Russian Hacking: What Did They Need To Know? What’s Ignored By “Experts”

Posted: December 18, 2016 in NEWS
Tags: , , , ,

Dr. James A., PhD

There are several factors that don’t add up when we consider that “The Russians” “hacked” the DNC and Hillary’s private server.

First of all, of all the devices and internet depots the Russians could have thought to hack, why choose the emails of low level campaign strategists as opposed to other high level government officials? In other words, how would Russia even know that there was dirt in the DNC emails? As a former “hacktivist”, I never went on a fishing expedition without having some idea of what I was looking for. It seems obvious, and a matter of common sense, that Russia would have at least had to have had some idea of what was in those emails BEFORE hacking them to think that they in some way could have helped Trump. However, there’s no guarantee they would have even helped Trump, and not the other 17 candidates. If Trump was the intended recipient, it certainly doesn’t make sense to give the info to Wikileaks.

Secondly, if Russia was convinced that incriminating emails were among the DNC, then why not expedite the information by giving Wikileaks ONLY the incriminating documents instead of flooding Wikileaks with thousands upon thousands of emails. It was the American people who did most of the digging that found all of the incriminating information. Russia couldn’t have depending on a few Americans to simply find all the needles in the haystacks. Had Russia known for example, that Donna Brazille was feeding moderators debate questions, then why not just highlight THAT email instead of making us dig for all the dirt?

The better and more likely, explanation is that somebody already on the inside knew what was in those emails, or what could be in them, somebody like Seth Rich.

Thirdly, regarding Hillary’s private server. If Russia targeted that as well, how did they even know to look for classified information on a private server? It’s one thing to know in advance that Hillary has private emails with classified government information on GOVERNMENT servers, quite another to KNOW that she is storing them on a private server, at home [perhaps her maid was a Russian agent!].

The more plausible story is that Hillary Clinton pulled a Robert Hanssen. Hanssen was a high level CIA operative that eventually got caught selling secrets to Russia. He would sneak docs out of the CIA, then place them under a bridge and inform Russian agents of the pick up spot. In this case, Hillary’s private server acted as the “pick up” spot. In my opinion, Hillary let the Chinese, Saudi’s, et al, know she had a private server and for a hefty donation to the Clinton Foundation (including agreements to pay Bill Clinton $500K a speech…IN RUSSIA), you could have access to the classified information on a private server located at IP………use port___________. Then “Oops, I got hacked”.

Democrats have also conveniently forgotten that Wikileaks was not the only source that proved corruption in the DNC. Project Veritas caught several DNC officials on video admitting to causing violence at Trump rallies and using buses to take extra voters around to polling stations to vote multiple times. Project Veritas was independent of the Wikileaks revelations, although their documentation confirmed the veracity of the Wikileaks documents.

Although Dr. Steve Pieczenik has already confirmed that it was insiders-including himself- in the US that leaked the info to Wikileaks as a counter-coup against establishment collaborators, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the leaks-not hacks-were an inside job that had nothing to do with Russia.

**********

Please also see our article on the CIA’s LGBT Agenda for additional arguments that debunk the “Russians Also Hacked The RNC” nonsense.

Advertisements
Comments
  1. […] Russian Hacking: What Did They Need To Know? What’s Ignored By “Experts” December 18, 2016 […]

  2. Luis says:

    Comments:

    >> First of all, of all the devices and internet depots the Russians could have thought to hack, why choose the emails of low-level campaign strategists as opposed to other high-level government officials?

    They sent a phishing campaign to a thousand people to see who would provide the password. Even low-level people are targets because they are potential gateways to servers and other people. Probably other people got caught as well, but we don’t know that.

    >> Secondly, if Russia was convinced that incriminating emails were among the DNC, then why not expedite the information by giving Wikileaks ONLY the incriminating documents instead of flooding Wikileaks with thousands upon thousands of emails.

    Why give away all the emails, instead of just selecting the damaging emails? We actually don’t know if all the emails were released, and we don’t even know if they were redacted or altered in any way. In any case, I don’t know how they chose to release those emails.

    >> Thirdly, regarding Hillary’s private server. If Russia targeted that as well, how did they even know to look for classified information on a private server?

    Spy agencies scan all the servers linked to relevant people, looking for servers that may be weak/unprotected, and may become a gateway to other more secure servers. All servers and accounts connected to high functionaries are targets.

    >> The more plausible story is that Hillary Clinton pulled a Robert Hanssen.
    >> Then “Oops, I got hacked”.

