Crowdstrike had no evidence Russia -- or anyone else -- hacked the DNC server !!!

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Saying that the evidence was circumstantial, is not saying they did not have evidence.

We do have evidence that Carlson misquoted what was said, to allow him to spin the story.

I only have circumstantial evidence that Trump has a brain. That doesn't mean that he doesn't. Nor does it mean that it isn't evidenced.

Faux News still doing it's Faux News stuff. "Boom". "Smoking gun". "Bombshell". "This is it". Years and years of this crap and it ALL comes to nothing every time? You guys have the memory capacity of goldfish.

Crowdstrike were not the only IT security group who identified the DNC hack as Russian. Everyone, who investigated it and was qualified and credible, said it was Russian. Including different US intelligence branches, the FBI and other independent DOJ investigators.

rather than arrogantly tell us what the facts are, why don't you present some links to back us what you say, then reconcile that with the current released testimony. Not saying you are completely full of sh!t, but suggesting you may not have all the facts.

I look forward to seeing your solid links that line up with the crowd strike testemony.

Arrogantly telling you what the facts are? Really?

CrowdStrike’s work with the Democratic National Committee: Setting the record straight - Crowdstrike Blog

2016 Democratic National Committee email leak - Cybersecurity analysis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

originally posted by: UKTruth
Whilst this is now confirmed, it was obvious at the time.
The same people who were trying to remove a sitting Presdient produced a pile of horse manure as evidence that Russians hacked the DNC. One only had to read the document to conclude they had absolutely zero evidence.
I said exactly that at the time.
I went from '17 agencies say' to '3 agencies say' to '3 agencies have varying levels of confidence' to now... 'oh, we don't know'.

The 3 Intelligence agencies hand picked anti-Trumpers to produce a report - they lied. The media lied. Democrats lied. People need to be indicted and that includes in the media. If not, then attempted coup's carried out by the outgoing administration, their party and their media will be set as acceptable.

This started during the Obama administration, was identified as Russian sourced back then, and was from before Trump was elected. It wasn't an attempt to remove a sitting President at all. Back when the DNC was hacked, which was well before the election, no-one really thought Trump would win.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Saying that the evidence was circumstantial, is not saying they did not have evidence.

We do have evidence that Carlson misquoted what was said, to allow him to spin the story.

I only have circumstantial evidence that Trump has a brain. That doesn't mean that he doesn't. Nor does it mean that it isn't evidenced.

Faux News still doing it's Faux News stuff. "Boom". "Smoking gun". "Bombshell". "This is it". Years and years of this crap and it ALL comes to nothing every time? You guys have the memory capacity of goldfish.

Crowdstrike were not the only IT security group who identified the DNC hack as Russian. Everyone, who investigated it and was qualified and credible, said it was Russian. Including different US intelligence branches, the FBI and other independent DOJ investigators.

Here is the bottom line.

There is NO proof that the Russians hacked the DNC. Fact.
That is a damn sight different to the certainty portrayed by people in the media and Democrats for years - and by people on this site I would add. Including you.

There was proof that the Russians hacked the DNC.

Crowdstrike's conclusions were based upon circumstantial evidence. Crowdstrike was examining traces left behind after the fact. They didn't have direct proof of Russians hacking, they were examining coding and procedural similarities that led them to their conclusions.

Faux News have spun that into saying there was no evidence, which is pure BS.

originally posted by: Breakthestreak

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
a reply to: chr0naut

No

They were not “credible”

But thanks for cNn’s take on it

I have nothing to do with CNN, or any American 'news' outlet.

Whatever. You’re lying.

And cNn is most definitely not a”news outlet”

Neither is the 24 x 7 opinion mill.

... and I am trying to be very factual in an environment where there are so many 'alternate' and often contradictory opinions.

The fact that you believe the spin of a media personality over the combined list of several government agencies and private companies who are experts in their fields and who have analysed the evidence for years, says much.

a reply to: chr0naut

Nobody in the public thought he had a chance. Media made sure of that. The DNC knew though. They could see the large crowds. They could see his popularity on social media, they could see the real polling data. Not the junk the public sees. He took out every Republican candidate, some real heavy hitters with ease. Obama knew Hillary was in deep trouble. She had a big fat loaded diaper and he had to keep it from leaking out the elastic.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Saying that the evidence was circumstantial, is not saying they did not have evidence.

