You said Crowdstrike prevented the FBI from examining the servers.
Crowdstrike DID NOT prevent the FBI from examining the servers.
Lie explained.
Easy peasy.
Ok, if you need more, Crowdstrike worked from server images - they did not have physical control of the servers, they didn't own them, and therefore it was not in their power to prevent the FBI from checking them out.
And I'm pretty sure that if the FBI really wanted access they could have subpoenaed them. The FBI is good at that.
So, now take those 3 or 4 neurons connected to that factoid and erase them from your memory, which is what normal people do when faced with contrary evidence.
Newsflash: We are not in 7th grade. You can stop with the insults and act like an adult. Nothing you have said here is verifiable fact.
Here is your favorite, CNN, reporting that the FBI said they asked for the servers and the DNC did not give them access. The DNC says they were never asked. Who do you think is lying? It seems crazy that the FBI would ask for cooperation in an investigation of computer hacking without asking to look at the computer. Dontchthink? Does not the whole thing set off some alarms in your brain?
The Democratic National Committee “rebuffed” a request from the FBI to examine its computer services after it was allegedly hacked by Russia during the 2016 election, a senior law enforcement official told CNN Thursday.
“The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated,” a senior law enforcement official told CNN. “This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third party for information. These actions caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier.”
This statement is in response to reports that the FBI never asked the DNC for access to the hacked systems.
The DNC told Buzzfeed News that they did not receive a request from the FBI to access their computer servers.
“The DNC had several meetings with representatives of the FBI’s Cyber Division and its Washington Field Office, the Department of Justice’s National Security Division, and US Attorney’s Offices, and it responded to a variety of requests for cooperation, but the FBI never requested access to the DNC’s computer servers,” Eric Walker, the DNC’s deputy communications director, told BuzzFeed News.
The FBI instead relied on the assessment from a third-party security company called CrowdStrIke.
You know there's a difference between the DNC and Crowdstrike, right? You said Crowdstrike denied the FBI access, and that's what I responded to.
Get your stories straight.
ETA: also, there is some dispute about the FBI request for server access. The DNC and the FBI have different takes on exactly what happened there, so it's a question of who you want to believe.
Also, regarding the Sussman trial, you implied it was stupid to believe that the Hillary campaign was not in cahoots with the FBI - yet here you're claiming that the DNC (according to you, under complete control of Hillary) would not cooperate with the FBI.
Here is Aaron Mate talking with Robert Sheer about Crowdstrike and the servers in November of 2021. He points out that you have two Clinton contractors generating the core Russiagate allegations. And of course, "the conspiracy theories get promoted relentlessly, and all the countervailing facts get ignored." In the case of the Shawn Henry testimony--it was classified for three years.
AM: All right, so basically, in the spring of 2016, the Clinton campaign made two hiring decisions that would change U.S. history. They hired Fusion GPS, and Fusion GPS then produced the Steele dossier, and the Steele dossier was used by the FBI, as we’ve discussed, for the collusion allegation—so let’s say, basically generated the collusion allegation. And at the same time, the Clinton campaign also hired CrowdStrike to investigate what they claimed was a hacking of their servers. And CrowdStrike, within days of Steele’s first report in mid-June, CrowdStrike came out publicly and said that Russia had—
RS: This was 2016.
AM: 2016, yeah. CrowdStrike came out publicly and said that Russia had hacked the DNC. And that became the basis for this foundational claim that Russia was behind the fact that the Democratic Party emails that WikiLeaks released. So you have two Clinton campaign contractors generating the core allegations at the heart of Russiagate: Fusion GPS generates collusion with the Steele dossier, and the FBI uses their so-called intelligence reports for surveillance warrants and investigative leads; and CrowdStrike generates the Russian hacking allegation, and just as the FBI did with Fusion GPS, the FBI relies on CrowdStrike’s forensics. The FBI never independently investigated the DNC servers.
And so you have two Clinton contractors playing this pivotal role. CrowdStrike is hired by a lawyer who just got indicted by Durham for lying to the FBI about another matter, this theory that Alpha Bank was secretly communicating with Donald Trump via a computer server, which was concocted as well. And you have the entire media going along with it and not raising any questions about it. I mean, imagine if Trump had hired contractors that generated consequential allegations against Clinton, and the FBI was then relying on those contractors’ claims. I mean, it just, it wouldn’t fly. And then, you know, as was the case so often with Russiagate, long after the fact, we got evidence that completely undermined what CrowdStrike was saying, so just in May 2020, some testimony was declassified from a series of depositions that were given—a series of interviews that happened with the House intelligence committee in December 2017. And one of those declassified transcripts showed that the head of CrowdStrike, this guy named Shawn Henry, had told the House intelligence committee under oath, in December 2017, that CrowdStrike had no evidence that these alleged Russian hackers actually stole anything from the DNC servers. He said, we have no evidence at all; we have indicators that this data might have been taken, but we have no concrete evidence of it. And we only found that out in May 2020, one year after the Mueller report, and nearly three years after Sean Henry had admitted this.
