Glenn Greenwald (darling of progressives): The deep state is at war with Trump
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Monday, June 23, 2025 20:15
VIEWED: 3900
PAGE 2 of 4
Quote:There are, of course, endless potential quibbles with and distractions from the central reality that the DNC was hacked. But none of them amount to much.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Russia is a big place. Maybe Anonomyous was hacking the DNC from his mom's basement, who happened to have a zip code in Moscow?
There's still been no proof. Show me proof.
Do we know that the release of emails changed the outcome of the election? No, and it’s possible they didn’t. So what? Interference in our elections should be unacceptable under any circumstances. Even if the hack came from Anonomyous' mom's basement
Aren’t we hugely hypocritical for complaining about this, given America’s overbearing interventions in dozens of other countries? It depends on who “we” are. Yes, the CIA and U.S. political leaders have no grounds to object to this. But regular Americans do, just as regular Iranians, Guatemalans, Chileans and many, many others have every right to object to what we’ve done.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SECOND
Who is John Schwartz, and why should I care about what he posts?
Because - he lied right at the start. When he claims that Russia was behind the DNC and Podesta files, and the people WHO ACTUALLY RECEIVED THEM STATED UNEQUIVOCALLY THEY CAME FROM A LEAKER, NOT A HACKER, AND NOT RUSSIA - it just ruins his credibility - and yours, SECOND, for ignoring facts - right there.
So - aside from being a liar - Who is John Schwartz, and why should I care about what he posts? Is he - an intelligence analyst with hard data? A cybersecurity expert? A bloviating piece of an echo chamber?
SECOND, YOU seem to give him some credit. But, can you answer the question, SECOND? Who is John Schwartz, and why should I care about what he posts?
How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Originally posted by 1kiki:
SECOND, YOU seem to give him some credit. But, can you answer the question, SECOND? Who is John Schwartz, and why should I care about what he posts?
Jon Schwarz wrote this story for The Intercept https://theintercept.com/staff/jonschwarz/
The Intercept was co-founded by Glenn Greenwald. https://theintercept.com/staff/glenn-greenwald/
The thread is titled “Glenn Greenwald (darling of progressives) ...”
Glenn Greenwald and Jon Schwarz work together, with Greenwald editing Schwarz’s writing, including this story. There is one degree of separation between Greenwald and Schwarz. It could only be closer if they were the same person writing under two different names.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:There are, of course, endless potential quibbles with and distractions from the central reality that the DNC was hacked. But none of them amount to much.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Russia is a big place. Maybe Anonomyous was hacking the DNC from his mom's basement, who happened to have a zip code in Moscow?
There's still been no proof. Show me proof.
Do we know that the release of emails changed the outcome of the election? No, and it’s possible they didn’t. So what? Interference in our elections should be unacceptable under any circumstances. Even if the hack came from Anonomyous' mom's basement
Aren’t we hugely hypocritical for complaining about this, given America’s overbearing interventions in dozens of other countries? It depends on who “we” are. Yes, the CIA and U.S. political leaders have no grounds to object to this. But regular Americans do, just as regular Iranians, Guatemalans, Chileans and many, many others have every right to object to what we’ve done.
Once again you prove that you and I probably agree a lot on most things, when we're not too busy arguing about all the Bullshit the MSM shovels on us.
Yes, I do have a problem with "entities" meddling in our elections. Yes, it is also hypocritical of us as a nation to object to it when we have been doing it since after WWII.
I do think that the emails actually had a lot to do with the outcome of the election. To somebody who is a die hard Liberal, such as yourself, it didn't mean much. You were always going to vote for Hillary and you likely surround yourself with like minded individuals and share that particular echo chamber.
It was the "Middle" that voted against her after voting twice for Obama that would have been swayed by what was in those emails. And trust me... If you weren't wearing those blinders there was A LOT of bad stuff in those emails.
Part of me is grateful to whoever hacked them so we could see the truth of the Clintons and the DNC and the MSM and all of the collusion that has been going on.
Another part of me gets a little kick out of the fact that our Government can still even be hacked. I guess it's not Orwell's 1984 just yet.
But another part of me does find this extremely alarming. Whoever did hack the DNC and Hillary's illegal server only showed us the damning evidence against her and her cronies. I'm sure they got a lot more information than that. Who knows what secrets they know? Who are they? Will we suffer major consequences down the road on topics we haven't even imagined if those in possession of this information has nefarious intentions?
At least though, it seems to be that we can agree that until there is actual proof that it was indeed Russian Agents that hacked the emails that we shouldn't be so quick to just go along with that story.
Sure, I want to know who did it. I think odds are about 99-to-1 that the CIA has known all along and we will never know. It will be a mystery like JFK.
