fasthorses05 said:

---

I agree wholeheartedly about the financial nature of the hack. In fact, I'm certain it involves HRC, Mills, etc., not to mention Wasserman-Schultz and her acolytes.

We'll never know, but it's likely tied into the Uranium 1 deal.

---

Don't forget the Awans. Also had access to DNC/DCCC through DWS.

https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/07/muellers-latest-indictment-ignores-evidence-in-the-public-domain/

Another unflattering 'technical' critique of the latest Mueller indictment. Where's the evidence?

Nunes...Worth watching.

There is more info in our Committee's report from March than there is in the Mueller indictment, but the DOJ refuses to declassify our report. Our report has been ridiculed by the media & the Dems, but still the DOJ refuses to unredact it.
DOJ has still refused to answer our question as to whether or not they were using informants & other investigative means regarding the Trump Campaign prior to July 31, 2016. .
Did the FBI/DOJ abuse the intelligence gathering agencies while investigating the Trump Campaign?
Trump has to order declassification of materials

I heard a month or so ago...either here or on the radio, that the file download speeds exceeded the capacity of the internet connection. Consequently, the DNC "hack" had to be the result of downloads to an external drive.

Did I hear some kind of b.s.? Did I dream that? Is Rosenstein's GRU DNC computer break-in fiction?

This whole DNC "hack" stinks bigly and has from day 1.

Whens lunch said:

---

I heard a month or so ago...either here or on the radio, that the file download speeds exceeded the capacity of the internet connection. Consequently, the DNC "hack" had to be the result of downloads to an external drive.

Did I hear some kind of b.s.? Did I dream that? Is Rosenstein's GRU DNC computer break-in fiction?

This whole DNC "hack" stinks bigly and has from day 1.

---

I remember hearing the same thing, but I also thought I remembered hearing that they could have used some sort of file compression to make it easier to download/steal the files.

Idk if that makes sense, because I'm not a computer expert.

tsuag10 said:

---

Whens lunch said:

---

I heard a month or so ago...either here or on the radio, that the file download speeds exceeded the capacity of the internet connection. Consequently, the DNC "hack" had to be the result of downloads to an external drive.

Did I hear some kind of b.s.? Did I dream that? Is Rosenstein's GRU DNC computer break-in fiction?

This whole DNC "hack" stinks bigly and has from day 1.

---

I remember hearing the same thing, but I also thought I remembered hearing that they could have used some sort of file compression to make it easier to download/steal the files.

Idk if that makes sense, because I'm not a computer expert.

---

I think that amount of compression of files would be detectable, wouldn't it cause a big spike in activity?

I have no clue. I'm sure someone here with better technical knowledge could tell us if that sounds feasible.

aggiehawg said:

---

tsuag10 said:

---

Whens lunch said:

---

I heard a month or so ago...either here or on the radio, that the file download speeds exceeded the capacity of the internet connection. Consequently, the DNC "hack" had to be the result of downloads to an external drive.

Did I hear some kind of b.s.? Did I dream that? Is Rosenstein's GRU DNC computer break-in fiction?

This whole DNC "hack" stinks bigly and has from day 1.

---

I remember hearing the same thing, but I also thought I remembered hearing that they could have used some sort of file compression to make it easier to download/steal the files.

Idk if that makes sense, because I'm not a computer expert.

---

I think that amount of compression of files would be detectable, wouldn't it cause a big spike in activity?

---

Compression is mentioned in the indictment

Whens lunch said:

---

I heard a month or so ago...either here or on the radio, that the file download speeds exceeded the capacity of the internet connection. Consequently, the DNC "hack" had to be the result of downloads to an external drive.

Did I hear some kind of b.s.? Did I dream that? Is Rosenstein's GRU DNC computer break-in fiction?

This whole DNC "hack" stinks bigly and has from day 1.

