Russia DID NOT Hack The DNC says John McAfee

1. 78

   colorfuloneposted 7 years ago

   “The whole Russian hacking narrative is either propaganda intended to incite the American people, to anger toward Russia for some reason, or our intelligence community is so ignorant and naive that they should all be replaced.” 
   ~  John McAfee, founder of McAfee virus protection
   
   *  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7t5zbKnvQk
   
   Mr. McAfee breaks down on the 5 minute video. 
   
   I believe that the Russian hacking the DNC narrative is propaganda, and I do believe Mr. McAfee, cybersecurity expert.  I think its all a deflection from the revealing DNC emails, and also the damning Pedesta emails that were leaked to Wikileaks.

   replyreport
   1. 82

      Genna Eastposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      John McAfee...the man who would be president -- or part of the incoming President-elect's team. This guy appears to have become a kook.  McAfee virus protection software is much better since he left the company.  I remember when he was still there, and the program was terrible in comparison to others.  And who could forget his false story about the San Bernardino shooter's I Phone.  So now he states...
      
      "If I was the Chinese and I wanted to make it look like the Russians did it, I would use Russian language within the code, I would use Russian techniques of breaking into the organization.” 
      
      Golly gee - ya think?  As if something so banal would fly over the heads of the cyber security techs' heads with the speed of a 747.  Is he kidding?  Oh, well, at least it gets him in front of certain media outlets for 15 minutes.  And that's all that matters to John.  Of course cyber warfare and hacking is a critical issue.  We have techs clean/sweep our systems every 90 days,  and they use, at minimum, at least six different virus/malware programs to do their sweeps. 
      
      I'm sorry, Susan, to disagree.  I didn't mean to offend in any way.  Enjoy your Sunday.

      replyreport
      1. 78

         colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         I apologize for taking so long to reply. I am caught up with some things as life happens right now.  No offence, I have never seen you to be offensive in the forum. Best to stay away from offenses of any kind.
         
         John McAfee, was being careful with how he said things, I believe.
         
         "In there are four facts which they claim prove that Russia did this hack. It was utter nonsense. The information was number one – Russian language was found in the malware. Number two – a Cyrillic keyboard was used. The forensic science can now tell what type of keyboard was used to develop a piece of a malware,"
         
         “Number three – the compiler, the piece of software that compiles the code so that it can execute, always dated time stamps. The time stamps were in a time zone for the business hours of Moscow and St. Petersburg and other places in Russia and the number four that the IP address pointed to a Russian address.”
         
         To make it simple for the American audience, McAfee metaphorically explained the situation:
         
         “Seriously, if Russia declared war on us because we hacked Russia and the head of the CIA and the intelligence committee came to the Congress and they ask him ‘What happened?’ – ‘Oh, well you know we didn’t have time to remove English language, we didn’t have time to move the date stamp, the guy could not use a Chinese keyboard, so we gave him our regular keyboard. And also there was my wife’s birthday so I could not remove the IP address.’”
         
         “Please, that person would be scheduled for a suicide,” McAfee concluded.
         
         There was much sarcasm in how McAfee said things from what I read and heard in his tone.  Its like a kid had to be hacking with that kind of 'evidence'.  I don't believe Russia would leave fingerprints pointing to themselves.  It would be hard for kids that hack to believe that was a nation-state hack.
         _________
         Blaming the Russians for influencing the election smells like 'fake cyber war' on our part to deflect from the content of the emails that were hacked or leaked.  I believe they were leaked by NSA, as former National Security Agency analyst, William Binney suggested months ago.   Because of Hillary's mishandling of classified intelligence.
         
         Hillary lifted the material that was in her emails directly out of Gamma reporting. That is a direct compromise of the most sensitive material at the NSA.  A lot of people with integrity have a problem with that in the FBI, CIA, and NSA. 
         *  http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/forme … le/2598282

         replyreport
         1. 82

            Genna Eastposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            I certainly wasn't trying to be offensive, and used humor, intentionally, that was directed at Mr. MacAfee's comment.  I'm sorry you misunderstood, Susan.  But what can one do when he seems bound and determined to insult one's intelligence to such a degree?  That's all I'll say on the subject.

            replyreport
            1. 78

               colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               Genna, you are sweet, I saw that humor.  It looks like MacAfee doesn't mind being the butt of a joke or he would not be out there saying what he has about the hack.  I have never paid attention to him before, but he got my attention for now by adding a piece to the puzzle.
               
