home

DCCC Hacked, FBI Investigating if Related to DNC Hack

First, it was the DNC (Democratic National Committee) whose emails got hacked, possibly by hackers hired by Russia’s military intelligence service, the GRU (also known as APT 28 or Fancy Bear) or by lone hackers on their own. Now, the FBI is investigating whether a similar breach at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is related and also the work of Russian hackers.

The FBI is treating the DNC and DCCC breaches as one investigation now, said one person briefed on the matter. At the same time, the bureau is doing a broader probe of Russian hackers targeting political organizations, including the Clinton campaign, the campaign of GOP nominee Donald Trump and Republican political action committees.

I doubt Trump's emails would be very interesting, but I won't be surprised if emails between his campaign staff and his two sons (Donald Jr and Eric) and son-in-law (Jared) are published they turn out to be quite revealing and embarrassing. If that happens, I wonder what Trump's reaction would be then.

The DNC's emails were published on Wikileaks. According to Russian news today, Edward Snowden is now criticizing how Wikileaks published them, saying it should have "curated" them (Meaning redacted them or only published pertinent ones. ) Wikileaks responds on Twitter, accusing Snowden of hoping for a pardon by Hillary.

Yesterday Wikileaks released hacked voicemails of Democrats.

Earlier this week Donald Trump said he's never spoken to Putin. Here's what he said in 2014:

Trump’s denial of knowing Putin personally contradicts his own words, which he uttered in May 2014 at a National Press Club luncheon. He was asked about how he would negotiate with Putin and said he had done so during preparations for the Miss Universe 2013 pageant in Moscow.

“I own the Miss Universe. I was in Russia, I was in Moscow recently. I spoke indirectly and directly with President Putin, who could not have been nicer. And we had a tremendous success. The show was live from Moscow,” he told the audience.

Over at Lawfare, there's an article asserting it makes a difference whether the Russian government or independent hackers were behind the operation. And an article examining whether Trump could be a Russian agent (I think not -- they'd pick someone smarter.) The Kremlin denies being behind the DNC hack.

< Jabhat al Nusra in Splits From al Qaida and Changes Name
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    APB (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Jul 29, 2016 at 11:33:06 PM EST
    if someone fires a handgun into my window in Oakland, & if forensic examination establishes that the bullet came from a .22 caliber handgun manufactured by Smith & Wesson, then what's the obvious conclusion?

    obviously it's that someone at the Smith & Wesson Company of Springfield, Massachusetts, wants me dead

    #logic

    Maybe he's a Russian agent (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 29, 2016 at 03:59:09 PM EST
    And he doesn't know it

    That was a joke (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 29, 2016 at 05:31:17 PM EST
    Btw

    Don't want to mislead anyone.  

    Parent

    Reitets reporting (none / 0) (#2)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 29, 2016 at 03:59:26 PM EST
    Clinton campaign also hacked.

    Breaking.

    Reuters is reporting (none / 0) (#3)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 29, 2016 at 03:59:46 PM EST
    Reality Check (none / 0) (#4)
    by ragebot on Fri Jul 29, 2016 at 05:14:31 PM EST
    Jeralyn posted:

    First, it was the DNC (Democratic National Committee) whose emails got hacked, possibly by hackers hired by Russia's military intelligence service, the GRU (also known as APT 28 or Fancy Bear)

    In previous posts I have noted APT is a designation for Advanced Persistent Threat.  It should be noted that in addition to APT28 there was also an APT29 also known as Cozy Bear or some other cutesy name associated with the Russians.

    I admit I am too old to have taken the new math but I have to wonder not only about APT1 through APT27 but if there APTs higher than APT28.  Seems like there are a lot more problems than the Russians.

    Does anyone really think the Russia has better nerds than China, or even Korea which has shockingly good nerds?

    Maybe we should stop acting like General Buck Turgidson or Major T. J. "King" Kong in Dr. Strangelove who blamed everything on the Rooskies since there are a lot more folks who seemed to have hacked the Democrats.