All I can say for sure is that it certainly is a good weapon to keep all of us idiots on the bottom of the chain fighting each other instead of doing something productive.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
FBI dispute with DNC over hacked servers may fuel doubt on Russia role
The FBI never gained access to the DNC's hacked servers, instead relying on evidence provided from CrowdStrike
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3155227/security/fbi-dispute-with-dnc-o
ver-hacked-servers-may-fuel-doubt-on-russia-role.html
The FBI may have been forced into a misstep when investigating whether Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee -- the agency never directly examined the DNC servers that were breached.
Instead, the FBI had to rely on forensic evidence provided by third-party cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, which the DNC hired to mitigate the breach.
“The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed,” the agency said on Thursday in a statement.
The incident threatens to spark more skepticism over whether the U.S. properly arrived at its conclusion that Russian cyberspies were responsible for the breach.
“The FBI may have all the evidence or not,” said John Bambenek, a researcher with Fidelis Cybersecurity. “But this case has been handled so unusually, it gives everyone a reason to latch on and cast doubt.”
News that the FBI failed to directly examine the hacked servers came on Wednesday, when Buzzfeed reported that a DNC spokesman said that the agency had never requested access.
On Thursday, the FBI contested that claim, saying the denial of access "caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier."
It's unclear why the DNC allegedly blocked access to the servers. But companies that have been breached are sometimes fearful of exposing sensitive data to outside parties, said Andrei Barysevich, a director at security firm Recorded Future.
“The FBI was investigating Hillary Clinton at the time (over her private email server),” he said. “So it’s totally possible, the DNC didn’t want them involved at any stage of the investigation because of that.”
Nor can the FBI force an affected party to turn a server over, Barysevich said. However, the whole incident may raise questions over whether federal agents saw all the evidence related to the breach. “CrowdStrike is not obligated to share everything with law enforcement,” Barysevich said. “That could have potentially interfered with the investigation.”
CrowdStrike didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. But it wasn’t the only private security firm to examine the breach. Fidelis Cybersecurity was brought in to look at the malware samples, and concluded that suspected elite Russian hackers were behind the intrusion.
Nevertheless, the FBI should have conducted its own review of the hacked servers, Bambenek said. “This is a highly political case, and perception matters,” he said. "In this situation, they need to be building credibility."
Critics might now question if the FBI missed pieces of evidence in its investigation or if U.S. intelligence agencies rushed to blame Russia for the hack.
“You’re telling me the law enforcement community didn’t actually look at the (server) drives themselves? Are you trying to sow conspiracy theories?” Bambenek said.
U.S. intelligence agencies, including the FBI, have blamed the DNC breach and other high-profile political hacks on the Kremlin attempting to influence last year’s election. To retaliate, the White House last month expelled Russian diplomats from the U.S. and ordered sanctions against the country.
U.S. President Barack Obama may very well shed more light on why the U.S. believes Russia was involved. He has ordered U.S. intelligence agencies to come out with a full report that will detail the Kremlin's role in the election-related hacks. A declassified version of that report is scheduled to become public on Monday.
However incoming President Donald Trump remains skeptical that Russia is to blame. His camp previously rejected U.S. in
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:6ixStringJack, let us find something more to agree about.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Once again you prove that you and I probably agree a lot on most things, when we're not too busy arguing about all the Bullshit the MSM shovels on us.
Yes, I do have a problem with "entities" meddling in our elections. Yes, it is also hypocritical of us as a nation to object to it when we have been doing it since after WWII.
I do think that the emails actually had a lot to do with the outcome of the election. To somebody who is a die hard Liberal, such as yourself, it didn't mean much. You were always going to vote for Hillary and you likely surround yourself with like minded individuals and share that particular echo chamber.
It was the "Middle" that voted against her after voting twice for Obama that would have been swayed by what was in those emails. And trust me... If you weren't wearing those blinders there was A LOT of bad stuff in those emails.
A trio of researchers takes a broad look at the evidence that FBI Director James Comey affected the election. Their conclusion:
The evidence is clear, and consistent, regarding the Comey effect. The timing of the shift both at the state and national levels lines up very neatly with the publication of the letter, as does the predominance of the story in the media coverage from the final week of the campaign. With an unusually large number of undecided voters late in the campaign, the letter hugely increased the salience of what was the defining critique of Clinton during the campaign at its most critical moment.
www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/1/11/14215930/comey-email-election-clint
on-campaign
If it weren't for Comey, Hillary Clinton would have won the popular vote by about 6 points and the Electoral College by 70 or more. And that might have turned into control of the Senate as well, though that's a little more speculative.
Three times the director of the FBI (a Republican) accused Hillary of being a criminal and three times the FBI said it did not have evidence to prove it, but it would keep trying until it did. The FBI never did that to anybody in Organized Crime, but the FBI did it in a Presidential Election.
6ixStringJack and I can agree on one thing: we are both better off with a Hillary loss. I’ve got two reasons: $100,000 tax savings every year of Trump. And I am feeling blessed that I won’t be hearing about Hillary’s emails being investigated by the FBI everyday for the next four years. I would say I won, despite my vote for the loser Hillary.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AFA Russia "hacking" the elections ... both Russia and the USA gather information on ALL candidates of ALL important elections. Other nations to the same as well, to the extent of their abilities and/or their ties to more capable intelligence organizations.