               This stuff is intriguing to me, I love it!

               replyreport
   2. 83

      Don Wposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      This is interesting. On one side, the CIA, NSA, FBI, 14 other intelligence agencies, and at least two independent cyber security companies conclude that Russia hacked the DNC and other political organizations.
      
      On the other, John McAfee said they didn't (while appearing on a channel owned by the Russian government).
      
      And your conclusion is that the Russians didn't do it.
      
      To anyone suggesting that fake news and Russian propaganda could not have had a significant impact on the election, I offer the opening comment as exhibit A.
      
      How many people like this voted? Hard to say, but the fact it could be in the millions, is very scary indeed.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         "Hard to say, but the fact it could be in the millions, is very scary indeed."
         
         Yes, it's hard to say, isn't it?  We heard a long time ago the Russians were hacking, intending to help Trump.  How many people changed their vote from Trump to Clinton.  Could be in the millions, is very scary indeed.
         
         Maybe if we could find a couple of million that testify they changed their vote because of the hacking?

         replyreport
         1. 83

            Don Wposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            The level of critical thinking displayed in the opening comment is very . . . special. And it's scary to think there are millions of voters (of any political persuasion) with similar critical thinking abilities. This particular display of reasoning came from a Trump supporter though. At the very least, it serves as evidence that methods deployed by the FSB work. Whether those methods impacted the election, and to what degree, I have no idea, but threads like this are positive feedback for anyone wanting to know if such exercises can work. And what do you think the likelihood is, that the original poster will even see any issue with their conclusion? I predict very low.
            
            I have to grudgingly admit that no one does propaganda as effectively as the Russians, and this thread demonstrates that perfectly.

            replyreport
            1. 82

               Genna Eastposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               You've raised a valid point about Russian propaganda.  I think It's about time that Mr. Trump stops being so self-absorbed over what the Russian hacking may reveal about the legitimacy of his election win, and be more concerned about the safety of hundreds of millions of Americans.  These cyber attacks are part of concerted, information warfare efforts, and I fear by his comments that he hasn't a clue as to its complexities or ramifications.

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 5 hours ago
                  "Before I, or anyone, saw the classified and/or highly confidential hacking intelligence report, it was leaked out to @NBCNews. So serious!"
                  
                  I wonder how NBC got the intell before Trump. 
                  It just keeps getting crazier and crazier.

                  replyreport
            2. 95

               wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               I agree - the OP will not change her mind.  And I certainly agree that millions of people vote based on something other than good information and reason.  Lots voted this year based on sex and when Obama ran lots voted based on color (both ways, not doubt).  That's the American public for you - this election made a point out of false information, innuendo and outright lies.
               
               But what do YOU fear more - the chance of being hit by lightning or ignorant and, yes, stupid voters?  Why is it so scary that Russia tried to manipulate the population?  For I'll tell you this - either our government has known for years that they are doing it and didn't say anything or didn't know.  Both qualify for being very scary, IMO, and lots more than the ignorance of voters.

               replyreport
            3. 78

               colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               Did you notice that the chief of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that his office will be taking over US elections?  They are taking over, and they needed a fake story for an excuse, its Russia.  The national election system will belong to the federal Executive Branch.  Its like declaring a national emergency or martial law, giving DHS the right to take over state's offices if they do not cooperate.  They could rig the elections behind the scenes. 
               
               Election-processes are suppose to belong to the states.  They have suggested eliminating the Electoral College to further federalize the election process.
               
               It would create more hellish accusations in the press toward Trump if he cancels it, it'd be like ... he stopped our free elections (hiss, hiss). 
               
               The Constitution is a pact of the States.  The States must be able to agree on specified powers they want to relinquish to the central government, and are suppose to retaining all other powers, including the Electoral College.
               
