Jeh Johnson testifies DNC rejected DHS help on hack

[james_1957]

Former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson testified Wednesday that the Democratic National Committee last year turned down his agency's offer to help protect its network despite being warned about a hack.

He also confirmed that while Russia, at the direction of President Vladimir Putin, orchestrated cyberattacks on the United States to influence the 2016 presidential election, Moscow was unable to actually alter ballots.

“Sometime in 2016, I became aware of a hack into systems of the Democratic National Committee,” Johnson said. “… I pressed my staff to know whether DHS was sufficiently proactive, and on the scene helping the DNC identify the intruders and patch vulnerabilities. The answer, to the best of my recollection, was not reassuring: the FBI and the DNC had been in contact with each other months before about the intrusion, and the DNC did not feel it needed DHS’s assistance at that time.”

Emails from then-DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz ultimately were leaked ahead of the party’s national convention in Philadelphia. Those emails seemed to show party officials conspiring to sabotage Sen. Bernie Sanders’ campaign. The incident led to Schultz’s resignation.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ck-russia-meddling-did-not-alter-ballots.html

 

[Disgustipated]

You're a far more boring version of orfeo.

 

[james_1957]

You're a far more boring version of orfeo.

Hey there, Boo.

July 1st is almost here.

Planning on sharing any pictures?

 

[about_average]

I wonder is the RNC asked DHS if it was ok for them to store their database of demographics for every registered voter in the US in the clear on AWS.

At least the DNC had to be actually hacked.

 

[HisArpy]

I wonder is the RNC asked DHS if it was ok for them to store their database of demographics for every registered voter in the US in the clear on AWS.

At least the DNC had to be actually hacked.

So, stupidity at not concealing what is available through public records justifies deliberate ignorance?

Granted, not protecting the voter information was dumb, but at least they didn't refuse help to set up a secure system.

Hubris. It bites. Hard.

 

[Rightguide]

They didn't want the FBI to see their emails and discover the conspiracy against Sanders.

 

[HisArpy]

They didn't want the FBI to see their emails and discover the conspiracy against Sanders.

Or worse.

 

[Rightguide]

Maybe this is what's worse:


Next up: a special counsel to probe Team Obama’s obstruction of justice
By Paul Sperry June 20, 2017 | 7:22pm | Updated

http://nypost.com/2017/06/20/next-up-a-special-counsel-to-probe-team-obamas-obstruction-of-justice/

 

[about_average]

So, stupidity at not concealing what is available through public records justifies deliberate ignorance?

I know you're not suggesting that's what I think. You'd never try to assign me that belief, would you?

Granted, not protecting the voter information was dumb, but at least they didn't refuse help to set up a secure system.

I don't know if they did or didn't.

Interestingly they broke some state laws by it being freely publicly available

Voter information, aside from a few elements protected by law, are public record. Sometimes access to this data can be expensive, other times it's freely available. Yet, the golden rule tends to be that the information can't be used for commercial purposes.

However, there are laws in some states that affect the type of data discovered this month. California restricts voter information to political purposes only, and the information may not be made available to people outside of the U.S. South Dakota addresses repositories like this directly, stating that voter information "may not be placed for unrestricted access on the internet."

- http://www.csoonline.com/article/32...-voting-records-on-198-million-americans.html

Considering they had the information for residents of CA and SD, it'll be interesting to see if they are subject to those laws. I would guess they would be if they had any operations in either state.
But they may very well have dodged a bullet by not having operations in a state with such laws on the books.

 

[HisArpy]

I know you're not suggesting that's what I think. You'd never try to assign me that belief, would you?

I don't know if they did or didn't.

Interestingly they broke some state laws by it being freely publicly available - http://www.csoonline.com/article/32...-voting-records-on-198-million-americans.html

Considering they had the information for residents of CA and SD, it'll be interesting to see if they are subject to those laws. I would guess they would be if they had any operations in either state.
But they may very well have dodged a bullet by not having operations in a state with such laws on the books.

You're too quick to assign statements made by others as a slur against you. People talk. It's not always about you or the things you say. Even when they are talking to you about the things you say. Paraphrasing is not a dig.

It appears that the RNC accepted the DHS help in checking to see if their servers were secure.

“I know that we have worked with intelligence agencies right now that are saying that we have not been hacked...Our own systems show that we have not been hacked.” (emphasis added)

http://www.govexec.com/technology/2...-heres-what-we-know-so-far/133901/?oref=river

I would presume to believe, based on what is known and said, that the DHS requested to be allowed to review the servers and didn't find any penetration once allowed in. This would tend to support my statement that the RNC accepted their help. The onus was on the hosting company which failed to protect all the voter information data.

Legal liability for exposing the voter records would only attach if the server were within the geographical boundaries of the States which attempt to control the content and access. So, unless the server was physically located in Ca or SD they didn't "break" any laws.

Interestingly enough, the States are the ones who GAVE that information to the RNC. And they had to do it somehow electronically. I doubt they mailed a thumbdrive. From there, I don't see how the States can limit publicly available information since that would directly violate the 1st Amendment.

 

[about_average]

Legal liability for exposing the voter records would only attach if the server were within the geographical boundaries of the States which attempt to control the content and access. So, unless the server was physically located in Ca or SD they didn't "break" any laws.

Not doubt you can provide the citations to back up your theory.

 

[HisArpy]

Not doubt you can provide the citations to back up your theory.