We do have evidence that Carlson misquoted what was said, to allow him to spin the story.

I only have circumstantial evidence that Trump has a brain. That doesn't mean that he doesn't. Nor does it mean that it isn't evidenced.

Faux News still doing it's Faux News stuff. "Boom". "Smoking gun". "Bombshell". "This is it". Years and years of this crap and it ALL comes to nothing every time? You guys have the memory capacity of goldfish.

Crowdstrike were not the only IT security group who identified the DNC hack as Russian. Everyone, who investigated it and was qualified and credible, said it was Russian. Including different US intelligence branches, the FBI and other independent DOJ investigators.

Here is the bottom line.

There is NO proof that the Russians hacked the DNC. Fact.
That is a damn sight different to the certainty portrayed by people in the media and Democrats for years - and by people on this site I would add. Including you.

There was proof that the Russians hacked the DNC.

Crowdstrike's conclusions were based upon circumstantial evidence. Crowdstrike was examining traces left behind after the fact. They didn't have direct proof of Russians hacking, they were examining coding and procedural similarities that led them to their conclusions.

Faux News have spun that into saying there was no evidence, which is pure BS.

Since when is circumstantial evidence proof?
You were lied to and you swallowed the lies whole.
There is no proof and there never was proof that the Russians hacked the DNC.
I know it's hard for you to come to terms with how foolosh you were to believe the political game playing by the Democrat party, the Obama administration the left wing media, but you will have to.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: UKTruth
Whilst this is now confirmed, it was obvious at the time.
The same people who were trying to remove a sitting Presdient produced a pile of horse manure as evidence that Russians hacked the DNC. One only had to read the document to conclude they had absolutely zero evidence.
I said exactly that at the time.
I went from '17 agencies say' to '3 agencies say' to '3 agencies have varying levels of confidence' to now... 'oh, we don't know'.

The 3 Intelligence agencies hand picked anti-Trumpers to produce a report - they lied. The media lied. Democrats lied. People need to be indicted and that includes in the media. If not, then attempted coup's carried out by the outgoing administration, their party and their media will be set as acceptable.

This started during the Obama administration, was identified as Russian sourced back then, and was from before Trump was elected. It wasn't an attempt to remove a sitting President at all. Back when the DNC was hacked, which was well before the election, no-one really thought Trump would win.

If you read the Intelligence report you will know that it contained zero evidence of any hack, let alone a hack by Russians.
What was produced was a joke. They just claimed that certain IP addresses were connected to Russia but we never even got to see even a single report from the actual servers with time stamps to show when these alleged intrusions happened.
There was not one shred of confirmation to the claim. No proof at all.

We now know for certain, no longer speculation, that the Obama Adminstration was trying it's best to take down the incoming President.

So after three plus years of investigations, special counsels, dems and media claiming to have proof of russian collusion with people on trumps team (notably schiff) and so on.

The definitive record, the mueller report, showed there were two cases of Russian interfence he focused on.

The russian hack of Podesta and the DNC, and the russian troll farm.

Well the DOJ was forced to drop charges against the troll farm because they had insufficient proof they were directed by the Kremlin government.

There goes 50 percent of the russian interference case.

And now, as so many of us knew, we now see the claims of Russian hacking were never proved either.

Heck crowdstrike cant even definitively say there was a hack at all.

All that money and time spent trying to prove russian was interfering on a massive scale, and trumps team may have worked with them. This dominated the news cycle, kept trump from his agenda, violated rights of people (see carter page), probably helped the dems win the 2018 election, and to this caused people to still believe kremlin disinfo in the form of the steele dossier (see even dems on ats that hang on to the dossier being true). And both planks of the proof we were told which was definitive about russian interference have fallen through.

I said on Ats in october of 2017 that the FBI using unverified opp research to spy on trumps team was the biggest political scandal in our countries history, and we now see that was correct.

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets
a reply to: chr0naut

Nobody in the public thought he had a chance. Media made sure of that. The DNC knew though. They could see the large crowds. They could see his popularity on social media, they could see the real polling data. Not the junk the public sees. He took out every Republican candidate, some real heavy hitters with ease. Obama knew Hillary was in deep trouble. She had a big fat loaded diaper and he had to keep it from leaking out the elastic.

Quite possibly.