               Critical thinks create a timeline:
               * Clinton will most assuredly win the election.
               * Trump won the election!
               * Trump only won the election because Russia “hacked the election” in Trump's favor.
               * We are obliged to protect the national election process from foreign hacking.
               * DHS is obliged put itself in charge of national elections.
               
               Conclusion?   Its a coup!

               replyreport
               1. 89

                  GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  You certainly live up to your name Colorfulone,
                  
                  You say, (among other things); ... "Did you notice that the chief of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that his office will be taking over US elections?"
                  
                  and...
                  "...Election-processes are suppose to belong to the states."
                  
                  But the "chief's" statement you reference says this;
                  "... Prior to reaching this determination, my staff and I consulted many state and local election officials; I am aware that many of them are opposed to this designation. It is important to stress what this designation does and does not mean. This designation does not mean a federal takeover, regulation, oversight or intrusion concerning elections in this country. This designation does nothing to change the role state and local governments have in administering and running elections." [my emphasis]
                  
                  Contrary to your declaration, it appears that this determination just adds the "election infrastructure" to a list of 16 other "critical" sectors:
                  
                  "At present, there are sixteen critical infrastructure sectors, including twenty subsectors that are eligible to receive prioritized cybersecurity assistance from the Department of Homeland Security. The existing critical infrastructure sectors are:
                  
                  Chemical
                  Commercial Facilities
                  Communications
                  Critical Manufacturing
                  Dams
                  Defense Industrial Base
                  Emergency Services
                  Energy
                  Financial Services
                  Food and Agriculture
                  Government Facilities
                  Healthcare and Public Health
                  Information Technology
                  Nuclear Reactors, Material, and Waste
                  Transportation Systems
                  Water and Wastewater Systems"
                  
                  These sectors get priority Cybersecurity assistance - when it is asked for.
                  
                  Does any of this rate your consideration? Which of the other16 listed sectors has the Federal government taken control of?
                  
                  If you were interested in seeing for yourself, here is the source link:
                  Statement by Secretary Jeh Johnson on the Designation of Election Infrastructure as a Critical Infrastructure Subsector
                  Release Date: January 6, 2017
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. 78

                     colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     I read what Jeh Johson said, GA. I have been following this conspiracy by the Obama Administration to federalize the election system for about four months.  If you cannot see the coup, look harder. 
                     
                     Imagine it if only the popular vote will count, the states are striped of their power, and then the DHS has the power to operate the election process as a piece of “critical infrastructure.”  Its more centralization.
                     
                     
                     
                     Imagine a few populated states, election rigging, and of course covert ops, to rope in as many dolts as possible under the welfare state where rulers order - you must submit. We will take what we want, when we want, and you have to give what we demand because that is the law.   No thanks.

                     replyreport
                     1. 89

                        GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        If I were to imagine the 'popular vote' scenario you suggest, then I would also have to imagine a Constitutional amendment to get rid of the EC.
                        
                        I don't see the conspiracy you do, but it would seem fit in with the 'Rothschilds' folk's way of thinking.
                        
                        Imagine the stage that would have to be set to accommodate your premonition. Imagine what would be needed; a near-lethal national crisis - plausible to the general public - to trigger "critical infrastructure" authorities, then their efforts to take over the state's powers would have to snooker the electorate, (via their Reps.), that just elected Trump. And, it would also have to occur in an election year. And then...
                        
                        If the DHS designation is a first step, then haven't they over-played their hand by releasing this statement now? Publicly in the face of the Pres.-elect a dozen days before inauguration - now there is something to imagine; Pres.-elect Trump's, (your Thor?), response to such an action. Wouldn't Pres. Trump, or his new DHS chief,  have the authority to change that designation? If he did need Congress, do you suppose he would not have Republican support in the face of such an obvious Democrat power grab?
                        
                        I liked Kid Rock's t-shirt too, but that doesn't mean I see the conspiracies and coups you do.. Too much belief and too few facts for me.
                        