It's not a theory. No polity can extend it's laws beyond it's physical borders. The US cannot prosecute an Iranian citizen inside Iran for religious discrimination. California cannot prosecute chicken farmers in Nebraska for the housing conditions of their flock. SD cannot prosecute a hosting company in Tenn for allowing records to be accessed by the general public over the internet.

The enforcement of your laws stop at your borders. Period. No citation needed.

 

[water505]

Maybe this is what's worse:


Next up: a special counsel to probe Team Obama’s obstruction of justice
By Paul Sperry June 20, 2017 | 7:22pm | Updated

http://nypost.com/2017/06/20/next-up-a-special-counsel-to-probe-team-obamas-obstruction-of-justice/

Dream on.

Those fuckers are untouchable.

 

[Stuart_Pidd]

bro, i don't have a clue to what DNC and DHS is.

 

[renard_ruse]

He also confirmed that while Russia, at the direction of President Vladimir Putin, orchestrated cyberattacks on the United States to influence the 2016 presidential election, Moscow was unable to actually alter ballots.

PROOF???????? EVIDENCE???????? ANYTHING????????

Asange continues to categorically deny Russia had anything to do with the Wikileaks information. But, I guess we're supposed to ignore that and believe a deep state operative who refuses to provide any proof or evidence whatsoever.

This crap is actually not about Trump, its part of the NWO's anti-Russia agenda to justify more economic warfare against Russia to keep its economy down. If they can "get Trump" as collateral damage they would love that too, but its ultimately a lie to prevent any raproachement with Russia.

 

[renard_ruse]

he also said russia has been doing ths for many election cycles. no votes were changed. i see no reason what would give anyone the idea trump team colluded. and no information at all as to what exactly russia did that could have possibly influenced anyone

With no proof I presume?

I mean every major country is always trying to hack other countries, friend and foe, but there is nothing particularly unusual about anything they claim Russia supposedly did.

Keep in mind, we have admitted to funding opposition groups in Russia that aim to destablize and overthrow the Russian government, as we did in the various color revolutions a few years ago. Russia has every right to be absolutely pissed about our real meddling in their politics, and yet, there is still no proof they even did anything in relatiation which would have been completely justified if they had.

 

[renard_ruse]

Do any officials from the Russian government or lawyers representing Russia get to testify?

How is it an investigation if only one side gets to present its case?

 

[about_average]

It's not a theory. No polity can extend it's laws beyond it's physical borders. The US cannot prosecute an Iranian citizen inside Iran for religious discrimination. California cannot prosecute chicken farmers in Nebraska for the housing conditions of their flock. SD cannot prosecute a hosting company in Tenn for allowing records to be accessed by the general public over the internet.

The enforcement of your laws stop at your borders. Period. No citation needed.

So you really have no idea if any laws were broken. Otherwise you'd have listed all the states where Amazon has data centers and cited the presence or lack of any applicable state laws.
Or you could have cited evidence a contract signed in SD or CA doesn't apply if it's broken in another state.

It's really ok for you to say you don't know, like I did.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

They couldn't accept help.



Hillary put them in a bad spot with her (not so) secret server...

That would have been hard to explain and would have upset their plans to install her in the ultimate seat of power.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

So you really have no idea if any laws were broken. Otherwise you'd have listed all the states where Amazon has data centers and cited the presence or lack of any applicable state laws.
Or you could have cited evidence a contract signed in SD or CA doesn't apply if it's broken in another state.

It's really ok for you to say you don't know, like I did.

Look, we get it. The Democrat Party always has an excuse, Republicans did it too!

We got hacked, but look! -------------------------------------->>>> over there REPUBLICANS!

Yes, a guy shot up the Republicans practicing baseball, but you can't blame us because we can show you isolated example of Republican hate speech and

------------------------->>> LOOK! TRUMP! RUSSIANS!!!​

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

debbie wasserman shultz says no one from dhs or fbi contacted the dnc

Someone is lying

Perish the thought!


Only Republicans lie. Debbie must be a deep mole...

 

[water505]

Accusing your opponent of things you yourself are doing?

A leftist?

Trying to sway the election?

Nahhhh!

 

[Rightguide]

debbie wasserman shultz says no one from dhs or fbi contacted the dnc

Someone is lying

Most likely the bullshitter, Debbie.

 

[HisArpy]

So you really have no idea if any laws were broken. Otherwise you'd have listed all the states where Amazon has data centers and cited the presence or lack of any applicable state laws.
Or you could have cited evidence a contract signed in SD or CA doesn't apply if it's broken in another state.

It's really ok for you to say you don't know, like I did.

PLEASE go look at my profile. It has a link to my bio on my publishers page. PLEASE go read it.


Hint: What you'll find is that YES, I actually DO know what the hell I'm talking about here. A good primer on this is the beginning of US v. Clifton where the US Supreme Court court talks about how enforcement of US laws generally stops at its borders.

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/771184/united-states-v-clifton-s-corey/

There are caveats not relevant to THIS DISCUSSION.

And, now that I've bored half the world to tears, if you want to know more, please use Google. I will even help you begin - Google International Shoe and read that case. Then read the suggested cases that follow it. Then read the suggested cases which follow those. Then read....

In about 4 years you will come to understand what I mean when I say I know what the hell I'm talking about here.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Gowdy Wonders Why DNC Didn’t Turn Over Hacked Server: ‘There May Be Something They Didn’t Want Law Enforcement to See’



Great question. Now that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is clearly lying about it, what are they trying to cover up?

Not see...



But to prevent further discussion of Hillary's private, unsecured server...