And if you read the Mueller report closely—and I identified this long before this admission from CrowdStrike came out—if you read the Mueller report closely, you’ll see that they have qualifiers when they talk about the attribution to Russia of these hacking allegations. They use words like: Russia appeared to have stolen emails, likely stolen emails; everything is qualified. And that to me reflects the lack of concrete evidence at the heart of this whole thing. But all that got ignored, because the media refused to report it. And even when CrowdStrike came out with this admission, you won’t find that admission reported on in the media. I mean, I did at the Grayzone and at Real Clear Investigations, but otherwise it’s just been buried. Because again, it was just, that was the modus operandi for Russiagate: the conspiracy theories get promoted relentlessly, and all the countervailing facts get ignored.
Did you not just say the FBI got their information from Crowdstrike?
OK, I meant to say the DNC did not let them look at the servers. The FBI relied on the Crowdstrike report. Crowdstrike was hired by the DNC so objectivity should have been a concern.
Did you not just say the FBI got their information from Crowdstrike?
OK, I meant to say the DNC did not let them look at the servers. The FBI relied on the Crowdstrike report. Crowdstrike was hired by the DNC so objectivity should have been a concern.
Of course they were hired by the DNC. Who else was going to hire them?
As I pointed out earlier, this, from Mate, is misleading b.s., and I've already explained why, in some detail.
And one of those declassified transcripts showed that the head of CrowdStrike, this guy named Shawn Henry, had told the House intelligence committee under oath, in December 2017, that CrowdStrike had no evidence that these alleged Russian hackers actually stole anything from the DNC servers. He said, we have no evidence at all; we have indicators that this data might have been taken, but we have no concrete evidence of it.
The rest of your post from Mate contains nothing but supposition and innuendo.
According to this article it was Sussman who handled the FBI, hired Crowdstrike and then helped publisize that firm's conclusions. Seriously more than fishy:
And it was Sussmann who controlled what the FBI was allowed to see. After bringing CrowdStrike on board, Sussmann pushed aggressively to publicize the firm's conclusion that Russian government hackers had attacked the DNC server, according to a December 2016 account in the New York Times.
"Within a day, CrowdStrike confirmed that the intrusion had originated in Russia," the Times reported, citing Sussmann's recollection. Sussmann and DNC executives had their first formal meeting with senior FBI officials in June 2016, where they encouraged the bureau to publicly endorse CrowdStrike's findings:
I just read the Shawn Henry transcript. Nan -- and the sources she's relying on here -- are making a very silly argument. In the testimony, Henry says they have evidence of the data being staged for exfiltration. They were able to compare the hash values (an algorithmic way of verifying a file's identity) of files the FBI provided them with what was prepped for exfiltration and saw that they matched. But they didn't have any monitors in place that would have provided direct observation of the date being exfiltrated.
By Nan's logic, if you see me waiting on the train platform in South Orange, and about 40 minutes later you see me in Penn Station, you have no basis for saying I was on the train.
Did you not just say the FBI got their information from Crowdstrike?
OK, I meant to say the DNC did not let them look at the servers. The FBI relied on the Crowdstrike report. Crowdstrike was hired by the DNC so objectivity should have been a concern.
A year later it was hired by the NRCC, so objectivity means nothing here. They’re just a cybersecurity company.
According to this article it was Sussman who handled the FBI, hired Crowdstrike and then helped publisize that firm's conclusions. Seriously more than fishy:
...
Yes, it's very suspicious to have your CYBERSECURITY expert to be involved in CYBERSECURITY issues.
Of course they were hired by the DNC. Who else was going to hire them?
The FBI could have/should have done the investigation on their own. Why would you hire a firm to investigate Russian hacking -- you would alert the FBI and let them look at the servers--even if you got a second opionon. The DNC wanted it to be verified as Russian hackers--used along with the Steele Dossier to damage Trump.
Sussman hired them and, by the way, he worked for Perkins Cole, not the DNC. The problem is when you see the pattern of his behavior, he is clearly orchestrating the whole Russigate scandal and pushing for things to be published so he hired a firm who gave him what he wanted--except quietly later (and kept confidential) they admitted they really had no evidence).
