Newly uncovered bombshell: Crowdstrike had no solid evidence Russians hacked the DNC computers

[marke]

Now we find out what democrat insiders have known for years. The original claim attributed to Crowdstrike and rubber stamped by democrats in Obama administration and the leftist media that Russians stole the emails that ended up in Assange's hands was never backed by solid evidence of any kind.

Declassified transcripts: CrowdStrike couldn't say for sure Russians stole DNC emails | Just The News

 

[Lutherf]

Yeah. The Shawn Henry transcript was a good read. There was a really interesting section where he talked about another hacking job on the same system that nobody bothered to investigate.

 

[vesper]

There's been a lot of stuff revealed about people from Crowdstrike to Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Sally Yates, and on and on and what they said under oath behind closed doors before Congress is the exact opposite that was reported in the news or they themselves have said publicly. The stench is so bad no wonder Durham has had to expand his investigative team twice. There's so much **** to shovel through!

 

[Barnacle]

Now we find out what democrat insiders have known for years. The original claim attributed to Crowdstrike and rubber stamped by democrats in Obama administration and the leftist media that Russians stole the emails that ended up in Assange's hands was never backed by solid evidence of any kind.
Declassified transcripts: CrowdStrike couldn't say for sure Russians stole DNC emails | Just The News

The name Seth Rich popped up again. Ten days ago a lawyer sent the following letter to Grenell based on the newly disclosed information from Crowdstrike ...

Letter from Attorney Ty Clevenger to Acting DNI Richard Grenell | Wiki Leaks | Julian Assange

 

[Moot]

John Solomon's website? Uhhh, no...it's just another fake news conspiracy website.

 

[Barnacle]

John Solomon's website? Uhhh, no...it's just another fake news conspiracy website.

If you don't like John Solomon as the messenger, you can always go directly to the source ...

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/sh21.pdf

 

[Mr Person]

Obama and Hillary will definitely go to jail this time.

 

[Moot]

Yeah. The Shawn Henry transcript was a good read. There was a really interesting section where he talked about another hacking job on the same system that nobody bothered to investigate.

Actually, they did investigate it....Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear have been public knowledge for years...

"...Forensic evidence analyzed by several cybersecurity firms, CrowdStrike, Fidelis, and Mandiant (or FireEye), strongly indicates that two Russian intelligence agencies infiltrated the DNC computer systems. The American cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, which removed the hacking programs, revealed a history of encounters with both groups and had already named them, calling one of them Cozy Bear and the other Fancy Bear, names which are used in the media.[1][2][3][4][5]..."

Democratic National Committee cyber attacks - Wikipedia​

Oh, looky there....Crowdstrike wasn't the only cybersecurity firm to analyze the DNC's server...and testify to congress. So why didn't the rightwing conspiracy nuts investigate them?

https://www.fireeye.com/content/dam...st-senate-intel-committee-russia-election.pdf

Findings from Analysis of DNC Intrusion Malware | Fidelis Cybersecurity​

 

[marke]

The name Seth Rich popped up again. Ten days ago a lawyer sent the following letter to Grenell based on the newly disclosed information from Crowdstrike ...

Letter from Attorney Ty Clevenger to Acting DNI Richard Grenell | Wiki Leaks | Julian Assange

The crime is shocking. The growing mountain of evidence is shocking. The deliberate rejection of truth, knowledge, facts and details by those who refuse to believe anything negative about democrats is unbelievable.

 

[marke]

Obama and Hillary will definitely go to jail this time.

For what, tax evasion? Don't count on it. People like Obama, Hillary and Capone, with scores of crooked government officials everywhere covering their every sin, don't go to jail unless they are finally trapped on something minor. Never will they go to jail for anything they did which was a major vioilation of law or American trust.

 

[LosAngelesAngel]

 

[Moot]

The crime is shocking. The growing mountain of evidence is shocking. The deliberate rejection of truth, knowledge, facts and details by those who refuse to believe anything negative about democrats is unbelievable.

Nothing is shocking where fake far right news is concerned. The transcript shows that Mr. Henry, using the 5 point Likert scale (1 = no confidence, 5 = high confidence) had high degree of confidence that the Russians hacked the DNC.

From the transcript (p. 24, 29)...

"...MR. STEWART oF UTAH: And can you identify that as being -- with a fair degree of confidence that it's associated with the Russian Government?

MR. HENRY: We said that we had a high degree of confidence it was the Russian Government. And our analysts that looked at it that had looked at these types of attacks before, many different types of attacks similar to this in different environments, certain tools that were used, certain methods by which they were moving in the environment, and looking at the types of data that was being targeted, that it was consistent with a nation-state adversary and associated with Russian intelligence..."

