Benghazi - Computers Come On In Middle of Night?

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

All the protests about this being a publicity ploy by Attkisson would hold more water if not for this from CBS:

Attkisson releases video of computer hacking, 2012 Benghazi files deletionhttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news...sson-releases-video-of-computer-hack-d/?cachehttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news...sson-releases-video-of-computer-hack-d/?cache

A firm hired by CBS to examine Ms. Attkisson’s computer in 2013 concluded that it had been tampered with by an unknown third party.“A cybersecurity firm hired by CBS News has determined through forensic analysis that Sharyl Attkisson’s computer was accessed by an unauthorized, external, unknown party on multiple occasions late in 2012,” CBS News spokeswoman Sonya McNair said in June, The Washington Post reported. “Evidence suggests this party performed all access remotely using Attkisson’s accounts. While no malicious code was found, forensic analysis revealed an intruder had executed commands that appeared to involve search and exfiltration of data,” she added.

Also, the source she hired independently to investigate the hack said that a "sophisticated entity that used commercial, non-attributable spyware that’s proprietary to a government agency: either the CIA, FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, or the National Security Agency (NSA),” meaning that anyone could buy such software, given it is commercial grade.


If you run Windows, you (should) already know that anyone can get remote access to your computer if they know your login and password. It looks like something similar was done, unsophisticated by effective. So while I have questions about this video, I don't doubt her allegations are plausible.

 

[YeShallTread]

If you run Windows, you (should) already know that anyone can get remote access to your computer if they know your login and password. It looks like something similar was done, unsophisticated by effective. So while I have questions about this video, I don't doubt her allegations are plausible.

That, to me, is why this can't be overlooked and so easily dismissed. They are plausible.

If proven to be all a big lie then she is cooked. Why would she place herself in that position?

 

[Aryeh Jay]

CBS? The same network that did an anti-Bush story less than two months before the 2004 election, a story that was based on false and forged documents and lies? That CBS? Or was it the CBS that ran a story about Benghazi that was dreamed up by a British liar Dylan Davies, and that was later found to be false? Was it that CBS?

They sound like well-rounded and highly regarded news corporation that exhibits the highest in journalistic standards and the experts they hire have been found to be the best at what they do, be it vetting forged documents or liars. I have absolutely no doubt that the computer experts that CBS has used are also in the top of their field and are beyond reproach. Sarcasm.

 

[RDKirk]

That, to me, is why this can't be overlooked and so easily dismissed. They are plausible.

If proven to be all a big lie then she is cooked. Why would she place herself in that position?

They are plausible that she got hacked by one of the millions of worms floating around cyberspace.

Specifically by the government? Not so plausible. She's not of any particular importance.

 

[Blue Wren]

-

 

[keith99]

I have some coworkers who could hack a computer.

If any of them were doing for reasons like the government is accused of having it would all have been done in the background. Nothing would have shown on the screen.

Showing on the screen is possible for some prankster hackers who want their victim to know he has been hacked.

But my money is on her doing it to get a video to fool the gullible.

 

[CaDan]

"Commerical" and "proprietary" mean two opposite things.

I don't know if she's a kook or a liar, but she spouts nonsense.

 

[Belk]

Hacked? No, I don't think so. Delusions of relevance is a more likely culprit.

 

[HorsieJuice]

If anyone believes this story is true and that video shows what hacking really looks like, I've got a bridge to sell you.

I can't post links because I haven't posted enough here but CrooksandLiars wrote about this, showing how Attkisson made the video 9 months after the alleged hack.

Google - Busted: Sharyl Attkisson's 'Hacked' Video Made Nine Months After Alleged Hack - Crooks and Liars

and you can find the full article detailing how she lied and this is a publicity stunt.

Lol, that's amazing. Here's the link:

BUSTED: Sharyl Attkisson's 'Hacked' Video Made Nine Months After Alleged Hack | Crooks and Liars

At one point, you can see that the date displayed on her computer is a Monday (you can't see the actual date). 9/16/13 was a Monday.

 

[CaDan]

Lol, that's amazing. Here's the link:

BUSTED: Sharyl Attkisson's 'Hacked' Video Made Nine Months After Alleged Hack | Crooks and Liars

At one point, you can see that the date displayed on her computer is a Monday (you can't see the actual date). 9/16/13 was a Monday.

Busted like Benjamin Bunny!

 

[USincognito]

edit. Looks like sources were wrong.

 

[whatbogsends]

As i said before, once i watched that video with sound, it looked like she was deleting things on her computer, as you could hear the click/tap of the mouse/keyboard every time there was an action on the screen.

Talk about serious loss of credibility. Atkinson has lost all credibility with this stunt.

 

[bewiserthantheserpent]

I found this thread to be very intriguing. The pros and cons, the who to believe, truth or lies that the reader must sort through in order to form an opinion. This morning, as I watched Fox and Friends, they had an interview with the author herself.

It was interesting to learn that she, when a reporter for CBS, was lauded for taking the Republicans to task but turn-about wasn't fair play there. Her stories revealing deep, dark secrets of the Democrats were not allowed on air. It seemed to me that she is, or was, a fair and balanced reporter.

Her statements this morning were interesting in that she attributes the event(s) to be an intimidation effort. Her phone was tapped and done so in a way so that it could be heard so she would know it was tapped and that she was being monitored. Same with the computer. Data disappearing before her eyes was a warning and rank intimidation.