It was a DNC orchestrated scandal to explain Hillary's devastating loss to an obnoxious orange talk show host. I know you cannot accept that but it's all clear as day.
Yes, it's very suspicious to have your CYBERSECURITY expert to be involved in CYBERSECURITY issues.
Definitely more than fishy.
When you have a guy working overtime to get Donald Trump linked to the Russians (Steele Dossier, Alpha Bank made up crap, etc.) and he hires a firm to see if the "Russians are hacking the servers" and he dosen't let the FBI see the servers and suddenly the "cybersecurity" firm says 'Wow, we found Russian Hacking!!!!!!" You should maybe think something is not exactly on the up and up. Especially when the head of the cypersecurity firm you hired later admits under oath that they did not have evidence to say what they said.
And this admission is kept from the public for three years.
A year later it was hired by the NRCC, so objectivity means nothing here. They’re just a cybersecurity company.
They are just a cybersecurity company and we can't know how they operate with other firms. When they were contracted by Sussman for the DNC there seems to have been a preconceived conclusion that was obtained for their report and distribution to the mainstream media. Not sure how that went down, but the media told us the Russians hacked the server and took the emails and now, years later, we find out (from some independent media--not mainstream) that they did not really conclude that or did not conclude that based on real evidence.
Especially when the head of the cypersecurity firm you hired later admits under oath that they did not have evidence to say what they said.
I've dealt with this twice now, and you have ignored me both times. What you are saying above is not true. No matter how many times Aaron Mate, or you, say it.
You have also completely ignored the very detailed post by Crowdstrike that is on their website (where they also address why the FBI did not investigate this breach.) And contradicts pretty much everything that the Russia-hoaxers say. But of course, they were hired by the DNC, so you can't believe them. Only Mate can be believed, because he's independent.
It was a DNC orchestrated scandal to explain Hillary's devastating loss to an obnoxious orange talk show host. I know you cannot accept that but it's all clear as day.
I assume you know that this occurred when Hillary was expected to win, right? Well before the election.
He is paid by subscribers to his substack. He also works at the Grayzone, which is likewise reader/listener funded. That has become a common model.
And those subscribers are listed, with the amount paid? Or is it anonymous? You make such a big deal about who funds people you disagree with but, as I've noted before, you're perfectly fine with dark money funding of those saying things you want to hear.
@nan - seriously, do you not understand the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence? Do you not understand that it is rare to have conclusive direct evidence of something and that circumstantial evidence is very useful and reliable? Do you not understand that what Henry testified was that they had more than sufficient circumstantial evidence to reach the conclusion that the Russians exfiltrated data from the DNC but what you (and Mate, Dore, and the other "useful idiots") keep repeating and misconstruing/mischaracterizing is his statement that they lacked direct evidence of Russian exfiltration. From that, you (and Mate, Dore, and the other "useful idiots") keep claiming (contrary to what Henry actually said) is that there was no evidence to support the conclusion.
Also, I'll repeat it again - Fusion GPS was originally hired by the Washington Free Beacon, a conservative outlet, to do opposition research on Trump to try and prevent him from becoming the GOP nominee. It was only in April 2020 when it became clear that the GOP was so disturbed that T**** was going to become the nominee that WFB pulled the plug on its operation and the DNC started paying for the research.
By Nan's logic, if you see me waiting on the train platform in South Orange, and about 40 minutes later you see me in Penn Station, you have no basis for saying I was on the train.
To be fair, though, odds of being seen on the platform in South Orange and 40 minutes later being seen in Penn Station after having taken NJTransit isn't all that likely.
To be fair, though, odds of being seen on the platform in South Orange and 40 minutes later being seen in Penn Station after having taken NJTransit isn't all that likely.
LOL
It was strange when I started going back into the city after the worst of the early pandemic, and the trains would be super empty. Smoothest and most consistent commutes I'd had. It's still not as full as before (I can generally get two seats to myself), but the delays feel like they're about back to normal.
He is paid by subscribers to his substack. He also works at the Grayzone, which is likewise reader/listener funded. That has become a common model.
And those subscribers are listed, with the amount paid? Or is it anonymous? You make such a big deal about who funds people you disagree with but, as I've noted before, you're perfectly fine with dark money funding of those saying things you want to hear.
I've dealt with this twice now, and you have ignored me both times. What you are saying above is not true. No matter how many times Aaron Mate, or you, say it.
You have also completely ignored the very detailed post by Crowdstrike that is on their website (where they also address why the FBI did not investigate this breach.) And contradicts pretty much everything that the Russia-hoaxers say. But of course, they were hired by the DNC, so you can't believe them. Only Mate can be believed, because he's independent.