    It seems to me you are missing the point (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 29, 2016 at 05:30:01 PM EST
    Just because these are listed as APT 27-28 or whatever has nothing to do with ignoring threats 1-27.  here is a PDF on what they call APT 1 which happens to be China.

    The whole "rooskies under the bed" thing which some here seem to think is so hilarious is a bit ridiculous.

    It's clear they did this.  What s your point?  Exactly.


    Parent

    Here's another (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 29, 2016 at 05:34:15 PM EST
    site about APTs

    A quick Google will show they are hardly being ignored.   These above are in the news because of who they hacked.  Is some part of that unclear?

    Parent

    Not clear to (none / 0) (#8)
    by ragebot on Fri Jul 29, 2016 at 05:47:26 PM EST
    Clapper.

    The Director of National Intelligence says Washington is still unsure of who might be behind the latest WikiLeaks release of hacked Democratic National Committee emails, while urging that an end be put to the "reactionary mode" blaming it all on Russia.

    My point is several bad actors including the Russians hacked the source of the wikileaks.  As Clapper points out

    "We don't know enough to ascribe motivation regardless of who it might have been," Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said speaking at Aspen's Security Forum in Colorado, when asked if the media was getting ahead of themselves in fingering the perpetrator of the hack.

    Channeling Captain Louis Renault Clapper said

    "I'm shocked someone did some hacking," he added sarcastically, "[as if] that's never happened before."


    Parent
    Yeah well (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 29, 2016 at 05:55:32 PM EST
    Everything from every credible source I've read says Russia.  I guess that Clappers job.   It's not mine.  

    Parent
    Clapper's job is to keep an open mind (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Peter G on Fri Jul 29, 2016 at 09:59:21 PM EST
    and investigate questions affecting national security (as the Administration perceives our security) using all "sources and methods" available to him, when he does not confidently know the answer to the question. When he does know, his job is to keep it secret or to lie about it. I don't think that makes him a good source for news.

    Parent
    This is (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 29, 2016 at 10:14:50 PM EST
    WIRED


    But some of the most compelling evidence linking the DNC breach to Russia was found at the beginning of July by Thomas Rid, a professor at King's College in London, who discovered an identical command-and-control address hardcoded into the DNC malware that was also found on malware used to hack the German Parliament in 2015. According to German security officials, the malware originated from Russian military intelligence. An identical SSL certificate was also found in both breaches.
    The evidence mounts from there. Traces of metadata in the document dump reveal various indications that they were translated into Cyrillic. Furthermore, while Guccifer 2.0 claimed to be from Romania, he was unable to chat with Motherboard journalists in coherent Romanian. Besides which, this sort of hacking wouldn't exactly be outside of Russian norms.
    "It doesn't strain credulity to look to the Russians," says Morgan Marquis-Boire, a malware expert with CitizenLab. "This is not the first time that Russian hackers has been behind intrusions in US government, and it seems unlikely that it will be the last." Last year Russian hackers were able to breach White House and State Department email servers, gleaning information even from President Obama's Blackberry.
    Meanwhile, the Kremlin has denied Russian involvement in the DNC breach. But the reverberations continue; DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz will resign at the end of the week, after emails revealed what many view as the unfair treatment of Bernie Sanders.
    From Russia With Love
    As compelling as the evidence is, there's still a small amount of room to argue that Guccifer 2.0 was a lone actor, an individual motivated by hacktivist ideals of dismantling state power. He wouldn't be the first. And in a recent interview on NBC, Julian Assange of Wikileaks gave a soft disavowal of claims that his whistleblowing organization is in cahoots with Russian intelligence, "Well, there is no proof of that whatsoever," he said. "We have not disclosed our source, and of course, this is a diversion that's being pushed by the Hillary Clinton campaign."
    This is, of course, the same Assange who boasts responsibility for helping find Snowden a home in Russia and Wikileaks publicly criticized the Panama Papers for implicating Putin in financial misdeeds. He's also an outspoken frequent critic of Hillary Clinton's time at the State Department. A damning document dump the weekend before Clinton's nomination arguably aligns with both Russian interests and his own.
    If the allegations do prove correct, this is an unprecedented step for Russia. Hacking is nothing new, but publicizing documents to attempt to sway an election certainly is. Putin would clearly prefer a Trump presidency. The billionaire Republican candidate is a longtime admirer of Putin's, and has publicly stated that he wouldn't necessarily defend NATO allies against a Russian invasion. To top it all off, Trump's campaign manager, Paul Manafort, formerly worked as an advisor to Viktor Yanukovych, the Russian-backed President of Ukraine before he was ousted in 2014.