                        GA

                        replyreport
                        1. 78

                           colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           Yes. I did say that Trump would be able to overturn it.  That then, there would be more 'hellish press' by the lame-stream media for reversing the illegal actions of the Dems.
                           
                           I like Kid Rock.

                           replyreport
                        2. 78

                           colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           When I read that before, I had a gut reaction to the Rothschilds name, and I felt you were right on.  Seems from this report you may have been spot on. 
                           
                           The Russians Did Not “Hack” the US Election – a Few Facts from a Former CIA Spy
                           *  http://www.etterretningen.no/2016/12/31 … r-cia-spy/
                           
                           I am deeply offended by the lies being told by the US Government – and more specifically, by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with the explicit approval of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the President – with respect to the Russians “hacking” the US election.
                           
                           By Robert David Steele
                           Intelligence expert
                           
                           Here are the facts as I understand them, augmented by public statements from Julian Assange, Craig Murray, William Binney, James Bamford, Ray McGovern, Philip Giraldi, and John McAfee – and others who do not wish to be named.
                           
                           The December 31st, 2016 article could be a tough read for some people, but I believe you can handle truth, GA.

                           replyreport
                           1. 89

                              GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                              I did read your link Colorfulone, and I am not sure about its "truth."
                              
                              When I took a quick look at the site's credentials, about all I could find was a bit of UserExp.io technical stuff:
                              
                              About - Etterretningen.no
                              Etterretningen.no receives about 9    daily unique visitor.
                              Its Domain Authority is 32/100    , it's User Expectation is 49/100.
                              Advertisement
                              According to Alexa Traffic Rank Etterretningen.no is ranked number N/A in the world.
                              The domain has 10 Facebook Likes,
                              5 Facebook shares,
                              N/A Tweets and
                              N/A Google+.
                              The website doesn't use HTTPS protocol.
                              Etterretningen.no has estimated worth of $ 16 and have a daily advertising revenue potential of around N/A.
                              The website uses WordPress 4.4.2 generator.
                              Its domain having .no extension.
                              
                              I guess my visit brings them up to 10 unique visitors.
                              
                              GA

                              replyreport
                              1. 78

                                 colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                 I have read most of this information on other sites or from listening to interviews on videos.  William Binney was a whistle blower long before that article was published, I totally respect him.  The reason I linked to it is because Julian Assange posted it on Facebook himself, so I am positive the information presented must be accurate as he knows it to be.  Therefore, it makes no difference what site the info is on to me.
                                 
                                 Julian Assange, Craig Murray, William Binney, James Bamford, Ray McGovern, Philip Giraldi, and John McAfee. Those are all names worth doing some research on this topic, if a person has a mind to do so.  The links at the bottom of the article, must have passed Assange's approval also, as he is not in the business of disinformation.  He has always been 100% verifiable through original sources.  A true journalist.

                                 replyreport
                  2. 82

                     Genna Eastposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     Excellent commentary, GA.  Facts provide us with the opportunity for reasonable, quantitative thinking.

                     replyreport
      2. 82

         Genna Eastposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         McAfee is just trying to stay relevant, and geared his comments to impress and undoubtedly raise "ooohs and ahhhs" from those who don't know what he's talking about.  And he knows it.  His gall in stating what security tech experts already know -- and a certain portion of what he said is outdated -- is rather despicable.  But he's clearly after the media attention.

         replyreport
      3. 78

         colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         There is a lawsuit demanding the release of the evidence to see if the Russians hacked.  Hear say isn't going to cut it, or fake news propaganda.   
         
         Inside the CIA, FBI, NSA, DCI and other intelligence, there is a coup.  Using Wikileaks to leak the DNC and Pedesta emails was a counter coup by intelligence to stop Hillary Clinton from becoming president, I believe.  She cannot be trusted with highly classified information. 
         "extremely careless!" 
         
         Who cares who hacked, or leaked the info. 
         The content is what is important, and damning.  It is evidence from the source, which no one involved is denying, because that would be plausible deniability and admissible.  The DNC and Hillary's campaign are being sued for election rigging, voter fraud, racketeering and more. 
         Let's deflect the attention .. yeah, Russia did it!
         
