So Hilary Clinton's campaign did some pretty shady shit

[jehurey 3,276]

holy shit, the entire point of this thread has completely fallen apart, this was already widely known among cybersecurity firms by Summer 2016.

 

 

 

So basically, people work  for other banks and cybersecurity firms, and they check DNS traffic to track communication patterns that indicate bot-behavior so that they can detect a new piece of malware in order to raise the red flag and notify the people they work for to protect themselves and lookout for these malware attacks.

 

this is what your anti-malware software usually does with updates, they simply update the list of what files to look for from particular addresses.

 

so they found odd traffic patterns between alfa bank entering new york, they thought it was bot behavior, and then they discovered that it was actually two-way human communication.

 

.........just ALOT of human communication occuring from a known Russia-controlled bank, going directly to a server that they determined was owned by Trump.

 

But not only that......

 

So they quickly found out that the server owned by Trump was not having two-way communication ANYWHERE ELSE BUT that Russian server.

 

 

The entire cybersecurity community had discovered this..........not the Clintons/Campaign/Democrats

 

And they were saying that there is something secretive here, that was intentionally designed to be secretive, and they could see that it was between Trump and Russia. And the cybersecurity experts............not the Clintons/Campaign/Democrats.............were the ones saying that there is something here worth investigating.

 

Hey guys, thanks for reminding us about the obvious connection between Trump and Russia.

[Cooke 2,033]

2 hours ago, jehurey said:

sorry, that's not the argument you are making.

 

and guess what................that data mining firm, isn't part of the government or part of the opposition's campaign, either.

 

You said that the ACT OF DOING THAT..........is "shady"

 

So..............looking into somebody's laptop that they give permission to...........no matter who does it, is "shady"

 

Correct?

 

And that's actually LOOKING at the data, instead of monitoring web traffic.

Sorry sweetie but it is.  There's a difference between a repair shop reporting sketchy shit in the presidents sons laptop and hiring companies to spy on a presidential candidate and then president. 

[jehurey 3,276]

1 minute ago, Cooke said:

Sorry sweetie but it is.  There's a difference between a repair shop reporting sketchy shit in the presidents sons laptop and hiring companies to spy on a presidential candidate and then president. 

No it isn't

 

especially that if you read the article from 2016...............the Clinton Campaign was not looking at something that was already being looked at by the WHOLE CYBERSECURITY COMMUNITY back in Spring/Summer of 2016.

 

No..........monitoring internet data traffic is not shady.

 

not in the slightest. you could do it from your own computer, and its perfectly legal.

 

You're standing on a public intersection, and you discovered the same car transfers and goes to a particular street, and you simply count the number of times during the day that you see that particular car.

 

Tell me how standing and observing traffic on a public street is "shady"

 

I'd like to hear your explaination of that.

 

Actually going into somebody's laptop and opening files, in which you were given no permission..........is actually unethical.

[Twinblade★ 3,937]

Results from a recent poll:

 

 

The fact that her party thinks this sends quite the message. But of course there's nothing controversial or shady about it right jerry?

[jehurey 3,276]

6 minutes ago, Twinblade said:

Results from a recent poll:

 

 

 

 

which is meaningless because we now know the actual details........and there is no questions to have.

 

we already have the answers.

 

The Clinton Campaign hired a cybersecurity firm to continue monitoring something OTHER CYBERSECURITY FIRMS had already said it a humoungous red flag that is indicative of suspicious activity.

[Cooke 2,033]

1 hour ago, jehurey said:

which is meaningless because we now know the actual details........and there is no questions to have.

 

we already have the answers.

 

The Clinton Campaign hired a cybersecurity firm to continue monitoring something OTHER CYBERSECURITY FIRMS had already said it a humoungous red flag that is indicative of suspicious activity.

What? 

[jehurey 3,276]

16 minutes ago, Cooke said:

What? 

sorry man, you know how to read english.