MR. STEWART of UTAH: wow. so much fun, the time just flies. Let me -- one question very quickly. There are some press reports or some people at least claim that this hack on the DNC did not -- was not
perpetrated by the Russians. How do you respond to that?

MR. HENRY: Everything in my experience, sir, having done this for many, many years, both in the government and in the private sector, says that it was the Russian Government.
​

That was a solid answer.






Other facts from the transcript that might be of interest:


Crowdstrike didn't work for the DNC. The transcript says they were hired by a former FBI counterintelligence officer, Michael Sussmann who was working at the law firm, Perkins Coie. Crowdstrike had a contract with Sussmann and reported to him...not the DNC. p. 22 .

It also said the FBI didn't notify the DNC...instead they notified an IT contractor named, Yared Tamene who thought it was a prank call...because the FBI agent didn't mention the Russians but used the word "Dukes" instead...and he had no idea who or what the Dukes were and said he didn't notice any unusual activity in the networks. Apparently, the FBI did a chronology report on him. p. 16-17, 23, 25,..

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/sh21.pdf

 

[Lutherf]

Actually, they did investigate it....Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear have been public knowledge for years...

"...Forensic evidence analyzed by several cybersecurity firms, CrowdStrike, Fidelis, and Mandiant (or FireEye), strongly indicates that two Russian intelligence agencies infiltrated the DNC computer systems. The American cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, which removed the hacking programs, revealed a history of encounters with both groups and had already named them, calling one of them Cozy Bear and the other Fancy Bear, names which are used in the media.[1][2][3][4][5]..."

Democratic National Committee cyber attacks - Wikipedia​

Oh, looky there....Crowdstrike wasn't the only cybersecurity firm to analyze the DNC's server...and testify to congress. So why didn't the rightwing conspiracy nuts investigate them?

https://www.fireeye.com/content/dam...st-senate-intel-committee-russia-election.pdf

Findings from Analysis of DNC Intrusion Malware | Fidelis Cybersecurity​

Right. And the malware from at least one of those cute little bears had been on the DNC system since at least 2015 which makes it HIGHLY unlikely to have been there as part of a Trump scheme.

 

[Termn8or]

John Solomon's website? Uhhh, no...it's just another fake news conspiracy website.

Give us some examples of Solomon's "fake news and conspiracies."

Give us all a laugh.:lol:

he is far and away the best investigative reporter on the country and a man of high integrity.

 

[Termn8or]

For what, tax evasion? Don't count on it. People like Obama, Hillary and Capone, with scores of crooked government officials everywhere covering their every sin, don't go to jail unless they are finally trapped on something minor. Never will they go to jail for anything they did which was a major vioilation of law or American trust.

Perhaps, but the times are a-changing.

Trump is a bull in a china shop, and he chose exactly the right person to be AG.

The only thing that would keep Obama and Clinton from being indicted is a tradition of not doing so to high public figures.

Except that their acts were not only criminal, but a threat to our very democracy; literal treason.

If that goes unpunished, it absolutely will happen again.

Just like Obama's crimes were done keeping in mind that Clinton got away with his; free as a bird, richer than heck with liberal Fake News and history books censoring out his actual crimes and abuses of power.

So why would he or Obama or some future president care what half the country thinks, who they hold in utter contempt?

Screw past tradition. Indict.

 

[lwf]

 

[marke]

Nothing is shocking where fake far right news is concerned. The transcript shows that Mr. Henry, using the 5 point Likert scale (1 = no confidence, 5 = high confidence) had high degree of confidence that the Russians hacked the DNC.

From the transcript (p. 24, 29)...

"...MR. STEWART oF UTAH: And can you identify that as being -- with a fair degree of confidence that it's associated with the Russian Government?

MR. HENRY: We said that we had a high degree of confidence it was the Russian Government. And our analysts that looked at it that had looked at these types of attacks before, many different types of attacks similar to this in different environments, certain tools that were used, certain methods by which they were moving in the environment, and looking at the types of data that was being targeted, that it was consistent with a nation-state adversary and associated with Russian intelligence..."

MR. STEWART of UTAH: wow. so much fun, the time just flies. Let me -- one question very quickly. There are some press reports or some people at least claim that this hack on the DNC did not -- was not
perpetrated by the Russians. How do you respond to that?

MR. HENRY: Everything in my experience, sir, having done this for many, many years, both in the government and in the private sector, says that it was the Russian Government.
​

That was a solid answer.






