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

a reply to: chr0naut

Are you saying if you were running for office and your opponent was massing large stadiums of people (weekly) while you yourself couldn't fill an isle of 7-11 you would not be scared. He hosted the whole episode of SNL, not just an appearance like Bernie or Hillary. The whole thing and got strong ratings from it. He did every talk show, even the ones that hate him now and again, strong ratings.

They were scared alright. Scared !@#$less. He was mocking Obama and Hillary at those events and getting big applause and laughs.

a reply to: chr0naut

Then why did the CrowdStrike guy say different ? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

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.

Just more evidence that the FBI was in the tank for Clinton and the DNC.

As if anyone has any doubt of that anymore. Even the leftists here know that's the case, they're just running interference. Ends justify the means and all that. They're perfectly fine with corruption, as long as it benefits their side.

originally posted by: Halfswede

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

Even more evidence that the FBI was in the tank for Clinton and the DNC.

The DNC likely knew exactly what happened, and that they weren't hacked by Russia. They let their allies in the FBI know what happened, so there was no need to do a real investigation.

Disgusting.

The latest update on what has been found in the Declassified transcripts. The top six suspicions which have been confirmed.

justthenews.com...

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets
a reply to: chr0naut

Are you saying if you were running for office and your opponent was massing large stadiums of people (weekly) while you yourself couldn't fill an isle of 7-11 you would not be scared. He hosted the whole episode of SNL, not just an appearance like Bernie or Hillary. The whole thing and got strong ratings from it. He did every talk show, even the ones that hate him now and again, strong ratings.

They were scared alright. Scared !@#$less. He was mocking Obama and Hillary at those events and getting big applause and laughs.

You do realize that on the night Hillary won the popular vote?

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

Then why did the CrowdStrike guy say different ? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Because he didn't say different. He said that the evidence they analyzed was circumstantial. Like the evidence we have for the Big Bang or for Evolution. Circumstantial doesn't mean 'no evidence' or 'bad evidence'. It means that the interpretation is dependent upon circumstance.

Do you have anything other than circumstantial evidence that there is a brain inside your skull?

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.

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

It ain't that easy in the US.
In fact , those are the toughest cases to prosecute.
Don't know what it's like where you are at.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

Then why did the CrowdStrike guy say different ? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Because he didn't say different. He said that the evidence they analyzed was circumstantial. Like the evidence we have for the Big Bang or for Evolution. Circumstantial doesn't mean 'no evidence' or 'bad evidence'. It means that the interpretation is dependent upon circumstance.

Do you have anything other than circumstantial evidence that there is a brain inside your skull?

He said "we did not have concrete evidence" 😆

And Mueller found zer0 😆

a reply to: chr0naut

The popular vote for President means bullsnot 😃

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan
Crowdstrike were not the only IT security group who identified the DNC hack as Russian. Everyone, who investigated it and was qualified and credible,

there's your mistake..


just because the DNC and FBI says ''xx is credible'' means absolutely nothing since we've discovered they lied their assess off every step of the way

Seth Rich stole the documents and leaked them, because he saw first hand DWS and HRC rig the primary so Bernie lost.

Podesta and Co wanted to make an example of a leaker so they hired some MS-13 or other gangbanger types to gun him down.

But it didnt quite work, he lived long enough to make it to hospital where, strangely, Donna Brazille was waiting.

..... it's ok, I get it.. the Russians are still hiding under your bed and it worries you..


do yourself a favour, get down on your knees, pull back the blankets and look for yourself!

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

The popular vote for President means bullsnot 😃

It meant that the majority of actual voters put marks on paper for Hillary.

LOL.

originally posted by: Agit8dChop

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan
Crowdstrike were not the only IT security group who identified the DNC hack as Russian. Everyone, who investigated it and was qualified and credible,

there's your mistake..

just because the DNC and FBI says ''xx is credible'' means absolutely nothing since we've discovered they lied their assess off every step of the way

Seth Rich stole the documents and leaked them, because he saw first hand DWS and HRC rig the primary so Bernie lost.

Podesta and Co wanted to make an example of a leaker so they hired some MS-13 or other gangbanger types to gun him down.

But it didnt quite work, he lived long enough to make it to hospital where, strangely, Donna Brazille was waiting.

..... it's ok, I get it.. the Russians are still hiding under your bed and it worries you..

do yourself a favour, get down on your knees, pull back the blankets and look for yourself!

There is no evidence that Seth Rich stole any documents. That is all speculative.

Also, the DNC clearly didn't know about any leaked documents prior to them being available via Guccifer 2.0 or Wikileaks, or wherever. So how could they have known about Seth Rich before then?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

The popular vote for President means bullsnot 😃

It meant that the majority of actual voters put marks on paper for Hillary.

LOL.

The winning candidate pretty much never gets a majority of our actual voters because we have relatively low turnout numbers compared to a lot of western nations.

Learn how our system works.

You're the new silly. You come into threads about subjects you know nothing about and spout your uninformed opinions instead of trying to learn.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

The popular vote for President means bullsnot 😃

It meant that the majority of actual voters put marks on paper for Hillary.

LOL.

The winning candidate pretty much never gets a majority of our actual voters because we have relatively low turnout numbers compared to a lot of western nations.

Learn how our system works.

You're the new silly. You come into threads about subjects you know nothing about and spout your uninformed opinions instead of trying to learn.

So, in the USA, a minority has more power and control than the majority of voting citizens.

And you think that is the definition of a fair system, not for the people, of the people, and by the people?

You are totally 'pwned' like a silly little sycophant. Bleat away...

a reply to: chr0naut

I'll take, "the electoral college," for $1000, Alex.

We are a nation of 50 states.

Electoral College is a "majority" of the 50 states.

Do you really want California and a few counties in New York to decide what is best for the other 48 states?

a reply to: chr0naut

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: chr0naut

I'll take, "the electoral college," for $1000, Alex.

It costs slightly more to 'take' the electoral college. These days, you'd probably have to be a billiona...

oh, right.

originally posted by: CraigMon
We are a nation of 50 states.

Electoral College is a "majority" of the 50 states.

Do you really want California and a few counties in New York to decide what is best for the other 48 states?

a reply to: chr0naut

Or, it is a trick to keep an embedded minority in power, only ever changing the 'front man' to keep the plebs satisfied with their 'bread and circuses'.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

The popular vote for President means bullsnot 😃

It meant that the majority of actual voters put marks on paper for Hillary.

LOL.

The winning candidate pretty much never gets a majority of our actual voters because we have relatively low turnout numbers compared to a lot of western nations.

Learn how our system works.

You're the new silly. You come into threads about subjects you know nothing about and spout your uninformed opinions instead of trying to learn.

So, in the USA, a minority has more power and control than the majority of voting citizens.

And you think that is the definition of a fair system, not for the people, of the people, and by the people?

You are totally 'pwned' like a silly little sycophant. Bleat away...

No, none of that is accurate.

I seem to have to give you this advice in every thread you post in: please learn the subject matter. It will save you from making incorrect post after incorrect post.

Our system does not give power to a minority of voters. All the people who don't show up to vote do that by choice. They're not forced to stay home and keep turnout low. How is it "unfair" that people choose not to vote?

Do yourself a favor and read something besides anti-American propaganda. Every thread you post in it's "Wwaaaaaaaa! I hate America and Americans r stuoooopid!!!!" That's fine, you're free to think what you want about us. The problem is all your opinions about us are based on misconceptions and flat out falsehoods.

Every week your posts get less and less relevant because you don't know anything about any of the topics you choose to post in. Get informed.