Now, there are a couple of important points to make
1) Nobody "hacked" anything. A hack is an exploit where a hardware of software vulnerability is taken advantage of to gain access to a system. This wasn't a hack, it was one of the oldest tricks in the book. What WAS taken advantage of was was human gullibility.
2) About whoever had access to the DNC server: Passively gathering information does NOT "influence" an election. It's only a problem if that information is released.
3) If anything did influence the election, it was the RELEASE of the emails. Julian Assange categorically states it was not Russia, but an insider. So if you want to blame anyone for rattling the election, is was this person.
4) There is no proof that it was "Russia" that accessed the server, and the FBI apparently didn't even get access to the server (What? Was the DNC busy bleach-bitting this server too?). Everyone is ASSUMING that it was Russia on the basis, mostly, of cui bono?. However, there were TWO documented unauthorized accesses and possibly three. Was Russia responsible for ALL of them? If so, that's awfully clumsy, since the latest one exposed the first. Like everyone else, I ASSUME it was Russia that accessed the server once. I find it hard to imagine that this super-dangerous cyber-enemy tripped over its own feet tho.
As far as I can tell, none of you have addressed Glenn Greewnald's and Matt Taibi's main point, which is that the deep state is busy spewing propaganda into the media FOR ITS OWN PURPOSES, and that many people bought into it, and continue to buy into it. I'm afraid that Greenwald and Taibbi - both of whom hate Trump- have failed in their purpose, since they have caused exactly zero people (here, anyway) to take a second look at their own beliefs and reactions with the new information that they may have been manipulated into it.
-----------
"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
"If you aren't aware, Texans don't have much concern for the well-being of Yankees or Californians, even Yankee factory workers in Indiana "- SECOND
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Now, there are a couple of important points to make
1) Nobody "hacked" anything. A hack is an exploit where a hardware of software vulnerability is taken advantage of to gain access to a system. This wasn't a hack, it was one of the oldest tricks in the book. What WAS taken advantage of was was human gullibility.
Hacking is to gain access to (a computer file or network) illegally or without authorization:
You'll lie about the simplest of things. There's just no limit to your and 1kiki's attempts at deflecting from the truth is there? Your above statement about hacking is, well, astounding.
____________________________________________
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Dood. Son. Don't cross swords with me on computer culture; I know far too many experts (and I mean REAL experts ... people who program at the highest level and who can run rings around any "security expert" that you can cite on the internet) for you to win at this, and you'll only show yourself to be the ignoranus that you really are.
Real hackers would not refer to spearphishing as "hacking".
-----------
"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
"If you aren't aware, Texans don't have much concern for the well-being of Yankees or Californians, even Yankee factory workers in Indiana "- SECOND
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
-6ixStringJack, let us find something more to agree about.
A trio of researchers takes a broad look at the evidence that FBI Director James Comey affected the election. Their conclusion:
The evidence is clear, and consistent, regarding the Comey effect. The timing of the shift both at the state and national levels lines up very neatly with the publication of the letter, as does the predominance of the story in the media coverage from the final week of the campaign. With an unusually large number of undecided voters late in the campaign, the letter hugely increased the salience of what was the defining critique of Clinton during the campaign at its most critical moment.
www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/1/11/14215930/comey-email-election-clint
on-campaign
If it weren't for Comey, Hillary Clinton would have won the popular vote by about 6 points and the Electoral College by 70 or more. And that might have turned into control of the Senate as well, though that's a little more speculative.
Three times the director of the FBI (a Republican) accused Hillary of being a criminal and three times the FBI said it did not have evidence to prove it, but it would keep trying until it did. The FBI never did that to anybody in Organized Crime, but the FBI did it in a Presidential Election.
6ixStringJack and I can agree on one thing: we are both better off with a Hillary loss. I’ve got two reasons: $100,000 tax savings every year of Trump. And I am feeling blessed that I won’t be hearing about Hillary’s emails being investigated by the FBI everyday for the next four years. I would say I won, despite my vote for the loser Hillary.
Just to clear things up Second, Comey actually did say before the General election that Hillary's server was, in fact, illegal. However, he said that in their eyes she was unaware of it being illegal and that they could not prove she had any intent to break the law, so they would not be seeking criminal charges.
That is a far cry from being proclaimed innocent. I've always heard "ignorance of the law is no excuse". There is no doubt that if you or I were guilty of the same thing we'd be locked up right now. This is another big reason that Trump got elected. People are tired of the Elites like the Clintons getting a free pass where your regular citizen never would.
You mind sharing some of that tax return? With just half of your tax savings this year I could pay all of my bills for the next 10 years. (well, maybe only 7 with inflation)
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME