Comments by "craxd1" (@craxd1) on "Hannity: The left repeats falsehoods to delegitimize Trump" video.

  1. The only state who mentioned that someone tried to hack into their voter data was Georgia, and it was the DHS who tried to do it! I do not care who you are, every hacker has to have an IP address, even if it is from a proxy server. If someone tries to hack an account, there will be an IP address associated with it. That does not mean that you can trace it back to its origin, because a real hacker will use a proxy server, which will block the hops back to the original source. Because of this, you can not prove who did it. If it was a kid in their parents basement, who didn't use a proxy, then yes, you could trace the hack to the source. It seems to me, that the CIA are lying through their teeth, and they hope the public are dumb enough to not know how the Internet works. Next, we get to the e-mails. Wikileaks has stated, several times, that it was a leak. A leak are files stolen by someone within, and sent to Wikileaks. Thus, someone didn't hack into anything, they had full access to the files, copied them, and sent them to Wikileaks, after they slipped them out of the building. It was an inside job, and a Russian hacker was not involved. From The Guardian: "Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims “bullshit”, adding: “They are absolutely making it up.” "“I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things." also, "The California Republican congressman Devin Nunes, chair of the House intelligence committee and a member of the Trump transition team, said: “I’ll be the first one to come out and point at Russia if there’s clear evidence, but there is no clear evidence – even now. There’s a lot of innuendo, lots of circumstantial evidence, that’s it.”" https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/10/cia-concludes-russia-interfered-to-help-trump-win-election-report?CMP=share_btn_tw Craig Murray's blog article about it: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/ Then, we have the FBI, the NSA, and the Clapper stating that the CIA has nothing. Look into the history of the CIA's director.
    3
  2. Hernan Visani My guess is, that they may try to lay it on Guccifer 2.0 (Marcel Lazăr Lehel), from Romania, and claim him to be a Russian spy, or some other nonsense. They caught him, and extradited him to the US, where he plead guilty, and claimed that he had hacked Hillary, and stated that it was very easy to gain access. However, the court could find no proof to his claim! They sentenced him to fifty-two months in prison, but Romania wants him back, to serve four years there, first, because he hacked their government officials, and was convicted. The US is to send him back, serve his four there, then be sent back here, to do his fifty-two months. "Lazar said he chose to use "proxy servers in Russia," describing them as the best, providing anonymity." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/04/romanian-hacker-guccifer-breached-clinton-server-it-was-easy.html Wikipedia on Guccifer: "The hacker's IP address was traced to Russia, however there was no certainty as to whether this was his actual location or whether he had used a proxy to hide his true location." On Hillary: "Lehel provided no proof of his claim, and U.S. investigators found no evidence to support the claim. U.S. officials have also said that if Lehel had obtained information from Clinton's servers, he would have publicly released such information, as he did when he obtained access to other high-profile individuals, such as Sidney Blumenthal and George W. Bush." "In a statement of facts filed with his plea agreement, [Lehel] admitted that from at least October 2012 to January 2014, he intentionally gained unauthorized access to personal email and social media accounts belonging to approximately 100 Americans, and he did so to unlawfully obtain his victims' personal information and email correspondence. His victims included an immediate family member of two former U.S. presidents, a former member of the U.S. Cabinet, a former member of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff and a former presidential advisor, he admitted. [Lehel] admitted that in many instances, he publically [sic] released his victims’ private email correspondence, medical and financial information and personal photographs." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer#Claim_regarding_Hillary_Clinton_email_server If they try to lay this on Guccifer, that will be odd, when the court claims that he nor they could provide no evidence that he hacked Hillary. Since her server was unsecured, I'd say he may have done it, but where is the proof? Also, you'll note that he used Russian proxies, just as any other Hacker could have done. A US hacker can use a Russian proxy, and their trace will end up in Russia, and vice versa. The US has proxy servers too. Of course, Guccifer had his own website where he posted his stuff, etc. Then there was DC Leaks, who released stuff, along with Wikileaks, so they don't know who did what.
    2
  3. Hernan Visani It's untelling when the leaker gave the files to Wikileaks. They could have given them to Wikileaks before Rich was murdered, so anything is possible I imagine. I would guess that the leak would have happened after the date on the latest e-mail in the lot. Murray stated that he had personally met the leaker. If Rich was in the UK, or Murray was here during that time, then that would be very telling. I'm worried for Murray's safety, because these people may do anything to keep the source or leaker from being exposed. If it turns out to be Rich, the shite will literally hit the fan. Everyone will then know it wasn't a robbery as they try to claim. If something happens to Murry, then everyone will know that they silenced him, especially the British government. According to Murray, after the article in the Guardian was up on the internet for three hours, they deleted the link to the article off the homepage, which is awfully fishy. I looked for the link, and could not find it anywhere on the homepage, but the page is still up. Several others, on YouTube, have covered the Guardian and Murray's story, so it is already out. They'll not put the worms back into the can.
    1