 

and even if you didn't, you would explain what it is you don't understand.

 

and clearly not doing that, you're just stalling.

 

again.

 

read the post until you understand, if you legitimately need help understanding, point out where.

[Cooke 2,033]

41 minutes ago, jehurey said:

sorry man, you know how to read english.

 

and even if you didn't, you would explain what it is you don't understand.

 

and clearly not doing that, you're just stalling.

 

again.

 

read the post until you understand, if you legitimately need help understanding, point out where.

No seriously. What is this tangent you are on now? 

[jehurey 3,276]

Just now, Cooke said:

No seriously. What is this tangent you are on now? 

his poll is meaningless, because there are no questions to ask the Clinton Campaign, because what they were looking at is something the ENTIRE cybersecurity community was looking at and saying that it was suspicious.

 

so what's the need to "ask questions" to the Clinton campaign, when I just explained to you by posting an article that goes into detail.

 

that poll is meaningless.

 

the "questions" are already answered for those who have questions.

 

[Cooke 2,033]

11 minutes ago, jehurey said:

his poll is meaningless, because there are no questions to ask the Clinton Campaign, because what they were looking at is something the ENTIRE cybersecurity community was looking at and saying that it was suspicious.

 

so what's the need to "ask questions" to the Clinton campaign, when I just explained to you by posting an article that goes into detail.

 

that poll is meaningless.

 

the "questions" are already answered for those who have questions.

 

do you have proof the ENTIRE cybersecurity community was looking at this? 

[jehurey 3,276]

1 hour ago, Cooke said:

do you have proof the ENTIRE cybersecurity community was looking at this? 

yes.

 

its mentioned in this article

 

 

"they work for firms trusted by corporations and law enforcement to analyze sensitive data"

 

"I've never seen a server set up like that' says Christopher Davis, who runs the cybersecurity firm HYAS InfoSec Inc and won a FBI Director Award for Excellence for his work tracking down the authors of the world's nastiest botnet attacks"

 

And the cybersecurity firm that the Clintons were paying, and chances are they were paying them because they were ALREADY available to provide the campaign information, which means they were ALREADY monitoring it.

 

Alot like how the Clinton Campaign began paying Fusion GPS for the information from the Steel Dossier that was ALREADY IN PROGRESS because it was started before the Clinton campaign came into contact with the company.

 

So, well reported cybersecurity experts, and even ones that won awards from the FBI.

 

And no to mention that this is a PUBLIC ARTICLE written as of October 2016..............so, guess what...........everybody who is involved in cybersecurity was made publicly aware by this already.

 

So to answer your question.

 

Y-E-S..........yes, absolutely.

 

Question answered.

[Cooke 2,033]

5 hours ago, jehurey said:

yes.

 

its mentioned in this article

 

 

"they work for firms trusted by corporations and law enforcement to analyze sensitive data"

 

"I've never seen a server set up like that' says Christopher Davis, who runs the cybersecurity firm HYAS InfoSec Inc and won a FBI Director Award for Excellence for his work tracking down the authors of the world's nastiest botnet attacks"

 

And the cybersecurity firm that the Clintons were paying, and chances are they were paying them because they were ALREADY available to provide the campaign information, which means they were ALREADY monitoring it.

 

Alot like how the Clinton Campaign began paying Fusion GPS for the information from the Steel Dossier that was ALREADY IN PROGRESS because it was started before the Clinton campaign came into contact with the company.

 

So, well reported cybersecurity experts, and even ones that won awards from the FBI.

 

And no to mention that this is a PUBLIC ARTICLE written as of October 2016..............so, guess what...........everybody who is involved in cybersecurity was made publicly aware by this already.

 

So to answer your question.

 

Y-E-S..........yes, absolutely.

 

Question answered.

Where is that article from? Who wrote it. Post the source. 

