around in the state’s affairs, but an IP address belonging to DHS, he said.

https://www.computerworld.com/article/31...stems.html

There were several more, but I just dont feel like digging everything up.

One of the things Snowden (I believe) talked about was these various ABC's agencies being able to cover their tracks and blame others for hackings, complete with russian or chinese or [insert country name] fingerprints. 


quote ~~July 13, 2018 - The Justice Department announces indictments against 12 members of the Russian intelligence agency, GRU, as part of special counsel Robert Mueller's ongoing investigation. The indictment accuses the Russians of engaging in a "sustained effort" to hack emails and computer networks associated with the Democratic party during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Yeah, JD indicted some russians who will never set foot upon usa soil again.  If they even are real people or just made up names.  Sorry but I am not impressed.  None of this explains why Assange and others say Russians were not the source AND offered a 20K reward for info on the murderer(s) of Seth Rich.

[epronovost]

To add to the point mentionned above by Free, detaining those people didn't used to be a policy. They were used to be released pending their appointment with an immigration court. Over 98% of them presented themselves to those appointment, even more in the case of people with children. Really illegal entry of that sort can be delt with the simple application of a fine and it is in many cases.

[Bucky Ball]

Is that cat wearing a Dorky helmet ?

[Rainy_D]

But you posted it as if you can equivocate it to a life threatening situation where a child's life is in immediate danger as per the crack whore endangering a child analogy. If a mother with her child walks across the border illegally, what kind of actual real danger is she putting her child in?


The point is the punishment is so excessive to the illegal woman insomuch that the welfare of the child is compromised to the point of psychological trauma.

Therefore, if you believe the law was just and correct for the Disney woman, why can it not also be applied to the illegal woman? If all she did was cross the border to America, how can such excessive penalties be justified in light of the trauma inflicted upon her young child?

Why not charge her, and then deport her with a warning that if she does it again she will face harsher penalties? At least that way she knows that if she becomes a repeat offender what the consequences will be.

Just because she is not an American by no means indicates she is an inferior human being who needs to be treated harsher than an American would be treated. 

The punishment is excessive, and simply doesn't fit the crime. The whole point of this type of punishment is to act as a deterrent to others crossing the border, but that does not excuse the fact that the punishment itself is excessive compared to other trespassing examples.

You should google illegal border crossing dangers.  The parents are putting their children at great risk for robbery, murder, rape, drugs/trafficking, blackmail, and a host of other illegal activities. Those who are illegally crossing multiple countries increase the risks to themselves. 

It is the parent who refuses to follow the rules who has impacted the welfare and/or psychology of the child.  As a parent (grown child) when I crossed the border into Canada I most certainly made sure we were following all the rules.  Friends have taken their kids to Mexico for vacations and made damn sure they followed the rules.  A responsible parent will not risk the child safety in a different state let alone a different country. 

Beyond that, have you ever been around illegals?  Here is the typical response when asked why not legal-- Costs too much or its too hard.  They don't even try to do it legally.  Right now I am working with a girl who just became a US citizen.  From Mexico.  She worked hard to do things right and become a citizen.  Moved into my area from California.  Here's a rundown of her experience.

 -- I know they are my people and everything but they do wreck everything.  Where I lived, it used to be a nice place. We had good jobs, and nice places to live.  But the illegals wrecked it.  Now the jobs are gone and everything is changed. Its not a nice place to live anymore. --

We have laws about immigration and methods to enter this country legally.  There have always been laws and rules regarding this and it is the price you pay when you don't want to follow the rules.  Its not like they dont know they need to apply to live in the USA.  This is not ignorance of the rules, it is willful disregard of the rules/laws.  All criminal activity starts with the refusal to take NO for an answer.

[Bucky Ball]

You should google illegal border crossing dangers.  The parents are putting their children at great risk for robbery, murder, rape, drugs/trafficking, blackmail, and a host of other illegal activities. Those who are illegally crossing multiple countries increase the risks to themselves.  