But that public, the one that didn't think that Trump would win, elected their preference.

The fact that the DNC didn't win might point out to you that they weren't actually calling the shots back then.

Which means that your conspiracy theory is based on some fairly shaky reasoning.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Saying that the evidence was circumstantial, is not saying they did not have evidence.

We do have evidence that Carlson misquoted what was said, to allow him to spin the story.

I only have circumstantial evidence that Trump has a brain. That doesn't mean that he doesn't. Nor does it mean that it isn't evidenced.

Faux News still doing it's Faux News stuff. "Boom". "Smoking gun". "Bombshell". "This is it". Years and years of this crap and it ALL comes to nothing every time? You guys have the memory capacity of goldfish.

Crowdstrike were not the only IT security group who identified the DNC hack as Russian. Everyone, who investigated it and was qualified and credible, said it was Russian. Including different US intelligence branches, the FBI and other independent DOJ investigators.

Here is the bottom line.

There is NO proof that the Russians hacked the DNC. Fact.
That is a damn sight different to the certainty portrayed by people in the media and Democrats for years - and by people on this site I would add. Including you.

There was proof that the Russians hacked the DNC.

Crowdstrike's conclusions were based upon circumstantial evidence. Crowdstrike was examining traces left behind after the fact. They didn't have direct proof of Russians hacking, they were examining coding and procedural similarities that led them to their conclusions.

Faux News have spun that into saying there was no evidence, which is pure BS.

What circumstantial evidence? Their founder admits he cant say definitively there was a hack.

I have circumstantial evidence as well.

the fact The DNC refused to leave the fbi have access to the actual server shows they were hiding someting. The fact the FBI relied on corwstrike instead of insisting tio have access to the physical server shows they were more than happy to believe crowsrike.

the fact that crowdstrike after blaming russia for this hack blamed Russia for a ukrainian hack, and had to later admit they were wrong after the Ukraine government investigated is circumstantial evidence they are inept or corrupt and seeking to blame russia for these hacks.

The fact Assange said the info he got wasnt form russian, but he wasnt interviewed by the fbi is cirmcustantial evidence the FBI didnt want to look at all of the evidence.

The fact the FBI over and over agian lied and misled about fisa documents, going after trump people like flynn, etc, is circumstantial evidence that they are corrupt and not to be trusted.

The fact experts have said the download speeds are more in line with someone taing the info with a thuumb drive off of physical site (seth rich) is circumstantail evidence their wasnt a hack, which crowdstrike admits they cant prove.




We were told over and over and opver again it was 100 percent proven russia hacked the dnc. Meanwhile we now know the founder of crowdstrike cant even say he is certain there was a hack. Yet still we were told we couldnt question this.

The game is over, the proof is now being revealed.

This was a coup attempt by Obamas intel agencies and admin, and was facilitated by the DNC and media.

The biggest political scandal in the history of the country.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

This is what happens when the DNC refuses to allow an actual investigation and instead pays a company to say what they want. Since it was Democrats though the media was silent on this obvious conflict of interest.

People just need to own it -- despite all the cheating they could do to prevent it happening, people still elected Trump over Hillary.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Saying that the evidence was circumstantial, is not saying they did not have evidence.

We do have evidence that Carlson misquoted what was said, to allow him to spin the story.

I only have circumstantial evidence that Trump has a brain. That doesn't mean that he doesn't. Nor does it mean that it isn't evidenced.

Faux News still doing it's Faux News stuff. "Boom". "Smoking gun". "Bombshell". "This is it". Years and years of this crap and it ALL comes to nothing every time? You guys have the memory capacity of goldfish.

Crowdstrike were not the only IT security group who identified the DNC hack as Russian. Everyone, who investigated it and was qualified and credible, said it was Russian. Including different US intelligence branches, the FBI and other independent DOJ investigators.

Here is the bottom line.

There is NO proof that the Russians hacked the DNC. Fact.
That is a damn sight different to the certainty portrayed by people in the media and Democrats for years - and by people on this site I would add. Including you.

There was proof that the Russians hacked the DNC.

Crowdstrike's conclusions were based upon circumstantial evidence. Crowdstrike was examining traces left behind after the fact. They didn't have direct proof of Russians hacking, they were examining coding and procedural similarities that led them to their conclusions.