    Parent
    One more time capt (none / 0) (#29)
    by ragebot on Sat Jul 30, 2016 at 09:16:57 AM EST
    we have been through this before when you brought up the act and I asked which act.

    The real issue is who (in Anonymous) released the emails and to a lesser extent who released the voice mails.

    While not all the evidence is in it seems there were at least 29 APTs on the DNC's network which I claimed was from 29 hacks; and there is good reason to suspect there were more.  At least two of the hacks were IDed as being from Russia, maybe more since information about only two hacks was released.

    My claim was the Russians were not the first hackers to target the DNC; and probably not the last.

    While I have no doubts the Russians hit the DNC I also have no doubts they were not alone.  Let's also keep in mind one purpose of Anonymous is not simply to hack but to share tips on how and where to hack.

    I could make a decent legal argument that given the wide spread nature of hacking in general and hacking the DNC in particular discovery of the embarrassing emails was inevitable.

    The real question in my mind is who released them and why.  This was the point Clapper was trying to make.  Lots of folks, Russians included, hacked the DNC and got the emails.  As for the release well round up the usual suspects.

    Parent

    Also (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 29, 2016 at 06:01:41 PM EST
    The fact that credible sources are saying its Russia added to Donalds strange bromance with Putin, his refusal to release his taxes many suspect being because of his economic ties to Russia, Manaforts connections with Ukrainian politics and his bizarre request that Russia commit cyber crimes against his opponent, well you know what, that's news.  

    It actually makes the flapping and squaking about rooskies under the bed look a bit silly.

    Parent

    Not all (none / 0) (#11)
    by ragebot on Fri Jul 29, 2016 at 06:01:13 PM EST
    APTs are created equal.  Crowdstrike is the security firm hired by the Democrats after the FBI alerted them to hacking attempts in 2015.  Their report listed APT28 and APT29 as attempts that seemed to come from Russia.  That implies they found at least 27 more APTs if you are using a base 10 system and counting normally; even more if APT29 was not the last one.

    Your links to APT reports from non Crowdstrike sources while possibly interesting adds nothing to the issues of who hacked the Democrats, why they did it, and most importantly why the hacked stuff was released.

    The real question is why the stuff was released; something we don't know and may never know.

    Parent

    It seems you are assuming APTs (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 29, 2016 at 06:09:07 PM EST
    1-27 were also aimed at the same target.  That's not the case.  I don't know, is that what you are saying?

    APTs as far as I can tell are numbered as they are identified.   That was 28 and 29.  I'm sure 29 was not the last one.

    If that's your point.  I admit I'm not sure what your point is.

    Parent

    My take (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by ragebot on Fri Jul 29, 2016 at 06:33:42 PM EST
    is anyone who thinks there have only been two APTs associated with the hack of the emails is not being realistic.

    My link to the VICE network program about hacking claimed there were literally hundreds of hackers, some government agents, in Anonymous who seemed to spend all day (or more likely night) hacking all nature of targets.

    Do I think some folks in Russia hacked the Democrats (and lots of others as well), definitely.  The point is they were not the only ones, they were not the best ones, and it is far from clear they were the ones who released the emails.

    I agree with Clapper when he mockingly says "I am shocked".  Anyone who thinks there are not hackers attacking their computers multiple times every single day is living in a fool's world.  The FBI warned the DCC and they hired Crowdstrike to help with security.  At the same time the FBI warned/offered help to the Clinton campaign and she, more accurately her lawyers, blew off the FBI.