If we are any judges of character this woman is not lying.

 

[RDKirk]

I found this thread to be very intriguing. The pros and cons, the who to believe, truth or lies that the reader must sort through in order to form an opinion. This morning, as I watched Fox and Friends, they had an interview with the author herself.

It was interesting to learn that she, when a reporter for CBS, was lauded for taking the Republicans to task but turn-about wasn't fair play there. Her stories revealing deep, dark secrets of the Democrats were not allowed on air. It seemed to me that she is, or was, a fair and balanced reporter.

Her statements this morning were interesting in that she attributes the event(s) to be an intimidation effort. Her phone was tapped and done so in a way so that it could be heard so she would know it was tapped and that she was being monitored. Same with the computer. Data disappearing before her eyes was a warning and rank intimidation.

If we are any judges of character this woman is not lying.

What made her so particularly dangerous to the government to rate such special treatment?

 

[bewiserthantheserpent]

What made her so particularly dangerous to the government to rate such special treatment?

I don't know.

First, is it special treatment? Are others being subjected to the same type of intimidation but are keeping their mouths shut?

Secondly, it could be that because she was such an upstanding reporter in taking Republicans to task that when she suddenly pointed out problems with the other side that it would give validity to what she was reporting and detractors couldn't say, "she's just another mouthpiece for the republicans so don't pay any attention to what she has to say." Specifically concerning Benghazi and Hillary Clinton's connection with the Presidential election on the horizon.

 

[RDKirk]

I don't know.

First, is it special treatment? Are others being subjected to the same type of intimidation but are keeping their mouths shut?

And why would any other reporters do that? That would be red-hot news in itself.

Secondly, it could be that because she was such an upstanding reporter in taking Republicans to task that when she suddenly pointed out problems with the other side that it would give validity to what she was reporting and detractors couldn't say, "she's just another mouthpiece for the republicans so don't pay any attention to what she has to say." Specifically concerning Benghazi and Hillary Clinton's connection with the Presidential election on the horizon.

That "horizon" is far enough away that her mere rehashing of old news now would be irrelevant at the critical point in the campaign. Again, unless she has some Deep Throat source, she's not saying anything that hasn't already been said.

If she did have a Deep Throat, she would not be threatened, she would be secretly surveiled to track down her source.

 

[bewiserthantheserpent]

And why would any other reporters do that? That would be red-hot news in itself.

Fear.

That "horizon" is far enough away that her mere rehashing of old news now would be irrelevant at the critical point in the campaign. Again, unless she has some Deep Throat source, she's not saying anything that hasn't already been said.

What you are considering "old news" isn't to many nor is it irrelevant. There are still unanswered questions and Ms.Clinton is right in the middle.

If she did have a Deep Throat, she would not be threatened, she would be secretly surveiled to track down her source.

As this is all supposition but fun to speculate lets say that:

a. The source couldn't be tracked down
b. The source was tracked down

Then regardless of the above she had the information and intended to run with it how then could she be stopped from doing so?

a. Intimidate her so she would be afraid and refrain from publishing.
b. Do away with her (not likely)
c. Belittle and ridicule her character so if it did come out who then would believe her?

 

[bewiserthantheserpent]

R.D, I was just reading a post about this on the Drudge Report (not yet able to post links) and part of it addressed your question:


Question: And why do you think they would target you as opposed to more partisan voices, like Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck?

Answer: The question carries the assumption that they haven’t targeted others. I kind of assume I’m on a list. I don’t think I’m the only one, along with James Rosen and the Associated Press, that garnered special attention. There’s probably a list of people.


Question: So an enemies list, like in the Nixon administration?

Answer: I’ve been told there is such a list, yes.



Question: And who do you suspect is on that list?

Answer: Well, there’s an internal email that indicated reporters who were working with leakers in government agencies or perceived as enemies of the White House are being targeted. So I think that’s probably accurate — anybody that they perceive as harmful to their agenda or working with leakers and whistle-blowers, which I did a lot of.


Found on the Drudge Report, The Hollywood Reporter under the caption:
Former CBS News Reporter Sharyl Attkisson Claims Existence of Obama Enemies' List

 

[High Fidelity]

Do you really want to dismiss this so easily? If it happened to you I must wonder if that cavalier attitude might be frowned upon.

I lost a friend in that attack and even I think it's time to move on, so yes, fluff stories to be politicised or further agendas instead of letting families grieve and move on isn't a good thing.

 

[RDKirk]

Fear.

Those reporters need to go back to doing the style reports, then. Otherwise, such threats make good stories in themselves.

What you are considering "old news" isn't to many nor is it irrelevant. There are still unanswered questions and Ms.Clinton is right in the middle.

She had no new information--same old stuff rehashed.

As this is all supposition but fun to speculate lets say that:

a. The source couldn't be tracked down
b. The source was tracked down

Then regardless of the above she had the information and intended to run with it how then could she be stopped from doing so?

a. Intimidate her so she would be afraid and refrain from publishing.
b. Do away with her (not likely)
c. Belittle and ridicule her character so if it did come out who then would believe her?

Simply delete the files. She logs on, no files.

Nobody in government is going to think a reporter determined enough to have any information of danger to the government would be intimidated by a silly laptop monitor show. It's just silly--and the government isn't silly when it decides to issue a threat.