Somebody's Lying — FBI Denies Evidence of Chinese Hacking Found on Clinton Email Server

a reply to: abe froman

Since they were trying to find a reason to charge her with endangering classified information one would think that evidence that she had indeed been compromised would have been exhibit A.
But they chose instead, for some unknown reason, to keep that damning information a secret
Why?
And also it's been five and a half years since she left the state department yet no Clinton emails have ever surfaced anywhere.
The fact is the Clinton server was isolated and that seems to have been a security plus since, at the time, Guccifer, the real hacker from Romania not the persona created by APT 29 operatives, was actively hacking several email accounts of dignitaries and former dignataries throughout government including G.W. Bush and was actively publishing what he had hacked. He did not file anything away for a future use, when he was extradited last Oct I think, he had nothing to offer the FBI from Clinton even after claiming he did.
Clinton's server was spared this serious breach probably because it was isolated.
Given those facts this China story loses sail.

a reply to: Muninn

You sound triggered.

a reply to: xuenchen

Just look at all those "conspiracies" from a few short years ago have come true

Examples?

a reply to: Grambler

So if this source lied to the daily caller, to use actual names of people you are claiming had a meeting that never happened would be pretty bold

Not if they were fictitious. This is only proof of a good imagination.

Maybe one needs to ask, since trump needs a fall guy for his failure to reign in North Korea and China sits ready and able to fill the bill, why now? Why blame China. Why so publicly?

a reply to: Grambler

I think the statement by the FBI is official. Not anonymous.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Gee thats an easy one to call,every Democrat in office are notorius liars,liberals are great liars easy to do with no self esteem

a reply to: Grambler

No matter what you say, the truth is there will always be room for error, no matter how small, between using a copy vs the original.

No. A forensic image is a bit for bit, exact duplicate.

And you are conveniently failing to mention that the FBI did not make the copy of the server themselves, they accepted the dnc paid for firms copy that they made.

I didn't conveniently fail to mention it — it's not really relevant and I explained why in point #2. Faking evidence in the image would be the exact same thing as faking it on a virtual server. I don't know how else to explain this. The virtual disk of a virtual machine *is itself* a drive image.

Not that any of that really matters. Even if they were physical servers, the process for faking the evidence would be the same and there wouldn't be any additional evidence to be had which could reveal that the evidence had been fake on the physical server vs the image.

This isn't like tampering with negatives or something or even editing a digital image (picture).

Crowdstrike could have made a mistake, or could have had an agenda to make it look as if Russia committed the hacks.

We're talking bit for bit copies, automatically processed. It's clear from the second part that you're really not understanding how that's not an actual issue here. Follow me here:

CrowdStrike gave the FBI images of servers which had either been hacked or had evidence planted to make it look that way. The first step would have been to spin up a VM for each server and then plant the evidence. They would then have the manipulated servers. After that, it makes absolute no difference whether CrowdStrike imaged the manipulated server or left it there for the FBI to image. The resulting image would be the same regardless.

Given that this situation was so serious it could have swung an election for president, or lead to war, why take any chances?

The point I think your most missing is that the risk here is with CrowdStrike. In other words, either CrowdStrike faked the evidence or they didn't. That's the real concern right, that CS faked the evidence? Whether they handed the faked evidence to the FBI or left it on the physical hardware and let the FBI retrieve it from there is six of one, half a dozen of the other.

What would the negative been to the FBI having access to the physical server?

NONE!!!!!

I can think of some reasons, not least of which being that the party's presidential candidate was under investigation by the FBI for her usage of a private email server. Maybe they had something to hide. Maybe they didn't know whether or not they had something to hide. I wouldn't let the cops question me without a lawyer, regardless of whether or not I was guilty and I sure as hell don't want anyone crawling around my house.

At the end of the day though, only DWS and her staff know why they didn't (and according to them they weren't asked for access).

Doesn't change anything about the fact that it really doesn't make a difference who made the images. If they faked evidence, they could have simply put/left everything they gave the FBI on the DNC's hardware and let them grab images from there.

So now we are left hoping that the dnc paid for firm didnt make a mistake or have an agenda when copying the server.

Except it wouldn't matter who made the images. What actually matters is whether or not CrowdStrike faked evidence. Your only reason for suspecting that they did fake evidence is that they provided the images instead of the FBI making them but in reality, letting the FBI copy them instead wouldn't have made faking the evidence any more or less difficult.

GIve me one good reason for the fbi not taking the server.