    Maybe a bigger question is how did the FBI know about attacks on the DCC and Clinton's campaign.  And an even bigger question is who else beside the FBI knows/knew.  What about the CIA, FBI, and a whole host of others.

    While I understand why Democrats in general and Hillary supporters in particular are upset about the timing of the release I have little sympathy for them given how little effort they put into security.

    Parent

    GOP formally request (none / 0) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 29, 2016 at 06:56:17 PM EST
    investigation into DNC hack


    Now, it appears even the GOP has had enough. The Washington Post is reporting that two dozen Republican national security experts are expected to deliver a letter to Congress on Friday asking for an "immediate investigation into the cyberattack on the Democratic National Committee"
    The letter was signed by high level members of both the Reagan and Bush administrations, advisers to John McCain and Mitt Romney and many State Department veterans. The letter states:
    "This is not a partisan issue but rather an assault on the integrity of the entire American political process...Congress has a responsibility to get to the bottom of this extraordinary breach, not only to determine who was responsible but also to consider the appropriate response...The hacking of a political party's email system by Russian intelligence agencies would, if proven, constitute unprecedented foreign interference in an American presidential campaign."



    Assange promised (none / 0) (#16)
    by Redbrow on Fri Jul 29, 2016 at 07:00:03 PM EST
    To release even more damning files before the end of the convention.

    So where are they?

    Did pinko Trump and his russian spy comrades fail to pay enough to wikileaks or something?

    Help me out conspiracy theorists.

    No conspiracy (none / 0) (#17)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Jul 29, 2016 at 07:13:39 PM EST
    No one knows for sure, and Assange never gave a date either.

    http://tinyurl.com/j5q7cyd     NYMAG

    But on the question of whether Assange mentioned the possibility of a Clinton indictment in that interview, the answer is clear: Yes, he did, but in a very specific and not particularly explosive way. It comes at around the five-minute mark of the full video:

    We have accumulated a lot of material about Hillary Clinton -- we could proceed to an indictment. But because Loretta Lynch is the DoJ, head of the DoJ in the United States, appointed by Obama, Loretta Lynch is the person in charge of our case [meaning the government's investigation of WikiLeaks' dissemination of classified government documents]. She's not going to indict Hillary Clinton, that's not possible that could happen, but the FBI can push for concessions from the new Clinton government in exchange for its lack of indictment. But there's very strong material, both in the emails and in relation to the Clinton Foundation..



    Parent
    "Russians under the bed" (none / 0) (#18)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Jul 29, 2016 at 07:52:55 PM EST
    Russian hackers constantly vacuum up info (so do we), but there is no evidence that Russia leaks to or has special arrangements with Wikileaks

    nor does Wikileaks need Russia

    in any case, why wouldn't Russia (if the hackers were indeed Russian) sit on the info, the better to exploit it later on, rather than give it to Wikileaks?

    speaking of hacks, the contemptible George Stephanopoulos failed to challenge Robby Mook's original CYA claim that the Russians gave the files to Wikileaks, & then that talking point spread hysterically across all manner of left/liberal & Dem-affiliated blogs & other liberal media outlets, in much the same way that DNC/Democratic talking points are shown in the leaked DNC files to have spread reliably across all manner of left/liberal & Dem-affiliated blogs & other liberal media outlets

    Howdy, here's an example of the genetic fallacy, just for you:

    there is more than one reason to laugh at the notion that Putin got the files from Wikileaks in order to help Donald Trump, but let's say (for the sake of illustrating the genetic fallacy) that i scoff at this notion only because one of its major purveyors, someone who for years has been flogging the neocon idea that Wikileaks = Russia, is a serial fantasist & national security "expert" who lost his gig at the Naval War College after tweeting d!ick pics to a woman who was not his wife & who has been fired from every job since then & now lives off the Carnival Cruise packages of his second wife

    see how the genetic fallacy works?

    it works the same way when you refuse outright to consider another commenter's information (such as that offered by Trevor Bolder), even though it's factual, simply because the commenter cites a source that you don't like

    back to the RUSSIA!!! hysteria: this kind of sh!t (complete with breathless claims that the buffoon Trump commited TREASON!!!) used to be called McCarthyism - so depressing to see people at TL & also most of my Facebook friends acting like sheep

    1 correction (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Jul 29, 2016 at 09:04:22 PM EST
    my original post contained a typo

    correction: there is more than one reason to laugh at the notion that Putin GAVE the files TO Wikileaks

    Parent

    If you actually bothered (none / 0) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 29, 2016 at 08:03:14 PM EST
    To read comments you would know I have made several criticizing the treason claim.