[Twinblade★ 3,937]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10511033/Ex-DNI-told-Durham-evidence-indict-MULTIPLE-people-Trump-Russia-probe.html 
 

yet jerry is trying to downplay this as nothing serious…

[Goukosan 2,258]

4 minutes ago, Twinblade said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10511033/Ex-DNI-told-Durham-evidence-indict-MULTIPLE-people-Trump-Russia-probe.html 
 

yet jerry is trying to downplay this as nothing serious…

 

The servers were hacked? 

[jehurey 3,276]

4 hours ago, Cooke said:

Where is that article from? Who wrote it. Post the source. 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/10/was_a_server_registered_to_the_trump_organization_communicating_with_russia.html

 

you do understand its not an opinion article.

 

its a news article, they're quoting actual cybersecurity experts.

 

so don't even bother attempting to discredit the source, because the "source" isn't the website...............its the cybersecurity experts.

 

and like I already told you, they have quotes from 3 people who represent corporate and law-enforcement in tracking malware bot attacks, and they also have a quote from somebody who owns their own cybersecurity firm and won an FBI award for his work tracking cybersecurity threats.

 

And the article was written in October 2016.

 

I already typed all of this....................are you basically saying you didn't bother reading any of my posts?

[jehurey 3,276]

39 minutes ago, Twinblade said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10511033/Ex-DNI-told-Durham-evidence-indict-MULTIPLE-people-Trump-Russia-probe.html 
 

yet jerry is trying to downplay this as nothing serious…

It isn't serious.

 

Tracking website traffic from publicly trackable DNS servers

 

is

not

illegal

 

Nor is it unethical.

 

 

Nobody's computers were "hacked". Tracking website traffic happens by traffic PUBLIC SERVERS that direct website traffic, that's where people are able to track where the data is travelling.

 

I love how you posted an article in which a Trump former white house member believes people can be indicted.

 

The actual article doesn't conclude that.

 

They are quoting that somebody who ISN'T an attorney believes that. LOL

 

Obama and Biden knew in 2018??????????????????

 

A fucking article written by slate came out in 2016, einstein.

Edited February 14, 2022 by jehurey

[Mr. Impossible 411]

I mean it's unethical, it's just accepted. Oppo Research in itself is sort of this shitty thing we've accepted in our politics. 

[Cooke 2,033]

1 hour ago, jehurey said:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/10/was_a_server_registered_to_the_trump_organization_communicating_with_russia.html

 

you do understand its not an opinion article.

 

its a news article, they're quoting actual cybersecurity experts.

 

so don't even bother attempting to discredit the source, because the "source" isn't the website...............its the cybersecurity experts.

 

and like I already told you, they have quotes from 3 people who represent corporate and law-enforcement in tracking malware bot attacks, and they also have a quote from somebody who owns their own cybersecurity firm and won an FBI award for his work tracking cybersecurity threats.

 

And the article was written in October 2016.

 

I already typed all of this....................are you basically saying you didn't bother reading any of my posts?

Bu bu dont try to discredit my source 😭

[jehurey 3,276]

5 minutes ago, Cooke said:

Bu bu dont try to discredit my source 😭

go ahead and try.

 

you'll fail..............because its not an opinion article, its a news article.

 

And they quoting the experts directly, instead of quoting "this OTHER GUY who isn't working in the investigation THINKS people should be indicted"

 

you do understand that the Daily Mail articles that you and twinblade are posting as quoting people who are NOT WITH that Dept. of Justice team, right?

[Cooke 2,033]

3 minutes ago, jehurey said:

go ahead and try.

 

you'll fail..............because its not an opinion article, its a news article.

 

And they quoting the experts directly, instead of quoting "this OTHER GUY who isn't working in the investigation THINKS people should be indicted"

 

you do understand that the Daily Mail articles that you and twinblade are posting as quoting people who are NOT WITH that Dept. of Justice team, right?

Dude. This was shady shit. Admit it. Don't be jehurey for one minute. Be an objective human being.