Faux News have spun that into saying there was no evidence, which is pure BS.

Since when is circumstantial evidence proof?
You were lied to and you swallowed the lies whole.
There is no proof and there never was proof that the Russians hacked the DNC.
I know it's hard for you to come to terms with how foolosh you were to believe the political game playing by the Democrat party, the Obama administration the left wing media, but you will have to.

We have courts that make determinations of guilt based upon circumstantial evidence, every day, all the time.

That is the point of investigations and jurisdiction. To convict unless there is reasonable doubt.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Saying that the evidence was circumstantial, is not saying they did not have evidence.

We do have evidence that Carlson misquoted what was said, to allow him to spin the story.

I only have circumstantial evidence that Trump has a brain. That doesn't mean that he doesn't. Nor does it mean that it isn't evidenced.

Faux News still doing it's Faux News stuff. "Boom". "Smoking gun". "Bombshell". "This is it". Years and years of this crap and it ALL comes to nothing every time? You guys have the memory capacity of goldfish.

Crowdstrike were not the only IT security group who identified the DNC hack as Russian. Everyone, who investigated it and was qualified and credible, said it was Russian. Including different US intelligence branches, the FBI and other independent DOJ investigators.

Here is the bottom line.

There is NO proof that the Russians hacked the DNC. Fact.
That is a damn sight different to the certainty portrayed by people in the media and Democrats for years - and by people on this site I would add. Including you.

There was proof that the Russians hacked the DNC.

Crowdstrike's conclusions were based upon circumstantial evidence. Crowdstrike was examining traces left behind after the fact. They didn't have direct proof of Russians hacking, they were examining coding and procedural similarities that led them to their conclusions.

Faux News have spun that into saying there was no evidence, which is pure BS.

Not only was there not proof, there was not even any evidence. It is like saying Target lost money, you were in the store, so we have evidence and proof you robbed Target.

That's the link you are creating.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

This is what happens when the DNC refuses to allow an actual investigation and instead pays a company to say what they want. Since it was Democrats though the media was silent on this obvious conflict of interest.

It still amazes me that the FBI would allow that.

FBI: "We need to examine that server."

DNC: "No. We'll hire someone to examine it for you."

FBI: "OK."

Seriously, if the Bizarro-world had an FBI, that's how they'd operate.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Seriously, if the FBI were corrupt, that's how they'd operate.

I think that's more the line you were looking for.

Not only did they have no evidence that Russia was involved, Shawn Henry didn't even have conclusive evidence that ANY data was exfiltrated from the DNC servers.

Just the News
There is a link to the transcript there.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Saying that the evidence was circumstantial, is not saying they did not have evidence.

We do have evidence that Carlson misquoted what was said, to allow him to spin the story.

I only have circumstantial evidence that Trump has a brain. That doesn't mean that he doesn't. Nor does it mean that it isn't evidenced.

Faux News still doing it's Faux News stuff. "Boom". "Smoking gun". "Bombshell". "This is it". Years and years of this crap and it ALL comes to nothing every time? You guys have the memory capacity of goldfish.

Crowdstrike were not the only IT security group who identified the DNC hack as Russian. Everyone, who investigated it and was qualified and credible, said it was Russian. Including different US intelligence branches, the FBI and other independent DOJ investigators.

Here is the bottom line.

There is NO proof that the Russians hacked the DNC. Fact.
That is a damn sight different to the certainty portrayed by people in the media and Democrats for years - and by people on this site I would add. Including you.

There was proof that the Russians hacked the DNC.

Crowdstrike's conclusions were based upon circumstantial evidence. Crowdstrike was examining traces left behind after the fact. They didn't have direct proof of Russians hacking, they were examining coding and procedural similarities that led them to their conclusions.

Faux News have spun that into saying there was no evidence, which is pure BS.

What circumstantial evidence? Their founder admits he cant say definitively there was a hack.

What he said was that the evidence that the Russians did it, was circumstantial. Read the quoted section of the House transcript. Don't listen to the re-worded 'interpretation'.

I have circumstantial evidence as well.

the fact The DNC refused to leave the fbi have access to the actual server shows they were hiding someting. The fact the FBI relied on corwstrike instead of insisting tio have access to the physical server shows they were more than happy to believe crowsrike.

the fact that crowdstrike after blaming russia for this hack blamed Russia for a ukrainian hack, and had to later admit they were wrong after the Ukraine government investigated is circumstantial evidence they are inept or corrupt and seeking to blame russia for these hacks.