Just like they face at home. You actually think they would do that without a good reason ? 
You watch way too much Fox news, Dork Lard.
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/how-to...oval-39856

[epronovost]

You should google illegal border crossing dangers.  The parents are putting their children at great risk for robbery, murder, rape, drugs/trafficking, blackmail, and a host of other illegal activities. Those who are illegally crossing multiple countries increase the risks to themselves.  

Just like they face at home. You actually think they would do that without a good reason ? 
You watch way too much Fox news, Dork Lard.

Which is highly ironic in certain sense. Accusing the of putting their children at risk during those journey while they try to flee the gangsters, drug dealers, pimps and corrutped cops that rule their home is ridiculous. That be like berating parents who flee war with their family for crossing a warzone to get to safety.

[Free]

---

It's computer science.

If you have any further questions regarding this issue, please feel free to ask.

You provided no link to verify your timeline. 

You can Google any of the items in the timeline and produce innumerable reports and videos, including government reports. 

As for your timeline I see a lot of fault (make-believe to CYA).  Example:

quote ~~March 19, 2016 - Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta receives a phishing email masked as an alert from Google that another user had tried to access his account. It contains a link to a page where Podesta can change his password. He shares the email with a staffer from the campaign's help desk. The staffer replies with a typo - instead of typing "This is an illegitimate email," the staffer types "This is a legitimate email." Podesta follows the instructions and types a new password, allowing hackers to access his emails.

You work with normies.  This is an illegitimate email???  BS.  You type  DONT TYPE ANYTHING!  YOUR BEING HACKED or something very direct.   ITS A FAKE.... or something like Hey, that does not look right to me.   not illegitimate.

Translation, I am not buying the march 19 line   

The following link will take you to an interview with Charles Delavan, the IT Professional who screwed up the response to Podesta in regards to whether or not the email was legitimate.

https://slate.com/technology/2016/12/an-...-hack.html

So now you have it from the horses' mouth. What else is required to change your mind?

quote ~~June 21, 2017 - During a Senate hearing, a Department of Homeland Security official says that hackers linked to the Russian government targeted voting systems in up to 21 states.

December 09, 2016 03:41 AM PT - An IP address from the Department of Homeland Security was the source of an attempted breach of the state's voter registration database, according to Georgia's secretary of state.

https://www.computerworld.com/article/31...o-dhs.html

Indiana isn’t alone with such recent DHS hacking claims as Idaho Secretary of State Lawerence Denney said he believes DHS may have attempted to hack its state election website around Nov. 8. It wasn’t a Russian IP address mucking around in the state’s affairs, but an IP address belonging to DHS, he said. 

https://www.computerworld.com/article/31...stems.html

There were several more, but I just dont feel like digging everything up.

How does that invalidate what the DHS official said on June 21st, 2017? They are all completely separate incidents. Also, just so you are aware, if the DHS did scan the ports looking for exploits in both the Georgia and Indiana servers, you can bet the reason is because they detected attempts to access those servers by foreign entities. The IP addresses of those foreign entities would be flagged, and as soon as they connect to an American internet service provider, the DHS would receive instant notification and spring into action. That is exactly how it works.

It is not unlike a cop who suspects a place has been broken into, and goes about investigating it. The DHS likely believed those servers were about to be compromised and went about the business of "looking for a broken window."

One of the things Snowden (I believe) talked about was these various ABC's agencies being able to cover their tracks and blame others for hackings, complete with russian or chinese or [insert country name] fingerprints.

But you see, it's more than just government agencies saying that it's the Russians. Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, Google, etc, etc, actually have evidence also. These high tech companies also have their own IT pros and whitehat hackers who are just as capable as the government pros.

What we have here is multiple attestations from multiple government and private and public sector entities, all pointing the finger at Russia and in many cases, to the exact same Russian personnel. 

quote ~~July 13, 2018 - The Justice Department announces indictments against 12 members of the Russian intelligence agency, GRU, as part of special counsel Robert Mueller's ongoing investigation. The indictment accuses the Russians of engaging in a "sustained effort" to hack emails and computer networks associated with the Democratic party during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Yeah, JD indicted some russians who will never set foot upon usa soil again.  If they even are real people or just made up names.  Sorry but I am not impressed.  None of this explains why Assange and others say Russians were not the source AND offered a 20K reward for info on the murderer(s) of Seth Rich.