Other facts from the transcript that might be of interest:


Crowdstrike didn't work for the DNC. The transcript says they were hired by a former FBI counterintelligence officer, Michael Sussmann who was working at the law firm, Perkins Coie. Crowdstrike had a contract with Sussmann and reported to him...not the DNC. p. 22 .

It also said the FBI didn't notify the DNC...instead they notified an IT contractor named, Yared Tamene who thought it was a prank call...because the FBI agent didn't mention the Russians but used the word "Dukes" instead...and he had no idea who or what the Dukes were and said he didn't notice any unusual activity in the networks. Apparently, the FBI did a chronology report on him. p. 16-17, 23, 25,..

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/sh21.pdf

Mr. Henry believed it was the Russians. He seemed to believe that with his whole heart. Nevertheless, he had no concrete proof it was the Russians. This from the transcript:

"Mr. Stewart: All right. So I think that's one of the more interesting things that we've learned from you today, again, that there is no evidence it was actually exfiltrated. ...
Mr. Henry: So there is circumstantial evidence it was taken. ... There is circumstantial evidence that that data was exfiltrated off the network. ...
Mr. Stewart: And circumstantial is less sure than the other evidence you've indicated. ...
Mr. Henry: ...So I said I don't have direct evidence. ..."

pp.75-76.

 

[marke]

Mr. Henry believed it was the Russians. He seemed to believe that with his whole heart. Nevertheless, he had no concrete proof it was the Russians. This from the transcript:

"Mr. Stewart: All right. So I think that's one of the more interesting things that we've learned from you today, again, that there is no evidence it was actually exfiltrated. ...
Mr. Henry: So there is circumstantial evidence it was taken. ... There is circumstantial evidence that that data was exfiltrated off the network. ...
Mr. Stewart: And circumstantial is less sure than the other evidence you've indicated. ...
Mr. Henry: ...So I said I don't have direct evidence. ..."

pp.75-76.

From p.74 of the transcript:

"Mr. Stewart: You said something, and I want to restate it -- and tell me if I'm wrong -- if I could. You said, I believe, talking about the DNC computer, you had indications that data was prepared to be exfiltrated, but no evidence it actually left. Did I write that down correctly?
Mr. Henry: Yes."

 

[Jezcoe]

From p.74 of the transcript:

"Mr. Stewart: You said something, and I want to restate it -- and tell me if I'm wrong -- if I could. You said, I believe, talking about the DNC computer, you had indications that data was prepared to be exfiltrated, but no evidence it actually left. Did I write that down correctly?
Mr. Henry: Yes."

This only makes sense if one ignores that there were two separate, independent groups of Russian Intelligence hackers.

 

[Mr Person]

Now we find out what democrat insiders have known for years. The original claim attributed to Crowdstrike and rubber stamped by democrats in Obama administration and the leftist media that Russians stole the emails that ended up in Assange's hands was never backed by solid evidence of any kind.

Declassified transcripts: CrowdStrike couldn't say for sure Russians stole DNC emails | Just The News

Yeah. The Shawn Henry transcript was a good read. There was a really interesting section where he talked about another hacking job on the same system that nobody bothered to investigate.

There's been a lot of stuff revealed about people from Crowdstrike to Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Sally Yates, and on and on and what they said under oath behind closed doors before Congress is the exact opposite that was reported in the news or they themselves have said publicly. The stench is so bad no wonder Durham has had to expand his investigative team twice. There's so much **** to shovel through!

The name Seth Rich popped up again. Ten days ago a lawyer sent the following letter to Grenell based on the newly disclosed information from Crowdstrike ...

Letter from Attorney Ty Clevenger to Acting DNI Richard Grenell | Wiki Leaks | Julian Assange

In Lutherf and marke world, nobody would ever go to jail. How could they when investigators need proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant is guilty before they investigate whether the defendant is guilt? Or is it "solid evidence", whatever a Trumpist says it is?

:doh

Why do you constantly try to "win" imaginary political points by inventing fake standards, then declaring that your newly invented fake standard wasn't met? What do you think that accomplishes beyond virtue-signalling blind hatred of "the left", or rather, the fake image of the left Fox feeds you daily?



In the criminal context, investigations begin on no more than a hunch at times. Nothing wrong with that. If the police want to pat frisk someone, now they need reasonable suspicion based on articulable facts that the person has, is, or will commit a crime. Arrest? Probable cause to believe the same. If they want to search a home, probable cause re: finding evidence and a warrant.

