- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

Durham has evidence that dnc email hack was done by someone with physical access to server
Posted on 10/5/21 at 5:09 pm
Posted on 10/5/21 at 5:09 pm
quote:
Ned Ryun
@nedryun
·
1h
"VIPS concluded that the DNC data theft was an inside job by someone with physical access to the server."
John Durham and the mysterious dnc email hack
quote:
VIPS concluded that the DNC data were not hacked by the Russians or anyone else accessing the server over the internet. Instead, the data were downloaded by means of a thumb drive or similar portable storage device physically attached to the DNC server.
How was this determined? The time stamps contained in the released computer files’ metadata established that at 6:45 P.M. on July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes (not megabits) of data were downloaded from the DNC’s server. This took 87 seconds, which means the transfer rate was 22.7 megabytes per second, a speed, according to VIPS, that “is much faster than what is physically possible with a hack.” Such a speed could be accomplished only by direct connection of a portable storage device to the server. Accordingly, VIPS concluded that the DNC data theft was an inside job by someone with physical access to the server.
VIPS also found that, if there had been a hack, the NSA would have a record of it that could quickly be retrieved and produced. But no such evidence has been forthcoming. Can this be because no hack occurred?
VIPS also determined that the files published by Guccifer 2.0 on June 16, 2016, had been “run, via ordinary cut and paste, through a template that effectively immersed them in what could plausibly be cast as Russian fingerprints.” In other words, the files were deliberately altered to give the false impression that they were hacked by Russian agents.
Did......did the hrc campaign intentionally leak their emails and make it look like russians did it?
This post was edited on 10/5/21 at 5:12 pm
Posted on 10/5/21 at 5:10 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
His Name Was Seth Rich !
Posted on 10/5/21 at 5:11 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
They’re just now finding this out?
How long have they known this?
Seems like an easy discovery.
None of this matters anyway.
They got away with it.
How long have they known this?
Seems like an easy discovery.
None of this matters anyway.
They got away with it.
Posted on 10/5/21 at 5:11 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Yeah but we knew this years ago. So now what
Posted on 10/5/21 at 5:13 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Crowdstrike needs a subpoena
Posted on 10/5/21 at 5:13 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Well, well , well, didn’t Snowden reveal that when the CIA hacks you, they leave a Russian signature… hmmm…. And while everyone thinks it was Seth Rich, and Hillary murdered him for it, you have to think CIA might be involved after the Russia signature plant….,,
Posted on 10/5/21 at 5:15 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Say his name.....


Posted on 10/5/21 at 5:35 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
"VIPS concluded that the DNC data theft was an inside job by someone with physical access to the server."
No shite. We’ve known this for years.

Posted on 10/5/21 at 5:40 pm to LuckyTiger
quote:
They got away with it.
I know an ice water-veined motherfricker from CT who might be inclined to disagree.
Posted on 10/5/21 at 5:46 pm to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
Crowdstrike needs a subpoena
Why? Even crowdstrike admitted there wasn't any evidence. Our many federal agencies refused to look into it themselves...and took what crowdstrike implied, to be the absolute truth. No evidence needed.
Our government isn't gullible. They won't be duped. Their neglect was intentional.
Posted on 10/5/21 at 5:47 pm to VoxDawg
Rush talked about this on several occasions. Specifically mentioned the download speeds.
This has been known for quite some time.
This has been known for quite some time.
Posted on 10/5/21 at 5:48 pm to Ladadof3
quote:
Rush talked about this on several occasions. Specifically mentioned the download speeds.
This has been known for quite some time.
Yes, Bill Binney from the NSA was the first that I recall talking specs about the download speeds
Posted on 10/5/21 at 6:05 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Another conspiracy theory proven to be true.
Posted on 10/5/21 at 6:06 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
NOTHING
WILL
EVER
HAPPEN!!!!
It’s over people, the bad guys have won. Hello socialism. Hello new world order
WILL
EVER
HAPPEN!!!!
It’s over people, the bad guys have won. Hello socialism. Hello new world order
Posted on 10/5/21 at 6:08 pm to Swazla
quote:
Yeah but we knew this years ago. So now what
Because it's what professional malingerers, schleppers do.
Going through the motions to draw it out and buy as much time as possible waiting/hoping for one more distraction to take attention off what he and crew have no stomach for going in.
Draw it out long enough and all the statutes will eventually run out.
We're now in the phase that involves repetitiveness of information already known by millions and preoccupation with what are now considered incidentals, taking attention off the major players.
Sure hope that wide-ranging, multi-agency, multi-state investigation of Maduro that just happened to be "announced" right in the middle of Barr's supposed investigation while Trump was still in office is resurrected and given prime attention.
That's one possibility for the slow walkers.
The Maduro investigation was supposed to be the hoped for distraction that would ostensibly "take" most of the attention of Barr.
The election changed that contingency.
After the election when he was out of office, we never heard another word on Maduro.
Look for that to change.
Popular
Back to top


23