They are Russian cyber spies. Putting their names out there might make them hide. You don't want your enemies to be hiding. You want to know where they are at all times. If you can't bring them to justice, then perhaps justice can be brought to them? Remember the saying, "Keep your friends close to you, but keep your enemies even closer."

There's much to this cyber crime stuff that you are not considering. Your security agencies will only show you what they want you to see because showing you more than that can imperil national security. It's not some kind of deep state conspiracy, but rather it's a matter of keeping information away from YOUR enemies. When I say "your," I am referring to you specifically, and every American specifically.

The July 2018 indictment of 12 Russian officers by Special Counsel Robert Mueller which laid out how the DNC emails were hacked by Russian intelligence and disseminated to WikiLeaks put to rest the conspiracy theory, carefully nurtured by Assange and his supporters, that slain DNC staffer Seth Rich was at the origin of the leaks.

Assange tried to lay down a red herring by blaming Seth Rich, but the reality is the IP addresses detected at the time of the hack show Russian origin. Assange's motive for the red herring is obvious; he would be branded a terrorist if he collaborated with the Russians in hacking and distributing information stolen from American institutions.

The Americans know the Russians did it, and they know Assange got his info from the Russians, albeit, perhaps not directly from the Russians. But your American security agencies are playing it smart. They would be making Assange think they are not all that interested in him, which would be why they haven't charged him with anything ... yet.

But rest assured, if Assange leaves that embassy, expect a black bag placed over his head and knockout gas administered, and then Assange wakes up in a country where the American have access to him.

Your American agencies don't always play by the rules, don't always obey the law, and don't always tip their hand. But at the end of the day, they do all that to protect you from your enemies and when the sun comes up again, you will see how clever they actually are.

After all you never even heard a peep about the Osama bin laden investigation until Obama made the announcement, and in the end, they got your worst enemy in modern history.

Put away your conspiracies because, when you really look at it, the reality is much more intriguing. As an IT pro, I can see what's going on from this perspective. It's actually amazing.

[Bucky Ball]

You should google illegal border crossing dangers.  The parents are putting their children at great risk for robbery, murder, rape, drugs/trafficking, blackmail, and a host of other illegal activities. Those who are illegally crossing multiple countries increase the risks to themselves.  

Just like they face at home. You actually think they would do that without a good reason ? 
You watch way too much Fox news, Dork Lard.

Which is highly ironic in certain sense. Accusing the of putting their children at risk during those journey while they try to flee the gangsters, drug dealers, pimps and corrutped cops that rule their home is ridiculous. That be like berating parents who flee war with their family for crossing a warzone to get to safety.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/...3d3d2b8bc1

[Rainy_D]

I have worked with legal immigrants who have managed to travel half way around the world to start their new life in the USA. Some were born in refugee camps, some from Africa were fleeing war, others escaping Chernobyl. They all managed to escape their own tramas legally.

The majority of illegals from south of the border are fleeing economic conditions. They want jobs but they dont want to do it legally. I am really not interested in changing the rules for people who have no interest on following them anyways.

[Rainy_D]

The following link will take you to an interview with Charles Delavan, the IT Professional who screwed up the response to Podesta in regards to whether or not the email was legitimate.

https://slate.com/technology/2016/12/an-...-hack.html

Sorry but after reading the link above, it gets worse the more the guy talks.  An IT guy messes up the message and does not follow-up with Podesta directly when later in the article he claims several other campaign persons had phishing attempts earlier and he claims to have the texts between those other staffers.  Even the guy at slate is having trouble believing this story.  Could be this staffer guy is falling on the sword.  Possible Podesta never asked for help and just fucked up all by himself and they are covering up.  

The IP addresses of those foreign entities would be flagged, and as soon as they connect to an American internet service provider, the DHS would receive instant notification and spring into action. That is exactly how it works.