Anyway, ignore away!
Which do you believe more: 1) sworn testimony or 2) information printed on a web page to do damage control after allegations? You have to choose.
I am posting key statements in the testimony below. Under oath Henry says they don't have evidence that data actually left. It looks like they were setting up to take data but can't see it leaving.
Much of this document is boilerplate stuff or self-made endorsements. We will only focus on the relevant stuff. They say they were contracted after the FBI found evidence of Russian hacking on the DNC servers. There is a long document which I read most of where an IT employee details working with the FBI on trying to identify markers on the server log which were deemed Russian Government (have to question that but we can't go there now). So they were working with the FBI and suddenly they started working with Crowdstrike and the FBI was either fine with that or not fine with that depending who you talk to. (Shawn Henry is ex-FBI, btw). (see CNN evidence I posted above), /
Crowdstrike says "The FBI doesn’t perform incident response or network remediation services when organizations need to get back to business after a breach." My response to this is "so what, why was the FBI not involved with at least part of the investigation--why were they so trusting of Crowdstrike?
This sentence is followed by two paragraphs about how great Crowdstrike is and how normal it is to hire 3rd party investigators. This all makes me think that first sentence is not exactly the truth or how it went down but I don't have time to look any more into it now.
Then they go on to say that Russia was behind the DNC hack and they quote all kinds of things. They do quote what Henry says but they never reconcile the two contradictory statements. They just put them in and lots of other things and, I guess, hope you don't notice the inconsistency.
To support their statements they keep mentioning Senate intelligence committee reports--as though a Senate intelligence committee is capable of assessing a data breech on a server. It's very confusing.
They give a timeline that includes the GRU taking documents, and yet we have Henry's testimony that they don't have evidence of that.
So, then there is massive information about the non-partisan nature of CrowdStrike. This document is clearly designed to make CrowdStrike look good and unbiased and truthful and that they stand behind Russia hacking the DNC server and snatching documents. Even though their head guy said under oath they did not know. They try to make not knowing normal.
Anyway, I need to go to be now, but I will look at this document some more in the morning because they are not clear on what they are saying and I have more to say.
The circumstantial evidence is that they see the files prepped for exfiltration, then see those same files have been exfiltrated. It's true they don't have a direct record of the actual transfer, but that's some pretty darn strong circumstantial evidence.
I've dealt with this twice now, and you have ignored me both times. What you are saying above is not true. No matter how many times Aaron Mate, or you, say it.
You have also completely ignored the very detailed post by Crowdstrike that is on their website (where they also address why the FBI did not investigate this breach.) And contradicts pretty much everything that the Russia-hoaxers say. But of course, they were hired by the DNC, so you can't believe them. Only Mate can be believed, because he's independent.
Anyway, ignore away!
Which do you believe more: 1) sworn testimony or 2) information printed on a web page to do damage control after allegations? You have to choose.
oy. it's not a question of what to believe. it's a question of understanding what was said. (btw - 1 and 2 are both accurate and I believe both. they are not contradictory)
and you don't understand what the sworn testimony is saying.
the sworn testimony is true (I assume, anyway. as do you)
But it simply doesn't say what you think it says. He doesn't say there was absolutely no evidence. He said there was no evidence of a specific kind. Simpleminded Mate sees the phrase "no evidence" and jumps on it as proof of no evidence at all, either because he's an idiot or because he knows that's what his fans want to hear.
Plus he's ignoring almost 80 pages of sworn testimony and focusing on about one page. Good journalism once again!
In either case Mate is spinning you like a corkscrew.
That's the link to all 80 pages of Shawn Henry's testimony. Why don't you read the whole thing and report back on all of the evidence he says they found?
Or maybe you think the one page that Mate is giving you is a fair summary.
Independent means never having to reveal who pays you.
He is paid by subscribers to his substack. He also works at the Grayzone, which is likewise reader/listener funded. That has become a common model.
reader/listener funded is total bs unless you're a non profit and donation are declared - you have no idea where their money is coming from - there's ZERO accountability.
STOP using this logic to make it sound they're independent - you have NO idea. NONE.
One phrase I read about them and many of your experts which I think is pretty apt - they're CONTRARIAN FANATICS!
You know there's a difference between the DNC and Crowdstrike, right? You said Crowdstrike denied the FBI access, and that's what I responded to.
Get your stories straight.
ETA: also, there is some dispute about the FBI request for server access. The DNC and the FBI have different takes on exactly what happened there, so it's a question of who you want to believe.