This tweet could have been written by you. Or Mate, for that matter.
And that's a big problem.
Peter Navarro was just indicted by the DOJ for Contempt of Congress. Meanwhile—Michael Sussmann, Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, James Comey, Hillary Clinton, Andrew McCabe, Loretta Lynch, and the rest of the DC Cabal behind the Russia Hoax are allowed to walk free
Mate and Dore are so deceptive - it always feels like I'm watching a debate club and they always take the side their base loves. I'm convinced that these guys would easily be ably to argue the opposite view as well or even better.
It's not worth the time to debunk it. You can easily find 50 articles debunking every claim they make - The Carter Page warrant - why crowdstrike - FBI was in on it. The problem is - whose "facts" do you believe?
This is another Clintongate scandal that fed the T**** base. (as well as the anti-msm crowd)
This tweet could have been written by you. Or Mate, for that matter.
And that's a big problem.
The big problem is that you can't see beyond "Democrats Good" & "Republicans Bad." Aaron Mate did a deep dive on Russiagate and saw that it was a fake and the trail led to the Clinton campaign. He's on the left and does not support Republicans but he had to look at the facts and that is where they went. You can't do that because then you would have to admit "Democrats Bad" and you can't do that.
Mate and Dore are so deceptive - it always feels like I'm watching a debate club and they always take the side their base loves.
well, that's the thing. Journalists (or whatever you want to call them) shouldn't have a "base". Their base is so ideologically driven that they just want to hear what they already believe. And you can present solid debunking facts and they have no effect.
Mate and Dore are so deceptive - it always feels like I'm watching a debate club and they always take the side their base loves. I'm convinced that these guys would easily be ably to argue the opposite view as well or even better.
It's not worth the time to debunk it. You can easily find 50 articles debunking every claim they make - The Carter Page warrant - why crowdstrike - FBI was in on it. The problem is - whose "facts" do you believe?
This is another Clintongate scandal that fed the T**** base. (as well as the anti-msm crowd)
Sounds like projection since you believe NATO funded media when they talk about NATO. Aaron Mate and Jimmy Dore are independent. They say what they want and sometimes they lose a bunch of their audience. Why bother posting at all if it's not worth the time? Like Drummerboy, you can't handle anything negative about Democrats.
But facts exist and Mate/Dore did not put them there. Sussman worked for Clinton and he hired GPS Fusion and Crowdstrike and they produced the phony dossier and Crowdstrike did not let the FBI touch the servers. The dossier is now discredited and the head of Crowdstrike said under oath that they really had no way of telling if it was the Russians who hacked the DNC servers. This does not look good for the Clinton campaign, no matter how those Brookings guys or MOL spin it.
The book Shattered, written by non-biased authors following the Clinton campaign, ends with the decision to blame it all on the Russians. Looks like that's what they did.
well, that's the thing. Journalists (or whatever you want to call them) shouldn't have a "base". Their base is so ideologically driven that they just want to hear what they already believe. And you can present solid debunking facts and they have no effect.
I'm sorry. Do you want to quibble about what "liar" means? What are you, the NY Times? They took years to call Trump a liar.
LIar does not mean you have an opinion on how DC juries skew. So have you found another Mate lie or is that the end of it?
Aaron Mate has zero background or knowledge of how a jury anywhere may react to a particular defendant. For gosh sakes, Mayor Barry was even convicted by a D.C. jury in a Federal criminal case.
He's just making it up, and since it tells his audience what they want to hear, they don't question him.
But facts exist and Mate/Dore did not put them there. Sussman worked for Clinton and he hired GPS Fusion and Crowdstrike and they produced the phony dossier and Crowdstrike did not let the FBI touch the servers. The dossier is now discredited and the head of Crowdstrike said under oath that they really had no way of telling if it was the Russians who hacked the DNC servers. This does not look good for the Clinton campaign, no matter how those Brookings guys or MOL spin it.
None of that had anything to do with what the charges were against Sussman, for lying to the FBI about a different topic.
I'm sorry. Do you want to quibble about what "liar" means? What are you, the NY Times? They took years to call Trump a liar.
LIar does not mean you have an opinion on how DC juries skew. So have you found another Mate lie or is that the end of it?
It's not just some random "opinion". He is offering it as an explanation for why the verdict came out the way it did. That's what's misleading about it.
And all he's doing is just repeating a right-wing talking point anyway. Great journalism, don't you think?
Did CrowdStrike have proof that Russia hacked the DNC?
Yes, and this is also supported by the U.S. Intelligence community and independent Congressional reports.
Following a comprehensive investigation that CrowdStrike detailed publicly, the company concluded in May 2016 that two separate Russian intelligence-affiliated adversaries breached the DNC network.