    As far as the rest, whatever.

    Tell you what, you read Trevor's links to "GOVERNMENTSLAVES.COM" and tell us how great they are.  K?

    As far as I can tell, on this subject you don't have a clue what you are talking about.  But talk away.  My attention span is spent.

    Parent

    fair enough (none / 0) (#20)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Jul 29, 2016 at 08:59:38 PM EST
    As far as I can tell, on this subject you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

    . . . since the assessment is mutual

    I will not discuss this further with you. . . it will do neither you nor your cause any good.


    Parent
    And you wonder who hacked?? (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 29, 2016 at 09:20:36 PM EST
    Who didn't?

    "....From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification....

    ...Because she was not using a government account--or even a commercial account like Gmail--there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton's system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department....

     It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server....

    Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information<strong>, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.</strong>

    We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton's use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors,<strong> we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal e-mail account</strong>

    <a href="https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system">Link</a>

    ... either State Dept. emails or Mrs. Clinton's personal email account. Further, it has been stated time and again by the FBI -- including byDirector Comey in testimony before members of the House -- that there is no evidence of the Clinton Foundation's server ever being successfully hacked. So, all you're repeating here is supposition.

    Parent
    Really??? Comments (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 30, 2016 at 08:51:58 AM EST
    by the Director of the FBI regarding how Hillary handled classified information has nothing to do with accounts being hacked?

    Parent
    Yeah, really. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jul 30, 2016 at 01:28:16 PM EST
    And if you persist in trying to change the subject, you'll simply risk leading us to conclude that perhaps you yourself are on Moscow's payroll. So, either stick to the topic, "Comrade," or put a sock in it.

    Parent
    Those of us (none / 0) (#28)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jul 30, 2016 at 09:15:34 AM EST
    In the real world, not Clinton World, it is recognized for what it is

    Yes, in a court of law, can't prove if or by whom (for now), but Comey laid it out pretty plainly

    When the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said on Tuesday that his investigators had no "direct evidence" that Hillary Clinton's email account had been "successfully hacked," both private experts and federal investigators immediately understood his meaning: It very likely had been breached, but the intruders were far too skilled to leave evidence of their work.

    Mr. Comey described, in fairly blistering terms, a set of email practices that left Mrs. Clinton's systems wide open to Russian and Chinese hackers, and an array of others. She had no full-time cybersecurity professional monitoring her system. She took her BlackBerry everywhere she went, "sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries." Her use of "a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent."

    In the end, the risks created by Mrs. Clinton's insistence on keeping her communications on a private server may prove to be a larger issue than the relatively small amount of classified data investigators said they found on her system. But the central mystery -- who got into the system, if anyone -- may never be resolved.

    "Reading between the lines and following Comey's logic, it does sound as if the F.B.I. believes a compromise of Clinton's email is more likely than not," said Adam Segal, the author of "Hacked World Order," who studies cyberissues at the Council on Foreign Relations. "Sophisticated attackers would have known of the existence of the account, would have targeted it and would not have been seen."

    Mr. Comey couched his concern on Tuesday by repeating the intelligence community's favorite phrase -- "we assess" -- four times, but ultimately reached no hard-and-fast conclusion. "We assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account," he said.

    But that was notable: Until Mr. Comey spoke, Mrs. Clinton and her campaign have said that her server -- there were actually several, in succession -- was never hacked. A State Department inspector general's report issued this year reported what looked like several attempts at "spear phishing" -- fake emails intended to get a user to click on a link that would install malware on a computer -- but there is no evidence that those links were activated.