Hmm.. did you skim the articles?  There was no foreign entities in the log files, only DHS scans.  So to thwart foreign entities from hacking our systems, the ISP auto blocks the alleged foreign entities and DHS scans the system looking for vulnerabilities (foreign entities apparently not skilled enough to employ VPNs to cover their nefarious activities) and all is well because the ISP's are on the job.  Yet it was the FBI that warned the DNC, not DHS or the ISP.  Sorry but I do believe this is just a couple gov agencies either in CYA mode or play acting to justify some new expense for taxpayers.

They are Russian cyber spies.

There's much to this cyber crime stuff that you are not considering. Your security agencies will only show you what they want you to see because showing you more than that can imperil national security.

The July 2018 indictment of 12 Russian officers by Special Counsel Robert Mueller which laid out how the DNC emails were hacked by Russian intelligence and disseminated to WikiLeaks put to rest the conspiracy theory, carefully nurtured by Assange and his supporters, that slain DNC staffer Seth Rich was at the origin of the leaks.

Assange tried to lay down a red herring by blaming Seth Rich, but the reality is the IP addresses detected at the time of the hack show Russian origin. Assange's motive for the red herring is obvious; he would be branded a terrorist if he collaborated with the Russians in hacking and distributing information stolen from American institutions.

The Americans know the Russians did it, and they know Assange got his info from the Russians, albeit, perhaps not directly from the Russians. But your American security agencies are playing it smart. They would be making Assange think they are not all that interested in him, which would be why they haven't charged him with anything ... yet.

But rest assured, if Assange leaves that embassy, expect a black bag placed over his head and knockout gas administered, and then Assange wakes up in a country where the American have access to him.

Your American agencies don't always play by the rules, don't always obey the law, and don't always tip their hand. But at the end of the day, they do all that to protect you from your enemies and when the sun comes up again, you will see how clever they actually are.

After all you never even heard a peep about the Osama bin laden investigation until Obama made the announcement, and in the end, they got your worst enemy in modern history.

Put away your conspiracies because, when you really look at it, the reality is much more intriguing. As an IT pro, I can see what's going on from this perspective. It's actually amazing.

LoL.  I do expect Assange to be detained by the USA, but not for the DNC.  Deep state has been pissed at wikileaks for other exposures previously released.

I am very aware the Alphabets do not play by the rules and I have no reason to expect the DNC issue to be any different. 

bin Laden is a topic for a different thread. 

While I appreciate your attempt to cover for the political leaning you think is the correct path, having once been in that mind-set, reality has set in and I no longer subscribe to that practice.   I do not believe the Ruskies done it. That is a tired cold war meme that has long ago been discarded by normal people.


They want to rule the world.  Ruskies have never wanted that.  I dont think China has wanted that either, but china is harder for me to read.  Tired and need sleep.

[epronovost]

I have worked with legal immigrants who have managed to travel half way around the world to start their new life in the USA.   Some were born in refugee camps, some from Africa were fleeing war, others escaping Chernobyl.  They all managed to escape their own tramas legally.

That's a tautology. Of course all legal immigrants have managed to change country legally, through legal channels. Refugees are legal immigrants. Asylum seekers who surrender to the Border Police and are recognised as refugees are also legal immigrants even though they didn't enter through a port of entry. The problem is that there are far, FAR, more people who live in terrible conditions in the world that wants to immigrate to the US to save themselves and their family. It's impossible for the US and any other country to let ALL these people come in without destroying their own economy and communities. Yet, the US could easily double the number of immigrants it receives legally (an thus reduce the pressure of illegal entries) without any problem. The immigration policies of the US are uselessly restrictive up to point they are almost cruel. The way it handles illegal immigrants right now is both cruel and incredibly stupid. There is no other way to put it.

[Bucky Ball]

Coming to the US applying for asylum is legal.
Post the evidence for "The majority of illegals from south of the border are fleeing economic conditions." or STFU.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Is that cat wearing a Dorky helmet ?

Dorky's dead, allegedly.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Love how he puts the broad generalization in the mouth of an "immigrant friend". 

The illegals where I live don't ruin things, they're too busy building things. They're building the houses out here, and work a hell of a lot harder than most recent American HS grads I know.