Take *what* server? Virtual servers are not physical servers and even with physical servers, except for some extremely narrow circumstances which wouldn't apply here, all the forensic evidence would be on the drives (or in RAM but RAM isn't persistent so once the plug is pulled it's gone and so to preserve it, you'd dump it... to a file — the DIMMs themselves wouldn't be useful for the FBI's purposes).

You're basically saying the FBI should have carted off their storage servers instead of copies of the virtual disks on them, for no real reason.

If I wanted to send you a file, I would just transfer it to you, I wouldn't send you my computer.

I don't even know why we're spending all this time talking about this. As I've been saying for... hell, years now, there's multiple publicly available independent lines of evidence which substantiate the hack that CS could not have fabricated.

The FBI/USIC/Mueller team on the other hand had access to all sorts of evidence. For instance, there were command and control servers at datacenters in two US states. The implants on the DNC's server communicated with those servers at known IP addresses. Reading the Mueller indictment, the ISPs clearly gave them access to them. And they probably didn't crate up their hardware either and instead, sent them images of the VPSes'(Virtual Private Server) virtual disks.

That's just the tip of the proverbial iceberg and that's without getting into the NSA's toys, intel from foreign intel agencies, human intel, etc.

a reply to: Sillyolme

More credible than Silly, the delusional.

a reply to: theantediluvian

dailycaller.com...

A member of the House Committee on the Judiciary said during a hearing Thursday that a government watchdog found that nearly all of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails were sent to a foreign entity and that the FBI didn’t follow-up on that finding. The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) found an “anomaly on Hillary Clinton’s emails going through their private server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except four, over 30,000, were going to an address that was not on the distribution list,” Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas said during a hearing with FBI official Peter Strzok. “It was going to an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia,” he added. Gohmert said the ICIG investigator, Frank Rucker, presented the findings to Strzok, but that the FBI official did not do anything with the information. Strzok acknowledged meeting with Rucker, but said he did not recall the “specific content.”

This was apparently out during the Strzok fiasco where arrogant FBI thug was being questioned. Does this offer any validity to the Fox version?


ETA:
and to be clear, when one side is found to have lied, whomever that might be, some jail time needs to accompany it. I'm sick of official news being bullsh!t. If it's Fox, send them to jail, all who pushed this story. If it's the FBI, string them up. I think we need to stop the lies in the MSM right about now.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Now these claims are being rebutted. First in a statement to NBC News:

Of course they are. The Inspector General's report said that Peter Strzok chose to do nothing when it was reported to the FBI. When Lisa Page texted Strzok about it, his response was, "Whatever". The FBI is still trying to protect their reputation that many like McCabe and Strzok ruined. It's become a natural defense mechanism for them to deny, deny, deny.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I'm not sure I understand your entire discussion here, but it's my understanding that Crowdstrike never turned anything over to the FBI and that all of the servers had been wiped clean after Crowdstrike reviewed them.

You have to remember, Crowdstrike is owned by a former FBI agent. We can't trust that they aren't part of the cover-up.

It's odd, isn't it?

The FBI, with all it's expertise and resources, never inspected the actual servers.

Just as with the DNC servers, the FBI is forced to rely on an independent third-party (CrowdStrike) for server evidence.


It's certainly not as if CrowdStike isn't without controversy of it's own.

Cyber Firm at Center of Russian Hacking Charges Misread Data

www.voanews.com...

What Is CrowdStrike? Firm Hired By DNC Has Ties To Hillary Clinton, A Ukrainian Billionaire, And Google

www.zerohedge.com...

a reply to: IAMTAT

Here's what everyone should know about Crowdstrike...

President of CrowdStrike Services & CSO

Shawn Henry is the president of CrowdStrike Services and CSO and a retired executive assistant director of the FBI. Henry, who served in three FBI field offices and at the bureau's headquarters, is credited with boosting the FBI's computer crime and cybersecurity investigative capabilities. He oversaw computer crime investigations spanning the globe, including denial-of-service attacks, bank and corporate breaches, and state-sponsored intrusions. He posted FBI cyberexperts in police agencies around the world, including the Netherlands, Romania, Ukraine and Estonia. He has appeared on "60 Minutes", "CBS Evening News", "Good Morning America", "The Today Show", "Dateline", "Rock Center with Brian Williams" and C-SPAN. He has been interviewed by Forbes, BusinessWeek, The Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press and USA Today.

www.crowdstrike.com...

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: IAMTAT

Here's what everyone should know about Crowdstrike...