---

This will get you started (gives relevant details & the players involved without being too technical):

https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/

This article explores those claims - let's just say it is not 100% deterministic or proven either way.

https://www.thenation.com/article/a-leak-or-a-hack-a-forum-on-the-vips-memo/

Here's a question though, with the indictment talking about compression of files, transferring them to a leased 3rd party computers in Illinois, and Arizona, they then later moved the files elsewhere, not one hint of this was mentioned by the only people to ever examine the actual servers, of any of this. Nothing in the Crowdstrike report whatsoever, even hinting at the possibility of any of this. And they are the only people to examine the actual hardware of the DNC or the DCCC.

And why doesn't the indictment mention this 3rd Party that the Russians leased it from, either by name or at least in a redaction? The indictment was quick to name "Company 1" which we know is Crowdstrike, but no mention of these mysterious lessors of a remote devices.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

tsuag10 said:

---

Whens lunch said:

---

I heard a month or so ago...either here or on the radio, that the file download speeds exceeded the capacity of the internet connection. Consequently, the DNC "hack" had to be the result of downloads to an external drive.

Did I hear some kind of b.s.? Did I dream that? Is Rosenstein's GRU DNC computer break-in fiction?

This whole DNC "hack" stinks bigly and has from day 1.

---

I remember hearing the same thing, but I also thought I remembered hearing that they could have used some sort of file compression to make it easier to download/steal the files.

Idk if that makes sense, because I'm not a computer expert.

---

I think that amount of compression of files would be detectable, wouldn't it cause a big spike in activity?

---

Compression is mentioned in the indictment

---

Comment from the Adam Carter/Disobedientmedia article posted above regarding this 'compression section' in the indictment:

Quote:

---

To "enable them to steal a large number of documents at once without detection," downloaded and executed a compression tool to compress a bunch of documents, many of which are already in compressed formats?

In reality, this would actually cause a needless spike in CPU activity, instigate a load of read/write operations on disks and alter disk space considerably all of which contribute to increased risk of detection rather than reduce it.

---

drcrinum said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

tsuag10 said:

---

Whens lunch said:

---

I heard a month or so ago...either here or on the radio, that the file download speeds exceeded the capacity of the internet connection. Consequently, the DNC "hack" had to be the result of downloads to an external drive.

Did I hear some kind of b.s.? Did I dream that? Is Rosenstein's GRU DNC computer break-in fiction?

This whole DNC "hack" stinks bigly and has from day 1.

---

I remember hearing the same thing, but I also thought I remembered hearing that they could have used some sort of file compression to make it easier to download/steal the files.

Idk if that makes sense, because I'm not a computer expert.

---

I think that amount of compression of files would be detectable, wouldn't it cause a big spike in activity?

---

Compression is mentioned in the indictment

---

Comment from the Adam Carter/Disobedientmedia article posted above regarding this 'compression section' in the indictment:

Quote:

---

To "enable them to steal a large number of documents at once without detection," downloaded and executed a compression tool to compress a bunch of documents, many of which are already in compressed formats?

In reality, this would actually cause a needless spike in CPU activity, instigate a load of read/write operations on disks and alter disk space considerably all of which contribute to increased risk of detection rather than reduce it.

---

---

And I have no doubt that it would, and there is no mention of any report from the NSA of any unusual activity in the indictment. More pieces of real evidense that the indictment is lacking.

I'm wagering that Mike Rogers let Trump know about a hell of a lot more than he was being spied on by Obama. Especially after Trump was sworn in as POTUS. Thing about it is, if it traveled across fiber, there is a copy of it at FT Mead.

To be fair, the NSA could be where Mueller got the analogy they built this indictment on, but there just seems to be no mention of it. Not even in passing. Just a sentence in the indictment mentioning they had reporting from an internal department, or even the IC in general.

I just think this indictment becomes a disaster if it is forced into the discovery phase where they have to actually produce real evidense.

Quote:

---

And I have no doubt that it would, and there is no mention of any report from the NSA of any unusual activity in the indictment. More pieces of real evidense that the indictment is lacking.

---

Didn't the Dutch IC detect some intrusions in 2015 and alert their American counterparts? That was the "Cozy Bear" stuff, IIRC.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

And I have no doubt that it would, and there is no mention of any report from the NSA of any unusual activity in the indictment. More pieces of real evidense that the indictment is lacking.