You should google illegal border crossing dangers.  The parents are putting their children at great risk for robbery, murder, rape, drugs/trafficking, blackmail, and a host of other illegal activities. Those who are illegally crossing multiple countries increase the risks to themselves.  

Just like they face at home. You actually think they would do that without a good reason ? 
You watch way too much Fox news, Dork Lard.

Which is highly ironic in certain sense. Accusing the of putting their children at risk during those journey while they try to flee the gangsters, drug dealers, pimps and corrutped cops that rule their home is ridiculous. That be like berating parents who flee war with their family for crossing a warzone to get to safety.

This was exactly the point of my comment above about "makes you wonder". This asshole has obviously supped at the table of Hannity et al, but hasn't bothered to look at this issue from any other angle.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The majority of illegals from south of the border are fleeing economic conditions.  

If you don't provide a source, you probably should avoid making such a clear-cut claim.

No, I'm not going to google it. It's your argument, and it's your responsibility to make it and support. Get to work, you lazy American.

While I appreciate your attempt to cover for the political leaning you think is the correct path, having once been in that mind-set, reality has set in and I no longer subscribe to that practice. I do not believe the Ruskies done it. That is a tired cold war meme that has long ago been discarded by normal people.


They want to rule the world. Ruskies have never wanted that. I dont think China has wanted that either, but china is harder for me to read. Tired and need sleep.

It's a shame you weren't upfront about being a tin-foiler. I wouldn't have wasted any time on you.

You really need to get out of your own little snowglobe and engage the real world.

[Free]

The following link will take you to an interview with Charles Delavan, the IT Professional who screwed up the response to Podesta in regards to whether or not the email was legitimate.

https://slate.com/technology/2016/12/an-...-hack.html

Sorry but after reading the link above, it gets worse the more the guy talks.  An IT guy messes up the message and does not follow-up with Podesta directly when later in the article he claims several other campaign persons had phishing attempts earlier and he claims to have the texts between those other staffers.  Even the guy at slate is having trouble believing this story.  Could be this staffer guy is falling on the sword.  Possible Podesta never asked for help and just fucked up all by himself and they are covering up.

The guy at state- Will Oremus- analyzed the email closely, but there's more.  Let me show you what I mean. I will post the email and then post the Oremus' comments about it, and follow that up with what I see from an IT perspective:

Sara,

This is a legitimate email. John needs to change his password immediately, and ensure that two-factor authentication is turned on his account.

He can go to this link: https://myaccount.google.com/security to do both. It is absolutely imperative that this is done ASAP.

If Delavan had meant to type illegitimate rather than legitimate, why did he preface it with the article a rather than an? Was that a typo, too?

Now let me show you what an IT guy sees:

Firstly, you are correct, it isn't a typo. 

The IT guy screwed up completely. He actually believed that the email was sent by Google, and instructed Sara to tell John Podesta to login to his account and change the password. The screw up by the IT guy was that he never bothered to actually click the link in the email to see that it lead to the phishing site. 

But it wasn't just the IT guy screwing up, it was also either Sara and/or John Podesta. You see, the IT guy provided a legitimate link to Google to where John could change his password. However, that link was not what was used. Instead, John Podesta obviously opted to click the link provided in the email which took him to the phishing site where he was tricked into providing his actual password. This is understandable since the IT guy screwed up and told him it was a legitimate email when it actually wasn't.

The IT guy was inept, and tried to use the typo angle to try to minimize his fault in the situation. After all, a simple typo is forgivable, but a failure to ensure the security of Podesta's email account is whole different ballgame. But the reality is that he screwed up even bigger by failing to verify or disqualify the link in the email. John Podesta also screwed up big because he obviously clicked the link in the email instead of clicking the link provided by the IT guy. In short, even the IT guy got suckered by the email to Podesta. 

The IT guy is lying about it being a typo for sure, but he is not lying that Podesta got suckered by a phishing email.

And that is how that all went down, from an IT perspective. To me, it's obvious. Both are at fault. 

Even Oremus agrees that both Podesta and the IT guy were suckered.

