While the admin is currently pushing a very negative image against China, I do not believe the FBI would do that so lightly.
There are papers out there that have multiple ways of using language to identify specific authors, determine multiple authors, and even decode unknown language. That's my first shallow example and would be a pretty reliable indicator if you could get your hands on their code. With a budget of millions of dollar I'm sure they have dozens of ways that can be combined. It would make no sense to reveal every single method they use to defend against people on the internet. That also assumes they don't just have a mole who told them about it, which they also wouldn't reveal.
I have not said this. The evidence they have provided makes it equally likely that they've tracked these hacks (correctly or incorrectly) or that they've made the whole thing up. You can't rule out either action.
>There are papers out there that have multiple uses of using language to identify specific authors, determine multiple authors, and even decode known language. That's my first shallow example and would be a pretty reliable indicator if you could get your hands on their code
There have been multiple papers on these subjects, with a budget of millions of dollars I'm sure identifiers could be faked. Particularly with password spraying, the only method mentioned.
Firing inspector generals en masse [1], personally attacking specific FBI agents and their families [2], intervening in the criminal proceedings of friends and political allies [3], etc. is a pattern of behavior that undermines the rule of law in this country. It's a comprehensive strategy to weed out anyone who disagrees with you, hurts your feelings, dares second guess you, or, god forbid, didn't vote for you.
This pattern of comprehensive corruption is unique to this administration.
There are _literally_ dozens of links I could provide for each point since these behaviors happen constantly, but I just google'd and picked one each.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-trump-removes-fed...
[2] https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/02/donald-trump-nemesis...
[3] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/25/judge-rebukes-trump...
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_co...
>>>intervening in the criminal proceedings of your friends and political allies
http://www.allgov.com/news/controversies/obama-fires-inspect...
https://cei.org/blog/obama-fires-inspector-general-who-uncov...
>>>a comprehensive strategy to weed out anyone who disagrees with you
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/06/obamas-whistleb... https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/may/7/president-ob...
>>>pattern of comprehensive corruption is unique to this administration
If you think that this administration is UNIQUELY corrupt....you might be in an echo chamber. Here's a more humorous take on the Obama administration's screwups: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T7F2mvZE1E
That, or have a short memory, since Trump and Obama both pale in comparison to VP Dick Cheney and the Iraq War (KBR? Halliburton? have people forgotten about them already?).
>https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_co...
All I see is extreme editorializing of the regular push and pull of government ("horrific neglect", "bull[ing]", "stonewalling", etc). How many of them were fired because Obama didn't like what they were investigating? Trump's count is 5 in the last few weeks. I'm sure Obama fired at least that many if you're making a comparison, right?
>http://www.allgov.com/news/controversies/obama-fires-inspect... >https://cei.org/blog/obama-fires-inspector-general-who-uncov...
You don't take these blog posts seriously, do you? His connection to Obama was... what exactly? This is prototypical far right nuttery: oBaMaS FrIeNd dEeP StAtE BeZoS NyT AmAzOn hEr eMaIlS.
>http://www.allgov.com/news/controversies/obama-fires-inspect... >https://cei.org/blog/obama-fires-inspector-general-who-uncov...
I wonder if you actually read these, since they have basically nothing to do with what you quoted. Did you just google "Obama friends bad" and copy/paste the first few links or something?
>"Obamagate II: Secret of the Schmooze"
Not going to spend time watching some fringe conspiracy YouTube channel, sorry. More complete nuttiness.
>That, or have a short memory, since Trump and Obama both pale in comparison to VP Dick Cheney and the Iraq War (KBR? Halliburton? have people forgotten about them already?).
I'm disappointed that I got this far before seeing this. You should seriously consider that you may be in a short, narrow, and extremely loud echo chamber. These aren't the kinds of ideas that normal, well-read, well-informed people from all sides of the political spectrum hold.
Far-right websites like the Washington Post? http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2009/06/third_c...
>>>His connection to Obama was... what exactly?
Kevin Johnson was a public political supporter of Obama while mayor of Sacramento.[1] Walpin investigated Johnson for fraud. Obama fired Walpin. Which one of those three facts are you disputing?
>>>since they have basically nothing to do with what you quoted
The cei.org link should have been grouped with the Rasmussen Reports link as they are both related to the firing of IGs.
>>>Not going to spend time watching some fringe conspiracy YouTube channel
That video cites numerous articles from major journalistic outlets (BBC, NY Observer which itself cites the Washington Post) relevant to the discussion of corruption in the Obama administration, and runs through them at the cyclic rate. It's time-efficient content. It's also funny. But you can't debate any of the information provided, or any of the conclusions drawn, if you discount the presenter as "fringe conspiracy nuttiness".
>>>You should seriously consider that you may be in a short, narrow, and extremely loud echo chamber.
In this thread I've cited sources ranging from the right (Michelle Malkin, Heritage foundation), to the center (BBC, CBS News), to the left (Washington Post, Politifact). You haven't posted anything, haven't countered any of the facts, and have only criticized the sources with strawman accusations of "far right conspiracies". I would challenge you to be more aggressive about exposing yourself to information that challenges your positions and assumptions, and avoid the strawmen.
>>>These aren't the kinds of ideas that normal, well-read, well-informed people from all sides of the political spectrum hold.
Which idea are you arguing against, that Dick Cheney and associated companies were massively corrupt? [2] [3]
[1]https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-introduced-c...
[2]https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2010/jun/09/arianna-hu...
[3]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/halliburton-whistleblower-on-ex...
What do you mean by "so lightly"? It changed the entire meaning of the sentence.