Your computer included.
The claim tat Russia is to blame is typical off on a tangent to divert our attention from the real problem.
The real problem is: Mrs. Clinton, do you deny writing those emails and if so how do you explain the fact that the other parties to the email exchange have not denied them?
No one’s willing to put their name on this rumor... it’s all ‘un-named sources’ which could be the janitor in the Pentagon.
I suspect democrats are lying about this because the lie works for them... and the lie is spread because the press gives democrats passes when they lie.
James Comey’s in the tank for the Clinton’s - if he knew anything ‘for sure’ he would come forward and scream it at the world.
We’ve watched this ‘rumor’ being set up for a few years. Now it’s useful so it’s front page news backed up by ‘experts.’ No technical expertise required to know Russians not involved.
I still think Seth Rich had something to do with at least some of these leaks.
ThreatConnect HQ is in Arlington; they are “former” IC people.
Technical assessment isn’t necessary to evaluate their work product...
I think it is just a rumor because Hilary is chomping at the bit to go to war with Russia.
obfuscation
distraction
out right lying
They have no idea who it is. It could be a taxi driver in a eastern European country for all they now. *cough*
I got an answer for you, if it is true who the hell cares who hacked it?
Wrong question.
The correct question:
“You do not deny the veracity of the content in the revealed documents”????
Nothing of this email “hack”, that you are being told, is true.
The messages are real. The hack may be real. But the details are completely off the wall. Phrased for the 99.999999% of the population who don’t know anything about “hacking”.
Like the Apple iCloud celebrity “hack”. It happened but it didn’t go down like anything you were told. Come to think of it, the iPhone FBI crack wasn’t either.
All kabuchi theater.
Well, Assange does have protection from the FSB.
Aren’t these emails stolen property?
There’s an interesting article over at the Times:
Trove of Stolen Data Included Top-Secret U.S. Hacking Tools
5 / 21/2016
The New York Times
By SCOTT SHANE, MATT APUZZO and JO BECKER
Now, if you want to know for the sake of your curiosity: a) Unless the routing trace route is fully known -- IN REAL TIME -- NO ONE, I repeat, NO ONE -- can definitively say what the source of the hack is. b) The US intelligence agencies who claim to know this, did not have real time access to the information. Therefore, they cannot know this information for certain. c) The "intelligence" agencies making this claim work for Barack 0bama. Not the American People, not you and me, Brack 0bama; and they are the same members of the apparat who take orders from people like James "Jimmy The Weasel" Comey.
It doesn't matter if there are 17 agencies, or 99. They're ALL part of the problem, and they will all lie to get Hillary elected.
It is easy to imagine state actors from all over have compromised our online security. I am sure the US has proof of that, both advesary (Russia et al) and friendly. What we do not have is proof of Wikileak sources. I do believe the Clinton camp has moles, the Clintons are just too awful for someone not to grow a conscience. And the Clintons and their surrogates have a proven track record of terrible security practices, for example, Podesta shared his password via email, it was (common word + 4 digits). That pattern is terribly weak. And he used it for multiple accounts as proven when someone used it to log into his Twitter to post a “Vote Trump”. With that given, compromise of any site he used will lead to a chain reaction of compromises, and open the door for easy phising.
The way I see it, the WL source could literally be anyone. And remember, it doesn’t take a state sponsor to do a high-level crack. Recently a 16 yo was arrested for hacking the CIA Director.
I’m 100% qualified to assess all of the claims made by ThreatConnect (and have more experience in the field).
I’ve seen better logical arguments from random people on the Internet whom I previously knew to be less than fully mentally intact, than I see in this ThreatConnect assessment.
My attempts to figure out where this company came from and why it is suddenly being treated as an authority when it’s actually a tiny company of no repute, that is actually quite a bit more interesting that their claims of Russian involvement.