Can you see what I have shown you? Put away any bias you may have, and just look at what I said from an analytical perspective. You will have no choice but to see the point I am making. It's very very obvious to an anti-hacker like me. I actually have seen this type of thing numerous times over the years. A server's IT guy goofs up, and the result is exactly what you see. After all, it's what I do for a living.

The IP addresses of those foreign entities would be flagged, and as soon as they connect to an American internet service provider, the DHS would receive instant notification and spring into action. That is exactly how it works.

Hmm.. did you skim the articles?  There was no foreign entities in the log files, only DHS scans.  So to thwart foreign entities from hacking our systems, the ISP auto blocks the alleged foreign entities and DHS scans the system looking for vulnerabilities (foreign entities apparently not skilled enough to employ VPNs to cover their nefarious activities) and all is well because the ISP's are on the job.  Yet it was the FBI that warned the DNC, not DHS or the ISP.  Sorry but I do believe this is just a couple gov agencies either in CYA mode or play acting to justify some new expense for taxpayers.

I read it completely, but how closely did you actually analyze it? It doesn't actually say there were no foreign entities recorded at any other time. It merely points out that the DHS IP was detected, and it wasn't a Russian IP that was detected. It omits any other information such as whether or not any other domesticated IP addresses were detected. This is very important and I will explain why with an analogy.

Jack Sprat down in Florida is 72 years old, and  can barely use his computer. He knows very little other than how to use email. Unknown to him, he gets an email that looks legitimate, and downloads the attached file, which is actually a Trojan horse. Now his computer can be accessed by the hacker and used by the hacker as a hacking tool. Since Jack's computer has a domestic IP address, any server that detects a hacking attempt will know that the IP address is domestic. But the reality is that the domestic computer is being controlled by a foreign entity, such as Russia.

Therefore, the server will not detect the Russian IP address, but rather it will only detect Jack's IP address. However, since the Russian IP address was flagged by DHS, they know that the Russians are using Jack's computer as a hacking tool, and they know what server Jack's computer is trying to hack.

And that, my friend, is how it's done. The problem is that the Russians may not be aware that the DHS is monitoring any incoming connections from Russia at the ISP level, and because of that their activities are monitored and caught out by the DHS.

Do you understand this?

[Rainy_D]

That's a tautology. Of course all legal immigrants have managed to change country legally, through legal channels. Refugees are legal immigrants. Asylum seekers who surrender to the Border Police and are recognised as refugees are also legal immigrants even though they didn't enter through a port of entry. The problem is that there are far, FAR, more people who live in terrible conditions in the world that wants to immigrate to the US to save themselves and their family. It's impossible for the US and any other country to let ALL these people come in without destroying their own economy and communities. Yet, the US could easily double the number of immigrants it receives legally (an thus reduce the pressure of illegal entries) without any problem. The immigration policies of the US are uselessly restrictive up to point they are almost cruel. The way it handles illegal immigrants right now is both cruel and incredibly stupid. There is no other way to put it.

It really wasn't a tautology, it is my style of communication.  Causes me issues in real life verbally.

Starting in 2006, my employment brought me into contact with much more of the illegal aspect.  I questioned the various persons and of those willing to talk, the answer was as I said.  Looking for jobs but applying legally was too hard or cost too much.  Some of these people were flying home for christmas, or sending money back home, or driving better cars than me while trying to justify their position about how hard it is to obtain legal status.  Did they try?  Nope.  And that is the crux of the issue. 

As far as doubling the number without any problem, that is false.  With legal immigrants there is a cost to society as we lend a helping hand in the effort to make the transition less of a burden.  Subsidized housing, education, often healthcare for the children, and a host of other tax-payer funded efforts on behalf of the legal immigrant reduces the amount of money and/or services left for the citizens of a state/community to fund their own personal goals.

So how do you justify the belief that the system is cruel based on the number of people who do not try to enter legally?

[Dom]

This thread is about Mueller. I don't think Mueller has anything to do with the fact that coming to the border and surrendering yourself to the first official to ask for asylum is perfectly legal.

So what do you think about the upcoming Mueller report? Will it even say anything at all?