         John McAfee, may not be off the mark.

         replyreport
         1. 82

            Genna Eastposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            You're stating conspiracy theories as fact. And "who hacked who" couldn't be more relevant.
            
            Let me ask you an obvious question:  McAffee stated that through his understanding of the intelligence report (and he hasn't read the fully classified material): 1) Russian language in the malware; 2) the Cyrillic keyboard;  3) the timestamps, and 4) the IP address.  He states the evident in that anyone worth their salt in this kind of hacking (organized, nation state) wouldn't leave a trail of breadcrumbs that would be so easy to follow.  But these are aspects that any rookie cyber tech involved in intelligence would know.  So, what are we missing?

            replyreport
            1. 78

               colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               You make a statement like this "Facts provide us with the opportunity for reasonable, quantitative thinking."...and then you ask a question like that.   I'm not sure you could do the math.  ...  Just reason and logic works, but we have to have our imagination and creativity still intact.

               replyreport
               1. 82

                  Genna Eastposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  I'm sorry you misunderstood, Susan.  This is what I was referring to:  Cyber tech security experts were already talking about some of this during televised news interviews (I watched one of the telecasts), before McAffee came out with his alleged "aha!" smoking gun.  Generalized illustrations are not direct evidence. They only serve to explain certain concepts of the deeper intelligence over what is designed to mislead, obscure and confuse.  Obvious "evidence" such as this is always treated with suspicion.  The point is that any concerted effort by hackers to manipulate outcomes, solely, by utilizing markers that point to Moscow is highly discernible and only underscores what the intelligence community already knows.  Were McAfee's comments designed to provoke a defensive response to reveal deeper intelligence they couldn't divulge?  To sow doubt via pivot and deflect?  For what purpose?  Either way, it appears that the self-aggrandizing Mr. McAfee has made a fool out of himself, yet again.

                  replyreport
                  1. 82

                     Genna Eastposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     I wanted to add in response to your comment that there is a vast difference between "a conspiracy" and a conspiracy theory.  Have a good day.

                     replyreport
                     1. 78

                        colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        "I wanted to add in response to your comment that there is a vast difference between "a conspiracy" and a conspiracy theory." 
                        
                        Thank you for pointing that out.  I'm glad you kept that simple so you can repeat it if you feel the need to share your in-depth knowledge again. 
                        Have a good day.

                        replyreport
                        1. 82

                           Genna Eastposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           Any time.  :-)

                           replyreport
                  2. 78

                     colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     No, I don't think McAfee made a 'fool' out of himself, and he certainly was not 'self-aggrandizing'.  Your conclusion must have been influenced by someone in opposition to the truth that is paid to spin a web of lies.  One big give away is character assassination or name calling of a professional in his field, and a poor attempt at circular reasoning.

                     replyreport
                     1. 82

                        Genna Eastposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        Lol!  Wrong on all counts.  But we knew that. :-)

                        replyreport
                        1. 78

                           colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           Who is we?  Is there a legend?  FUD?
                           
                           Let me end with II Corinthians 11:19:
                           “For ye suffer fools gladly, though not so many as the foolish speeches of wise men.”
                           
                           God bless!

                           replyreport
2. 89

   Stacie Lposted 7 years ago

   he also is under suspicion of two murder investigations. Why would he be credible?

   replyreport
   1. 78

      colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I don't know how many suspicion of murder investigations are going on with the DNC / Hillary Clinton, there's a few.  Three I think.  Who would think they are credible? 
      
      The FBI never asked for Access to the hacked computer severs of the Democratic National Committee.  So, how can they have evidence?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         That is interesting. If they've had no access to the computers then how can they claim a hack?

         replyreport
         1. 78

            colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            That is a very good question. 
            
            During the election Georgia's state computers were hacked into (the voter registration database). Tracking the IP address lead to Homeland Security (DHS).  I heard once they were found out they were contacted and told to stop it immediately.  It stopped.

            replyreport
3. 64

   PhoenixVposted 7 years ago

   Maybe the dating site/ former listed by the United Nations. - Todd and Clare . com hacked democracy?

   replyreport