---

Didn't the Dutch IC detect some intrusions in 2015 and alert their American counterparts? That was the "Cozy Bear" stuff, IIRC.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

And I have no doubt that it would, and there is no mention of any report from the NSA of any unusual activity in the indictment. More pieces of real evidense that the indictment is lacking.

---

Didn't the Dutch IC detect some intrusions in 2015 and alert their American counterparts? That was the "Cozy Bear" stuff, IIRC.

---

Interesting thing about that video, it mentions the "White House" being penetrated in 2015! THAT'S RIGHT THE WHITE HOUSE. No mention of that breach in the IC or the Mueller stuff.

Remember when Trump first took office and there were 3 weeks worth of "renovations" done, and he ran the country from Mar-Lago? I guarantee you it was more than just Air Conditioning being done.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

And I have no doubt that it would, and there is no mention of any report from the NSA of any unusual activity in the indictment. More pieces of real evidense that the indictment is lacking.

---

Didn't the Dutch IC detect some intrusions in 2015 and alert their American counterparts? That was the "Cozy Bear" stuff, IIRC.

---

Interesting thing about that video, it mentions the "White House" being penetrated in 2015! THAT'S RIGHT THE WHITE HOUSE. No mention of that breach in the IC or the Mueller stuff.

Remember when Trump first took office and there were 3 weeks worth of "renovations" done, and he ran the country from Mar-Lago? I guarantee you it was more than just Air Conditioning being done.

---

China penetrated the govt in 2015 stealing millions of OPM records of many gov employees. My guess there wasn't much about Obamas administration that wasn't hacked by our enemies.

I am curious what the source was for identifying the GRU individuals.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Here's a question though, with the indictment talking about compression of files, transferring them to a leased 3rd party computers in Illinois, and Arizona, they then later moved the files elsewhere, not one hint of this was mentioned by the only people to ever examine the actual servers, of any of this. Nothing in the Crowdstrike report whatsoever, even hinting at the possibility of any of this. And they are the only people to examine the actual hardware of the DNC or the DCCC.

And why doesn't the indictment mention this 3rd Party that the Russians leased it from, either by name or at least in a redaction? The indictment was quick to name "Company 1" which we know is Crowdstrike, but no mention of these mysterious lessors of a remote devices.

---

Smokescreen is why this will unravel without real evidence.

pedro_martinez said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Here's a question though, with the indictment talking about compression of files, transferring them to a leased 3rd party computers in Illinois, and Arizona, they then later moved the files elsewhere, not one hint of this was mentioned by the only people to ever examine the actual servers, of any of this. Nothing in the Crowdstrike report whatsoever, even hinting at the possibility of any of this. And they are the only people to examine the actual hardware of the DNC or the DCCC.

And why doesn't the indictment mention this 3rd Party that the Russians leased it from, either by name or at least in a redaction? The indictment was quick to name "Company 1" which we know is Crowdstrike, but no mention of these mysterious lessors of a remote devices.

---

Smokescreen is why this will unravel without real evidence.

---

That's one reason Putin might want someone to appear and demand discovery. Easy way to find out sources and methods even under CIPA.

This indictment might not have been such a great idea after all.

aggiehawg said:

---

pedro_martinez said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Here's a question though, with the indictment talking about compression of files, transferring them to a leased 3rd party computers in Illinois, and Arizona, they then later moved the files elsewhere, not one hint of this was mentioned by the only people to ever examine the actual servers, of any of this. Nothing in the Crowdstrike report whatsoever, even hinting at the possibility of any of this. And they are the only people to examine the actual hardware of the DNC or the DCCC.

And why doesn't the indictment mention this 3rd Party that the Russians leased it from, either by name or at least in a redaction? The indictment was quick to name "Company 1" which we know is Crowdstrike, but no mention of these mysterious lessors of a remote devices.

---

Smokescreen is why this will unravel without real evidence.

---

That's one reason Putin might want someone to appear and demand discovery. Easy way to find out sources and methods even under CIPA.

This indictment might not have been such a great idea after all.