To reference, CrowdStrike’s account of their DNC investigation, published on June 14, 2016, “CrowdStrike Services Inc., our Incident Response group, was called by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the formal governing body for the US Democratic Party, to respond to a suspected breach. We deployed our IR team and technology and immediately identified two sophisticated adversaries on the network – COZY BEAR and FANCY BEAR…. At DNC, COZY BEAR intrusion has been identified going back to summer of 2015, while FANCY BEAR separately breached the network in April 2016.”
“The Committee found that specific intelligence as well as open source assessments support the assessment that President Putin approved and directed aspects of this influence campaign.”
Furthermore, in his testimony in front of the House Intelligence Committee, Shawn Henry stated the following with regards to CrowdStrike’s degree of confidence that the intrusion activity can be attributed to Russia, cited from page 24:
HENRY: We said that we had a high degree of confidence it was the Russian Government. And our analysts that looked at it and 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.
One bloc of five middle-aged and older black jurors voiced a deep distrust of the government's case. Some said they believed the government manufactured evidence and coached witnesses to lie so it could oust a black mayor from office. The other bloc -- consisting of six or seven jurors -- believed the evidence against Barry was so overwhelming that it had no option but to convict.
In that case, they were deadlocked, with long-time Barry supporters distrusting the government. It’s not just “won’t convict a Democrat.”
In the Sussman case, no juror thought there was any substance to the case.
The Republican Party opposes Statehood for DC or DC having any elected representatives in Congress. People who serve on DC juries have no actual representation in Congress. The Democratic Party, or at least substantial elements of it, favor DC Statehood.
How can a jury in DC not "skew" Democratic?
When a person is charged with a crime in a certain jurisdiction he/she/they are tried in that jurisdiction unless pre-trial publicity threatens to make it difficult or impossible for the defendant to get a fair trial. Then there can be a change of venue. It's very rare and it's the defendant's right to a fair trial that's the issue. To my knowledge the State or the US has no right to seek to transfer a case to a jurisdiction where the jury is more likely to be hostile to the defendant.
Having said that if and when the former guy is put on trial I hope the jury is made up of people who think the way I do.
Aaron Mate has zero background or knowledge of how a jury anywhere may react to a particular defendant. For gosh sakes, Mayor Barry was even convicted by a D.C. jury in a Federal criminal case.
He's just making it up, and since it tells his audience what they want to hear, they don't question him.
Cherry picking proves nothing. And again, this was a tiny tiny part of what Mate said, but it's the only part you can attack so you are making a mountain out of a molehill. Did you actually listen to the video or are you just basing your comment on hearsay?
Did CrowdStrike have proof that Russia hacked the DNC?
Yes, and this is also supported by the U.S. Intelligence community and independent Congressional reports.
Following a comprehensive investigation that CrowdStrike detailed publicly, the company concluded in May 2016 that two separate Russian intelligence-affiliated adversaries breached the DNC network.
To reference, CrowdStrike’s account of their DNC investigation, published on June 14, 2016, “CrowdStrike Services Inc., our Incident Response group, was called by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the formal governing body for the US Democratic Party, to respond to a suspected breach. We deployed our IR team and technology and immediately identified two sophisticated adversaries on the network – COZY BEAR and FANCY BEAR…. At DNC, COZY BEAR intrusion has been identified going back to summer of 2015, while FANCY BEAR separately breached the network in April 2016.”
“The Committee found that specific intelligence as well as open source assessments support the assessment that President Putin approved and directed aspects of this influence campaign.”
Furthermore, in his testimony in front of the House Intelligence Committee, Shawn Henry stated the following with regards to CrowdStrike’s degree of confidence that the intrusion activity can be attributed to Russia, cited from page 24:
HENRY: We said that we had a high degree of confidence it was the Russian Government. And our analysts that looked at it and 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.
Crowdstrike plays loose with the facts around Shawn Henry's testimony in front of the House Intelligence Committee. He did say he thinks it was the Russians, but he also admits he had no proof, which is omitted from what is quoted above.
Hidden Over 2 Years: Dem Cyber-Firm's Sworn Testimony It Had No Proof of Russian Hack of DNC
Henry testified that CrowdStrike did not in fact know if such a theft occurred at all: "We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated [moved electronically] from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated," Henry said.
Henry reiterated his claim on multiple occasions:
"There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left."
"There’s not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. There's circumstantial evidence but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated."
"There is circumstantial evidence that that data was exfiltrated off the network. … We didn't have a sensor in place that saw data leave. We said that the data left based on the circumstantial evidence. That was the conclusion that we made."
"Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn't see the data leave, but we believe it left, based on what we saw."
Asked directly if he could "unequivocally say" whether "it was or was not exfiltrated out of DNC," Henry told the committee: "I can't say based on that."
One bloc of five middle-aged and older black jurors voiced a deep distrust of the government's case. Some said they believed the government manufactured evidence and coached witnesses to lie so it could oust a black mayor from office. The other bloc -- consisting of six or seven jurors -- believed the evidence against Barry was so overwhelming that it had no option but to convict.