The fact Assange said the info he got wasnt form russian, but he wasnt interviewed by the fbi is cirmcustantial evidence the FBI didnt want to look at all of the evidence.

The fact the FBI over and over agian lied and misled about fisa documents, going after trump people like flynn, etc, is circumstantial evidence that they are corrupt and not to be trusted.

The fact experts have said the download speeds are more in line with someone taing the info with a thuumb drive off of physical site (seth rich) is circumstantail evidence their wasnt a hack, which crowdstrike admits they cant prove.




We were told over and over and opver again it was 100 percent proven russia hacked the dnc. Meanwhile we now know the founder of crowdstrike cant even say he is certain there was a hack. Yet still we were told we couldnt question this.

The game is over, the proof is now being revealed.

This was a coup attempt by Obamas intel agencies and admin, and was facilitated by the DNC and media.

The biggest political scandal in the history of the country.

After the DNC hack, the DNC were still using the physical server, which had been secured. They provided bit-wise images of the server (backups from during and after the hack) for the FBI, who backed them up and passed them on to Crowdstrike for independent analysis. The FBI also performed forensic analyses of the images.

At the time of the DNC hack, prior to July 2016, the election was four months away. I'm fairly sure that at the time Obama, the DNC and Hillary didn't expect Trump to win, either.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Saying that the evidence was circumstantial, is not saying they did not have evidence.

We do have evidence that Carlson misquoted what was said, to allow him to spin the story.

I only have circumstantial evidence that Trump has a brain. That doesn't mean that he doesn't. Nor does it mean that it isn't evidenced.

Faux News still doing it's Faux News stuff. "Boom". "Smoking gun". "Bombshell". "This is it". Years and years of this crap and it ALL comes to nothing every time? You guys have the memory capacity of goldfish.

Crowdstrike were not the only IT security group who identified the DNC hack as Russian. Everyone, who investigated it and was qualified and credible, said it was Russian. Including different US intelligence branches, the FBI and other independent DOJ investigators.

Here is the bottom line.

There is NO proof that the Russians hacked the DNC. Fact.
That is a damn sight different to the certainty portrayed by people in the media and Democrats for years - and by people on this site I would add. Including you.

There was proof that the Russians hacked the DNC.

Crowdstrike's conclusions were based upon circumstantial evidence. Crowdstrike was examining traces left behind after the fact. They didn't have direct proof of Russians hacking, they were examining coding and procedural similarities that led them to their conclusions.

Faux News have spun that into saying there was no evidence, which is pure BS.

Not only was there not proof, there was not even any evidence. It is like saying Target lost money, you were in the store, so we have evidence and proof you robbed Target.

That's the link you are creating.

There was code of the malware used for escalation of privelege left behind on the server with dates and times when the files were written.

That doesn't happen if the data was just copied to a USB.

Read the Crowdstrike blog for more details. I posted previously.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: xuenchen
Lots of credible people said this at the time it was being "investigated" by the FBI in 2016.

As I recall, didn't the DNC outright refuse to let the FBI examine the servers?

I also recall that the DNC was warned that their security was inadequate and did nothing.

This is the party that thinks they're the smarter, with-the-times party, by the way.

Actually, it just came out that the DNC did not deny, and apparently was never asked by the FBI to look at them. The FBI probably didn't want to IMO, so concocted the story that they weren't allowed to. This way they could spin the narrative however they pleased.

Transcripts Contradict Comey’s Claim That DNC Denied FBI Access to Servers

Michael Sussman, an attorney with Perkins Coie, told lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee in December 2017 that the FBI declined to access the DNC premises when offered to do so during a meeting which included cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike in mid-June of 2016, according to a newly declassified transcript (pdf).

During the meeting, the chief executive officer of the DNC, Amy Dacey, relayed to the FBI that the bureau “could have access to anything they needed,” according to Sussman.

“And I recall offering, or asking or offering to the FBI to come on premises, and they were not interested in coming on premises at the time,” Sussman said, later adding that Perkins Coie would have preferred the FBI to access the servers because this would have saved the DNC the money needed to address the hacking.

More:
The FBI Never Asked For Access To Hacked Computer Servers