    The story is not plausible because it really doesn’t pass the Occam’s razor test. The purported enemy would have needed an email administrative account. Having access to a directory on a server doesn’t make you an email administrator, even if you use a different port number.

    >> the leaks-not hacks-were an inside job that had nothing to do with Russia.

    I don’t know about those inside jobs, but Russian organizations hacked the servers. There’s plenty of information in the CIA reports, and even WikiLeaks published the phishing page.

    • James A, PhD says:

      1) “They sent a phishing campaign to a thousand people to see who would provide the password. Even low-level people are targets because they are potential gateways to servers and other people. Probably other people got caught as well, but we don’t know that.”

      Phishing schemes are easy to detect, and are lame. A few people might fall prey to a phishing scheme but that wouldn’t explain access to several hundred other email domains. And, no, phishing a google pw does not give you access to TCP gateways. Furthermore, there is no evidence that a phishing scheme was used on all 3 groups of leaks (Hillary Leaks, Podesta Leaks, DNC Leaks). If they were certain that it was a phishing scheme as opposed to someone guessing Podesta’s password, it’s not that hard to trace whose account was compromised, and that information is not only not classified, but has never been mentioned.

      2) “Why give away all the emails, instead of just selecting the damaging emails? We actually don’t know if all the emails were released, and we don’t even know if they were redacted or altered in any way. In any case, I don’t know how they chose to release those emails.”

      That doesn’t even begin to answer the dilemma because you still have to deal with what they DID release. And you can’t back pedal the explanation. If the accusation is that the emails helped the election, you can’t make the argument that you don’t know whether all the emails were there, how many were redacted or authentic. Either you know for certain they were hacked, and were hacked with a priori knowledge of incriminating information, or you don’t. You can’t offer equivocating scenarios.

      3. “Spy agencies scan all the servers linked to relevant people, looking for servers that may be weak/unprotected, and may become a gateway to other more secure servers. All servers and accounts connected to high functionaries are targets.”

      Servers are not related to “relevant people”- unless it’s a personal server (like Hillary’s). That argument makes absolutely zero sense. Scanning a server after-the-fact does that simply exposes vulnerabilities (which is all that you’ve argued for that particular point) is not evidence that a foreign state actor accessed the weakened server: which by the way, ALL servers have points that can be exploited. But again, your initial argument was that it was the result of a phishing scam, and a phishing scam doesn’t require a person to have sophisticated knowledge of Rapid 7. So either it’s a phishing scam, which is simple, or a complicated breach of security by sophisticated hackers, of which there is no evidence.

      4. “The story is not plausible because it really doesn’t pass the Occam’s razor test. The purported enemy would have needed an email administrative account. Having access to a directory on a server doesn’t make you an email administrator, even if you use a different port number.”

      You’re rebuttal here actually complicates the explanation (which is contrary to Occam’s Razor). How hard is it to provide an enemy the requisite access to Hillary’s personal server? That does not require an additional, independent account. My argument had nothing to do with having an additional admin account or mere access to the directory, but access to the actual account itself (which would provide grounds for the claim that it was hacked. Having an added admin account which actually detract from the hacking accusation because it doesn’t prove that the primary was compromised, only the auxiliary accounts).

      5. “I don’t know about those inside jobs, but Russian organizations hacked the servers. There’s plenty of information in the CIA reports, and even WikiLeaks published the phishing page”

      This has become a worn out tautology. Even Chelsea Clinton admitted that there were hackers among their own staff that were planting malware on their phones. Furthermore, have you seen the CIA reports? No, and neither has anyone else. It is unprecedented that the CIA would provide “evidence” of Russian involvement to the mainstream media, but not to electors who wanted to see the evidence. The one example that they did give to WordPress security was an outdated exploit that was written IN ENGLISH, that originated in Ukraine, not Russia, and has been used by the US and Chinese more than it was used by UKR. Even a simple Wireshark looking capture of traffic could have shown anomolies, but that would have required honeypot systems to already be in place when the exploits were allegedly being executed. Without that, any hacker-even a novice one-knows you can’t possibly track that kind of traffic and boldly conclude that Russia was behind it.

      Finally, this response does not answer the main questions I asked about what Russia needed to know before they supposedly “hacked” the DNC or Podesta emails.

  3. […] Russian Hacking: What Did They Need To Know? What’s Ignored By “Experts” December 18, 2016 […]

Leave Godly Comments

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s