Apparently, among the things that Lisa Page said in her testimony before Congress was that Hillary Clinton’s email server was hacked by the Chinese.
r
I’ll repeat the question I asked this morning: does it make a difference whether her bootleg email server was hacked by the Russians or by the Chinese?
Yes and no. In the long run, it is not good for anyone to be hacking our stuff. That aside, what were the motives of the Chinese and what did they do with he information? Is there any evidence they used it to influence the election?
Steve
Where in that article does it say she was hacked by the Chinese?
Doesn’t matter if it was Monaco, whoever was running her setup failed at security, just as she failed at complying with the laws and regs on handling government email. However, that water has passed.
That post merely notes that she testified. I first saw it reported by Pat Lang who quotes unnamed FBI sources. Since then I’ve seen it on various other sites, also citing unnamed FBI sources. Pat is anti-foreign policy establishment but not particularly pro-Trump. He’s got pretty good contacts.
It matters partly because of the security implications and partly because of the complicity of the IC in the cover up.
I keep seeing the term cover up, but what was hidden and from whom? Did they know for certain China had hacked? If they knew China had hacked, but there was no evidence they had done anything with the information, who are they supposed to report to, assuming there is anyone? (Pat is pretty pro-Trump on domestic issues.)
Steve
I think there’s a distinction between being pro-Trump and views on policy issues.
I didn’t vote for Trump; I didn’t want him to be president; I can’t imagine voting for him in 2020. I think he was right that corporate tax rates needed to be lowered (me and many economists). Does that make me pro-Trump? I don’t think so.
steve: from Pat Lang-
Strzok was told that by the Intelligence Community Inspector General WHILE he was running the Clinton e-mail investigation and chose to ignore it.
This is apparently what Rep Gohmert was questioning Strzok about.
It was common knowledge that foreign actors were able to access Hillary’s vulnerable server. Russia,. China and perhaps others hacked into it. It was also common knowledge that the FBI notified both the RNC & the DNC there was a possibility their servers might be hacked. The RNC permitted their servers to be looked at & they passed the inspection. The DNC refused the scrutiny, and instead had their own security company do the job – ironically a company co-ownd by a Russian. So many theads always seem to go back to entanglements between Russia and the Clinton’s, and yet little is made of it by the Dems or MSM.
If Mr Lang’s report pans out; and the IG told anyone in the FBI about what he found; then it’ll be a medium size story if Drudge decides to highlight it.
Funny how James Comey’s firing which was seen as the most serious legal problem Trump faced for most of last year is almost forgotten.
Let me get this straight. These FBI sources didn’t bother talking about how there was a massive cover-up by the Deep State to the people writing the IG report all of whom were desperately looking to smear HIllary and the Deep State. Instead they go to well-known blogs like Sic Semper whatever or True Pundit, and tell their stories to fifty or so readers. It’s completely laughable but you guys believe this because you have to believe something as Trump unravels into adult diapers, Fox News, and bad Russian money.
the people writing the IG report all of whom were desperately looking to smear HIllary and the Deep State
Who does this refer to?
Let me try to disambiguate this. I have no confidence in TruePundit but considerable confidence in Pat. As an old military security person he’s got good contacts and isn’t particularly pro-Trump. He’s a paleocon. Pat’s confidence that Hillary Clinton’s server was hacked by the Chinese appears to be high, suggesting confidence in his source.
Assume that Pat’s confidence is well-placed. That means there are at least two distinct security breaches involved, the first of Hillary Clinton’s email server by the Chinese and the second by the DNC’s email by the Russians.
I’m asking if that makes any difference? Does it matter if the breach of Hillary Clinton’s email server and the breach of the DNC’s email were distinct breaches by two completely different agents?
I already answered, but I am still not seeing cover up here, but I don’t know what rules apply here. If the FBI knew the Chinese had also hacked into the emails, what were they supposed to do with that information. If they handled that info properly, then there was no cover up.
Steve, if Gohmert is accurately recounting the meeting where Strzok was notified of this finding by the IG, and Strzok claims to have no recollection of the substance of that meeting, does that not raise some suspicion that the FBI did not handle that info properly?
I’m not jumping to conclusions of fire, but I think there’s at least a whiff of smoke here.
I thought it was virtually certain the Chinese had hacked her email. We know from previous public reporting that her server did not even have a security certificate until about six months into her term (one of the most basic security measures you’d want), and that she traveled to China and used her phone to access the server during that time. China has very sophisticated electronic intelligence/cyber capabilities and given how high-profile a target the SECSTATE is, it’s pretty inconceivable to me that they would not have monitored her phone’s communications and learned about the server.
What isn’t clear from these leaks is how these people in the IC came to the conclusions relayed in Pat’s piece.
– Was it intel people, like me, who looked at the relevant facts and made an analytical judgment?
– If there’s hard evidence that the Chinese did hack the server that would indicate that the US has penetrated the Chinese government in some way. Here are the primary ways our IC would know that information:
— A human source with knowledge of the Chinese operation
— Our own cyber efforts
— Counter-intel monitoring of Chinese cyber efforts
For any of those to be revealed publically would be a massive breach of our intelligence capabilities.
The third option is that the US government security apparatus was aware of the server and monitoring it, but that seems pretty unlikely at this point. If that did, indeed, happen I think it would have leaked long ago. A counter-intel function that discovered this would have alerted the State Department and again, there’s no record of that happening.
Bottom line is I have no idea what the basis of the claims are, but I think they are most likely analytical judgments – probably more robust than my own above – but judgments just the same.