The Trump Phone call to Ukrainian President looks to be a dud

[BoyGenius]

If anyone is familiar with VIPS... VIPS found 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. March 13, 2019 VIPS submitted a memorandum to William Barr. https://spectator.org/crowdstrike-and-th...nt-frenzy/

[ScarletHayes]

Droppa linked an article on this in the Impeach Trump thread.  I've been amused by this whole Crowdstrike thing from day one.

[lrrps21]

Is Crowdstrike owned by Google?

[ScarletHayes]

If anyone is familiar with VIPS... VIPS found 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. March 13, 2019 VIPS submitted a memorandum to William Barr. https://spectator.org/crowdstrike-and-th...nt-frenzy/

VIPS has a well-established record of debunking questionable intelligence assessments that have been slanted to serve political purposes. For example, in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, VIPS courageously and correctly challenged the accuracy and veracity of the CIAâ€s intelligence estimates that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and that he posed a threat to the United States. Similarly, VIPS has condemned the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on suspected terrorists. In short, VIPS can hardly be described as either a right-wing cabal or a group carrying water for the Republican Party.

[ScarletHayes]

First, 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 establish that, at 6:45 p.m. July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes (not megabits) of data were downloaded from the DNCâ€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?



I know we have skeptics regarding the thumb-drive/inside job theory.  That said, the last paragraph from above asks one of the most fundamental questions of this whole damn circus.  

All that has to be produced is the NSA record of this hack.  Why have we not heard of this yet?  If the record of said hack existed, one would think we would have known about this from day one.  Yet here we are over 3 years later now, and still...  bupkis.

[BoyGenius]

From the Oversight committee... https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-r...nt-inquiry ; https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democr...bpoena.pdf

Washington, D.C. (Oct. 4, 2019)—Today, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, the Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, Rep. Adam Schiff, the Chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and Rep. Eliot L. Engel, the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, sent a letter conveying a subpoena to White House Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney for key documents as part of the House of Representatives†impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump.

The last page of their letter, the Chairman refers to his letter as a subpoena... “We deeply regret that President Trump has put us—and the nation—in this position, but his actions have left us with no choice but to issue this subpoena,” the Chairmen wrote.

A "letter conveying a subpoena" is not the same as sent a subpoena. Subpoenas must be issued thru the judicial branch (court system) to be legally enforceable. Yet, the chairman refers to the document as 1) a letter and 2) a subpoena. Things that make me go hmmmm? Why not just issue a subpoena? IMO... we are witnessing a carefully planned subversion of the Constitution.

An actual subpoena >>> https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/ao088b.pdf

[cincydawg]

The inside job theory is viable, it's just that we have no data to support it, or the other possibilities either.

We don't know (in public).

[ScarletHayes]

The inside job theory is viable, it's just that we have no data to support it, or the other possibilities either.

We don't know (in public).

Copy and paste from above:


First, 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 establish that, at 6:45 p.m. July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes (not megabits) of data were downloaded from the DNCâ€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.” 
******************************************************************************************************

3G went over this meta data stuff with me a while back.  He said something along the lines that it would appear to take much longer to hack something after a year's (or whatever the time frame was from the original hack or inside download to when they got this information) worth of meta data piled on, but is that actually what they are looking at to make this determination?  To me this just appears that they are seeing the transfer rate of raw data and just did a simple math problem.  Again I am not a computer person.  What was 3G saying that I am missing here?  They're just looking at time stamps and the amount of data transferred.  They don't appear to be reenacting the situation a year or so later with more meta data piled onto it.  What am I not getting?

[cincydawg]

Yes, you're right there is some data, but I'm not sure who did the analysis and what their ulteriors might be.

[ScarletHayes]

Yes, you're right there is some data, but I'm not sure who did the analysis and what their ulteriors might be.

True, but again...  all we need is the NSA to release the info regarding the DNC hack.  Yet we have nothing from them.  The obvious take home/conclusion then is that the DNC was not hacked, otherwise we would have had that very info from virtually day one.  

Hillary, if the Russians hacked you like you claim, simply show us the NSA info detailing the hack.  

To me, this is a topic that they can get away with because your average person doesn't really get this stuff.  Now that said, you would think some go-getter Hardy Boy or Nancy Drew in the media would've wanted to make a name for themselves by now.  Where are the stories on this?  I can't get it from "trust worthy" MSM sources, I have to get it from "conspiracy theory" media sites.  

This should not be a hard situation to report on---or to at least attempt to report on.

[BoyGenius]

The inside job theory is viable, it's just that we have no data to support it, or the other possibilities either. We don't know (in public).

First, 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 establish that, at 6:45 p.m. July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes (not megabits) of data were downloaded from the DNCâ€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.” 
******************************************************************************************************

3G went over this meta data stuff with me a while back.  He said something along the lines that it would appear to take much longer to hack something after a year's (or whatever the time frame was from the original hack or inside download to when they got this information) worth of meta data piled on, but is that actually what they are looking at to make this determination?  To me this just appears that they are seeing the transfer rate of raw data and just did a simple math problem.  Again I am not a computer person.  What was 3G saying that I am missing here?  They're just looking at time stamps and the amount of data transferred.  They don't appear to be reenacting the situation a year or so later with more meta data piled onto it.  What am I not getting?

I don't think you're missing anything. What's missing? An examination of the "hacked" DNC server by ANY law enforcement agency. It's bizarre how many people think that is much ado about nothing.

That's akin to me claiming my car was stolen from my garage but refusing detectives access to my garage, instead giving the popo a report written by the private detective I hired confirming my car was stolen.

[cobgrad1998]

The inside job theory is viable, it's just that we have no data to support it, or the other possibilities either.

We don't know (in public).

Poor Seth Rich

[zigbee]

Something fishy going on here between the time Trump made the call and it was reported.....hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ig-coul...ources-say