So who is lying? The DNC or DHS director?
#1
Obama DHS director Jeh Johnson testified a couple of days ago that the DNC rejected any help from the FBI and DHS when they discovered that their computer system had been hacked.  

Quote:KING: Can you elaborate more on what the DHS’s connection with the DNC was, or consultation with the DNC after it became aware of the hacking, as to what was offered them, what they accepted? Was there any level of cooperation at all?


JOHNSON: To my disappointment, not to my knowledge, sir. And this is a question I asked repeatedly when I first learned of it—”What are we doing? Are we in there? Are we helping them discover the vulnerabilities?” Because this is fresh off the experience and there was a point at which DHS cybersecurity experts did get into OPM and help them discover the bad actors and patch some of the infiltrations, or at least minimize some of the damage. So I was anxious to know whether our folks were in there and the response I got was—FBI had spoken to them, they don’t want our help, they have Crowd Strike cybersecurity firm, and that was the answer I got after I asked the question a number of times over the progression of time.


KING: That was I assume totally different from the reaction you got from OPM.


JOHNSON: The OPM effort—we were in there on site helping them find the bad actors.


KING: Do you know who it was at the DNC who made that decision?


JOHNSON: I don’t. No.


KING: Do you know if the FBI continued to try to help, try to assist?


JOHNSON: I’ve read in the “The New York Times” about those efforts, sometime earlier this year.


KING: I moved to strike all references to the “The New York Times.” I would just say, maybe it’s editorializing my part, it’s an unusual response of the DNC. If you’re talking about a presidential election, you have an unprecedented matter of cyber hacking, an adversary from my point of view, and they would not accept all the help they could be given, especially—it sounds as if—not that you would be part—it sounds like a Republican administration trying to intrude into the DNC. This is an impartial governmental entity of the FBI, DHS, and they didn’t accept it. I find that very hard to comprehend.


JOHNSON: My interest in helping them was definitely a nonpartisan interest.


KING: I know that, yeah.

JOHNSON: And I recall very clearly that I was not pleased that we were not in there helping them patch this vulnerability. The nature—the nature when you’re dealing with private actors and even political organizations, we—DHS does not have the power to issue a search warrant and go in and patch their vulnerabilities over their objections.


Debbie Wazzerman-Schultz upon hearing what Johnson had testified to stated that the DNC was never offered and help from the FBI or DHS.

Quote:At no point during my tenure at the DNC did anyone from the FBI or any other government agency contact or communicate with me about Russian intrusion on the DNC network. It is astounding to me that the chair of an organization like the DNC was never contacted by the FBI or any other agency concerned about these intrusions," Wasserman Schultz said in a statement. "As a member of Congress, I had the unique clearance to hear any classified briefing that would be involved in such an intrusion, and the FBI clearly should have come to me with that information. They did not."

So one of them is lying?  Who do you think?

My guess it's Debbie Waa Waa.  There was stuff in the DNC computers that they did not want even the Obama DOJ and FBI to see.  They were and still are crooked as hell.  They colluded to prevent Sanders from getting the nomination and probably had a staffer killed for leading insider info.
Reply
#2
In this particular instance I think you're correct. The DNC didn't want anyone looking at their Dirty Deeds. No one said the DNC or anyone associated with the Democrat Party was ever innocent of wrongdoing at least certainly not me.

Comparing that and the ongoing assault on the media, the lies, the deceiving nature in general of the Trump Administration far exceeds anything the Democrats have done.

No fewer than five individuals have had unclaimed contact with Russian operatives up to the point that they were found out about. If anybody working in or around the Democratic presidential campaign had done anything of the sort you would be screaming bloody murder and you know it.
Reply
#3
For fucks sake. There is proof of NOTHING! No collusion, collaboration. Just mindless spin from poor loser leftist twats that just can't get over it. But hey, if that's the life you want to live, enjoy. Keep crying and bitching.
Reply
#4
(06-23-2017, 09:02 PM)charger Wrote: For fucks sake. There is proof of NOTHING! No collusion, collaboration. Just mindless spin from poor loser leftist twats that just can't get over it. But hey, if that's the life you want to live, enjoy. Keep crying and bitching.

