Trump's under the radar, batshyte crazy reference to Crowdstrike.

Please turn to page 36, Vol. I of the Mueller report that begins................

A. GRU Hacking Directed at the Clinton Campaign

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

It's the beginning of Mueller's findings after the team's extensive forensic research.

https://www.justsecurity.org/65863/expert-summaries-of-mueller-report-a-collection-of-short-essays/

 

Except for the fact that there doesn't appear to be any hosting companies, you do have a point. In our system, Democrats are above the usual niceties in regards the law. They can tell the FBI to eff off while investigating a federal felony. There is certainly a Democratic privilege that allows you to ignore the law with zero consequences.

 

No one on Mueller's team had that sort of skill set.

 

Read again. This time keep in mind: it's never as you suspected. . That's actually a tip that might be useful for you to keep in mind every time you read anything I write.

 

I'm sure the words "appears", "to", "be" and "Russia" are on the Mueller report. But certainly not together.

Are you actually still trying to cast doubts on the clear indisputable fact that it was Russia that made Trump President hacked our elections?

 

There's always a point at which the Trumper argument falls apart. It's just happened twice. 1. A poster suggested Mueller relied on media accounts of the Russian hacking for his report. 2. Mike posits Mueller didn't have anyone on his team capable of extensive forensic examination of who hacked the DNC.
Putting aside the absurdity of both assertions Mueller had, at his disposal, forensic research conducted by both the intel agencies and the FBI. What on earth would lead anyone to believe he would write a report including allegations of Russia's involvement with the hack and not have the evidence to back up the claim? Besides fact deniers and conspiracy theorists.

 

Ah hah! See? I said that Mueller didn't have anyone on his team capable of doing that work, and then after poo-pooing that notion, you concede that he got it from the intel agencies and the FBI.

What I'm referring to and I assume you are too, is the indictment against the various Russian GRU officers alleged to be involved in the "Put Trump in Office to be a servant of Putin" plot. The indictment makes for fascinating reading, and it's clear that no one on Mueller's team came up with that narrative.

What's really interesting though is that even though your post is intended contradict my post, by calling it an "absurdity" you end up agreeing with it.

You're welcome.

 

Aww, you must have "accidently" forgot to include the rest of my reply which you failed to respond to. Here, let me help you out.

 

Most of the boiler plate in Mueller's report clearly imply certainty, I would agree. I think reasonable judgement would include that Russian hacking of the DNC is probable, but it is certainly not clearly indisputable. There are a number of questions associated with that determination. One relative to this discussion is the heavy detail that Mueller put in his report on the forensic evidence from an IT perspective. Mueller's team certainly did not conduct that analysis although he certainly implies that they did. His reliance on "intel agencies and the FBI" for their analysis is also questionable because no one other than Crowdstrike in fact made a thorough IT analysis. Our agencies pretty much relied on Crowdstrike's report, which was admittedly quite thorough though officially the only report in our possession is labeled "DRAFT".

 

You can't wordsmith your way out of the fact the evidence Mueller presents contradicts Don's batshyte crazy conspiracy theory about Crowdstrike.

 

The FBI used Crowdstrike's report to confirm the Russian hack of the DNC server for the FBI investigation in to Hillary's emails. The intel agencies independently confirmed the hacking in their work to confirm Russian interference in our election.

 

The FBI and intel agencies connected the dots which is a reasonable way to assess lacking hard evidence, but neither did a bona fide direct server analysis of the DNC computer systems. They used Crowdstrike's analysis and report for their dots. When Stone requested the full final unredacted Crowdstrike reports for his trial, the DOJ said they didn't have anything beyond the initial draft report.

 

So far, so good. Critically, though, CrowdStrike was the firm the Democratic National Committee called in 2016 after the organization discovered that hackers had broken into its email and chat systems and stolen data. The US intelligence community later confirmed that the attackers were Russian hacking group APT 28, also known as Fancy Bear—a moniker coined by CrowdStrike. (The Russian hacking group APT 29, or Cozy Bear, also infiltrated the DNC network in 2015.) When CrowdStrike began its investigation, Fancy Bear hackers still had active access to the DNC's networks, and CrowdStrike worked to remove them.

As part of that remediation, the DNC, CrowdStrike, and government investigators had to "decommission more than 140 servers, remove and reinstall all software, including the operating systems, for more than 180 computers, and rebuild at least 11 servers," according to court documents filed by the DNC in 2018.
https://www.wired.com/story/trump-ukraine-call-crowdstrike-dnc-russia/

Then-FBI Director James Comey testified last year that the FBI did not get access to the server, but the DNC hired a private cybersecurity firm that shared its forensic analysis of the DNC server with the FBI.

“[W]e got the forensics from the pros that they hired which — again, best practice is always to get access to the machines themselves, but this — my folks tell me was an appropriate substitute,” Comey said in a March 20, 2017, exchange with Rep. Will Hurd of Texas about the DNC server.

Comey’s testimony that the private forensic analysis was “an appropriate substitute” has since been borne out by the July 13 indictment of 12 members of GRU, the Russian military intelligence agency.
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/07/video-trump-on-dnc-server/

This case was investigated with the help of the FBI’s cyber teams in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and San Francisco and the National Security Division.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/gran...ficers-hacking-offenses-related-2016-election

Virtually everything you've posted on this thread is a fabrication.

 

Well if the Ukrainians cooperate and somehow Crowdstrike does have DNC servers, then "Don's batshyte crazy conspiracy theory" will be disproven. More evidence and data is always better, correct?

 

Crowdstrike allegedly did a forensic analysis on the DNC server hack, not Hillary's emails. Unless you know of another Crowdstrike report about her emails?

 

Wait a minute...are you telling me that there were ACTUAL SERVERS?

Shocked, shocked I say...

 

I was referring to the release of her hacked emails.

 

If any Trump supporter wants to clear the right wing smoke screen about the DNC server from your head.......here you go. (warning: the article may cause you to experience cognitive dissonance as it isn't full of shyte like the garbage you've been reading)

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/why-on-earth-does-trump-think-a-dnc-server-is-hidden-in-ukraine

 

Talking Ponts Memo? LMFAO!

Heck, their first sentence is based on a lie...

"As he pressured Ukraine’s President to produce dirt that would discredit the Mueller investigation"​

Not only has the Ukrainian President stated that he never felt pressured, the transcript doesn't show Trump pressuring anybody, yet you left-wingers keep peddling this lie. Why?????

 

What did Crowdstrike have to do with Hillary's emails? Did she employ them for her bathroom server?

 

Not a lie. Why do you think it is? Were you watching admin members on the w/e shows getting shredded?

If you have any info refuting what the article says about the Crowdstrike conspiracy theory please proceed.

 

Yes, a lie. The first sentence of your article is a lie. There is no proof that Trump pressured Zelensky.

 

And that evidence comes from the FBI...which DOES have the expertise to investigate this

 

With holding vital military funding isn't "pressure"?

 

MaterMater

Let me explain how it works. Crowdstrike comes in and receives the passwords. They create an "image" of the virtual hard drive(s), download all the logs of the server, and of the communication equipment in the hands of the Datacenter provider, as well as all the backups. With this on hand, they proceed to the forensic analysis. When the FBI does its own analysis, they do it over the exact same data that Crowdstrike used. They consult security experts from multiple firms. All of them agree on the conclusions. Which just happened to be the same conclusions Crowdstrike had obtained.

There is absolutely no dispute on the matter: Russia hacked our elections!