---

I'd bet Reed-Smith would take the case.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

pedro_martinez said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Here's a question though, with the indictment talking about compression of files, transferring them to a leased 3rd party computers in Illinois, and Arizona, they then later moved the files elsewhere, not one hint of this was mentioned by the only people to ever examine the actual servers, of any of this. Nothing in the Crowdstrike report whatsoever, even hinting at the possibility of any of this. And they are the only people to examine the actual hardware of the DNC or the DCCC.

And why doesn't the indictment mention this 3rd Party that the Russians leased it from, either by name or at least in a redaction? The indictment was quick to name "Company 1" which we know is Crowdstrike, but no mention of these mysterious lessors of a remote devices.

---

Smokescreen is why this will unravel without real evidence.

---

That's one reason Putin might want someone to appear and demand discovery. Easy way to find out sources and methods even under CIPA.

This indictment might not have been such a great idea after all.

---

I'd bet Reed-Smith would take the case.

---

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5955923/Thousands-Finns-streets-ahead-Trumps-Helsinki-meeting-Russian-leader-Putin.html

Quote:

---

It could be a particularly tricky meeting for Donald Trump on Monday after the indictment of 12 Russian intelligence officers with hacking in the run up to the 2016 presidential election.

President Trump has said he 'had not thought' about asking Mr Putin to extradite the dozen Russians but said that 'certainly' he would 'be asking about it'.

---

If Putin agreed, Mueller would be ****ting his pants.

I doubt Putin would actually use the extradition process itself. Wouldn't want to set that precedent. If he wants to fight it, he'll just order a few of the defendants to voluntarily go the US and appear.

https://amgreatness.com/2018/07/13/julian-assange-crowdstrike-and-the-russian-hack-that-wasnt/

Quote:

---

.....
But there's another more conclusive reason to think that G2 had to be working with CrowdStrike and Hillary Clinton.

Remember, on June 15, Guccifer 2.0 emailed a Trump opposition file to Gawker and The Smoking Gunand posted it on his blog. But we now know, apart from the Russian fingerprints he planted, the very same Trump opposition file was among Podesta's emails when Assange released them four months later.
So, how did G2 get a hold of a file from John Podesta's emails? That's what Adam Carter wants everyone to start asking.

Since G2 manifestly isn't the implacable enemy of Hillary Clinton he pretended to be, it's unlikely that he hacked the DNC server as claimed. And, Carter and other experts say, his claims aren't technically credible, anyway.

Given how hard G2 worked to discredit Wikileaks, neither is it credible that he got the file through them. Without the Trump file, G2 might have just been some unconnected third-party trolling Julian Assange. But the fact that G2 possessed a file from Podesta's emails seems inexplicable, given everything else we now know, unless G2 is part of a CrowdStrike disinformation campaign to protect Hillary Clinton from the consequences of John Podesta's blunder.

The foundations of both Robert Mueller's investigation and the sanctions placed on Russia appear to have crumbled into dust.

---

An interesting read, to say the least.

https://brassballs.blog/home/strzok-worked-for-cia-and-fbi-at-the-same-time-in-counterespionage

I would like to see more confirmation, but it would certainly would explain a connection to Brennan.

https://brassballs.blog/home/strzok-worked-for-cia-and-fbi-at-the-same-time-in-counterespionage

Brennan played a larger role than most people realize, & I think the relationship between Brennan & Strzok needs to be explored.

JTA1029 said:

---

A note on compression.

Let's say you've got 100 GB of data you need to upload.

If you compress the data you may only need to upload 50GB.

But that doesnt change the rate at which you can upload data. Just means you wouldn't have to spend as long uploading because there would be less data.

But your Mbps would be the same, whether it was compressed or not.

So compressing the data before uploading it off a remote server (or downloading from a remote server if prefer that perspective) doesnt address the issue of the data transfer rate being faster than the internet connection could have provided.

Hope that's clear. I can probably come up with a better analogy if needed.

And yes, I was also hearing months and months ago that the speed at which the files were exported far exceeded something an internet connection could do, and instead actually were pretty in line with what a USB 3.0 external drive would support.