In that case, they were deadlocked, with long-time Barry supporters distrusting the government. It’s not just “won’t convict a Democrat.”
In the Sussman case, no juror thought there was any substance to the case.
==========================
Maybe there was no substance, but the fact that Sussman was working for the Clinton campaign and they they were told that Sussman billed the Clinton campaign for the time he spent with the FBI and the thumb drive he gave them should maybe have raised some eyebrows, don't you think?
Why does @nan keep saying that Fusion GPS was "hired" by Sussman? Perkins Coie, of which he was a partner until the indictment, hired Fusion GPS when the Washington Free Beacon stopped paying upon realizing that Trump was going to be the GOP nominee (and, to use nan's analysis - Washington Free Beacon means GOP always good; Dems always bad). It's not like the Dems picked Fusion GPS out of thin air - Fusion was selected for opposition research by "The Right."
Crowdstrike plays loose with the facts around Shawn Henry's testimony in front of the House Intelligence Committee. He did say he thinks it was the Russians, but he also admits he had no proof, which is omitted from what is quoted above.
Hidden Over 2 Years: Dem Cyber-Firm's Sworn Testimony It Had No Proof of Russian Hack of DNC
Henry testified that CrowdStrike did not in fact know if such a theft occurred at all: "We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated [moved electronically] from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated," Henry said.
Henry reiterated his claim on multiple occasions:
"There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left."
"There’s not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. There's circumstantial evidence but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated."
"There is circumstantial evidence that that data was exfiltrated off the network. … We didn't have a sensor in place that saw data leave. We said that the data left based on the circumstantial evidence. That was the conclusion that we made."
"Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn't see the data leave, but we believe it left, based on what we saw."
Asked directly if he could "unequivocally say" whether "it was or was not exfiltrated out of DNC," Henry told the committee: "I can't say based on that."
Also:
And this is what Aaron Mate said in 2020:
Do you understand the difference between breaching a network and exfiltrating data?
Do you understand the difference between breaching a network and exfiltrating data?
Crowstrike could not tell if Russia took any data and that is at the heart of Russiagate--the allegation that Russia hacked the DNC and took Hillary's emails and gave them to Julian Assange. Assange says the emails did not come from Russia.
Do you understand the difference between breaching a network and exfiltrating data?
Crowstrike could not tell if Russia took any data and that is at the heart of Russiagate--the allegation that Russia hacked the DNC and took Hillary's emails and gave them to Julian Assange. Assange says the emails did not come from Russia.
Except the Henry quote to which you responded discussed breaches and you tried to respond to that by challenging whether or not data was exfiltrated. The fact stands that Crowdstrike unequivocally contends that Russian actors breached the DNC servers and had been in them. That is not something to which you have not responded with contrary facts. With regard to the exfiltration, Crowdstrike was candid that it did not have definitive proof of exfiltration, but it had enough circumstantial evidence to conclude, with a reasonable degree of certainty, that the data had been exfiltrated.
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict someone of a criminal offense and is "intrinsically no different" than direct or testimonial evidence. Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121 (1954).
Except the Henry quote to which you responded discussed breaches and you tried to respond to that by challenging whether or not data was exfiltrated. The fact stands that Crowdstrike unequivocally contends that Russian actors breached the DNC servers and had been in them. That is not something to which you have not responded with contrary facts. With regard to the exfiltration, Crowdstrike was candid that it did not have definitive proof of exfiltration, but it had enough circumstantial evidence to conclude, with a reasonable degree of certainty, that the data had been exfiltrated.
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict someone of a criminal offense and is "intrinsically no different" than direct or testimonial evidence. Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121 (1954).
No they did not. Listen to the Mate video. They said they had "high confidence" that Russia had hacked the server, but there were at least two previous events where they also had high confidence and then had to walk it back. High confidence does not necessarily mean high confidence as you might think.
It said it could conclude based on evidence but that was when they were not under oath. Under oath they admitted they did not have evidence.
And the exfiltration is the key thing--lots of countries hack into computer systems of other countries, including the US. Russiagate was not based on hacking--it was based on hacking AND extracting emails for the purpose of getting Donald Trump an advantage over Clinton. That is what the big deal was about, and Crowdstrike helped promote that until later when they were under oath and that was kept quiet for a few years.
I don't think you can use a criminal case to make the claim that this was legit, especially when Crowdstrike admits they don't have the evidence.
no **** way. He doesn’t add anything to the conversation. Moreover, you refuse to actually comprehend what is written and accept distinctions that disagree with your understanding of the “facts.”
Furthermore, even if data weren’t exfiltrated, it was accessed over an extended period of time. That you don’t (or won’t) accept the significance of this is stunning.
I'm sorry. Do you want to quibble about what "liar" means? What are you, the NY Times? They took years to call Trump a liar.