President of CrowdStrike Services & CSO

Shawn Henry is the president of CrowdStrike Services and CSO and a retired executive assistant director of the FBI. Henry, who served in three FBI field offices and at the bureau's headquarters, is credited with boosting the FBI's computer crime and cybersecurity investigative capabilities. He oversaw computer crime investigations spanning the globe, including denial-of-service attacks, bank and corporate breaches, and state-sponsored intrusions. He posted FBI cyberexperts in police agencies around the world, including the Netherlands, Romania, Ukraine and Estonia. He has appeared on "60 Minutes", "CBS Evening News", "Good Morning America", "The Today Show", "Dateline", "Rock Center with Brian Williams" and C-SPAN. He has been interviewed by Forbes, BusinessWeek, The Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press and USA Today.

www.crowdstrike.com...

CrowdStrike's website is everything CROWDSTRIKE wants everyone to know about CrowdStrike.

Just to be honest...It's 'born-biased' information.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler



I can think of some reasons, not least of which being that the party's presidential candidate was under investigation by the FBI for her usage of a private email server. Maybe they had something to hide. Maybe they didn't know whether or not they had something to hide. I wouldn't let the cops question me without a lawyer, regardless of whether or not I was guilty and I sure as hell don't want anyone crawling around my house.

I kew you would say this!

Cant you see how this disproves all of the claims you are making?

If they didnt let the FBI look at their server because they may have had something to hide, so instead they had their firm send a copy to the fbi, this proves that copy did not have all of the data.

If the copy was an EXACT copy, then it would have included anything that you are saying they wanted to hide.

And I assume the FBI knows that this was most likely the reason the DNC didnt want them to have access to the pysical server.

So the fbi, in what may be one the the biggest cases involving politics they have ever had, a case so huge it could have swung and election and some people are calling and act of war, they deceide to not examine the physical evidnence and instead take a copy that they most likely know does not inlude everything that was on tha physical server, because they wanted to be sensitive to a campaign running for presidency?

Funny how they had no problem digging in to the trump campaign though.

I cant believe that your explanation for why the DNC didnt let the fbi look at the server was they probably had something to hide, and you are ok with that.

a reply to: IAMTAT

This is why I believe that Crowdstrike is part of the FBI cover-up.

a reply to: Grambler

what baffles me more than anything over this entire fiasco, is that people on ATS, who have proven themselves to be intelligent, seem to willfully work hard at being ignorant of the facts that show beyond any doubt, that improprieties exist within the FBI, and the word of the FBI isn't the gold standard it may have once been.

The bias in the way Trump has been treated, regardless of if he's good or bad, is so in your face, it's laughable. It's like these folks have something programmed in them that if it's anti Trump, it's OK and can be overlooked. These are entities that can ruin lives and careers with one statement.

They are cheering for the establishment, for the opposition to citizens of the US, just to spite Trump. The deep state, isn't the good guy here. But you wouldn't know it by the message sent by the left and opposition.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Tempter

I don't understand. Why would an attempt be made to conceal a security breach on the server?

The bad thing, supposedly, was using the server at all. Right?

Are you thinking they knew about a breach and cleaned it up? Without a trace?

I'm saying you can't rule it out without the actual server.

However, I don't actually think there was a breach. I think the contents were covered up, as evidenced by Strozk's dismal review of only a select number of emails.

The fix was already in.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: theantediluvian

I'm not sure I understand your entire discussion here, but it's my understanding that Crowdstrike never turned anything over to the FBI and that all of the servers had been wiped clean after Crowdstrike reviewed them.

You have to remember, Crowdstrike is owned by a former FBI agent. We can't trust that they aren't part of the cover-up.

I think that was the DNC servers though i admit its hard to keep track. But the FBI never saw the DNC servers but accepted the fact they were hacked. The DNC didnt want to turn over their servers because they would show the DNC committed fraud.

Donna Brazile and others admitted, the DNC placed the funds under the Clinton campaign's direct control, a massive breach of campaign finance law. It gave them the ability to ignore donation rules and claim that they were a pac and funnel the funds to her campaign.

No one seemed to really care when it was pointed out Hillary took over runing state funds for the party. But it was a huge reason not to turn over servers to the feds.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Obviously, we're not privy to all of the information that was in the Inspector General's report as proven by the following...

On page 57 of the DOJ's Inspector General's report it says that an "Intrusion Analysis" was conducted with a short paragraph describing that they conducted an analysis, but it doesn't tell us what was included in the analysis and what the outcome was.

When you move on to page 58 of the report it only states, "page left intentionally blank" and then the report moves on.

Unfortunately, as of now, we can only rely on what others tell us about this situation.

www.justice.gov...=1&zoom=auto,-99,798