    Mrs. Clinton, and her campaign, have always maintained that the server was secure. President Obama backed her up in an interview last October on CBS's "60 Minutes." "I don't think it posed a national security problem," he said.

    But Mr. Comey painted a different picture.

    "Hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact," he said.

    And that would have meant that tracking the trail of electronic breadcrumbs back to her server would have been a pretty simple task. After that, their ability to break in would have been a mix of skill and luck, but they had plenty of time to get it right



    Parent
    ... in which partisan spin passes for truth, whereby the lack of proof that something occurred somehow magically transforms into evidence itself of wrongdoing.

    Again, the FBI confirmed that there is no credible evidence that the security of the Clinton Foundation's server was ever breached. That it could have been penetrated is entirely beside the point, because such discussions of that possibility are based upon nothing more than speculation and supposition, neither of which should be conflated with actual facts.

    Now, this dead horse has been beaten long enough, and further has nothing to do with the recent breaches of cybersecurity at the DNC, DCCC and the Clinton campaign by a possible foreign agent, which is the topic of this particular thread. Either stay on topic, or move on.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#34)
    by jbindc on Sat Jul 30, 2016 at 12:09:45 PM EST
    It says that her private sever was MORE secure than State, the FBI, OPM, the DNC, the DCC, etc.

    Parent
    Naive (none / 0) (#30)
    by thomas rogan on Sat Jul 30, 2016 at 09:56:46 AM EST
    So Russian hackers can break into the DNC emails at will, but we are all supposed to believe that they never bothered to hack into Hillary's private servers when she was secretary of state?

    What you so happen to believe, ... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jul 30, 2016 at 12:15:08 PM EST
    ... and what the evidence actually supports, are two entirely different concepts. Supposition is not fact, speculation is not evidence, and conjecture is not hard truth. It's not up to the rest of us to resolve your active delusions for you.

    Parent
    The evidence leads (none / 0) (#38)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jul 30, 2016 at 12:58:26 PM EST
    Investigators and non partisan security experts all to come to the same conclusion

    In all likelihood, the server was hacked.

    The partisan spin is conducted by sycophants spouting the same old refrain

    Nothing to see here . move along

    Parent

    There is a great chance (none / 0) (#36)
    by jbindc on Sat Jul 30, 2016 at 12:36:27 PM EST
    they didn't know about them.

    Parent
    Incorrect (none / 0) (#37)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jul 30, 2016 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    But Mr. Comey painted a different picture.

    "Hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact," he said.

    And that would have meant that tracking the trail of electronic breadcrumbs back to her server would have been a pretty simple task. After that, their ability to break in would have been a mix of skill and luck, but they had plenty of time to get it right



    Parent
    And yet (none / 0) (#39)
    by jbindc on Sat Jul 30, 2016 at 01:07:00 PM EST
    There is no evidence that anyone ACTUALLY breached her server.

    You can keep singing the tune, but there is no choir to back you up.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#41)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jul 30, 2016 at 01:43:07 PM EST
    The choir does back it up. Most experts , and law enforcement believe in all likelihood, the server was breached.
    The only ones saying their is no hard evidence, are sycophants.
    This is not a trial or court case, where you need beyond a reasonable doubt,
    This was national security issues that someone took upon themselves to go outside government protocol.
    Lets face it, whatever was on that server, is most likely in other hands

    Parent
    At Dailybeast (none / 0) (#31)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Jul 30, 2016 at 11:21:44 AM EST
    the article on the DNC Hack not only cites the Russian government as a source but goes into detail showing that the emails were edited before being republished (or sent to Wikileaks). This possibility raises questions about Wikileaks' goals in publishing the emails.  I hope the Dems hire some IT exports who can check the authenticity of what has been or may in the future be released.

    Assange (none / 0) (#33)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jul 30, 2016 at 12:08:47 PM EST
    This possibility raises questions about Wikileaks' goals in publishing the emails.

    And for that matter Putin, both have personal issues with Madame Sec.

    Parent