Donny, is that you?  Laughing
Reply
#5
(06-23-2017, 09:02 PM)charger Wrote: For fucks sake. There is proof of NOTHING! No collusion, collaboration. Just mindless spin from poor loser leftist twats that just can't get over it. But hey, if that's the life you want to live, enjoy. Keep crying and bitching.

I see You mean like the poor loser right wing twats that couldn't get over having a negroid black president who was born in Kenya, who played golf everyday.Who had the fat ugly Gorilla for a wife.
Who palled around with terrorists.Who wanted to destroy America. Who didn't put his hand over his heart for the pledge.
Who swore an oath on the Koran and not the bible.

Funny how YOU know The Russian's or Trump haven't done anything inappropriate. How in the hell would you know?

I admit I don't. Like you I am not privy to any info on the subject.  UNLIKE you I admit it. SO let them investigate. where's the harm?
Reply
#6
"You mean like the poor loser right wing twats that couldn't get over having a negroid black president who was born in Kenya, who played golf everyday.Who had the fat ugly Gorilla for a wife.

Who palled around with terrorists.Who wanted to destroy America. Who didn't put his hand over his heart for the pledge.

Who swore an oath on the Koran and not the bible."



OMG... Post of the year!

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk
Reply
#7
(06-24-2017, 02:00 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(06-23-2017, 09:02 PM)charger Wrote: For fucks sake. There is proof of NOTHING! No collusion, collaboration. Just mindless spin from poor loser leftist twats that just can't get over it. But hey, if that's the life you want to live, enjoy. Keep crying and bitching.

I see You mean like the poor loser right wing twats that couldn't get over having a negroid black president who was born in Kenya, who played golf everyday.Who had the fat ugly Gorilla for a wife.
Who palled around with terrorists.Who wanted to destroy America. Who didn't put his hand over his heart for the pledge.
Who swore an oath on the Koran and not the bible.

Funny how YOU know The Russian's or Trump haven't done anything inappropriate. How in the hell would you know?

I admit I don't. Like you I am not privy to any info on the subject.  UNLIKE you I admit it. SO let them investigate. where's the harm?

Tvguy is a trophy snipe hunter
Reply
#8
(06-23-2017, 07:19 PM)SFLiberal Wrote: Obama DHS director Jeh Johnson testified a couple of days ago that the DNC rejected any help from the FBI and DHS when they discovered that their computer system had been hacked.  

[trimmed a bunch,, as you can imagine]

Getting back to your original post. I have a question, how many private big businesses, I'm talking fortune 500 or even fortune 1000 businesses, how many do you think would let the feds into their computer systems to investigate a hacking situation? Second question, what if any difference do you see in this.

I'm curious what you think of that but I don't expect you to answer.
Reply
#9
(06-25-2017, 08:01 AM)Cuzz Wrote:
(06-23-2017, 07:19 PM)SFLiberal Wrote: Obama DHS director Jeh Johnson testified a couple of days ago that the DNC rejected any help from the FBI and DHS when they discovered that their computer system had been hacked.  

[trimmed a bunch,, as you can imagine]

Getting back to your original post. I have a question, how many private big businesses, I'm talking fortune 500 or even fortune 1000 businesses, how many do you think would let the feds into their computer systems to investigate a hacking situation? Second question, what if any difference do you see in this.

I'm curious what you think of that but I don't expect you to answer.

I don't see why any company would deny help from the FBI or DHS if they were hacked.  In the DNC case, they reported they we hacked and then prevented law enforcement from investigating.  If they had no intention of having law enforcement investigate, then why report it at all?  The DNC wanted to be the victim and yet didnt want the perps caught, and even worse, then lie and say they were never offered help.  Kind of like what black lives matter does, an armed suspect has a gun, resists arrest and gets killed in the process and they then claim a black was killed by the police.  The crimes are overlooked, it's being the victim that counts.
Reply
#10
(06-26-2017, 08:50 AM)SFLiberal Wrote:
(06-25-2017, 08:01 AM)Cuzz Wrote:
(06-23-2017, 07:19 PM)SFLiberal Wrote: Obama DHS director Jeh Johnson testified a couple of days ago that the DNC rejected any help from the FBI and DHS when they discovered that their computer system had been hacked.  