Seth Rich.

---

I am a tech person so explain something to me and maybe I've just missed it in the story but I have not really dug for the info.

Yes what you say is true.... however as far as I know nobody has ever seen/had access to the server right? And they only have what was uploaded/copied or whatever. They have the data files yes (possibly uncompressed and unencrypted) but basically they have the files.

Nothing in the files gives any indication of transfer speed - thats not an artifact of a file. The file is generally unadulterated by a upload/copy right except maybe timestamp/etc.?

So even knowing the internet speed available does not give you any indication of transfer speed, not does the size of the file, nor the file itself.

The only thing that would tell you transfer speed is either the time they were connected and the size of the files or the actual log of the event which is not available. Correct????

Said another way - why does anyone think they know how long it took to upload it???? the speed is irrelevant (and unknown) without that or the logs.

Note - again if I missed something on the connection time, event log, etc. then correct me.

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

JTA1029 said:

---

A note on compression.

Let's say you've got 100 GB of data you need to upload.

If you compress the data you may only need to upload 50GB.

But that doesnt change the rate at which you can upload data. Just means you wouldn't have to spend as long uploading because there would be less data.

But your Mbps would be the same, whether it was compressed or not.

So compressing the data before uploading it off a remote server (or downloading from a remote server if prefer that perspective) doesnt address the issue of the data transfer rate being faster than the internet connection could have provided.

Hope that's clear. I can probably come up with a better analogy if needed.

And yes, I was also hearing months and months ago that the speed at which the files were exported far exceeded something an internet connection could do, and instead actually were pretty in line with what a USB 3.0 external drive would support.

Seth Rich.

---

I am a tech person so explain something to me and maybe I've just missed it in the story but I have not really dug for the info.

Yes what you say is true.... however as far as I know nobody has ever seen/had access to the server right? And they only have what was uploaded/copied or whatever. They have the data files yes (possibly uncompressed and unencrypted) but basically they have the files.

Nothing in the files gives any indication of transfer speed - thats not an artifact of a file. The file is generally unadulterated by a upload/copy right except maybe timestamp/etc.?

So even knowing the internet speed available does not give you any indication of transfer speed, not does the size of the file, nor the file itself.

The only thing that would tell you transfer speed is either the time they were connected and the size of the files or the actual log of the event which is not available. Correct????

Said another way - why does anyone think they know how long it took to upload it???? the speed is irrelevant (and unknown) without that or the logs.

Note - again if I missed something on the connection time, event log, etc. then correct me.

---

If I remember correctly a guy that goes by "The Forensicator" was examining the NGP VAN 7 Zip file that was uploaded by Guccifer 2.0, and from the metadata claiming it established several facts in this regard to the upload speeds of the hack, with what I would call granular precision.

According to him:

Quote:

---

On the evening of July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC's server. The operation took 87 seconds. This yields a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second.

---

Edit:

Found it here's his blog

https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/guccifer-2-ngp-van-metadata-analysis/

Interesting.

I've never listened before to more than a couple of minutes to a Bongino podcast, but this one is phenomenal.

https://www.bongino.com/july-13-2018-ep-762-yesterdays-bombshell-hearing/

Regarding multiple dossiers...What if the 'dossier' used to open the official FBI investigation was even more salacious than the one that was publicly released (published by Buzzfeed), the latter being published for disinformation purposes?

There WAS another reason besides his personal animosity for McCain to become involved with the dossier. He doesn't give the answer because it's going to be in a book being published, but it has to do with a policy that Trump would change/cancel/something.

Stressed the importance of the pathway between Fusion GPS/Nellie Ohr to Bruce Ohr to Strzok.

Regarding HRC's server, there is an IC/IG report which disclosed that someone had inserted a subprogram which directed all of HRC's emails to a foreign power (Rep Gohmert's revelation); Bongino says it wasn't to Russia or a Middle East country, but a lot more info is going to be coming out about this important revelation.

There was a lot more, but my memory banks became saturated. I'll have to say that Bongino appears to be the most informed media person on the scheme that I have encountered.