So on and so forth. Those are real standards. You can find out what they mean by comparing cases where a court said they were met with similar cases a court said they were not met. They have substance.



What's your fake standard this time? "Solid evidence".

It's not even defined. This thread just insists there is a standard of "solid evidence" for starting an investigation into potential election interference, and insists that that wasn't here.

Then you all show up to vomit up tidbits of what you half-remember from Hannity the night before. You're not even trying to argue about what solid evidence is and why the sum total evidence wasn't "solid"; just a bunch of Trumpists recycling each others' farts.


THAT IS NOT HOW ANY OF THIS WORKS

 

[cabse5]

Now we find out what democrat insiders have known for years. The original claim attributed to Crowdstrike and rubber stamped by democrats in Obama administration and the leftist media that Russians stole the emails that ended up in Assange's hands was never backed by solid evidence of any kind.

Declassified transcripts: CrowdStrike couldn't say for sure Russians stole DNC emails | Just The News

We also know Trump was impeached, in part, for asking Zelensky the president of the Ukraine for discovery evidence about Russia's involvement in the hacking of the DNC server to conspire in affecting the 2016 election. Ah, another conspiracy theory was that a rich autocrat in the Ukraine had possession of disk servers containing the alleged DNC server data.

 

[marke]

In Lutherf and marke world, nobody would ever go to jail. How could they when investigators need proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant is guilty before they investigate whether the defendant is guilt? Or is it "solid evidence", whatever a Trumpist says it is?

:doh

Why do you constantly try to "win" imaginary political points by inventing fake standards, then declaring that your newly invented fake standard wasn't met? What do you think that accomplishes beyond virtue-signalling blind hatred of "the left", or rather, the fake image of the left Fox feeds you daily?



In the criminal context, investigations begin on no more than a hunch at times. Nothing wrong with that. If the police want to pat frisk someone, now they need reasonable suspicion based on articulable facts that the person has, is, or will commit a crime. Arrest? Probable cause to believe the same. If they want to search a home, probable cause re: finding evidence and a warrant.

So on and so forth. Those are real standards. You can find out what they mean by comparing cases where a court said they were met with similar cases a court said they were not met. They have substance.



What's your fake standard this time? "Solid evidence".

It's not even defined. This thread just insists there is a standard of "solid evidence" for starting an investigation into potential election interference, and insists that that wasn't here.

Then you all show up to vomit up tidbits of what you half-remember from Hannity the night before. You're not even trying to argue about what solid evidence is and why the sum total evidence wasn't "solid"; just a bunch of Trumpists recycling each others' farts.


THAT IS NOT HOW ANY OF THIS WORKS

You can blame Hannity if that makes you feel warm and fuzzy, but I have been quoting from the actual transcript of the congressional testimony. Here is more: (from pp. 13-19):

"Mr. Stewart: So help me understand. ... Help me understand if they suspect a hack has occurred, which is a criminal activity, true?

Mr. Henry: Yes

Mr. Stewart: So there's a crime that's been committed. Why sould not the FBI have at least some role in the investigation subsequent to that hack? ...

After much prevarication and several minutes of refusing to offer a clear answer to the clear question, Mr. Henry offered this explanation for why the FBI did not take charge of the criminal investigation into the alleged hacking:

Mr. Henry: "You're asking me to speculate. I don't know the answer."

There are a lot of unanswered questions which still need further investigation if we are ever to sort out the truth from the lies.

 

[marke]

We also know Trump was impeached, in part, for asking Zelensky the president of the Ukraine for discovery evidence about Russia's involvement in the hacking of the DNC server to conspire in affecting the 2016 election. Ah, another conspiracy theory was that a rich autocrat in the Ukraine had possession of disk servers containing the alleged DNC server data.

It turns out CrowdStrike is not a conspiracy theory after all. We've been going over their congressional testimony here for hours already.

 

[Moot]

Right. And the malware from at least one of those cute little bears had been on the DNC system since at least 2015 which makes it HIGHLY unlikely to have been there as part of a Trump scheme.

Trump announced his candidacy in July 2015. Cozy Bear began attacking the DNC in August 2015....and their main objective was to steal opposition research on Trump.

 

[Lutherf]

Trump announced his candidacy in July 2015. Cozy Bear began attacking the DNC in August 2015....and their main objective was to steal opposition research on Trump.

They were trying to steal opposition research on Trump? From the DNC?

Okay....

Then how did they get from that to, "Trump and his campaign team are coordinating with the Russians to hack the DNC and steal the emails so that they could rig the election?