[trimmed a bunch,, as you can imagine]

Getting back to your original post. I have a question, how many private big businesses, I'm talking fortune 500 or even fortune 1000 businesses, how many do you think would let the feds into their computer systems to investigate a hacking situation? Second question, what if any difference do you see in this.

I'm curious what you think of that but I don't expect you to answer.

I don't see why any company would deny help from the FBI or DHS if they were hacked.  In the DNC case, they reported they we hacked and then prevented law enforcement from investigating.  If they had no intention of having law enforcement investigate, then why report it at all?  The DNC wanted to be the victim and yet didnt want the perps caught, and even worse, then lie and say they were never offered help.  Kind of like what black lives matter does, an armed suspect has a gun, resists arrest and gets killed in the process and they then claim a black was killed by the police.  The crimes are overlooked, it's being the victim that counts.

You may not see why companies would deny help but in the past they've often and commonly done just that. Why would a political organization be held to a different standard?

I don't see your BLM example as being equivalent but I'll ignore that as a distraction.
Reply
#11
(06-26-2017, 06:08 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(06-26-2017, 08:50 AM)SFLiberal Wrote:
(06-25-2017, 08:01 AM)Cuzz Wrote:
(06-23-2017, 07:19 PM)SFLiberal Wrote: Obama DHS director Jeh Johnson testified a couple of days ago that the DNC rejected any help from the FBI and DHS when they discovered that their computer system had been hacked.  

[trimmed a bunch,, as you can imagine]

Getting back to your original post. I have a question, how many private big businesses, I'm talking fortune 500 or even fortune 1000 businesses, how many do you think would let the feds into their computer systems to investigate a hacking situation? Second question, what if any difference do you see in this.

I'm curious what you think of that but I don't expect you to answer.

I don't see why any company would deny help from the FBI or DHS if they were hacked.  In the DNC case, they reported they we hacked and then prevented law enforcement from investigating.  If they had no intention of having law enforcement investigate, then why report it at all?  The DNC wanted to be the victim and yet didnt want the perps caught, and even worse, then lie and say they were never offered help.  Kind of like what black lives matter does, an armed suspect has a gun, resists arrest and gets killed in the process and they then claim a black was killed by the police.  The crimes are overlooked, it's being the victim that counts.

You may not see why companies would deny help but in the past they've often and commonly done just that. Why would a political organization be held to a different standard?

I don't see your BLM example as being equivalent but I'll ignore that as a distraction.

Snowden taught us that, the government was the biggest computer hacking network there is.
You want to invite the FBI in on your computer system directly?
Reply
#12
(06-26-2017, 09:42 PM)chuck white Wrote:
(06-26-2017, 06:08 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(06-26-2017, 08:50 AM)SFLiberal Wrote:
(06-25-2017, 08:01 AM)Cuzz Wrote:
(06-23-2017, 07:19 PM)SFLiberal Wrote: Obama DHS director Jeh Johnson testified a couple of days ago that the DNC rejected any help from the FBI and DHS when they discovered that their computer system had been hacked.  

[trimmed a bunch,, as you can imagine]

Getting back to your original post. I have a question, how many private big businesses, I'm talking fortune 500 or even fortune 1000 businesses, how many do you think would let the feds into their computer systems to investigate a hacking situation? Second question, what if any difference do you see in this.

I'm curious what you think of that but I don't expect you to answer.

I don't see why any company would deny help from the FBI or DHS if they were hacked.  In the DNC case, they reported they we hacked and then prevented law enforcement from investigating.  If they had no intention of having law enforcement investigate, then why report it at all?  The DNC wanted to be the victim and yet didnt want the perps caught, and even worse, then lie and say they were never offered help.  Kind of like what black lives matter does, an armed suspect has a gun, resists arrest and gets killed in the process and they then claim a black was killed by the police.  The crimes are overlooked, it's being the victim that counts.

You may not see why companies would deny help but in the past they've often and commonly done just that. Why would a political organization be held to a different standard?

I don't see your BLM example as being equivalent but I'll ignore that as a distraction.

Snowden taught us that, the government was the biggest computer hacking network there is.
You want to invite the FBI in on your computer system directly?

Lexical semantics. They only need permission to access your private data from you or a judge if they want to USE what they learn in court.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)